A Climate Of Bad Code

[seedload]

Headline news:

I don't think doing the AGW proponent thing of sighting a weather event as evidence for a climate trend is a good idea. Both arguments are lame. Gore claiming that a record heat wave killing people in Europe or that a terrible hurricane hitting a below sea level city is evidence that the weather is going to get like really nasty and stuff is bad enough.

[bcglorf]

By definitive I mean that no one can argue on any side whether or not the data is good enough,

I think if you agree to that, then there is little disagreement left between yourself and the 'anti-warming' crowd here. For my part, the entire argument is that there is not currently enough evidence to declare that catastrophic, unprecedented warming is currently under way because of human CO2 emissions. If that fits under the umbrella of no one can argue on any side whether or not the data is good enough then I think we've found common ground.

[MSimon]

Headline news:

I don't think doing the AGW proponent thing of sighting a weather event as evidence for a climate trend is a good idea. Both arguments are lame. Gore claiming that a record heat wave killing people in Europe or that a terrible hurricane hitting a below sea level city is evidence that the weather is going to get like really nasty and stuff is bad enough.

Yes. But how many YEARS of record lows does it take to indicate a change?

My take? If the records have been fudged up then we have had no significant warming during the PDO positive phase. Which means we are headed for really brutal conditions for the next 20 years (minimum). i.e. worse than the winter of '78/79. And that was a VERY tough winter in Chicago.

And it looks like we are already at '78/79 levels which was near the end of the last negative PDO. We are just at the beginning of this negative PDO phase.

[seedload]

Headline news:

I don't think doing the AGW proponent thing of sighting a weather event as evidence for a climate trend is a good idea. Both arguments are lame. Gore claiming that a record heat wave killing people in Europe or that a terrible hurricane hitting a below sea level city is evidence that the weather is going to get like really nasty and stuff is bad enough.

Yes. But how many YEARS of record lows does it take to indicate a change?

My take? If the records have been fudged up then we have had no significant warming during the PDO positive phase. Which means we are headed for really brutal conditions for the next 20 years (minimum). i.e. worse than the winter of '78/79. And that was a VERY tough winter in Chicago.

And it looks like we are already at '78/79 levels which was near the end of the last negative PDO. We are just at the beginning of this negative PDO phase.

I don't know about all that. I think it is generally warmer than it was in the 70s and that even a trend downward caused by the negative phase of multidecadal oscillations will not bring it down to 70s levels (prolonged). But, whatever caused the general trend of warming starting around 1800 could reverse itself. That probably wouldn't be for the best.

regards

[seedload]

Luzr, the temperature measurements were wrong and Spencer (a famous anti-AGW activist) had to change his data. Proving even *real* scientists with an anti-AGW bent have to cede to the peer review if the peer review finds errors.

Real scientists do cede to peer review. As you said, Spencer changed his data. Other scientists don't cede to peer review, defend papers no matter how bad they are, collude to modify the peer review process, and work to keep their data away from review.

Spencer is very reasonable. For example, read this:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in- ... se-effect/

Or this negative review of Lindzen's work:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/som ... ack-study/

A general description of Spencer's position is that CO2 will cause some warming. The warming that has been seen has some contribution from CO2 that is smaller than what has been attributed to it. Long term warming because of CO2 will be modest. Feedbacks are not well understood and are likely wrong - although he admits to not having enough satelltie data to confirm this.

Doesn't sound that unreasonable to me.

In fact, he isn't anti-AGW at all. He just doesn't think the scale is right. Activist? If writing a book makes you an activist, then I guess that is right. Waiting for what comes next - attack his religious beliefs? Oh wait, that has been done.

regards.

[bcglorf]

I don't think doing the AGW proponent thing of sighting a weather event as evidence for a climate trend is a good idea. Both arguments are lame. Gore claiming that a record heat wave killing people in Europe or that a terrible hurricane hitting a below sea level city is evidence that the weather is going to get like really nasty and stuff is bad enough.

Yes. But how many YEARS of record lows does it take to indicate a change?

My take? If the records have been fudged up then we have had no significant warming during the PDO positive phase. Which means we are headed for really brutal conditions for the next 20 years (minimum). i.e. worse than the winter of '78/79. And that was a VERY tough winter in Chicago.

And it looks like we are already at '78/79 levels which was near the end of the last negative PDO. We are just at the beginning of this negative PDO phase.

I don't know about all that. I think it is generally warmer than it was in the 70s and that even a trend downward caused by the negative phase of multidecadal oscillations will not bring it down to 70s levels (prolonged). But, whatever caused the general trend of warming starting around 1800 could reverse itself. That probably wouldn't be for the best.

regards

I thought the general warming went back all the way to 1600:



I know, it's just the NH, but it's also from Mann et al's hockey stick reconstruction, which I don't think I can be accused of cherry picking as an anti-warming source. It clearly shows a warming trend all the way from 1600 through to today(and I'll repeat the only 'unusual' pattern is that funny red line on the end, it almost seems as though it's entirely foreign data to what was being plotted across the rest of the graph... which is expected, because it is.)

[MSimon]

And funny thing is the Hockey Stick ends at 2000 exaggerating the 1998 peak. Neat way to Hide The Decline.

[MSimon]

viewtopic.php?p=31593#31593

By Dr. Spencer's criteria I'm not an AGW denier. In fact I'm in accord with him. CO2 will provide some warming. It will not be catastrophic. It will not be much - my estimate is about .5 deg C for a doubling.

Shaviv et. al. say that CO2 alone would produce 1 deg. C for a doubling - that number gets almost universal agreement. I agree with it. The argument is about the amplification factor of WV. I put it at .5 - the catastrophists put it at 1.5 to 4 or more.

I think Lindzen is more right than wrong due to what I call the Big Heat Pipe In The Sky.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... n-sky.html

And Svensmark may be in the process of confirming Lindzen. Not to mention Shaviv and GCRs.

BTW another negative feedback:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3971719?cookieSet=1

[IntLibber]

We won't have a definitive* answer until CLARREO goes up, but by then it will be far too late to curb emissions on a global scale.

This is so wrong in so many ways I hardly know where to start.

In fact, its a proven fact, that given the steady and exponential advance of technology, it is always cheaper to fix a problem or clean up a mess later rather than sooner, provided the mess doesnt create its own problems in an exponentially growing manner faster than the rate of technological advancement.

Given the science isn't even settled yet, and given that the foremost scientists in the field are now proven to be data falsifying, peer-review corrupting, publicly lying, character assassinating, false expense report submitting, international money laundering criminals, then there is little hope of settling the science until the entire field has cleaned house of these crooks AND all their past work AND all work that references or otherwise is derived from or dependent upon their false data or conclusions.

ONCE that is all accomplished, and we can start with a clean slate, we can look at the reality. There is far more untainted science that says that what limited warming has happened is natural variability and recovery from the LIA, that water vapor is a negative, not a positive, feedback, and that rational, fact based projections of human society over the coming century say that by mid century the overall emissions by humans will be significantly less than at present due to the steady and exponential advance of technology.

[TallDave]

We won't have a definitive* answer until CLARREO goes up, but by then it will be far too late to curb emissions on a global scale.

Mitigation doesn't solve the problem anyway (assuming the problem exists), I think the optimistic estimate is we save a degree if everyone agrees to really draconian cuts.

And those cuts are REALLY expensive, The cumulative cost by then will be in the tens trillions of dollars, and everyone will be much poorer than they otherwise would be, because of the cuimulative impact of the cuts.

I have to second IntLibber, it will be much cheaper to geoengineer.

[MSimon]

IntLibber,

So true. I'm in the process of writing a bit for ECN on some science that just knocked my socks off. We may not in fact have shortages of ANY kind of material. The scientists involved have quantified something that has been known for 40 years but not understood.

I'll post a link when it goes up.

[IntLibber]

IntLibber,

So true. I'm in the process of writing a bit for ECN on some science that just knocked my socks off. We may not in fact have shortages of ANY kind of material. The scientists involved have quantified something that has been known for 40 years but not understood.

I'll post a link when it goes up.

You mean about how resources continually get cheaper over time, when adjusted for inflation? How the current price of gasoline, adjusted for inflation, is cheaper now than 20 years ago, when it was half the price?

[MSimon]

IntLibber,

So true. I'm in the process of writing a bit for ECN on some science that just knocked my socks off. We may not in fact have shortages of ANY kind of material. The scientists involved have quantified something that has been known for 40 years but not understood.

I'll post a link when it goes up.

You mean about how resources continually get cheaper over time, when adjusted for inflation? How the current price of gasoline, adjusted for inflation, is cheaper now than 20 years ago, when it was half the price?

I guess I had best quit wasting my time and get publishing. It is much better than that. Much better.

[djolds1]

IntLibber,

So true. I'm in the process of writing a bit for ECN on some science that just knocked my socks off. We may not in fact have shortages of ANY kind of material. The scientists involved have quantified something that has been known for 40 years but not understood.

I'll post a link when it goes up.

Innnnteresting. I'm in the midst of debating this with an Ehrlichian Frenchman on another forum I frequent. Please update quickly, with cites and pdfs attached.

[MSimon]

IntLibber,

So true. I'm in the process of writing a bit for ECN on some science that just knocked my socks off. We may not in fact have shortages of ANY kind of material. The scientists involved have quantified something that has been known for 40 years but not understood.

I'll post a link when it goes up.

Innnnteresting. I'm in the midst of debating this with an Ehrlichian Frenchman on another forum I frequent. Please update quickly, with cites and pdfs attached. :)

The article should be up tomorrow barring unforeseen difficulties. It is peer reviewed, has an abstract, and the pdf is free. I also refer to a popularization.

And the most amazing thing? It is so blindingly obvious you will say to yourself. Doh! Why didn't I think of that.

Let me give you a hint: brush up on your Schrodinger. And no. It has nothing to do with his cat.