4 ms·

Statistically speaking, no one in the climate change debate has read the IPCC reports and journal articles at issue. This is far from ideal, but totally unders

Statistically speaking, no one in the climate change debate has read the IPCC reports and journal articles at issue. This is far from ideal, but totally understandable if you've ever taken a look at the damn things. People are obviously interested, though, and I can't believe anyone (again, statistically speaking) actually thinks it's better for the debate to be limited to purely symbolic posturing over cherry-picked details. How hard could it be to write some software to (nucleate a community to) track what's disputed and what's not, how much variance of opinion there is, etc?

KirinDave 17y ago
Very hard. The infrastructure to do it simply doesn't exist. Some of the station data and instrument runs are not actually connected to anything, they're on a human retrieval basis.
- anamax 17y ago
  Human retrieval adds a lot of noise. It's not just how well people do readings, its when (during the day) they do them. No, they don't necessarily read them the same time each day. Moreover, even if we had automated retrieval at the correct time, there are issues with the stations. “The story is the same for each one. The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development." That's from John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article702...
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    Just to be clear, you're not making the heat island argument, right? There is definitely concern over absolute accuracy in the collection of this data. However, it doesn't seem like these concerns have somehow debunked AGW, and certainly haven't even put a dent in current estimated global climate change. I get very frustrated when people see the sausage of science being made and suddenly get angry. "What? Scientists are not right all the time? Well then they must be right none of the time!"
    - anamax 17y ago
      I'll repeat the quote "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development." If the apparent temperature rise was actually due to other factors, what's the basis for the claim that there is warming? > certainly haven't even put a dent in current estimated global climate change So what? It's an estimate, one that happens to be wrong. If the estimate and the reality are different, why should we pay attention to the estimate? As the leaked emails said, the models don't predict what's actually happening. Why should we act as if they do?
      - KirinDave 17y ago
        The leaked emails did not say that. Please stop suggesting they actually had any significant impact on the science in question, because they did not.
        anamax 17y ago
        > The leaked emails did not say that. You can keep saying that, but you're wrong. They did. They said that the models' predictions didn't correspond to what they thought that they were seeing from the measurements. Christy's work appears to be post-leak and wasn't considered in the e-mails. He says that the supposed temperature increases, which the e-mails admit were less than what the models predicted, aren't real. What's your basis for claiming that he's wrong about the actual measurments? > Please stop suggesting they actually had any significant impact on the science in question, because they did not. How about telling us what you'd take as a statement or evidence that AGW wasn't happening? Note also the difference between statistically significant and scientifically significant. Phil Jones is currently hanging his hat on the former and staying very quiet about the latter. However, the latter is the hockey stick.
        KirinDave 17y ago
        > You can keep saying that, but you're wrong. They did. They said that the models' predictions didn't correspond to what they thought that they were seeing from the measurements. It didn't correspond to tree-ring measurements. Which is already an unreliable and lossy sort of data, so they applied corrections for other phenomenon. And if it were a primary line of evidence in the case for climate change there might be a problem. But, as it stands, they were not and it was not. Further, at this point, all the work they did is replicable. The orignal data was not lost, it simply wasn't kept at that facility (for a variety of reasons). The IPCC is investigating any serious wrongdoing and having an independent group check the results. > How about telling us what you'd take as a statement or evidence that AGW wasn't happening? Sort of like asking, "What you'd take as evidence that evolution isn't real." At this point it'd need to be fairly extraordinary, since there is a LOT of data (both observed and modeled) that supports the hypothesis. So I dunno. Do you have anything better than, "One statistician disagrees with Al Gore's movie from 4 years ago but agrees with the IPCC?" Or maybe, "These people did something with data that I don't understand and called it a trick, I knew those guys were up to something!" Maybe something to counter the EIS footage? Or perhaps data to argue against the basic tenants? Is there actually much less CO2 in the air than claimed? What evidence would you take that it is happening? Epochal records of CO2 content in the air? We have that. Clear evidence of sharp and sudden environmental change in temperature sensitive areas? We have a ton of that; some of it is incredibly dramatic. Decade-term data that still shows overall warming trends? We've got that and its far more reliable than the extreme longterm data. Clear chemistry explaining what should happen? The base science backs this up. Do we have absolutely conclusive proof yet? No. Do we have enough evidence to start taking this seriously? Yes, I believe my threshold is met. Do post-industrialized nations like America stand to gain a lot financially by embracing this? I think we have much more to gain (and a lot to lose if we let China continue to outpace us in renewable energy research and production). So not only do I see a lot of science backing this notion, but I see a lot of opportunity. That's enough for me.

KirinDave 17y ago

Very hard. The infrastructure to do it simply doesn't exist. Some of the station data and instrument runs are not actually connected to anything, they're on a human retrieval basis.

anamax 17y ago
Human retrieval adds a lot of noise. It's not just how well people do readings, its when (during the day) they do them. No, they don't necessarily read them the same time each day. Moreover, even if we had automated retrieval at the correct time, there are issues with the stations. “The story is the same for each one. The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development." That's from John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article702...
- KirinDave 17y ago
  Just to be clear, you're not making the heat island argument, right? There is definitely concern over absolute accuracy in the collection of this data. However, it doesn't seem like these concerns have somehow debunked AGW, and certainly haven't even put a dent in current estimated global climate change. I get very frustrated when people see the sausage of science being made and suddenly get angry. "What? Scientists are not right all the time? Well then they must be right none of the time!"
  - anamax 17y ago
    I'll repeat the quote "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development." If the apparent temperature rise was actually due to other factors, what's the basis for the claim that there is warming? > certainly haven't even put a dent in current estimated global climate change So what? It's an estimate, one that happens to be wrong. If the estimate and the reality are different, why should we pay attention to the estimate? As the leaked emails said, the models don't predict what's actually happening. Why should we act as if they do?
    - KirinDave 17y ago
      The leaked emails did not say that. Please stop suggesting they actually had any significant impact on the science in question, because they did not.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > The leaked emails did not say that. You can keep saying that, but you're wrong. They did. They said that the models' predictions didn't correspond to what they thought that they were seeing from the measurements. Christy's work appears to be post-leak and wasn't considered in the e-mails. He says that the supposed temperature increases, which the e-mails admit were less than what the models predicted, aren't real. What's your basis for claiming that he's wrong about the actual measurments? > Please stop suggesting they actually had any significant impact on the science in question, because they did not. How about telling us what you'd take as a statement or evidence that AGW wasn't happening? Note also the difference between statistically significant and scientifically significant. Phil Jones is currently hanging his hat on the former and staying very quiet about the latter. However, the latter is the hockey stick.
        KirinDave 17y ago
        > You can keep saying that, but you're wrong. They did. They said that the models' predictions didn't correspond to what they thought that they were seeing from the measurements. It didn't correspond to tree-ring measurements. Which is already an unreliable and lossy sort of data, so they applied corrections for other phenomenon. And if it were a primary line of evidence in the case for climate change there might be a problem. But, as it stands, they were not and it was not. Further, at this point, all the work they did is replicable. The orignal data was not lost, it simply wasn't kept at that facility (for a variety of reasons). The IPCC is investigating any serious wrongdoing and having an independent group check the results. > How about telling us what you'd take as a statement or evidence that AGW wasn't happening? Sort of like asking, "What you'd take as evidence that evolution isn't real." At this point it'd need to be fairly extraordinary, since there is a LOT of data (both observed and modeled) that supports the hypothesis. So I dunno. Do you have anything better than, "One statistician disagrees with Al Gore's movie from 4 years ago but agrees with the IPCC?" Or maybe, "These people did something with data that I don't understand and called it a trick, I knew those guys were up to something!" Maybe something to counter the EIS footage? Or perhaps data to argue against the basic tenants? Is there actually much less CO2 in the air than claimed? What evidence would you take that it is happening? Epochal records of CO2 content in the air? We have that. Clear evidence of sharp and sudden environmental change in temperature sensitive areas? We have a ton of that; some of it is incredibly dramatic. Decade-term data that still shows overall warming trends? We've got that and its far more reliable than the extreme longterm data. Clear chemistry explaining what should happen? The base science backs this up. Do we have absolutely conclusive proof yet? No. Do we have enough evidence to start taking this seriously? Yes, I believe my threshold is met. Do post-industrialized nations like America stand to gain a lot financially by embracing this? I think we have much more to gain (and a lot to lose if we let China continue to outpace us in renewable energy research and production). So not only do I see a lot of science backing this notion, but I see a lot of opportunity. That's enough for me.