Those post are about data, saar. You want me to recap all those points again.Bade wrote:All those posts are worthless, till you show me the data. The premise of this thread is there is no global warming. If you support that view, show the data. Not some e-mail scandal as proof.
Are you aware of what was in that e-mail scandal? The main experts pushing for global warming theory were discussing how to use a 'trick' to 'hide the decline'. And several other very interesting things. I am actually amazed that anybody would still want to claim that emperor is not naked.Bade wrote:All those posts are worthless, till you show me the data. The premise of this thread is there is no global warming. If you support that view, show the data. Not some e-mail scandal as proof.
Link
Phil Jones keeps peer-review process humming … by using “intuition”
During the course of his 2010 testimony to the U.K. parliament’s Science and Technology Committee, UEA’s renowned Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones, responded to a question regarding the peer-review process by indicating that he had never been asked to provide data and code for any of his contributions to the peer-reviewed literature when such papers were under review.
One might reasonably infer from this that when Jones is a reviewer of a paper, he doesn’t ask to see data or code either. I recently came across a Climategate E-mail [2486.txt] from Jones which would confirm that this is a reasonable inference.
Jones was responding to a Jan. 28/2004 observation from Peter Gleick (who has a penchant for reviewing books he’s given no indication of having read, and for failing to substantiate his accusations about others).
In this instance, the thread title was, “MBH Submission (fwd)”, and Gleick’s observation was:
Yuck.I find Reviewer A’s email a pretty convincing indication of what CC and Mann will face if the code isn’t released.
The timing suggests that “Reviewer A” may well have been Steve McIntyre who, recounted the following, shortly after Schneider died in 2010:But I digress …[Schneider] asked me to review a 2004 submission to Climatic Change by Mann et al responding to MM2003 – consistent with his public representations. It seemed to me that there was an inherent conflict of interest in such a review but this was obviously known to Schneider and I attempted to separate out my interests as a disputant from my obligations as a reviewer as much as possible.
[…] my approach was informed by ideas of due diligence that were not then characteristic of academic peer reviewing. In my capacity as a reviewer, I asked to see supporting data for Mann’s supposed rebuttal to MM2003 – the topic of his submission – and to see source code to document his allegations that we’d supposedly made grievous mistakes in implementing his methodology – again an important aspect of his submission. […]
Schneider replied that he had been editor of Climatic Change for 28 years and, during that time, nobody had ever requested supporting data, let alone source code, and he therefore required a policy from his editorial board approving his requesting such information from an author.
Jones’s Jan. 29 reply was addressed to many recipients, including Gleick and Stephen Schneider – founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change [CC] [text reformatted and emphasis added -hro]:
Well, now I understand the intricacies of this much-vaunted “peer-review” process. “Intuition” and Because! I! Said! So! will trump due diligence, every time – otherwise the whole process would go “down the tubes”.
Steve, Peter et al,
I totally agree with Peter on Yuck. The tone of the email from Reviewer A indicates the sorts of issues we would be in. Here are my thoughts:
If you accede to this request the whole peer-review process goes down the tubes.
Reviewers will be able to request the earth from authors. If we all started doing this the number of reviews we could do would dramatically reduce. I currently do about 20-30 reviews a year. If I began asking for this sort of information from journals (AMS, AGU, RMS etc) I would be laughed out of court. I guess it would stop the papers to review coming.
The whole system would grind to a halt. I’ve never requested data/codes to do a review and I don’t think others should either. I do many of my reviews on travel. I have a feel for whether something is wrong – call it intuition. If analyses don’t seem right, look right or feel right, I say so. Some of my reviews for CC could be called into question!
[…]
Amazing. Simply amazing.
The same gent was arguing about perpetual motion machine on another thread. Waste of time trying to convince him.Bade wrote:Saar, you are chasing the wrong end here....
Most ideas (which show up in paper) gets verified not by the peer-reviewers themselves, but others who try to verify your claim independently.
You cannot do fraud 99% of the time by fixing data. Rest of the peers are not idiots to fall for it.
If temperature data is suspect (hypothetically) one can look elsewhere in tree-rings, ice-cores, plankton growth, coral reef health etc etc. So it is not based on one data type, though some may be easier to measure than others.....try to understand the process by talking to NIO folks, if you are in Hydbad talk to people in INCOIS...or if in Pune go visit IITM and talk to Atmospheric folks. In A'bad talk to folks at PRL or SAC/ISRO. If in Tvm go to SPL/VSSC....Now are you willing to claim that they are all on pay by USG ?
Here is more wow, last time humans did so much industrial activity in global scale, the Ice Age ended and Obama's great great....grandfather got a Nobel Prize for just being elected.SwamyG wrote:So people still think humans are not messing up the environment? Wow !!!
Ad-hominem attack! I haven't come across many of your posts on this thread about the topic itself. It seems you don't have anything to say about the topic itself so you find it more convenient to discuss the posters. Anyway, I beg your pardon for not placing blind faith in GOTUS. I am sorry, but I don't worship GOTUS.KrishnaK wrote:
The same gent was arguing about perpetual motion machine on another thread. Waste of time trying to convince him.
Saar,Gus wrote:Please don't insult the forum by posting glen beck. On that note, Don't get trapped in the republican democrat nonsensical talking points on this issue.
Saar,Bade wrote:Saar, you are chasing the wrong end here....
Most ideas (which show up in paper) gets verified not by the peer-reviewers themselves, but others who try to verify your claim independently.
You cannot do fraud 99% of the time by fixing data. Rest of the peers are not idiots to fall for it.
If temperature data is suspect (hypothetically) one can look elsewhere in tree-rings, ice-cores, plankton growth, coral reef health etc etc. So it is not based on one data type, though some may be easier to measure than others.....try to understand the process by talking to NIO folks, if you are in Hydbad talk to people in INCOIS...or if in Pune go visit IITM and talk to Atmospheric folks. In A'bad talk to folks at PRL or SAC/ISRO. If in Tvm go to SPL/VSSC....Now are you willing to claim that they are all on pay by USG ?
Wiki Linkwiki wrote:The committee chairman Phil Willis said that the "standard practice" in climate science generally of not routinely releasing all raw data and computer codes "needs to change and it needs to change quickly".
Link to postpanduranghari wrote:The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
I could be climate change denier myself as part of my belief and do not want India to take any mitigation for climate change....after all I want real world data...and want to see what climate change can bring as its real effects....but that said, I cannot find any supporting evidence via data published which stands on strong legs supporting my climate change denial hypothesis. That is why I am asking for data to support your view. It might make my choice easier. 
but not links to sound bytes only ... but some real validated publication or article that refers to hard published data. Some numbers: linkAt the first UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Berlin, the G77 was able to push for a mandate (the "Berlin mandate") where it was recognized that:[70]
* developed nations had contributed most to the then-current concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere (see Greenhouse gas#Cumulative and historical emissions).
* developing country emissions per-capita (i.e., average emissions per head of population)[71] were still relatively low.
* and that the share of global emissions from developing countries would grow to meet their development needs.
There is a consistent stand in USA that reduced pollution efforts to curb coal and oil use would result in harm to US economy.US position
To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the Senate, which had already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and "would seriously harm the economy of the United States". The resolution passed 95-0.[92] Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty,[93] it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. {Some serious commitment right there}
<SNIP>
Bush replied that he took climate change "very seriously,"[94] but that he opposed the Kyoto treaty, because "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy".[95] The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research reported in 2001 that, "This policy reversal received a massive wave of criticism that was quickly picked up by the international media. Environmental groups blasted the White House, while Europeans and Japanese alike expressed deep concern and regret. [...] Almost all world leaders (e.g. China, Japan, South Africa, Pacific Islands, etc.) expressed their disappointment at Bush’s decision." Bush's response that, "I was responding to reality, and reality is the nation has got a real problem when it comes to energy" was, it said, "an overstatement used to cover up the big benefactors of this policy reversal, i.e., the US oil and coal industry, which has a powerful lobby with the administration and conservative Republican congressmen."[96]
The US accounted for 36% of emissions in 1990, and without U.S. ratification, only an EU+Russia+Japan+small party coalition could place the treaty into legal effect. A deal was reached in the Bonn climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.[97]
Saar,Gus wrote:You lose all credibility if you post Glenn beck. That's just it. You can read more about him. Yea yea messenger blah blah, but some people are not messengers but known agenda pushers of the vile sort and best avoided and not wastes any time with.
Nah saar, I think all the data and logic is there in this thread itself. But, you don't want to accept it.Bade wrote:JohneeG, Other than the propaganda part I am yet to see good science data from the deniers. Opinions are fine to say but does not count for anything, even if it comes from someone like Dyson. Even Newton had some crazy theories and was dabbling with Alchemy in his later life. I would rather listen to a Chemical or physical oceanographer or atmospheric scientist on climate related topics than an opinion piece by Dyson who has not worked directly in making any measurements.
You keep referring to "my theory", which is funny.
It is not in this forum alone, I have come across practicing scientists who share your view, but when I ask them for data they cannot point me to anywhere. It is just an opinion almost always, some based on notions of nationalism...even American exceptionalism....or world is after the US onlee....just as some here believe the world is after India only and want it to close shop entirely, or to have a leverage over Indian industrial policy choices.....so data please and not opinions to support the deniers view.
sudarshan wrote: If you look at this science, it will tell you that increasing CO2 fraction in the atmosphere will certainly have a warming effect due to greenhouse trapping, though other phenomena will have to be accounted for to get the full picture. On the face of it, this seems like a point in favor of the pro-AGW crowd. The questions are:
1) How much will the warming be? Is it really of the order of 2 deg. C (3.6 deg. F) by the end of the century?
2) If it is known that there is going to be a warming effect, then why change the terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change?" Aren't these "consensus-bound scientists" sure of their own predictions? Or did they chicken out of the "Global Warming" terminology when they noticed that there was no evidence of the warming?
It seems there aren't too many people knowledgeable about or interested in any of this. Let me try to present some of this science in upcoming posts (disclaimer: it's not my field, you are strongly encouraged to cross-check anything I say).
Alright this is a silly rhetoric but its pretty common. I think its silly in several ways:SwamyG wrote:Hallelujah, global warming all absurd. Earth created in 7 days.
LinkTim Blair of the Telegraph catches this little slip, which is rather telling. He writes:
Jeff Young interviews Maggie Fox, President and CEO of Al Gore’s latest scam, the Climate Reality Project:
FOX: I think the notion of Vice President Gore as a divisive figure is a bit of a hoax, just like the people who are denying climate change. It’s a pre-frame, it’s a fabrication that suits those who want to keep the status quo. So if you have a prophet, if you have someone who has woken up to a particular challenge in the world and that person speaks, if that disrupts things, who is going to be and what are the voices going to be that say that person doesn’t have credibility? Those voices that don’t want that change … There are so many more voices clamoring to hear what he has to say that his right to speak and need to speak is more than made clear virtually every day.
YOUNG: Did you just refer to him as a prophet?
FOX: I think he is a prophet on climate change. I think he woke up to this issue in his earliest years, expected as other people learned about it that they would also wake up to its significance … His presumption as a young man was that once you heard the information the world would shift and start getting its act together, and that hasn’t happened.
Correct. Data is not over rated. Its incomplete. Deductions from incomplete data are just flawed.Bade wrote:.
The conclusions from the data could be over-rated or change, but the data is seldom overrated as you put it.
noob question: how are they getting these percentages?Bade wrote:SaiK, it adds up right since I double checked before posting it. Take proper care of the different pathways as illustrated well in both the color and thickness of the bars and connections/flow.
Which ocean is this?Bade wrote:Data since 1880 onwards...who say there is no ocean data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
Read the physics today article I linked earlier by Ramanathan et al. Mostly satellite for top of the atmosphere (TOA) measurements...which are fairly accurate...better than a fraction (1/10) of a %. As an example to measure something even at a few % level just above the surface of the ocean, the TOA accuracy required is 10 times better. As anyone who has dealt with any instrumentation in their life knows, systematics have to be taken care of first and calibration is of primary importance. Someone can come and randomly say, it is all fudged etc with no basis. So the cycle of misinformation can continue....noob question: how are they getting these percentages?
