Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

mac · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:08 am Post subject:

This is an interesting argument:

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Sett...p/global%20warming%20argument.htm

Chris · On A Journey (500 Miles) Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 23

Screegor · Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject:

2 new facts.

1) Earlier I said that we would have to agree to disagree on whether Mann's Hockey Stick graph had been proven mathematically flawed or, os Screegor & Chris insisted not. I said

SLG · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject:

Not entirely right Neil. Interesting to read Wegman's opinions though. I don't think you should get too carried away. This is all part of the process that the scientific community need to take on board. There is a big problem in most areas of science where scientists are lothe to get too involved with high level statistics and make assumptions that they dont' fully understand. I have witnessed this myself in other areas.

I still think you totally misunderstand the field of statistics though. At a very base level there is a wrong and a right. At the higher level, it's all about opinions and interpretation. Much of that interpretation requires a grounding in statistical theory that is just not possible short term. And so for non-statisticians, a lot must be taken of faith.

Regarding Wegman's testimony. He does point out "we have no direct data on the functioning of peer review within the paleoclimate community". However, I am sure he is right that at the time the level of review was not at as high a level as it is in some fields. I don't think you could argue that is the case now though.

Here's a response from RealClimate.org

Neil · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject:

I have respected some things you have said SLG but that is sheer sophistry.

Interpretation of what statistical results mean (what you call the higher level) is indeed subject to a certain amount of interpretation, though less than you imply, but the basic maths is absolute. The Hockey Stick was mathematically fraudulent & those who accepted it without checking, or worse once it had been checked & found fraudulent, are charlatans & cannot be trusted on any further scare stories they produce.

Whether, by an improbable coincidence, the prophecies of the Hockey Stick have ben supported by new studies & whether they are trustworthy, or not, is beside the point I made. Mann's Hockey Stick was fraudulent - that is a mathematical fact as surely as 1+1=2 or black is different from white, despite being vehemntly disputed here & not acknowledged by alleged catastrphist "scientists".

Equally the 2nd paragraph of the link saying that even when the data were changed the Hockey Stick graph remained is sophistry. Stephen McIntyre proved that virtaully WHATEVER figures were put into Mann's programme, even purely random ones, the same Hockey Stick Prediction of catastrophe real soon now appeared. That is not evidence that it is real that is evidence that it is fraudulent.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

SLG · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject:

Neil, it is nothing of the sort. Have you studied much statistics in your time? Perhaps you should do so before making such comments. At a certain level, statistics are all about interpretation. At the lowest level, yes of course there are basic tenets that must be adhered to.

According to the testimony of Wegman et al. the statistical flaw in the paper of MBH is that they have taken the mean temperature over 1902-1995 rather than the whole time period and that this has impacted variables selected through the principle component analysis (PCA). The use of the PCA was not incorrect, their data was not incorrect, however, they had failed to carry out some basic adjustment to their data prior to conducting the PCA.

Now, you cry fraud. Wegman doesn't make any such claims and neither he should (he says "it is not clear that Mann and associates realized the error in their
methodology at the time of publication"). You have no way of knowing. It should have been noticed through the review process though and I'm sure Wegman's criticisms have been noted by those in the field.

So we are agreed that the analysis was statistically flawed, not in its methodology, but in its implementation. So lets look at the result when the implementation is conducted in the correct manner. Wahl and Amman (2006) have done just that (see figure from previous post). Is that still fraudulent in your opinion Neil?

Screegor · Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:37 am Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am Post subject:

SLG
It is not "the statistical flaw in the paper" it is a whole bunch of "flaws" to such an extent that it is not reasonable to believe that it is purely accidental.

As Orson Scott Card pointed out in my previous link the manner in which Mann hid particular elements of his calculation again shows deliberation.

Screegor
Since geography & atmpspheric composition have not changed in a mere 125,000 years the same pattern pf heating must apply then & now. Hence your claim about temperature increase being concentrated over the poles (different from most warming scarers who have said that warming will be disproportionaley concentrated over Africa, Bangladesh, London or wherever the current discussion is about, is irrelevant. The same pattern would have occured then & a 5 degree rise then DID NOT MELT BREENLAND,

The author is clearly going along with the media in downplaying this. This suggests that, in the US, as in Britain, you get grants for finding evidence of warming, or as in the case of your former employers, for pushing it & you don't for finding evidence against. I have already mentioned the purely political pro-warming stand of Mr Thorpe of Britain's grant giving body & his refusal to debate the subject even after challenging others to debate with him.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Screegor · Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject:

SLG · Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject:

Screegor wote

Chris · On A Journey (500 Miles) Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 23

I'm going to divide this into present and past/future situations in the Arctic

Present

A news release by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) states that arctic ice is retreating much faster than projected by any of the computer models. The first paragraph reads:

BOULDER—Arctic sea ice is melting at a significantly faster rate than projected by even the most advanced computer models, a new study concludes. The research, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), shows that the Arctic's ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments.

The trends continue even faster. Between December 2004 and December 2005, 14% of the Arctic's "perennial" sea ice vanished, about the size of Texas (Nghiem S., et al., 2006 in Geophysical Research Letters). All studies are unanimous in a significant decline from at least 1979-present (The latest satellite images produced by NASA's Josefino Comiso show that perennial Arctic sea ice has declined by more than 20 percent since 1979.)

See this as well- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/ArcticIce/

From Serreze et al., 2007 (in Science):

Linear trends in arctic sea-ice extent over the period 1979 to 2006 are negative in every month. This ice loss is best viewed as a combination of strong natural variability in the coupled ice-ocean-atmosphere system and a growing radiative forcing associated with rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the latter supported by evidence of qualitative consistency between observed trends and those simulated by climate models over the same period. Although the large scatter between individual model simulations leads to much uncertainty as to when a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean might be realized, this transition to a new arctic state may be rapid once the ice thins to a more vulnerable state. Loss of the ice cover is expected to affect the Arctic's freshwater system and surface energy budget and could be manifested in middle latitudes as altered patterns of atmospheric circulation and precipitation.

A few points I want to emphasize in the above paragraph--

- When it speaks of a more vulnerable sea ice becoming "rapid" it refers to the ice-albedo effect; The open ocean absorbs solar radiation (as much as 95%) whereas ice reflects more than 80% of incoming solar radiation, which creates a feedback mechanism in which decline in ice results in more heat being absorbed by the oceans which raises temperatures faster and also makes it more difficult for ice to re-form over the following winters.
- The paragraph mentions "manifested in middle latitudes as altered patterns of atmospheric circulation and precipitation." Most mid-latitudinal weather is created by opposing forces of equatorial temperatures and polar temperatures (which is why the UK gets frontal depressions in the winter). As rising temperatures in the Arctic occur, this contrast changes and mid-latitudinal areas will become much drier, with significant effects in the U.K. (although from what I understand, Scotland probably will not be influenced much).
more on these fronts here if you are interested- http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/fltenv6.htm

Here is the graph in Serreze et al. study; the year-round as opposed to seasonal decline is important as it suggests forcing mechanisms outside tilt, solar variations, other winter phenomena, etc

...................
Past/Future

As for warming over the last interglacial (LIG)(~120 kya), a study in Science (Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, et al., 2006) and others show a significant ice reduction over that time; Southern and northwest Greenland were likely ice-free over the LIG. This study and others (ex R. M. Koerner, 1989) show the Canadian Arctic Islands, Camp Century, Agassiz, Devon, and Meighen, and Dye-3 in Greenland were ice-free over this time, and the Greenland ice sheet melted extensively, as well as open water north of Alaska being much more extensive over the LIG. I should also note that sea levels were much higher over this time (4-6 m) as shown in many studies (ex. Cuffey and Marshall, 2000 {in Nature}; Overpeck et al., 2006 {in Science}). According to the Overpeck Study, entitled "Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise" the reduction of the Greenland Ice Sheet contributed to over half of this rise in the LIG.

Moreover, the warming that occurred during the LIG was due to a shift in the orbit of the Earth shifting and tilting the Arctic region towards the Sun. Today, warming is being caused by human-induced greenhouse gases, which means effects will be more year-round and global. Other variables may make past comparisons not completely accurate.

However, like Neil, I can take other paleoclimatic situations and use them to project the future to suit my argument. During the Pliocene (5.3 to 1.8 mya) temperatures were under 3 degrees warmer than today, and CO2 concentrations slightly higher (~360-400 ppm). Both of those numbers are well within even the "average" projections by 2100. I should also add that models have showed Co2, rather than ocean-circulation changes (there was large debate over which of these two factors caused the warming in the pliocene), over that time to be the main factor in temperature warming the planet (evidence came from the necessity for cooler tropics and warmer poles in the ocean circulation model, and warmer tropics and warmer poles in the Co2 model; the latter showed to be true). It is likely the North pole lost its ice sheet completely, both poles were much warmer with significant decline in the Antarctic, northern hemispheric glaciers were absent and sea levels were significantly higher (Barreiro M et al., 2006; Haywood et al., 2005; Haywood and Williams, 2005; Haywood and Valdes, 2004; British Antarctic Survey, 2005). However, unlike Neil, I will not claim that when those temperature and Co2 conditions are met (by 2050 is very realistic) our situation will be like that of the Pliocene (As he has done with respect to the last interglacial) because there are many more variables involved and deterministic projections into the future remain relatively uncertain, although all projections translate to "bad."

Screegor · Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:58 am Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject:

Floating Arctic ice melting has no direct effect on sea level since a given weight displaces the same volume as ice as it does of water.

In any case this is merely refering to a change in summer ice. This certainly is not the same as a general melting. It should also be noted that our satelite recodrs of ice area do not go back to the Victorian age, or even close, so we have no idea what is "normal", for example there is a record of a Chinese flet sailing the Artcic ocean in the Medieval warm period.

In any case we should not take measurements by warming enthusiasts as gospel without checking since as SLG has confirmed, they are liable to make & repeat & fail to notice truly enormouse "errors".

In any case Chris's post seems to depend on the assumption that "Greenland were ice-free over this time" (ie 120,000 years ago), which is clearly proven untrue.

We seem to be agreed that, with the positive proof that the Mann & the ICTY proposed a mathematically fake Hockey Stick theory & that not a single one of the thousands of IPCC members whose duty it was were capable of spotting this error (if the IPCC is a genuine scientific body not a political organisation it would take only one person to spot the error for it to be understood), repeatedly. over years, that the IPCC are prone to make such errors again & again.

Whether this is because, as I said earlier & Chris, SLG & Screegour did not in any way disagree when they thought I couldn't prove it;

Neil · Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject:

Screegor · Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject:

Screegor · Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject:

SLG · Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject:

Screegor · Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject:

Nature is ranked as 6th with an impact factor of 30.98 and a rejection rate at about 95% (need to check that - but it was about that last year).

"precisely as Screegor has been repeatedly doing here in fact"

and no I haven't. I've been critisicing your science.

As for publishing in Nature. His article would have never made it in, for a multitude of reasons. They have very defined criteria for publication and his article would be better published somewhere else - as it was.
I suspect from the start he was advised of that, as anyone publishing a paper is advised on the best place - and most suitable place to publish.
_________________
Holebender (2007):
"Now I remember why I undertook never to respond to Neil some time last year. He's a dick."