Great Lakes welcome rising water levels

Jul 08, 2014

After years of parched shorelines, water levels in the Great Lakes have come rushing back. The crowds that flock to the Superior shoreline this summer are finding harbors deeper and beaches narrower than they've been in 15 years.

"I hope this lasts," said Dave Tersteeg, director of parks and recreation for the Arrowhead resort town of Grand Marais. Water levels have been so low in recent years, he said, "there was some real fear that we'd have to dredge the harbor."

Boats bob in the town harbor beside ramps that are nearly level with the lake surface. Last summer, the ramps tilted toward the depleted waterline at such a steep angle, Tersteeg worried for boaters' safety. The water's deep enough now that even the largest sailboats can pull in to refuel. Last year, he said, they risked scraping the harbor floor.

Superior's water levels are almost a foot higher than they were at this time last summer and 7 inches higher than average.

Climate change has taken a toll on the Great Lakes, warming the water and thinning the ice sheets that protect the lakes from winter evaporation. The Great Lakes have always had their ups and downs - water levels were very low in the '60s and so high in the '80s that houses slipped off eroded shorelines and into the water. But the 15-year streak of low water was unprecedented - and alarming.

"That was something we hadn't quite seen in the historical levels," said Drew Gronewold, hydrologist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. "Now, Lake Superior has gone back up."

All the Great Lakes are on the rise - Michigan and Huron are up a foot, Ontario and Erie are more than half a foot higher than they were last summer.

The waters have rushed back at speeds that astonished and delighted residents, scientists, ports and resorts. Heavy rainfall fed the lake's tributaries and the severe winter capped Superior with thick sheets of ice that slowed evaporation.

"What's amazing is the speed at which the lake levels have been returning to normal," said James Sharrow, facilities manager at the Duluth Seaway Port Authority. "It affects everybody from the fishermen to the beachgoers to the property owners. Everybody likes to see water levels about average."

Average looks pretty good to communities that have been looking at a lower-than-average shoreline since the late '90s. The massive cargo ships in the Port of Duluth, which had to reduce their cargo loads by as much as 10 percent to squeeze through commercial channels and into shallower ports, can once again ply the Great Lakes with full cargo loads, Sharrow said.

A thousand-foot ship carries about 3,000 tons of cargo for every foot of draft - the distance between the waterline and the bottom of the ship. More water under the ship means more cargo in the hold, and Sharrow said the shipping companies will be able to carry the cargo equivalent of two extra shipping runs this year, compared to 2013.

The same rising tides that benefit the $34 billion Great Lakes shipping industry are helping out much smaller recreational boats.

"There were marinas boats couldn't get into, especially on Lakes Michigan and Huron," Sharrow said. "They were hitting record lows - they were more than 3 feet below average. Boats might be high and dry, or sitting on the bottom."

How long the water will stay high remains to be seen. Polar vortexes don't come around every year, but NOAA is predicting water levels will continue to rise through the summer.

Predicting water levels more than six months into the future is all but impossible.

A few months ago, visitors to Wisconsin's Apostle Islands National Lakeshore could trek across the frozen surface of Lake Superior to marvel at the ice-encrusted coastal caves that are usually accessible only by boat. This summer, another unusual sight will greet visitors: narrow strips of sand that used to be sprawling beaches, now swallowed by Superior.

"One of the most popular activities here at the park is walking on the beach," said Neil Howk, assistant chief interpreter at the national park. "The beaches aren't going to be as wide for walking on this year, and if there are waves coming ashore, people are going to get their feet wet."

The change in the water level, "it's noticeable," he said. On Memorial Day weekend, boats around the Apostle Island were dodging icebergs. Over the Fourth of July, those same boats could pull comfortably up to docks that were barely accessible last year.

"When you get a 13-inch change in over a 12-month period, you're going to notice it," he said. "The beaches this year are pretty small and pretty steep. We've had 15 years of pretty expansive beaches. This year? No."

Explore further: Great Lakes have most ice in decades thanks to bitter winter

4.6 /5 (5 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Lake Superior may see coldest surface water since 1979

Jun 03, 2014

(Phys.org) —Surface-water temperatures above the deepest parts of Lake Superior are expected to be at least 6 degrees Fahrenheit colder than normal by August, delaying the onset of the evaporation season ...

Shipping suffers as Great Lakes shrink

Oct 22, 2007

U.S. shipping companies are losing money for every inch the Great Lakes shrink, with water levels 7 inches below average, The New York Times reported.

NASA satellite sees great freeze over Great Lakes

Feb 28, 2014

At night, as cold settles in, lake ice creaks and groans. It's been excessively cold, and I camped exposed on the snow-swept surface. Other than the lack of vegetation and the sounds at night, you'd never ...

Great Lakes become nearly covered with ice

Feb 15, 2014

From the bridge of the Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw, northern Lake Huron looks like a vast, snow-covered field dotted with ice slabs as big as boulders—a battleground for the icebreaker's 58-member crew ...

Recommended for you

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

5 hours ago

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 127

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 08, 2014
It must be the non existent Global warmer.... errrr climate change..... errrr global cooling that caused this. Next year when the lake is even higher or lower.... they'll blame it on ..... global cooling, global warming or just plain climate change that requires people to give up freedoms, pay more in taxes, while the climate changer priests live high on the hog basking in the carbon credits trading schemes, or the crony capitalism that Obama and the Democrats have setup.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2014
Freefromthinking: You have an opportunity (as do all of the other deniers). All you have to do is go to this web site and enter the contest to prove AGW is false. If you can, you win $30K.

http://dialogueso...nge.html

Surely, you or one of your mindless cohorts can come up with the winning solution. I am sure Watts and others will dive in to give their cogent assessment of the reasons AGW is false. Let us know when you win the prize. Enter early and enter often.

I know you have the courage of your convictions to win the prize. Just let us know when you have entered and won.

Until then, STFU FFS
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2014
"ways 'liberals' (AGWites) are like bratty kids. "
"They torment, bully, and provoke other people at every opportunity until someone hits them back, at which point they start crying and demanding sympathy."
"No matter what they fail at, it's always someone else's fault."
"They have no concept of how money works — at least when it comes to government."
"whatever they're not interested in is treated as stupid, worthless, and boring."
http://youngcons....le-kids/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2014
""Our crystal ball is foggy," he said. "Things may return to normal, but we don't know. This year we are seeing lake levels and groundwater levels rise a little bit, but we don't know whether the uptick will be sustained or everything will continue to crash. At least now we have a history to look back on, and make comparisons.""
http://news.yahoo...545.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2014
From Jan 2013:

"Great Lakes Michigan and Huron set a new record LOW water level for the month of December, and in the coming weeks they could experience their lowest water levels ever. It's becoming certain that, like the rest of the country, the Great Lakes are feeling the effects of climate change."
"As climate change continues, fueling more frequent and more extreme droughts, we will continue to see more reductions in the extent and duration of winter ice cover."

http://ecowatch.c...t-lakes/

Where's my $30k?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2014
From Jan 2013:

"Great Lakes Michigan and Huron set a new record LOW water level for the month of December, and in the coming weeks they could experience their lowest water levels ever. It's becoming certain that, like the rest of the country, the Great Lakes are feeling the effects of climate change."
"As climate change continues, fueling more frequent and more extreme droughts, we will continue to see more reductions in the extent and duration of winter ice cover."

http://ecowatch.c...t-lakes/

Where's my $30k?


Rygg2: If you think this falsifies AGW (which is right in their with your other claims of falsification) just go turn it in and collect your money.

http://dialogueso...nge.html

Let us know how that works out...

It just shows me you are full of BS.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2014
"ways 'liberals' (AGWites) are like bratty kids. "
"They torment, bully, and provoke other people at every opportunity until someone hits them back, at which point they start crying and demanding sympathy."
"No matter what they fail at, it's always someone else's fault."
"They have no concept of how money works — at least when it comes to government."
"whatever they're not interested in is treated as stupid, worthless, and boring."
http://youngcons....le-kids/


Rygg2: I think you are confused (as usual).

First, you think everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist or liberal. I am neither. I just know you have no scientific background so I can't help but disagree with you.

Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2014
Continued:

Second, your comment seems to indicate that you would expect us to cave if you pushed:

They torment, bully, and provoke other people at every opportunity until someone hits them back, at which point they start crying and demanding sympathy.


You do note that you don't indicate any first swing from the "liberal" until they were "hitting back." A typical anarchist who resorts to violence whenever it suits him.

Be careful who you push.

We are, generally, not socialists (although that would be better than an anarchist like you).

It is also you who are the coward by claiming to be able to falsify AGW but not taking the challenge on line with a substantial award.

Go ahead with your anarchist babble, but recognize that many of us will declare it for what it is: Ignorant hate rant.

You just continue to show yourself as the unscientific anarchist hate filled liar by having a chance to prove us wrong but too afraid of being shown up for what you are.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2014
AGWites don't understand 'falsification'.
Popper asserted falsification demands that if ANY part of the theory is demonstrated to be false, like so many AGW predictions, then the entire theory must be rejected.
Popper would call AGWism pseudo-science just as he described Marxism and psycho-analysis.
So, as Mona Lisa Vito said in My Cousin Vinny, it's a trick question.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2014
AGWites don't understand 'falsification'.
Popper asserted falsification demands that if ANY part of the theory is demonstrated to be false, like so many AGW predictions, then the entire theory must be rejected.
Popper would call AGWism pseudo-science just as he described Marxism and psycho-analysis.
So, as Mona Lisa Vito said in My Cousin Vinny, it's a trick question.


All you are saying is that you are afraid to even try. You don't have a clue so you won't step up to try. It would only embarrass you. Instead, you want to stick around here quote mining and not touching the science. AGW is too real and your denial does not change that a whit. Keep up the whining.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2014
"This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That's the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism."
http://hotair.com...science/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2014
All you are saying is that you are afraid to even try.


CLIMATE MODEL predictions have failed.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2014
All you are saying is that you are afraid to even try.


CLIMATE MODEL predictions have failed.


Rygg: Just where have they failed, and how are those failures related to AGW? See, you must be close to claiming your prize. All you have to do is articulate a little better.

For instance, what is the failure of the climate models? Is it related to the WV amplification you mentioned earlier? Is it a matter of resolution? Is it related to ocean currents?

Come on, you are so close I can just smell that prize. All you have to do is learn just a little bit of science so you can make it clear why those pesky models are wrong.

Come on Rygg, don't let us down again.
runrig
5 / 5 (12) Jul 09, 2014
"This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

ryggy:
The reason that WV will increase with AGW is because air hold more at a higher temp. It's just simple empirical physics. It's the reason in rains like stink in tropical climates. The CO2 comes first, then that causes the feed-back. CO2 is the driver. And no, cloud will not increase (taken as a whole in the planetary atmos). As RH stays the same while AH increases.
ALL DUE TO A WARMER CLIMATE DRIVEN BY GHG'S. Specifically human CO2 emission.

Stick to socialist hate rants.
You don't do well at the science bit.
Crucially that is where the Universe works - with physics. Sorry.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014
$30K? That's it??? That wouldn't even pay for the needed equipment and personnel to do it right. Now, if the amount were raised to something on the order of $1.5 million, that might be more worth the effort. :-)
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2014
$30K? That's it??? That wouldn't even pay for the needed equipment and personnel to do it right. Now, if the amount were raised to something on the order of $1.5 million, that might be more worth the effort. :-)


SR: You might be right, but The Alchemist, Rygg2, and Uba have all said they have already proven that the AGW theory is falsified. For them it should be easy pickings. Are you saying you can't falsify it? You seem to be in the minority of the deniers. Most think they have already proven it false and they only need to go get the easy money.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2014
SR: You might be right, but The Alchemist, Rygg2, and Uba have all said they have already proven that the AGW theory is falsified. For them it should be easy pickings. Are you saying you can't falsify it? You seem to be in the minority of the deniers. Most think they have already proven it false and they only need to go get the easy money.

I am saying no such thing either way. In all seriousness, I am skeptical of both sides of the equation. I have not seen enough data, that haven't been massaged in some way, either way, to sway me either way. I have my doubts but I have my doubts about much of everything. I have experimented enough with CO2 in multiple configurations to know it doesn't act like what is claimed for a future doubling of CO2.

If I wanted to prove it, however, I would need $65K in equipment, personnel, and legally-binding, written assurances that the work would be unimpeded by warmists/alarmists and their letter-writing campaigns--no matter the results.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (12) Jul 09, 2014
AGWites predicted Great Lakes water levels would drop due to AGW.
That prediction failed, in one year.
Since AGW is a pseudo-science, AGWites, like Marxists, will find some way to use the theory to claim the prediction did not fail.
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Jul 09, 2014
AGWites predicted Great Lakes water levels would drop due to AGW.
That prediction failed, in one year.
Since AGW is a pseudo-science, AGWites, like Marxists, will find some way to use the theory to claim the prediction did not fail.

ryggy:
Yes they will in the long term.
You again confuse short-term variation with climate change.
I wonder why?
The primary reason for the rise is this last very cold winter there. The ice has prevented a lot of evaporation and the colder water remaining is slower to evaporate too. Indeed there may be a knock on for next year.
So, one season has made the difference..... Weather.
AGW will overall reduce water levels ... because, well, warmer weather produces more evaporation. err simples.
And a fine example of deniers picking up on anything that does not match their conceived, simpletons conception of the waesy the climate works.
Oh and at the same time the W/S states had a mild winter, as did Alaska,Siberia, Europe and the much of the Arctic.
supamark23
5 / 5 (13) Jul 09, 2014
AGWites don't understand 'falsification'.
Popper asserted falsification demands that if ANY part of the theory is demonstrated to be false, like so many AGW predictions, then the entire theory must be rejected.
Popper would call AGWism pseudo-science just as he described Marxism and psycho-analysis.
So, as Mona Lisa Vito said in My Cousin Vinny, it's a trick question.


How much do you get paid per post? Nobody posts this much stupid without getting paid... unless you're even dumber than it seems.
supamark23
5 / 5 (11) Jul 09, 2014
$30K? That's it??? That wouldn't even pay for the needed equipment and personnel to do it right. Now, if the amount were raised to something on the order of $1.5 million, that might be more worth the effort. :-)


They could offer $1 billion and it would make no difference - you cannot prove a falsehood (deniers = liars, or just stupid) so they'll never have to pay.
supamark23
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 09, 2014
"ways 'liberals' (AGWites) are like bratty kids. "
"They torment, bully, and provoke other people at every opportunity until someone hits them back, at which point they start crying and demanding sympathy."
"No matter what they fail at, it's always someone else's fault."
"They have no concept of how money works — at least when it comes to government."
"whatever they're not interested in is treated as stupid, worthless, and boring."
http://youngcons....le-kids/


so, how often do you capture and torture little animals? We know you do it, just curious how often... also, what is your favorite animal to torture and kill? Is that how you suppress your NAMBLA urges, by killing little animals? I think it is...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (13) Jul 09, 2014
If I wanted to prove it, however, I would need $65K in equipment, personnel, and legally-binding, written assurances that the work would be unimpeded by warmists/alarmists and their letter-writing campaigns--no matter the results
@skepticus
Well, one thing about that is: you will likely only be repeating the experiments that have already been done
Unless you are saying that you know of some experiments that you could do that scientists have not considered that prove it one way or the other?
I am skeptical of both sides of the equation
when I first started reading on PO 2 years ago, I was too. but I read arguments from people like runrig (the main person who convinced ME)& Thermo, and researched the data (science), and I found an overwhelming preponderance of info supporting global warming and it's possible long term effects

Follow the SCIENCE! forget the rest, like politics.
Don't be like Kalopin... you have a logical mind and abilities. use them and read up for YOURSELF
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2014
AGW is a pseudo-science
@rygg
it is a pseudoscience in the same way that you are a Neurosurgeon who hit the $6billion lottery and decided to give away all your money to poor pygmies in south-central L.A. while funding the war between the Madagascar Bloods and Crips
AGWites, like Marxists
your continued insistence that all AGW believers are socialist or worse is about as legitimate as believers in "Fairy Turds saved in Bell jars" who claim to have empirical evidence
Nobody posts this much stupid without getting paid
@Supamark23
I think you may be right... he HAS to be paid to post. no one post this much stupid without being either a fanatical believer in some cult or being paid
so, how often do you capture and torture little animals?
better check if he pee's the bed a lot (still OR in the past), play's with matches and has issues with adaptation to rules and fails at social interaction too... might be relevant (see triad of sociopathy or the homicidal triad)
Scroofinator
1.1 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014
The earth goes through many cycles, and this is just one of them. The great lakes fluctuate on approximately a 20 year cycle. Granted, it was a record low cycle, but now it's back on the rise so one could hypothesize that we're in for record high water levels over the next 20 years.

AGW can claim whatever it wants, and I'm not saying human pollution doesn't contribute to a warming trend (we must stop at some point), but what we see really has nothing to do with our filthy habits. Let's not forget mother nature releases GHG on her own. The earth "breathes" and causes many local climate changes across the globe, it's just that one breath is thousands of years.

If anything is to be blamed on the current climate irregularities, point your finger at the jet stream and it's wild instability. This can be attributed to a smaller temperature/energy differential north and south of it. The greater the differential, the more stable the jet stream. Polar vortex anyone?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2014
Yes they will in the long term.
You again confuse short-term variation with climate change.

I did not make the claim about Great Lakes drought, AGWites did.
As for 'will in the long term', AGWism can only be falsified in the 'long term'?
Sounds like Popper's definition of pseudo-science.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014
Follow the SCIENCE! forget the rest, like politics.


That line should be reserved for the scientists who publish AGW work with lobbyists and politicians breathing down their necks.

Where's Ben Franklin when you need him?
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2014
If anything is to be blamed on the current climate irregularities, point your finger at the jet stream and it's wild instability. This can be attributed to a smaller temperature/energy differential north and south of it. The greater the differential, the more stable the jet stream....

The Polar Jet is not an entity in and of its own.
There are physical laws that govern its strength and movement.
You have the end result - the deltT twixt the middle latitudes and the Pole is now less than it used to be .... because of AGW. From there do we see weather variations.
The PV is a wintertime entity that forms both in the Strat and the Trop. This last winter it was particularly strong/immovable. Stronger in the stratosphere than usual (in fact up to 10C colder at the top of the Strat). This IS NOT a signal of GW. What was, was the warmth of the Tropics in the W Pacific - this "bending" the jet up to Alaska and the Rockies bringing it S over the E half of US.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2014
Yes they will in the long term.
You again confuse short-term variation with climate change.

I did not make the claim about Great Lakes drought, AGWites did.
As for 'will in the long term', AGWism can only be falsified in the 'long term'?
Sounds like Popper's definition of pseudo-science.

Read what I wrote!!
For the hard of comprehending.
The greatest lowerer of water level is evaporation.
No one has to "claim" drought in the Great Lakes.
It follows naturally from warmer temps.
The Great Lakes receives it's moisture largely from eastward bound weather systems that have had to bring moisture over the Rockies. That cannot change that much as the WV is attenuated by the mountains.
Simple Meteorology ryggy baby and NOT up for argument - sorry.
Again the Universe does not bend to your will.
Ah diddums.

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014
The Polar Jet is not an entity in and of its own.


Never said it was, just said it's instability is what is currently producing our unusual weather over the last couple years.

You have the end result - the deltT twixt the middle latitudes and the Pole is now less than it used to be .... because of AGW


Or is it because we're at an odd solar maximum, one of which has only been recorded once in our history, the Maunder Minimum.
http://www.huffin...248.html

Point is, we observe the same thing, yet you jump to the bandwagon theory (typical science these days) without considering other possible scenarios. Shame...

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2014
In response to the fact that a web site is offering $30K to anyone who could falsify AGW SR said:

If I wanted to prove it, however, I would need $65K in equipment, personnel, and legally-binding, written assurances that the work would be unimpeded by warmists/alarmists and their letter-writing campaigns--no matter the results.


SR: What do you think would be an experiment that would falsify AGW that you would need $65K for?

I'm interested in what experiment you think has not been done that you could do for $65K.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014

Or is it because we're at an odd solar maximum, one of which has only been recorded once in our history, the Maunder Minimum.
http://www.huffin...248.html


No. It's not the sun......
www.skepticalscie...nced.htm

There is an effect however whereby the Strat PV is influence by LOW solar. This is via CR impingement on O3 - warms via destruction. Noted winters in the Maunder may well have been influenced by this. However it is just a redistribution of heat in the NH via formation of a -ve AO and consequent HP spilling Arctic air south.

Point is, we observe the same thing, yet you jump to the bandwagon theory (typical science these days) without considering other possible scenarios. Shame...

I don't jump "on the bandwaggon". I'm a retired Meteorologist - one who isn't ideologically challenged or in the pay of Heartland.

We have correlation and causation physics that fit just fine thanks. It's CO2 followed by WV feedback
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 09, 2014
"But there is no denying that anyone who makes a living building computer models likely does so for the cause of advocacy, not the search for truth.

Surely the scientific community wouldn't succumb to these pressures like us money-grabbing consultants. Aren't they laboring for knowledge instead of profit? If you believe that, boy do I have a computer model to sell you.

The academic community competes for grants, tenure and recognition; consultants compete for clients. And you should understand that the lines between academia and consultancy are very blurry as many professors moonlight as consultants, authors, talking heads, etc."
http://online.wsj...04861351
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2014
Not just one experiment but several, all done at the same time. This will require equipment of various sorts, and none of it is cheap. The 65K is just for the lab equipment, not the personnel, which is why I stated that $1.5 million would be more interesting. It would be a very detailed observational experiment, with zero computer modeling, zero fudge factors, zero exaggeration factors, zero estimated data, zero data inserted upside down, combined with chemical, physical, etc. analyses, involving multiproxy, multi-ocean pH, temperature analyses from additional multiproxies (both ancient and modern, not just ancient with a cutoff date to use to blend into temperature station data) where the data is taken as it is rather than messaged to dovetail with other data. It could only involve a few people, as a larger scale study would require far more money for equipment alone, much less personnel. It would not be possible to give the full details here, as much as I would like to do so.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2014
Not just one experiment but several, all done at the same time. ...The 65K is just for the lab equipment, not the personnel, which is why I stated that $1.5 million would be more interesting. It would be a very detailed observational experiment, with zero computer modeling, zero fudge factors, zero exaggeration factors, zero estimated data, zero data inserted upside down, combined with chemical, physical, etc. analyses, involving multiproxy, multi-ocean pH, temperature analyses from additional multiproxies (both ancient and modern, not just ancient with a cutoff date to use to blend into temperature station data) where the data is taken as it is rather than messaged to dovetail with other data.


It sounds like a heat balance of the world. I admit I would do something very similar if I wanted to look at what is happening with heat. I see your distrust in models and present measurements. I'm actually sympathetic with that view. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 09, 2014
Continued: However, I make measurements and build computer programs as part of my every day work. Let me give you my take. I have to make difficult measurements of complex parameters. The only way some of them can be measured is to determine the effects and measure a proxy. In the case of ultra-high temperatures (near 3000K) I have to measure heat transfer through ceramics and then back out the temperatures using a model of the ceramic. Probes don't survive at the temperatures I measure. In like manner, if you are going to measure the temperature gradient with depth in the ocean, you can only measure a limited subset of the ocean volume. You can also only measure a subset of ocean currents. You can also measure only a subset of ocean surface height (although you can do a pretty good job on height using satellites). From that you have to interpolate heat content through the expanse of the ocean. That requires a model. Continued
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2014
Continued: Modeling is not a crime. In fact, it is one of the tools we use to build bridges, buildings, and aircraft. Models are never perfect, but they are useful and necessary for modern engineering and science. I really don't understand the hatred that the deniers (yes, I am using that term because I am embracing the AGWite term for myself and figure we can go both ways with that).

Let me give you another example of using computer. One of the technicians on one of my projects hooked up the pyrometers for measuring radiant flux in one of the flames I was looking at and didn't notice he was hooking it up backwards. We ran a set of tests that cost a lot to run. When the data were examined the pyrometer readings made no sense. When I went back to figure out why I found out the leads were backward. Wow, bad data on one of the multiple measurements we made. No, not quite. What I did was to look at how the sensors worked. Continued
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014
Continued: So, rather than toss the data I looked at what the thermopiles were made of, looked at their junction voltages, and built a program to make a reverse lookup for the voltages. The result was that I was able to correct the data and retrieve those measurements. From what I can tell, you deniers would say I cheated and "made up" data. The reality is that I did what I was paid for which is to make measurements using my engineering background. When I put thermocouples into a system for precision measurements I calibrate each one. I then correct the output from each thermocouple to beat the thermocouple error bars by the range I can assign to them using ANSI standards. Again, that is part of my job. When I need high precision I use a precision bath and triple point source for calibrating PRTs. Again, is that "manipulating data?" I see it as doing my job and getting better measurements than the standard. Continued
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014
Continued: So, when I see the denier perspective of claiming manipulation of every data set used to estimate global heat balances, I see a lack of understanding as to why engineers and scientists adjust readings on a daily basis. It is, generally, to improve the measurements. What I don't see is the details of what was changed and why. When you can bring a certification to me that says the changes were made for reason X or reason Y, I can then determine if they were reasonable or not. I can guarantee you that I would want to examine readings I was using to make sure they were correct and if they were not I would determine why and see if I could improve them. In many cases a thermal measurement device has an offset that can be corrected for. Generally those are stable and repeatable. So, I don't have an aversion for corrections nor do I hate computer programs. Instead, I know when they are important and I improve my work by using them as I have been trained. Cont
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2014
Continued: If you can show me that data have been manipulated for a specious reason then I will agree that the data need to be reexamined. However, you must not have an extensive modern engineering background if you discount data correction and computer modeling. They are the way we improve our measurement.

Again, as an example, I can use 4 lead PRTs (RTDs) IEC class A and not calibrate them and expect to be able to measure a slowly changing temperature to +/- 0.15C on an interchangeable basis up to 300C. However, I can take that same probe and calibrate it using my triple point cell and a boiling bath and cut that down to +/- 0.05C. I can then take the same probe using a triple point cell and a higher temperature triple point of zinc and measure to +/- 0.005C. If I am looking at higher precision I can get special higher resistance devices that allow me to measure to +/- 0.001C and others can do better (I don't have the equipment to do better than +/- 0.001C). Continued
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2014
Continued: So, I hope you understand that measurement is not sticking a thermometer up the rectum of your cat and getting a temperature as the cat tries to tear your arm off. In that case I would expect the measurement to have significant bias due to you wanting to get your arm out of the way. However, if I were curating data from hundreds of thermal measurement devices I would devote some of my resources to going through the data to see if there are any obvious signs of problems (such as rapid changes, repeating values, or anomalous values) and I would see if I can improve them. That should not be a surprise nor should it be a mystery. However, if I did make a change it would be scrupulously annotated to make sure everyone understood why and could undo it if needed. Do you know anything about the details of which readings were changed and why?
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2014
@ Rygu-Skippy. Sorry to interrupt you Cher but I got the question I'm dying to know the answer for.

Are you from that forum called the Bully Pulpit where all the Tea-Party-Skippys hang out? I just only been reading your postums here for a about month, it took me that long to notice you because you don't usually talk about the space crankpot stuff, here you write just the environment crankpot stuffs mixing in the Tea-Party-Skippy sounding stuffs.

Anyhoo I am curious if you are from over there what your Skippy name there? I think I know which one you probably are and maybe you are the one who told them to be on the lookout because I might be trying to sneak back in to make them the misere again me.

You remember me from there? Ira-Gator, Ira-Skippy, Mean-ol-Ira and some other ones I forget now? I'm the one make everybody mad by saying nice things about Obama back at the election time and cause them to turn off the karma voting thing by bad voting the Tea-Party-Skippys.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014
The earth goes through many cycles, and this is just one of them
&
mother nature releases GHG on her own
&
the jet stream
&
Or is it because we're at an odd solar maximum
@scroof
Can I point out that these issues have been addressed by past studies and are included in the studies today as known factors which is why runrig says
We have correlation and causation physics that fit just fine thanks
For instance: your jet stream issue. please read this link and WATCH THE VIDEO in it: http://qz.com/163...n-worse/

essentially boils down to this: the jet stream that is causing the instability that gave us the cold snaps this winter is because of the warming that destabilized it

the jet stream issue was affected by warming, not a cause of warming
Not just one experiment but several, all done at the same time
@skepticus
and all repeats of existing or past studies
so you want a complete do over? for conspiracy? why?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014
It would be a very detailed observational experiment, with zero computer modeling, zero fudge factors, zero exaggeration factors, zero estimated data, zero data inserted upside down, combined with chemical, physical, etc. analyses...
@skepticus
it looks like you are trying to re-invent the wheel, really. Perhaps you mistrust the data due to conspiracy? I don't know...the only reason I see to start over is because you don't trust the data or you feel a grand conspiracy.
Perhaps you are just inexperienced in data correction and computer modeling? Take some courses here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
perhaps after the experience you will understand more about the issues that you are skeptical about?
also-
Perhaps you should address your concern about past data before moving forward?
There may be personal issues preventing you from being objective. don't discount it.

stress affects us all in a myriad of ways

whatever you DO... just STICK TO THE SCIENCE
ignore the rest.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Jul 09, 2014
No. It's not the sun......


How can you be so damn sure? If your saying the sun has nothing to do with climate change then your beyond ideologically challenged, your mental. It's not just one thing weatherman. Ocean currents, volcanic activity, permafrost/ice melting, earth's magnetic field weakening, magnetic north drifting, all these things fit into the equation somehow.

Now I didn't google any of the acronym laced second part, a -ve AO especially got me, but your saying ozone holes cause localized heat fluctuation? That is very possible for the MM, it would make sense that multiple large CMEs could tear a hole in the ozone.

We have correlation and causation physics that fit just fine thanks.

It's ridiculous that this is enough for scientists these days. Science has always been about finding the true root cause of things in the universe, not just settling for models and theories.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Jul 09, 2014
Thermo.
RE your defense of modeling and incremental changes. Rather lengthy and a bit too detailed for my ADHD reading process. BUT - absolutely necessary, thoroughly thought out and appropriately applied.
Nicely done, sir.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014
How can you be so damn sure? If your saying the sun has nothing to do with climate change then your beyond ideologically challenged, your mental
@scroof
or maybe he read the studies included in the first link?
http://www.skepti...nced.htm
do the math yourself too to double check
also read up here
http://www.skepti...iate.htm
supporting evidence http://sun.stanfo....web.pdf
http://www.cgd.uc...vity.pdf
http://iopscience...4022.pdf
http://citeseerx....type=pdf
http://onlinelibr...4864/pdf
http://www.nature...040.html
http://individual...zone.pdf
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014
How can you be so damn sure? If your saying the sun has nothing to do with climate change then your beyond ideologically challenged, your mental
@scroof
you've had this problem before... but READ the studies... read the links used on the skeptical science site that he references.
then read the ones referenced in THOSE studies
That list I left above is only 1/4 of the way thru the article, and only the easy/general article... there was a more intermediate link too
http://www.skepti...iate.htm

you may not like the answer you got, or maybe it is not some pat concise sound byte, but science rarely is

READ the STUDIES and you will understand WHY runrig and others support the scientific evidence.

or write your own theory proving AGW wrong and turn it in here: http://dialogueso...nge.html

win $30,000.oo and global fame
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2014
@Stumpy

I'm not talking about just solar radiation, I'm fairly certain that's only a part of the Sun's influence on the earth. But from that first link:

Studies have reconstructed TSI over the past 300 years. Wang, Lean, and Sheeley (2005) compared a flux transport model with geomagnetic activity and cosmogenic isotope records and to derive a reconstruction of TSI since 1713.


The "data" they're using wasn't even observed, it was estimated. Hardly fact.

http://www.pveduc...adiation
The measurements are taken using either a pyranometer (measuring global radiation) and/or a pyrheliometer (measuring direct radiation). In well established locations, this data has been collected for more than twenty years.


We've only been taking real measurements for a few decades, a tiny sample in terms of 300 years. Keep drinking up all of that "peer reviewed" kool-aid, it's definately an old retiree's drink.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2014

or write your own theory proving AGW wrong and turn it in here: http://dialogueso...nge.html

win $30,000.oo and global fame


Not looking for fame and fortune, just some answers. Besides, dude will never pay up because AGW isn't wrong, it just isn't 100% right.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2014
Scoofinator said:
We've only been taking real measurements for a few decades, a tiny sample in terms of 300 years. Keep drinking up all of that "peer reviewed" kool-aid, it's definately an old retiree's drink.


Are you advocating we get our information from Drudge, FoxNews, WattsUp, and other sites instead of reading peer reviewed scientific papers?

I assume that is just because you can't read the real papers.

It certainly appears from your posts that, if you read scientific papers, you can't understand them.
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2014
Are you advocating we get our information from Drudge, FoxNews, WattsUp, and other sites instead of reading peer reviewed scientific papers?


Wow, great perception skills there, you nailed it. Have no idea what drudge or wattsup is, and fox news is for people lost in an egotistical fantasy, just look at O'Reilly. All I'm saying is you can't always trust a scientific paper (gravity waves are the most recent I can think of), take it with a grain of salt and an open scientific mind.

It certainly appears from your posts that, if you read scientific papers, you can't understand them.


Oh, you got me again. Dumb little me, questioning the validity of unproven science. Try to actually provide some of these "misunderstood posts" so I can spell them out better for you. I realize it must be hard to think outside of that programmed box your mind is in.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2014
The "data" they're using wasn't even observed, it was estimated
@scroof
did you read the study to see what they actually did?
Did you check their maths and determine that they made a mistake?
Did you determine that the method used to "estimate" was inadequate and the error bars were inadequate for the task at hand?
this is relevant... please let me know. I DID link their study to you as well
you have ALL the info... please point out the flaw! be specific, so I can see what you're talking about
Keep drinking up all of that "peer reviewed" kool-aid, it's definately an old retiree's drink
considering the alternative... I will take peer reviewed over biased conjecture without evidence any day of the week
perhaps that is your beef with the system? the peer reveiw?
Besides, dude will never pay up because AGW isn't wrong, it just isn't 100% right
he has to. legally. Therefore your comment is unsubstantiated conjecture
Specifically with regard to proving AGW - put up or shut u
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2014
Scroofy you said:
Keep drinking up all of that "peer reviewed" kool-aid, it's definately an old retiree's drink.


You claim I came down on you over this without cause. Please explain to me why you don't value peer reviewed papers and where else you expect to get modern scientific reports. What do you consider to be valuable sources?
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2014
No. It's not the sun......


How can you be so damn sure? If your saying the sun has nothing to do with climate change then your beyond ideologically challenged, your mental. It's not just one thing weatherman. Ocean currents, volcanic activity, permafrost/ice melting, earth's magnetic field weakening, magnetic north drifting, all these things fit into the equation somehow.


I'm sure because I follow the science and understand Meteorology. And no I am NOT saying that the Sun "has nothing to do with CC" - just that it's not THIS TIME. Orbital characteristics have us in a cooling phase. The SH is receiving ~8% more energy in summer than the NH does in its. Nothing else is known to science that fits the energy excess. Not CR's, DM, DE, or fairy dust. Magnetic field anomalies/solar flares and solar max/min do not do it my friend. EM energy is unaffected by the Earth's field. You talk of charged particles/electrons. EM energy has no charge. We know the variation in solar output over it's 11yr cycle (~1%) is nowhere near enough .... and its a cycle - goes up/down, meanwhile temps keep rising (yes in the oceans counts). Cont
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2014
cont
Now I didn't google any of the acronym laced second part, a -ve AO especially got me, but your saying ozone holes cause localized heat fluctuation? That is very possible for the MM, it would make sense that multiple large CMEs could tear a hole in the ozone.

OK sorry about that. AO is Arctic oscillation - a +ve one is the usual low pressure dominated one, so that air generally is converging INTO the Arctic ( much less scope for cold air to move south). A -ve one is HP dominated and it's this configuration that "wiggles" the jet to allow Arctic plunges S.
No, not holes in this case, but excess O3, as ozone is needed to be destroyed and warm the Strat thereby. There is a transport of O3 from the Tropics to the Pole in a circulation called the Brewer Dobson. When a lot is present over the Arctic and solar output is low then warming can occur. BTW for different reasons the PV was attacked by warmer air this last winter, but it was so strong (the PV) that it just shrugged it off - in a normal winter that would not have occurred. Cont
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2014
cont
Now the Jet can be pushed from the warm side also. This is what seems to have happened this last winter. Think of the jet as a rope, you hold one end and the other is tied to something. Now jerk your end quickly up/down. A wave train will be induced down the rope. The up will do it (warm push) or the down will do it (cold push). Also there is a quasi bi-annual oscillation of the Strat winds over the Tropics. This last winter they were W'ly. This means that there was more momentum in the Atmosphere as a whole in that direction. Momentum needs to be low to initiate the cold process and that means an E'ly. The QBO is will be E'ly this next winter. So it was a warm push that caused the plunge over the E half on N America aided by a strong Strat PV. Hope that at least makes sense to you.
Cont
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2014
cont
We have correlation and causation physics that fit just fine thanks.


It's ridiculous that this is enough for scientists these days. Science has always been about finding the true root cause of things in the universe, not just settling for models and theories.

It's not "enough". Science is constantly looking to advance. GHG science is well known/studied and the physics when crunched gives the correlation (need to include ocean warming). The match is stunning (denier's need to include the 93% of solar heat storage and not concentrate on the 7%). SST's in the Tropic E Pacific add/subtract ~0.2C to global temps and a prolonged La Nina will store heat in the deep ocean to boot. This is what has been happening since ~2005.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2014
Please explain to me why you don't value peer reviewed papers

"doctors believed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. But in 1982, Australian scientists, Robbie Warren and Barry J. Marshal, discovered that it was Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium, that was the dominant cause of stomach ulcers. Treatments could be a simple antibiotic. However, since antacid tablets were a great source of revenue for pharmaceutical companies and there was huge pressure to ignore the new evidence. "
"How does the phenomenon of groupthink influence the peer-review process?

The editor's personal beliefs affects his attitude toward a submission, which referees he assigns, how he evaluates the referee reports, etc."
""The same forces that help academics to produce knowledge and scholarship are the forces that produce unwholesome close-mindedness and inbred self-satisfied attitudes," "
http://peerreview...-review/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2014
"Groupthink is a problem in two very different ways. The first is when it prevents any group of scholars from seeing ideas, interpretations, or evidence that ought to be interesting or important to them – when it keeps their work from achieving its full potential. "
"The second way that groupthink is a problem is more conscious and more troubling: when it leads to excluding, bullying or mocking dissident scholars whose work deserves inclusion or respect within a particular discipline or intellectual tradition. "
{Sounds familiar}
"But there are some ways to at least break up groupthink, such as, practices of open or semi-open peer review; either all the time or at least on a frequent enough periodic basis to keep reviewers honest.

In the sciences, a commitment to publishing negative results, also strong standards for disclosure of conflicts of interest that include membership in professional associations or groups that are associated with well-defined orthodoxies."
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2014
"there is a pervasive institutional form of 'groupthink' that discriminates against the publication of negative findings. Often reviewers don't even have to consciously think about that rejection, they just know that there is something "not interesting" or "not important" about a negative finding. But having a publication norm that is always against negative findings means that there is enormous incentive to claim a significant finding. This can lead to fudging of data, at least unconsciously.

Also if you're reviewing something that fits your own paradigm or privileged approach, you are inclined to see as incontestably true or obvious findings that might actually be highly debatable or ambiguous"
{Sounds like all the AGW 'studies'}
http://peerreview...-review/
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2014
@Stumpy/thermo

Let me be clear: Peer review isn't bad, just how it's implemented is. I think ryggesogn2 did a nice job of explaining why. The point I'm trying to make is one must have some healthy skepticism when reading these works. There may well be an ulterior motive, namely $$.

Did you check their maths and determine that they made a mistake?
Did you determine that the method used to "estimate" was inadequate and the error bars were inadequate for the task at hand?


I determined their method was flawed from the beginning. You can't guarantee the last 10% of a sample size will hold true for the first 90%, especially when considering something so crucial as the Sun, yet that's what they did.

he has to. legally. Therefore your comment is unsubstantiated conjecture
Specifically with regard to proving AGW - put up or shut u


No conjecture here, AGW can't be proven wrong, so he won't pay. Man has influenced the climate, we're just not the only players.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2014
Magnetic field anomalies/solar flares and solar max/min do not do it my friend. EM energy is unaffected by the Earth's field. You talk of charged particles/electrons. EM energy has no charge. We know the variation in solar output over it's 11yr cycle (~1%) is nowhere near enough

What about the effects of all of this on the Ionosphere? HAARP was setup to do just that, but I haven't heard anything come out of it. We still don't know with certainty the role the Ionosphere plays in climate, so all of these things might very well have an unknown influence that could be misconstrued into AGW.

You must realize data can be made to portray whatever picture the authors want to paint. Until there's a theory/equations that has observable predictive power, everything else is pseudoscience, regardless of what the current models say.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2014
So let's get this straight.
The AGW Cult has been wrong about:
Temperatures
Ocean levels
Polar ice
Polar bears
Great lake levels
Hurricanes
Tornados
......................
But still the Chicken Littles believe they are right about AGW.
What's the definition of a cult again.
runrig
4.9 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2014
What about the effects of all of this on the Ionosphere? HAARP was setup to do just that, but I haven't heard anything come out of it. We still don't know with certainty the role the Ionosphere plays in climate, so all of these things might very well have an unknown influence that could be misconstrued into AGW.
You must realize data can be made to portray whatever picture the authors want to paint. Until there's a theory/equations that has observable predictive power, everything else is pseudoscience, regardless of what the current models say.

No amount of messing with the Ionosphere, Mesosphere, or Stratosphere is adding a single W/m2 of energy to the Earth's climate system. The Strat goes from ~ 100mb to 1mb (100th to 1000th the density of surface air). It's mere tinkering at the edges.
Sat data shows an imbalance a the top of the atmosphere - more coming in than going out. OF solar EM energy. Surface spectrometers measure excess back IR and attributes it to CO2.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2014
So let's get this straight.
The AGW Cult has been wrong about:

Temperatures
Warming slowly in the air and also in the deep ocean (where 0.1C rise = 400C in the air and about to resume acceleration with ElNinos.
Ocean levels
Rising at an accelerating rate - but delayed by excess rainfall due La Ninas since ~2005.
Polar ice
Melting on an alarming downward trend in the Arctic, where temps have risen most due AGW. Antarctic sea-ice extending its edges due stronger winds and fresher waters due AGW.
Polar bears
Have no future in the Arctic in the decades to come. Due AGW.
Great lake levels
On a falling trend - temp. halted by one season's cold winter and a winter that was typical back in the 70's but rare now. Meanwhile most of the NH had a mild one.
Hurricanes
Will become more dangerous - recent seasons affected by dry Saharan Mid-level air inhibiting convection.
Tornados
Needs cold air aloft and wind shear. Not just warm below.
Anything else?
runrig
4.9 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2014
Anti:
What is happening is you don't understand the science (because you don't want to). It suits you that way because you have an enormous ideological investment in it being wrong.

No amount of us explaining the science or of new science strengthening the now obvious (to those with unbiased and scientific minds) that AGW theory is correct and to boot is damned serious going into the next decades - has
Parrotting/spamming of your opinion (win the money!!!!!) does not make it so.
The world does not bend to you my friend.
You have not seen the Emperor naked - this is not a fairy tale, and you do not know more than the experts, or get to invent a conspiracy to make your opinion correct.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2014
Anything else?

Umm, ya. All you did was to give our current understanding of these phenomena, based on observation and models, none of which have been predicted or described by AGW. Try again.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2014
More on 'peer' review:

"SAGE Publishers is retracting 60 articles from the Journal of Vibration and Control after an investigation revealed a "peer review and citation ring" involving a professor in Taiwan."
http://retraction...tracted/
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2014
Scoofy says:
You must realize data can be made to portray whatever picture the authors want to paint. Until there's a theory/equations that has observable predictive power, everything else is pseudoscience, regardless of what the current models say.


Here is where we diverge in our view of AGW. You talk about models and I talk about physics. The physical basis for AGW is that CO2 retains IR on the Earth. The more CO2 the more heat is retained. Yes, H2O is the primary GHG but CO2 is number 2 and is important. Basic physics.

The models examine the details of where on the earth the heat goes. Those are huge messy models that are constantly improving.

You bring up the other parameters that control the climate. That is legitimate but, so far, every calculation that has been validated indicates the increase in CO2 brought on by human use of fossil fuels is the primary driver. That is AGW theory and the science community is testing it constantly.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2014
Anti:
What is happening is you don't understand the science (because you don't want to). It suits you that way because you have an enormous ideological investment in it being wrong.

OK runrig, since you know the science, and I do want to know it myself, answer this question for me.
If everything the IPCC wants, to curb CO2 levels, is done, would that stop the glaciers and ice sheets from melting?
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2014
Anti:
What is happening is you don't understand the science (because you don't want to). It suits you that way because you have an enormous ideological investment in it being wrong.

OK runrig, since you know the science, and I do want to know it myself, answer this question for me.
If everything the IPCC wants, to curb CO2 levels, is done, would that stop the glaciers and ice sheets from melting?

It might stop the worst of it in the long run, yes.
So you reckon it's too late already and we'd be better off not even trying??
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2014
Anything else?

Umm, ya. All you did was to give our current understanding of these phenomena, based on observation and models, none of which have been predicted or described by AGW. Try again.

Exactly - you said it!
"All you did was to give our current understanding of these phenomena"

What on earth would you expect in a sane world - other than to act on the above? The only thing that I know off that is counter intuitive to (original) ideas is the increase in Antarctic sea-ice. - This in part the O3 hole above Antarctica has helped keep the continent cold and increased the deltaT in the SH.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2014
More on 'peer' review:

"SAGE Publishers is retracting 60 articles from the Journal of Vibration and Control after an investigation revealed a "peer review and citation ring" involving a professor in Taiwan."
http://retraction...tracted/


So you are not going to tell me if you are that Tea-Party-Skippy from the other place? I don't mean nothing by it but am just curious me. Over there I was the Ira-Gator, the Mean-ol-Ira, the Ira-the-Lefty, the Ira-Skippy, the Ira-Skippy-Too, the Ira-Votes-Democrat, the Ira-Obama's-Friend and some other ones I don't remember right now. After those names I couldn't get back in no more.

How everybody is over there? They still think the whole world is coming to an end because Obama is the presidential-Skippy?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2014
No, thermodynamics, I would not accuse you of fraud or anything the like. You revealed your methodology and explained the problem with the thermocouple that was wired backward. This makes the experiment not only verifiable but also makes it easy to replicate the result in further experimentation. It's when the methodology is kept hidden, program code is kept hidden, and when fudge factors and exaggeration factors are used in conjunction with a refusal to reveal software code and methodologies. That is when I get suspicious.

As to the models, there are too many problems with climate modeling right now, particularly since only about a quarter of them got even close. Way too many factors are unaccounted for in the models and they still need a lot of work, particularly since most of them did not account for pauses in warming over the last almost 15 years. This is why we need a replacement for GLORY ASAP. That satellite was supposed to provide a more accurate accounting of soot, etc.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2014
SR: Let's start with this comment:
It's when the methodology is kept hidden, program code is kept hidden, and when fudge factors and exaggeration factors are used in conjunction with a refusal to reveal software code and methodologies. That is when I get suspicious.


I like the idea of publishing software, however, there are no standards for doing that at this time. Part of the trouble is that most of the codes are written in commercial systems such as Fluent or they use commercial libraries if they are using languages like FORTRAN or C++. None of the commercial languages or libraries can be shared because they are written by for-profit corporations. Let me give you an example. I could give you copies of the section of code I can write in Mathematica - but you would not be able to run them unless you bought Mathematica. I cannot give you a copy of Mathematica without violating the copyright agreement. Continued
thermodynamics
4.9 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2014
Continued: It is even worse if I use libraries in C++. My code will be unreadable because I will be making library calls to code I cannot share. At least in Mathematica you can look up my calls - unless I am using copyrighted code that I can't share.

As for "fudge factors" how can we know if they are legitimate parameters or something pulled out of the air. Where do you get the idea that they are making adjustments that are not valid?

I have seen no validation for the idea that you, Rygg2, Uba, and Cantdrive keep bringing up that there was manipulation of the data. Can you give a validated reference?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2014
SR also said:
As to the models, there are too many problems with climate modeling right now, particularly since only about a quarter of them got even close.


Close to what?

As I have pointed out before, there is AGW physics that addresses the balance of heat on Earth. The models deal with both the heat balance and the distribution of heat within the fluids of the earth. The heat balances (the change in heat over time) seems to be pretty good. That shouldn't surprise you because it is physics. It will improve, but that does not seem to be in question.

The distribution of the heat on the earth is much harder. The interaction of ocean currents and atmospheric winds over asymmetric features is complex and that has a lot more improvement to be made.

I think it is important to understand what the difference between these two aspects of the models mean.

Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
Continued: As I was saying, there are two different parts of the model.

The first is the heat balance (the impact of increasing GHGs on the retention of IR radiation).

The second is the distribution of the heat on the globe.

The first part is reasonably easy to get close (within an error bar).

The second part is a very difficult hydrodynamics problem.

That does not mean the models are useless. Let me explain why.

I also deal with fluid dynamic problems in combustion. What I can do is to get regions of flow right but I cannot predict small-scale behavior. The reason is that I cannot get the boundary conditions perfect and I also cannot get the initial flows perfectly. Because of that and sensitivity to initial conditions my predictions will never be perfect.

That does not mean they are not useful. To get useful results I run hundreds of instances of the simulations with varying boundary conditions. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2014
Continued: The approach of using many instances of the problem is familiar to statistical mechanics as a statistical ensemble. By using this approach we average over all of the possible phase space. The result is not something that exactly predicts anything. Instead it gives regional results that are useful in predicting what will happen when I change nozzles or flow rates. It also gives trends in global circulation models.

Again, all of the models give about the same absorption of radiation. There are variations due to albedo differences as well as cloud cover differences but they are within a few percent and all tend to trend up.

In the area of circulation of heat the models do not agree as well and those are the areas being worked on.

The bottom line is that all of them tend to agree on increased heat in the atmosphere and oceans. The reason has been identified as GHGs.

So, let us know where you see them missing the target.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
I couldn't care less about the non-shareable APIs. That isn't an excuse for not sharing the source code for the programs used to handle and manipulate the data. Most people would have access to the same shared libraries, or be able to obtain them once the API calls (if any be used) are seen. Please don't make excuses. Refusal to share source code (which is protected by copyright and patent laws) leads to suspicion. One cannot replicate the experiment or the handling of the data without the source code and raw data used in the computations. As to where the models are missing the target, this can be seen in the results. Most all the models didn't see the warming pause of the last 15 years coming. That means several crucial elements still are missing from the models. When you have 3/4 of the models missing the target there are serious problems with them. They should be discarded in favor of the models that got relatively "close."
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2014
I couldn't care less about the non-shareable APIs. That isn't an excuse for not sharing the source code for the programs used to handle and manipulate the data. Most people would have access to the same shared libraries, or be able to obtain them once the API calls (if any be used) are seen. Please don't make excuses. Refusal to share source code (which is protected by copyright and patent laws) leads to suspicion.


OK, here is source code. Go ahead and tell me how they hid the processes from you.

http://berkeleyea...sis-code

Do I need to find more? Or can you run a search? They use Matlab which is similar to Mathematica. Of course you will need to get a copy of Matlab.

Now, please analyse their code and let us know what is wrong with it.

Oh, and also please retract your rant about not sharing source code.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2014
SR: I just spend a few more minutes looking for source code. Here is an interesting site that lists a bunch of sites.

http://www.easter...-models/

Oh wait, here is another site with source code downloads.

http://www.azimut...on+model

And another.

http://www.giss.n...modelii/

So, I want to explain that the old models were not passed on based on platforms and APIs. I guess that they have changed. Have you?

I actually thought that they didn't share most of the code based on old information. I think that this changed last year some time. Apparently the denier sites have not caught up and I have to tell you I hadn't caught up either. Thanks for making the point so I had to look. Now it is clear that your whole point about the source code is incorrect. So, look for another reason to distrust them. I will expect to see your retraction.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2014
SR said:
Most all the models didn't see the warming pause of the last 15 years coming. That means several crucial elements still are missing from the models. When you have 3/4 of the models missing the target there are serious problems with them. They should be discarded in favor of the models that got relatively "close"


No, models that didn't do as well on the "pause" (which was not a pause in heat content increase but a pause in measured atmospheric temperatures) should not be discarded. Again, you have to go into the code (which you have now) to determine why they did not catch the change in atmospheric temperatures. It could easily be that something as simple as coupling between fluids is calculated wrong in one that has other things calculated correctly. You don't know until you study them (which you and all skeptics can do now). Continued
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
I'm talking about Michael Mann and others of his ilk who to this day have refused to share source code, even with Congress. The links you have provided are for a few of the models, not all of them. More groups are sharing source code with all the clamor regarding it over the years. For that I am grateful. But, most still are not sharing. While you are at it, please try to get Michael Mann to share all his source code. He still isn't sharing all of it.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2014
Continued: It has been an interesting month for me. I built a simple 1-D model that made the heat transfer in the atmosphere much clearer to me. It convinced me to take a stronger stand against the deniers once I saw how clear the change in CO2 and resultant change in retained IR is. I understood the physics before, but building the model made the impact a lot clearer.

Then this week the offer of $30K of his own money by Chris Keating for anyone falsifying AGW made it clear that no one has a clue of how to do that because the physics is sound.

Now, finding out that both raw data and source code are available for all of the skeptics to dig into (and has been for a lot longer than I knew about) just about chops the legs out from under the skeptics. If you want to show fraud - just dig into the software. So far no one has.

Let me be clear. I am sure there are faults in any complex software. I have yet to see fraud. SR, show us where it is. You can now...
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2014
I'm talking about Michael Mann and others of his ilk who to this day have refused to share source code, even with Congress. The links you have provided are for a few of the models, not all of them. More groups are sharing source code with all the clamor regarding it over the years. For that I am grateful. But, most still are not sharing. While you are at it, please try to get Michael Mann to share all his source code. He still isn't sharing all of it.


SR: You big furry goofball. Your just funnin' with me now aren't you.

Here is the site for Mann's source code (again in Matlab) as well as his raw data.

http://www.meteo....ols.html

Please go in and show us how he "fudged" the data.

On top of that, recognize that these programs and data have been available for more than a year and no one has pulled them apart to show us where they are wrong. Please eat your words.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2014
SR: Oh, I forgot to ask you if there were any other specific researchers who have pissed you off other than Mann. If you want I can try to find their source code. My guess is it is out there now. You have completely lost any credibility on faking the models. Now you have to show where they are wrong.

Also, realize that the skeptic sites have had access to these codes for years and have yet to lay out where they think the code is suspect. What does that tell you?

If you understand software, all you have to do is tear into the code I just gave you access to and show us where things are hinky (that is a technical term).

It really feels good to find out how wrong this myth was.

Hidden code?

Secret societies?

Faked data?

Go dig in and find out what that conspiracy looks like.

Do you really think that Watts doesn't know that code is out there and yet he still claims a conspiracy.

Do you still claim a conspiracy?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
That's not all of his source code. There are quite a number of papers not included, along with the source code for them. Even in Mann's 2010 paper, he inserted the Finland data upside down because it didn't give him the results he wanted otherwise. I noticed that his 2010 paper isn't listed on the site you linked, at least not looking over the page linked. He did provide his worked data and program code for that paper because that was insisted upon but a lot still has not been released.

Anyone who has actually read all the data taken from the CRU servers (not just the emails) knows that efforts were made at obfuscating and trying to keep source code and working papers out of the public eye, as well as how to attempt to foil FOIA requests.

Yes, faked data. When you load in data from defunct stations, infill from non-existent stations, and incorporate that with 40% or possibly more estimated data into your "raw data" dataset, that isn't ethical, in my opinion. Conspiracy? Maybe.
thermodynamics
4.9 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2014
SR says:
That's not all of his source code. There are quite a number of papers not included, along with the source code for them. Even in Mann's 2010 paper, he inserted the Finland data upside down because it didn't give him the results he wanted otherwise. I noticed that his 2010 paper isn't listed on the site you linked, at least not looking over the page linked. He did provide his worked data and program code for that paper because that was insisted upon but a lot still has not been released.


And where did you get this information? Please provide a source for these claims - not that I care. You have already embarrassed yourself by saying he didn't post his code. Now it is that he didn't post all of his code. How do you know? Do I have to explain to you why I use code that is 5 years old because it is good enough for the next papers because I built it to interpret my data. So, what is the new code he has not posted? What is your source. I gave you the site.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2014
SR says:
Yes, faked data. When you load in data from defunct stations, infill from non-existent stations, and incorporate that with 40% or possibly more estimated data into your "raw data" dataset, that isn't ethical, in my opinion. Conspiracy? Maybe.


Come on. The data are available. Go find the faking and show it to me - or do you just take the word of Watts and Rush?

I gave you data and source code you claimed didn't exist. You have changed your claims from none available, to some available, to faked and you have not offered a single link. Am I just supposed to take your word? I know you wouldn't take mine unless I gave you the links.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2014
SR says:
Yes, faked data. When you load in data from defunct stations, infill from non-existent stations, and incorporate that with 40% or possibly more estimated data into your "raw data" dataset, that isn't ethical, in my opinion. Conspiracy? Maybe.


Do you really not know that there are branches of statistics that deal with missing data?

http://en.wikiped...ing_data

http://www.uvm.ed...ing.html

http://handbook.c...data.htm

Books:

http://www.applie...ata.com/

And parts of data analysis courses.

Did they treat missing data correctly? Do you have the statistical background to know if they did or didn't?

If you do have the background you can now go out and check their application.

If you are not competent enough to know, you can't call it "unethical."

You didn't even know it was part of statistical analysis.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2014
Attempts were made to obtain Mann's analysis code at one time. He refused claiming it was proprietary.

"PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.

Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !"
http://wattsupwit...justice/
freethinking
1 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2014
So how many years of no, or decreasing global temperatures will it take before global warmest believe that there is no global warming.....errr climate change?

Oh wait, if temperatures go down...... it's still climate change isn't it..... must raise taxes, increase regulations, so the average person will be poorer, and the rich progressive elite will be richer.
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
Exactly - you said it!
"All you did was to give our current understanding of these phenomena".


Don't misconstrue what I said. We don't need AGW to describe these weather events since they had already been (at least) mildly understood before AGW became a theory. AGW hasn't done much to further elaborate on the processes, it's just helped build models based on observation.

This is the problem with physics today, we don't theorize about anything outside of the scope of the "modeling physics" world, yet that's where the true discoveries lie, in the theory. We have only been collecting advanced climate data for ~50 years, so what makes you think the earth has always acted like it has since we took notice? What a foolish thought.

Physics is supposed to be predictive on theory and equations, not probabilistic on models and data. The latter is supposed to support the former, not the other way around.
runrig
4.9 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2014
Most all the models didn't see the warming pause of the last 15 years coming. That means several crucial elements still are missing from the models. When you have 3/4 of the models missing the target there are serious problems with them. They should be discarded in favor of the models that got relatively "close."
SR
What is missing from the models is THE most important climate cycle - ENSO.
It is missing because we don't know it's cycle length and so it needs to be got around - likely by being left neutral (I do not know the methodology TBH). You cannot include an arbitrary length to a cycle that adds/subtracts 0.2C to ave global temps, or the model could end up putting in 0.2C when the Pacific was in an La Nina - which it has been for the majority of the time of your "pause".
What the model gives is error bars for warming.
Let me know when temps are outside of them (sig).
I recently discovered the IPCC forecast is skewed greatly by 2 Canadian models that no one dare remove.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2014
Physics is supposed to be predictive on theory and equations, not probabilistic on models and data. The latter is supposed to support the former, not the other way around.

As I and Thermo have said - it is the basic unarguable physics of GHG's and of CO2 in particular that are the basis for our confidence in warming.
The models are trying to sort out where the excess solar energy is being stored and where it is appearing. It's like looking at a boiling kettle and trying to predict where the warmest bit of water is in the thing (by 0,001C). You concentrate on the short-term variability or chaos that is inherent in the system. It is internal chaos and will average out. The basic imbalance of more solar in than IR out is where the nub is.
BTW: We know just when a known quantity of water will reach boiling given an exact amount of heat at a known ambient temp and pressure. The swirling water while it gets there doesn't matter in the long run. And climate cycles also.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
So how many years of no, or decreasing global temperatures will it take before global warmest believe that there is no global warming.....errr climate change?

Oh wait, if temperatures go down...... it's still climate change isn't it..... must raise taxes, increase regulations, so the average person will be poorer, and the rich progressive elite will be richer.


The nub of denialism (in the US anyway).
Right-wing selfishness.
My tax dollars
Ah diddums.
This a graph of Spring temps (1890-present).

http://theenergyc...l-agency

Oh dear ... you also forgot the 93% of heat storage on Earth "How convenient" and stupid.

http://timkovach....raph.jpg
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2014
As I and Thermo have said - it is the basic unarguable physics of GHG's and of CO2 in particular that are the basis for our confidence in warming.


Hardly inarguable:
http://phys.org/n...oil.html

Methane is more harmful than CO2, yet humans don't produce as much as livestock, not to mention the other sources in nature. By your logic we need to quit all domestication of animals and go vegan or hunter-gatherer again.

I'll say it again: GHG's are contributing to climate change, but humans aren't the sole purpose.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
Scrooffi said:
Methane is more harmful than CO2, yet humans don't produce as much as livestock, not to mention the other sources in nature. By your logic we need to quit all domestication of animals and go vegan or hunter-gatherer again.


Really?
"yet humans don't produce as much as livestock,"


Humans produce livestock. It is just one more way we get GHGs into the atmosphere.

Then Scrooffi said:
I'll say it again: GHG's are contributing to climate change, but humans aren't the sole purpose.


Humans produce the excess of CO2, CH4, NOx, and refrigerants.

So, what is not being produced by humans?

Reference please?
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
Humans produce livestock. It is just one more way we get GHGs into the atmosphere

Right, which is why I said:
By your logic we need to quit all domestication of animals and go vegan or hunter-gatherer again.

Comprehension is an important thing you know...

Humans produce the excess of CO2, CH4, NOx, and refrigerants.


Didn't we just establish the humans aren't the leading producers of CH4? By association, yes, but what are we gonna do, stop eating meat? Put a bag on cows asses to capture the CH4? Don't forget the herds of buffalo, caribou, elk, moose, deer, elephants, rhinos, boars, etc...

Why does everything have to be so black and white with you mainstream devotees? What kind of agenda are you and your cronies trying to push here? What's sad is apparantly there's so many people who would follow what you clowns say just because you have good ratings.

Which leads me to this Vietvet character. Whose n'th alias is that? That guys a downvoting machine.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2014
Take the word of Rush and Watts? Nope. I got the information from Judith Curry (who used to be a member of the consensus). Yes, there are statistical methods for blank data. However, it is important that this information be revealed as such and when missing data becomes very substantial it becomes problematic. To not tell the public (which have a right to know) this information only to wait until someone discovers it, is unethical. Infilling from non-existent stations is bad enough but to not be forthcoming to the public that they are using estimated information and filling blanks? Come on.

I wish I weren't retired and still had easy access to papers and subscriptions. I'd be able to list quite a few sections of code that Mann omitted and still has not made public. Your five year old code analogy with C++ may have some connection but Mann didn't reuse as often as you might think, and many papers are omitted. It's also bad when any numbers plugged in give similar results in some code.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
SR said:
Take the word of Rush and Watts? Nope. I got the information from Judith Curry (who used to be a member of the consensus). Yes, there are statistical methods for blank data. However, it is important that this information be revealed as such and when missing data becomes very substantial it becomes problematic. To not tell the public (which have a right to know) this information only to wait until someone discovers it, is unethical. Infilling from non-existent stations is bad enough but to not be forthcoming to the public that they are using estimated information and filling blanks? Come on.


Try this site:

http://judithcurr...t-607181

Note, it is Judith Curry's site and this post is on her site.

You say Judith is your source. Then why would she let someone post an explanation on her site?

This is a very good explanation of what is done to the data.

Any comments using Judith as an excuse?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
SR said:
I wish I weren't retired and still had easy access to papers and subscriptions. I'd be able to list quite a few sections of code that Mann omitted and still has not made public. Your five year old code analogy with C++ may have some connection but Mann didn't reuse as often as you might think, and many papers are omitted. It's also bad when any numbers plugged in give similar results in some code.


Please give me actual references or direct information that shows what you are talking about.

You do realize that many papers are "pay-walled" in that the journals they are published in require payment to read. Is that the right thing to do? Who knows, but it is legal and the way they make money. I, personally, don't like it because it means I can't read some papers. Are those the papers you are talking about?

How do you know how often Mann reused code? I don't know that for sure about people I work with each day. How do you know that about Mann?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2014
"Now, following a three-year dispute between banker and climate sceptic Doug Keenan and Queens University Belfast, Smith has told the university to hand over to Keenan the results of its 40-year investigation of Irish oak-tree growth rings."
"The researcher whose work is now public property, palaeoecologist Mike Baillie, says: "Sets of measurements made using personal expertise and involving specialised decision-making are no longer regarded as intellectual property. In future any scientist researching on any topic which can be regarded in any way as 'environmental' must live under the threat that they can be made to hand over their measurements.""
http://www.newsci...DxrHb4is
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2014
"Climate Audit will eventually be able to reconstruct Mann08 using the information and software provided generously by Mann. I am not being facetious about the generosity, I say that because Climate Audit was started and fueled by the lack of transparency in this science. In the past almost no information was given out. This is certainly due to the efforts of Steve McI and group at climate audit. Whether you agree with them or not, you have to give credit for an improvement in transparency in this field."
http://noconsensu...he-data/
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
Rygg says:
"Now, following a three-year dispute between banker and climate sceptic Doug Keenan and Queens University Belfast, Smith has told the university to hand over to Keenan the results of its 40-year investigation of Irish oak-tree growth rings."
"The researcher whose work is now public property, palaeoecologist Mike Baillie, says: "Sets of measurements made using personal expertise and involving specialised decision-making are no longer regarded as intellectual property. In future any scientist researching on any topic which can be regarded in any way as 'environmental' must live under the threat that they can be made to hand over their measurements.""
http://www.newsci...DxrHb4is


Four year old information again.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
Rygg2 says:
"Climate Audit will eventually be able to reconstruct Mann08 using the information and software provided generously by Mann. I am not being facetious about the generosity, I say that because Climate Audit was started and fueled by the lack of transparency in this science. In the past almost no information was given out. This is certainly due to the efforts of Steve McI and group at climate audit. Whether you agree with them or not, you have to give credit for an improvement in transparency in this field."
http://noconsensu...he-data/


Six year old information again.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2014
"Climate Audit will eventually be able to reconstruct Mann08 using the information and software provided generously by Mann. I am not being facetious about the generosity, I say that because Climate Audit was started and fueled by the lack of transparency in this science. In the past almost no information was given out. This is certainly due to the efforts of Steve McI and group at climate audit. Whether you agree with them or not, you have to give credit for an improvement in transparency in this field."
http://noconsensu...he-data/


@ Rygu-Skippy since you keep ducking the question I guess I hit the raw nerve when I guessed you are from the Bully Pulpit forum & Tea-Party-Skippy group and you really do remember ol Ira, huh? Over here I'm the new nicer Ira so I'll go easy on you montana-Skippy. You still use that montana-Skippy name there or do you have the new one like the ryggu-Skippy here?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
Four year old information again.

There is a statute of limitations?
AGWites have demonstrated a lack of openness. Why?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
So let's get this straight.
The AGW Cult has been wrong about:.blah blah blah
But still the Chicken Littles believe they are right about AGW.
What's the definition of a cult again
@aunti-g
so lets get this straight.
aunti-g has been wrong about:
EVERYTHING HE HAS POSTED
he has never proved anything
usually he just posts some derogatory TROLL comment
But still the idiot moron believes that we should think he has a brain?
what is the definition of completely delusional TROLL poster again?

So you can't comprehend science and instead attack those who actually have a brain and the intellect that can fathom what is going on!
and you want to feel important so you instantly believe ANYONE that contradicts the SMART PEOPLE like scientists
likely this is because you have the IQ of a carrot and you were emasculated publicly once by someone smart
You got the link: http://dialogueso...nge.html
GO PROVE AGW IS WRONG troll boy!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
Attempts were made to obtain Mann's analysis code at one time. He refused claiming it was proprietary.

AGWites have demonstrated a lack of openness.
@Ryg-tard
really?
you posted this after Thermodynamics dumped link after link of access to source code that you claim "agw'ites" are hiding? our "lack of openness" is above you, ryg-tard
just read Thermo's posts!
are you Illiterate?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
Let me be clear: Peer review isn't bad, just how it's implemented is. I think ryggesogn2 did a nice job of explaining why
@scroof
I disagree. I think he was describing more from a paranoid conspiratorial or mob mentality background and contrarian answer
The point I'm trying to make is one must have some healthy skepticism when reading these works
so where does it stop?
The studies are there for you to pick apart. Do it!
Give a specific reason WHY... but don't let someone else's paranoia run your own logic or thought process

Humans CAN lead other humans. easily. They can manipulate their thoughts and force them into a fanatical state of mind that will do anything (even if against the average or cultural norm/morals) and most of the time, they calls these people religious leaders.

SCIENCE is about suspending faith and using empirical data to prove a point. It is more precise and believable than court evidence, and is why it is SO effective in court.
It's there-read it
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2014
Regarding the Judith Curry site, that page you linked isn't the one I got the information from. I linked it in another place somewhere around this site. Nice try, though. But, Judith Curry typically is fair, which is why she allows such comments.

Yes, but the paywall situations also makes it difficult to do what I did before a few years ago. I went through all of Mann's papers with a fine-toothed comb, which is why I know what he used and didn't for his papers, and why I know when he provided code and when he didn't, and wouldn't.

It really is that simple but, alas, I won't be able to demonstrate it to you without being able to see each and every single one of his papers again. Sadly, that's not happening anytime soon. Sorry, but there is little I can do about that situation for some time. I'm not asking you to take anything on faith. Believe or disbelieve. It makes very little difference to me. I know what I saw. Feel free to agree to disagree for the present.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2014
Attempts were made to obtain Mann's analysis code at one time. He refused claiming it was proprietary.

AGWites have demonstrated a lack of openness.
@Ryg-tard
really?
you posted this after Thermodynamics dumped link after link of access to source code that you claim "agw'ites" are hiding? our "lack of openness" is above you, ryg-tard
just read Thermo's posts!
are you Illiterate?


Most of Mann's source code still remains unavailable for detailed inspection, in spite of the paltry amount now provided online.

@thermo,

There are two kinds of infilling being done, infilling from stations flagged 'E' and infilling from non-existent stations. That latter kind of infilling is what I take issue with. It produces different results as a comparison of MET/Goddard/NOAA with the JMAgency. They follow similar curves but note how much lower temps are after 2000.

http://www.nasa.g...inal.pdf
JMA doesn't infill.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2014
Regarding the Judith Curry site, that page you linked isn't the one I got the information from. I linked it in another place somewhere around this site. Nice try, though. But, Judith Curry typically is fair, which is why she allows such comments.


You just don't get it. You cited Curry, probably this post:

http://judithcurr...d-right/

What I did was show you a later post on the site that reflects both the mainstream and Curry's take on the details. Curry is not a denier. Instead, she has her own view on the "pause" which is her stadium wave analysis. You need to read more of her site (and point me to the URL) to show me that she believes there was any fraud in the data reconstruction.

Are you saying she said there was fraud? If so, please point us to the statement.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2014
SR said:
There are two kinds of infilling being done, infilling from stations flagged 'E' and infilling from non-existent stations. That latter kind of infilling is what I take issue with. It produces different results as a comparison of MET/Goddard/NOAA with the JMAgency. They follow similar curves but note how much lower temps are after 2000.

http://www.nasa.g...inal.pdf
JMA doesn't infill.


Just why do you take issue with any statistical approach unless you are a statistician that can analyze the approach?

When comparing two sets of data, how can you be sure which one is right?

Did you read any of the information links I sent you on data reconstruction? Do you understand why they fill stations on a grid to improve resolution and computation speed?

If you don't understand how the statistics work, how can you have an opinion?
Captain Stumpy
4.9 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2014
Most of Mann's source code still remains unavailable for detailed inspection, in spite of the paltry amount now provided online
@skepticus
Sorry. I don't see the proof of that statement. There is more than a paltry amount available... and Thermo proved that you can access it.
Thermo also brings up a few good points in his second post above about statistics.

IF you are going to challenge the stat.'s and the data within them, then you must have empirical data supporting your claim to provide a basis for argument.
This means forget about the gut feeling or hunches, and drop any conspiratorial talk reaching for any thread to support your position
(this is not meant to be derogatory towards you, but a harsh reminder of how science works)

GET PROOF, support your hypothesis. Make a prediction, and create a test that is repeatable, empirical and valid that supports your POV and then publish this data. IF it proves your point, you win. simple, right?
empirical data wins, not conjecture
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2014
I have never said that Curry said it was fraud. I have never stated that Curry is a "denier." She herself has styled herself as "formerly part of the consensus" and is opposed to "consensus groupthink."

What part of infilled data from non-existent stations do you not understand? I understand about filling gaps in statistical studies. I get that. But, when your infilled and estimated data gets to 40% or more, how does one state that the results of statistical analyses have a 95% confidence level? It doesn't make statistical sense. When the public isn't told about what they are doing, it's unethical.

JMA's approach to the data is logical and consistent with the actual, observed trend from 2001 to the present (notwithstanding MET's failed attempt to skew it upward with HADCRUT4). If you cannot see the benefits to doing things as the JMA do, without so much infilling as do NOAA/Goddard/MET, what is the point of continuing a conversation with someone with that mindset? It gets nowhere.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2014
SR said:
Yes, faked data. When you load in data from defunct stations, infill from non-existent stations, and incorporate that with 40% or possibly more estimated data into your "raw data" dataset, that isn't ethical, in my opinion. Conspiracy? Maybe.


When I said he probably got that from suspect sources he said:

Take the word of Rush and Watts? Nope. I got the information from Judith Curry (who used to be a member of the consensus).


SR now says:
I have never said that Curry said it was fraud. I have never stated that Curry is a "denier." She herself has styled herself as "formerly part of the consensus" and is opposed to "consensus groupthink."


Come on. You said it was "Faked" and then said you got that from Curry.

I then pointed you at Curry's site and now you are trying to reinvent the comments. Just man up and admit you screwed up and you just don't know how they handled the data.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2014
SR said:
What part of infilled data from non-existent stations do you not understand?


What is there that I am missing? Please explain.

SR said:
But, when your infilled and estimated data gets to 40% or more, how does one state that the results of statistical analyses have a 95% confidence level? It doesn't make statistical sense.


Please explain:

1) Do you have first hand evidence of infilling of 40%?

2) Could the 40% include adjusted as well as infilled?

3) How do you know it does not make statistical sense if you don't know how much, why, and what methods were being used?

Sounds like Mr. Grumpy just doesn't like the science and is willing to make up any reason he wants. Awe me with your statistical expertise.
Skepticus_Rex
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2014
Nope, I said that I got the information about the problematic data from Curry. I never said that she said it was fake. Go back, re-read my actual comments, and stop trying to insert your own meanings into what I wrote. When I looked at the claim regarding the data and its contents, I myself came to the conclusion that some of it was faked. So yes, I said "faked" for some of it undoubtedly is. Why? If a station doesn't exist and you cite data from it or extrapolate data from it, that, in my view, is fraudulent.

You really don't understand what "non-existent station" means? What is the point of continuing this discussion, then?

At least 40% contains adjusted data, and perhaps more because there also is infilled data from non-existent stations there. I do not have a link to the article, but one discussing JMA vs. Goddard/NOAA/MET does mention that JMA do not infill data from extrapolated stations (that don't exist). It isn't a blog article but I cannot access a database to search, now.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2014
SR:

No problem stopping the discussion. You have said you think the data are faked and you have not shown any evidence for that. You cited Judith Curry and then said she was not the one who said that the data were faked. So, you are calling it faked and not basing it on Judith Curry.

When you get some evidence for faked data, post again. Until then I am just noting that is your opinion not based on any evidence you have presented.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2014
I never said that I based calling it faked on Judith Curry, only that this discussion is one to watch because of the situation. The person she quoted also stated that there were serious and unjustifiable problems with the data. I am basing that 'faked' claim on the fact that data from non-functioning stations is showing up in the data along with estimated data.

If a station is non-functional, and you still extrapolate and pull data from it, what else is it if not faked? I'm curious as to how you justify such kinds of data. Filling in blanks is one thing but creating data whole cloth from non-functional stations is another. Yet, you cannot see the difference, thinking it all is acceptable statistical methodology.

Whatever....
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2014
I have some quick questions regarding this faked data - conspiracy issue. Is the raw data we are talking about available? It sounds to me as if we are questioning the program code that was used to process this data - and develop the reports showing temperature graphs. If the raw data is still available - surely it would be very possible to develop a parallel set of code - input the raw data - prove that the climate is not really warming - and it is all a big conspiracy. Surely something Watts, and Curry would have plenty of resources to easily accomplish. Case closed. What am I missing?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2014
I have some quick questions regarding this faked data - conspiracy issue. Is the raw data we are talking about available? It sounds to me as if we are questioning the program code that was used to process this data - and develop the reports showing temperature graphs. If the raw data is still available - surely it would be very possible to develop a parallel set of code - input the raw data - prove that the climate is not really warming - and it is all a big conspiracy. Surely something Watts, and Curry would have plenty of resources to easily accomplish. Case closed. What am I missing?


Strange: You are not missing anything. The data, techniques, and source code are all available. I am still waiting for anyone to come up with a paper that shows why the technique is faulty. SR's gut feeling just doesn't cut it for me. A good paper that showed the process is faulty would be one I would pay attention to. Until then it is just one more statistical approach to me.
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2014
The data, techniques, and source code are all available.


Skepticus - what say you? Is the raw data still available? If yes - why have you not constructed your own analysis - and propelled yourself into eternal fame - for revealing one of the greatest conspiracies the world has seen?