convert Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 This analysis of IPCC papers comes up with no papers from 1993 to 2003 that conflict with the consensus view. Ah back to the good old IPCC, I'll take any of their findings with a pinch of salt, given the facts coming out of CRU, and the fact that CRU have refused to share data with scientists who oppose their views. Just google a report you will find 75% of them do. How about this one for starters? http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml Hmm, very good, but where does it show that man made CO2 is a factor? What do you expect when you keep quoting rubbish from McIntyre? Since you dismiss him out of hand am I entitled to do that with the IPCC? No I have to look at the underlying data behind their claims, data that appears to have been cherry picked by the CRU. Just because McIntyre doesn't spout the gospel according to the true believers, doesn't make it rubbish. So if they take account for it then what is your problem? It has very little impact on the main warming which is in the oceans and ice sheets. Again GIGO, Did you know that European monitoring stations have a correction factor 8 times that of stations in China applied. Why, because otherwise the data doesn't support IPCC claims. Is there an anti site that has any scientific legitimacy or integrity to quote from as an alternative? they probably have more legitimacy than the pro sites at the moment, again given the information coming out of the CRU. Same comment same response. CRU figures do show a temperature rise, just not a surface temperature rise because of the El Nino effect. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm So where should we take our temperature readings from if there is no surface temperature rise. Aren't the Yamal data supposed to show surface temperature? Keep clutching that straw. What we have here folks is a failure in the scientific method. The issue is not Trenberth or scientists talking smack. It is the illegal evasion of legitmate scientific requests for data needed to replicate a scientific study. Without replication, science cannot move forwards. And when you only give data to friends of yours, and not to people who actually might take a critical look at it, you know what you end up with? A “consensus” http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 We touched on statistics during my mathematical physics degree at UCL. Excellent so I won’t have to dumb this down. There were several sets of data they were looking at. One being real temperature, one being temperatures of tree rings. You don't use recent tree ring data if at all possible. Because trees grow and the more recent the ring the less defined it is. So they discount that data. They were talking about the intersections of those datasets in that instance. The trick was normalizing the data between those two datasets. The "real" comment is about real temperature measurements and the none "real" or proxy (but in most cases as accurate) tree ring dataset. The "hiding" was the anomaly caused by recent tree ring data. This kind of trick is used all the time in Physics and cosmology, as you no doubt know. The only thing I see in the emails that is a concern is the FIO request emails. If they deleted any emails that’s a crime. Anyway, smacks of a manufactured scandal by a bunch of bloggers who know nothing about the science or statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Erm convert you keep saying people are "clutching at straws", but you made this school boy error. Just saying there has been no warming since 1998 shows you don't even understand the basics of the concept of climate science. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/28149d1e907d3f18.jpg Why should anybody listen to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) Convert, the data is available from several other sources, for instance NASA... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ Amazingly they all agree, even with the data you believe is faked. So as you want to see the data, how would you go about blending proxy tree ring data and surface temperatures from other sources? Obviously you think you understand the science and statistics, so go to the NASA web site and plot a graph for yourself, come back and post it and lets see what it shows. Edited November 25, 2009 by back2basics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Excellent so I won’t have to dumb this down. There were several sets of data they were looking at. One being real temperature, one being temperatures of tree rings. You don't use recent tree ring data if at all possible. Because trees grow and the more recent the ring the less defined it is. So they discount that data. They were talking about the intersections of those datasets in that instance. The trick was normalizing the data between those two datasets. The "real" comment is about real temperature measurements and the none "real" or proxy (but in most cases as accurate) tree ring dataset. The "hiding" was the anomaly caused by recent tree ring data. This kind of trick is used all the time in Physics and cosmology, as you no doubt know. The only thing I see in the emails that is a concern is the FIO request emails. If they deleted any emails that’s a crime. Anyway, smacks of a manufactured scandal by a bunch of bloggers who know nothing about the science or statistics. Without doubting your bona fides for one moment perhaps you would be kind enough to cite the paper which will of course provide a) The Methodology b) The Datasets c) The Statistical analyses d) Appendices c) Citations of other papers The link that wildcat provided links on to what appears to be a web equivalent of 'New Scientist' not a footnote or citation in sight !!! Perhaps you would like to give an indication of your background insofar as it is relevant to the discussion at hand. Conspiring to deny others access to peer reviewed journals implies fear of potential results does it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 That pretty much sums it up. Sadly i cannot take the credit. But it makes me laugh and every time every time somebody post some idiotic comment in a forum about this year not being the highest on record i bring it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 The NASA data is adjusted for 'historical' effects, which actually means that they just apply a correction to ensure that it appears to be warmer today than it used to be. Unfortunately it's not true. The tree ring controversy has been well established, the basis of several research papers were data from a selected subset of trees that happened to show an increase in temperature, they cherry picked only the data they wanted. They couldn't be much more unscientific unless they declared that they have faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Without doubting your bona fides for one moment perhaps you would be kind enough to cite the paper which will of course provide a) The Methodology b) The Datasets c) The Statistical analyses d) Appendices c) Citations of other papers The link that wildcat provided links on to what appears to be a web equivalent of 'New Scientist' not a footnote or citation in sight !!! Perhaps you would like to give an indication of your background insofar as it is relevant to the discussion at hand. Conspiring to deny others access to peer reviewed journals implies fear of potential results does it not? I completely agree that all data in the world of global warming should be publicly available. Sadly we have this concept of intellectual property rights and it's not for these guys to release data that does not belong to them. But that ok, because as I posted above, just go to NASAs website. It's a different dataset but you get the picture. All methodologies are included on the site. I think you will see much of the raw data being released after the investigation is complete, or at least I hope so. My background appears to be similar to yours BTW. However I now use data in a medical setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 The NASA data is adjusted for 'historical' effects, which actually means that they just apply a correction to ensure that it appears to be warmer today than it used to be. Unfortunately it's not true. The tree ring controversy has been well established, the basis of several research papers were data from a selected subset of trees that happened to show an increase in temperature, they cherry picked only the data they wanted. They couldn't be much more unscientific unless they declared that they have faith. Of course Cyclone, NASA is part of a huge conspiracy.. which all started with them faking the moon landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" Benjamin Disraeli The persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now