"Climategate" two years later

[NightHawkeye]

I would like to point out in your first graph is that the running average of the lower atmosphere. I'm think that land/surface/water temperatures should be our primary concern as increases here will cause increase water evaporation which is a positive feedback for heat "trapper" (cannot think of the word...too late..time for bed).

Credentials, please. I'm sure Thaumaturgy will need to know your credentials.

.

 

[thaumaturgy]

LOL ... My points have been simple and clear. I showed satellite data inconsistent with terrestrially recorded data as plotted by East Anglia's CRU ... even told ya which pro-global warming website it came from. But since my ten minutes of effort wasn't enough, I've now spent another 15 minutes looking deeper.

And yet still you do not tell me where the graph you posted came from specifically within that website. Interesting.

I'll now offer you another chart

So we've moved on and you aren't going to answer a simple question that any real researcher would respond to? (ie where specifically did the graph you earlier posted come from within the website or its attendant peer reviewed publication?)

Let's try to focus on one thing at a time.

showing the same trend from an anti-global warming website: Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Ohmygosh! Roy Spencer! I'm impressed you found out about him. He's only been a rather big player on the skeptical team for years. Bravo! At least, unlike your failure to be familiar with where Hadley CRU was or your failure to know the background behind Mid Century cooling, you've been able to find Spencer!

Knock yourself out attacking his qualifications, Thaumaturgy, LOL. I notice he has a Ph. D. after his name. Is that important in this instance?

At not point in this debate have I utilized an "attack" on one's credentials to discredit the point. The fact that I asked you what your experience was in actual research was to gauge what I could expect you to reasonably know or not know.

The fact that you rely on wikipedia normally vs any sort of actual reference and that you refuse to discuss statistics outside of Wikipedia despite your indication of graduate level statistics training has me quite curious.

But so far the only "statistics claim" you have made of any real detail was around the "definition" of stochastic and a seeming gloss over time-series analyses without any reference to details of time-series analsyes or their incumbent processes.

The data chart above shows essentially the same slight warming as the chart I provided earlier.

Again, I have to infer where the graph comes from sans any actual discussion from the scientist who put together the actual data (Spencer). Will I assume that this is from Spencer and Christy? If so you can find that many years later appropriate corrects are added by Meehl in 2003 and 2005 and find that the trends between satellite data and surface station data more closely match.

But again, since I am bereft of an actual reference to the point under discussion I have to admit I'm uncertain if I'm addressing the right point or not.

But that's not so much my problem I suppose.

You see, your sloppiness in referencing science indicates to me that my original question gets to the heart of the matter. I ask your experience in science not so much to necessarily say you are ipso facto wrong, but to know how to calibrate my responses and what I should expect from you.

But so far you have, despite "hints" of a deeper understanding of the topics at hand provided only sloppy glosses and references to Wikipedia.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Credentials, please. I'm sure Thaumaturgy will need to know your credentials.

.

My apologies for asking you what your experience in science was.

I note you did get your bit of "self-aggrandizement" in, but we can ignore it I suppose.

Do tell us more about your "graduate level statistics books"!

I know you hate Wikipedia, but it's a whole lot easier to copy and paste from Wikipedia than some of my graduate-level statistics texts ... though I actually have one at my desk still, even after all these years ...

I suppose we could do this in statistical terms to impress ourselves, and bore anyone else who might still be following this thread ... but that's really not necessary, Thaumaturgy.

So many "excuses" to choose from! It's a wonder science isn't an easier topic to get a degree in, isn't it?

 

[NightHawkeye]

And yet still ...

yada ... yada ... yada ... diatribe ... yada ... yada ... yada

.

ROTFL ... Is that the only tool you've got in your arsenal, Thaumaturgy?

You want credentials ... I give you credentials.

You want specific references ... I give you detailed references.

You want honest discussion ... I give you honest discussion.

... sigh ...



I'm sensing you don't like my responses, Thaumaturgy. Sorry, about that. Truth has no agenda.

.

 

[thaumaturgy]

But the total amount of warming is less than half that of the "hockey stick" graphs, such as the one below from Wikipedia:

.

Not to be pedantic here, but usually this graph is not the "hockey stick" graph. In most instances when someone is referring to the Hockey Stick as in the classical one from Mann et al. it goes back much further in time, and actually takes on a "hockey stick" shape:

(FROM Mann 1999)

Note how it goes back much further than merely 150 or so years and note that it is shaped like a hockey stick.

If you want to rely on your favorite reference, Wikipedia, you can find a general description of the hockey stick as originally coined by Jerry Mahlmann after Mann gave a talk describing his graph.

The point being that there's a long flatter "cooling" trend (the stick) and a sharp increase (the blade).

This is what a hockey stick looks like:

Now I'm not saying your by definition "incorrect", but usually, when one debate these points they don't refer to the graph you showed as the "hockey stick" since you are much more in the "blade region" of the hockey stick. But again, this is a pedantic and not necessarily "right vs wrong" discussion point.

It just helps if, like the failure to know where CRU was earlier, that we all understand the common usage of terms.

Just a helpful FYI.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Not to be pedantic here, but usually this graph is not the "hockey stick" graph. In most instances when someone is referring to the Hockey Stick as in the classical one from Mann et al. it goes back much further in time, and actually takes on a "hockey stick" shape:
...
Just a helpful FYI.

I took it for granted that you understood the chart in it's greater context, Thaumaturgy.

But, your response is enlightening. Thanks.

.

 

[MattRose]

I took it for granted that you understood the chart in it's greater context, Thaumaturgy.

But, your response is enlightening. Thanks.

.

So 97% of climatologists disagree with you. How are your cute graphs going to change anyone's mind? Don't you think these climatologists could dance circles around your laymanonic efforts? Are you a climatologist? Why don't you argue with brain surgeons about how they do their jobs? It's the same thing.

 

[NightHawkeye]

So 97% of climatologists disagree with you. How are your cute graphs going to change anyone's mind? Don't you think these climatologists could dance circles around your laymanonic efforts? Are you a climatologist? Why don't you argue with brain surgeons about how they do their jobs? It's the same thing.

And a new Rasmussen poll indicates: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made.
​

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports™


If only there were some learned individual among us who could provide an unbiased account of that NASA data which skeptics say reveals that "global warming is not man-made".

.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I took it for granted that you understood the chart in it's greater context, Thaumaturgy.

But, your response is enlightening. Thanks.

.

I am glad to educate you however I can. Whether it's basics of the debate (like the difference between Leeds and Norwich in the UK), who the players are, what scientists actually already know about topics like the Mid Century cooling or what people usually mean by the "hockey stick".

It's nice to have an opportunity to talk with someone so jarringly untainted by any real in-depth knowledge of the topic.

You're welcome!

 

[thaumaturgy]

And a new Rasmussen poll indicates: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made.
​

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports™


If only there were some learned individual among us who could provide an unbiased account of that NASA data which skeptics say reveals that "global warming is not man-made".

.

Couple points here, Nighthawk: you yourself pointed out that argument by consensus was of little value. So when one does debate around "consensus" it is probably more meaningful that about 97% of the world's professionals who study climate change think agw is real, whereas you seem to be referencing a public opinion poll.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults...

In your "graduate level statistics textbooks" which you have even all these years later do you find anything that might be "non-random" in a telephone poll? (hint: do you think the respondants are required to answer but is actually just a "voluntary" poll?)

But more importantly: if you take a sample of "opinions" about global climate change from a population made up only of people who study global climate change and a population of people, the vast vast majority of whom probably don't even know basic chemistry or physics, let alone the details of climate science, which do you think would yield a closer estimate to the true mean?

(Oh, I'm sorry, am I getting into "boring" territory here? My bad!)

 

[MattRose]

And a new Rasmussen poll indicates: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

​

​

Well there ya go, the mob has spoken. Science sure got a lot easier... who needs a test tube when we can just poll the yokels.

 

[NightHawkeye]

[/indent]Well there ya go, the mob has spoken. Science sure got a lot easier... who needs a test tube when we can just poll the yokels.

ROTFL ... you guys always go for low-hanging fruit ...



Yet ... on a matter of substance ... deafening silence ...

If only there were some learned individual among us who could provide an unbiased account of that NASA data which skeptics say reveals that "global warming is not man-made".

.

... sigh ...



So predictable ... My, my, my ...


.

 

[thaumaturgy]

ROTFL ... you guys always go for low-hanging fruit ...



Yet ... on a matter of substance ... deafening silence ...



... sigh ...



So predictable ... My, my, my ...


.

Can I point out that merely saying "skeptics" find NASA data is:

1. Vague and one is unable to address it since it has no specifics
2. Not a surprise. "Skeptics" have basically questioned very single point of agw for the past umpty bazillion years.

It is like asking us to address the point: "Some people disagree with agw!"

My, my, my...such a lack of detail rendering a point pretty much meaningless. It must be hard to focus like that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

ROTFL ... Is that the only tool you've got in your arsenal, Thaumaturgy?

You want credentials ... I give you credentials.

1. I never asked for Dr. Roy Spencer's Credentials. (In no small part because I knew all about Dr. Spenser for a few years now, unlike you, I am somewhat familiar with the details of the discussion).

You want specific references ... I give you detailed references.

Actually you did. And I don't see how it decimates the central tenent of agw.

But more importantly you'll note that I actually did discuss points in relation to the UAH data. You no doubt know that there are basically two satellite data sets: UAH and RSS. The citations I quoted were from Mears who is involved with the latter. It reflects a discussion point about why there is some disagreement over satellite data interpretation.

You select UAH and Dr. Roy Spencer, I'm attempting to fill in the rest of the story. Mears in the past has had disagreements apparently with how the UAH group processes their data.

Now I will not pretend to fully grasp the subtleties of data manipulation from satellite data, but suffice it to say that it isn't as clear cut as you might wish.

I'm sensing you don't like my responses, Thaumaturgy. Sorry, about that. Truth has no agenda.

.

I am fine with your responses. That doesn't mean I agree with them. Truth has no agenda, indeed, but it often requires an appreciation for the salient details.

Again, for one who speaks so knowledgably about what science is or isn't or should do or shouldn't do, I must admit I'm waiting for a detailed discussion of just anything to come from you yet. I mean posting a few quotes from Wikipedia and a couple of graphs is a good start, necessary but not sufficient.

Just for kicks, go ahead and risk boring other people and explain to me the time-series trends related to global climate change. I actually do have some difficulty with assessing those. I'm not sure how to manipulate the data. Do I need to deseasonalize it? How do I deal with the autocorrelations?

I would welcome some training from one with graduate level statistical training!

 

[rambot]

Sorry, about that. Truth has no agenda.

.

What does the "Truth" have to do with what you are telling us?

And a new Rasmussen poll indicates: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made.
​

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports™

.Wow. So, earlier you speak about how "Evidence is the most important thing" "evidence"; "evidence"; "Evidence". "Science is about evidence."


BUT apparently, it's not just evidence that you lend creedence to is it? Apparently it's people who's opinion is informed with little to no ACTUAL evidence (lay people) that is of consequence.

If only there were some learned individual among us who could provide an unbiased account of that NASA data which skeptics say reveals that "global warming is not man-made"

Given that his reputation as one of the foremost scientists in the WORLD is on the table, I would think that James Hansen, one of the lead authors of the report, would probably be able to help provide a pretty good understanding of the data if you REALLY wanted to read it.

Here is a rebuttal to the skeptics regarding the study you think they are all "ignoring". Actually, no point in putting it up, it's on the realclimate website. just look around, i'm sure you'll find it.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I am fine with your responses. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

Of course you don't. That's the reason we're having this discussion.

Truth has no agenda, indeed ...

Good. Another point of agreement.

... but it often requires an appreciation for the salient details.

Minor correction, Thaumaturgy, data reduction requires an appreciation for salient details. Truth, not so much ...

Again, for one who speaks so knowledgably about what science is or isn't or should do or shouldn't do, I must admit I'm waiting for a detailed discussion of just anything to come from you yet.

LOL ... You're just hacked that I called your bluff, Thaumaturgy. Get over it and get on with the discussion of Dr. Spencer's data, how about.

I'm waiting for you to either discuss Dr. Spencer's data in a reasonable intelligent fashion, or dismiss it out of hand. So far, you keep wanting to rant and rail against my posts which are pages back already. NASA satellite data has been prominently displayed since post 14 of this discussion. You indicated that only someone with unimpugnable credentials could possibly have any valid criticism of the data reduction efforts performed at East Anglia. Being the obliging fellow I am, I brought Dr Spencer's data to the table.

So, here we are discussing Dr. Spencer's data. That discussion, while going slowly, seems to be making forward progress.


Perhaps I should re-iterate Dr Spencer's credentials: Roy Spencer (scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. Spencer suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.
​

Dr. Spencer's own words about "global warming" are more colorful though than the words posted in his Wikipedia entry: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.

​

Are you able to delineate your issues with Dr. Spencer's conclusions, Thaumaturgy?

 

[thaumaturgy]

LOL ... You're just hacked that I called your bluff, Thaumaturgy. Get over it and get on with the discussion of Dr. Spencer's data, how about.

OK.

I'm waiting for you to either discuss Dr. Spencer's data in a reasonable intelligent fashion, or dismiss it out of hand.

When I look at Spencer's data here's what I see:

Then I look at your earlier posted graph of the RSS and UAH datasets:

(Oh yeah, and in case you need to know where this comes from it's HERE)

And frankly I don't see that big of a difference. The trends between RSS and UAH as of the latter graph seem only slightly different, but both appear to still show warming.

In 2005 when Mears and Wentz did an analysis and found that UAH was seeing about 0.12degC/decade warming whereas RSS was showing 0.19degC/decade.

Mears (2005) and Christy et al (2000) address how satellite data must be properly corrected for diurnal drift.

But this is part of an overall discussion of why atmospheric temperatures seemed to differ from surface temperatures. That appears to be addressed by folks at UAH

Wigley et al. (among these also includes J.R. Christy who works at UAH) notes in a summary report that:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.

This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."(SOURCE)

You indicated that only someone with unimpugnable credentials could possibly have any valid criticism of the data reduction efforts performed at East Anglia.

I made no such statement. Please show me where you got this impression.

So, here we are discussing Dr. Spencer's data. That discussion, while going slowly, seems to be making forward progress.

And I have addressed this with an enlargement of a topic I already mentioned several posts back.

Perhaps I should re-iterate Dr Spencer's credentials

And again I will remind you am fully aware of Dr. Spencer's credentials, and also remind you that at no time have I required credentials to establish the validity of claims. I merely asked the apparently unforgivable question of what your experience was in science.

You held forth so long about what science has at its core ("proof" as I recall) and yet almost no one who is a scientist would allow you to get away with such a "loose" use of a technical term. So I merely asked your experience with science.

Dr. Spencer's own words about "global warming" are more colorful though than the words posted in his Wikipedia entry:

Why don't you take Spencers words from a peer reviewed publication? Or is Wikipedia the only URL you know?

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
​

I wholly agree that Spencer is critical and skeptical of claims about the causation of AGW.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…

This bit I will greatly disagree with. Remember, I have spent time in geology. As such I can say that a great deal of paleoenvironmental research has been done.

Would you like a non-wikipedia source for paleoenvironmental research data and actual publications? Why you are in luck!

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program

Paleoclimate Data Before 2000 years ago

Johns Hopkins has a nice "gateway" to Paleoclimate data is HERE

One of my old employers, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, part of Columbia University also has paleoclimatology research, and there are countless others.

In fact much of what we know about the relative climate sensitivity of CO2 (something we humans know a lot about pumping into the atmosphere) is predicated on paleoclimate data! (For example THIS paper)

I am fond of this illustration which shows the various "estimates" of climate sensitivity of CO2:

(From Knutti and Hegel, 2008)

it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

There actually are a large number of "attribution" studies. Chapter 9 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) is dedicated to little else but "Attribution" studies (LINKY)

In the IPCC reports as well as most literature both natural and anthropogenic forcings are analyzed.

It is hardly that one is given more emphasis than the other by dint of someone's "preference", but rather by countless studies.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.

There is nothing specific to address here.

​

Are you able to delineate your issues with Dr. Spencer's conclusions, Thaumaturgy?

Shall we deal with one at a time based on articles or shall we go with Roy's blog and wikipedia?

I would prefer one at a time based on the science which has been responded to by other science.

 

[NightHawkeye]

When I look at Spencer's data here's what I see:

Then I look at your earlier posted graph of the RSS and UAH datasets:

(Oh yeah, and in case you need to know where this comes from it's HERE)

LOL ... Actually, you got that from the pro global-warming website, Skeptical Science. It's distinctly different from the actual chart at your referenced source, which is now a global warming skeptic webpage. Go figure.

I'll let you explain your choice of charts ... and the discrepancies, if you'd care to. It appears that the website reverted to an earlier chart showing considerably greater discrepancies. I could only guess why ...

And frankly I don't see that big of a difference. The trends between RSS and UAH as of the latter graph seem only slightly different, but both appear to still show warming.

In 2005 when Mears and Wentz did an analysis and found that UAH was seeing about 0.12degC/decade warming whereas RSS was showing 0.19degC/decade.

Back in 2005, Spencer graciously acknowledged the efforts of Mears and Wentz and apparently accepted their assessments. Spencer appears to be genuine in his scientific inquiries.

It's worth mentioning that the most recent satellite data shows a drop in temperatures, so that the 0.12 degC drops to 0.09degC. Depending on which points are used, the satellite data ranges from 1/2 to 2/3 that of the oft-cited terrestrial data.

And again I will remind you am fully aware of Dr. Spencer's credentials ...
...
I wholly agree that Spencer is critical and skeptical of claims about the causation of AGW.

Thank you, Thaumaturgy.

.

 

[rambot]

I'll let you explain your choice of charts ... and the discrepancies, if you'd care to. It appears that the website reverted to an earlier chart showing considerably greater discrepancies. I could only guess why...

uhm.... didn't thaum already discuss that?

 

[NightHawkeye]

uhm.... didn't thaum already discuss that?

Nope.