The Decline and Fall of New Scientist magazine
Matty F
Michael Mann. Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt.
I used to read that mag, but it's probably a waste of time now.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/new-scientist-becomes-non-scientist/
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: More Rubbish
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400
Reply-to: ma...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
yep, I’m watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!
New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that.
They are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every
point, including the HS! (Hockey Stick)
Roger_Nickel
Not just New Scientist but Nature Journal, Science Journal, Scientific
American, Science Today and that's just a few of the more disreputable
English language rags involved---an obvious conspiracy of truly epic and
mind-bending proportions!.
bubba ray
I had a look at New Scientist just the other day - the editorial
consisted of an alarmist piece on AGW.
Matty F
I'm now quite sure that the whole AGW scam will collapse one day. I've
been looking at raw data, properly!
In which case, we should be making up a "naughty list" of
organisations and individuals who will be asked to grovellingly
apologise for their lies or incompetence, or face the sack.
Gordon
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:02:46 -0800, Matty F wrote:
>
>> It seems that New Scientist just do the bidding of the discredited
>> Michael Mann. Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt. I used to read that mag, but
>> it's probably a waste of time now.
>>
>> http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/new-scientist-becomes-non-scientist/
>>
>> To: Phil Jones
>> Subject: Re: More Rubbish
>> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400 Reply-to: ma...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>
>>
>> New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They
>> are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point,
>> including the HS! (Hockey Stick)
>
> Not just New Scientist but Nature Journal, Science Journal, Scientific
> American, Science Today and that's just a few of the more disreputable
> English language rags involved---an obvious conspiracy of truly epic and
> mind-bending proportions!.
Ah, come on! They just want more readers for more profit. Follow the money,
as the saying goes.
You give them too much credit I think
Gordon
>> consisted of an alarmist piece on AGW.
>
> I'm now quite sure that the whole AGW scam will collapse one day. I've
> been looking at raw data, properly!
Nah, just fade away.
colp
> On Dec 18, 5:16 pm, bubba ray <kdav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 4:02 pm, Matty F <mattyf9...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > It seems that New Scientist just do the bidding of the discredited
> > > Michael Mann. Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt.
> > > I used to read that mag, but it's probably a waste of time now.
>
> > >http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/new-scientist-becomes-non-scientist/
>
> > > From: “Michael E. Mann”
> > > To: Phil Jones
> > > Subject: Re: More Rubbish
> > > Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400
> > > Reply-to: m...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
> > > yep, I’m watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!
>
> > > New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that.
> > > They are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every
> > > point, including the HS! (Hockey Stick)
>
> > I had a look at New Scientist just the other day - the editorial
> > consisted of an alarmist piece on AGW.
>
> I'm now quite sure that the whole AGW scam will collapse one day. I've
> been looking at raw data, properly!
It would be interesting to compare the correlation of temperature and
CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar activity.
Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks interesting, but an
objective statistical test is better.
Roger_Nickel
Which raw data?. The historical proxy reconstructions are confusing at
best for the reasons pointed out in the Wegman report ordered by the US
congress. This report focuses on the statistical methods used by Mann
during data reduction and certainly the claim that the 20th century was
the warmest in the last 1300 years is statistically suspect. However the
NRC review also ordered by the Bush administration concluded that :-
"...large-scale surface temperature reconstructions are important tools
in our understanding of global climate change that
allows us to say, with a high level of confidence, that global mean
surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th
century than during any comparable period during the preceding four
centuries..."
If you really do want to do this stuff yourself then best to read the
Wegman report for an overview of some of the things which can go wrong
during the analysis of a complex data set and to read the NRC report for
an overview of the proxy temperature reconstructions which is more
specifically focused than that in the 2007 IPCC report.
If you think that the instrumental record is rubbish and that global
temperatures are not increasing then my own opinion is that you are on a
hiding to nothing, especially in light of sea temperature data now coming
out of the ARGO project and satellite data from the NASA AIRS project.
Roger_Nickel
Matty F
wrote:
> Which raw data?.
I've been looking at the data where a man goes outside at 9am and
writes the temperature down on a form and signs it.
I see no hockey sticks in that data.
I've read the Wegman report.
George
"Matty F" <matty...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:425d2e47-19a7-4c99...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 18, 5:16 pm, bubba ray <kdav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 4:02 pm, Matty F <mattyf9...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It seems that New Scientist just do the bidding of the discredited
> > Michael Mann. Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt.
> > I used to read that mag, but it's probably a waste of time now.
>
> >http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/new-scientist-becomes-non-scientist/
>
> > To: Phil Jones
> > Subject: Re: More Rubbish
> > Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400
> > Reply-to: m...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>
> > New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that.
> > They are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every
> > point, including the HS! (Hockey Stick)
>
> I had a look at New Scientist just the other day - the editorial
> consisted of an alarmist piece on AGW.
>I'm now quite sure that the whole AGW scam will collapse one day. I've
>been looking at raw data, properly!
and if AGW doesn't suddenly 'go away' then lets hope that you were ignored.
>In which case, we should be making up a "naughty list" of
>organisations and individuals who will be asked to grovellingly
>apologise for their lies or incompetence, or face the sack.
and when validated, we shall expect all the deniers to grovel and beg us for
inclusion back in to society, for their lies and incompetence. Those who
knew things were not right, but covered it up for greed, those can go off to
court.
rob
Roger_Nickel
How do you plan to improve on the analysis described in section 3 of the
2007 IPCC report?. What, specifically, is wrong with their interpretation
of the data?. How do you interpret figure 3.1?, what difference does it
make if you take the Hadley CRU data out?
Geopelia
"Gordon" <gor...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:7p0gvc...@mid.individual.net...
I get New Scientist, 80 beats, and some Discovery newsletters emailed free
to me.
There are many other matters discussed besides Global Warming.
Don't judge a magazine by just one topic.
Geopelia
Geopelia
"Geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hgfrpk$m6p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Roger Dewhurst
Enkidu
>
> I get New Scientist, 80 beats, and some Discovery newsletters emailed
> free to me.
>
leg to subscribe fully and the free stuff was only teasers.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
Matty F
> Geopelia wrote:
>
> > I get New Scientist, 80 beats, and some Discovery newsletters emailed
> > free to me.
>
> How do you get it for free Geo? Last time I looked it cost an arm and a
> leg to subscribe fully and the free stuff was only teasers.
>
Perhaps Geo is part of the cabal :)
Talking of which - this is interesting, the censorship and shonky peer
review was happening way back in 2003:
1069630979.txt
From: RichardS...@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Workshop: Reconciling Vertical Temperature Trends
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:42:59 EST
To: [more than 100 people and organisations]
Dear All:
The excuses seem to be becoming desperate. Unjustified assertion
that I fail to understand "Myles' comments and/or work on trying the
detect/attribute climate change" does not stop the attribution study
being an error. The problem is that I do understand what is being
done, and I am willing to say why it is GIGO.
[snip lots]
. But, as my response states, Myles' comments do not alter the fact
that the masked data and the unmasked data contain demonstrated false
trends. And the masking may introduce other spurious trends. So, the
conducted attribution study is pointless because it is GIGO. Ad
hominem insults don't change that.
And nor does the use of peer review to block my publication of the
facts of these matters.
Richard
Enkidu
Squiggle
link that to the "A" in AGW please, because so far it looks like
description of a totally natural process.
Roger_Nickel
Displacement of Hadley cells towards the poles as a result of increased
circulation driven by absorption of low infrared energy by CO2 and water
vapour in the atmosphere. Result is transport of energy from the tropics
further into the polar regions. Warm air can hold more water vapour than
cold air and tropical air convecting into the upper atmosphere
circulates further towards the poles before the water vapour condenses
out and the air cools, when it falls back to the surface. Net result is
temperature increase in the polar regions irrespective of increase in
averaged global temperatures. The "A" part is that the increased CO2 is
provably (isotope ratio analysis) derived from fossil fuels. Water vapour
has strong absorption bands right across the low IR region and warming
due to CO2 is amplified by water vapour with maximum temperatures
limited by cloud formation. Increased energy absorption in the atmosphere
guarantees increased circulation in the atmosphere.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/agu/airs20091215.html
colp
wrote:
What is the connection between antropogenic processes and water
vapour, and what propoportion of the displacement is due to water
vapour?
Matty F
> Matty F wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 10:04 am, Enkidu <enkidu....@com.cliffp.com> wrote:
> >> Geopelia wrote:
>
> >>> I get New Scientist, 80 beats, and some Discovery newsletters emailed
> >>> free to me.
> >> How do you get it for free Geo? Last time I looked it cost an arm and a
> >> leg to subscribe fully and the free stuff was only teasers.
>
> > Perhaps Geo is part of the cabal :)
>
> > Talking of which - this is interesting, the censorship and shonky peer
> > review was happening way back in 2003:
>
> > 1069630979.txt
> > Subject: Re: Workshop: Reconciling Vertical Temperature Trends
> > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:42:59 EST
> > To: [more than 100 people and organisations]
> > Dear All:
> > The excuses seem to be becoming desperate. Unjustified assertion
> > that I fail to understand "Myles' comments and/or work on trying the
> > detect/attribute climate change" does not stop the attribution study
> > being an error. The problem is that I do understand what is being
> > done, and I am willing to say why it is GIGO.
> > [snip lots]
> > . But, as my response states, Myles' comments do not alter the fact
> > that the masked data and the unmasked data contain demonstrated false
> > trends. And the masking may introduce other spurious trends. So, the
> > conducted attribution study is pointless because it is GIGO. Ad
> > hominem insults don't change that.
> > And nor does the use of peer review to block my publication of the
> > facts of these matters.
> > Richard
>
> >
> All I see there is a whinge because they wouldn't accept his papers.
You'll have to read the file to see why it's relevant to Geo :)
Geopelia
"Enkidu" <enkid...@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:4b2bee59$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> Geopelia wrote:
>>
>> I get New Scientist, 80 beats, and some Discovery newsletters emailed
>> free to me.
>>
> How do you get it for free Geo? Last time I looked it cost an arm and a
> leg to subscribe fully and the free stuff was only teasers.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>
It's a newsletter New Scientist sends by email. Some stories are not
available unless you pay, but there is plenty there to read free.
Here you are
http://www.newscientist.com/projects/forms/e-newsletter
Roger_Nickel
Maximum possible water vapour content of a volume of air depends directly
on air temperature. Excess water vapour will be immediately precipitated
out until the dew point is reached. There is no similar direct
relationship between air temperature and CO2 levels. Water vapour exists
in equilibrium in the atmosphere. On a climate-change timescale the
equilibrating process is instant so that water vapour is not a driver of
climate change (although it is a driver of weather). The response time of
the global system to a C02 pulse is of the order of thousands of years
and the effect of air heating, due to absorption of low energy re-
radiation, on energy circulation in the atmosphere is determined much
more by the latent heat of vaporisation of the increased water vapour
content than by increase in temperature of the dry air. Exact effect on
surface temperatures is difficult to foresee but there will definitely be
an increase in circulation.
NASA/JPL say that the AIRS satellite can simultaneously measure radiation
signatures from both water and CO2 at three different levels in the mid-
troposphere with a 50 Km horizontal resolution and that warming due to
CO2 will be "more than doubled" by water vapour
Roger Dewhurst
"O-Sixty-One! O-Sixty-One!
How lovely are thy cycles!
O-Sixty-One! O-Sixty-One!
At last, a match for Michael's!"
Roger_Nickel
You OK?
colp
What NASA/JPL says should be taken with a pinch of salt.
James Hansen, head of the NASA institute for space studies (GISS), was
forced by Watts & McIntyre to revise his published figures for US
surface temperatures to show that the hottest decade of the 20th
century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/09/mcintyre_vs_hansen_saga_contin_1.html
In 1988 Hansen testified to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore.
Hansens former NASA supervisor John Theon declared that Hansen
“embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims.
Roger Dewhurst
Yes. Why?
Geoff Rait
>colp wrote:
>> It would be interesting to compare the correlation of temperature and
>> CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar activity.
>> Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks interesting, but an
>> objective statistical test is better.
>
>
>http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/little-ice-age-ii-sequel
The sun? Another zombie argument.
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2086/2447.abstract
Geoff
--
Actually, I do have spots.
WorkHard
> In article <hggqce$r0t$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst
> wrote:
>> colp wrote:
>
>>> It would be interesting to compare the correlation of
>>> temperature
>>> and CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar
>>> activity. Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks
>>> interesting, but an objective statistical test is better.
>>
>>
>> http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/little-ice-age-ii-sequel
>
> The sun? Another zombie argument.
What... are you saying the Sun has no bearing on the heating or
cooling of the planet Earth?
Seriously?
Roger_Nickel
JPL is at Pasadena, California and James Hanson is not listed as on the
management team or on the research staff. JPL claim that the satellite
based data have been exhaustively cross checked by ground and aircraft
based measurement. It's just over a year since this data set was
originally announced so there is some chance that extra care is being
taken this time. In any case, this is one measurement series from one
measurement platform so data reduction should be a lot easier than in the
case you quote. It's entirely possible that NASA has learned something
from the mistakes of the last 20 years and that might explain why the
whole data set is publicly downloadable. Downloads include data readers
in Matlab and dear olde Fortran, a readme manual for the calibration data
set which includes list of the ground stations used as calibration
points. Also complete historical data from all of the sensors on the
spacecraft and "near real time" access to the raw data stream. A
refreshing change in an era where information is increasingly seen as
intellectual property. So far I've only looked at some of the edited
highlights but if you suspect a gerrymander is underway then there is
plenty here to get your teeth into.
It surprises me that you rate Watts alongside McIntyre. Watts cuts
corners, ignores data he doesn't like and in general makes the same
mistakes as he says that those he is criticising make.
victor
Yup
The planet just cools.
The atmosphere is a thin surface layer.
How much heat is trapped by the atmosphere is dependent on the gases.
Photosynthesis traps carbon, releases oxygen, combustion, including
cellular respiration or oxidative metabolism traps oxygen, releases
carbon dioxide.
At chemical equilibrium without photosynthesis the temperature of the
atmosphere would be much higher at the maximum of the greenhouse effect.
Photosynthesis which sequestered the carbon as hydrocarbons reduces the
greenhouse effect, reducing the carbon dioxide.
What we refer to as global warming is a bit misleading, its a reduction
in atmospheric cooling.
WorkHard
> WorkHard wrote:
>> Geoff Rait wrote:
>>> In article <hggqce$r0t$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst
>>> wrote:
>>>> colp wrote:
>>>>> It would be interesting to compare the correlation of
>>>>> temperature
>>>>> and CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar
>>>>> activity. Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks
>>>>> interesting, but an objective statistical test is better.
>>>>
>>>> http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/little-ice-age-ii-sequel
>>> The sun? Another zombie argument.
>>
>> What... are you saying the Sun has no bearing on the heating
>> or
>> cooling of the planet Earth?
>>
>> Seriously?
>>
>>
>
> Yup
LOL You're nuts.
> The planet just cools.
No matter what the Sun does? And how come you believe in AGW when
you say the 'planet' just cools?
> The atmosphere is a thin surface layer.
No kidding?
> How much heat is trapped by the atmosphere is dependent on the
> gases.
What about how much heat gets in from the Sun when it cools or
heats up?
> What we refer to as global warming is a bit misleading, its a
> reduction in atmospheric cooling.
Yes, but what causes that? You seem to be saying the Sun has no
effect whatsoever. I say bullshit.
Max Burke
> It's a newsletter New Scientist sends by email. Some stories are not
> available unless you pay, but there is plenty there to read free.
> Here you are
> http://www.newscientist.com/projects/forms/e-newsletter
Here's another 'newsletter' you might be interested in...
Edge Foundation, Inc., was established in 1988 as an outgrowth of a
group known as The Reality Club. Its informal membership includes of
some of the most interesting minds in the world.
The mandate of Edge Foundation is to promote inquiry into and discussion
of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well
as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society.
http://edge.org/documents/archive/edge.index.html
It's free to subscribe, and you get the full articles on the website.
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
WD
Yet the temperature differential across the polar front largely
determines the strength of major weather events. If this temperature
differential is reduced as a result of *anthropogenic* global warming
one wonders why AGW alarmists use images of major weather events to
scare the public over the danger of human-induced warming.
> The "A" part is that the increased CO2 is
> provably (isotope ratio analysis) derived from fossil fuels. Water vapour
> has strong absorption bands right across the low IR region and warming
> due to CO2 is amplified by water vapour with maximum temperatures
> limited by cloud formation.
... and the extent that cloud formation limits water vapour
amplification is still unknown.
snip
Weihana.
Geopelia
"Max Burke" <mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote in message
news:hgifgv$hfl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
The only problem for me will be finding time to read it all.
colp
> In article <hggqce$r0...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
> >colp wrote:
> >> It would be interesting to compare the correlation of temperature and
> >> CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar activity.
> >> Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks interesting, but an
> >> objective statistical test is better.
>
> >http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/little-ice-age-ii-sequel
>
> The sun? Another zombie argument.
Zombies in CERN too?
CERN plans global-warming experiment
Nov 26, 1998
A controversial theory proposing that cosmic rays are responsible for
global warming is to be put to the test at CERN, the European
laboratory for particle physics. Put forward two years ago by two
Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, the
theory suggests that it is changes in the Sun's magnetic field, and
not the emission of greenhouse gases, that has led to recent rises in
global temperatures.
Experimentalists at CERN will use a cloud chamber to mimic the Earth's
atmosphere in order to try and determine whether cloud formation is
influenced by solar activity. According to the Danish theory, charged
particles from the Sun deflect galactic cosmic rays (streams of high-
energy particles from outer space) that would otherwise have ionized
the Earth's lower atmosphere and formed clouds.
Roger_Nickel
snip
Weihana.
It's not quite that simple. More turbulence in the atmosphere could
easily cause more severe local weather even if the huge global scale
storms portrayed by Hollywood are unlikely. IPCC give 80 or so pages at
the end of section 3 to this question and conclude that an increase in
extra-tropical storms is "likely" along with an increase in intensity and
duration of tropical storms which move further out of tropical regions.
There is not evidence of a clear trend of increase in the actual number
of tropical storms. More annual "heavy precipitation events" and an
increase in frost free nights in temperate regions are already observed.
A lot of weather is driven by what happens in the sea, that's where most
of the heat is and what happens in the sea has only been mapped by the
ARGO project and its siblings for the last ten years or so. Thermal
oscillations in the oceans are on a time-scale of decades and time for
the oceans as a whole to react to a step change in heat input, with
complete overturning of all the water and stabilisation of circulation,
is of the order of a thousand years. The past is the best guide to what
climate change is possible. An overview of the historical context of the
debate is in the NRC report here :-
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10136
You can read online or download a summary but have to pay for the full
pdf. Grrr--bloody intellectual property!.
In terms of what is on the historical record, the IPCC forecasts are
moderate. Greater changes have taken place in the past and more quickly.
Several papers covering the effects of CO2/water vapour/cloud formation --
are announced on the AIRS web site but they are still under peer review
and won't be released to the web before journal publication. The AIRS
work is revolutionary and while we still don't know everything about what
happens in the atmosphere we do suddenly know a lot more than a few years
ago. If bored you can just sit and watch the animations of the various
circulation patterns and let it all soak in.
Geoff Rait
<b0c09bc3-0bd3-4328...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
colp wrote:
>On Dec 19, 8:48=A0pm, (Geoff Rait) wrote:
>> In article <hggqce$r0...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
>> >colp wrote:
>> >> It would be interesting to compare the correlation of temperature and
>> >> CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar activity.
>> >> Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks interesting, but an
>> >> objective statistical test is better.
>>
>> >http://theresilientearth.com/?q=3Dcontent/little-ice-age-ii-sequel
>>
>> The sun? Another zombie argument.
>
>Zombies in CERN too?
>
>CERN plans global-warming experiment
>Nov 26, 1998
Old zombie arguments being repeatedly re-animated. Did you note the
date?
>A controversial theory proposing that cosmic rays are responsible for
>global warming is to be put to the test at CERN, the European
>laboratory for particle physics. Put forward two years ago by two
>Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, the
>theory suggests that it is changes in the Sun's magnetic field, and
>not the emission of greenhouse gases, that has led to recent rises in
>global temperatures.
>
>Experimentalists at CERN will use a cloud chamber to mimic the Earth's
>atmosphere in order to try and determine whether cloud formation is
>influenced by solar activity. According to the Danish theory, charged
>particles from the Sun deflect galactic cosmic rays (streams of high-
>energy particles from outer space) that would otherwise have ionized
>the Earth's lower atmosphere and formed clouds.
>
>http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3124
Whether cosmic rays (which are modulated by solar activity) *could*
influence climate is a different matter from whether they *have*.
There's currently no strong evidence for the former; and the latter has
been dealt with in the two Royal Society papers I referenced and a
number of others. Cosmic ray activity since direct measurements began
(early 1950s) and from earlier proxy records, shows no correlation with
temperature. Friis-Christensen now dismisses the link himself.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/
sun-sets-on-sceptics-case-against-climate-change-1839875.html
victor
An increase in respiration and combustion by heterotrophs such as
animals (fossil fuel combustion) and a decrease in photosynthesis by
autotrophs such as plants (deforestation).
Which changes the homeostasis regulated by the biosphere upward towards
the high greenhouse effect chemical equilibrium of a planet like Mars.
The sun has all sorts of effects.
It supplies the energy for the photosynthesis that removes carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere.
It drives the atmospheric convection system, and affects the albedo of
the planet by the amount of ice cover and reflective clouds
It warms the surface of the planet and the lower atmosphere.
Its a complex system and includes variations in net incoming solar
energy as you say. We are dependent on the atmosphere keeping most of
that radiation out to keep our habitat just right.
The planet doesn't heat up, the heat storage in the atmosphere varies.
WorkHard
I think that "just right" has a hell of a lot of leeway.
> The planet doesn't heat up, the heat storage in the atmosphere
> varies.
That's normal. It always varies. Always has done.
colp
> In article
>
>
>
> colp wrote:
> >On Dec 19, 8:48=A0pm, (Geoff Rait) wrote:
> >> In article <hggqce$r0...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
> >> >colp wrote:
> >> >> It would be interesting to compare the correlation of temperature and
> >> >> CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar activity.
> >> >> Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks interesting, but an
> >> >> objective statistical test is better.
>
> >> >http://theresilientearth.com/?q=3Dcontent/little-ice-age-ii-sequel
>
> >> The sun? Another zombie argument.
>
> >Zombies in CERN too?
>
> >CERN plans global-warming experiment
> >Nov 26, 1998
>
> Old zombie arguments being repeatedly re-animated. Did you note the
> date?
Yes, your zombies have been working on this project for over a decade
now. The project is scheduled to produce experimental results early
next year.
CERN's cosmic cloudmaker cranks up
Posted in Environment, 16th November 2009 14:13 GMT
The cosmic ray effect - a factor of the background CBR bombardment
itself, and the relative strength of the earth and the Sun's magnetic
shields - shows a strong correlation between temperature, CBR and is
extraordinary.
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/11/16/sven_deeptime_490px.jpg
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/16/cern_cloud_experiment/
In response to your article which said: "Total solar irradiance, as it
is called, has stayed remarkably constant and so cannot be held
responsible for the warming of the past half century.", may I remind
you that out sun is classified as a variable star, and as such does
not remain "remarkably constant".
From astronomycafe:
Is the Sun a variable star ?
In a previous answer I described how SMM had confirmed that the output
of the Sun seems to be modulated by the presence of absence of
sunspots and other solar active regions. At a level of 1 part in 100
of its output, the Sun is indeed a variable star.
In astronomy, it used to be that a star could be variable only for
structural reasons such as it is an evolved star undergoing pulsation,
a supernova or nova; and then there were eclipsing variables whose
light variations are caused by periodic eclipses with a companion
star. There are now any number of phenomena that can change a star's
brightness and it is becoming clear that ALL star may be variable at
some level and for some span of time.
Roger Dewhurst
> In article <hggqce$r0t$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
>> colp wrote:
>
>>> It would be interesting to compare the correlation of temperature and
>>> CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar activity.
>>> Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks interesting, but an
>>> objective statistical test is better.
>>
>> http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/little-ice-age-ii-sequel
>
> The sun? Another zombie argument.
Look here bozo. The Maunder Minimum lasted 100 years plus and it
correlated very well with the LIA. All you have for correlation are
some dodgy figures fiddled with by Mann, Jones and Briffa. That data is
not worth a pinch of dry dog shit. All the references you quote are
based on the same data, all worth a pinch of dry dog shit. Now piss off
and learn what kosher science is all about.
R
Roger Dewhurst
Michael Mann to Phil Jones June 17, 1998:
"the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and
synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked by
other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you
guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with
manufactured biases/etc remains high priority"
"Synthetic data bases with manufactured biases" has no meaning for you?
For me that smells like a barrel of long dead mullet.
Now piss off, shyster, and learn the meaning of integrity, scientific
and/or any other sort.
R
victor
of sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere and one nearly complete
deforestation over several thousand years, a tiny blip in time.
Its not normal.
WorkHard
The % of carbon? Very tiny, right? And what the hell does "nearly
complete" mean? Are you saying that 99% of the tress are no more?
> Its not normal.
Of course it is. Man is part of nature.
Roger_Nickel
I'll take a crack at it. No context given but will assume a reference to
the 1998 MBH proxy based temperature reconstruction paper. From my copy
of the Concise Oxford Dictionary :- "synthesis--building up of separate
elements, esp. of conceptions or propositions or facts, into a connected
whole.."; which does seem to fairly describe the process of
reconstructing a temperature record from a set of disparate proxy records
including ice cores, lake and ocean bed sediments, coral growths and tree-
ring samples. Different proxy records will have different temperature
sensitivities and phase shifts in the temperature signal will vary
between proxies. Some proxies will be auto-correlated and cross-
correlation with other environmental factors can be expected (especially
in the tree growth records). Luckily there are well documented
statistical methods to provide the "manufactured bias" needed to make
sense of a complex data of this type (a shame MB&H didn't use them
properly). Or you could run with the idea that it's all a deliberate
swindle. There's no actual evidence of malfeasance here, so why assume
it?.
Enkidu
> "Enkidu" <enkid...@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
> news:4b2bee59$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>> Geopelia wrote:
>>> I get New Scientist, 80 beats, and some Discovery newsletters emailed
>>> free to me.
>>>
>> How do you get it for free Geo? Last time I looked it cost an arm and a
>> leg to subscribe fully and the free stuff was only teasers.
>
> available unless you pay, but there is plenty there to read free.
>
> Here you are
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/projects/forms/e-newsletter
>
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
Geoff Rait
<abcfe80a-726d-45d5...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
colp wrote:
>On Dec 20, 5:38=A0pm, (Geoff Rait) wrote:
>> In article
>> <b0c09bc3-0bd3-4328-a10f-f73e1c7f3...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>> colp wrote:
>> >Zombies in CERN too?
>>
>> >CERN plans global-warming experiment
>> >Nov 26, 1998
>>
>> Old zombie arguments being repeatedly re-animated. Did you note the
>> date?
>
>Yes, your zombies have been working on this project for over a decade
>now. The project is scheduled to produce experimental results early
>next year.
<
>CERN's cosmic cloudmaker cranks up
>Posted in Environment, 16th November 2009 14:13 GMT
>
>The cosmic ray effect - a factor of the background CBR bombardment
>itself, and the relative strength of the earth and the Sun's magnetic
>shields - shows a strong correlation between temperature, CBR and is
>extraordinary.
>
>http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/11/16/sven_deeptime_490px.jpg
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/16/cern_cloud_experiment/
'Zombie' referred to the argument, not the experiment or the
institution. As I said, whether cosmic rays *could* influence climate is
a different matter from whether they *have*. Cosmic rays are modulated
directly by solar activity, so the apparent correlation in the past
could be from either or both. Currently there's no strong evidence that
cosmic rays have much to do with it, and CERN's experiment might be
interesting in that respect. If you'd read the links I posted rather
than just snipping and ignoring them, you'd have noted the discussion
was about *both* cosmic rays and solar irradiance. Here's the record of
cosmic ray intensity since 1950:
http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/Misc/neutron2.html
Compare it to your favourite global temperature plot over the same
interval. Do you see any correlation? At all?
>In response to your article which said: "Total solar irradiance, as it
>is called, has stayed remarkably constant and so cannot be held
>responsible for the warming of the past half century.", may I remind
>you that out sun is classified as a variable star, and as such does
>not remain "remarkably constant".
>
>From astronomycafe:
>
>Is the Sun a variable star ?
>In a previous answer I described how SMM had confirmed that the output
>of the Sun seems to be modulated by the presence of absence of
>sunspots and other solar active regions. At a level of 1 part in 100
>of its output, the Sun is indeed a variable star.
>
>In astronomy, it used to be that a star could be variable only for
>structural reasons such as it is an evolved star undergoing pulsation,
>a supernova or nova; and then there were eclipsing variables whose
>light variations are caused by periodic eclipses with a companion
>star. There are now any number of phenomena that can change a star's
>brightness and it is becoming clear that ALL star may be variable at
>some level and for some span of time.
>
>http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q217.html
Of course it's a variable star. The sunspot counts in the cosmic ray
plot above and the diagrams in the Royal Society papers all show that.
The point, though, is that it hasn't fluctuated much at all in the last
half century (and longer), which was the context of "remarkably
constant". The 11-year sunspot cycles do not give rise to much
variability in irradiance. Compare the Total Solar Irradiance graph in
the first of those Royal Society papers (which is a free download) or
the sunspot counts on the cosmic ray plot with your favourite
temperature graph. Again - see any correlation?
Geoff Rait
Sigh. Yes, the Maunder minimum correlated with the LIA. I haven't heard
anybody say it didn't, at least in part. But in the last hundred years,
what's been the correlation between solar activity and climate? What in
the last 50 years? 30? If you'd bothered to read the links I'd posted
instead of bursting forth with your usual insults, you might have
learned some science yourself. Here's another you might find
informative:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040142.shtml
It's interesting: the rise in irradiance since the Maunder Minimum that
these authors determined is considerably less than that used in IPCC
models. What are the implications, do you think?
Regarding correlation between instrumental temperatures earlier ones,
what we have is not only from Mann, Jones and Briffa (which have not,
despite the assertions of bullshitters on the internet, been
demonstrated to be fraudulent). There are about a dozen different
reconstructions using large variety of datasets and methodologies. Some,
like borehole-based studies, go back thousands of years. All, different
though they are, come to the same conclusion: modern temperatures are
unprecedented since at least the mid-Holocene:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034187.shtml
What information do you have that says otherwise? Scientific
information, I mean; anecdotes, reguritations of previous failed
attempts to smear scientists, and outright lies (like your Climate
'Science' Coalition's little stunt with the NZ temperature record) don't
cut it.
colp
> What information do you have that says otherwise? Scientific
> information, I mean; anecdotes, reguritations of previous failed
> attempts to smear scientists, and outright lies (like your Climate
> 'Science' Coalition's little stunt with the NZ temperature record) don't
> cut it.
Where is your proof that the New Zealand Climate Science Coaliation
lied about the NZ temperature record?
Or is this an example of a your very own failed attempt to smear
scientists?
Matty F
> It seems that New Scientist just do the bidding of the discredited
> Michael Mann. Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt.
> I used to read that mag, but it's probably a waste of time now.
>
> http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/new-scientist-becomes-non-scientist/
>
> From: “Michael E. Mann”
> To: Phil Jones
> Subject: Re: More Rubbish
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400
> Reply-to: m...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
> yep, I’m watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!
>
> New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that.
> They are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every
> point, including the HS! (Hockey Stick)
I see that in the latest New Scientist (19/26 Dec) there's coverage of
the failure of the Climatic Research Unit CRU and other organisations
to provide temperature records to independent researchers.
Fred Pearce says "At stake here is the principle that scientific
findings are valid if they can be replicated - which in turn requires
sharing data. And not just with friends."
Now that's a good start. Perhaps there is hope for New Scientist after
all. I don't think the editor realises that his job, and perhaps the
very survival of his magazine, is at stake here.
The editor's reply in the letters column "New Scientist reports on
findings from peer-reviewed literature, and our coverage of climate
science reflects this" shows me that the editor has not kept up with
Climategate. A major part of the leaked emails shows the subverting of
the peer review process, by ganging up on sceptic authors, and by peer
reviewing each others' warmist articles.
To the editor of New Scientist, please go and read the emails yourself
and get educated about Climategate. Also look at some RAW data and
you'll see there is no sign of a "hocky stick" trend in it.
The Met Office say they have now released temperature data, but it
seems that it is not raw data, only data that has been manipulated.
That is not good enough.
Geoff Rait
<06beadf2-19c0-494c...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
colp wrote:
In their document:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.
nz/docs/awfw/are-we-feeling-warmer-yet.htm
the Coalition say "the [thermometer] station histories are unremarkable.
There are no reasons for any large corrections" and "there is nothing in
the station histories to warrant these adjustments". This means they
looked at station histories. They had to, to create their graphs: in the
CliFlo database, searching, for example, 'Wellington' will return up to
30 measurement sites.
Because no individual site at any of the 7 stations they used has data
over the full length of the interval they sought to reconstruct, the
Coalition had to make decisions on which sites to use at any one
station. Obviously, compiling a record out of multiple sites has its
difficulties. Differences in microclimate and elevation need to be taken
into account. The result is evident on the Coalition's graphs. The green
'difference' lines show flat intervals separated by near-vertical jumps.
Those jumps are at positions where they had to stitch together records
from different sites.
However, the Coalition decided not to tell us they'd stiched different
stations together; they merely dismissed station histories as
"unremarkable". This was either dishonest, or, for a bunch of people who
claim to be 'scientists' with expertise in climate matters, surprisingly
naive. Which would you prefer?
Only subsequently, in response to NIWA's discussion of station
histories, have they admitted they used different sites - but now they
seem to ascribe considerable significance to the moves. Funny that.
colp
> In article
> <06beadf2-19c0-494c-bbec-6c7e9d971...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
> The result is evident on the Coalition's graphs. The green
> 'difference' lines show flat intervals separated by near-vertical jumps.
> Those jumps are at positions where they had to stitch together records
> from different sites.
Or the jumps are at positions where NIWA introduced adjustments in
order to introduce an apparent warming trend, ie to fudge the data.
You started out accusing the Coalition of lying, and now you are
backing down and saying that they could have just been naive.
How naive is it to believe that NIWA's adjustments are legitimate when
the Darwin data and the Russian data show evidence of artificial pro-
AGW adjustments?
In general, the surface temperature adjustments should be negative,
not positive, in order to compensate for the urban heat island effect.
Adjustments due to new station biases should not have any systematic
positive or negative trend, but the observed adjustments are
predominantly positive, in favour of AGW. You have not shown any
legitimate reason for the predominant positive trend in temperature
adjustments, which undermines your own accusations.
Roger Dewhurst
> In article <hgkg4d$vqp$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
>> Geoff Rait wrote:
>>> In article <hggqce$r0t$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
>>>> colp wrote:
>
>>>>> It would be interesting to compare the correlation of temperature and
>>>>> CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar activity.
>>>>> Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks interesting, but an
>>>>> objective statistical test is better.
>>>> http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/little-ice-age-ii-sequel
>>> The sun? Another zombie argument.
>> Look here bozo. The Maunder Minimum lasted 100 years plus and it
>> correlated very well with the LIA. All you have for correlation are
>> some dodgy figures fiddled with by Mann, Jones and Briffa. That data is
>> not worth a pinch of dry dog shit. All the references you quote are
>> based on the same data, all worth a pinch of dry dog shit. Now piss off
>> and learn what kosher science is all about.
>
> Sigh. Yes, the Maunder minimum correlated with the LIA. I haven't heard
> anybody say it didn't, at least in part. But in the last hundred years,
> what's been the correlation between solar activity and climate?
Bugger all really!
What in
> the last 50 years? 30? If you'd bothered to read the links I'd posted
> instead of bursting forth with your usual insults, you might have
> learned some science yourself. Here's another you might find
> informative:
>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040142.shtml
You warmers have destroyed any credibility you ever had. Now you are a
just a bunch of snake oil salesmen. Do not give me references to the
snake oil sales pitch.
>
> It's interesting: the rise in irradiance since the Maunder Minimum that
> these authors determined is considerably less than that used in IPCC
> models. What are the implications, do you think?
The "community"?
>
> Regarding correlation between instrumental temperatures earlier ones,
> what we have is not only from Mann, Jones and Briffa (which have not,
> despite the assertions of bullshitters on the internet, been
> demonstrated to be fraudulent).
Now pull the other one, it has bells on.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
There are about a dozen different
> reconstructions using large variety of datasets and methodologies. Some,
> like borehole-based studies, go back thousands of years. All, different
> though they are, come to the same conclusion: modern temperatures are
> unprecedented since at least the mid-Holocene:
With Jones, Mann, Briffa and their mates anything is possible.
>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034187.shtml
>
> What information do you have that says otherwise? Scientific
> information, I mean; anecdotes, reguritations of previous failed
> attempts to smear scientists, and outright lies (like your Climate
> 'Science' Coalition's little stunt with the NZ temperature record) don't
> cut it.
Nothing spouted by the like of Jones, Mann, Briffa and the rest have no
credibility whatever. These bozos have no scientific reputations left.
They are dross.
R
Geoff Rait
<87461517-d8e4-4d4e...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
colp wrote:
>On Dec 24, 6:56=A0pm, (Geoff Rait) wrote:
>> The result is evident on the Coalition's graphs. The green
>> 'difference' lines show flat intervals separated by near-vertical jumps.
>> Those jumps are at positions where they had to stitch together records
>> from different sites.
>
>Or the jumps are at positions where NIWA introduced adjustments in
>order to introduce an apparent warming trend, ie to fudge the data.
If you look at the graphs themselves. You'll see that there are both
upward and downward jumps in the green line. These adjustments correlate
with the times of station moves, as documented by NIWA for the
Wellington example:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/
nz-temperature-rise-clear/
combining-temperature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington
Because temperature measurement sites have moved and there's no single,
full-length record from any one station, the Coalition had no
alternative but to stitch data from several sites together to produce
each of their graphs. Therefore, they knew measurements for any one
station came from different sites.
>You started out accusing the Coalition of lying, and now you are
>backing down and saying that they could have just been naive.
No, I gave *you* the choice of whether you'd prefer to believe, in the
light of the foregoing, that Coalition statements such as "the
[thermometer] station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons
for any large corrections" are dishonest or naive. Your choice should be
obvious from subsequent Coalition ramblings: in this document, they
discuss the effects of site moves and how they should be adjusted for in
some detail:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/si_hokitika_301109.pdf
>How naive is it to believe that NIWA's adjustments are legitimate when
>the Darwin data and the Russian data show evidence of artificial pro-
>AGW adjustments?
Interesting that you automatically assume 'adjustments' are 'pro-AGW'
and are therefore not 'legitimate'. Criticisms of the Darwin series have
the same problems as criticisms of the NZ ones: the supposed 'cooling'
there is due to obvious step-changes at the joins between different
site records:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero5.png
The different site records are shown in different colours. Notice the
big downward step immediately preceding 1941. The wattsupwiththat piece
does note that the Darwin record has a discontinuity (site change) at
1941, so that an adjustment was necessary shouldn't be a surprise.
Here's the Aus. Bureau of Meteorology's record from Darwin:
It shows no big step at the same time. Evidently they've made an
appropriate adjustment, for the sorts of reasons they describe here:
http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf
Or do you imagine that the only reason for the adjustments is because
the Australians are also in on the scam?
Regarding Russia, I previously posted a link to Russian meterological
service Roshydromet's own analysis, which matches the 'Hadley' (WMO)
analysis, in the 'more AGW data tampering' thread. That you'd rather
believe a document from something called the Institute of Economic
Analysis than the Russian met service is surprising. With respect to the
differences between the two, though: on the figure on p. 20 of the IEA
document, you might notice that the IEA's blue curve and the WMO red one
are almost identical after 1960 - since when there's been about a degree
of temperature rise. If you like the IEA's story, I'm sure you'll be
interested that they've confirmed the 'fraudulent' 'Hadley' warming of
the last half century.
>In general, the surface temperature adjustments should be negative,
>not positive, in order to compensate for the urban heat island effect.
And where an urban effect is found to be significant, they are, as you'd
know if you read any of the documentation describing how the records are
determined, e.g.:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Hansen_etal.html
See the examples for Tokyo and Phoenix in Fig. 3. See also:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/references.html
>Adjustments due to new station biases should not have any systematic
>positive or negative trend, but the observed adjustments are
>predominantly positive, in favour of AGW. You have not shown any
>legitimate reason for the predominant positive trend in temperature
>adjustments, which undermines your own accusations.
No. Each station history must be adjusted based on its own particular
history of measurement site moves. Site moves might be to warmer or
cooler locations and adjustments for each made accordingly. It happens
that most (but not all, hence the downward green-line shifts) of the
more significant moves in the seven-station NZ series have been from
warmer to cooler locations.
If you'd rather avoid adjustments, NIWA shows unadjusted records from a
set of long-lived stations with no significant site changes here:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/
our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear/
temperature-trends-from-raw-data
These records show persistent warming since the 1930s. If your problem
is with the adjustments made prior to that, then you'll have to explain
why the temperatures in the late 1800s were as warm or warmer than
today's. For, if they believe their own analysis, this should have been
the real topic of the Coalition's press release: how we've evidently
been lied to about the existence of the Little Ice Age...
Geoff Rait
wrote:
>Geoff Rait wrote:
>> Sigh. Yes, the Maunder minimum correlated with the LIA. I haven't heard
>> anybody say it didn't, at least in part. But in the last hundred years,
>> what's been the correlation between solar activity and climate?
>
>Bugger all really!
So can I take it you believe that the sun hasn't been the predominant
driver of climate during recent decades? If so, that's an advance.
>> What in
>> the last 50 years? 30? If you'd bothered to read the links I'd posted
>> instead of bursting forth with your usual insults, you might have
>> learned some science yourself. Here's another you might find
>> informative:
>>
>> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040142.shtml
>
>You warmers have destroyed any credibility you ever had. Now you are a
>just a bunch of snake oil salesmen. Do not give me references to the
>snake oil sales pitch.
References to what, then? Would any of the mass of peer-reviewed
scientific literature on the topic satisfy you, or do you only believe
'blog science' that happens to suit your views?
>> It's interesting: the rise in irradiance since the Maunder Minimum that
>> these authors determined is considerably less than that used in IPCC
>> models. What are the implications, do you think?
>
>The "community"?
>>
>> Regarding correlation between instrumental temperatures earlier ones,
>> what we have is not only from Mann, Jones and Briffa (which have not,
>> despite the assertions of bullshitters on the internet, been
>> demonstrated to be fraudulent).
>
>Now pull the other one, it has bells on.
>
>http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
Where, exactly, is the demonstration of fraud at that link? Interesting
site, by the way; do you also subscribe to his conspiracy theories
regarding the Kennedy assassination and 9/11?
>There are about a dozen different
>> reconstructions using large variety of datasets and methodologies. Some,
>> like borehole-based studies, go back thousands of years. All, different
>> though they are, come to the same conclusion: modern temperatures are
>> unprecedented since at least the mid-Holocene:
>
>With Jones, Mann, Briffa and their mates anything is possible.
>
>> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034187.shtml
>>
>> What information do you have that says otherwise? Scientific
>> information, I mean; anecdotes, reguritations of previous failed
>> attempts to smear scientists, and outright lies (like your Climate
>> 'Science' Coalition's little stunt with the NZ temperature record) don't
>> cut it.
>
>Nothing spouted by the like of Jones, Mann, Briffa and the rest have no
>credibility whatever. These bozos have no scientific reputations left.
> They are dross.
'The rest' now, too? You can't demonstrate that the results of published
paleoclimate research are false so you insult all the researchers. Not a
very convincing argument, but it seems to be all you've got.
colp
> In article
>
> colp wrote:
> >You started out accusing the Coalition of lying, and now you are
> >backing down and saying that they could have just been naive.
>
> No, I gave *you* the choice of whether you'd prefer to believe, in the
> light of the foregoing, that Coalition statements such as "the
> [thermometer] station histories are unremarkable.
Now you are obfuscating about backing down - your original accusation
wasn't a choice. You said: "and outright lies (like your Climate
Geoff Rait
<5a52810b-2913-4f8b...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
colp wrote:
Sigh. And it's pretty obvious from the originally following sentence,
which you snipped, that that remains my conclusion: they recognised the
significance of site moves and were dishonest when claiming station
histories were "unremarkable". If you don't think they were dishonest,
you're forced to think they were naive; but either way, it doesn't do
the credibility of their arguments much good. Now, do you have any
response to my points, other than to try to change the focus of the
discussion by accusing me of obfuscating and backing down?
colp
> In article
>
> colp wrote:
> >On Dec 28, 12:15=A0pm, (Geoff Rait) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <87461517-d8e4-4d4e-8a95-f2a1fa77e...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> colp wrote:
> >> >You started out accusing the Coalition of lying, and now you are
> >> >backing down and saying that they could have just been naive.
>
> >> No, I gave *you* the choice of whether you'd prefer to believe, in the
> >> light of the foregoing, that Coalition statements such as "the
> >> [thermometer] station histories are unremarkable.
>
> >Now you are obfuscating about backing down - your original accusation
> >wasn't a choice. You said: "and outright lies (like your Climate
> >'Science' Coalition's little stunt with the NZ temperature record)"
>
> Sigh.
Don't expect any sympathy from me, weasel.
> And it's pretty obvious from the originally following sentence,
> which you snipped, that that remains my conclusion: they recognised the
> significance of site moves and were dishonest when claiming station
> histories were "unremarkable".
That was your original position: you accused them of lying because you
though that they were inconsistent in their representation of the
significance of the site moves, while ignoring the fact that overall,
the NIWA adjustments were not consistent either with the urban heat
island effect or the AGW-agnostic nature of site movements.
> If you don't think they were dishonest,
> you're forced to think they were naive;
Rubbish. In the context of the pro-AGW bias in the NIWA adjustements,
there wasn't anything remarkable about the site moves.
> but either way, it doesn't do
> the credibility of their arguments much good. Now, do you have any
> response to my points, other than to try to change the focus of the
> discussion by accusing me of obfuscating and backing down?
It remains that you refuse to acknowledge your change of position from
"outright lies" to the possibility that they were naive. It is a waste
of time arguing with someone who will not acknowledge the truth.
Geoff Rait
<d7414e0d-330a-4760...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
colp wrote:
>On Dec 29, 5:30=A0pm, (Geoff Rait) wrote:
>> In article
>> <5a52810b-2913-4f8b-a7fa-e28eec084...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
>> colp wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <87461517-d8e4-4d4e-8a95-f2a1fa77e...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> colp wrote:
>> >> >You started out accusing the Coalition of lying, and now you are
>> >> >backing down and saying that they could have just been naive.
>>
>> >> No, I gave *you* the choice of whether you'd prefer to believe, in the
>> >> light of the foregoing, that Coalition statements such as "the
>> >> [thermometer] station histories are unremarkable.
>>
>> >Now you are obfuscating about backing down - your original accusation
>> >wasn't a choice. You said: "and outright lies (like your Climate
>> >'Science' Coalition's little stunt with the NZ temperature record)"
>>
>> Sigh.
>
>Don't expect any sympathy from me, weasel.
No; only insults, evidently.
>> And it's pretty obvious from the originally following sentence,
>> which you snipped, that that remains my conclusion: they recognised the
>> significance of site moves and were dishonest when claiming station
>> histories were "unremarkable".
>
>That was your original position: you accused them of lying because you
>though that they were inconsistent in their representation of the
>significance of the site moves, while ignoring the fact that overall,
>the NIWA adjustments were not consistent either with the urban heat
>island effect or the AGW-agnostic nature of site movements.
But the NIWA adjustments in the seven-station set result in the same
warming trend that's seen at unadjusted, non-urban stations since the
1930s - which I see you yet again avoid acknowledging:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/
our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear/
temperature-trends-from-raw-data
>> If you don't think they were dishonest,
>> you're forced to think they were naive;
>
>Rubbish. In the context of the pro-AGW bias in the NIWA adjustements,
>there wasn't anything remarkable about the site moves.
If you consider site moves including elevation changes up to 120 m as
'nothing remarkable', then you too are dishonest or naive.
>> but either way, it doesn't do
>> the credibility of their arguments much good. Now, do you have any
>> response to my points, other than to try to change the focus of the
>> discussion by accusing me of obfuscating and backing down?
>
>It remains that you refuse to acknowledge your change of position from
>"outright lies" to the possibility that they were naive.
What part of 'that remains my conclusion: they recognised the
significance of site moves and were dishonest when claiming station
histories were "unremarkable"' do you not understand?
>It is a waste of time arguing with someone who will not acknowledge
>the truth.
I agree. Goodbye.
colp
> In article
Cherry picking.
Renwick (of NIWA) said that that any selection of “reasonably
representative” sites would show roughly the same trend in unadjusted
temperatures, but his claim is falsified by the raw data for the seven
sites which NIWA use to determine the national average. The
adjustments for these seven sites have a mean value of 0.63 degrees/
century, with the unadjusted data showing a warming of only 0.075
degrees/century. The urban heat island effect would result in these
seven sites being adjusted down, not upwards as NIWA has done.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2009/12/18/niwas-obfuscation-unequivocal-its-worse-than-we-thought/
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/awfw/are-we-feeling-warmer-yet.htm
> - which I see you yet again avoid acknowledging:
When did I previously not acknowledge that point?
>
> http://www.niwa.co.nz/
> our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear/
> temperature-trends-from-raw-data
>
> >> If you don't think they were dishonest,
> >> you're forced to think they were naive;
>
> >Rubbish. In the context of the pro-AGW bias in the NIWA adjustements,
> >there wasn't anything remarkable about the site moves.
>
> If you consider site moves including elevation changes up to 120 m as
> 'nothing remarkable', then you too are dishonest or naive.
In the context of the large national adjustments, a single elevation
change resulting in a minimal adjust isn't remarkable.
Are we supposed to think that Wellington's elevation change is typical
for all the seven sites used by NIWA for the national average?
Wellington's adjustment was the _lowest_ adjustment of the adjustments
of the seven sites. No wonder NIWA refuses to get Salinger to
explicitly descibe the nature of the temperature adjustments.
>
> >> but either way, it doesn't do
> >> the credibility of their arguments much good. Now, do you have any
> >> response to my points, other than to try to change the focus of the
> >> discussion by accusing me of obfuscating and backing down?
>
> >It remains that you refuse to acknowledge your change of position from
> >"outright lies" to the possibility that they were naive.
>
> What part of 'that remains my conclusion: they recognised the
> significance of site moves and were dishonest when claiming station
> histories were "unremarkable"' do you not understand?
>
> >It is a waste of time arguing with someone who will not acknowledge
> >the truth.
>
> I agree. Goodbye.
Hopefully other readers will see your obfuscation and NIWA's fraud for
what it is. Don't forget that Salinger, who was responsible for the
ajdustments, was an employee of the University of East Anglia's CRU.
Will Spencer
> Geoff Rait wrote:
>> In article <hggqce$r0t$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst
>> wrote:
>>> colp wrote:
>>
>>>> It would be interesting to compare the correlation of
>>>> temperature
>>>> and CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar
>>>> activity. Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks
>>>> interesting, but an objective statistical test is better.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/little-ice-age-ii-sequel
>>
>> The sun? Another zombie argument.
>
> What... are you saying the Sun has no bearing on the heating or
> cooling of the planet Earth?
>
> Seriously?
The sun's output is constantly monitored, and it's change has been found to
be insufficient to account for the ongoing warming. In fact, for most of
the warming period, the solar output was in decline.
How do you propose the cooling sun caused a warming earth?
Were angels involved? Ahahahahahaha...
-ws
Will Spencer
Tiny? Ahahahahaha. Then you need to explain how increasing the CO2
concentration of the atmosphere by 40% hasn't increased the temperature
even though it absorbs IR and re-emits it back to the surface of the earth.
Let me give you a hint. You can't. It is impossible to show. Moron!
>> Its not normal.
>
> Of course it is. Man is part of nature.
Nope, sorry John Boy. Humans are apart from nature by definition. Nature is
defined as the physical universe free from man's influence.
Stupid stupid John boy!
-ws
Will Spencer
> On Dec 19, 8:48�pm, gr...@NOspots.ca (Geoff Rait) wrote:
>> In article <hggqce$r0...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
>>>colp wrote:
>>>> It would be interesting to compare the correlation of temperature and
>>>> CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar activity.
>>>> Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks interesting, but an
>>>> objective statistical test is better.
>>
>>>http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/little-ice-age-ii-sequel
>>
>> The sun? Another zombie argument.
>
> Zombies in CERN too?
>
> CERN plans global-warming experiment
> Nov 26, 1998
>
> A controversial theory proposing that cosmic rays are responsible for
> global warming is to be put to the test at CERN, the European
> laboratory for particle physics. Put forward two years ago by two
> Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, the
> theory suggests that it is changes in the Sun's magnetic field, and
> not the emission of greenhouse gases, that has led to recent rises in
> global temperatures.
Aaaaaaaanything but CO2 aye Col Potty? Ahahahahahaha.
Too bad their theory was disproven. They then wasted the rest of their
lives on junk science.
-ws
WorkHard
> The sun's output is constantly monitored, and it's change has
> been
> found to be insufficient to account for the ongoing warming. In
> fact,
> for most of the warming period, the solar output was in
> decline.
>
> How do you propose the cooling sun caused a warming earth?
>
> Were angels involved? Ahahahahahaha...
It's change? Ahahahahahahahaha...
I reckon you have put decimal places where they shouldn't be. LOL
WorkHard
LOL So, man must have made the universe then, right?
Will Spencer
It is simply a fact that by definition of nature, humans are separate
from nature. But John Boy ignorantly redefines the term "nature" to mean
all that exists - The universe. By doing so John Boy removes any meaning
that the term "nature" has for there is nothing but existance.
John Boys purpose of course is to render "natural" entirely unnatural
happenings. In John Boys universe, pink elephants are entirely natural,
since elephants have been painted pink.
In John Boys universe torture, murder, incest, self mutilation, having acid
dripped into one's eyes, are all perfectly natural events since they are
all part of the universe and by his definition, part of nature and
therefore part of what is natural.
Now John Boy might think that dousing babies in gasoline and setting them
on fire is a perfectly natural thing to do.
However, no thinking person can agree with him.
-ws
WorkHard
Bullshit. Man is part of nature. No nature, no man.
> But John Boy ignorantly redefines the term "nature" to
> mean all that exists - The universe. By doing so John Boy
> removes any
> meaning that the term "nature" has for there is nothing but
> existance.
Bullshit, again.
Are cows part of nature? Monkeys? Fish?
> John Boys purpose of course is to render "natural" entirely
> unnatural
> happenings.
Bullshit.
Once again, are animals part of nature? Do cows fart? Do
volcanoes fart?
You're a fucking bumbling idiot, Spencer... some mothers do 'ave
'em, alright.
> In John Boys universe, pink elephants are entirely
> natural, since elephants have been painted pink.
LOL Your fantasies are very amusing. But that's all they are...
fantasies!
> In John Boys universe torture, murder, incest, self mutilation,
> having acid dripped into one's eyes, are all perfectly natural
> events
> since they are all part of the universe and by his definition,
> part
> of nature and therefore part of what is natural.
LOL Grow up you idiot.
> Now John Boy might think that dousing babies in gasoline and
> setting
> them on fire is a perfectly natural thing to do.
I said MAN IS PART OF NATURE!
You are talking about certain actions of 'some' men that would be
considered immoral.
Therefore, when 'nature' kills people, drowns them, blows them
up, swallows them up etc, then you must also be saying nature is
also immoral and unnatural.
> However, no thinking person can agree with him.
Ha... that's an old trick - but thinking people do NOT always
think the correct things... just like you, you faggot drongo.
colp
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:09:23 +1300, WorkHard wrote:
> > Geoff Rait wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> colp wrote:
>
> >>>> It would be interesting to compare the correlation of
> >>>> temperature
> >>>> and CO2 level with the correlation of temperature and solar
> >>>> activity. Visually, the solar radiation correlation looks
> >>>> interesting, but an objective statistical test is better.
>
> >>>http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/little-ice-age-ii-sequel
>
> >> The sun? Another zombie argument.
>
> > What... are you saying the Sun has no bearing on the heating or
> > cooling of the planet Earth?
>
> > Seriously?
>
> The sun's output is constantly monitored, and it's change has been found to
> be insufficient to account for the ongoing warming.
If you limit your analysis to the direct radiation from the sun. The
indirect effect of the sun on cloud cover by GCR is being studied by
CERN. Hopefully we will have experimental results soon.
> In fact, for most of
> the warming period, the solar output was in decline.
Really? These graphs show a reasonable correspondence.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
colp
Did you wear a glove when you pulled those numbers out of your arse
about skeptic funding?