3 ms·

> The procedure that generated the hockey stick graph doesn't generate roughly the same graph almost independent of the input data? I'll do a little looking, b

> The procedure that generated the hockey stick graph doesn't generate roughly the same graph almost independent of the input data? I'll do a little looking, but do you have some more information on this? I'd love to see it. > The initial dump contained the uncontested statement that they can't explain the last decade's cooling.... This one I know off the top of my head. You're almost certainly referring to the now-infamous "trick", roughly related to tree ring datum. There is still apparently some debate among climate scientists over what the differences in tree-ring measurements versus expected measurements actually means. It's going to take a while to sort out. Does it mean that the trees are growing very differently under different climates? Is there some property of tree growth that's been overlooked? But either way, this is only one method of data gathering amongst many. To point to this one thing and say, "A-ha! This proves that the planet is actually cooling and thus this is a field that I don't have to understand" is exactly the same kind of tactic used by those who refuse to accept evolutionary theory for the divergence of species. This is the case, again, with the data stations. I wholeheartedly agree that more effort needs to be put into monitoring them, and from that standpoint at least, the work being put into cataloguing them is important. However, even given all of their differences, and even assuming that there was no other data to go off of, they still would not lead to a dramatically different climate model. The field of climate science is much more complicated than a smattering of weather stations and examinations of tree rings. > And you know this because.... Look at my comment history. I'm a former "AGW denier" who, years ago, was pissed that cans of spray paint stopped working right and was annoyed by emissions control systems in vehicles. However, climatology has remained one of my interests, and I've continued to try to understand it. I know far, far less about the field than any of the scientists actually involved in it, but I've seen enough to convince me that the human species is better off listening to their claims than the claims of those that can't be bothered to try.

jonallanharper 17y ago
> I'm a former "AGW denier" [I'm very similar to you (but a more progressed version)... do i have your trust now?] > I've seen enough to convince me that the human species is better off [... this is what I believe. So, you should agree with me.]
anamax 17y ago
> I'll do a little looking, but do you have some more information on this? You don't know about the Wegman report and the relevant 2006 American Statistical Association session? (Yes, I know that Mann's students attempted a save.) Google is your friend.... The "real" climatologists stopped mentioning the hockey stick a while ago, at least in places where some numeracy could be assumed. Only the rubes mention it now. > This one I know off the top of my head. You're almost certainly referring to the now-infamous "trick", roughly related to tree ring datum. Not even close. However, this shows that you don't even have a passing familiarity with the "hacked emails" as I'm referring to one of the more publicized excerpts, namely "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." see http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&file... for the whole message. However, thanks for mentioning the tree data. The tree data is used to derive temp data using a model that doesn't predict the actual temp data when we have both. In what sense is that model reasonable? > However, even given all of their differences [temperature gathering], and even assuming that there was no other data to go off of, they still would not lead to a dramatically different climate model. Not even close. AFrench-Russian group who couldn't get the wasn't given access to the CRU temperature data assembled their own temp data and found that, the 20th century temp was flat except for some cooling in the 40s and some warming in the 90s. CO2 is thought to have been steadily rising the whole time and the models say that temp goes with CO2. (Note that there are also questions about the CO2 measurements, but ....) They're not the only ones. Oh, and there's also a problem with the sea level rising claim. The whole argument rests on one observation station and the folks who actually study sea levels don't agree with the climatologist's conclusions....

jonallanharper 17y ago

> I'm a former "AGW denier" [I'm very similar to you (but a more progressed version)... do i have your trust now?] > I've seen enough to convince me that the human species is better off [... this is what I believe. So, you should agree with me.]

anamax 17y ago

> I'll do a little looking, but do you have some more information on this? You don't know about the Wegman report and the relevant 2006 American Statistical Association session? (Yes, I know that Mann's students attempted a save.) Google is your friend.... The "real" climatologists stopped mentioning the hockey stick a while ago, at least in places where some numeracy could be assumed. Only the rubes mention it now. > This one I know off the top of my head. You're almost certainly referring to the now-infamous "trick", roughly related to tree ring datum. Not even close. However, this shows that you don't even have a passing familiarity with the "hacked emails" as I'm referring to one of the more publicized excerpts, namely "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." see http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&file... for the whole message. However, thanks for mentioning the tree data. The tree data is used to derive temp data using a model that doesn't predict the actual temp data when we have both. In what sense is that model reasonable? > However, even given all of their differences [temperature gathering], and even assuming that there was no other data to go off of, they still would not lead to a dramatically different climate model. Not even close. AFrench-Russian group who couldn't get the wasn't given access to the CRU temperature data assembled their own temp data and found that, the 20th century temp was flat except for some cooling in the 40s and some warming in the 90s. CO2 is thought to have been steadily rising the whole time and the models say that temp goes with CO2. (Note that there are also questions about the CO2 measurements, but ....) They're not the only ones. Oh, and there's also a problem with the sea level rising claim. The whole argument rests on one observation station and the folks who actually study sea levels don't agree with the climatologist's conclusions....