Luzr,
Also, "80s onward".... Why it was not warming before 1940-1980? CO2 was rising at unprecedented levels these times...
The whole discussion is revolving around "data adjustments" and "measuring methodology." I pointed out that satellites have raw data available which is "uncompromised" by the scientific process since about 1980. It is of note that this "raw data" meme has been circling the web lately due to the whole climategate thing, and it is akin to the late 90s early 2000s "raw data" meme that Hoaglandites were trying to push about Mars images and space probe data. Fortunately NASA is actually insanely good at archiving data (despite the loss of the Apollo 11 raw footage; these things happen), and all of it is indeed posted in a raw state.
Really, even if you consider these adjustments correct, I would like to draw your attention to this "denialist" aricle:
The more data you have and the further back it goes, the better the sampling is and the better the line fits, so of course you want data to go back really far. No one in the scientific community has a problem with the adjustments that are made, because the adjustments do not bias the data, as the posts I posted before show. The adjustments only make the data more accurate, where the data itself is pitiful at best.
Anyway, all in all, we will see in 5-10 years which party is correct.
I find it comforting that at least you see it this way, because this is one position that you share with Gavin from RealClimate. 2010 is going to be a big El Nino year, and it could be another 1998 (1998 was followed by cooling). I believe it is and if I was a betting man, I would wager cold hard cash on that one. (I'm not a betting man because the last time the guy didn't pay up!)
However, I thought the Hoaglandites would shut up when MGS made orbit around Mars and shortly afterward took images of Cydonia (yaknow, the "face on Mars"). They claimed conspiracy and data manipulation, no real rhyme or reason (as if all of the scientists colluded on manipulating the data). MRO made orbit, made even better images, and it had little impact. Though at least thanks to guys like the Bad Astronomer, the "face on Mars" has slowly slipped from the minds of the public.
I expect the same to happen with AGW. And again, I think everyone should be aware, there's no chance in hell the worlds governments are going to spend money to avert the problem that the scientists have determined is occurring. It's not happening. COP15 was almost 15 years after Kyoto. Another 20 years we will have guaranteed ourselves 2.0C or higher.
seedload,
You don't get it. Temperature doesn't match the curve of CO2. The ADJUSTMENTS TO TEMPERATURE match the curve of CO2.
So you're saying temperatures that make absolutely no adjustments for time of day, station moves, and the urban heat island effect are reflective of reality? Are you really trying to push that meme?
The majority of the warming is from adjustments and the adjustments coincidentally match the curve of CO2.
The adjustments are common sense, basic back of the sheet stuff.
I request that you spend a little more time reading what I write rather than working so hard on crafting your mocking tone.
Sorry, I tend to take that tone because it's clear people aren't addressing the root of the matter and are using tactics that avoid the issue. I asked people here to cite problems with the methodology (which is open and explained in the referenced papers), and I have yet to receive any problems.
bcglorf,
my objection was that the 'corrections' the terrible data doubles that warming to 0.3C
Do you have any scientific reason that the corrections are wrong?
The whole AGW argument that the warming of the last century is unprecedented is what I'm taking issue with.
Fair enough.
When they DOUBLE the warming in the observed record and then place error bars on that data that is less than the 0.15C of their adjustments it worries me.
If you think this worrisome, have you looked at the corrections, and determined where their errors must be? Because I have spent a lot of time looking at their methodology and I don't see it as particularly offensive or over the top. Most of it is common sense stuff. I would certainly like to see updated methodologies, since they are using papers referenced from the 80s to do it, and our understanding was arguably not as good as now, but as far as the science is concerned I find no fault with it.
And since the proxy doesn't show the last 100 years warming like the instrumental record has, they just stop graphing it after 1900 and graph ONLY the instrumental data.
If a proxy ends or diverges with the temperature record, then it can be included, if the science behind the proxy is sound. Do you have a problem with the science behind the proxies?
and that we must act NOW and spend billions combating CO2 emissions.
Let me please reiterate, we are not going to spend a dime combating CO2 emissions, OK? China isn't, we won't. No one is, therefore we're OK in that regard, OK? I am not arguing for it. I hope Polywell works then it happens naturally. I hope some awesome Kurzweillian technology occurs then we're OK. But in the end, I am simply not going to look at the data, worry about the economic impact of "acting" and let that bias my observation of the data. I see nothing wrong with the proxies I have looked at, I see nothing wrong with the adjustments I have looked at. Therefore I find that the predictions, particularly those by Hansen, to be relatively sound, and definitely something to ponder.
to me there is more work to be done before panicked responses are the best course of action.
5 years ago I would have said the same thing. Hell, 5 months ago I would have said "ah, we got it, no biggie, technology will magically save us." (Really, I am / was a big tech freak. I got into an argument with TallDave about tech in the past, I believe.)
Today? Heck no. When freaking Antarctica is melting, you start to wonder wtf is going on and whether or not the models are actually too conservative (they historically have been).
I have come to the conclusion, given COP15, that nothing will be done about it, so, why worry, why try to convince anyone to actually "do something." Just don't tell me what I see in the data, and tell me that the data is manipulated, like people telling me NASA had a big cover-up with regards to Mars images (they did this for almost a decade over at my site, I finally said frick it and banned them from posting).
TallDave,
Some other code might have reduced its impact somewhere else.
No, it's been falsified, the code used in the publications was that where that part was commented out. Now, you can look at the code and tell me where it is wrong, but if it was wrong that would have occurred by now. Basically, rather than looking at the science, people data mined for a comment that might look suspicious (the comment which, btw, was in the code Briffa released, where it was commented out). Then because it was commented out made some innuendo about it.
btw, here's the paper that the code is used on:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 53/1365/65
Completely commented out, just fyi.
At the very least, if they're going to base trillions of dollars in policy on this code they ought to clean it up.
Third person talking about this, and this is actually a rehash of the discussion midway in this thread when I participated a few weeks back. I, again, do not expect anything to be done. You don't have anything to worry about, OK? I just hope that when the warming trend continues in the next decade you guys can be reasonable like Luzr here and determine that, yes, indeed, the trend is pretty significant.
When a real scientist develops a real theory, it should be relentlessly assaulted by skeptics.
By all means, assault their methodology. The reason there aren't many papers saying "NOAA skews the data with their methodology," is because they used peer reviewed methods. The methods were chosen *after* auditing methods to make the data better.
When environuts in lab coats run around screaming that the sky is falling because of a small increase in a trace gas, skepticism should be extremely high.
What skepticism? Skepticism over a temperature adjustment because a measuring device change what time of day it measured? That's not skepticism, that's denialism. "You can't touch the data! you can't manipulate it in any way!"
NASA releases all raw data it gets from space probes to the PDS (Planetary Data System). Thankfully. I spent a good part of the early 2000s debunking conspiracy theorists because they insisted raw data was necessary to derive information. And the hilarious thing? They often added their own data in by resizing, interpolating, and basically editing data until it was composed mostly of computer generated artifacts. To prove that little worms were crawling around on the surface of Mars and to prove that NASA was hiding the data.
What a complete crock of shit. They don't release the algorithms for CRU, GHCN, or GISS.
I'm not going to defend CRU because they are a bunch of Brits who have clearly got their ass in a nit over releasing data (looks like Met Office is changing that behavior), but this is endemic of Europeans in general, as no satellite that EU has ever launched has ever released raw data in the history of the ESA (compare to NASA which releases every iota of data, even including crazy unnecessary stuff like raw data headers). However, GHCN, GISS, and NSIDC all release their data.
I am sorry that GHCN, GISS, and NSIDC do not necessarily release all of their methods (this includes algorithms) in the form of code. They are released in the form of papers.
I spoke of sea ice melt specifically to point out that the NSIDC satellite (AMSR-E) wasn't that great at deriving sea ice melt (Sea Ice Concentration, Ice Temperature, and Snow Depth Using AMSR-E data), but that papers published after it started data retrieval improved upon it significantly (Next Generation of NOAA/NESDIS TMI, SSM/I, and AMSR-E Microwave Land Rainfall Algorithms; Sea Ice Concentration, Ice Temperature, and Snow Depth Using AMSR-E data). The raw data doesn't magically tell you squat about sea ice extent, so you ask for the adjusted data, the data where something interesting was derived. That's how science works.
If the raw data say there is a .1 degree/decade trend and the "processed" data says there is a .3 degree/decade trend, you should consider whether the processing has done something horribly wrong.
Why would I do that? I can take an image from Mars, do a rudimentary processing step on it, and come out with blue skies. Or I could actually look at daily calibration image, compare the various color channels with my product, and come out with beige skies. Which am I better off doing? I do like blue skies, and there *are* some Viking data sets that have them (calibrating based on the American flag), and I defend even the craziest Mars conspiracy guy when he says that Mars has blue skies, but I am not going to stand up and pronounce that Mars has only blue skies!
Likewise, I am not going to look at data that is very bad, that has no calibration whatsoever, and say "this is more representative of reality." That would be silly!
Here's what corrections actually look like:
Cherrypicking one station among many of the thousands that exist. Fun stuff.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12 ... _lying.php
Nothing in the methodology that can possibly justify the Darwin Zero correction. It's either incompetence or fraud.
Or it's science and you're being misinformed.
No, he didn't, he used the adjusted data and compared "good" stations to the rest.
Talking about RC.
The full algorithms used for correction are not there. They aren't released. The closest they have is some GISTEMP stuff from 2007.
So your problem is you want code algorithms. I should say that you're not going to ever get them since the code is always going to be error prone, so you go by the paper.
You don't seem to have the slightest idea what the scientific process is. It doesn't involve trust or arguments by authority.
It most certainly hinges on trust. I trust that Bussard and Nebel aren't bullshitting that the idea can work. I can't understand the physics, so I trust that they aren't making shit up.
Note the hilarious thing about this is that while Polywell doesn't release raw data, it's OK, because they're contractors. But when scientists don't, because they are held under contracts with the data providers, it's evil.
