The problem with Global Climate Models

[tarheelbybirth]

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.

Oh...the House of Commons investigation...the one that consisted of one (1) single day of oral testimony. Yeah, can't get much more definitive than that, can you? <insert laughing gif>

Of course you stand by your claims. I'm not a bit surprised. Even when confronted with clear evidence that you're wrong. And that's why I don't worry about my "tone" in these kinds of threads.

 

[codflyer]

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

He never said "no warming". You are the only one who has said that. Even if you take exception to his characterization of "not significantly different than zero", you are still missing the point in any case. He was talking about the lack of accelerated warming despite increased CO2 concentrations.

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.

I never said any of that. I just said that applying decadal smoothing over a thirty year data set is going to significantly distort it's appearance. And it does.

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.

I never said it excluded data...I said it compressed it on the x-axis. This has the effect of making it appear steeper even though the data is not fundamentally different. I also conceded that this may have some value depending on what it is you are trying to accomplish.

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

And you have posted nothing that actually represents what he said.

 

[codflyer]

Oh...the House of Commons investigation...the one that consisted of one (1) single day of oral testimony. Yeah, can't get much more definitive than that, can you? <insert laughing gif>

Of course you stand by your claims. I'm not a bit surprised. Even when confronted with clear evidence that you're wrong. And that's why I don't worry about my "tone" in these kinds of threads.

Okay...so we will just reject that one out of hand because it said some things that confirmed what I said. I see how you operate. How many days should they have held oral testimony?

How about the more robust Independent Climate Change Email Review report?

"But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."

"On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record (CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRU‟s responses to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive."

"On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text."

"On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them."

I am sure there is some reason that this also should be rejected out of hand...

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Okay...so we will just reject that one out of hand because it said some things that confirmed what I said. I see how you operate. How many days should they have held oral testimony?

How about the more robust Independent Climate Change Email Review report?

"But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."

"On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record (CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRU‟s responses to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive."

"On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text."

"On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them."

I am sure there is some reason that this also should be rejected out of hand...

Funny...you left this out:

22. Formal FoIA/EIR requests were initially quite limited. In 2007 four requests were received, of which two were given full release of the requested information but two, despite appeals, were rejected. In 2008 two requests were received, one was granted full release, but the other was rejected, both initially and upon appeal. In the first half of 2009 only one request was received and this was responded to in full.

23. But in the third quarter of 2009 a wave of requests was received. In the five days starting on 24th July, some 60 requests were logged by the IPCM. A further 10 requests were logged between the 31st July and 14th August. Some related to the raw station data underpinning the CRUTEM data sets and the vast majority sought details of any confidentiality agreements related to this data. The wordings bear the hallmarks of an organised campaign. One applicant (UEA Log 09/97) appears to have forgotten to customise the request before dispatch.

So your deniers were spamming them with boilerplate FOI's and then they want to whine when the folks they were harassing were slow to respond? F'em.

As for hiding the decline, the only thing this report found was that it should have been more clearly explained given it's SUBSEQUENT importance...which, of course, would have been unknown at the time. There was no intent to deceive. Nor could there have been...the "decline" had been openly talked about for years. More importantly, the graph is CORRECT...they are just being taken to task for not fully explaining it. But, just for kicks, let's take a look at the COMPLETE conclusions for the section you cherry picked:

7.4 Conclusions and recommendations

33. We do not find that the data described in AR4 and shown in Figure 6.10 is misleading, and in particular we do not find that the question marks placed over the CRU scientists’ input cast doubt on the conclusions.

34. The variation within and between lines, as well as the depiction of uncertainty is quite apparent to any reader. All relevant published reconstructions of which we are aware are presented, and we find no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions which would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence and it therefore cannot be said that that anything has been suppressed. Presenting uncertainty in this way is a significant advance on the TAR.

35. We have seen no evidence to sustain a charge of impropriety on the part of CRU staff (or the many other authors) in respect of selecting the reconstructions in AR4 Chapter 6. This would require that all the conditions in paragraph 13 were met in respect of tree chronologies either used by, or created by, CRU. No evidence of this has either been presented to the Review, nor has it been assembled as a scientific study published elsewhere and subjected to scrutiny. For the same reasons we found no evidence that there is anything wrong with the CRU publications using the Yamal or other tree series.

36. We find that divergence is well acknowledged in the literature, including CRU papers.

37. In relation to ―hide the decline‖ we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in two regards. It did not make clear that in one case the data post 1960 was excluded, and it was not explicit on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, but that the reason for doing so should have been described.

38. We find that CRU has not withheld the underlying raw Yamal data (having correctly directed the single request to the owners). But it is evidently true that access to the raw data was not simple until it was archived in 2009 and this can rightly be criticised on general principles. In the interests of transparency, we believe CRU should have ensured that the data they did not own, but had relied upon in publications, was archived in a more timely way. 14 Briffa KR and Melvin TM (2010 in press) CHAPTER 7: TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FROM TREE RING ANALYSIS 63

39. It is a matter for the IPCC Review to determine whether the conclusions were in line with IPCC processes and guidelines for levels of likelihood. In respect of that Review we offer the suggestion that putting the combination of different reconstructions upon a more rigorous statistical footing would help in the future to make confidence levels more objective.

But I'm sure you'll find some way to spin this as evidence of distortion, manipulation, collusion, obstruction, or shoddy science. It'll be a stretch but I'm sure you're up to it. I'm beginning to think comparing you to that lying sack of crap Watts does a disservice to Watts.

 

[Joes Place]

And you have posted nothing that actually represents what he said.

His opening quote:

"As the global temperature failed to warm over the past 15 years..."​

That statement can ONLY be supported IF you 'cherry pick' a starting date (1998) and ignore the long term trends, which are related to CLIMATE, not annual extreme events.

If you select 1997, 1996 or 1999 as the start date, this assertion is an outright lie. This is Science 101: if your 'conclusion' is based on or relies on a single specific data point or year, and is not supported when you make a MINOR alteration to the analysis (i.e. use an adjacent data point as a start/end date), it is clearly a 'biased' estimate. In science, we avoid 'biased estimates' like the plague when trying to prove a hypothesis or support a conclusion or theory. But in politics, it is 'the norm'. Was Congress relying on him for a 'political' opinion, or a 'scientific' one?

His own data show a dramatic increase of at least +0.2°C in just the past 10 years, when you properly smooth the data to show the long-term trends. So, his opening statement is misleading at best, and demonstrably false if you are presenting it as science.

The notion that 'one year' is indicative of temperatures in surrounding years is nonsense. That's like taking a class and scoring a 100 on the first quiz, then failing the rest of the tests during the semester and claiming you deserve an 'A' grade. You get an 'A' by obtaining MOSTLY A's during the whole course, not a sample size of one test. Same thing with year-over-year global temperatures. You smooth the data because you want to know the 'grade' over a time period longer than just one year (e.g. one test score). Your overall grade is based on your AVERAGE test score during the semester, not one example.

By applying this smoothing, you are able to see much more clearly that the decade from 2005 thru 2015 has been MUCH warmer than the decade prior. That is a conclusive argument that things are STILL WARMING. And when that's still occurring during predmoninantly La Nina ENSO conditions, it's rather alarming considering that during every other La Nina dominated ENSO stretch during the 1900s, global temperatures remained pretty stable and only increased (very rapidly) during El Nino dominated stretches.

If the 'super El Nino' predicted for this winter does occur, and if we step back into an El Nino dominated decade or two, we are going to incur very rapid year-over-year warming, which has been the norm during the 1900's.

 

[codflyer]

Funny...you left this out:

22. Formal FoIA/EIR requests were initially quite limited. In 2007 four requests were received, of which two were given full release of the requested information but two, despite appeals, were rejected. In 2008 two requests were received, one was granted full release, but the other was rejected, both initially and upon appeal. In the first half of 2009 only one request was received and this was responded to in full.

23. But in the third quarter of 2009 a wave of requests was received. In the five days starting on 24th July, some 60 requests were logged by the IPCM. A further 10 requests were logged between the 31st July and 14th August. Some related to the raw station data underpinning the CRUTEM data sets and the vast majority sought details of any confidentiality agreements related to this data. The wordings bear the hallmarks of an organised campaign. One applicant (UEA Log 09/97) appears to have forgotten to customise the request before dispatch.

So your deniers were spamming them with boilerplate FOI's and then they want to whine when the folks they were harassing were slow to respond? F'em.

As for hiding the decline, the only thing this report found was that it should have been more clearly explained given it's SUBSEQUENT importance...which, of course, would have been unknown at the time. There was no intent to deceive. Nor could there have been...the "decline" had been openly talked about for years. More importantly, the graph is CORRECT...they are just being taken to task for not fully explaining it. But, just for kicks, let's take a look at the COMPLETE conclusions for the section you cherry picked:

7.4 Conclusions and recommendations

33. We do not find that the data described in AR4 and shown in Figure 6.10 is misleading, and in particular we do not find that the question marks placed over the CRU scientists’ input cast doubt on the conclusions.

34. The variation within and between lines, as well as the depiction of uncertainty is quite apparent to any reader. All relevant published reconstructions of which we are aware are presented, and we find no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions which would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence and it therefore cannot be said that that anything has been suppressed. Presenting uncertainty in this way is a significant advance on the TAR.

35. We have seen no evidence to sustain a charge of impropriety on the part of CRU staff (or the many other authors) in respect of selecting the reconstructions in AR4 Chapter 6. This would require that all the conditions in paragraph 13 were met in respect of tree chronologies either used by, or created by, CRU. No evidence of this has either been presented to the Review, nor has it been assembled as a scientific study published elsewhere and subjected to scrutiny. For the same reasons we found no evidence that there is anything wrong with the CRU publications using the Yamal or other tree series.

36. We find that divergence is well acknowledged in the literature, including CRU papers.

37. In relation to ―hide the decline‖ we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in two regards. It did not make clear that in one case the data post 1960 was excluded, and it was not explicit on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, but that the reason for doing so should have been described.

38. We find that CRU has not withheld the underlying raw Yamal data (having correctly directed the single request to the owners). But it is evidently true that access to the raw data was not simple until it was archived in 2009 and this can rightly be criticised on general principles. In the interests of transparency, we believe CRU should have ensured that the data they did not own, but had relied upon in publications, was archived in a more timely way. 14 Briffa KR and Melvin TM (2010 in press) CHAPTER 7: TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FROM TREE RING ANALYSIS 63

39. It is a matter for the IPCC Review to determine whether the conclusions were in line with IPCC processes and guidelines for levels of likelihood. In respect of that Review we offer the suggestion that putting the combination of different reconstructions upon a more rigorous statistical footing would help in the future to make confidence levels more objective.

But I'm sure you'll find some way to spin this as evidence of distortion, manipulation, collusion, obstruction, or shoddy science. It'll be a stretch but I'm sure you're up to it. I'm beginning to think comparing you to that lying sack of crap Watts does a disservice to Watts.

Great, a bunch of quotes that I never disputed. As I already said, I don't think there was anything criminal or that there was a hoax as some claim...but when you read the entire report, and not just cherry pick only the parts you like, you will see that they also had criticisms of CRU and East Anglia as a whole (several of which I quoted for you). I only presented what I did because it was apparent that you were already familiar with the highlights of the reports, but either ignorant of or unwilling to admit to the qualifications and criticisms of the reports. Contrary to your contention, it wasn't all roses and sunshine, even if the reports largely vindicated them against most of the more sensational claims.

 

[codflyer]

His opening quote:

"As the global temperature failed to warm over the past 15 years..."​

That statement can ONLY be supported IF you 'cherry pick' a starting date (1998) and ignore the long term trends, which are related to CLIMATE, not annual extreme events.

If you select 1997, 1996 or 1999 as the start date, this assertion is an outright lie. This is Science 101: if your 'conclusion' is based on or relies on a single specific data point or year, and is not supported when you make a MINOR alteration to the analysis (i.e. use an adjacent data point as a start/end date), it is clearly a 'biased' estimate. In science, we avoid 'biased estimates' like the plague when trying to prove a hypothesis or support a conclusion or theory. But in politics, it is 'the norm'. Was Congress relying on him for a 'political' opinion, or a 'scientific' one?

His own data show a dramatic increase of at least +0.2°C in just the past 10 years, when you properly smooth the data to show the long-term trends. So, his opening statement is misleading at best, and demonstrably false if you are presenting it as science.

The notion that 'one year' is indicative of temperatures in surrounding years is nonsense. That's like taking a class and scoring a 100 on the first quiz, then failing the rest of the tests during the semester and claiming you deserve an 'A' grade. You get an 'A' by obtaining MOSTLY A's during the whole course, not a sample size of one test. Same thing with year-over-year global temperatures. You smooth the data because you want to know the 'grade' over a time period longer than just one year (e.g. one test score). Your overall grade is based on your AVERAGE test score during the semester, not one example.

By applying this smoothing, you are able to see much more clearly that the decade from 2005 thru 2015 has been MUCH warmer than the decade prior. That is a conclusive argument that things are STILL WARMING. And when that's still occurring during predmoninantly La Nina ENSO conditions, it's rather alarming considering that during every other La Nina dominated ENSO stretch during the 1900s, global temperatures remained pretty stable and only increased (very rapidly) during El Nino dominated stretches.

If the 'super El Nino' predicted for this winter does occur, and if we step back into an El Nino dominated decade or two, we are going to incur very rapid year-over-year warming, which has been the norm during the 1900's.

I did not see that quote in the speech that I saw, or the speech notes that I read. Based on that snippet, I agree that it is misleading to say that temperatures failed to warm over that 15 year period.

 

[Lone Clone]

I did not see that quote in the speech that I saw, or the speech notes that I read. Based on that snippet, I agree that it is misleading to say that temperatures failed to warm over that 15 year period.

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand this particular point. If the claim is that there was a 15-year period when temperatures didn't warm, what difference does it make when it started? I mean, there either was or was not a 15-year period when temperatures didn't warm, nyet?

 

[Joes Place]

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand this particular point. If the claim is that there was a 15-year period when temperatures didn't warm, what difference does it make when it started? I mean, there either was or was not a 15-year period when temperatures didn't warm, nyet?

I'm not disagreeing with you here at all!

We had a La Nina-dominated period from about 1945 to 1978 where it's very apparent in MOST of the data sets that global temperatures remained stable. This was not ONLY due to La Nina, as there are other factors such as aerosols, etc., but the ENSO (or PDO) which are factors in surface warming, but ENSO alters how much of the warming is going into the oceans vs. sitting just above.

So, the claim that we HAVE had true temperature 'hiatuses' for several decades running is entirely supported by the data. The problem is that when ENSO shifts back into El Nino-dominated phases, the warming becomes XXL-sized (it is about double the overall industrial-era or 20th century rate). I can show this to you with the GUI on the WoodForTrees site - there is a recent Nature paper from this year which says the same thing, only in much more technical terms.

So, should we 'rely on' or 'bet on' La Nina delaying or slowing warming for us (we COULD hit a couple decades where warming MIGHT stop for a bit), BUT, the available evidence implies that if we then hit a couple decades of El Nino, we will warm very rapidly, and the overall rate implies at LEAST 1.5°C to 2°C rise by the year 2100.

Does it really matter if La Nina kicks in and delays that amount of warming by 20 years or 30 years in the big picture? Because society isn't going to just disappear in the year 2100...the fact we have such rapid warming during El Nino phases of ENSO implies we have an energy imbalance (which is almost certainly being cause by the CO2 runup in the atmosphere).

Does it matter if the worst impacts are going to be felt by your great-great grandchildren, or not until your great-great-great grandchildren? Don't we have an ethical obligation to those descendants to take reasonable precautions and investments to 'guarantee' they won't have a major mess to deal with?

It's not about 'how low the warming might be'; the issue is risk management - we should be looking at the 'worst case', and doing what we need to do to ensure the probably of that outcome is very small. Right now, it cannot be ruled out, and it's rather unnerving that Republicans in Congress want to dissolve the funding that is aboslutely necessary to determine 'what is the worst case?' and 'how improbable is it?'.

The estimates I've seen are that we COULD see as low as 1.5°C by 2100, but the upper end tail of those estimates runs up over 3°C (this is where SOME of the 'alarmist' claims of 4.5°C and higher come from, and there IS data which support those numbers, just not as much data as support something in the 1.5-2.5°C range).

I would be much more confident in our political leaders if they were committed to funding the efforts to seeing if that upper end could be narrowed down before we continue on our 'Business as Usual' emissions track. And if we CANNOT narrow that probability down, don't we have an ethical and moral obligation to drop our emissions until we ARE more certain? Uncertainties conveyed by the 'deniers' cuts both ways, and if it goes the wrong direction (up), we really may mess things up pretty badly in the next few centuries.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Great, a bunch of quotes that I never disputed. As I already said, I don't think there was anything criminal or that there was a hoax as some claim...but when you read the entire report, and not just cherry pick only the parts you like, you will see that they also had criticisms of CRU and East Anglia as a whole (several of which I quoted for you). I only presented what I did because it was apparent that you were already familiar with the highlights of the reports, but either ignorant of or unwilling to admit to the qualifications and criticisms of the reports. Contrary to your contention, it wasn't all roses and sunshine, even if the reports largely vindicated them against most of the more sensational claims.

More BS. You dispute them every time you make your unsupported claims. They did nothing criminal, they perpetrated no hoax, they were vindicated on EVERY serious claim but they're STILL guilty of "distortion, manipulation, collusion, obstruction, or shoddy science"? Even your cherry-picked quote doesn't come close to making your case.

 

[codflyer]

More BS. You dispute them every time you make your unsupported claims. They did nothing criminal, they perpetrated no hoax, they were vindicated on EVERY serious claim but they're STILL guilty of "distortion, manipulation, collusion, obstruction, or shoddy science"? Even your cherry-picked quote doesn't come close to making your case.

They did not comply with requests for their data. Even more so, they ignored FOIA (and the British equivalent) requests, well before the campaigns of requests from skeptics started. In fact, the whole reason they started getting slammed with the requests in the first place was because of their previous actions (or lack thereof). That is lack of transparency. They deleted emails and data to prevent them being reviewed in the future. That is obstruction. Their interactions were quite unprofessional at times, especially toward those questioning them, and while that is not criminal and doesn't disprove a theory or anything, it does support the long-repeated complaint from skeptics about how hard they were to deal with and how viciously they would attack you if you questioned them. They also did harass various publications for even considering publishing things that challenged what they considered canonical...again, not in any way that was illegal, and the reviews/investigations typically gave them a pass on this, just calling it the standard "hurly, burly" and "informal" process of talking about studies and papers and that it was just the "way things are done" in this particular branch of science...but that doesn't make it good for the scientific process. They clearly communicated and coordinated between each other to push their particular ideologies and political agendas. That is collusion...it doesn't mean they are wrong, but I think most people imagined that these climate scientists were all out there working largely independently, spread around the world, and coming to similar conclusions all on their own..."climategate" sort of threw the curtain back and showed that a tremendous portion of popular climate science was being produced by a relatively small group of like-minded people who were very politically active and ideologically driven and in constant communication to ensure that they stayed on message...and if anyone "went off the reservation" so to speak, they were quickly brought in line, or marginalized. The reports were mixed on the "hide the decline" issue...but you have to consider the context of it. Sure, there were papers that talked about uncertainty and divergence...but this chart was being carefully crafted for policy-makers and eventual public consumption, not people who would be intimately familiar with all the previous publications of the relatively obscure field of dendroclimatology. At least in my eyes, they were clearly trying to downplay uncertainty, and when they said "hide" that is exactly what they meant...they wanted to hide the data that was problematic from the laypeople the graph was eventually intended for. This was one area where I felt that the investigations missed the point and were too generous with giving them the benefit of the doubt. I have made no claims that are not supported by a sober reading of the emails in question and consideration of the several inquiries about them. Just because some of the more sensational accusations didn't have enough evidence in the emails to support them does not mean that they were innocent of all things. In my view, the emails clearly established that this was a relatively insular group that was extremely sensitive to criticism and questioning, and reacted poorly to both.

 

[codflyer]

I'm not disagreeing with you here at all!

We had a La Nina-dominated period from about 1945 to 1978 where it's very apparent in MOST of the data sets that global temperatures remained stable. This was not ONLY due to La Nina, as there are other factors such as aerosols, etc., but the ENSO (or PDO) which are factors in surface warming, but ENSO alters how much of the warming is going into the oceans vs. sitting just above.

So, the claim that we HAVE had true temperature 'hiatuses' for several decades running is entirely supported by the data. The problem is that when ENSO shifts back into El Nino-dominated phases, the warming becomes XXL-sized (it is about double the overall industrial-era or 20th century rate). I can show this to you with the GUI on the WoodForTrees site - there is a recent Nature paper from this year which says the same thing, only in much more technical terms.

So, should we 'rely on' or 'bet on' La Nina delaying or slowing warming for us (we COULD hit a couple decades where warming MIGHT stop for a bit), BUT, the available evidence implies that if we then hit a couple decades of El Nino, we will warm very rapidly, and the overall rate implies at LEAST 1.5°C to 2°C rise by the year 2100.

Does it really matter if La Nina kicks in and delays that amount of warming by 20 years or 30 years in the big picture? Because society isn't going to just disappear in the year 2100...the fact we have such rapid warming during El Nino phases of ENSO implies we have an energy imbalance (which is almost certainly being cause by the CO2 runup in the atmosphere).

Does it matter if the worst impacts are going to be felt by your great-great grandchildren, or not until your great-great-great grandchildren? Don't we have an ethical obligation to those descendants to take reasonable precautions and investments to 'guarantee' they won't have a major mess to deal with?

It's not about 'how low the warming might be'; the issue is risk management - we should be looking at the 'worst case', and doing what we need to do to ensure the probably of that outcome is very small. Right now, it cannot be ruled out, and it's rather unnerving that Republicans in Congress want to dissolve the funding that is aboslutely necessary to determine 'what is the worst case?' and 'how improbable is it?'.

The estimates I've seen are that we COULD see as low as 1.5°C by 2100, but the upper end tail of those estimates runs up over 3°C (this is where SOME of the 'alarmist' claims of 4.5°C and higher come from, and there IS data which support those numbers, just not as much data as support something in the 1.5-2.5°C range).

I would be much more confident in our political leaders if they were committed to funding the efforts to seeing if that upper end could be narrowed down before we continue on our 'Business as Usual' emissions track. And if we CANNOT narrow that probability down, don't we have an ethical and moral obligation to drop our emissions until we ARE more certain? Uncertainties conveyed by the 'deniers' cuts both ways, and if it goes the wrong direction (up), we really may mess things up pretty badly in the next few centuries.

The only real issue I would have with any of that is the (implied) notion that certain action has relatively little cost. Depending on how it is executed, a program to control emissions could have dramatic and far-reaching costs and even be a catastrophe for millions of people around the world. So, it isn't like people are just "ho-hum, business as usual" about it...most are simply being cognizant of the very real damage that an ill-conceived course of action would cause. If we are looking at massive climatic changes, maybe that is warranted...if we are talking 1 or 2 degrees, then it doesn't make any sense at all. Right now, as you have said, the balance of the science is pointing to 1 or 2 degrees. So, if we are going to take action, I think it is wisest to be very circumspect and cautious about it and be fully aware of the true cost of that action, and not just theorize about the possible cost of inaction.

 

[Lone Clone]

I'm not disagreeing with you here at all!

We had a La Nina-dominated period from about 1945 to 1978 where it's very apparent in MOST of the data sets that global temperatures remained stable. This was not ONLY due to La Nina, as there are other factors such as aerosols, etc., but the ENSO (or PDO) which are factors in surface warming, but ENSO alters how much of the warming is going into the oceans vs. sitting just above.

So, the claim that we HAVE had true temperature 'hiatuses' for several decades running is entirely supported by the data. The problem is that when ENSO shifts back into El Nino-dominated phases, the warming becomes XXL-sized (it is about double the overall industrial-era or 20th century rate). I can show this to you with the GUI on the WoodForTrees site - there is a recent Nature paper from this year which says the same thing, only in much more technical terms.

So, should we 'rely on' or 'bet on' La Nina delaying or slowing warming for us (we COULD hit a couple decades where warming MIGHT stop for a bit), BUT, the available evidence implies that if we then hit a couple decades of El Nino, we will warm very rapidly, and the overall rate implies at LEAST 1.5°C to 2°C rise by the year 2100.

Does it really matter if La Nina kicks in and delays that amount of warming by 20 years or 30 years in the big picture? Because society isn't going to just disappear in the year 2100...the fact we have such rapid warming during El Nino phases of ENSO implies we have an energy imbalance (which is almost certainly being cause by the CO2 runup in the atmosphere).

Does it matter if the worst impacts are going to be felt by your great-great grandchildren, or not until your great-great-great grandchildren? Don't we have an ethical obligation to those descendants to take reasonable precautions and investments to 'guarantee' they won't have a major mess to deal with?

It's not about 'how low the warming might be'; the issue is risk management - we should be looking at the 'worst case', and doing what we need to do to ensure the probably of that outcome is very small. Right now, it cannot be ruled out, and it's rather unnerving that Republicans in Congress want to dissolve the funding that is aboslutely necessary to determine 'what is the worst case?' and 'how improbable is it?'.

The estimates I've seen are that we COULD see as low as 1.5°C by 2100, but the upper end tail of those estimates runs up over 3°C (this is where SOME of the 'alarmist' claims of 4.5°C and higher come from, and there IS data which support those numbers, just not as much data as support something in the 1.5-2.5°C range).

I would be much more confident in our political leaders if they were committed to funding the efforts to seeing if that upper end could be narrowed down before we continue on our 'Business as Usual' emissions track. And if we CANNOT narrow that probability down, don't we have an ethical and moral obligation to drop our emissions until we ARE more certain? Uncertainties conveyed by the 'deniers' cuts both ways, and if it goes the wrong direction (up), we really may mess things up pretty badly in the next few centuries.

So what you're saying is that there is a 15-year hiatus in warming, but you don't think it's significant in terms of the theory you embrace vis-a-vis climate change?

 

[codflyer]

So what you're saying is that there is a 15-year hiatus in warming, but you don't think it's significant in terms of the theory you embrace vis-a-vis climate change?

It is all in how you look at it. The 15 year hiatus in warming is more of an artifact of a really extraordinary year at the beginning than a stoppage of warming throughout.

 

[Lone Clone]

It is all in how you look at it. The 15 year hiatus in warming is more of an artifact of a really extraordinary year at the beginning than a stoppage of warming throughout.

I'm sensing different standards applied to evidence supporting one set of claims and evidence supporting another. This wouldn't be unprecedented. Every time there's a storm, the warmists blame climate change....then criticize the skeptics for not distinguishing between weather and climate.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

h

They did not comply with requests for their data. Even more so, they ignored FOIA (and the British equivalent) requests, well before the campaigns of requests from skeptics started. In fact, the whole reason they started getting slammed with the requests in the first place was because of their previous actions (or lack thereof). That is lack of transparency.

In 2007 four requests were received, of which two were given full release of the requested information but two, despite appeals, were rejected. In 2008 two requests were received, one was granted full release, but the other was rejected, both initially and upon appeal. In the first half of 2009 only one request was received and this was responded to in full.

In two and a half years they received seven requests and fully complied with four. The other three were requesting information that couldn't be released by them due to nondisclosure agreements with specific meteorological groups who had provided that information. Those requesting that information were 100% free to go to THOSE organizations and request the info - a complete list of the stations used to compile the data had been published.

In the third quarter of 2009, they were slammed with 60 boilerplate FOI's. At least forty more followed in the 4th quarter. And you're going to seriously argue that this was initiated by their failure to release info in three instances over two and a half years - info that they could not legally release?

They deleted emails and data to prevent them being reviewed in the future. That is obstruction.

No...they did not. Now you're simply lying.

Their interactions were quite unprofessional at times, especially toward those questioning them, and while that is not criminal and doesn't disprove a theory or anything, it does support the long-repeated complaint from skeptics about how hard they were to deal with and how viciously they would attack you if you questioned them.

Yes, they were. They have admitted it. They were tired of dealing with idiot deniers and they let that influence them. So what? Lashing out in frustration doesn't equal ANYTHING you accused them of.

They also did harass various publications for even considering publishing things that challenged what they considered canonical...again, not in any way that was illegal, and the reviews/investigations typically gave them a pass on this, just calling it the standard "hurly, burly" and "informal" process of talking about studies and papers and that it was just the "way things are done" in this particular branch of science...but that doesn't make it good for the scientific process.

BS.

8.6 Conclusions 18. In our judgement none of the above instances represents subversion of the peer review process nor unreasonable attempts to influence the editorial policy of journals. It might be thought that this reflects a pattern of behaviour that is partial and aggressive, but we think it more plausible that it reflects the rough and tumble of interaction in an area of science that has become heavily contested and where strongly opposed and aggressively expressed positions have been taken up on both sides. The evidence from an editor of a journal in an often strongly contested area such as medicine (Appendix 5) suggests that such instances are common and that they do not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication.

Specifically, Jones was accused of attacking Dr Boehmer-Christiansen. Of course, this was AFTER Boehmer-Christiansen sent an email to Stephanie Ferguson at the UK Climate Impacts Program, and copied to a number of others. Its title was: “Please take note of potetially serious scientific fraud by CRU and Met Office.” It was absolutely unsupported and Jones responded.

Then there was the paper by Soon and Baliunas that challenged the work done by Mann. the paper was regarded as seriously flawed by many in the climate community on scientific grounds and several review editors at Climate Research resigned over it's publication. Jones wrote an angry email to CR saying he would have nothing more to do with the journal as long as it employed the editor - a known skeptic.

So what you're complaining about is that in the back and forth of academia, people's feelings get hurt. Really? I could go on but you're free to read it here.

They clearly communicated and coordinated between each other to push their particular ideologies and political agendas. That is collusion...it doesn't mean they are wrong, but I think most people imagined that these climate scientists were all out there working largely independently, spread around the world, and coming to similar conclusions all on their own...

Holy crap! Scientists who collaborated and published together COLLUDED? Do you have any idea how f'n stupid that sounds? The various investigations found that the results of work done at CRU were replicated by INDEPENDENT scientists working with DIFFERENT data sets.

"climategate" sort of threw the curtain back and showed that a tremendous portion of popular climate science was being produced by a relatively small group of like-minded people who were very politically active and ideologically driven and in constant communication to ensure that they stayed on message...and if anyone "went off the reservation" so to speak, they were quickly brought in line, or marginalized. The reports were mixed on the "hide the decline" issue...but you have to consider the context of it. Sure, there were papers that talked about uncertainty and divergence...but this chart was being carefully crafted for policy-makers and eventual public consumption, not people who would be intimately familiar with all the previous publications of the relatively obscure field of dendroclimatology. At least in my eyes, they were clearly trying to downplay uncertainty, and when they said "hide" that is exactly what they meant...they wanted to hide the data that was problematic from the laypeople the graph was eventually intended for.

They couldn't "hide the data" since the tree ring data had already been published...and THEY HAD PUBLISHED IT. They had discussed the data in other papers as well. It was omitted from the graph in question BECAUSE they had published on it, noting that it was problematic in that the tree ring data didn't conform to OBSERVED temps. That kinda negates it's usefulness as a proxy. You're saying they should have used data they absolutely knew was wrong and you're serious. That's remarkable.

This was one area where I felt that the investigations missed the point and were too generous with giving them the benefit of the doubt. I have made no claims that are not supported by a sober reading of the emails in question and consideration of the several inquiries about them. Just because some of the more sensational accusations didn't have enough evidence in the emails to support them does not mean that they were innocent of all things. In my view, the emails clearly established that this was a relatively insular group that was extremely sensitive to criticism and questioning, and reacted poorly to both.

ALL you've done is make claims that aren't supported by a "sober reading of the emails in question". Yeah, you're smarter than all the investigators in all those independent investigations...facts be damned.

 

[Lone Clone]

h
In 2007 four requests were received, of which two were given full release of the requested information but two, despite appeals, were rejected. In 2008 two requests were received, one was granted full release, but the other was rejected, both initially and upon appeal. In the first half of 2009 only one request was received and this was responded to in full.

In two and a half years they received seven requests and fully complied with four. The other three were requesting information that couldn't be released by them due to nondisclosure agreements with specific meteorological groups who had provided that information. Those requesting that information were 100% free to go to THOSE organizations and request the info - a complete list of the stations used to compile the data had been published.

In the third quarter of 2009, they were slammed with 60 boilerplate FOI's. At least forty more followed in the 4th quarter. And you're going to seriously argue that this was initiated by their failure to release info in three instances over two and a half years - info that they could not legally release?No...they did not. Now you're simply lying.Yes, they were. They have admitted it. They were tired of dealing with idiot deniers and they let that influence them. So what? Lashing out in frustration doesn't equal ANYTHING you accused them of.BS.

8.6 Conclusions 18. In our judgement none of the above instances represents subversion of the peer review process nor unreasonable attempts to influence the editorial policy of journals. It might be thought that this reflects a pattern of behaviour that is partial and aggressive, but we think it more plausible that it reflects the rough and tumble of interaction in an area of science that has become heavily contested and where strongly opposed and aggressively expressed positions have been taken up on both sides. The evidence from an editor of a journal in an often strongly contested area such as medicine (Appendix 5) suggests that such instances are common and that they do not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication.

Specifically, Jones was accused of attacking Dr Boehmer-Christiansen. Of course, this was AFTER Boehmer-Christiansen sent an email to Stephanie Ferguson at the UK Climate Impacts Program, and copied to a number of others. Its title was: “Please take note of potetially serious scientific fraud by CRU and Met Office.” It was absolutely unsupported and Jones responded.

Then there was the paper by Soon and Baliunas that challenged the work done by Mann. the paper was regarded as seriously flawed by many in the climate community on scientific grounds and several review editors at Climate Research resigned over it's publication. Jones wrote an angry email to CR saying he would have nothing more to do with the journal as long as it employed the editor - a known skeptic.

So what you're complaining about is that in the back and forth of academia, people's feelings get hurt. Really? I could go on but you're free to read it here.Holy crap! Scientists who collaborated and published together COLLUDED? Do you have any idea how f'n stupid that sounds? The various investigations found that the results of work done at CRU were replicated by INDEPENDENT scientists working with DIFFERENT data sets.They couldn't "hide the data" since the tree ring data had already been published...and THEY HAD PUBLISHED IT. They had discussed the data in other papers as well. It was omitted from the graph in question BECAUSE they had published on it, noting that it was problematic in that the tree ring data didn't conform to OBSERVED temps. That kinda negates it's usefulness as a proxy. You're saying they should have used data they absolutely knew was wrong and you're serious. That's remarkable.

ALL you've done is make claims that aren't supported by a "sober readinAt g of the emails in question". Yeah, you're smarter than all the investigators in all those independent investigations..facts be damned.

Well, at least we know one thing for sure, thanks to what you have quoted and cited: The issue is about as far from "settled science" or "consensus" as it's possible to get. It is, instead, "...an area of science that has become heavily contested and where strongly opposed and aggressively expressed positions have been taken up on both sides."

So why has your side lied about this?

 

[Joes Place]

It is all in how you look at it. The 15 year hiatus in warming is more of an artifact of a really extraordinary year at the beginning than a stoppage of warming throughout.

Correct. It's all about 'cherry picking' an unusual climate event start date, one of the biggest El Nino events ever observed (which might be topped this year, and THEN you can make and apples:apples comparison).

If we look at the data STARTING in 1999, here is what 4 of the sets look like:

And the linear trends for each:

This is why decadal smoothing provides a clearer picture of what is happening - you CANNOT 'cherry pick' a start year as readily to hide the long term trends. (and these linear trends are really NOT a good way to look at the data, either, because they are only showing you what's going on over a 15 year period - the 10 or 20 year smoothing is a 'less biased' way to present this information)

Also....these plots all have different 'offsets', because the data sets for them use different 'reference year ranges' for their 'zero' values. If you want better overlays of them, you have to go find out what their reference ranges are and adjust them to the same 'zero'. That has no influence over the slopes, however.

 

[codflyer]

In the third quarter of 2009, they were slammed with 60 boilerplate FOI's. At least forty more followed in the 4th quarter. And you're going to seriously argue that this was initiated by their failure to release info in three instances over two and a half years - info that they could not legally release?

It wasn't just the FOIA requests. There were lots of informal requests for data that were ignored or refused. It isn't just me saying it. The review itself said: "But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."

No...they did not [delete emails]. Now you're simply lying.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

More Jones:
“Mike [Mann], can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]? Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.”

They asked Jones about it, and he said that he didn't delete any emails. Okay then, case closed I guess. LOL. I suppose in your mind Jones was only asking a theoretical question of Mann about whether he possessed the ability to delete certain emails, and certainly was not actually asking him to do it...and of course even if he had, certainly Mann, Briffa, and Ammann didn't comply.

Yes, they were. They have admitted it. They were tired of dealing with idiot deniers and they let that influence them. So what? Lashing out in frustration doesn't equal ANYTHING you accused them of.

All I have accused them of is what you are now admitting they did. That is some progress I guess.

So what you're complaining about is that in the back and forth of academia, people's feelings get hurt. Really? I could go on but you're free to read it here.

I am hardly complaining about anything. My point was that the climategate emails threw the curtain back on the process and revealed that these are very passionate people arguing often in very personal terms and along ideological lines. I don't know what you are so worked up over.

Holy crap! Scientists who collaborated and published together COLLUDED? Do you have any idea how f'n stupid that sounds? The various investigations found that the results of work done at CRU were replicated by INDEPENDENT scientists working with DIFFERENT data sets.

And that is the point flying over your head. The point was that, even among scientists who were not specifically publishing together, there was a high level of coordination and communication. Nothing wrong with that per se. It is, again, just an instance of the curtain being thrown back. People had the impression that we were talking about thousands of scientists working all over the world largely in isolation from each other...when you look at it though, you see that huge portions of the most popularly cited work comes from a comparative handful of people who are all very much ideologically aligned and in close communication not just with each other, but also with their allies in the blogosphere. Again, just to make sure you don't start foaming at the mouth and start crying 'shill' like someone suffering Tourette's...I am not saying there is anything wrong with it, and it certainly happens among skeptic groups...it just serves to bring these guys down off the false pedestal that they have been placed on by folks (like you).

They couldn't "hide the data" since the tree ring data had already been published...and THEY HAD PUBLISHED IT. They had discussed the data in other papers as well. It was omitted from the graph in question BECAUSE they had published on it, noting that it was problematic in that the tree ring data didn't conform to OBSERVED temps. That kinda negates it's usefulness as a proxy. You're saying they should have used data they absolutely knew was wrong and you're serious. That's remarkable.

Now you are just being dense. They knew their eventual audience for that graph. Politicians and the general public. They knew that that audience would not be aware of previously published work, and that the graph would look a lot better if it didn't include anything that would cause those people to go looking into things like divergence and uncertainty. Tree ring data not conforming to observed temps doesn't just negate its usefulness as a proxy for that period, it calls into question it's usefulness for the full range...but you can skirt that question if you just lop it off and pretend like it doesn't exist for the one graph that is designed for mass consumption.

ALL you've done is make claims that aren't supported by a "sober reading of the emails in question". Yeah, you're smarter than all the investigators in all those independent investigations...facts be damned.

I haven't made any claims that are not backed and validated by the investigations. I have a given a few opinions that are my own, but I have labeled them as such, and even they are not at odds with the investigations, just a less generous opinion of motivations. But, if it helps, I am sorry. Would it make you feel better if I just agreed with you that these guys walk on water, never made any mistakes whatsoever, everything they have ever published has been beyond reproach, and anyone who doubts that is a "shill" who is probably being paid by big oil?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Now you are just being dense. They knew their eventual audience for that graph. Politicians and the general public. They knew that that audience would not be aware of previously published work, and that the graph would look a lot better if it didn't include anything that would cause those people to go looking into things like divergence and uncertainty. Tree ring data not conforming to observed temps doesn't just negate its usefulness as a proxy for that period, it calls into question it's usefulness for the full range...but you can skirt that question if you just lop it off and pretend like it doesn't exist for the one graph that is designed for mass consumption.

If you knew what you were talking about, you might have a point. You do understand that the issue with tree rings is limited to a few species of trees at higher latitudes? You knew that right? The majority of tree ring data continues to line up well with observed temps. Pre-1960 tree ring growth strongly correlates to measured temps back to 1880 and lines up with many other proxies going all the way back to the MWP. You DO understand that no one uses a single proxy to try and determine temps hundreds or thousands of years ago...right? If the tree ring data DIDN'T line up with known temperatures and other proxies it wouldn't be used as a proxy...but it does...so it is.

Climatologists look at all kinds of patterns in things like ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems trying to tease out info on past climates. When they compare the patterns they see in these various proxies, they see the same correlations over and over again. When we know temps are warmer, ALL those proxies show the same reactions to it. The same holds true when temps are lower...the patterns in all the proxies line up. Now maybe - just maybe - historical tree ring growth tracked known temps and ALL those other proxies coincidentally but that's not likely the case. Feel free to dispute it in the literature.

Since those few northern latitude species diverged from known temps AFTER 1960, it would be foolish to include them in the graph...we KNOW they aren't correlating with the observed temperature though they appear to have tracked it in the past (and we don't have a clear understanding why they don't now)...even YOU should understand that simple point. Probably. Maybe not.

I'm going to make this as simple as possible for you...try and wrap your mind around this...leave the tree ring data out entirely...use none of it...not a single data point.

It doesn't change the graph. AT ALL.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I haven't made any claims that are not backed and validated by the investigations. I have a given a few opinions that are my own, but I have labeled them as such, and even they are not at odds with the investigations, just a less generous opinion of motivations. But, if it helps, I am sorry. Would it make you feel better if I just agreed with you that these guys walk on water, never made any mistakes whatsoever, everything they have ever published has been beyond reproach, and anyone who doubts that is a "shill" who is probably being paid by big oil?

THEY admitted they made mistakes so you're just piling up more and more strawmen. What was absolutely clear after all of those investigations was that the science was correct, that the actions they took were born more of frustration than anything else (a mindset I understand fully), and that their integrity as far as their research was concerned was not in question - even REMOTELY. Your characterization of them is quite simply a lie.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

IAnd that is the point flying over your head. The point was that, even among scientists who were not specifically publishing together, there was a high level of coordination and communication. Nothing wrong with that per se. It is, again, just an instance of the curtain being thrown back. People had the impression that we were talking about thousands of scientists working all over the world largely in isolation from each other...when you look at it though, you see that huge portions of the most popularly cited work comes from a comparative handful of people who are all very much ideologically aligned and in close communication not just with each other, but also with their allies in the blogosphere. Again, just to make sure you don't start foaming at the mouth and start crying 'shill' like someone suffering Tourette's...I am not saying there is anything wrong with it, and it certainly happens among skeptic groups...it just serves to bring these guys down off the false pedestal that they have been placed on by folks (like you).

I'm talking to a child. The people involved in these investigations collaborated with each other and published together. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a "high level of coordination and communication". I would assume that you do the same with the people YOU work with. But I'm willing to bet there are lots of other people in the same business as you, working at different companies, that you NEVER communicate with.

There ARE thousands of other climatologists who do independent work. Amazingly, they DO read each others papers and cite them in their own studies. That's how science works. Only a f'n idiot would look at that and whine about collusion.

 

[codflyer]

I'm going to make this as simple as possible for you...try and wrap your mind around this...leave the tree ring data out entirely...use none of it...not a single data point.

It doesn't change the graph. AT ALL.

LOL. You puff up your chest and make statements about others not knowing what they are talking about and then say something like that. You do realize that most (if not all, I am too lazy to look it up right now) of the reconstructions used in that graph were composites that relied very heavily on various tree ring data (along side other proxies)? Take away the tree ring data and nearly all of the composites are essentially worthless. It's not like one line on the graph was sediments, and another was ice cores, and another was corals. Tree ring data was the glue that held most (if not all) of them together. Leave the tree ring data out and you don't have a graph at all. And the point still seems to be flying over your head in any case. It is my OPINION that they left the data out of that particular graph because they didn't want it to appear to the layperson that would be looking at it that there was as much uncertainty involved as the rest of the literature talked about, including known issues of divergence. This isn't just based off the climate-gate correspondence, but many other situations over the years. You choose to just take them at their word and give them the benefit of every doubt. I do not.

 

[codflyer]

THEY admitted they made mistakes so you're just piling up more and more strawmen. What was absolutely clear after all of those investigations was that the science was correct, that the actions they took were born more of frustration than anything else (a mindset I understand fully), and that their integrity as far as their research was concerned was not in question - even REMOTELY. Your characterization of them is quite simply a lie.

I don't think you know what a strawman is. My characterization of them is pretty much in line with what the reviews found and what they themselves admit. I have never said that they were party to a hoax, or criminal, or even that their integrity was in question...I have just pointed out that they are much more passionate, ideological, and political than people probably realized before their emails were bared for everyone to see. Go back and re-read the thread. Your characterization of my characterization...that is the strawman.

 

[codflyer]

I'm talking to a child. The people involved in these investigations collaborated with each other and published together. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a "high level of coordination and communication". I would assume that you do the same with the people YOU work with. But I'm willing to bet there are lots of other people in the same business as you, working at different companies, that you NEVER communicate with.

There ARE thousands of other climatologists who do independent work. Amazingly, they DO read each others papers and cite them in their own studies. That's how science works. Only a f'n idiot would look at that and whine about collusion.

I. Never. Said. That. There. Was. Anything. Wrong. With. It.

The group of people who have driven the majority of climate science is a much smaller, and more tightly-knit group than most casual observers realize. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it leaves them much more vulnerable to group-think and confirmation bias. The field is growing rapidly though, and things today are not quite as they were twenty years ago when a lot of the "climategate" emails grew out of.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

LOL. You puff up your chest and make statements about others not knowing what they are talking about and then say something like that. You do realize that most (if not all, I am too lazy to look it up right now) of the reconstructions used in that graph were composites that relied very heavily on various tree ring data (along side other proxies)? Take away the tree ring data and nearly all of the composites are essentially worthless. It's not like one line on the graph was sediments, and another was ice cores, and another was corals. Tree ring data was the glue that held most (if not all) of them together. Leave the tree ring data out and you don't have a graph at all. And the point still seems to be flying over your head in any case. It is my OPINION that they left the data out of that particular graph because they didn't want it to appear to the layperson that would be looking at it that there was as much uncertainty involved as the rest of the literature talked about, including known issues of divergence. This isn't just based off the climate-gate correspondence, but many other situations over the years. You choose to just take them at their word and give them the benefit of every doubt. I do not.

Hmmm...here is a set of studies some of which use tree ring data and some which do not. See if you can tell which is which:

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I don't think you know what a strawman is. My characterization of them is pretty much in line with what the reviews found and what they themselves admit. I have never said that they were party to a hoax, or criminal, or even that their integrity was in question...I have just pointed out that they are much more passionate, ideological, and political than people probably realized before their emails were bared for everyone to see. Go back and re-read the thread. Your characterization of my characterization...that is the strawman.

I never said you claimed they were party to a hoax or committed a crime...just another of your many strawmen. Oh no, you just...with no evidence and in direct contradiction of the investigations...said they were guilty of distortion, manipulation, collusion and obstruction. If you think that doesn't call their integrity into question, you're far dumber than I thought.

Now you want to change the debate and claim you never said any of the things you've never been accused of saying. Now you just want us to believe you characterized them as "passionate, ideological, and political". BS.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I. Never. Said. That. There. Was. Anything. Wrong. With. It.

The group of people who have driven the majority of climate science is a much smaller, and more tightly-knit group than most casual observers realize. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it leaves them much more vulnerable to group-think and confirmation bias. The field is growing rapidly though, and things today are not quite as they were twenty years ago when a lot of the "climategate" emails grew out of.

It. Doesn't. Matter. Whether. You. Said. It. Was. "Wrong".

It's. Not. True.

You talk about "group-think and confirmation bias" and in the next thread you'll be on here talking about them trying to keep the work of other climatology researchers out of the IPCC report. Yeah...no strawmen here....move along now.

 

[Lone Clone]

It. Doesn't. Matter. Whether. You. Said. It. Was. "Wrong".

It's. Not. True.

You talk about "group-think and confirmation bias" and in the next thread you'll be on here talking about them trying to keep the work of other climatology researchers out of the IPCC report. Yeah...no strawmen here....move along now.

Well, I don't know about most of what you guys are discussing, but I know a little bit about this. One of the first scandals of the IPCC was changing the report after it had been approved by the contributors to delete any references that would moderate the prediction. That led to some resignations and angry letters. A similar thing happened later, when Chris Landsea's work on hurricanes was blatantly misrepresented by the IPCC. Given those two examples, alone, it seems reasonable to think the IPCC might have tried to keep information out of the report that didn't toe the party line.

 

[codflyer]

Hmmm...here is a set of studies some of which use tree ring data and some which do not. See if you can tell which is which:

Facepalm. Every single one of those studies (minus the two dashline borehole and one glacier study in the second graph) includes extensive tree ring data. Every single one. Like I already said, take way the tree ring proxies and you don't have a graph. So, I know which is which...obviously you do not. But, that is to be expected from folks who obviously get the vast majority, if not all, of their knowledge in relation to climate change from places like thinkprogress. You should probably just take a break man.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

I just have to say...I find these "back and forths" fascinating. I am not a scientist, so I can't add much to the conversation...but Codflyer totally dominates these conversations from where I sit and it is hilarious to read the rebuttals.

 

[Joes Place]

The group of people who have driven the majority of climate science is a much smaller, and more tightly-knit group than most casual observers realize. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it leaves them much more vulnerable to group-think and confirmation bias.

This is categorically false. The sheer number of studies on global and/or regional climate encompasses dozens of fields of study, including oceanography, geology, glacialogy, forestry, biology, physics, chemistry, etc.

Many of the folks engaging in these areas of research are also climatologists, using the representative information and expertise from their respective fields to evaluate the Earth's climate. But to label everyone who studies climate and publishes in climate journals as a plain vanilla 'climate scientists' subject to 'group-think' and 'confirmation bias' is naive, when considering the vast variation in the number and types of studies performed. MANY of these scientists are 'geophysicists', who simply study elements of the natural processes on the Earth, and climate science falls into a subcategory of that.

 

[codflyer]

This is categorically false. The sheer number of studies on global and/or regional climate encompasses dozens of fields of study, including oceanography, geology, glacialogy, forestry, biology, physics, chemistry, etc.

Many of the folks engaging in these areas of research are also climatologists, using the representative information and expertise from their respective fields to evaluate the Earth's climate. But to label everyone who studies climate and publishes in climate journals as a plain vanilla 'climate scientists' subject to 'group-think' and 'confirmation bias' is naive, when considering the vast variation in the number and types of studies performed. MANY of these scientists are 'geophysicists', who simply study elements of the natural processes on the Earth, and climate science falls into a subcategory of that.

I am not talking about that. I am talking about the relatively small clique of scientists who have historically dominated the IPCC and most mainstream climate publications in relation to temperature reconstructions and projections. That group is not a cast of thousands as it is often portrayed. These reconstructions that get so much press and so much attention are the work of a relative handful. That isn't to say that there are not numerous other studies by scores of other scientists in separate but related fields that tangentially relate to climate change, or address it in some other way (ie it's effect on various ecosystems, animals, plants, local weather patterns, etc). Things are changing though, and part of the reason that the group has been so relatively small is because of the evolution and growth in the field. Let me just say one more time, I am not saying that it means they are wrong, I only brought it up because people seem to be under the impression that things like the graph above was the culmination of the work of thousands of independent scientists who all just showed up to something like an IPCC conference and looked at each others stuff for essentially the first time and were like "wow...we all got the same answers!" That is not the case, and these guys are every bit as susceptible to group think and confirmation bias as anyone else, and perhaps moreso based on the relatively small size of the group, how closely intertwined they have been, how ideological and politically active they have been, and how much money and power is at stake based on what view prevails.

 

[Joes Place]

I am not talking about that. I am talking about the relatively small clique of scientists who have historically dominated the IPCC and most mainstream climate publications in relation to temperature reconstructions and projections. That group is not a cast of thousands as it is often portrayed. These reconstructions that get so much press and so much attention are the work of a relative handful.

Where do you come up with these alleged 'facts' and preconceived notions?

Here is a link to the list of authors for the IPCC AR4 (2007).

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/ar4authors.htm

Per this Wiki on AR4 (2007) and AR5 (2014), the reports were generated by 559 and 831 different authors/contributors, respectively. Which ones are 'the relatively small clique' or 'handful' who are behind this conspiracy of 'groupthink' and 'get all the press'???

From the Wiki page:

In March 2010, the IPCC received approximately 3,000 author nominations from experts around the world. At the bureau session held in Geneva, 19–20 May 2010, the three working groups presented their selected authors and review editors for the AR5. Each of the selected scientists, specialists and experts was nominated in accordance with IPCC procedures, by respective national IPCC focal-points, by approved observer organizations, or by the bureau. The IPCC received 50% more nominations of experts to participate in AR5 than it did for AR4. A total of 559 authors and review editors had been selected for AR4 from 2,000 proposed nominees. On 23 June 2010 the IPCC announced the release of the final list of selected coordinating lead authors, comprising 831 experts who were drawn from fields including meteorology, physics, oceanography, statistics, engineering, ecology, social sciences and economics. In comparison to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), participation from developing countries was increased, reflecting the on-going efforts to improve regional coverage in the AR5. About 30% of authors came from developing countries or economies in transition. More than 60% of the experts chosen were new to the IPCC process, bringing fresh knowledge and perspectives.​

Here is a PDF of the AR5 authors (whole list).

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

Could you go through the AR4 and AR5 authors' lists for us here and 'point out' the 'handful' who are behind your alleged conspiracy scheme of 'getting all the press'?

Here is the Paleoclimate author list from AR4:

Ch. 6 - Palaeoclimate
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Eystein Jansen (Norway), Jonathan Overpeck (USA)
Lead Authors:
Keith R. Briffa (UK), Jean-Claude Duplessy (France), Fortunat Joos (Switzerland), Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France), Daniel Olago (Kenya), Bette Otto-Bliesner (USA), W. Richard Peltier (Canada), Stefan Rahmstorf (Germany), Rengaswamy Ramesh (India), Dominique Raynaud (France), David Rind (USA), Olga Solomina (Russian Federation), Ricardo Villalba (Argentina), De'er Zhang (China)
Contributing Authors:
J.-M. Barnola (France), E. Bauer (Germany), E. Brady (USA), M. Chandler (USA), J. Cole (USA), E. Cook (USA), E. Cortijo (France), T. Dokken (Norway), D. Fleitmann (Switzerland, Germany), M. Kageyama (France), M. Khodri (France), L. Labeyrie (France), A. Laine (France), A. Levermann (Germany), Ø. Lie (Norway), M.-F. Loutre (Belgium), K. Matsumoto (USA), E. Monnin (Switzerland), E. Mosley-Thompson (USA), D. Muhs (USA), R. Muscheler (USA), T. Osborn (UK), Ø. Paasche (Norway), F. Parrenin (France), G.-K. Plattner (Switzerland), H. Pollack (USA), R. Spahni (Switzerland), L.D. Stott (USA), L. Thompson (USA), C. Waelbroeck (France), G. Wiles (USA), J. Zachos (USA), G. Zhengteng (China)
Review Editors:
Jean Jouzel (France), John Mitchell (UK)
​

Here is the paleoclimate list from AR5:

Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives

63 Masson-Delmotte Valerie Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE) France 5 CLA I
64 Schulz Michael University of Bremen Germany 5 CLA I
65 Abe-Ouchi Ayako University of Tokyo Japan 5 LA I
66 Beer Juerg Eawag Switzerland 5 LA I
67 Ganopolski Andrey Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Germany 5 LA I
68 Gonzalez Rouco Jesus Fidel Universidad Complutense de Madrid Spain 5 LA I
69 Jansen Eystein University of Bergen Norway 5 LA I
70 Lambeck Kurt The Australian National University Australia 5 LA I
71 Luterbacher Juerg Justus-Liebig University Giessen Germany 5 LA I
72 Naish Tim Victoria University of Wellington New Zealand 5 LA I
73 Osborn Timothy University of East Anglia United Kingdom 5 LA I
74 Otto-Bliesner Bette National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) United States of America 5 LA I
75 Quinn Terrence The University of Texas at Austin United States of America 5 LA I
76 Ramesh Rengaswamy Physical Research Laboratory India 5 LA I
77 Rojas Maisa University of Chile Chile 5 LA I
78 Shao XueMei Chinese Academy of Sciences China 5 LA I
79 Timmermann Axel University of Hawaii United States of America 5 LA I
80 Gupta Anil Kumar Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology India 5 RE I
81 Rahimzadeh Fatemeh Islamic Republic of Iran Meteorological Organization (IRIMO) Iran, Islamic Republic of 5 RE I
82 Raynaud Dominique Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Geophysique de l`Environnement (LGGE) France 5 RE I
83 Wanner Heinz University of Bern Switzerland 5 RE I
​

TIA.

(FWIW...I searched: Michael Mann is on NEITHER of the authors' lists, so although he 'gets a lot of press' in the ClimateGate frenzy, he hasn't participated in the last 2 IPCC reports.)

 

[tarheelbybirth]

*sigh* Mann's 1999 reconstruction uses tree ring data. The 2008 reconstruction does not. Feel free to tell us how different they are.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I just have to say...I find these "back and forths" fascinating. I am not a scientist, so I can't add much to the conversation...but Codflyer totally dominates these conversations from where I sit and it is hilarious to read the rebuttals.

That's what confirmation bias looks like, cod. Note it for future reference.

 

[Err.]

I just have to say...I find these "back and forths" fascinating. I am not a scientist, so I can't add much to the conversation...but Codflyer totally dominates these conversations from where I sit and it is hilarious to read the rebuttals.

Though I am not a scientist, my career requires me to have a background in physics, chemistry, and environmental science (covering topics like global warming among other things)... from where I sit, I don't see what you see.

 

[cigaretteman]

I just have to say...I find these "back and forths" fascinating. I am not a scientist, so I can't add much to the conversation...but Codflyer totally dominates these conversations from where I sit and it is hilarious to read the rebuttals.

Then it's pretty readily apparent that you have very little understanding of the issues being discussed.

 

[mstp1992]

I just have to say...I find these "back and forths" fascinating. I am not a scientist, so I can't add much to the conversation...but Codflyer totally dominates these conversations from where I sit and it is hilarious to read the rebuttals.

I suppose you thought the officials in the 1972 USA vs USSR gold medal game made the right call, and Don Denkinger was correct in the 1985 world series, too.

Not that Codflyer doesn't bring up some good points here and there, but it's painfully obvious that you are not a scientist if you think Codflyer 'dominates these conversations.'

 

[codflyer]

*sigh* Mann's 1999 reconstruction uses tree ring data. The 2008 reconstruction does not. Feel free to tell us how different they are.

LOL...the Mann CPS data in the graph you provided absolutely included tree ring data. Elsewhere in the paper in question, Mann attempted to show that the no-dendro proxies married up (this is where you get the statement that you could pull the tree ring data out and get the same result), although that was fraught with issues. But, what you posted (including the graph immediately above) did not show no-dendro, despite your smug assertions that it did. Again, the danger involved in throwing things out there that you do not understand. Maybe you meant to post this: