Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[andypro7]

Let me guess - you want to remain ignorant about science and the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, andypro7 !
Thus the continuous repeating of this question when in the real world:
Scientists try to keep bad science out of publications - that is what peer review means !
Climatic Research Unit email controversy

So let me guess, you're fine with an investigation that finds nothing wrong with this:


Phil Jones - Hadley CRU
IN HIS OWN WORDS

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”



Nope, nothing to see here, move along, all very sciency.

It's amazing what you guys will defend. Lying about consensus, lying to keep peer reviewed studies out of the IPCC because they don't show your point of view.

This is what you like, this is what you call 'science'. It's no wonder you believe in a fairy tale.

What don't you tell me what you think? Do you think it's ok for one of the major global warming believers to say that he's working to keep other people's work out of the IPCC report because it proves him wrong.

No consensus, what do you think? Are you Ok with this?

 

[RealityCheck01]

So let me guess, you're fine with an investigation that finds nothing wrong with this:

I am fine with several independent investigations that found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct !

I an not fine with people lying about me defending
* "Lying about consensus" or
* "lying to keep peer reviewed studies out of the IPCC because they don't show your point of view"
without any evidence of these lies
The consensus is a fact supported by several surveys.
There is no mention of lying in Phil Jones - Hadley CRU IN HIS OWN WORDS IN FULL:
Phil Jones in an email to Michael Mann

“The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

Nice joke about redefining what the peer-review literature is !
Bad knowledge of his abilities as an IPCC editor - there was no way that he could keep the papers out.
17th March 2015 andypro7: Repeated ignorance of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy!

8 outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

ETA: If you want to know what I believe:
I believe that "Do you think it's ok for one of the major global warming believers to say that he's working to keep other people's work out of the IPCC report because it proves him wrong" is a question based on a lie as seen when you read the email or read the reviews.
Phil Jones (a climate scientist) wanted to keep two papers out the IPCC AR4 because one was "garbage" - it was bad science.

Read Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC

The Independent Climate Change Email Review investigated the CRU scientists' actions as IPCC authors. Official records, Review Editors, and even the emails themselves suggest the CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of the IPCC rules. Anyway, the relevant texts were team responsibilities.
...
The first paper, McKitrick and Michaels (2004), or “MM2004”, argued that most of the observed late 20th century warming was due to the urban heat island effect. ...
The MM2004 paper was indeed omitted from the first and second drafts of AR4 WG1 Chapter 3, but mentioned and refuted in the final text. McKitrick claims that Jones wrote that paragraph and that it gave contrived reasons for rejecting the paper’s conclusions.

The second paper, McIntyre and McKitrick (2003), or “M&M2003”, criticized the famous “hockey stick” proxy temperature reconstruction by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (1998), or “MBH98”. It argued that the “hockey stick” shape was primarily an artifact of statistical errors and the selection of specific tree ring series. ...

The Review asked Jones about the MM2004 allegations. He stated that the “keep them out” email was “sent on the spur of the moment and quickly forgotten”, but there were good scientific reasons for his intention to exclude MM2004. (Namely, it did not account for signals like El Niño; and in any case its conclusions about the land temperature record are at odds with the independent lines of evidence provided by the ocean and satellite records.) Jones also denied having written the paragraph in question, saying the inclusion of MM2004 was a collective decision by the Chapter 3 writing team. IPCC records confirm that MM2004 was discussed by the group.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is this what you call science:

Phil Jones - Hadley CRU
IN HIS OWN WORDS

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Let me guess, you're fine with calling this type of peer review 'science'.

You are still trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you reference blogs written by crackpots and pretend that it is science.

 

[sculleywr]

You are blind, and now you are just lying to save face. Pathetic. Everything you need is right there. It's separated by region, and when you click on the region, it opens up and shows you all the materials based upon that region. When you click one of those, it opens up with a summary and tells you exactly where it is published even including the page number. Go lie somewhere else, your pathetic attempt to dismiss the work of over 1000 scientist nauseates me. Please don't respond to me again until you educate yourself.

I'm not lying. Here is an excerpt from the closest thing to methodology I could find in the entire website:
"The instructions that come with the CO2 test kit presuppose that it will be used in studies of aquatic plants, which we will, in fact, sometimes do. In most of our experiments, however, we will be studying terrestrial plants. Hence, there are a number of modifications and additions that must be made to the instructions that come with the kit, which we describe in the other sub-divisions of this CO2 Measurement Technique section."
(You find this under "experiments")

Regardless of anything else, this casts a shadow on all other data gathered. If their methodology for measuring atmospheric carbon content has such a large margin of error, relying mostly on "student" experiments, you must now question the unrevealed methodologies behind the rest of their experiments. Why should I trust them when I can't see the methodology behind their data?

Scientists don't say "data! It doesn't matter if the source got the data by having chickens crap on a measuring stick! We'll just take it anyways!"

So. Your challenge: find one study on that website that fits the following parameters:
Global scale (none of the local studies that the site seems to build itself on)
Methodology and gathered raw data put out in detail
Able to be read in its entirety in a peer reviewed journal on the Internet on a third party journal.

If you can't do that for your cause, then your cause is apparently not worth you doing the footwork required of a scientist.

 

[andypro7]

I am fine with several independent investigations that found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct !

I an not fine with people lying about me defending
* "Lying about consensus" or
* "lying to keep peer reviewed studies out of the IPCC because they don't show your point of view"
without any evidence of these lies
The consensus is a fact supported by several surveys.
There is no mention of lying in Phil Jones - Hadley CRU IN HIS OWN WORDS IN FULL:
Phil Jones in an email to Michael Mann

Nice joke about redefining what the peer-review literature is !
Bad knowledge of his abilities as an IPCC editor - there was no way that he could keep the papers out.
17th March 2015 andypro7: Repeated ignorance of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy!

8 outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

ETA: If you want to know what I believe:
I believe that "Do you think it's ok for one of the major global warming believers to say that he's working to keep other people's work out of the IPCC report because it proves him wrong" is a question based on a lie as seen when you read the email or read the reviews.
Phil Jones (a climate scientist) wanted to keep two papers out the IPCC AR4 because one was "garbage" - it was bad science.

Read Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC

Got it. You're fine with Cook lying to get his fake consensus.
You're fine with Jones subverting the peer review process so real science wouldn't get in the way of fake hockey stick science.

For the record, the correct answer was, "No, I'm not fine with that"

Can't believe a word you say from here on in, if you're fine with all this.

 

[sculleywr]

Got it. You're fine with Cook lying to get his fake consensus. You're fine with Jones subverting the peer review process so real science wouldn't get in the way of fake hockey stick science. For the record, the correct answer was, "No, I'm not fine with that" Can't believe a word you say from here on in, if you're fine with all this.

you're fine with using blogs. But not with someone who doesn't give a rat about a single person.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Got it.

Still wrong, andypro7: I am not fine with you seeming to lie about Cook lying about their results.
If you have evidence that Cook et al lied about their results then state it.
This is not an obviously lying blog listing cherry picked people stating that their opinion that classification of 7 papers was wrong.
The opinions are wrong - there was no classification of papers - it was classification of abstracts

I am also not fine about you being so unable to comprehend English that you reply to a post that has nothing to do Cook et al as if it was about consensus .

I am also not fine with you remaining ignorant about the Phil Jones email. The paper he does not like in that email is the urban heating paper of McKitrick and Michaels (2004):
Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC

The first paper, McKitrick and Michaels (2004), or “MM2004”, argued that most of the observed late 20th century warming was due to the urban heat island effect Jones’ reaction to the paper, according to an email dated 8/7/2004, was:
The other paper by MM is just garbage. […] I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

 

[andypro7]

Hey guys, I'm done here, this is pointless.

Scullywr is dead certain the MWP Project is wrong, and he's yet to demonstrate that he even knows how to navigate the website, or even understands what it's about.
(yea, I'll get that global satellite temp date from 1200 years ago - Ugh.

RealityCheck continues to support people trying to keep out relevant papers from the IPCC report. An absolute CLEAR violation of ethics and integrity, but yet he continues to defend it.

I'm done, it's clear that neither of you has the intellect or science for me to continue this conversation. It's a waste of time. Hopefully, the 18+ years of no warming we've had won't continue, and the planet will start to heat up again, because that would be better for everyone.

 

[RealityCheck01]

This is not an obviously lying blog listing cherry picked people stating that their opinion that classification of 7 papers was wrong.

So let us see how obviously it is that the blogger is lying about his results, andypro7.
A blogger claims that he "emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper."
This is a survey so where are the actual numbers
* How many people did he contact?
* How many replied?
* How many were satisfied with the categorization?
* Why are only people dissatisfied with the categorization listed?
The lack of an actual survey makes it obvious that the blogger is lying about the results of his "survey" .
An example - someone does a representative sample of the people of New York and asks if they have green eyes. If they get 100% of the answers as yes then you know that something is wrong !

The blogger makes this probably lying more explicit by listing the questions he asked which were about specific papers of specific authors. In other words he biased the sample!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Hey guys, I'm done here, this is pointless.

Yes: you just repeating an unfounded opinion that scientists are lying without evidence is pointless, andypro7 .

A fantasy about attempts to keep "relevant papers" out of IPCC AR4 is not upheld in the real world where no such attempts were made. And you have presented no evidence that the papers were "relevant" - what a surprise !
The IPCC reports are peer reviewed by groups of scientists to determine what papers are relevant. Anything that is left out is irrelevant by the rules of the writing of IPCC reports. No one person can stop a paper from being cited in an IPCC report. It is a group decision. An offhand remark in an email does not change this real world fact.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I wonder what andypro7 would call the scientists who classified their own their papers in the Cook et al database?
The Consensus Project self-rating data now available Posted on 8 July 2013 by John Cook

've just uploaded the ratings provided by the scientists who rated their own climate papers, published in our peer-reviewed paper "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". This is an opportunity to highlight one of the most important aspects of our paper. Critics of our paper have pointed to a blog post that asked 7 scientists to rate their own papers. We'd already done that, except rather than cherry pick a handful of scientists known to hold contrarian views, we blanket emailed over 8,500 scientists. This resulted in 1,200 scientists rating the level of endorsement of their own climate papers, with 2,142 papers receiving a self-rating.
While our analysis of abstracts found 97.1% consensus among abstracts stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the method of self-rating complete papers independently found 97.2% consensus among papers self-rated as stating a position on AGW.

(my emphasis added)


This is suggests that the Cook et al rating of abstracts was a tiny bit conservative since 0.1% more consensus was found among scientists who rated their own abstracts.

 

[[serious]]

I think you miss the point of the project. No one is asking or suggesting that all of the scientists agree with anyone's premise about anything. Here's how it works:

Let's say some scientist in China in 2002 writes a paper that shows that in China the temperatures were much greater during the MWP. The paper goes through peer review and gets published.

Now we can say that there is peer reviewed material that in that region that was covered in the paper, it was warmer during the mwp than today. The scientist in China who wrote the paper doesn't have to be contacted, or sign up on the website or anything like that. This is his work that he got published specifically so people could use it to say what he proved.

Now, multiply that by 1000, and at spots all over the world.

THAT is how the mwp project works, pretty much like anything else you'd want to prove that was global for a time period hundreds of years ago.

It's not the number of scientists that matters, it's what their peer reviewed work says.

But we don't have a situation in which 1000 people are all saying that the MWP was warmer than today on a global scale. We have a case where one blog says that and cites 1000 people. Now, I'm skeptical that all 1000 people actually took that position. But of course, asking you to track down quotes from all 1000 people would be silly. So instead, I'm going to pick 5 random names off that list. If you can find a clear statement from each of them supporting your position that global temperatures were warmer around 1000 AD than present day temperatures, I'll accept the list as legit.

Anderson, J.B.
Salinger, J.
Sepúlveda, J.
King, J.C.
Szmeja, J.


I'll even pick a 6th one and look into it myself. I know, above and beyond what I should be expected to do, but the list seems set up specifically to dissuade people from checking it, so i'm pretty sure it's all bogus.

 

[[serious]]

And the name I drew was Leipe, T. After some googling (the Idso's site doesn't actually link to where they cite the author) I found that they referenced a paper entitled: "Environmental changes in the central Baltic Sea during the past 1000 years: inferences from sedimentary records, hydrography and climate."

After some more googling (they also don'nt link to the actual paper even though it's available freely online) I found the paper: http://www.iopan.gda.pl/oceanologia/501leipe.pdf

The paper shows the MWP calculated as being below the 1900-1980 mean. (chart on page 28). The same chart shows recent temperatures (since the mid 1900s) predominantly above the 1900-1980 mean. hence, this paper actually supports the current consensus about climate change.

 

[sculleywr]

Hey guys, I'm done here, this is pointless. Scullywr is dead certain the MWP Project is wrong, and he's yet to demonstrate that he even knows how to navigate the website, or even understands what it's about. (yea, I'll get that global satellite temp date from 1200 years ago - Ugh. RealityCheck continues to support people trying to keep out relevant papers from the IPCC report. An absolute CLEAR violation of ethics and integrity, but yet he continues to defend it. I'm done, it's clear that neither of you has the intellect or science for me to continue this conversation. It's a waste of time. Hopefully, the 18+ years of no warming we've had won't continue, and the planet will start to heat up again, because that would be better for everyone.

It's not about navigating a website. Any idiot could find everything the website has to offer. There isn't much. Keep your hands out of scientific inquiry. Or else go obtain a science degree. It is quite obvious that you don't know what science requires. You have more faith in the website than an indie fundie has in the KJV. I don't have enough faith to believe you. I'm sorry I require science

 

[[serious]]

It's not about navigating a website. Any idiot could find everything the website has to offer. There isn't much. Keep your hands out of scientific inquiry. Or else go obtain a science degree. It is quite obvious that you don't know what science requires. You have more faith in the website than an indie fundie has in the KJV. I don't have enough faith to believe you. I'm sorry I require science

Actually, I object to the bolded part. Everyone, regardless of degree, should endeavor to become fluent in the methods of science at least to the point of being able to intelligently discuss scientific matters. The "go get a science degree" approach i think is antithetical to this goal.

Instead, we should be encouraging Andy to read carefully and ensure he understand terms so that he can identify the difference between having 1000 peer reviewed papers that agree with you and citing 1000 peer reviewed papers.

I don't mind if he doesn't agree with me, as long as he's willing to do some basic leg work to defend his opinions. If he looks at source data, even with the intent to support his own opinion, the exposure to that data will help correct misconceptions he holds.

In fact, Andy, I'll relax my earlier request. Find any 5 scientists on the MWP project citation list that present data that the MWP was global and exceeded the 1900-1980 mean for an extended period of time. You pick the names.

 

[sculleywr]

Actually, I object to the bolded part. Everyone, regardless of degree, should endeavor to become fluent in the methods of science at least to the point of being able to intelligently discuss scientific matters. The "go get a science degree" approach i think is antithetical to this goal. Instead, we should be encouraging Andy to read carefully and ensure he understand terms so that he can identify the difference between having 1000 peer reviewed papers that agree with you and citing 1000 peer reviewed papers. I don't mind if he doesn't agree with me, as long as he's willing to do some basic leg work to defend his opinions. If he looks at source data, even with the intent to support his own opinion, the exposure to that data will help correct misconceptions he holds. In fact, Andy, I'll relax my earlier request. Find any 5 scientists on the MWP project citation list that present data that the MWP was global and exceeded the 1900-1980 mean for an extended period of time. You pick the names.

While I doubt he's going to answer you, I agree in theory. The problem comes when people obtain their learning from dubious sources.

 

[[serious]]

While I doubt he's going to answer you, I agree in theory. The problem comes when people obtain their learning from dubious sources.

Which is why I try and ask questions that make them go deeper.

 

[FredVB]

Why do a good number of Christian believers think global warming has nothing to do with them and is not something to be concerned about? This must be from church leaders that lead them in thinking this way. It isn't with taking responsibility when scientists have information that there is some effect toward global warming from humanity, and the demands from our civilization, with potential disasters coming from it ahead. There is delayed effects from it in huge bodies of water as the oceans, I have heard of that being explained. So little rise would be detected right away. But rising ocean levels will not ever amount to water level going up like in a bathtub. There will be great storms and hurricanes. Aren't there some already that could be that? There isn't any assurance from revelation that this is not something to concern us. It is shown as something to come in the Bible, it should have been seen. There are all the other things that are from us affecting this world along with it that are certain.

Because:
1. It has nothing to do with them
2. It's not something to be concerned about

This suggests support of irresponsibility in what we do to what is in our world with how we live. What are people going to do in a few years when critical changes take a great toll on our society? Changing the way we live should already be happening. There is a great amount of extinctions among species, the life in oceans are being diminished, there is deforestation and desertification, and our demands using animals as resources has more land, water, and resources being used while there are people starving that would not have to be.

This isn't about alarmism. It is about recognizing needs instead of being dismissive, and taking responsibility in doing things. Recognize this isn't really your world. You are permitted to be here, with responsibilities, in good stewardship. This world, which is of Yahweh God's creation, belongs to God.

Seriously why would you think the things prophesied are said, wouldn't you think there are explanations connected to what we would see happen, including that hearts will fail people from fear of sea and waves roaring? People all over the earth? Why, if you won't consider this connection?

Let us care for this world and those in it.

There will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars, and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and waves roaring, men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Luke 21 verses 25-26

The nations were angry, and your wrath has come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that you should reward your servants the prophets and the saints, and those who fear your name, small and great, and should destroy those who destroy the earth. Revelation 11 verse 18

 

[Heissonear]

This suggests support of irresponsibility in what we do to what is in our world with how we live. What are people going to do in a few years when critical changes take a great toll on our society? Changing the way we live should already be happening. There is a great amount of extinctions among species, the life in oceans are being diminished, there is deforestation and desertification, and our demands using animals as resources has more land, water, and resources being used while there are people starving that would not have to be.

This isn't about alarmism. It is about recognizing needs instead of being dismissive, and taking responsibility in doing things. Recognize this isn't really your world. You are permitted to be here, with responsibilities, in good stewardship. This world, which is of Yahweh God's creation, belongs to God.

Seriously why would you think the things prophesied are said, wouldn't you think there are explanations connected to what we would see happen, including that hearts will fail people from fear of sea and waves roaring? People all over the earth? Why, if you won't consider this connection?

Let us care for this world and those in it.

There will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars, and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and waves roaring, men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Luke 21 verses 25-26

The nations were angry, and your wrath has come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that you should reward your servants the prophets and the saints, and those who fear your name, small and great, and should destroy those who destroy the earth. Revelation 11 verse 18

.

Thanks for your post Fred. But please do not take Andy's words out of context.

As far as applying Scriptures to me or Andy, the Lord leads those who will follow Him.

Please also notice what mankind is facing is resource taxation, not abuse. And those who do not know Him have been led astray, and are trying to lead others astray, even the foolishness of catastrophic events coming due to increased atmospheric CO2. We should fear the Lord not unreal catastrophes being promoted by natural man.

.

 

[sculleywr]

. Thanks for your post Fred. But please do not take Andy's words out of context. As far as applying Scriptures to me or Andy, the Lord leads those who will follow Him. Please also notice what mankind is facing is resource taxation, not abuse. And those who do not know Him have been led astray, and are trying to lead others astray, even the foolishness of catastrophic events coming due to increased atmospheric CO2. We should fear the Lord not unreal catastrophes being promoted by natural man. .

Unreal catastrophes that are based in observed science that you can't disprove by making unproven assertions.

This is a scientific discussion, not a propaganda fest. Resource depletion and overuse is a real issue that has real effects. This has been shown on this thread multiple times.