On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

This kind of stuff is garbage.

I don't think anyone involved thinks that either the data set or the
modelling from it is perfect, yet, this 'garbage' predicts global
temperatures more closely than anything else we have achieved so far. I
refer you again to:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

The Berkely project was set up because of the general distrust of
publically available data. I think they have leaned most heavily on
the NOAA data but they have been throug whatever they use most
carefully. Many people regard them as having the best generally
available data.

The 'best generally available data' doesn't support *anything* that
you've claimed here, so why do you persist in posting OT misinformation
unsupported by any scientific provenance? It can only be because it's a
religion to you. Take your f*king OT denialist sh*te elsewhere.

I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends
not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a
link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the
media.

That depends on the media. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself
with more mainstream media. I listen regularly to BBC World Service
radio shows such as BBC Inside Science and Science in Action, as well as
local radio shows such as 'Naked Scientists', and I couldn't begin to
count the number of times I've heard at the end of an article "... and
if you want links to that paper/research/publication, they are on our
webpage!"

That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.

The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html

p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.

You should also read
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer
or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe

The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
they seem to be one eyed.

--- snip ---

I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.

I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"

It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.

How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific
provenance?

Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
stonethrowing articles.

The discussions tend to be biased

Well I never, that's a surprise :-)

but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down

mis-

information

Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical
faculties.

Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.

_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research
is properly peer reviewed.

AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and
peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources.

Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against
so-called denialists or sceptics.

Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.

I'm not just writing for your benefit.

Even CERN has to be careful how they
present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
case in point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of
global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction
of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted
so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it
either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low,
suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and
insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant
compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Read the source
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it
ever existed.

Numeracy is not your strong point.

But it is mine, I have a first in Mathematics and Computing, and he's
right, and you're wrong. The so-called 'pause' that denialists latched
onto was merely known short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El
Nino superimposed on the long term trend. Since then warming as
recommenced apace, as shown by the link above.

How are your statistics?

My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I
completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty.

Mine are my mathematical weak point.

Ah! Why am I not surprised?

I was referring to statistics.

My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.

Apart
from that I have seven years of university mathematics behind me.

Then you should know better than to claim ...

Apart from that, I don't agree with you about the pause. The whole
situation has been confused by two El Ninos with a possible third
coming up.

Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that
I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations
such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case
which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie'
which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as
inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.

Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods?

Evidence?

Published scientific literature.

An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence.

I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
of 30 years of reading on the subject.

It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't
any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it
was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the
late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a
piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and
often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal
that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real
understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had
a political or personal agenda.

You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of
when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age.

Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
ferreting.

I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless
waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others
can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.

How do you explain the changes shown in
https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/

The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
current climate change phenomenon.

How has it been distorted?

I agree, I should have written discounted.

It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on
the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem
poorly familiar with).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent
warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone
depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different
levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a
significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]"

Hoo! That's a put down.

No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.

Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

Follow the money.

That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big
oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers:

And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there any
evidence they have an axe to grind?

In short, no!

You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was
threatened?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change

"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed
to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that
the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism
by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of
those studies."

Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!

If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
persons and organizations who finate climate research.

It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked
themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil.

Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of
$100,000,000?

Many are.

Who?

All the signatories to the Paris Agreement.

That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at
https://climateanalytics.org/briefin...ation-tracker/ Many of
these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to
reduce their standard of living.

They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're
agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The
two are not necessarily linked.

You will make a fortune if you can prove that is possible.

There are few better.

At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I
agree.

You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper
statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one
conclusion. It cannot be fudged.

If statistics cannot be fudged, why elsewhere are you linking to
purported proof that the HadCRU data was fudged?

That's a loaded question.

As are all your arguments.

I have never said that HadCRUT data has been
fudged, although the Climategate emails suggest very strongly that
they have been. What I have done is provide a link to an article which
suggests that the standard of HadCRUT's data is highly suspect.

Ah, I knew we'd get to Climategate sooner or later, after all, it's the
denialists' favourite weapon of mass distraction. Unfortunately for
you, there have been two independent investigations which cleared the
scientists involved of any intention to deceive. See appended.

Actually, there have been four enquiries, non of which were truly
independent. Nevertheless the documented deeds remain.

I agree, statistics can be used to bamboozle the ignorant. However
this aspect started with my mention of a paper involving Ross
McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
McKitrick is one of the last people likely to be mislead by dubious
statistics.

He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the
Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his
ramblings.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html

It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in
contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says.

No it doesn't, read it again, or just look at the succession of diagrams.

Are you referring to the upwelling at the equator? Well, that does
happen as a result of the coriolos effect. You will see a small
diagram of this in fig 3 of
http://www.marbef.org/wiki/ocean_circulation

Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.

Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf

Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate
change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
already a given.

It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That
was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given
since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians
established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm
this.

You are so way of the mark here that it's almost Never Never Land.
Firstly, the IPCC was founded in 1988, well before the UNFCCC.
Secondly, politicians hated the evidence when first it was presented to
them, and even now, like Trump (how appropriate that his name is a
euphemism for fart), have to be dragged kicking and screaming to
acceptance of what the science is telling us ...

[order changed to restore clarity of argument]

That's politics again.
THat's still politics and nothing much to with science.
More politics.
Even more politics.
Yet more politics.
That's internal politics.

Following on from my last sentence above, I gave numerous examples (now
snipped in the interests of brevity) that demonstrated that politicians,
particularly US ones, are mostly anti-AGW and/or measures to combat it,
and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any acceptance of it,
but, judging from your replies which I've left above, you seemed to have
misread the purpose of their inclusion.

You are right, but even if I have got the dates wrong I am right that
the reason that they were looking for anthropogenic global warming is
that this is what they were set up to do.

I've already pointed out above that I'd heard of AGW as long ago as the
late 1960s/early 1970s, so what is perhaps surprising that it took until
1988, when the IPCC was set up, to set up a body to investigate it, and,
as you yourself have previously linked, they were set up to (my
emphasis) ...

ROLE

2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a *comprehensive*,
*objective*, *open* and *transparent* basis the scientific, technical
and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific
basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and
options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral
with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with
scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the
application of particular policies.

3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is
an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both
peer review by experts and review by governments.

So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's
exactly what they do, but so what?

The whole thing smacks of research to support Lysenkoism. The
conclusion is preordained.

Any idea that this is some global
conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians
were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject
to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple
scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked
conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as a scientific truth.

It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method.
I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot
better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how
the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results
where there might not be any.

If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't
it been accepted as falsified?

Because it hasn't been. The modelling is not perfect and needs to be
improved, but it agrees with the evidence sufficiently well to be worth
continuing and refining.

How long can that argument be continued if the results don't come in?

Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can
denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions'
in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your
OT sh*te elsewhere.

The science is settled? Then why is so much money being spent in
funding an enormous amount of research into the mechanics of climate
change?

ClimateGate
===========

ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included
in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring
widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more
recent times since the invention of thermometers.

AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the
relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the
scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have
not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these
locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a
decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature
measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been
established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes
tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the
sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak
such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such
names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning
the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data.

If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and
you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case
actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the
erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and
replace it with data that is known to be good, ...

The data wasn't known to be good. It's just that it came from an era
when it could not be contradicted by modern technology. The tgruth is
the we don't really know how good (or bad) the data was.

... and ensure that you
explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done.

As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or
deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the
divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...termediate.htm
"The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and
IPCC reports" - ah yes, but only after it was discovered.

However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted
for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a
mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it
should have been:

And it corrupted the understanding of the data.

"The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and
the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph
(its emphasis):

The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find
that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se,
or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should
have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly
described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2]

"should havebeen made plain".

However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall
picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the
literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report
in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC
reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the
subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature,
including CRU papers.”"

But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the
decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note
properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to
plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history.

As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline
in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was
the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the
northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has
yet explained.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens