Wow, you need to get the heartland folks to update their lobbying material.
All data is available these days.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
And then you add a link from 2010?
You are about 4 years behind the news.
Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
All data is available these days.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
And then you add a link from 2010?
You are about 4 years behind the news.
Michael Mann's computer programs and codes -- which are central to the IPCC's argument that something unprecedented has occurred -- haven't been made available. Mann says they are his intellectual property and he is not required to disclose them.Wow, you need to get the heartland folks to update their lobbying material.
All data is available these days.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
And then you add a link from 2010?
You are about 4 years behind the news.
http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf
And how, exactly, did the IPCC retrieve the researcher files that were deleted ("lost") as per Phil Jones' Feb. 2, 2005 email to fellow researchers.
I didn't have time this morning to deal with Groggy's latest false assertion in any detail. Let's deal with it now.All data is available these days.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
The methodology and data to support the premise that something unusual has occurred in the climate do not exist. Here are some of the key dates and details:
-- Feb. 2, 2005 -- Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (a leading player in the IPCC reports), tells climate researchers throughout the world that he will try to use legislation to prevent important data from becoming public. If necessary, he says he will delete his file and he encourages others to keep data hidden.
Key quote:
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html
-- Feb. 25, 2005 -- Jones tells New Zealand earth scientist Warwick Hughes that he won't make data available. Apparently not too keen on the idea of testing for falsifiability, here is Jones' key quote:
"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/15/we-have-25-years-invested-in-this-work/
-- August 2009 -- In response to a request from skeptic Steve McIntyre, the Climate Research Unit posts a public reply that says the raw data do not exist.
To quote: "We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
-- And, sure enough, in February 2010, Jones confirms to the media that key data "have been lost":
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fo4997gv
Meanwhile, Michael Mann is currently the plaintiff in a case in the Virginia Supreme Court, trying to prevent the University of Virginia from releasing his emails according to Freedom of Information legislation.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...arassment-of-climate-scientists-needs-to-stop
Jones and Mann are not bit players in this saga. They have played leading parts in crafting the IPCC's storyline about global warming.
However, it is clear that certain methodology and data behind their computer-model predictions are not available -- in fact, key data have been "lost." The data won't be found on the IPCC's web pages, or anywhere.
My reply to basketcase stands.
If he and Groggy want to believe something unusual has occurred in the climate, that's their right. But in the absence of the necessary methodology and data, it is not an evidence-based belief.
Read this today and it seemed extremely on point.
Enough scientific certainty exists on climate change to challenge media sceptics
It is difficult to make a conclusive link between human-caused climate change and the record drought in California, record freezes in parts of Canada and the US, Britain's wettest-ever winter and Australia's hottest summer.
But there's no doubt that they have pushed climate change back up the agenda, and will add pressure to the need for a deal at the Paris climate talks next year.
Directly experiencing such extreme weather can make a (small) difference to public sentiment too. Researchers at Cardiff University found that those affected by flooding in Wales in 2012 were more likely to believe climate change is happening now than those who hadn't (74% versus 65%).
There is similar recent research in the US, which reveals that for every degree the temperature rises above the 12-month average, there is a 7% increase in belief in climate change, especially amongst those without strong convictions. Cold snaps can have the opposite effect.
But an aspect of this weird weather that gets less discussion is how the widespread uncertainties around the nature of such extreme weather, and of climate science itself, hand golden opportunities to those sceptical of climate change to spread doubt.
Who's nobody, and what do they know?
A classic example is the recent debate on the BBC Today Programme between Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Professor Sir Brian Hoskins of Imperial College. Lawson managed to use the phrase "nobody knows" three times in the first minute, and criticised mainstream climate scientists for "pretending they know when they don't".
Lawson himself was widely criticised for misunderstanding the science and misrepresenting the scientists. But the general public often misunderstand uncertainty, interpreting it as a complete rather than relative lack of knowledge.
Some scientists have found it helpful to make the distinction between what might be called "school science" (as popularised by the likes of Brian Cox), which is a source of solid facts and reliable understanding, and "research science" where uncertainty is ingrained and is often what drives the direction of further investigation.
So when sceptics stress the "nobody knows" narrative, they are misrepresenting the existence of any uncertainty at all as meaning that, for example, no action to reduce carbon emissions is necessary. It's the nature of climate science that there are lots of uncertainties, but this doesn't mean scientists know nothing, or are simply speculating. But it can be difficult to do this in a sound bite.
Some uncertainty is standard
Rather, they try to assess what degree of certainty they have about different aspects of the science. For example, authors of the IPCC reports spend a lot of time trying to assess the degree of uncertainty and level of confidence they have in each of their statements. These are difficult concepts to get across to the general public and to legislators.
Take for example the headline finding of the last IPCC report in September that the authors are now "95% certain that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951". On the day the report was published, one IPCC author was asked by a BBC presenter: "so what do the other 5% of scientists believe?" In other words, there was a confusion between what the authors of the IPCC report collectively had concluded was true with a very high degree of certainty, and what percentage of scientists were in agreement with the statement.
For scientists, 95% certainty is taken as a gold standard, likened to the degree of confidence scientists have in decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes cause lung cancer. So the same degree of confidence holds for something like melting of Arctic sea ice or the amount the world has warmed, but there is less confidence in for example explaining the lack of increase in global surface temperatures since 1998.
Scientists and journalists need to get better at explaining the way these uncertainties work. They don't know everything but they know enough to be able to assess the risks of not acting.
A matter of risk
During the Today programme the presenter also implicitly introduced the concept of risk management, comparing 95% scientific certainty to a 95% chance, or risk. With high odds of 95% – or even equal odds of 50% – it would seem to make sense to take action to lower the risk.
Framing the climate challenge as risk assessment has been gaining considerable traction among some politicians. Lawson's response to the question was to argue that even if there is a problem of global warming, it will have only marginal effects.
It is worth asking how he can be so certain of this low likelihood, what his level of confidence is and on what science it is based. This is what would be required by any risk assessment: he would have to show how he had come to this risk evaluation and why he was so confident in it, when so many other scientists are saying the impact could be huge. In any case, merely saying "nobody knows" doesn't make his case.
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-scientific-certainty-climate-media-sceptics.html
Enough scientific certainty exists on climate change to challenge media sceptics
It is difficult to make a conclusive link between human-caused climate change and the record drought in California, record freezes in parts of Canada and the US, Britain's wettest-ever winter and Australia's hottest summer.
But there's no doubt that they have pushed climate change back up the agenda, and will add pressure to the need for a deal at the Paris climate talks next year.
Directly experiencing such extreme weather can make a (small) difference to public sentiment too. Researchers at Cardiff University found that those affected by flooding in Wales in 2012 were more likely to believe climate change is happening now than those who hadn't (74% versus 65%).
There is similar recent research in the US, which reveals that for every degree the temperature rises above the 12-month average, there is a 7% increase in belief in climate change, especially amongst those without strong convictions. Cold snaps can have the opposite effect.
But an aspect of this weird weather that gets less discussion is how the widespread uncertainties around the nature of such extreme weather, and of climate science itself, hand golden opportunities to those sceptical of climate change to spread doubt.
Who's nobody, and what do they know?
A classic example is the recent debate on the BBC Today Programme between Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Professor Sir Brian Hoskins of Imperial College. Lawson managed to use the phrase "nobody knows" three times in the first minute, and criticised mainstream climate scientists for "pretending they know when they don't".
Lawson himself was widely criticised for misunderstanding the science and misrepresenting the scientists. But the general public often misunderstand uncertainty, interpreting it as a complete rather than relative lack of knowledge.
Some scientists have found it helpful to make the distinction between what might be called "school science" (as popularised by the likes of Brian Cox), which is a source of solid facts and reliable understanding, and "research science" where uncertainty is ingrained and is often what drives the direction of further investigation.
So when sceptics stress the "nobody knows" narrative, they are misrepresenting the existence of any uncertainty at all as meaning that, for example, no action to reduce carbon emissions is necessary. It's the nature of climate science that there are lots of uncertainties, but this doesn't mean scientists know nothing, or are simply speculating. But it can be difficult to do this in a sound bite.
Some uncertainty is standard
Rather, they try to assess what degree of certainty they have about different aspects of the science. For example, authors of the IPCC reports spend a lot of time trying to assess the degree of uncertainty and level of confidence they have in each of their statements. These are difficult concepts to get across to the general public and to legislators.
Take for example the headline finding of the last IPCC report in September that the authors are now "95% certain that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951". On the day the report was published, one IPCC author was asked by a BBC presenter: "so what do the other 5% of scientists believe?" In other words, there was a confusion between what the authors of the IPCC report collectively had concluded was true with a very high degree of certainty, and what percentage of scientists were in agreement with the statement.
For scientists, 95% certainty is taken as a gold standard, likened to the degree of confidence scientists have in decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes cause lung cancer. So the same degree of confidence holds for something like melting of Arctic sea ice or the amount the world has warmed, but there is less confidence in for example explaining the lack of increase in global surface temperatures since 1998.
Scientists and journalists need to get better at explaining the way these uncertainties work. They don't know everything but they know enough to be able to assess the risks of not acting.
A matter of risk
During the Today programme the presenter also implicitly introduced the concept of risk management, comparing 95% scientific certainty to a 95% chance, or risk. With high odds of 95% – or even equal odds of 50% – it would seem to make sense to take action to lower the risk.
Framing the climate challenge as risk assessment has been gaining considerable traction among some politicians. Lawson's response to the question was to argue that even if there is a problem of global warming, it will have only marginal effects.
It is worth asking how he can be so certain of this low likelihood, what his level of confidence is and on what science it is based. This is what would be required by any risk assessment: he would have to show how he had come to this risk evaluation and why he was so confident in it, when so many other scientists are saying the impact could be huge. In any case, merely saying "nobody knows" doesn't make his case.
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-scientific-certainty-climate-media-sceptics.html
And while on the site, I also read other articles from the past couple days:
Warmer temperatures push malaria to higher elevations, research shows
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-warmer-temperatures-malaria-higher-elevations.html
Researchers map European climate change
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-european-climate.html
Time running out for Great Barrier Reef: scientists
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-great-barrier-reef-scientists.html
Global warming felt to deepest reaches of ocean
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-global-felt-deepest-ocean.html
Warmer temperatures push malaria to higher elevations, research shows
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-warmer-temperatures-malaria-higher-elevations.html
Researchers map European climate change
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-european-climate.html
Time running out for Great Barrier Reef: scientists
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-great-barrier-reef-scientists.html
Global warming felt to deepest reaches of ocean
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-global-felt-deepest-ocean.html
I spoke to the "95% certainty" earlier -- it's extremely difficult to understand how the level of certainty increased when the predictions were completely wrong.
Here's how one scientist who has been an expert reviewer on all five IPCC reports sees it:
In any event, the facts remain the same: There is no evidence that anything unusual has occurred, and the predictions based on the models were spectacularly wrong.
Furthermore, "weird weather" is a flawed attempt to deflect from the fact the predictions were completely wrong
Here's how one scientist who has been an expert reviewer on all five IPCC reports sees it:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...w-how-they-cooked-their-latest-climate-books/(E)ven when real observed climate developments contradict their previous predictions making it obvious that their simulation models don’t work, they still find it necessary to raise their confidence levels with each subsequent report. It’s really crazy, but they seem to get away with it in the mainstream media.
In any event, the facts remain the same: There is no evidence that anything unusual has occurred, and the predictions based on the models were spectacularly wrong.
Furthermore, "weird weather" is a flawed attempt to deflect from the fact the predictions were completely wrong
Simple, new data since the last prediction.I spoke to the "95% certainty" earlier -- it's extremely difficult to understand how the level of certainty increased when the predictions were completely wrong.
Here's how one scientist who has been an expert reviewer on all five IPCC reports sees it:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...w-how-they-cooked-their-latest-climate-books/
In any event, the facts remain the same: There is no evidence that anything unusual has occurred, and the predictions based on the models were spectacularly wrong.
Furthermore, "weird weather" is a flawed attempt to deflect from the fact the predictions were completely wrong
If you would just take a moment before you posted comments from these contrarian researchers, you probably would realize Dr. Vincent Gray is another Heartland mercenary along with the other members of the The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, August H. Auer, Bob Carter,Warwick Hughes, and Roger Dewhurst.
The NZCSC is a branch of the International Climate Science Coalition, also funded by the Heartland Institute. The third member of this trioka is the Australian Climate Science Coalition, with the same famous backers.
You skipped over a key point -- the "new data" show that they were completely wrong.Simple, new data since the last prediction.
The question remains: since they have been getting it spectacularly wrong, how did their confidence level go up?
I spoke to the "95% certainty" earlier -- it's extremely difficult to understand how the level of certainty increased when the predictions were completely wrong.
Here's how one scientist who has been an expert reviewer on all five IPCC reports sees it:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...w-how-they-cooked-their-latest-climate-books/
In any event, the facts remain the same: There is no evidence that anything unusual has occurred, and the predictions based on the models were spectacularly wrong.
Furthermore, "weird weather" is a flawed attempt to deflect from the fact the predictions were completely wrong
Still looking for the word 'new' in your initial post. AR5 hasn't been released in final form. I'd be more concerned about the mercenaries on the payroll of Heartland.You skipped over a key point -- the "new data" show that they were completely wrong.
The question remains: since they have been getting it spectacularly wrong, how did their confidence level go up?
Keep your expectations in check. I can predict with 95% certainty that it will be completely unreliable and no better than previous reports (possibly worse, if you can imagine such a thing).AR5 hasn't been released in final form.
Meanwhile, I have to post this quote from a George Will column of a few years back, because it speaks so well to the suggestions that I have been nitpicking when it comes to the IPCC's inaccuracies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021903046.htmlLast week, Todd Stern, America's special envoy for climate change -- yes, there is one; and people wonder where to begin cutting government -- warned that those interested in "undermining action on climate change" will seize on "whatever tidbit they can find." Tidbits like specious science, and the absence of warming?
Yes, specious science and the absence of warming are apparently "tidbits." :biggrin1:
Meanwhile researchers you use to support the contrarians collect pay checks from Heartland.I have a 95% confidence level that it will be completely unreliable and no better than previous reports (possibly worse, if you can imagine such a thing).
Meanwhile, I have to post this quote from a George Will column of a few years back, because it speaks so well to the suggestions that I have been nitpicking when it comes to the IPCC's inaccuracies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021903046.html
Yes, specious science and the absence of warming are apparently "tidbits." :biggrin1:
Mother Nature -- who has seriously discredited the predictions -- collects paycheques from no one.Meanwhile researchers you use to support the contrarians collect pay checks from Heartland.
Mother Nature -- who has seriously discredited the predictions -- collects paycheques from no one.
They collect pay checks from Heartland, the organization's Form 990 says so. Again, you using a short anomaly compared to 250 yeas + of records.
I guess you didn't bother actually reading what the article states and I guess the scientific community knows less than you.I spoke to the "95% certainty" earlier -- it's extremely difficult to understand how the level of certainty increased when the predictions were completely wrong.
...
There are two possibilities here. Either the scientific evidence is strong enough that it is the accepted view among those actually educated in the field or there is a massive conspiracy in the scientific community.
You keep saying 'spectacularly wrong' but the only place that seems to apply is to your views on the topic. Even if surface temperature are at the low end of the prediction error bars, the ocean temperature increases make up for it (but I guess oceans aren't included in the 'global' part of global warming)You skipped over a key point -- the "new data" show that they were completely wrong.
The question remains: since they have been getting it spectacularly wrong, how did their confidence level go up?
It is clear that the science holds no interest for you because you have already made up your mind.
You missed the obvious possibility: That the IPCC is driven by a political agenda, rather than a scientific one.There are two possibilities here. Either the scientific evidence is strong enough that it is the accepted view or there is a massive conspiracy in the scientific community.
Indeed, I raised this point before. How could any empirical report on science include a "Summary for Policy Makers"? Science is about learning how our world works through empirical research and the gathering of evidence. It isn't about trying to win political arguments or drive public policy.
I don't think the IPCC's overt political/advocacy agenda constitutes a "conspiracy" (although the destruction and/or loss of data, etc., opens up that possibility). But I know it isn't science.
(A view, incidentally, that was shared by the 36,000-member Institute of Physics in the U.K.: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm. Last time I checked, the Institute of Physics was part of the "scientific community.")
Mother nature has discredited anyone who thinks the planet isn't getting warmer. The ice caps are melting.Mother Nature -- who has seriously discredited the predictions -- collects paycheques from no one.
As opposed to the contrarians who are driven/backed/paid by the private sector likes of the Heartland Institute.You missed the obvious possibility: That the IPCC is driven by a political agenda, rather than a scientific one.
Indeed, I raised this point before. How could any empirical report on science include a "Summary for Policy Makers"? Science is about learning how our world works through empirical research and the gathering of evidence. It isn't about trying to win political arguments or drive public policy.
I don't think the IPCC's overt political/advocacy agenda constitutes a "conspiracy" (although the destruction and/or loss of data, etc., opens up that possibility). But it isn't science.
"Low end?" The models didn't predict the pause at all.You keep saying 'spectacularly wrong' but the only place that seems to apply is to your views on the topic. Even if surface temperature are at the low end of the prediction error bars, the ocean temperature increases make up for it (but I guess oceans aren't included in the 'global' part of global warming)
It is clear that the science holds no interest for you because you have already made up your mind.
As for your deep ocean theory, that is very, very far from proven (and extremely difficult to prove, by the way). Not the kind of thing you should be citing as if it is a fact.
And as I have said before -- even if that is the case, that isn't what the models predicted would happen. So your theory doesn't change the fact the predictions were completely wrong.
No one has disputed that the planet has gotten warmer (although not necessarily to an extent anyone should worry about). The debate is about the premise that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are a primary driver of warming -- a premise that isn't supported by evidence.Mother nature has discredited anyone who thinks the planet isn't getting warmer. The ice caps are melting.
Immaterial. Even if we were to agree that no one in the debate is conducting credible research, that doesn't make the AGW premise any more plausible.As opposed to the contrarians who are driven/backed/paid by the private sector likes of the Heartland Institute.
