3 ms·

> It didn't correspond to tree-ring measurements. Wrong e-mail. I'm referring to the "it's embarrassing that we can't account for the recent measurements" e-m

by anamax 17y ago

> It didn't correspond to tree-ring measurements. Wrong e-mail. I'm referring to the "it's embarrassing that we can't account for the recent measurements" e-mail. They weren't talking about the tree stuff, which has its own problems, but is not recent. > Further, at this point, all the work they did is replicable. Phil Jones disagrees. > The orignal data was not lost They can't produce it, so what definition of "not lost" are you using? > Do you have anything better than I have the person who did the IPCC's work on temperature measurement. You found his work compelling when you agreed with it. > Sort of like asking, "What you'd take as evidence that evolution isn't real." Yes, exactly. There are many possible observations that would contradict some/all of evolutionary theory. We don't see them, but they're very easy for an honest scientist to imagine. > 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. You're overstating things. The recent temperature data is broken and even then contradicts the models. The "tree data is good when it supports the AGW but not when it doesn't" argument is weak. Jones admits that the arguments for ignoring the medieval warming period have problems. The hurricane stuff was wrong. The glacier data is far from conclusive (and overstated anyway). Arctic ice isn't behaving as predicted. And so on. > Epochal records of CO2 content in the air? We have that. Yup. It shows that with significantly higher CO2 concentrations (2-10x), we didn't see significantly higher temperatures. > Clear chemistry explaining what should happen? Actually, CO2 chemistry, or rather its physical properties, doesn't predict the magnitude of AGW. AGW requires feedback from other things. > Clear evidence of sharp and sudden environmental change in temperature sensitive areas? The AGW theory is that CO2 is causing climate change. Since climate changes constantly anyway, it would be surprising if we couldn't find such things now. The problem with using them for evidence of AGW is that we can find them from pre AGW eras as well. In other words, they occur independently of AGW. > I see a lot of opportunity. That's enough for me. Good for you - spend your money. I hope that you get rich. However, the current state of AGW research is no where near good enough to impose those beliefs on anyone else.

KirinDave 17y ago
> Wrong e-mail. I'm referring to the "it's embarrassing that we can't account for the recent measurements" e-mail. They weren't talking about the tree stuff, which has its own problems, but is not recent. Please link this email then? > They can't produce it, so what definition of "not lost" are you using? They cannot personally produce it, but they can list where they got it and then you can do those sources. But here's the key thing to keep in mind: neither you nor I know the full story there. There's not enough evidence to suggest fraud, only enough to warrant an investigation. You'are acting as if the science is discredited, but it seems to me like you want it to be discredited so you're preemptively declaring it so. > I have the person who did the IPCC's work on temperature measurement. You found his work compelling when you agreed with it. I found the whole body of work compelling. Only a few individual pieces of work are truly compelling on their own, and Phil's never was one. And by the way, I was skeptical until about a year and a half ago. Now that physical observations are starting to replace pure models and showing similar (if somewhat less aggressive) temperature gains, I am less dismissive of it. > You're overstating things. The recent temperature data is broken and even then contradicts the models. The "tree data is good when it supports the AGW but not when it doesn't" argument is weak. Jones admits that the arguments for ignoring the medieval warming period have problems. The hurricane stuff was wrong. The glacier data is far from conclusive (and overstated anyway). Arctic ice isn't behaving as predicted. And so on. I'm pretty sure the glacier datais not "overstated", anymore than time lapse photography with accurate scales and a simple chart of ice changes can be. It's pretty obvious that several glaciers are retreating at what can reasonably called a "surprising" rate. > Good for you - spend your money. I hope that you get rich. You know, I hope you're right. Because if I'm right the next 35 years are going to be shitty for everyone.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Please link this email then? You're claiming familiarity yet are unaware of one of the passages quoted most often? Google is your friend. (I missed the phrasing a bit.) http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1128/as-copenhagen-summit-nears-climategate-dogs-global-warming-debate http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1128/as-copenhage... http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AP3NI20091126 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AP3NI20091126 > > They can't produce it, so what definition of "not lost" are you using? > They cannot personally produce it, but they can list where they got it and then you can do those sources. You're backpedaling. Unfortunately for that position, they were the source of their "adjustments" and they've admitted that they can't reproduce those. And, it's not clear that the original sources still have the data. > Now that physical observations are starting to replace pure models You're rejecting them. In addition to rejecting the temperature data, you're rejecting the hurricane data. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ > I'm pretty sure the glacier datais not "overstated", anymore than time lapse photography with accurate scales and a simple chart of ice changes can be. The question isn't whether some glaciers are shrinking. It's whether glacier changes as a whole are somehow different since 1934. They're not.
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    > You're claiming familiarity yet are unaware of one of the passages quoted most often? No, I've actually read the leaked emails in their entirety. And I suppose you're talking about the quote: "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't." Because that's the only quote from the email in either of your articles that caught my eye as salient. If you were referring to something else, please clarify. Anyways, that's not talking about the general temperature trends. Go read the email it came from. Or you can read the summary with quotes from Trebeth that MediaMatters researched so that you don't have to: http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002 http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002 And before you say MediaMatters is biased, their sources are listed and verifiable. If you're gonna link CSM I think MM is at least fair game. > You're backpedaling. I don't think that word means what you think it means. > Unfortunately for that position, they were the source of their "adjustments" and they've admitted that they can't reproduce those. And, it's not clear that the original sources still have the data. That's not the fault of the group you're claiming discarded the data. It's not feasible for every project to keep every piece of data they've ever touched. It might be approaching that in 2009-2010, but when the original work was carried out (and historically, to account for bureaucratic lag) it was not. You can argue it's bad, and I won't disagree that it's disappointing. It is not damning, though. The endless cycle of claim/proof/verify is what science is. > The question isn't whether some glaciers are shrinking. It's whether glacier changes as a whole are somehow different since 1934. They're not. That's absurd. Have you looked at the EIS data? There isn't enough glacier to sustain that consistent and quick a decline for 34 years. Even lowballing the observed decline in some areas that's hundreds of miles of glacier. Even saying this suggests you haven't even looked at this footage. I encourage you to. Even if you do not believe me or the data, the images presented are beautiful.

by anamax 17y ago

KirinDave 17y ago

> Wrong e-mail. I'm referring to the "it's embarrassing that we can't account for the recent measurements" e-mail. They weren't talking about the tree stuff, which has its own problems, but is not recent. Please link this email then? > They can't produce it, so what definition of "not lost" are you using? They cannot personally produce it, but they can list where they got it and then you can do those sources. But here's the key thing to keep in mind: neither you nor I know the full story there. There's not enough evidence to suggest fraud, only enough to warrant an investigation. You'are acting as if the science is discredited, but it seems to me like you want it to be discredited so you're preemptively declaring it so. > I have the person who did the IPCC's work on temperature measurement. You found his work compelling when you agreed with it. I found the whole body of work compelling. Only a few individual pieces of work are truly compelling on their own, and Phil's never was one. And by the way, I was skeptical until about a year and a half ago. Now that physical observations are starting to replace pure models and showing similar (if somewhat less aggressive) temperature gains, I am less dismissive of it. > You're overstating things. The recent temperature data is broken and even then contradicts the models. The "tree data is good when it supports the AGW but not when it doesn't" argument is weak. Jones admits that the arguments for ignoring the medieval warming period have problems. The hurricane stuff was wrong. The glacier data is far from conclusive (and overstated anyway). Arctic ice isn't behaving as predicted. And so on. I'm pretty sure the glacier datais not "overstated", anymore than time lapse photography with accurate scales and a simple chart of ice changes can be. It's pretty obvious that several glaciers are retreating at what can reasonably called a "surprising" rate. > Good for you - spend your money. I hope that you get rich. You know, I hope you're right. Because if I'm right the next 35 years are going to be shitty for everyone.

anamax 17y ago
> Please link this email then? You're claiming familiarity yet are unaware of one of the passages quoted most often? Google is your friend. (I missed the phrasing a bit.) http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1128/as-copenhagen-summit-nears-climategate-dogs-global-warming-debate http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1128/as-copenhage... http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AP3NI20091126 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AP3NI20091126 > > They can't produce it, so what definition of "not lost" are you using? > They cannot personally produce it, but they can list where they got it and then you can do those sources. You're backpedaling. Unfortunately for that position, they were the source of their "adjustments" and they've admitted that they can't reproduce those. And, it's not clear that the original sources still have the data. > Now that physical observations are starting to replace pure models You're rejecting them. In addition to rejecting the temperature data, you're rejecting the hurricane data. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ > I'm pretty sure the glacier datais not "overstated", anymore than time lapse photography with accurate scales and a simple chart of ice changes can be. The question isn't whether some glaciers are shrinking. It's whether glacier changes as a whole are somehow different since 1934. They're not.
- KirinDave 17y ago
  > You're claiming familiarity yet are unaware of one of the passages quoted most often? No, I've actually read the leaked emails in their entirety. And I suppose you're talking about the quote: "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't." Because that's the only quote from the email in either of your articles that caught my eye as salient. If you were referring to something else, please clarify. Anyways, that's not talking about the general temperature trends. Go read the email it came from. Or you can read the summary with quotes from Trebeth that MediaMatters researched so that you don't have to: http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002 http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002 And before you say MediaMatters is biased, their sources are listed and verifiable. If you're gonna link CSM I think MM is at least fair game. > You're backpedaling. I don't think that word means what you think it means. > Unfortunately for that position, they were the source of their "adjustments" and they've admitted that they can't reproduce those. And, it's not clear that the original sources still have the data. That's not the fault of the group you're claiming discarded the data. It's not feasible for every project to keep every piece of data they've ever touched. It might be approaching that in 2009-2010, but when the original work was carried out (and historically, to account for bureaucratic lag) it was not. You can argue it's bad, and I won't disagree that it's disappointing. It is not damning, though. The endless cycle of claim/proof/verify is what science is. > The question isn't whether some glaciers are shrinking. It's whether glacier changes as a whole are somehow different since 1934. They're not. That's absurd. Have you looked at the EIS data? There isn't enough glacier to sustain that consistent and quick a decline for 34 years. Even lowballing the observed decline in some areas that's hundreds of miles of glacier. Even saying this suggests you haven't even looked at this footage. I encourage you to. Even if you do not believe me or the data, the images presented are beautiful.