On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:22:35 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 20/10/2018 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:

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

I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have
already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it.
There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ...

Its very much open to interpretation as I wrote below.

No, like anything else, it's open to misinterpretation, but there was
*nothing* in it that helps you.

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

How hypocritical! Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most
people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load
of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if
you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a
quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis.

You are confused. The so-called 'bull' that I read is at a technical
level which I would not expect to be presented by a popular
broadcaster. The so-call 'bull' that I read contains all kinds of
technical information which I variously reject, accept or put in
abeyance for further judgement. I pay little attention to opinion
pieces with no checkable theory or data.

Yet you link to them as evidence

I don't think so. There should always be checkable connection of some
kind. Can you give me an example?


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.

Time you started to acquire them.

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

I'm not just writing for your benefit.

You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're
in a hole, stop digging.

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

Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some
relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade
through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small
compared to that of CO2.

There you are then. Who is it who has the closed mind now?

I haven't got a closed mind, it's you who can't seem to grasp the
differing orders of magnitude of the effect of CO2 and cosmic ray cloud
formation.

I'm obviously behind you. I (and probably everyone else) have no real
idea of the magnitude of the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
Nor do they under any circumstances have a useful understanding of the
effect of clouds on global climate. To further complicate matters
there are a number of independent studies made from differing points
of view which suggest that if CO2 does have a measurable effect the
IPCC has overstated the effect by a factor of approximately 3.

Even supposing Svensmark's ideas become widely accepted,
they're never going to account for more than a small fraction of the
observed warming, thus, to pursue this point any further is just wasting
everybody's time.

It's too soon to say 'never'. Nor would I say he is right but he does
seem to be heading in the right direction.

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.

I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead
try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to
be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as
in ...

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

... the implication being that there might have been something wrong
about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note
that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists
that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're
just trying to sling mud.

I was merely checking on your willingness to accept unverified data.
I've been following this field for long enough to have learned tat you
should accept no data without learning more about it.

But you still haven't responded to the obvious upward trend in the
Berkeley graphs, and it's good correlation with CO2.

Say after me, 'correlation is not causation'. It could be temperature
causing CO2. In that context you should have a look at the data from
the Vostok ice cores. Its not clear in the large time scale graphs but
when you look closer CO2 appears to lag temperature. See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...eat/co2lag.gif

In that context you should see the work of Professor Humlum,
particularly the PDF which can be downloaded from
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1820892...emperature.pdf
For some reason that URL give TinyURL hiccups.

But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't
remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the
available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first
findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason
since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science.

I'm glad you have done that. But I don't know that Berkely ever got
access to raw undigested data.

My recollection is that it's freely available on the web.

You may be right but my understanding is that all that is reasonably
accessible is predigested.

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/

It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA
& NOAA for an explanation ...

What makes you think it hasn't been done?

Because they didn't print the reply received, or else say that they had
asked for an explanation, but hadn't received one, which a fair
appraisal would have done as a matter of course.

A number of people have made similar criticisms but as far as I am
aware there has been response from NASA or NOAA.

... and/or gave them a chance to comment before
publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only
interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than
getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic
fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it
possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked,
because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams
from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again,
this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane
Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr
Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a
living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted
the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which
completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers
it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only
offer guesses.

I agree.

Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements
both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it.

You don't alter data as a result of modelling it! Surely not!

I said 'auditing' the data, not 'altering' it, see below ...

Sorry, I'm used to double-speak. Auditing is the usual reason given
for altering. That applies to HadCRUT4 of which see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/
or http://tinyurl.com/ycnjezt8

I think I have referred that to you before. A more dispassionate
criticism is given in
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/...-and-may-data/
or http://tinyurl.com/hok3b3l which asks "Can Both GISS and HadCRUT4
be Correct?"

That's making the data fit the theory instead of vice versa. Mind you,
they have been accused of that.

No, they aren't working back from the result to give the readings, in
this particular case that would be an extraordinarily complicated thing
to do, and of course would be completely unprofessional - faking has
happened sometimes in some areas of science, I can recall two examples
in paleontology that were uncomfortably long-standing, but such faking
usually comes to light sooner rather than later. You should recall that
all work published in any reputable science journal has to be
peer-reviewed, which, while always an imperfect process, nevertheless
does a pretty good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

You
yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they
not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of
inconsistency and fraud!

The basic data is what you have got and it is abhorrent that it should
be tinkered with. If the data is bad in one way or another you build
that into the error margins and uncertainty. But you leave the data
alone. Surely you were taught that in Stage 1 physics? I certainly
was.

You yourself linked to a critique of the data, should it not be audited
to try and improve it? All data needs to be audited. You mention
Physics experiments. When doing Physics experiments at uni, sometimes
I'd get an outlier, and wherever possible going back and remeasuring was
the best thing to do (and btw always showed that I'd made a mistake in
the first measurement!), but if my mistake was discovered after I'd
taken down the experiment and left the lab, then I'd have to leave it in
with a note concerning my doubts for that reading. But historical data
cannot be remeasured, so we have to make the most accurate use of it we
can, and further it must be in such a state that it can be used for
mathematical modelling, and that may mean correcting data (for example
replacing an obviously Fahrenheit reading by its Celsius equivalent),
deciding what should be done if an individual data point is missing
(preferably, interpolate it from neighbouring points), even discarding
an entire data series that is in so bad a state that it cannot be relied
upon, etc.

Agreed and understood.

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

Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory
stands, according the figures already published it can only account for
a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to
explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud
cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's
radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on
its way out from Earth's surface!

You may be interested in:
https://mailchi.mp/071cef970071/invi...3?e=99957e2afe
or http://tinyurl.com/ydx6ozhd

No I won't, it's just another denialist front organisation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...icy_Foundation

"The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the
United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging
and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic
global warming.[3][4] While their position is that the science of global
warming or climate change is "not yet settled," the GWPF claims that its
membership comes from a broad spectrum ranging from "the IPCC position
through agnosticism to outright scepticism."[1] The GWPF as well as some
of its prominent members have been characterized as promoting climate
change denial.[5][6]

In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached
rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global
Warming Policy Forum" or "GWPF" was created as a wholly owned
subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website
carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of
anthropogenic global warming and its impacts.

You seem to have habit of shooting the messenger before reading the
message. Its the message which matters.

Funding sources

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required
to report its sources of funding,[15] and Peiser has declined to reveal
its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not
receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the
companies themselves."[16] The foundation has rejected freedom of
information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least
four different occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request,
Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to
merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was
originally provided to establish the organization.[17]

Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham
Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London
School of Economics, commented:

"These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted
by ... the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except
themselves ... The GWPF was the most strident critic during the
'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the
University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic
information about its own secretive operations, including the identity
of its funders." [15]

According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is
funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private
individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete
independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or
anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual
membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".[18] In accounts filed
at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies
House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation
received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of
July 2010, came from membership contributions.[19] In response to the
accounts, Bob Ward commented that "Its income suggests that it only has
about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the
interests of a very small number of politically motivated
campaigners."[19] Similarly, based on membership fees reported for the
year ending 31 July 2012, it appears that GWPF had no more than 120
members at that time.[20]

In March 2012, The Guardian revealed that it had uncovered emails in
which Michael Hintze, founder of the hedge fund CQS and a major donor to
the UK Conservative Party, disclosed having donated to GWPF; the
previous October, Hintze had been at the center of a funding scandal
that led to the resignation of then-Secretary of State for Defence Liam
Fox and the dismissal of Hintze's then-charity adviser, Oliver Hylton.[21]

Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
attacked Lord Lawson's influential climate sceptic think-tank.[15]"

But they are not investigating global warming. They are investigating
anthropogenic global warming almost to the exclusion of all else. It
is the exponents of the all else who are being described as deniers.

An accurate description.

Again, see the relative effects of CO2 and cosmic rays. CO2 has an
order of magnitude greater effect on global temperatures than can cosmic
rays. We can do something about CO2 levels, it will a long and
difficult road, economically, politically, and perhaps socially, but we
can do something about them. We can't do anything about cosmic rays.
So where should we spend the bulk of our resources? Certainly not on
cosmic rays.

See my comment above about the magnitude of the effect of CO2.

I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known
denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute.

Answer: Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project

They have obviously realised at last that they need to clean up at least
their image, if not yet their act.

That was my first conclusion also. However they may be hoping to get
Stanford to carry out climate research in areas which will not attract
conventional funding.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens