December 21, 2012: The end of the world

[The Night Owl]

What part of Models based on bunk, made up data does not a climate crisis make doesn't sink in?

The part where you make present a solid case to explain why the models are bunk.

[Duke Nukum]

Feel free to engage some common sense and see that looking through a peephole at the rump of an elephant 2 feet away doesn't show you what the whole thing looks like.

So far, climate models are drawing a pretty decent picture of the elephant...

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

I kind of think you think this is so because...Well, we all tend to project what is in us out onto the outer world we inhabit so I might suggest you are full of hot air.  Perhaps your affinity for hockey sticks is a suppressed or subliminal desire to spend some time on ice to cool that  inner environment of yours.

Remember that the outer world is the world of effects.

Maybe you're afraid of the Global Warming(TM) Doomsday because you are afraid you will explode someday if you can't vent all that hot air.  But it probably isn't true.

But it is our predominant thinking that determines what we are.  And, by and large, our experiences in the world.

[Lauri]

Duke?

How do you get that trademark thingie? That's cool.. 


and TNO, we are still awaiting your analysis of what caused the First Global Warming after the First Ice Age.

[The Night Owl]

and TNO, we are still awaiting your analysis of what caused the First Global Warming after the First Ice Age.

I don't have an analysis of what caused the first Ice Age or what ended it. I'm not a scientist. Anyway, I know where you're going with this. You're trying to make the point that Earth has gone through natural cooling and warming cycles in the past because you think that fact rules out the possibility that mankind is partly or wholely responsible for the warming cycle going on now. You are wrong.

Scientists are well aware of the various natural processes which can cause global warming and have accounted for them in their research. So far, none of the natural processes which can cause global warming have been identified as the cause of the warming going on now. What the climate models show is that if mankind is taken out of the equation, the planet would be cooling slightly. Instead, the plant is warming.

[Chris_]

If climate change is a threat, that would mean that science is able to predict weather patterns over decades, so, why is the weather forecast wrong as often as it is right?

[Lauri]

and TNO, we are still awaiting your analysis of what caused the First Global Warming after the First Ice Age.

I don't have an analysis of what caused the first Ice Age or what ended it. I'm not a scientist. Anyway, I know where you're going with this. You're trying to make the point that Earth has gone through natural cooling and warming cycles in the past because you think that fact rules out the possibility that mankind is partly or wholely responsible for the warming cycle going on now. You are wrong.

Scientists are well aware of the various natural processes which can cause global warming and have accounted for them in their research. So far, none of the natural processes which can cause global warming have been identified as the cause of the warming going on now. What the climate models show is that if mankind is taken out of the equation, the planet would be cooling slightly. Instead, the plant is warming.

then might i suggest that all you people who believe you are the problem... go off yourself 


but seriously, how ridiculous is your argument. "for millions of years YES the earth warmed and cooled regardless of humans BUT NOT THIS TIME!!!!!!!"


 

[Splashdown]

So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?

What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...

http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636

Experts Criticize Hockey Stick

In the July 20 Congressional hearings, Dr. Edward Wegman of the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University reported his team's research found serious statistical flaws that undermine the main conclusion of the hockey stick study.

Wegman and his colleagues concluded that, based on the evidence cited and methodology used by the hockey stick researchers, the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."

Wegman and his team also concluded the close ties between scientists in the small paleoclimatology community prevented true peer review of the hockey stick and related analyses.

linky

Looks like the main argument in favor of mankind's influence on "global warming" is bogus. Not peer review properly. Huh. I'm shocked.

[The Night Owl]

If climate change is a threat, that would mean that science is able to predict weather patterns over decades, so, why is the weather forecast wrong as often as it is right?

As I have stated numerous times now, weather is more difficult to predict than climate because weather is a much more chaotic system then climate. I can't tell you what the weather will be in 5 years, but I can tell you with certainty that we will be at the dirty end of Winter and close to entering Spring.

[The Night Owl]

So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?

What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...

http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636

Experts Criticize Hockey Stick

In the July 20 Congressional hearings, Dr. Edward Wegman of the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University reported his team's research found serious statistical flaws that undermine the main conclusion of the hockey stick study.

Wegman and his colleagues concluded that, based on the evidence cited and methodology used by the hockey stick researchers, the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."

Wegman and his team also concluded the close ties between scientists in the small paleoclimatology community prevented true peer review of the hockey stick and related analyses.

linky

Looks like the main argument in favor of mankind's influence on "global warming" is bogus. Not peer review properly. Huh. I'm shocked.

First of all, Edward Wegman is a statistician with no experience in any field related to climatology.

Second, the Wegman Report has not undergone peer reivew.

Third, the hockey stick has been subjected to tremendous scrutiny in studies conducted by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences. Both the NRC and NAS determined that the hockey stick is correct despite any errors in the data used in it.

In addition to validating the hockey stick the NRC found no problems in the peer review process which Michael Mann's work was subjected o...

http://chronicle.com/live/2006/09/hockey_stick/

The Wegman Report is basically a reiteration of Stephen McIntyre's arguments and those arguments have been deunked by the NRC and NAS.

[Lauri]

so answer me already.


how do your scientists and peer reviewed climatologists explain that for millions of years, the earth warmed and cooled NOT because of humanity ... but all of a sudden (since the 1970s!!!!!) now mankind is responsible?

[The Night Owl]

how do your scientists and peer reviewed climatologists explain that for millions of years, the earth warmed and cooled NOT because of humanity ... but all of a sudden (since the 1970s!!!!!) now mankind is responsible?

Scientists believe that global warming started in the early 1900s, not the 1970s, and is the result of industrialization causing increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don't answering questions about global warming, but all the information I'm telling you is available online. A good place to start learning about global warming... http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1

[Splashdown]

So then, why was it declared dead in 2005?

What has been declared dead? The Hockey Stick graph? According to the NAS and various other respected scientific institutions, the Hockey Stick graph is still very much alive...

http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1710.msg24636#msg24636

Experts Criticize Hockey Stick

In the July 20 Congressional hearings, Dr. Edward Wegman of the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University reported his team's research found serious statistical flaws that undermine the main conclusion of the hockey stick study.

Wegman and his colleagues concluded that, based on the evidence cited and methodology used by the hockey stick researchers, the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."

Wegman and his team also concluded the close ties between scientists in the small paleoclimatology community prevented true peer review of the hockey stick and related analyses.

linky

Looks like the main argument in favor of mankind's influence on "global warming" is bogus. Not peer review properly. Huh. I'm shocked.

First of all, Edward Wegman is a statistician with no experience in any field related to climatology.

Second, the Wegman Report has not undergone peer reivew.

Third, the hockey stick has been subjected to tremendous scrutiny in studies conducted by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences. Both the NRC and NAS determined that the hockey stick is correct despite any errors in the data used in it.

In addition to validating the hockey stick the NRC found no problems in the peer review process which Michael Mann's work was subjected o...

http://chronicle.com/live/2006/09/hockey_stick/

The Wegman Report is basically a reiteration of Stephen McIntyre's arguments and those arguments have been deunked by the NRC and NAS.

..."serious statistical flaws..."   

[The Night Owl]

..."serious statistical flaws..."   

Followup to the ‘Hockeystick’ Hearings
Filed under: RC Forum Climate Science— group @ 10:53 AM

The House Energy and Commerce committee held two hearings on the "Hockey Stick" and associated "Wegman Report" in July. We commented on the first of the two hearings previously. The hearings, while ostensibly concerning the studies of Mann and coworkers, were actually most remarkable for the (near) unanimity of the participating scientists on critical key points, such as the importance of confronting the issue of climate change, and the apparent acceptance of those points by the majority of congresspersons present.

The committee subsequently provided followup opportunities to participants to clarify issues that were discussed at the hearings. Mike Mann (Penn State Professor and RealClimate blogger) participated in the second (July 27 2006) of the two hearings, "Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments". He has posted his responses to five follow-up questions, along with supporting documents. Among the more interesting of these documents are a letter and a series of email requests from emeritus Stanford Physics Professor David Ritson who has identified significant apparent problems with the calculations contained in the Wegman report, but curiously has been unable to obtain any clarification from Dr. Wegman or his co-authors in response to his inquiries. We hope that Dr. Wegman and his co-authors will soon display a willingness to practice the principle of 'openness' that they so recommend in their report….

Update: There is an interesting discussion of the Wegman and North reports by Gerald North (talking at TAMU) available through Andrew Dessler's site….

...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/followup-to-the-hockeystick-hearings/

[Lauri]

how do your scientists and peer reviewed climatologists explain that for millions of years, the earth warmed and cooled NOT because of humanity ... but all of a sudden (since the 1970s!!!!!) now mankind is responsible?

Scientists believe that global warming started in the early 1900s, not the 1970s, and is the result of industrialization causing increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don't answering questions about global warming, but all the information I'm telling you is available online. A good place to start learning about global warming... http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1

i  agree that the earth cools and warms ... time will tell if we are truly warming, or actually just coming out of an Ice Age. But I dont believe 100 years worth of 'data' on ANY climate issue is enough to declare manmade global warming.

i also dont believe everything i read online...

[The Night Owl]

i  agree that the earth cools and warms ... time will tell if we are truly warming, or actually just coming out of an Ice Age. But I dont believe 100 years worth of 'data' on ANY climate issue is enough to declare manmade global warming.

We have much more than 100 years of data on climate.

i also dont believe everything i read online...

Okay... I haven't exactly sent you to any kook sites, have I?

[Lauri]

TNO, what I do know to be true about all that data out there - is that there is less than 500 years of recorded climate history.

that is a tiny speck of information about how the earth works... so dont get too wrapped around this axle. in the 70s, when I was a teenager, the 'scientists' said we were headed into an Ice Age... those same scientists now believe we are not IN and Ice Age but at the tail end of one. maybe the warming is because of that? i certainly dont claim to know.

in another few hundred years, the scientists might be able to declare if we are *now* in a warming trend or not... but we cannot possibly know *right now* if the trend will continue or not.

as for your links? i rarely check people's links.. i just discuss my own opinions, and very rarely enter into discussions about things i have little knowledge of.

[Splashdown]

Where is the Medieval warming period and the "little ice age" represented on the Hockey Stick?

However, several independent studies called into question the hockey stick's conclusions. A number of climate experts noted that the Earth experienced both a widely recognized Medieval Warm Period from about A.D. 800 to 1400, as well as the Little Ice Age from 1600 to 1850. The hockey stick missed both of these significant climate trends. Other researchers found methodological flaws with the hockey stick, arguing some data sources were misused, several calculations were done incorrectly and some of the data were simply obsolete.

Because the hockey stick image has been regularly used to promote and justify proposed climate legislation, Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine the hockey stick controversy. Their report, released in early July, confirmed many of the criticisms of the hockey stick. Whereas the authors of the research that produced the hockey stick concluded "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium," the NAS found little confidence could be placed in those claims.

The NAS also found the original researchers used proxy data for past temperature reconstructions that were unreliable, the historic climate reconstruction failed important tests for verifiability and the methods used underestimated the uncertainty in the conclusions reached.

link

We can play this until the next ice age. The point is that nobody knows.

[The Night Owl]

TNO, what I do know to be true about all that data out there - is that there is less than 500 years of recorded climate history.

Climate reconstructions are not based solely on instrument data.