Nightjar wrote:
On 03/12/2011 16:41, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 03/12/2011 16:16, Nightjar wrote:

snip

I see a lot more bias in the IPCC report, such as asking contributors
whether they think that human activity has had an influence on climate
change, without any mechanism for ranking how serious they think that
influence has been, failing to give actual figures for the responses
but, instead, grouping them into categories labelled with leading
terms,
such as 'likely' (which covers anything from 66% to 95% - a huge gap
with a great potential for being used in a misleading manner) and a
large number of breaches of the protocols that exist to ensure that
reports are unbiased. That is far more serious than any bias in an
online article, as the IPCC report is what governments use to justify
their policies and it should be both unbiased and be seen to be
unbiased.

Are you really being serious?

How else do you express the results of an opinion poll but by grouping
answers into bands.

The simplest way is to give a percentage, just as Mori and other public
opinion polls do. Speaking as someone who has had to write official
reports, you only put data into very wide bands if you don't want people
to know the actual figures. If the figures show what you want, you use
them. Saying you have, for example, 92% support is a lot more impressive
than saying that the majority support you.

But you lose the discrimination between those who would nail their
colours firmly to the mast and those who are merely in a category that
say little more than balance of probabilities. Swings and roundabouts.

That is dependent upon the questions asked, not upon how the results are
presented. That is another of my criticisms of the IPCC report.
Contributors appear only to have been given the option of answering yes
or no to the question of whether they thought that human activity had
contributed to climate change - a black and white answer with no shades
of grey. It should either have given them the option of ranking the
importance of the contribution in the original question or have asked
those who answered yes a supplementary question to determine how
important they thought it had been.

Try and find faults in the theory if you will but
citing the results of an opinion poll as evidence of malpractice really
does take the biscuit.

That is merely the easiest failure to illustrate. It is also, perhaps,
the most important as the main conclusions given in the summary for
policy makers are drawn from those opinions, despite the fact that, in
very small print, the report does say that there are no quantitative
studies to back them up.

As I said, the report contains many breaches of the protocols that
statisticians apply to ensure that any report is unbiased. IIRC, over
120 protocols would be applicable to the IPCC report, of which only
about one third are properly observed. The rest are breached in whole or
in part, or the report does not contain enough information to determine
their status. Any report of this importance should comply with all of
the protocols and, if it fails to do so to this extent, there has to be
a very serious question over to whether the data has been manipulated to
suit the desired outcome.

So what do you find particularly objectionable in the Working Group 1
Report?

It is riddled with errors and bad practices. A full discussion would end
up even longer than the original report. However, essentially, having
had to create official reports myself in the past, it has, to me, all
the hallmarks of a report that has been carefully structured to appear
to say what the authors want it to appear to say without necessarily
having the data to support their views.


Yup. And having seen how my wife's employers went about selling
dangerous drugs to presumably intelligent doctors, I can only say that
et green lobbies outpourings are in every respect written in te same way.

What they SAY is vastly different from the impression that they GIVE.

Now there IS justification for that if there really is a real problem
and people need to be told or even lied to - in simple terms to get
something done: That is largely where the IPCC began..but what worries
me is that its now an endemic state of mind - as evinced here by the
yells of 'denier' if anything at all is queried.



Colin Bignell

On 04/12/2011 15:55, Terry Fields wrote:

If what the Wikipedia article you quoted was correct, the scientific
work in the intervening years the data should by now have been
incorporated in the main set. Has it?

This is really a bit of cart before the horse as I return to the
beginning of this particular discussion further down and expand on what
the issues were. Call me thick if you must but I have no real idea what
this "main data set" could be and no idea either whether the data you
refer to above are data relating to the first issue or the tree ring
data which which seemingly would have no place in any data set that was
used for modelling the modern climate.

It's a simple enough concept: the models have been built on data, and
then along comes some more data that disagrees with the results from
the first lot. Since the first lot is more extensive than the second,
I called the first lot the 'main data set'.

So 'main data set' is part of your private world view and not a concept
I should have been familiar with particularly as I would characterise
the data used in climate change models as a collection of specific data
sets rather than just one data set part of which is accessed for the
purpose of climate modelling.

Tree ring data has no part to play in modelling climate when actual
temperature records are available.

With respect, the first mention of 'issues' was in your quote from the
Wikipedia article. As that raised the matter of 'issues', I then
quoted the exact phrase used in that article so that you would know
what I was referring to. I am therefore at a loss to understand why
you try to pin the use of the word onto me. Did you understand what
the Wikipedia article said? Do you always discuss matters in this
fashion?

If you don't like the Wikipedia article, why did you quote from it
extensively, including the term 'aware of these issues'?

It is not a matter of like or dislike. I was just quoting someone else's
viewpoint. So let me start from the beginning again. I stated my
recollection of one of the main points of the so called climategate
scandal. You responded with a very different take which concentrated on
an article in Nature which I hadn't recalled, remembering only the way
in which the wording in the actual e-mail had been taken out of context.

I mentioned what I recalled from the emails that were made public, one
of those referred to Nature.

So to avoid muddying the waters further I posted two paragraphs from
Wikipedia on the subject without any comment. Ironically as it has
turned out I only posted the first of those paragraphs because of the
reference at the end of the second paragraph to issues. The first issue
was the current lack of understanding about short term energy flows and
the second was the anomalous tree ring data.

The phrase about 'issues' was in the second paragraph, not the first.
I never referred at all to what was in the first paragraph.

You referred to the issues. The most obvious issues were the two from
the Wikipedia quote but issues is a non specific term and could equally
well refer to just about any concern that you raised.

The climate models model climate not tree rings. End of story.

If the models can't tell you what is going to happen about tree-rings,
it can't tell you about anything else with any form of reliability.

Climate change models don't tell you anything directly about what
happens to trees. Their purpose is to model the the climate, not the way
trees respond to it. It is fallacious to make the link you are
attempting to justify.

--
Roger Chapman

On 04/12/2011 15:38, Terry Fields wrote:

I am answering Terry's post in two parts, the easy part first, so don't
think I have just ignored part of the message because I haven't.

How on earth do you come to such a conclusion? The models will use the
best data available and quite clearly the best temperature data
available are the direct measurements, not derived data that doesn't
match the recorded temperatures even in the limited area in which the
trees ring data was sourced.

You can not discard data, or sideline it with a reference to 'issues'
(the Wikipedia article you quoted from). You cannot just use 'the best
data'. Data has to be incorporated into the main data set, that's how
science works, and if the model can't cope with that, the model is
inadequate.

So if you had two rulers and one measured 12 inches to the foot and the
other only 11 inches you would average the two and come up with 11.5
inches? Of course not but that is what you appear to be saying.

If one had a ruler that was known by comparison with recognised
standards and methods to be 12", and the one that was found in a
forest that proved to be 11" long when measured against the first,
then a case could be made for discarding the second.

Well that would seem to sink your argument completely.

However, what one has here is a ruler that might be 12", or it might
be something else; no-one knows. The best available methods currently
available give rise to the probability that it might be about 12", but
this cannot be proved. Then another ruler is found in the forest, and
when compared to the first, shows a difference. Two courses of action
become apparent at this point.

One is to raise doubts about the veracity of the first ruler, given
that it is based on a best guess, and means that one's current
conclusions about rulers might need modification. The other is to
throw away the second ruler. Which do you think is the scientific
course of action to take?

Since the measurement in question is temperature the 12" ruler in the
analogy is the thermometer and the 11" ruler the tree ring data there is
really no contest.

In the
subject under discussion we have a temperature series derived from tree
ring data and we have the actual temperatures as directly measured. That
the tree ring data are anomalous is interesting in itself but it has
absolutely no relevance to the temperatures to be used in a model for
the period since those temperatures have been directly measured. It is
not a matter of an inadequate model. This divergent tree ring data is of
no more relevant to a model of the climate than the colour of your eyes.
Neither play any part in it.

And there you are wrong.

So you say but then you would wouldn't you.

Both are affected by climate.

In the case of tree rings certainly but climate is affected by neither.

Ask yourself this: where, when, and why did blue eyes arise in the
human population?

Latest thinking is that blue eyes are a result of a single genetic
mutation some 10,000 years ago. (And just for the record I didn't know
anything about that, I had to look it up). How can a random event and
females' subsequent preference for blue eyed men be put down to climate.
The melanin connection is a side issue.

What the divergence has done is cast a certain amount of doubt on the
principles underlining tree ring data and/or the methodology used which
isn't good news for periods where direct temperature measurements are
not available.

No. What the divergence problem has done is to suggest that the models
are incomplete.

The divergence problem has no connection with climate modelling in the
modern era. It is a quite separate problem for the tree ring
investigators to solve if they can.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...

The modern divergent tree ring data has no place in a model of the modern
climate which models climate, not tree rings.

Tree ring data is used for getting the temperature in the past.
If they can't get it correct for the modern rings what makes them certain
that the older data being used is any better.
This is just another case of "the data doesn't fit with what we want lets
fudge it".
What else have they fudged?

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 04/12/2011 13:33, Terry Fields wrote:

I am answering Terry's post in two parts, the easy part first, so don't
think I have just ignored part of the message because I haven't.

How on earth do you come to such a conclusion? The models will use the
best data available and quite clearly the best temperature data
available are the direct measurements, not derived data that doesn't
match the recorded temperatures even in the limited area in which the
trees ring data was sourced.

You can not discard data, or sideline it with a reference to 'issues'
(the Wikipedia article you quoted from). You cannot just use 'the best
data'. Data has to be incorporated into the main data set, that's how
science works, and if the model can't cope with that, the model is
inadequate.

So if you had two rulers and one measured 12 inches to the foot and the
other only 11 inches you would average the two and come up with 11.5
inches? Of course not but that is what you appear to be saying. In the
subject under discussion we have a temperature series derived from tree
ring data and we have the actual temperatures as directly measured. That
the tree ring data are anomalous is interesting in itself but it has
absolutely no relevance to the temperatures to be used in a model for the
period since those temperatures have been directly measured. It is not a
matter of an inadequate model. This divergent tree ring data is of no more
relevant to a model of the climate than the colour of your eyes. Neither
play any part in it.

What the divergence has done is cast a certain amount of doubt on the
principles underlining tree ring data and/or the methodology used which
isn't good news for periods where direct temperature measurements are not
available.


So you are now going to throw away all the tree ring data are you?
That would make things interesting as it has been used to show temperature
for many decades into the past.
well at least you agree that that data is rubbish and shouldn't be in the
model, I wonder why it still is?

On 04/12/2011 20:34, dennis@home wrote:

The modern divergent tree ring data has no place in a model of the
modern climate which models climate, not tree rings.

Tree ring data is used for getting the temperature in the past.

So it is. I wonder why I never thought of that. (Must have been typing
on auto-pilot).

If they can't get it correct for the modern rings what makes them
certain that the older data being used is any better.

I haven't looked at this in any detail but I seem to remember that the
divergence started in the 1950s which is when the rate of increase in
atmospheric CO2 started to increase so there is a good fit for the
earlier temperature record.

This is just another case of "the data doesn't fit with what we want
lets fudge it".

If they had fudged it would you ever of heard about it? I have no idea
how that line of enquiry has progressed since but the divergence could
(and I have no evidence in support) be as a result of the effect of
rising CO2 on trees. I have dredged a faint hint from the depths of my
memory of decades earlier that there was evidence that as CO2 started
rising to levels not seen for a very very long time trees were adapting
by reducing the number of pores in their leaves. If that is the driver
for the divergence then the earlier data is pretty safe for a long time
back. OTOH I don't have a clue whether this is more than a possible red
herring.

What else have they fudged?

You have yet to show they have fudged anything.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...

Tree ring data has no part to play in modelling climate when actual
temperature records are available.

But they are fine to develop data sets that are used to model ancient
records when no direct measurement was available.. even though they can't do
the same for records when direct measurements are available.

On 04/12/2011 20:39, dennis@home wrote:

I am answering Terry's post in two parts, the easy part first, so
don't think I have just ignored part of the message because I haven't.

How on earth do you come to such a conclusion? The models will use the
best data available and quite clearly the best temperature data
available are the direct measurements, not derived data that doesn't
match the recorded temperatures even in the limited area in which the
trees ring data was sourced.

You can not discard data, or sideline it with a reference to 'issues'
(the Wikipedia article you quoted from). You cannot just use 'the best
data'. Data has to be incorporated into the main data set, that's how
science works, and if the model can't cope with that, the model is
inadequate.

So if you had two rulers and one measured 12 inches to the foot and
the other only 11 inches you would average the two and come up with
11.5 inches? Of course not but that is what you appear to be saying.
In the subject under discussion we have a temperature series derived
from tree ring data and we have the actual temperatures as directly
measured. That the tree ring data are anomalous is interesting in
itself but it has absolutely no relevance to the temperatures to be
used in a model for the period since those temperatures have been
directly measured. It is not a matter of an inadequate model. This
divergent tree ring data is of no more relevant to a model of the
climate than the colour of your eyes. Neither play any part in it.

What the divergence has done is cast a certain amount of doubt on the
principles underlining tree ring data and/or the methodology used
which isn't good news for periods where direct temperature
measurements are not available.

So you are now going to throw away all the tree ring data are you?

Well I am not going to anything with the data.

That would make things interesting as it has been used to show
temperature for many decades into the past.

There is apparently no problem with "many decades into the past" so the
likelihood is that when the primary temperature record peters out the
tree ring data remains the best indication available for the temperature
in earlier times.

well at least you agree that that data is rubbish and shouldn't be in
the model, I wonder why it still is?

The data isn't rubbish, it is just less accurate than the actual
temperature measurement (it could hardly be more accurate) for reasons
that AFAIK are still not understood.

--
Roger Chapman

dennis@home wrote:


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...

The modern divergent tree ring data has no place in a model of the
modern climate which models climate, not tree rings.

Tree ring data is used for getting the temperature in the past.
If they can't get it correct for the modern rings what makes them
certain that the older data being used is any better.
This is just another case of "the data doesn't fit with what we want
lets fudge it".
What else have they fudged?
tree rings are very bad proxies anyway. In addition to tempearture they
respond to rainfall and.....CO2!!!


So lets see, we are trying to measure the effect of CO2 on temperature
by measuring something that responds..to CO2!

I bet you see a JOLLY GOOD correlation!

dennis@home wrote:


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 04/12/2011 13:33, Terry Fields wrote:

I am answering Terry's post in two parts, the easy part first, so
don't think I have just ignored part of the message because I haven't.

How on earth do you come to such a conclusion? The models will use the
best data available and quite clearly the best temperature data
available are the direct measurements, not derived data that doesn't
match the recorded temperatures even in the limited area in which the
trees ring data was sourced.

You can not discard data, or sideline it with a reference to 'issues'
(the Wikipedia article you quoted from). You cannot just use 'the best
data'. Data has to be incorporated into the main data set, that's how
science works, and if the model can't cope with that, the model is
inadequate.

So if you had two rulers and one measured 12 inches to the foot and
the other only 11 inches you would average the two and come up with
11.5 inches? Of course not but that is what you appear to be saying.
In the subject under discussion we have a temperature series derived
from tree ring data and we have the actual temperatures as directly
measured. That the tree ring data are anomalous is interesting in
itself but it has absolutely no relevance to the temperatures to be
used in a model for the period since those temperatures have been
directly measured. It is not a matter of an inadequate model. This
divergent tree ring data is of no more relevant to a model of the
climate than the colour of your eyes. Neither play any part in it.

What the divergence has done is cast a certain amount of doubt on the
principles underlining tree ring data and/or the methodology used
which isn't good news for periods where direct temperature
measurements are not available.


So you are now going to throw away all the tree ring data are you?
That would make things interesting as it has been used to show
temperature for many decades into the past.
well at least you agree that that data is rubbish and shouldn't be in
the model, I wonder why it still is?



See my previous post: Its supports the thesis.

Things that dont get dropped.

On 04/12/2011 21:09, dennis@home wrote:

Tree ring data has no part to play in modelling climate when actual
temperature records are available.

But they are fine to develop data sets that are used to model ancient
records when no direct measurement was available.. even though they
can't do the same for records when direct measurements are available.

You just don't understand do you.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 04/12/2011 20:34, dennis@home wrote:

The modern divergent tree ring data has no place in a model of the
modern climate which models climate, not tree rings.

Tree ring data is used for getting the temperature in the past.

So it is. I wonder why I never thought of that. (Must have been typing on
auto-pilot).

If they can't get it correct for the modern rings what makes them
certain that the older data being used is any better.

I haven't looked at this in any detail but I seem to remember that the
divergence started in the 1950s which is when the rate of increase in
atmospheric CO2 started to increase so there is a good fit for the earlier
temperature record.

This is just another case of "the data doesn't fit with what we want
lets fudge it".

If they had fudged it would you ever of heard about it? I have no idea how
that line of enquiry has progressed since but the divergence could (and I
have no evidence in support) be as a result of the effect of rising CO2 on
trees. I have dredged a faint hint from the depths of my memory of decades
earlier that there was evidence that as CO2 started rising to levels not
seen for a very very long time trees were adapting by reducing the number
of pores in their leaves. If that is the driver for the divergence then
the earlier data is pretty safe for a long time back. OTOH I don't have a
clue whether this is more than a possible red herring.

What else have they fudged?

You have yet to show they have fudged anything.

Lets see..
This data doesn't fit in with what we want and we don't know why, we'll
throw it away.
This data fits what we want but we don't know why, we'll keep it.

It shows one thing for sure, if you select your data you can prove what you
want.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 04/12/2011 21:09, dennis@home wrote:

Tree ring data has no part to play in modelling climate when actual
temperature records are available.

But they are fine to develop data sets that are used to model ancient
records when no direct measurement was available.. even though they
can't do the same for records when direct measurements are available.

You just don't understand do you.

I understand better than you.
I can see that if they don't understand why the measured temps disagree with
the ring data there is no reason to assume the temps based on ring data
where there is no direct measurement are correct.
Its quite simple, even you should be able to understand that.

Lets try and explain it very slowly for you...

say a ring grows 1 mm in 2009. You measure the temp and get say 5C.
Then you find a ring in 1920 and its 1 mm but the temp is say 3C.
So now you go to 1700 and find a ring that is 1mm and say the temp must have
been 3C.
You have ignored the 2009 figure because your faulty assumptions say it
can't be true even though they (the 1930 and the 2009 figures) are both
measured and verifiable.
You ignore it because it means 1700 may have been warmer than you want it to
have been and throw away the data that doesn't agree with what you want, not
because you have proven the data to be invalid.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...

The modern divergent tree ring data has no place in a model of the
modern climate which models climate, not tree rings.

Tree ring data is used for getting the temperature in the past.
If they can't get it correct for the modern rings what makes them certain
that the older data being used is any better.
This is just another case of "the data doesn't fit with what we want lets
fudge it".
What else have they fudged?
tree rings are very bad proxies anyway. In addition to tempearture they
respond to rainfall and.....CO2!!!

They actually respond to weather not climate.
You mustn't confuse weather with climate unless it agrees with warming.

On 04/12/2011 22:58, dennis@home wrote:

snip

You have yet to show they have fudged anything.

Lets see..
This data doesn't fit in with what we want and we don't know why, we'll
throw it away.
This data fits what we want but we don't know why, we'll keep it.

It shows one thing for sure, if you select your data you can prove what
you want.

You have the deniers' modus modus operand down to a T but real science
doesn't work that way. Awkward data is flagged up and investigated, not
hidden away.

More from the previously cited Wikipedia page:

"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"

--
Roger Chapman

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 04/12/2011 22:58, dennis@home wrote:

snip

You have yet to show they have fudged anything.

Lets see..
This data doesn't fit in with what we want and we don't know why, we'll
throw it away.
This data fits what we want but we don't know why, we'll keep it.

It shows one thing for sure, if you select your data you can prove what
you want.

You have the deniers' modus modus operand down to a T but real science
doesn't work that way. Awkward data is flagged up and investigated, not
hidden away.



I think everyone agrees on that point, and in fact that's what people
you call 'deniers' are yelling at you.


In other words, in addition to understanding about real science you need
to understand the concept of the Big Lie.

You already clearly understand the straw man technique and the ad
hominem attack.

In my youth we had a motto.

"Bull**** Baffles Brains".

The shop floor discovered that boffins would believe anything if it was
made complicated enough.

Looks like you got snared...

On 04/12/2011 23:11, dennis@home wrote:

Tree ring data has no part to play in modelling climate when actual
temperature records are available.

But they are fine to develop data sets that are used to model ancient
records when no direct measurement was available.. even though they
can't do the same for records when direct measurements are available.

You just don't understand do you.

I understand better than you.

As can be seen below you clearly don't.

I can see that if they don't understand why the measured temps disagree
with the ring data there is no reason to assume the temps based on ring
data where there is no direct measurement are correct.

First let me put one thing straight where both you and Terry can't see
the wood for the trees. The measured temperatures do not disagree with
the tree ring data. They are the temperature and it is the tree ring
data that is inaccurate.

Second the specific problem is not that the tree ring data doesn't
provide a good match through the whole of the directly measured
temperature record. For most of that time there is a good fit and it is
only since about 1950 that the divergence has become apparent by which
time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were higher than the had been for
millions of years.

Its quite simple, even you should be able to understand that.

I wish the same was true about you.

Lets try and explain it very slowly for you...

say a ring grows 1 mm in 2009. You measure the temp and get say 5C.

Is this the level of divergence actually found or a figure you have
plucked out of thin air?

Then you find a ring in 1920 and its 1 mm but the temp is say 3C.

Well I wouldn't be able to do that but someone obviously can.

So now you go to 1700 and find a ring that is 1mm and say the temp must
have been 3C.

Pick your tree carefully and you can find an accurate temperature to
compare your data with even in 1700.

You have ignored the 2009 figure because your faulty assumptions say it
can't be true even though they (the 1930 and the 2009 figures) are both
measured and verifiable.

In your world that might be true but in the real world direct
measurement of temperature gives the temperature and if the proxy method
disagrees it is the proxy method that is gives the wrong result.

You ignore it because it means 1700 may have been warmer than you want
it to have been and throw away the data that doesn't agree with what you
want, not because you have proven the data to be invalid.

I am not going to go into the precise way in which tree ring data
translates into temperature not least because I don't know any of the
detail but the direct temperature record trumps the proxy record every time.

--
Roger Chapman

On 03/12/2011 05:48, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/12/2011 4:54 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:

When I hear someone expressing concern about the idea of a warmer
globe, I sometimes ask if they would prefer it if the the globe were
cooler. Why should the temperature we have become used to over a few
centuries be regarded as the ideal temperature? (I am not oblivious to
the costs of adjustment to a changing temperature, but that's a
separate issue.)

That I can answer very simply.

Change costs money.

The new Monte Carlo may well be Novosibirsk, but we will have to build
it. And we lose the investment in the old one if the sea floods it and
most of France becomes the northern fringe of the Sahara.

Change is expensive, pure and simple.

Did you not read my last sentence? The cost of change (i.e. how you get
there) is a separate issue from the question of whether a warmer planet
would be better or worse. Almost everyone assumes that it would be
worse, but it might be better for plant growth and food production.

For small amounts of warmer it might be better for a while, but you will
take a hit on fertile river deltas lost to the sea. And large chunks of
the Netherlands, Florida and Norfolk will be under water (and many
capital cities partly abandonned or with expensive flood defences).

Once you start to get to temperature rises in the tropics where plant
growth is seriously impeded either by availability of water, excessive
temperature denaturing crucial enzymes or most likely a combination of
both then all bets are off.

Up to that point plants like sugar cane with C4 metabolism will grow
faster in a warmer world with more CO2. After it gets too hot we lose
productive land to deserts where only specially adapted plants can grow.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 04/12/2011 23:42, Terry Fields wrote:

It's a simple enough concept: the models have been built on data, and
then along comes some more data that disagrees with the results from
the first lot. Since the first lot is more extensive than the second,
I called the first lot the 'main data set'.

So 'main data set' is part of your private world view and not a concept
I should have been familiar with particularly as I would characterise
the data used in climate change models as a collection of specific data
sets rather than just one data set part of which is accessed for the
purpose of climate modelling.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

There is nothing ridiculous in that statement. What is ridiculous is
that you expect me to understand very general terms in the way you use
them to to make a narrow and irrelevant point.

Tree ring data has no part to play in modelling climate when actual
temperature records are available.

It's got everything to do with it - it's called 'verification', and
tests the hypothesis (that the models are right) against real data.
The only conclusion to draw, because the trees are not wrong, is that
the models are flawed.

The trees are a proxy (or should that be a poxy) way of measuring
temperature. Since the actual measured temperature is available the
derived less accurate information is not needed to test the model. nThe
measured temperature is the real data and no amount of saying otherwise
is going to alter that fact.

Climate change models don't tell you anything directly about what
happens to trees. Their purpose is to model the the climate, not the way
trees respond to it. It is fallacious to make the link you are
attempting to justify.

If that is the case, then eminent scientists working on the issue
would have said so, and not tried to 'hide the decline' with 'a
trick'. They thought it was important enough to pursue, until the data
didn't fit the model.

You seem to have swallowed the deniers line, hook, line and sinker.

"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"

--
Roger Chapman

On 03/12/2011 00:29, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/12/2011 2:58 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
warmist trolls.

If you sup with the devil you must expect to be tainted by that action.

In short the only thing I am sure of is that there is very little
certainty in the predictions of ANYONE.

Failure to admit this, makes me suspicious at a human level, of those
who want to close all controversy and announce that the science is
settled.

I object to you posting deliberately misleading denier propaganda which
combines truths, half truths and downright barefaced lies as the
Register article that you posted here did. You were perfectly content to
mislead everyone here if you had not been called on it.

That is deeply disturbing,: Irrespective of whether AGW is wrong,
slightly right or a complete and accurate picture, the way its being
handled is an utter disgrace and has put science back years in terms of
public opinion.

Unfortunately it is the ultra-right American free market think tanks and
their delightful allies in the Murdock press notably Faux News that are
responsible for the publics distrust of science and scientists. If you
claim that all these scientists are corrupt and only in it for the money
enough times the average punter will start to believe it.

I don't think many academic scientists are in it for the money.

I have always preserved what I regard as a healthy level of scepticism
about global warming, especially on the issue of our ability to do
anything constructive about it. The stories in the press are often
extremely superficial and scare-mongering - about what I've come to
expect where scientific matters are concerned. But when I see the amount
of misinformation and pro-business propaganda being pumped out by
right-wingers in the US, much of it through Murdoch's channels, I
develop sympathy for the climate scientists who are being attacked for
reasons that have much more to do with politics than with science.

One of the discoverers of the Antarctic ozone hole is a personal friend.
He still gets death threats from demented Americans for publishing that
piece of research. Having seen what "deniers for hire" did to vilify
those researchers to try and discredit them I am more inclined to give
other climate researchers the benefit of the doubt.

How is it that denial of human-influenced climate-change, of the need to
regulate industry to limit pollution (unrelated to greenhouse effect),
and of the reality of evolution have all become articles of faith for
the right wing? My take is that in the first two cases there is an
obvious financial benefit to some very powerful corporations (important
sources of campaign funds), while the third is a way of mobilising the
know-nothing segment of society. In other words, intellectual dishonesty
rules.

You blame the climate scientists for the way the issue is being handled.
I see the completely cynical politicisation of the issue by so-called
conservatives as more responsible.

If you want to check the credentials of AGW deniers look back to see
what they have said about smoking tobacco and CFCs/ozone layer. It is a
very good heuristic for spotting "deniers for hire". If they have lied
for money twice before why on Earth should you trust them this time?

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 04/12/2011 23:42, Terry Fields wrote:

I am answering Terry's post in two parts, the easy part first, so don't
think I have just ignored part of the message because I haven't.

How on earth do you come to such a conclusion? The models will use the
best data available and quite clearly the best temperature data
available are the direct measurements, not derived data that doesn't
match the recorded temperatures even in the limited area in which the
trees ring data was sourced.

You can not discard data, or sideline it with a reference to 'issues'
(the Wikipedia article you quoted from). You cannot just use 'the best
data'. Data has to be incorporated into the main data set, that's how
science works, and if the model can't cope with that, the model is
inadequate.

So if you had two rulers and one measured 12 inches to the foot and the
other only 11 inches you would average the two and come up with 11.5
inches? Of course not but that is what you appear to be saying.

If one had a ruler that was known by comparison with recognised
standards and methods to be 12", and the one that was found in a
forest that proved to be 11" long when measured against the first,
then a case could be made for discarding the second.

Well that would seem to sink your argument completely.

Don't be trite. It's a part of a developing argument, of which the
second part followed.

A fallacious argument that doesn't follow.

However, what one has here is a ruler that might be 12", or it might
be something else; no-one knows. The best available methods currently
available give rise to the probability that it might be about 12", but
this cannot be proved. Then another ruler is found in the forest, and
when compared to the first, shows a difference. Two courses of action
become apparent at this point.

One is to raise doubts about the veracity of the first ruler, given
that it is based on a best guess, and means that one's current
conclusions about rulers might need modification. The other is to
throw away the second ruler. Which do you think is the scientific
course of action to take?

Since the measurement in question is temperature the 12" ruler in the
analogy is the thermometer and the 11" ruler the tree ring data there is
really no contest.

Please don't ascribe to me things I never said, or even implied.

The analogy is mine.

I explicitly stated that "what one has here is a ruler that might be
12", or it might be something else; no-one knows", and that particular
'no-one' includes you. It follows that what you said above is not part
of the argument, since you are now claiming that the (estimated by the
models) 12" ruler is exactly 12", which is an unsustainable conclusion
for a model that can't predict tree-ring growth.

But the 12" ruler was an analogy for a thermometer, there is no estimate
involved. Temperature is measured directly by a thermometer and only
indirectly by tree ring data. And the climate models predict
temperature, not tree ring growth.

In the
subject under discussion we have a temperature series derived from tree
ring data and we have the actual temperatures as directly measured. That
the tree ring data are anomalous is interesting in itself but it has
absolutely no relevance to the temperatures to be used in a model for
the period since those temperatures have been directly measured. It is
not a matter of an inadequate model. This divergent tree ring data is of
no more relevant to a model of the climate than the colour of your eyes.
Neither play any part in it.

And there you are wrong.

So you say but then you would wouldn't you.

Both are affected by climate.

In the case of tree rings certainly but climate is affected by neither.

But the models are for predictive purposes, and they can't predict
something that's affected by climate, in this case tree-ring growth.

As TNP has helpfully pointed out elsewhere in this thread tree ring
growth depends on much more than just temperature.

Ask yourself this: where, when, and why did blue eyes arise in the
human population?

Latest thinking is that blue eyes are a result of a single genetic
mutation some 10,000 years ago. (And just for the record I didn't know
anything about that, I had to look it up). How can a random event and
females' subsequent preference for blue eyed men be put down to climate.
The melanin connection is a side issue.

Because, having developed from a single mutation, the resulting
blue-eyed people were better adapted - wait for it - to the climate
they lived in. One could therefore, if the models were rather better
than they appear to be, use them to predict the rise or otherwise of
blue-eyed people or brown-eyed people in certain climates.

False conclusion. Such a mutation would remain in the population as long
as it did not have such a severe detrimental effect on the prospects of
those who had it that that particular line died out completely. There
doesn't appear to be any suggestion that blue eyed people are better
adapted to the climate than their compatriots who have other coloured
eyes. What seems to be the explanation for the relatively rapid spread
of blue eyes among the north European population is that those with blue
eyes were (and are) seen as more attractive than those with brown eyes
and thus have better breeding success.

What the divergence has done is cast a certain amount of doubt on the
principles underlining tree ring data and/or the methodology used which
isn't good news for periods where direct temperature measurements are
not available.

No. What the divergence problem has done is to suggest that the models
are incomplete.

The divergence problem has no connection with climate modelling in the
modern era. It is a quite separate problem for the tree ring
investigators to solve if they can.

So far, nothing of what you have written has addressed the fact that
'the decline' was hidden by 'a trick', from which stems the problem
that the models can't predict something that is affected by climate.

How many times do I have to post this before you read it and understand
what it says?

"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"

--
Roger Chapman

On 04/12/2011 11:35, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 04/12/2011 11:22, Nightjar wrote:

So what do you find particularly objectionable in the Working Group 1
Report?

It is riddled with errors and bad practices. A full discussion would end
up even longer than the original report. However, essentially, having
had to create official reports myself in the past, it has, to me, all
the hallmarks of a report that has been carefully structured to appear
to say what the authors want it to appear to say without necessarily
having the data to support their views.

The Working Group I Report (The Physical Science Basis) runs to eleven
chapters and several annexes, etc. That should give more than enough
room to go into some detail even in such a diverse subject.

So how about highlighting a few of those aspects that you find most
objectionable.

I have already answered that question and given you an example. I have
no intention of giving a more detailed analysis of even one chapter,
much less eleven plus annexes.

To summarise: The report has numerous failures to follow the protocols
necessary to ensure that the data and conclusions are dealt with fairly
and in an unbiased manner. That is apart from several, rather well
publicised, errors of fact.

There are several possible reasons for this, some that involve
deliberate manipulation of the data, possibly for what the authors think
are good motives, while others involve error and lack of rigour in
approach, which is not excusable in such an important study. Whatever
the actual reasons, the fact that there are so many failures make both
the data and the conclusions drawn from it suspect.

Colin Bignell

On 05/12/2011 08:58, Terry Fields wrote:

snip

You have yet to show they have fudged anything.

Lets see..
This data doesn't fit in with what we want and we don't know why, we'll
throw it away.
This data fits what we want but we don't know why, we'll keep it.

It shows one thing for sure, if you select your data you can prove what
you want.

You have the deniers' modus modus operand down to a T but real science
doesn't work that way. Awkward data is flagged up and investigated, not
hidden away.

That's exactly what I have been telling you, in a number of postings
that you chose to counter.

No you haven't. What you have consistently been saying is that the
apparent decline in temperature shown by recent tree ring data is a real
decline in temperature which is manifestly not true.

More from the previously cited Wikipedia page:

"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"

I was under the impression that the 'trick' was to stop one graph
short, because to continue it would have shown the decline. However,
you may know more than me about combining different kinds of data sets
in a legitimate fashion, and so I'm hoping you can explain what these
methods are, how they were applied, and what made the legitimate.

I doubt if I know any more about the subject than you. It is just that I
see the rationale for not including in a publication intended general
consumption data that is actually false. That approach was vindicated by
the actions of the deniers when they they became aware of it and used it
to 'prove' that far from continuing to warm the Earth was actually cooling.


This from a parliamentary discussion, where the author is discussing
the tree-ring data:

It is not clear who you mean by the author and much of what you quote
seems to relate to CRU's attempt to stop the spoilers getting hold of
their data and using it out of context. I am not going to answer it in
detail but one other thing does stand out - that:
"****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE********".
Just who is doing the shouting and why does he include 'very'? Very
artificial can mean no more than artificial so the 'very' adds no
meaning other than an indication of bias on behalf of the user.

"Figure 1. Tornetrask from Briffa (1992). Left - MXD chronology.
Middle - "Briffa bodge" ; right - Briffa 1992 "adjusted".

8. Although there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary
adjustment, peer reviewers of Briffa et al (1992) did not object.
"Bodging" then seems to entered into the CRU toolkit to get
reconstructions to "look" right, as evidenced by the Climategate
documents containing annotations that the method contains "fudge
factors" or "very artificial corrections for decline" (e.g.
http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro)

;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$

2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor"

And further down that code is the comment

"; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION"


Further down that report it quotes the following:

"Jones: We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make
the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.[3]

Osborn to Science: I don't have any core measurement data and
therefore have none to give out! [4] [Climategate Letters and
documents show that CRU had the requested measurement data[5]]

Mann to Osborn: I'm providing these [MBH residuals] for your own
personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass
this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of
"dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who
might potentially try to distort things.[6]"

And...

"If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is
also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a
lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of
hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically[7]"

Over to you.

I am content to leave the answer to the experts.

"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 04/12/2011 23:11, dennis@home wrote:

Tree ring data has no part to play in modelling climate when actual
temperature records are available.

But they are fine to develop data sets that are used to model ancient
records when no direct measurement was available.. even though they
can't do the same for records when direct measurements are available.

You just don't understand do you.

I understand better than you.

As can be seen below you clearly don't.

I can see that if they don't understand why the measured temps disagree
with the ring data there is no reason to assume the temps based on ring
data where there is no direct measurement are correct.

First let me put one thing straight where both you and Terry can't see the
wood for the trees. The measured temperatures do not disagree with the
tree ring data. They are the temperature and it is the tree ring data that
is inaccurate.

Second the specific problem is not that the tree ring data doesn't provide
a good match through the whole of the directly measured temperature
record. For most of that time there is a good fit and it is only since
about 1950 that the divergence has become apparent by which time CO2
levels in the atmosphere were higher than the had been for millions of
years.

Its quite simple, even you should be able to understand that.

I wish the same was true about you.

Lets try and explain it very slowly for you...

say a ring grows 1 mm in 2009. You measure the temp and get say 5C.

Is this the level of divergence actually found or a figure you have
plucked out of thin air?

Then you find a ring in 1920 and its 1 mm but the temp is say 3C.

Well I wouldn't be able to do that but someone obviously can.

So now you go to 1700 and find a ring that is 1mm and say the temp must
have been 3C.

Pick your tree carefully and you can find an accurate temperature to
compare your data with even in 1700.

You have ignored the 2009 figure because your faulty assumptions say it
can't be true even though they (the 1930 and the 2009 figures) are both
measured and verifiable.

In your world that might be true but in the real world direct measurement
of temperature gives the temperature and if the proxy method disagrees it
is the proxy method that is gives the wrong result.

You ignore it because it means 1700 may have been warmer than you want
it to have been and throw away the data that doesn't agree with what you
want, not because you have proven the data to be invalid.

I am not going to go into the precise way in which tree ring data
translates into temperature not least because I don't know any of the
detail but the direct temperature record trumps the proxy record every
time.

So you now understand that you can't use the tree ring data to get
temperatures, now explain why its used to get temperatures to support AGW?

On 04/12/2011 21:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...

The modern divergent tree ring data has no place in a model of the
modern climate which models climate, not tree rings.

Tree ring data is used for getting the temperature in the past.
If they can't get it correct for the modern rings what makes them
certain that the older data being used is any better.
This is just another case of "the data doesn't fit with what we want
lets fudge it".
What else have they fudged?

tree rings are very bad proxies anyway. In addition to tempearture they
respond to rainfall and.....CO2!!!

They are not all that bad either. One thing that the recent deviation
from the expected behaviour means is that we cannot be sure that in the
past a warming might have been under recorded in the tree ring records.

Although it seems that most researchers think that the deviations after
1960 are due to effects of burning high sulphur fuel or the developing
damage of the ozone layer at high latitudes putting the trees under
stress. It will be good when they can fully explain this deviation.

But the crucial point here is that they are substituting a better
quality direct measurement of temperature dataset for the proxy in
recent times. That is hardly a capital offence.

There is a similar problem for C14 and other isotopic methods post 1945
in that the airburst testing of atomic weapons added enough C14 to mess
up the old calibrations for modern carbon dating. Although the same
systematic nuisance can also be useful for forensics see for example:

http://www.livescience.com/9344-nucl...eveal-age.html

So lets see, we are trying to measure the effect of CO2 on temperature
by measuring something that responds..to CO2!

There are other proxies like stalagmites and various slow growing
oceanic corals that can be used to do similar work. The tree will grow
slightly better with a bit more CO2 but only in rough proportion to the
relative change in concentration. The temperature variation and annual
growing season is the dominant driving force for the ring thickness.

It is a bit surprising how prevalent the 11-ish year solar cycle is in
tree rings given that its signature is barely visible in global
temperature data.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 05/12/2011 09:38, Nightjar wrote:

So what do you find particularly objectionable in the Working Group 1
Report?

It is riddled with errors and bad practices. A full discussion would end
up even longer than the original report. However, essentially, having
had to create official reports myself in the past, it has, to me, all
the hallmarks of a report that has been carefully structured to appear
to say what the authors want it to appear to say without necessarily
having the data to support their views.

The Working Group I Report (The Physical Science Basis) runs to eleven
chapters and several annexes, etc. That should give more than enough
room to go into some detail even in such a diverse subject.

So how about highlighting a few of those aspects that you find most
objectionable.

I have already answered that question and given you an example. I have
no intention of giving a more detailed analysis of even one chapter,
much less eleven plus annexes.

Of an opinion poll and you do not even say who precisely was polled and
in which report that poll appears. The opinion poll really has nothing
very much to do with the underlying science.

To summarise: The report has numerous failures to follow the protocols
necessary to ensure that the data and conclusions are dealt with fairly
and in an unbiased manner. That is apart from several, rather well
publicised, errors of fact.

There are several possible reasons for this, some that involve
deliberate manipulation of the data, possibly for what the authors think
are good motives, while others involve error and lack of rigour in
approach, which is not excusable in such an important study. Whatever
the actual reasons, the fact that there are so many failures make both
the data and the conclusions drawn from it suspect.

It is easy enough to criticise using general terms. It would be much
harder to criticise particular items in a way that didn't leave you open
to criticisms of your defective approach if indeed you approach was
defective.

--
Roger Chapman

Martin Brown wrote:


There is a similar problem for C14 and other isotopic methods post 1945
in that the airburst testing of atomic weapons added enough C14 to mess
up the old calibrations for modern carbon dating.

So all global warming post 1945 has been down to artmic tests carried
out in the 1950s!

Simples

And no less nonsensical than a lot of other theories.

On Dec 3, 3:18*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

SNIP


So whilst there's no denying that it got warmer between 1960 and 2000,
and the CO2 in the atmosphere increased dur8ing that timem, thats really
the limit of the testable FACTS and we cant say that it was due to any
given thing with certainty.

Vast amounts of CO2 are present in solution in the oceans and other
water of this planet.

Gases dissolve better in cold water (go back to school science
lessons) therefore as temperatures rise some of the gas comes out of
solution and thus their levels in the atmosphere rise. To me this
suggests that the rise in CO2 is driven by the rise in temperature on
the natural heating and cooling cycle of the planet. NOT that rising
CO2 levels cause temperature rise as the tree huggers would have us
believe and beat our breasts about.

I do appreciate the need for increased power generation but wind is
far too variable to ever be a solution. We need to get construction of
replacement Nuclear and Coal power generation underway NOW


SNIP


Can you imagine what it would do to the green economy, and the careers
of politicians and people who have supported it to the hilt and beyond,
* if it became fashionable to believe that something else was in fact
happening?

Therein lies the major problem!

SNIP


Well its stopped getting warmer since 2000, whilst C02 has increased,
but that, apparently, is not enough.


Add to that the energy costs to us all just to keep warm in the cold
weather being hiked at every opportunity by the energy companies with
the sop that they need to invest more in renewables and we are on the
road to hell in the proverbial handcart.

On 05/12/2011 10:14, dennis@home wrote:

So you now understand that you can't use the tree ring data to get
temperatures, now explain why its used to get temperatures to support AGW?

Don't be so silly.

We have a long enough temperature record to provide a reference for a
model capable of predicting the likely scenario over the next few years
and we have a tree ring data set that matches the temperature record
over most of that period and a model that will match the temperature
record from the tree ring data from an era when direct temperature
measurement isn't available. The margins of error are wider in the
earlier era but the same model fits both data sets. It is only post 1950
where the divergence has occurred. It may not be ideal but it is
apparently the best data available for earlier times.

If there wasn't some element of doubt about such derived data we
probably wouldn't have people arguing about whether the Little Ice Age
was a global event or merely a close succession of regional events or
whether the Medieval Warm Period was likewise a regional event or, if
global, warmer than anything we have experienced so far this century.

--
Roger Chapman

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 03/12/2011 00:29, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/12/2011 2:58 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
warmist trolls.

If you sup with the devil you must expect to be tainted by that action.

In short the only thing I am sure of is that there is very little
certainty in the predictions of ANYONE.

Failure to admit this, makes me suspicious at a human level, of those
who want to close all controversy and announce that the science is
settled.

I object to you posting deliberately misleading denier propaganda which
combines truths, half truths and downright barefaced lies as the Register
article that you posted here did. You were perfectly content to mislead
everyone here if you had not been called on it.

You do recall that your account of the truth was actually the same as what
the article said?

that is, the ice caps formed when CO2 was about 600 ppm, its no 390 ppm and
the ice will probably last until it gets to 600 ppm.

cynic wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:18 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

SNIP

So whilst there's no denying that it got warmer between 1960 and 2000,
and the CO2 in the atmosphere increased dur8ing that timem, thats really
the limit of the testable FACTS and we cant say that it was due to any
given thing with certainty.

Vast amounts of CO2 are present in solution in the oceans and other
water of this planet.

Gases dissolve better in cold water (go back to school science
lessons) therefore as temperatures rise some of the gas comes out of
solution and thus their levels in the atmosphere rise. To me this
suggests that the rise in CO2 is driven by the rise in temperature on
the natural heating and cooling cycle of the planet. NOT that rising
CO2 levels cause temperature rise as the tree huggers would have us
believe and beat our breasts about.


at a simplistic level that would seem to be a reasonable proposition.
and would explain why historically CO2 increase lag temperature, but
dont lead it.


I do appreciate the need for increased power generation but wind is
far too variable to ever be a solution. We need to get construction of
replacement Nuclear and Coal power generation underway NOW

Sine the political issues around even solving a totally human issue -
global debt - seem to make it insumrmountable, I have little hope that
CO2 will be limited except by force majeure.

Ergo the best strategy is to build a lot of nuclear power to give us the
the energy to DEAL with climate change.

No destroy our economies on power systems that *can* not work.

SNIP

Can you imagine what it would do to the green economy, and the careers
of politicians and people who have supported it to the hilt and beyond,
if it became fashionable to believe that something else was in fact
happening?

Therein lies the major problem!

*shrug* its the inertia of vested interests versus the reality of
oncoming events.

Its classic systems analysis stuff. You get delay, followed by
instability ..overshoot and ring stuff.



SNIP

Well its stopped getting warmer since 2000, whilst C02 has increased,
but that, apparently, is not enough.


Add to that the energy costs to us all just to keep warm in the cold
weather being hiked at every opportunity by the energy companies with
the sop that they need to invest more in renewables and we are on the
road to hell in the proverbial handcart.

Yep.

I follow a LOT of trends. If you wanted to sum the conclusions in one
sentence it would be something like:

'Real situations that the institutions and individuals in them are
unable to comprehend and incompetent to deal with make the continued
existence of those institutions and individuals unlikely, and indeed ill
advised, but turkeys don't vote for Christmas, therefore insanity
prevails..for now'

On 05/12/2011 10:29, cynic wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:18 am, The Natural
wrote:

SNIP


So whilst there's no denying that it got warmer between 1960 and 2000,
and the CO2 in the atmosphere increased dur8ing that timem, thats really
the limit of the testable FACTS and we cant say that it was due to any
given thing with certainty.

Vast amounts of CO2 are present in solution in the oceans and other
water of this planet.

So far so good.

Gases dissolve better in cold water (go back to school science
lessons) therefore as temperatures rise some of the gas comes out of
solution and thus their levels in the atmosphere rise. To me this
suggests that the rise in CO2 is driven by the rise in temperature on
the natural heating and cooling cycle of the planet. NOT that rising
CO2 levels cause temperature rise as the tree huggers would have us
believe and beat our breasts about.

At present the oceans are still acting as a net sink of atmospheric CO2.
This is easily verified by the isotope ratios of the atmospheric and
oceanic CO2. The evidence that it is fossil fuel burning that is adding
the CO2 now is beyond dispute. Not least since for the past couple of
decades a very clever measurement of atmospheric oxygen shows
corresponding changes. The research data is online at Scripps for CO2
and O2 being the work of the late Dave Keeling and his son Ralph.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

Roughly 40% of the CO2 we add to the atmosphere dissolves into the sea
at present although that fraction is set to alter as parts of the cold
southern ocean are nearing saturation point.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/pr...ease.php?id=89

I do appreciate the need for increased power generation but wind is
far too variable to ever be a solution. We need to get construction of
replacement Nuclear and Coal power generation underway NOW

Tidal should be a possibility around the UK - we have one of the largest
tidal ranges on the planet.

SNIP


Can you imagine what it would do to the green economy, and the careers
of politicians and people who have supported it to the hilt and beyond,
if it became fashionable to believe that something else was in fact
happening?

Therein lies the major problem!

The problem with AGW is that it is a long term problem. These days
businesses and politicians cannot see beyond the next AGM or election
respectively.

Sometimes they cannot even plan beyond the next week - just look at how
pathetic the politicians have been at trying to save the Euro.

SNIP


Well its stopped getting warmer since 2000, whilst C02 has increased,
but that, apparently, is not enough.

Add to that the energy costs to us all just to keep warm in the cold
weather being hiked at every opportunity by the energy companies with
the sop that they need to invest more in renewables and we are on the
road to hell in the proverbial handcart.

I think you will find that hell is somewhat warmer.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 05/12/2011 10:42, dennis@home wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

snip

You do recall that your account of the truth was actually the same as
what the article said?

that is, the ice caps formed when CO2 was about 600 ppm, its no 390 ppm
and the ice will probably last until it gets to 600 ppm.


Funny I recall a rather different version.

That the Antarctic icecap *started* to form when CO2 concentration
dropped below 600ppm and will probably last long after the concentration
again rises to 600 ppm due to hysteresis in the system.

--
Roger Chapman

Martin Brown wrote:


Tidal should be a possibility around the UK - we have one of the largest
tidal ranges on the planet.

twice a day.

Now how many watts per square meter can you get out of a tidal installation?

And by how much will you have to affect local tide flows to get it?



The problem with AGW is that it is a long term problem.

Or possible not a problem at all, or possibly a problem that's beyond
our control anyway.


These days
businesses and politicians cannot see beyond the next AGM or election
respectively.


When was it ever otherwise?

Well possibly when the country was essentially run by an elite of
families whose history went back 1000 years I suppose..

So.. back to a monarchy?


Sometimes they cannot even plan beyond the next week - just look at how
pathetic the politicians have been at trying to save the Euro.

Exactly.

That is the problem with a democracy: In the end leaders can only lie
and deceive the electorate, or educate them.

Lying is cheaper, easier, and only carries the risk that the leaders
themselves start to believe their lies.

You couldn't sum up AGW better if you tried: The 'leaders' don't know if
its right or wrong but they sure know how to lie it into politically
correct ideological dogmatic 'fact'.

The validity of the original theory, or otherwise, has been totally
swamped in the wave of greenwash and a counter wave of anti-greenwash.

Any attempt to get to the truth gets swamped in ad hominem attacks.

Any attempt to sit on the fence gets people from both sides trying to
knock you off.




SNIP


Well its stopped getting warmer since 2000, whilst C02 has increased,
but that, apparently, is not enough.

Add to that the energy costs to us all just to keep warm in the cold
weather being hiked at every opportunity by the energy companies with
the sop that they need to invest more in renewables and we are on the
road to hell in the proverbial handcart.

I think you will find that hell is somewhat warmer.


There is more than one sort of hell.

This one will resemble fimbulwinter, and Ragnarok..

On 05/12/2011 10:29, cynic wrote:

Vast amounts of CO2 are present in solution in the oceans and other
water of this planet.

Gases dissolve better in cold water (go back to school science
lessons) therefore as temperatures rise some of the gas comes out of
solution and thus their levels in the atmosphere rise. To me this
suggests that the rise in CO2 is driven by the rise in temperature on
the natural heating and cooling cycle of the planet. NOT that rising
CO2 levels cause temperature rise as the tree huggers would have us
believe and beat our breasts about.

That would be valid only if CO2 was not a greenhouse gas.

As to the notion that water will give out its dissolved CO2 as it warms
regardless of any other factors I don't think that can be true either.

The oceans are apparently becoming more acid due to dissolved CO2
despite warming up. If they are taking up more CO2 when they should be
expelling CO2 then there must be another factor at work. FWIW the only
relevant factor I can see is the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The oceans also contain large amounts of phytoplankton which are
currently said to be responsible for some 40% of the total carbon
capture by photosynthesis and are thus a very important negative
feedback mechanism in stabilising our climate. Warmer oceans may not be
good news there either.

--
Roger Chapman

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:

More from the previously cited Wikipedia page:

"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"

"20. Climate scientists have argued that the term "trick" can denote a
clever way "to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together
in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a
broad array of peers in the field." (Penn State Inquiry). This is
incorrect as applied to representations of the Briffa MXD
reconstruction. " (Author Stephen McIntyre)

trick: what a whore calls a mark
Dictionary of urban slang.


Terry Fields

On 05/12/2011 11:13, Terry Fields wrote:

More from the previously cited Wikipedia page:

"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"

"20. Climate scientists have argued that the term "trick" can denote a
clever way "to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together
in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a
broad array of peers in the field." (Penn State Inquiry). This is
incorrect as applied to representations of the Briffa MXD
reconstruction. " (Author Stephen McIntyre)

I will say this only once. :-)

Stephen McIntyre is not a disinterested observer. He has form as a
committed sceptic with a blog to promote his views.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 05/12/2011 08:58, Terry Fields wrote:

snip

You have yet to show they have fudged anything.

Lets see..
This data doesn't fit in with what we want and we don't know why, we'll
throw it away.
This data fits what we want but we don't know why, we'll keep it.

It shows one thing for sure, if you select your data you can prove what
you want.

You have the deniers' modus modus operand down to a T but real science
doesn't work that way. Awkward data is flagged up and investigated, not
hidden away.

That's exactly what I have been telling you, in a number of postings
that you chose to counter.

No you haven't. What you have consistently been saying is that the
apparent decline in temperature shown by recent tree ring data is a real
decline in temperature which is manifestly not true.

Yes I agree, its not true, he has not said what you claim.

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 05/12/2011 11:13, Terry Fields wrote:

More from the previously cited Wikipedia page:

"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"

"20. Climate scientists have argued that the term "trick" can denote a
clever way "to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together
in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a
broad array of peers in the field." (Penn State Inquiry). This is
incorrect as applied to representations of the Briffa MXD
reconstruction. " (Author Stephen McIntyre)

I will say this only once. :-)

Stephen McIntyre is not a disinterested observer. He has form as a
committed sceptic with a blog to promote his views.

wiki is hugely biassed over anything to do with climate change and
renewable energy. It was the first point of attack when the whole
schebang was set rolling.

Which way the bias goes depends on who got there first.

On 05/12/2011 11:13, Terry Fields wrote:

snip

You have yet to show they have fudged anything.

Lets see..
This data doesn't fit in with what we want and we don't know why, we'll
throw it away.
This data fits what we want but we don't know why, we'll keep it.

It shows one thing for sure, if you select your data you can prove what
you want.

You have the deniers' modus modus operand down to a T but real science
doesn't work that way. Awkward data is flagged up and investigated, not
hidden away.

That's exactly what I have been telling you, in a number of postings
that you chose to counter.

No you haven't. What you have consistently been saying is that the
apparent decline in temperature shown by recent tree ring data is a real
decline in temperature which is manifestly not true.

Wrong again.

What I am saying is that the models are used to predict the future,
and at the moment they can't even predict the past (a fairly standard
test) at least as tree-ring data is concerned.

They are not there to predict (or to be more correct match) the past
behaviour of tree rings but of climate and in particular of temperature
changes.

More from the previously cited Wikipedia page:

"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"

"20. Climate scientists have argued that the term "trick" can denote a
clever way "to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together
in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a
broad array of peers in the field." (Penn State Inquiry). This is
incorrect as applied to representations of the Briffa MXD
reconstruction. " (Author Stephen McIntyre)

I was under the impression that the 'trick' was to stop one graph
short, because to continue it would have shown the decline. However,
you may know more than me about combining different kinds of data sets
in a legitimate fashion, and so I'm hoping you can explain what these
methods are, how they were applied, and what made the legitimate.

I doubt if I know any more about the subject than you. It is just that I
see the rationale for not including in a publication intended general
consumption data that is actually false. That approach was vindicated by
the actions of the deniers when they they became aware of it and used it
to 'prove' that far from continuing to warm the Earth was actually cooling.

The tree ring data is not 'false'. it is data, and data that Jones et
al wanted to incorporate into their work, until they had to fiddle it
so far from reality it was easier to deny it.

It is certainly false in that the temperatures that come out of the
study are incorrect.

This from a parliamentary discussion, where the author is discussing
the tree-ring data:

It is not clear who you mean by the author

It's a common enough word.

And that was the problem. Was it the Stephen McIntyre you quote in
another post or some other person?

and much of what you quote
seems to relate to CRU's attempt to stop the spoilers getting hold of
their data and using it out of context. I am not going to answer it in
detail but one other thing does stand out - that:
"****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE********".

Just who is doing the shouting and why does he include 'very'? Very
artificial can mean no more than artificial so the 'very' adds no
meaning other than an indication of bias on behalf of the user.

The 'shouting' is a 'comment' placed in the computer code by the
programmer. I doubt he made up the false data or the fudge factor
himself.

It still shows bias and you should be careful what you call false as the
mechanism used was an attempt to correct false data, not introduce it.

snip bias.

I am content to leave the answer to the experts.

But which experts? You appear to pick and choose almost at random and
are unable to say why you chose certain quotes other than they appear
to support your view.. The logic you apply to your statements seems as
random as a butterfly's path through the air.

Wikipedia tends to get quoted more often than not because it is so often
the source of relatively non contentious views and very hard to avoid.

"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"

You seem to have the same view as Mann:

"This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the
hands of those who might potentially try to distort things.[6]"

So, they have 'dirty laundry'. Well, well.

This is fairly damning.

If it is why have the various reports contained nothing more than fairly
minor criticisms?

The author is Stephen McInty

Says it all really.

"15. Replacement of the Yamal chronology with the Polar Urals
chronology alters the ranking of the medieval and modern periods in,
for example, the Briffa (2000) composite reconstruction, impacting
IPCC assertions in respect to the confidence of their belief in
unprecedented modern warmth. As an IPCC reviewer, I requested that
this be disclosed. In his capacity as IPCC Lead Author, Briffa
refused. In the absence of any explanation of the substitution, there
is reason to be concerned about the reasons for using one series
rather than the other.

16. The Yamal chronology was very much in the news just before
Climategate broke, with questions being asked at Climate Audit about
replication and homogeneity, neither of which had been previously
addressed in peer reviewed literature.

17. The Climategate Letters (e.g. 878654527.txt) also show evidence
that Briffa's concern over non-linear recent growth - a concern that
was not disclosed in Briffa (2000).

18. A similar cherry-picking issue arises with the preferential use in
multiproxy studies of the Briffa (2000) Tornetrask version in
preference to the Grudd (2006) version, which has a medieval period
that is relatively "warmer" than the modern period. "

'Cherry picking', 'hiding the decline', 'the Nature trick', the
'arbitrary data', 'fudge factors', the concern over 'dirty laundry',
does not lead to confidence in the result that the models are right.
Far better to turn to showmanship, when the science is against you.

And all to do with tree ring data in an era where the there is a robust
temperature record. As I said somewhere near the start of this part of
the discussion the current problems cast some doubt on the historic tree
ring data where there are no primary temperature records to compare to
(or words to that affect).


--
Roger Chapman