AGW +2C? +6C? It has happened before.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Quote

The above is pretty much exactly what happened.

Wow, you were there? Did they serve good Danishes?

Use of intake sensors?
Adjusting buoys to intake sensors?
Finding warming?
Finding confidence at 90%?
Submitted to Science?
Embargoed while sending to journalists?
Released paper saying that every data set ever created over the last 20 years is wrong?

It is exactly what happened. Is science now more about publicity? Is it now something where confidence levels should be lowered?

Note: the dialogue was a model. The observed effects matched the model, and the dialogue does show a robust data set for the causative result. The results matched, even if the individual data points did not. Thus the modelnwas validated.

Kallend: does your field accept confidence levels of 90%?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Can you link to something that supports your story?

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Yeah, much the same way as NASA faked the Moon Landings too.

Hmmm. Someone saying, "forget about everything you've seen and felt. Forget about all the scientists and engineers and politicians. They have all been telling you something. Well, I'm here to tell you that upon a closer examination of information that they all chose to ignore, it didn't happen."

Yeah. Something does kind of have that sense. Forget everything ever said. I've got the real truth. Even thermometers are in on the lie.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Was that an attempt to provide an actual link? It didn't work.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Can you link to something that supports your story?

The paper itself states the method. Use of Intake sensors. Adjusting the SST buoys to match the sensors. And the 90% confidence. That right there says plenty, doesn't it? Lower the standard.

The Oreskes article? It was a few months ago I'll search for it. But the paper itself triggered that paper for me. Like a, "Jesus. It is actually happening."

The embargo? Science has published its policy that news coverage cannot appear before Thursday afternoons Eastern time before the paper is published. Always on a Friday. The paper was published June 5. Do a quick search and see that news reports were published started Thursday, June 4. Yes, this is exactly what happened. Journalists had that paper well before it was published. And they shared it with scientists in order to get quotes. Which is fine. It's business and it allows buzz to be generated.

About peer recvew. Yes, it is conjecture. But it gets me thinking how peers end up supporting a lower confidence level. And experimental design of adjusting data in favor of a known corrupt source of data.

So that part is conjecture. But I do wonder why lowering of standards is being allowed, if not encouraged. Going from 1/20 allowable error to 1\10 allowable error is a huge step.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Was that an attempt to provide an actual link? It didn't work.

no. must have inadvertently hit "url" button.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>So you guys are Type III deniers?

Nope. I think that some of the changes resulting from a warming planet will be good for us, some will be bad for us.

Just as not changing would be bad for some and good for others.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Can you at least tell me the name of the intake sensor paper? Or the author? Or some way of finding it?

- Dan G

[cvfd1399 0]

http://bfy.tw/G2u

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Can you at least tell me the name of the intake sensor paper? Or the author? Or some way of finding it?

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1066.summary

It is pay walled.

This article explains it, too. http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700

With quotes from a couple of the usual sources. (Of course, note Mann's quote about how this is nothing new, he already knew it, yadda yadda. For once could you drop the arrogant asshole bit there, Mike?).

So what nature said happened was that they used the data known tk run warm and adjusted the buoys upward. Basically, they said "We've got all these buoys measuring temperatures now. The greatest technology ever. Pure scientific instruments. They are so accurate that they are showing no warming. So let's use the ship measurements. And we'll treat Buoy temps like they are ship sensors."

An equivalent would be to say, "we have a lot of rural temperature readings. The are driving down the temperature average. So let's assume that there is increased urbanization. An adjustment of.12C per decade should do. Wow. Hey. Look at these results. We have . 12C per decade warming. The rural environment has been hiding the warming that CO2 has caused."

To which you may say, "you've just introduced urban heat island effect to data that doesn't have it. You are supposed to adjust the data to take OUT the UHI, not adjust the data to include it and call it CO2."

But that's what Karl et al did. They introduced corruption to the raw data. Because the datathey had was too good.

Karl et al engineered an outcome. Much like I demonstrated how Mann did it a year or so ago.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

cvfd1399

http://bfy.tw/G2u

From this j saw how Judith Curry article. Said a lot of what I said. And then said a lot more.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

Note that Curry said she had been asked by an international journalist abiut the paper days before. She published her post at 2:00 pm on June 4. This is pretty clear about the embargo.

Pat Michaels hit on the points about the adjustments and the temperatures.

And I'll put in a bit of a retraction. Mann isn't alone in saying we always knew this. It just confirms what we've said. Others said it, too.

Now, is anybody out there worried about the too climate scientists saying they always knew what this paper said but hadn't the confirmation? Engineers know the results and figure out how to get it. Scientists DONT know and do experiments to figure out the answers.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

The Nature article definitely seems fishy. Too bad I can't read the actual article. I hope they have a more detailed explanation of their method.

Frankly, I very much doubt that Science would publish something that was as obviously BS as you try to make it sound.

Any non-biased people here have a subscription to Science?

- Dan G

[cvfd1399 0]

I don't doubt it all, just like the people who profit from war or contracts have an interest in keeping the "fear level" up. These people have a monetary and reveance interest in keeping theirs going as well.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

The Nature article definitely seems fishy. Too bad I can't read the actual article. I hope they have a more detailed explanation of their method.

Frankly, I very much doubt that Science would publish something that was as obviously BS as you try to make it sound.

Any non-biased people here have a subscription to Science?

I suspect they do.

Look, in one sense I appreciate using new methodology and trying tk do something to fill in holes in knowledge. But the Nature description itself really made me think, "this is what people want to base policy on?"

We've spent the last twenty years putting out arrays of the best scientific measuring instruments we can get. Naw. Let's go with the compromised data and adjust everything else upward. Automatic upward adjustment of.12C. It HAS to show an upward trend.

And that there is a new study that says, "throw out every single other data set we have very made. They are all wrong" leads me to two very distinct possible conclusions:
(1) they are right. And the scientists throughout history have been so incompetent that they can't event get a singke dataset right and they've lied their asses off (extremely unlikeky); or
(2) this dataset is wrong.

It's been said quite frequently. If you can't find any other data that agrees with yours but the rest are in general agreement with each other then the lone is probably wrong.

Problem is: this is something to cling to for those scientists who have been wrong in the past. This paper fulfills far greater policy aims than scientific ones.

And yes. What about the 90%? http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/playing-dumb-on-climate-change.html?referrer=&_r=0

From what she arote:

Quote

Playing Dumb on Climate Change


CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — SCIENTISTS have often been accused of exaggerating the threat of climate change, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that they ought to be more emphatic about the risk. The year just concluded is about to be declared the hottest one on record, and across the globe climate change is happening faster than scientists predicted.

Science is conservative, and new claims of knowledge are greeted with high degrees of skepticism. When Copernicus said the Earth orbited the sun, when Wegener said the continents drifted, and when Darwin said species evolved by natural selection, the burden of proof was on them to show that it was so. In the 18th and 19th centuries, this conservatism generally took the form of a demand for a large amount of evidence; in the 20th century, it took on the form of a demand for statistical significance.

We’ve all heard the slogan “correlation is not causation,” but that’s a misleading way to think about the issue. It would be better to say that correlation is not necessarily causation, because we need to rule out the possibility that we are just observing a coincidence. Typically, scientists apply a 95 percent confidence limit, meaning that they will accept a causal claim only if they can show that the odds of the relationship’s occurring by chance are no more than one in 20. But it also means that if there’s more than even a scant 5 percent possibility that an event occurred by chance, scientists will reject the causal claim. It’s like not gambling in Las Vegas even though you had a nearly 95 percent chance of winning.

Where does this severe standard come from? The 95 percent confidence level is generally credited to the British statistician R. A. Fisher, who was interested in the problem of how to be sure an observed effect of an experiment was not just the result of chance. While there have been enormous arguments among statisticians about what a 95 percent confidence level really means, working scientists routinely use it.

Now not e what is going on. She calls this a severe standard. She argues that it is like "beyond a reasonable doubt" and compares it with prosecutors. I think this is a big disconnect. She is saying some things require over confidence.

And she does so with policy arguments. Not scientific ones. Again, where policy itself is an adjunct for science.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>1910-1940

Agreed. Also 1982-1998.

Indeed, but what was the cause? Clearly, CO2 could not have been the primary driver. CO2 hs been increasing at a steadily increasing rate, yet temperatures have stubbornly refused to correlate. Does CO2 have an impact on global temps? Perhaps, however it is clearly not the primary driver.

[DanG 1]

I don't believe the study says that, "every single dataset we've ever made is wrong." You aren't helping your argument by being silly.

I suspect these new adjustments are a mix of good and bad. Again, I'd love to read the article and see what it actually says.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

brenthutch

***>1910-1940

Agreed. Also 1982-1998.

Indeed, but what was the cause? Clearly, CO2 could not have been the primary driver. CO2 hs been increasing at a steadily increasing rate, yet temperatures have stubbornly refused to correlate. Does CO2 have an impact on global temps? Perhaps, however it is clearly not the primary driver.

It doesn't have to be. The earth is at about 288 kelvin. It's bei g argued that it may go up to 290 kelvin by 2100 due to CO2. So the difference isn't big in the grand scheme. Water Vapor is good for about 25 degrees of warming. CO2 for maybe 5-10 degrees of it. Take away water Vapor and our planet is a snowball.

So CO2 isn't the primary driver. Never was. Assuming all things equal except CO2 then CO2 is the primary driver of change.

To am pretty certain that all things are no t equal.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[cvfd1399 0]

Does any odd these warming studies take into account the Suns actions, or our distance from the sun?

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

I don't believe the study says that, "every single dataset we've ever made is wrong." You aren't helping your argument by being silly.

There is not a single global temperature set that shows an acceleration of warming of the global surface between 1998 and 2013 as compared to the previous trend. 1980-1998.

The authors claim this. I am not joking. Apparently the dataset that they produced shows this. No other dataset shows it. None. It sounds silly when I point it out. But it is fact. No other dataset shows this.

Quote

I suspect these new adjustments are a mix of good and bad. Again, I'd love to read the article and see what it actually says.

I agree. But my concern is in reading elsewhere. Apparently Argo AZ ignored. And the SST buoys were adjusted. It's wondering why the hell we even have these things if they are considered too accurate to be useful. And even more concerned about the confidence level that is acceptable.

Again. I haven't read it. Would like to. Because of the numerous large issues raised by it. It's like a microcosm of the whole debate. What is science cell becoming? I'm recalling the Higgs boson. The CERN folks wouldn't even go public until they saw the probability of 1 in 3.5 million or something like that. (caveat for the subtle difference in what the probabilities and confidence entail) but it's somewhat of what in looking to.

It's why I'd love to hear from kallend. What are his thoughts on establishing science with 90% confidence? Is that how his area of expertise operates? If not, why not?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

cvfd1399

Does any odd these warming studies take into account the Suns actions, or our distance from the sun?

There are two sides to the basic climate equation. The left side is s(1-a)/4. S equals insolation (the solar constant, which ain't so constant) at top of atmosphere. "a" is albedo. And it's divided by 4 because that's what the average illumination of of a sphere. It's the left side

Part and parcel to the equation is energy in. BAck in the 70s, this side wass the focus. Particularly the increase in albedo from aerosols.

Greenhouse theory is focusing on the right side. Energy out. As energy remains and is not reemitted, temperature goes up.

Short answer: yes

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[cvfd1399 0]

Ok thx. I am a general amateur radio operator so I am sort of familiar with the sun such as flux, a/k index, magnetic storms, flares, spots, etc. I had hoped they took the sun into consideration more than it shows up in the media. It's always about co2, etc, and never about the engine that's driving those reactions.

[lawrocket 3]

cvfd1399

Ok thx. I am a general amateur radio operator so I am sort of familiar with the sun such as flux, a/k index, magnetic storms, flares, spots, etc. I had hoped they took the sun into consideration more than it shows up in the media. It's always about co2, etc, and never about the engine that's driving those reactions.

Well, yeah. Focus is on the outgoing now because it's viewed as greater effect. IT's why it's been brought up to put up sulfur aerosol to cool the earth. Increase albedo and cool the earth.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

lawrocket

******>1910-1940

Agreed. Also 1982-1998.

Indeed, but what was the cause? Clearly, CO2 could not have been the primary driver. CO2 hs been increasing at a steadily increasing rate, yet temperatures have stubbornly refused to correlate. Does CO2 have an impact on global temps? Perhaps, however it is clearly not the primary driver.

So CO2 isn't the primary driver. Never was. Assuming all things equal except CO2 then CO2 is the primary driver of change.



Tell that to Al Gore

[billvon 3,120]

>Just as not changing would be bad for some and good for others.

Exactly.

Imagine, for example, if someone shut down your DZ. Maybe a Kim Gibbs type, or maybe someone who wanted to build a Wal-Mart. That might be good for some people, bad for others. Might be bad for the DZO, good for the DZO who replaced him. The new DZ might have better airplanes so skydivers would benefit.

Still, that's a bad reason to be OK with shutting down a DZ. You'd have to have a pretty good idea that the change you were making would be good before you made it. If you were unsure, then not changing things would be a better idea - at least until you knew better.

[cvfd1399 0]

billvon

>Just as not changing would be bad for some and good for others.

Exactly.

Imagine, for example, if someone shut down your DZ. Maybe a Kim Gibbs type, or maybe someone who wanted to build a Wal-Mart. That might be good for some people, bad for others. Might be bad for the DZO, good for the DZO who replaced him. The new DZ might have better airplanes so skydivers would benefit.

Still, that's a bad reason to be OK with shutting down a DZ. You'd have to have a pretty good idea that the change you were making would be good before you made it. If you were unsure, then not changing things would be a better idea - at least until you knew better.

Wait....isn't that exactly what they are doing? A bunch of shit because they think something is happening, and they think this change might fix it but in reality it's all being fudged and no one really knows for certainty. By your logic we shouldn't be doing anything until we know for sure what the cause is and what we need to do, but that not what you post here.