Thread: A long series on climate change
6/21/2011 12:14pm, #91
what amuses me most about this is the conserva-meme that CRU is all of the climate change, that AGW is some crackpot theory phil jones made up by himself, so smear CRU a little and you've discredited AGW
Your best critic of CRU is a man who says, in his own words (My bolding):
The difficult issues for understanding global warming are the potential biases. These can arise from many technical issues, including data selection, substandard temperature station quality, urban vs rural effects, station moves, and changes in the methods and times of measurement
We have done an initial study of the station selection issue. Rather than pick stations with long records (as done by the prior groups) we picked stations randomly from the complete set. This approach eliminates station selection bias. Our results are shown in the Figure; we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups
We have also studied station quality. Many US stations have low quality rankings according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in the “poor” stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations
We are developing statistical methods to address the other potential biases
I suggest that Congress consider the creation of a Climate-ARPA to facilitate the study of climate issues
Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques. The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends"If the global warming models are right and I think they're right, we're going to have global warming"Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce bias effects well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.
YOUR critical source is a LOUD VOICE against emissions.
YOUR critical source is a LOUD VOICE on AGW
but I'm a troll.
sources: Muller's statement to sci/tech committee of congress 3/31/11
Muller's lecture at "I for energy" seminar, 1/10/10
he has legitimate methodological gripes with his cohorts but they're a chevy vs dodge debate, not a debate about the existence of trucks
Last edited by JohnnyCache; 6/21/2011 12:40pm at .
6/21/2011 12:17pm, #92
Did you watch the CERN video i posted?
6/21/2011 12:51pm, #93
I didn't - I thought you were just sourcing your quote. But I did read it - hence the link I posted about the relative time scales of warming in the PETM vs now
Note: I'd ask everyone with the time to spare to listen to muller's FULL lecture vs the five minute clip cullion posted, it's a great example of both a reasoned critique of a peer and cullion's (hopefully not deliberate) lack of ability with context
Last edited by JohnnyCache; 6/21/2011 1:00pm at .
6/21/2011 1:25pm, #94
It's a worthy watch, be forewarned the audio sucks.
He presents some very interesting and convincing POVs.
The quote is just the foreword of the lecture, if you have a chance to watch it i'd be curious to hear your take on it.
He makes the case that certain types of calculations, namely planetary positions in time, are relatively easy.
In the same way we can make tide charts with high accuracy, so can we plot where each planet was or is going to be.
Factoring this with the exposure of the solar energy provides some very interesting correlations.
6/21/2011 2:39pm, #95
I don't think there's a strong denial of solar forcing in the AGW community, is there?
6/21/2011 3:22pm, #96
Denial as a whole? No.
I am not convinced the patterns in same have been accounted for in the current models however, which is what the video discusses.
Much as we have seasons, there are larger cycles that i do not think are being given the weight they deserve.
Furthermore the accuracy of predicting/reconstructing those same patterns over the accuracy of even measuring the temperature of the whole world right now (much less extrapolating models or formulating policy with those or historic temps.) would seem to deem them weightier concepts to pursue.
6/21/2011 5:00pm, #97
What do you think is causing the botanical divergence problem in tree ring data?
6/21/2011 5:25pm, #98
6/21/2011 5:28pm, #99
I don't believe you've actually read them and contextualized them
I invite you to spend the next, oh, week or so re-reading old threads about this subject. We're done. I'm sorry I failed to convert you to my religion. I am going to have to live with that for the rest of my life :(:(:(:(
Last edited by Cullion; 6/21/2011 5:31pm at .!!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!
!! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!
Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey
I <3 Sirc.
6/21/2011 6:30pm, #100
I'll readily dismiss tree ring data myself, and that of the ice cores etc as opposed to the simple astrophysics Kirkby discusses, in case that wasn't clear from my previous post.
I don't think we can accurately measure "how hot the world is" today much less accurately extrapolate numbers for the past few thousand years from tree-ring data.
The divergence you speak of supports this.