Again with respect and no insults
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Sure, one "side" (see below) takes a reasonable pre-industrial temperature value, the other picks the warmest recent value out of a noisy data set.
|
Slightly agree, start and end points are selected in lots of circumstances from Climate to Corporate Results to show the message that who is doing the selecting wishes to show. Skeptics are just as guilty of cherry picking as non-skeptics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Obviously, because the Earth has a long history, including periods like the Permian/Triassic, when (as best we can tell from scanty data) elevated CO2 came pretty close to wiping out all multicellular life.
|
Yep - greater extremes than now were in play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
[QUOTE[One amusing incident...And what exactly was the cause for laughter? Because "you all" are so stone ignorant that you don't know the difference between weather and climate?
|
It was amusing because they didn't even predict the snow but made a huge anouncement about how robust their models were on the way to the airport. They still collected their performance bonuses that year though so I suppose they had the last laugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Wrong. It is perfectly valid. All that stuff you claim as problems? They're just short-term variations: no more than bumps and curves in the road that may change the ride, but don't affect the destination.
|
Wrong. If it was as simple as that the models predicting temperature would be spot on which they aren't. Also
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Yes, it is, because however interesting & potentially valuable such research might be, it doesn't change the basic science. Thus calling for "more research" is really nothing more than a way to convince people to put off dealing with the problem, which is just that same old head in the sand trick. Ignore it, and it won't happen.
|
You misunderstand my motives - 1) credibility in the science needs to be rebuilt after some bad episodes. Maybe you don't agree but for example CAGW was not mentioned in the US election and the UK government tries to avoid mentioning it at all. Also 2) it would be useful to know what prevention / mitigation steps may be needed, what will work and what will work best. And 3) the models could be improved
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Just as all temperatures are measured by a TYO. It's fundamentally the same as measuring it by the expansion of mercury in a glass tube, or the changing resistance in a bit of silicon. Only difference is that some TYOs become fixed, and can be read back later on.
|
In theory yes, but in practice the proxy approach is more complicated. The famous "mike's nature trick to hide the decline" quote relates to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Again, this is just plain horse manure. The so-called "Hockey Stick" has been tested over and over again.
|
Prof. Mann has never released all of the code citing IPR, and has withheld quite a lot of the data - so it remains a black box. I've just been lent a copy of his recent book on Friday which I haven't started yet - it will be interesting to see how it matches other accounts already out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
The only people who claim to find basic problems is - surprise! - those emotionally/financially wedded to the idea that increasing CO2 won't cause climate change. And (perhaps no surprise) it's their analyses that seem to be full of holes.
|
Again given all of the code and data hasn't been released, how do we know ? Maybe
Open Source it ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
There are no "sides". There are people who observe the science, and those who have a motive to deny the science, or who haven't examined it. Oddly enough, whenever honest skeptics actually examine some of the science, they wind up not being skeptics any more. See for instance the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.
|
Would that be a reference to Professor Muller who thinks other climate scientists were "guilty of fraud" and Al Gore is a "science denier" ? No really he did say that - listen here.
On the Green Front – Dr. Richard Muller – 08/01/12 | Progressive Radio Network
Agree though - "sides" is the wrong word, too combative.