97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6645
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby pjbogart » Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:03 am

John Henry doesn't come to win arguments. He comes to muddy the waters. He also claimed that Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, might be a Muslim Brotherhood spy. You're jousting with windmills. He'll disappear, come back in a few months and continue posting the same anti-science tripe. He doesn't actually care about global warming, he cares about politics. And his team says there is no global warming. Therefore, there isn't.

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby johnfajardohenry » Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:26 am

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
jman111 wrote:Somebody should tell the climatologists about instrument calibration. They need to know about important stuff like that.
I wonder if they know you can just stick your hand out the window?


I suspect that they do. Read some of the literature on temperature measurements over the pat 100 years. That seems to be how a large portion of the instruments are calibrated.

Though, as someone else noted upthread, the people collecting the data were not the scientists analyzing and adjusting it. Or making the predictions.

John Henry

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby johnfajardohenry » Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:34 am

pjbogart wrote:He also claimed that Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, might be a Muslim Brotherhood spy.


Isn't this a bit off topic, PJ? But, if you like:

Huma was editor, for a number of years, of a magazine closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. She continued the editorship while working for Hilary! but gave it up when she went to work for State Dept

I forget the name offhand (can get it if you want) but the magazine was published by her mother who is a professor on the Saudi payroll in Jeddah(City?) Past issues are (or were) available on the Wayback Machine. You can read them for yourself if you are interested.

Huma had/has an awful lot of money and no visible source for it.

If you want to discuss Huma,I suggest you start another thread.

John Henry

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby kurt_w » Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:45 am

pjbogart wrote:John Henry doesn't come to win arguments.

As far as I can tell, he mostly comes here to lose arguments. It seems like an odd hobby, but whatever.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7875
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby rabble » Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:50 am

johnfajardohenry wrote: [after a few paragraphs of flinging poo]....If you want to discuss Huma,I suggest you start another thread.

That would be a short thread considering even John McCain said
"The letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government."

And then, of course, in another thread not so very far away
johnfajardohenry wrote:FOR PJ: Since you started the poo flinging,

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby johnfajardohenry » Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:35 pm

kurt_w wrote:Nothing "stopped" in 1998. Here are the temperature trends for land (source: BEST) and ocean (source: HADSSTv3):


And yet the latest IPCC report would seem to disagree with that statement. They have a lot of discussion of what they call the "hiatus" in temperature rise 1998-2012. Lots of puzzlement over the cause as well.

For example,

Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade)


Page 196

WORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT
REPORT (AR5), CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS

My copy was downloaded on 10/29/13 and I think is still current.

So has there been a pause/hiatus (or even a possible cooling) between 1998-2012? IPCC says yes, you say no.

You pays your money and you takes your choices.

BTW: Two personal questions. You don't have to answer if you prefer not to: Are you a climate scientist? Are you getting paid (salary, grants, speaking fees or other compensation) for any work on climate change?

John Henry

John Henry

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby johnfajardohenry » Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:58 pm

Detritus wrote:But, for the record, even data collected sloppily by bored midget sailors on a cruise in the 1970s has value when handled properly.


Sure it has value. Even inaccurate data can have value. That it has value does not make it accurate.

You seem to think that statistics will allow you to take a bunch of data points that are systemically higher than the true value, make some sort of statistical manipulation and somehow get to the true value?

That must be some magic calculator you have.

IF you know how much the systemic error is then you could deduct it from the reading. Not recommended by the NBS back in the day and probably not recommended by NIST today. But perhaps it is good enough for climate work.

Other than that? I'd be interested to hear how you could get anywhere near the true value by statistical manipulation.

Of course, you won't accept that, because you don't believe in statistics.

Which reminds me: Calculus--evil, or just terribly naive?


I have no problem with calculus. I have some problems doing it since I seldom use it. But it is certainly not evil or naive. I hope you don't think that.

As for statistics one of the texts I used in a forecasting class (lots of statistics) back in grad school in the 70's was very good on statistical fallacies.

Image

Published in 1954, still in print, still valuable.

John Henry

Galoot
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 1:10 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Galoot » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:11 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:You seem to think that statistics will allow you to take a bunch of data points that are systemically higher than the true value, make some sort of statistical manipulation and somehow get to the true value?


How do you know they are systemically higher than the true value? You keep claiming that, and you have yet to back it up with any actual facts or evidence.

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Detritus » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:27 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:
Detritus wrote:But, for the record, even data collected sloppily by bored midget sailors on a cruise in the 1970s has value when handled properly.


Sure it has value. Even inaccurate data can have value. That it has value does not make it accurate.

You seem to think that statistics will allow you to take a bunch of data points that are systemically higher than the true value, make some sort of statistical manipulation and somehow get to the true value?

If inaccurate data, as you say, "has value," then what is that value? And, speaking of "value," what is the "True" value you're talking about? How do you know it's true? As Galoot observed, you claim that the data is "systemically higher than the true value," although you also claim that we don't know what the "systemic error" is, or we could "deduct it from the reading." If we don't know what the systemic error is, how do you know it's there, and how do you know it produces higher readings? Where did this systemic error come from that somehow infects all the data, whether eyeballed on a mercury thermometer by a drunken sailor in 1970 or gathered by satellite last year?

Could it be...SATAN?

How To Lie with Statistics, incidentally, is a great book, although you seem to have taken the title rather literally. I actually prefer Tufte's Visual Display of Quantitative Information, though. Similar content plus lots of pretty pictures to boot.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby kurt_w » Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:12 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:Two personal questions. You don't have to answer if you prefer not to: Are you a climate scientist? Are you getting paid (salary, grants, speaking fees or other compensation) for any work on climate change?

I am a professor in a geosciences field but my own background and expertise is in engineering. I don't call myself a "climate scientist". Like many engineers I work on interesting projects in a variety of fields where my particular branch of technology is applicable.

My salary is paid by my (private) university, so it comes from student tuition and alumni donations. I do get research grants that I use to hire students, postdocs, etc. who are working on research in my lab, but none of that is specifically climate-related, it's just generic high-tech. Compared to most academics, I actually function as more of a consultant who gets called in to solve other people's problems.

I don't get "speaking fees". I do periodically serve on grant review panels or external program review panels for NSF, NASA, and other agencies, for which there is typically a fixed stipend to cover panelists' expenses. Some comments on the grant review panel process are here.

Back in grad school I did start out in climate science. I think what finally pushed me out of that field and into engineering was re-doing the same damn lab on modeling ocean-atmosphere gas exchange four @&#*@ times because a certain now-retired professor in atmospheric sciences at UW kept coming up with additional wrinkles throughout the week he had given us to work on it. That was more than a decade ago. I've informally kept up with the field since then by reading the literature and following the work of other faculty here who are climate scientists.

I think this answers your questions.

Now, I have a series of questions for you. Think of this as a little quiz to evaluate how much you've learned since Monday:

(1) Do you understand that there are many global temperature datasets, compiled by many different groups and individuals, not just one?

(2) Do you understand that the original, raw data used to produce the CRU temperature record have not been "destroyed" and are available online here?

(3) Do you understand that when statistical adjustments are made to raw temperature measurements, the reasons for and methods of those adjustments are publicly documented, and both the pre- and post-adjustment versions are made available through the Global Historical Climatology Network here?

(4) Do you understand that the statement "A thermometer that is graduated in 2 degree increments, for example, can never be more precise than +/-2 degrees even if it is accurate" does not imply a 2-degree constraint on the accuracy of the sample mean of a large population of thermometers?

(5) Do you understand that the siting issues publicized by Anthony Watts's "surfacestations" project have been shown to have no statistically significant effect on mean temperature trends (e.g., Menne et al. 2010, Fall et al. 2011)?

(6) Do you understand that the various surface and satellite-based temperature records show essentially the same pattern of warming since 1979?

(7) Do you understand that when two completely different lines of evidence lead you to the same conclusion, Ockham's Razor strongly suggests that they are both correct, rather than they are both wrong by chance in exactly the same way?

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby kurt_w » Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:20 am

Detritus wrote:How To Lie with Statistics, incidentally, is a great book, although you seem to have taken the title rather literally. I actually prefer Tufte's Visual Display of Quantitative Information, though. Similar content plus lots of pretty pictures to boot.

Tufte's books are good, though once you've seen two or three of them you start feeling a certain deja vu. I like his anti-Powerpoint screed.

Mark Monmonier has a good book called "How to Lie with Maps" that brings the same concepts to a different field.

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby johnfajardohenry » Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:26 am

kurt_w wrote:Nothing "stopped" in 1998. Here are the temperature trends for land (source: BEST) and ocean (source: HADSSTv3):


Then there is this which came to my attention this morning:

One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus, including what the IPCC refers to as ‘unpredictable climate variability’that is associated with large-scale circulation regimes in the atmosphere and ocean.


The above is about this paper:

Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th
century

Marcia Glaze Wyatt and Judith A. Curry

From the peer Reviewed journal Climate Science Dec 2013

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 013-1950-2

Article is behind a paywall at Climate Science but Curry has posted it on her website at http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013 ... -wave1.pdf

The paper talks about "Stadium Wave" effect being responsible for the hiatus.

John Henry

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7875
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby rabble » Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:32 am

Having a little trouble with those seven questions, are we?

Can't blame you. Tough questions.

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby johnfajardohenry » Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:50 am

Detritus wrote: How To Lie with Statistics, incidentally, is a great book, although you seem to have taken the title rather literally. I actually prefer Tufte's Visual Display of Quantitative Information, though. Similar content plus lots of pretty pictures to boot.


I think the book presents serious ideas in something of a light tone. I think it could be used in 2 different ways. It could be used literally, as the title suggests, as a tool to obfuscate information using statistics.

The reason we used it back in the 70s was to show us how to identify data that had been obfuscated with statistics. This is the reason I have recommended it over they years.

My impression has always been that this was the author's intention.

Not familiar with the Tufte book but it sounds like something I would be interested in and I will check it out. Thanks for the recommendation.

John Henry

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby kurt_w » Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:03 am

John, the Wyatt and Curry paper attempts to discuss environmental mechanisms that would explain decadal-scale variation in the past century's temperature record.

Until you understand the basic facts of the temperature record itself, there's no point in trying to read or understand papers exploring those environmental mechanisms. You need to walk before you can run.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests