OT: Speculation about AGW theories
Peter Webb
(most of them in fact) with the last 150 years of recorded global
temperatures.
I have a suspicion that in fact these are not "predictions" of the data, but
in fact the researchers already knew the last 150 years of data before they
created the model, and just tweaked parameters in their models to force them
to agree with known historical data.
This is akin to a stage mentalist or psychic secretly learning some fact
about a person in advance, and then pretending to divine these facts on
stage to prove they actually are psychic. Its easy to predict the past if
you know it already. People seeing a stage mentalist who correctly divined
facts about a person, and then later finding out that the mentalist already
knew the person and the facts before the show would be somewhat less
impressed.
I can't find any of the climate modelers who say that they already knew
global temperatures before they even created the model, and just tweaked the
model to make it agree with the data. But nor can I find any that describe
the operational protocols that were used to quarantine known historical
data.
I know this is a grave allegation; if AGW theorists already knew the correct
answers - like the mentalist on stage who already knew the answers to the
questions - this would mean that the historical data did not provide
independent verification of the model, and AGW is left with no experimental
evidence at all.
Can anybody confirm my suspicion that these predictions of the last 150
years of climate are not predictions at all - the researchers already knew
the answers and just modified their computer programs until they generated
the answers the researchers wanted?
Quadibloc
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> I have a suspicion that in fact these are not "predictions" of the data, but
> in fact the researchers already knew the last 150 years of data before they
> created the model, and just tweaked parameters in their models to force them
> to agree with known historical data.
That's certainly possible, and so you are right that agreement with
historical data doesn't, by itself, prove anything.
However, if one has a _simple_ model, then the fact that temperatures
increased over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide levels increased
over the last 150 years, and nothing else much seems to have been
happening, such as to the Earth's orbit, to cause an increase in
temperature during that time, constitutes a direct observation of the
greenhouse effect.
We're also now directly observing things like the Himalayan glaciers
having retreated to a degree not commonly seen in recorded history,
peat bogs and other sinks of methane giving up that greenhouse gas,
and the ocean's level of acidity reaching such a level that it will no
longer dissolve as large a part of any extra carbon dioxide we put
into the atmosphere.
These things are cause for concern, even if we can't depend on current
climate models for a firm prediction of when - or if - the increase in
temperature accompanying future increases in the level of carbon
dioxide will accelerate. Even if it doesn't accelerate, in about ten
years or so, when global weather patterns again give us a warm spell,
things will be warm enough for significant problems to be experienced
in some tropical regions. Before that, oceanic acidity will severely
damage the Great Barrier Reef.
Unlike some possible worst-case scenarios, such as the flooding of
major coastal cities, super hurricanes battering much of the United
States, or the shifting of the Gulf Stream, so as to plunge Europe and
then the world into a new ice age, of course, damage to the Great
Barrier Reef, and a worsening of the food situation in some Third
World nations may not seem dramatic enough to justify changing our way
of life.
Indeed, if we switched from cars to bicycles, gave up eating meat, and
the like, one might well expect the consequence to be a weaker United
States, followed by world conquest by some less democratic nation.
This is why I prefer addressing all the issues. Achieve energy
independence. Eliminate the crushing limits on energy consumption that
are crippling the economy. And do that without global warming as a
consideration. Nuclear power is the answer.
John Savard
wsne...@hotmail.com
The climate modelers are trying to predict future trends in climate,
not predict the temperature at a specific place and time. One could
look at historical data to see that at a particular location, the temp
was 60 degrees F at 12 noon on Jan 20, 1905, but there is no way to
"predict" that with a model. You might "predict" that is was
generally colder (or warmer) during some period in the past but that
is about it.
However, one would need solid, reliable, accurate, representative,
methodically-collected temperature data going back much more than 150
years before one could say whether any current temperatures or future
predictions of "climate" are due to recent influences, part of a long-
term natural trend, or just plausible, random fluctuations, regardless
of how well one has convinced one's self of the correctness of one's
climate models.
It doesn't help that so many of the pols and celebs who are in favor
of taxing you onto the bus will continue to ride limos and private
jets.
Dennis Woos
Given the overwhelming consensus on the science (including methodology) I
think the most reasonable conclusion is that your "grave allegation" is
whacko. There are plenty of others who can and will confirm your "suspicion"
but, unfortunately, none of them will be any more qualified than you are. I
too am unqualified, so I accept the conclusions of the thousands of trained
climate scientists at colleges, universities, government agencies, etc all
around the world. In my view, for someone who is not a climate scientist and
who hasn't studied the data to do otherwise is whacko. See my point?
I wonder how much of this denial is based on fear? Maybe some folks are so
terrified of the future that it is simply much easier to deny that any
problem exists, and believing in a vast conspiracy is the lesser
psychological threat?
Dennis
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Given the overwhelming consensus on the science (including methodology) I
>think the most reasonable conclusion is that your "grave allegation" is
>whacko.
Especially since he has already demonstrated a complete lack of
understanding about how physical models work. These are not produced by
fitting past data to arbitrary functions, but by solving individual
physical equations (each a product of its own theory, with its own body
of evidence). The empirical part of the model comes from adjusting
unknown values in these physical equations until the model output
matches the observed data. Undoubtedly there are errors in these
assumptions, but that doesn't mean the model results are completely
wrong, only that they will show some degree of increasing error as they
attempt to project further into the future. It would be very unlikely
that the researchers could come up with a set of empirical elements to
these physical models that both accurately described the observed data
and totally failed to predict future trends.
There are many fields these days that study complex systems- those that
cannot be described by any single theory. These include the formation of
the Universe, the formation of galaxies, the formation of star systems,
the dynamics of stars, evolution, brain function, epidemiology,
population movement and many others. All are studied using physical
models which allow for empirical selection of unknown (or unmeasurable)
parameters in order to fit observations. Since these areas are largely
unpoliticized, however, one seldom hears the same complaints about the
use of models for studying them. Curious.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
David Staup
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:arijl5pb9l9eks5ha...@4ax.com...
Curious???
easily explained:
the formation of
> the Universe, the formation of galaxies, the formation of star systems,
> the dynamics of stars, evolution, brain function, epidemiology,
> population movement and many others
it is almost impossible to politicize any of the above and use fear tactics
to generate massive amounts of money. there is no economic benefit for the
falsification of data nor the construction of models that only fit a
preconceived theory. nor skew observations to fit the model...
what's curious is that you refuse to see, at least the possibility, that
that is what has happened in the climate realm...you blindness to the
totality of shenanigans is what's curious...to me
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>it is almost impossible to politicize any of the above and use fear tactics
>to generate massive amounts of money. there is no economic benefit for the
>falsification of data nor the construction of models that only fit a
>preconceived theory. nor skew observations to fit the model...
>
>what's curious is that you refuse to see, at least the possibility, that
>that is what has happened in the climate realm...you blindness to the
>totality of shenanigans is what's curious...to me
There is no financial benefit to the researchers to falsify their data,
and there are powerful disincentives for them to do that (like
destroying their careers).
If you have the necessary intelligence and education, you can simply
study the primary research and it becomes quite obvious that the quality
of climate science is every bit as good as that of other areas of
science. There is not the slightest shred of evidence for your
"shenanigans" in the science itself, only in how that science gets
interpreted by and acted upon by politicians and bureaucrats.
But you can't convince a conspiracy theory nut.
Jax
> Nuclear power is the answer.
>
> John Savard
You haven't answered how. How many plants? At what cost? How
quickly? All without crippling the economy. How much CO2 will be
reduced? And will this be enough to avert the disasters you listed?
David Staup
>
> If you have the necessary intelligence and education, you can simply
> study the primary research and it becomes quite obvious that the quality
> of climate science is every bit as good as that of other areas of
> science. There is not the slightest shred of evidence for your
> "shenanigans" in the science itself, only in how that science gets
> interpreted by and acted upon by politicians and bureaucrats.
>
> But you can't convince a conspiracy theory nut.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
really:
http://www.surfacestations.org/
of course you can't convince a kool ade drinker
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/#more-13939
of course this guy is a kook
then of course there is climategate, the glacier goof, and the "lost" data
but then kool ade drinkers are not thinkers, so cannot (or refuse to) see
the flaws in their pet theories or the flaws in the system....
anyone can take even good data out of context to show what they want (or
need) for future funding...but it is a truley blind non thinker who accepts
this without question....now that's a nut
Peter Webb
"Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net> wrote in message
news:u92dnWkWQc2oVcTW...@posted.greenmountainaccess...
No.
Are you claiming that the people who constructed the climate models did so
without knowledge of the temperature trends over the last 150 years, and
hence the agreement between these models and the climate over the last 150
years is independent verification of AGW ?
That would be nice to believe, but have you any evidence this is true?
Peter Webb
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Given the overwhelming consensus on the science (including methodology) I
>>think the most reasonable conclusion is that your "grave allegation" is
>>whacko.
>
> Especially since he has already demonstrated a complete lack of
> understanding about how physical models work. These are not produced by
> fitting past data to arbitrary functions, but by solving individual
> physical equations (each a product of its own theory, with its own body
> of evidence). The empirical part of the model comes from adjusting
> unknown values in these physical equations until the model output
> matches the observed data. Undoubtedly there are errors in these
> assumptions, but that doesn't mean the model results are completely
> wrong, only that they will show some degree of increasing error as they
> attempt to project further into the future. It would be very unlikely
> that the researchers could come up with a set of empirical elements to
> these physical models that both accurately described the observed data
> and totally failed to predict future trends.
>
So you agree with the person you are responding to, and that the AGW
modellers did not know the climactic trends over the last 150 years when
they constructed their models, and hence these truly are predictions?
> There are many fields these days that study complex systems- those that
> cannot be described by any single theory. These include the formation of
> the Universe, the formation of galaxies, the formation of star systems,
> the dynamics of stars, evolution, brain function,
> epidemiology,
> population movement and many others.
Every real life physical system involving more than a few atoms, in fact.
> All are studied using physical
> models which allow for empirical selection of unknown (or unmeasurable)
> parameters in order to fit observations. Since these areas are largely
> unpoliticized, however, one seldom hears the same complaints about the
> use of models for studying them. Curious.
No problem with models.
SR, QM, Maxwells eqns, all are models.
All have predictive ability.
But returning to your argument about "politicised", that's got nothing to do
with it. I care because it is an economic argument, not a political one. I
personally don't give a rat's arse about some astrophysicist using dubious
science to prove possibly incorrect facts about galaxy formation. It costs
me nothing. However, climate scientists (unlike all the others you listed)
want the world to spend trillions of dollars on the basis of their
theoretical predictions. So I care. If astrophysicists were trying to drive
world economic activity on the basis of their predictions of galactic
formation, I would suddenly care about galactic formation as well.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
Are you going to answer my question?
Did the climate scientists who constructed models which showed the earth
warming over the last 150 years already have an idea of how much warming
their models should predict, and hence the agreement between model and
history is not independent verification?
Peter Webb
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:46:35 -0600, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>it is almost impossible to politicize any of the above and use fear
>>tactics
>>to generate massive amounts of money. there is no economic benefit for the
>>falsification of data nor the construction of models that only fit a
>>preconceived theory. nor skew observations to fit the model...
>>
>>what's curious is that you refuse to see, at least the possibility, that
>>that is what has happened in the climate realm...you blindness to the
>>totality of shenanigans is what's curious...to me
>
> There is no financial benefit to the researchers to falsify their data,
> and there are powerful disincentives for them to do that (like
> destroying their careers).
>
There are financial benefits from changing the data, and they do that all
the time. I am not sure how changing the data is different to falsifying it.
Maybe if they changed the data and "lost" the original data; would that be
"falsifying" it?
> If you have the necessary intelligence and education, you can simply
> study the primary research and it becomes quite obvious that the quality
> of climate science is every bit as good as that of other areas of
> science.
Really. Climate science has the same "quality" as Special Relativity?
Perhaps you should explain that.
> There is not the slightest shred of evidence for your
> "shenanigans" in the science itself, only in how that science gets
> interpreted by and acted upon by politicians and bureaucrats.
>
> But you can't convince a conspiracy theory nut.
> _________________________________________________
I don't know who you think the conspiracy theory nut is. A straw man I
guess.
I don't think there is any conspiracy at all.
In fact, I haven't seen anybody in this thread accuse anybody of conspiracy.
Who or what are you responding to? Somebody you are imagining?
Thad Floryan
>> [...]
> But returning to your argument about "politicised", that's got nothing
> to do with it. I care because it is an economic argument, not a
> political one. I personally don't give a rat's arse about some
> astrophysicist using dubious science to prove possibly incorrect facts
> about galaxy formation. It costs me nothing. However, climate scientists
> (unlike all the others you listed) want the world to spend trillions of
> dollars on the basis of their theoretical predictions. So I care. If
> astrophysicists were trying to drive world economic activity on the
> basis of their predictions of galactic formation, I would suddenly care
> about galactic formation as well.
Now we get to the heart of the matter: the economic effect.
The magnitude of the monies involved with an incorrect course of action
could/would literally bankrupt the planet.
Most actions of AGW activists do NOT compel me to support their stance,
and the reported content of the East Anglia UCR emails further distances
my support of the purported urgency to thwart unfavorable climate change.
OG
> The main evidence for AGW is the strong agreement of many climate models
You have evidence for this assertion?
Peter Webb
"OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:7rv5p...@mid.individual.net...
> Peter Webb wrote:
>> The main evidence for AGW is the strong agreement of many climate models
>
> You have evidence for this assertion?
It is easily the most commonly cited evidence in this newsgroup and
elsewhere.
Do you think their stronger evidence than this? What is it?
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:46:35 -0600, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >it is almost impossible to politicize any of the above and use fear tactics
> >to generate massive amounts of money. there is no economic benefit for the
> >falsification of data nor the construction of models that only fit a
> >preconceived theory. nor skew observations to fit the model...
>
> >what's curious is that you refuse to see, at least the possibility, that
> >that is what has happened in the climate realm...you blindness to the
> >totality of shenanigans is what's curious...to me
>
> There is no financial benefit to the researchers to falsify their data,
> and there are powerful disincentives for them to do that (like
> destroying their careers).
No, researchers never falsify their data. Never, ever. Such a thing
couldn't possibly happen. Not in a million years.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
Skeptical scientist asking for government grant money: "My hypothesis
is that the Earth's climate is completely normal, that nothing bad is
happening and that people are having little or no ill-effect on it.
Can I have some money to study this hypothesis."
> If you have the necessary intelligence and education, you can simply
> study the primary research and it becomes quite obvious that the quality
> of climate science is every bit as good as that of other areas of
> science. There is not the slightest shred of evidence for your
> "shenanigans" in the science itself, only in how that science gets
> interpreted by and acted upon by politicians and bureaucrats.
Yeah, and the Himalayas will be glacier-free in just a few years.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Jan 22, 12:25 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > I have a suspicion that in fact these are not "predictions" of the data, but
> > in fact the researchers already knew the last 150 years of data before they
> > created the model, and just tweaked parameters in their models to force them
> > to agree with known historical data.
>
> That's certainly possible, and so you are right that agreement with
> historical data doesn't, by itself, prove anything.
>
> However, if one has a _simple_ model, then the fact that temperatures
> increased over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide levels increased
> over the last 150 years, and nothing else much seems to have been
> happening, such as to the Earth's orbit, to cause an increase in
> temperature during that time, constitutes a direct observation of the
> greenhouse effect.
Or it could be that the temps would have increased by the same amount
anyway.
Or maybe the temps aren't really increasing at all.
Or maybe higher temps aren't all bad anyway.
Or maybe if it weren't for the CO2 the Little Ice Age would continue
and get worse.
Chris L Peterson
>No, researchers never falsify their data.
It's rare, and even rarer for there to be a financial motive.
But like I said, you can never convince conspiracy nuts- especially the
ones (all of them?) that are scientifically illiterate.
Peter Webb
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:0m4ml5po2kqvq4n7u...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:34:36 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>No, researchers never falsify their data.
>
> It's rare, and even rarer for there to be a financial motive.
>
> But like I said, you can never convince conspiracy nuts- especially the
> ones (all of them?) that are scientifically illiterate.
Funny, as far as I am aware there are no "conspiracy nuts" in this thread,
and nobody has made any accusations of conspiracy.
So I guess you are just inventing a straw man.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
You didn't answer my question, BTW. AGW theorists change recorded historical
data all the time. How is this different to "falsifying" (your word) data ?
Dennis Woos
>>>No, researchers never falsify their data.
>>
>> It's rare, and even rarer for there to be a financial motive.
>>
>> But like I said, you can never convince conspiracy nuts- especially the
>> ones (all of them?) that are scientifically illiterate.
>
>
> Funny, as far as I am aware there are no "conspiracy nuts" in this thread,
> and nobody has made any accusations of conspiracy.
>
> So I guess you are just inventing a straw man.
>
You're initial post concludes:
"Can anybody confirm my suspicion that these predictions of the last 150
years of climate are not predictions at all - the researchers already knew
the answers and just modified their computer programs until they generated
the answers the researchers wanted?"
Surely you know enough about the methodology of science to realize that your
"suspicion" is an accusation of scientific fraud. Surely, you also know that
such practices carried out on a large scale requires a vast conspiracy,
unprecedented in the history of science? You describe a conspiracy, but now
post "nobody has made any accusations of conspiracy." It is hard to read
your disclaimer as anything other than unconsidered or deceitful.
Dennis
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:34:36 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >No, researchers never falsify their data.
>
> It's rare, and even rarer for there to be a financial motive.
The link I provided, and which you left out:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
seems to conclude a rate of about 1-2%, which can hardly be considered
"rare."
As for a financial motive, a scientist might have more trouble getting
money or support for studying hypotheses that are non-political and
therefore unlikely to generate controversy, than he might for pursuing
trendy fields of study, as I had already suggested to you earlier.
And then there are motives other than financial, about which anyone
and everyone should always be free to speculate.
> But like I said, you can never convince conspiracy nuts- especially the
> ones (all of them?) that are scientifically illiterate.
You'll have to come up with a definition of "scientifically
illiterate." An anthropologist might be considered "scientifically
illiterate" when it comes to the field of particle physics. Someone
who works as a truck driver might very well have more respect for and
understanding of the scientific method than do some scientists.
Use of the term "conspiracy nuts" is nothing but an ad hominem attack
on those who might be skeptical of a scientific hypothesis that has
developed serious political implications.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>You're initial post concludes:
>
>"Can anybody confirm my suspicion that these predictions of the last 150
>years of climate are not predictions at all - the researchers already knew
>the answers and just modified their computer programs until they generated
>the answers the researchers wanted?"
The model code and the input data are published and available. If he's
so sure that this fraud is occurring, he can verify it for himself. My
guess, however, is that he's never even read one of the primary papers
providing model results- it's pretty clear he doesn't understand the
models even at a conceptual level.
wsne...@hotmail.com
There doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy, only a few researchers who
might be mistaken in, or misled by, their conclusions, which
conclusions then become a convenient excuse for politicians and others
with political motivations to enact laws and levy taxes on the rest of
us.
Peter Webb
I see. You can't or won't answer my question, but do have time for an
ad-hominem attack.
Classic Peterson.
Peter Webb
>>>
>>>>No, researchers never falsify their data.
>>>
>>> It's rare, and even rarer for there to be a financial motive.
>>>
>>> But like I said, you can never convince conspiracy nuts- especially the
>>> ones (all of them?) that are scientifically illiterate.
>>
>>
>> Funny, as far as I am aware there are no "conspiracy nuts" in this
>> thread, and nobody has made any accusations of conspiracy.
>>
>> So I guess you are just inventing a straw man.
>>
>
> You're initial post concludes:
>
> "Can anybody confirm my suspicion that these predictions of the last 150
> years of climate are not predictions at all - the researchers already knew
> the answers and just modified their computer programs until they generated
> the answers the researchers wanted?"
>
> Surely you know enough about the methodology of science to realize that
> your "suspicion" is an accusation of scientific fraud. Surely, you also
> know that such practices carried out on a large scale requires a vast
> conspiracy,
I see no conspiracy at all, and have absolutely no idea what you are talking
about.
> unprecedented in the history of science? You describe a conspiracy, but
> now post "nobody has made any accusations of conspiracy." It is hard to
> read your disclaimer as anything other than unconsidered or deceitful.
>
> Dennis
>
So, when they put together these climate models that "predict" the last 150
years climate, did the researchers know roughly what the past climate was
and adjust their model until it fitted?
Do you know ?
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>So, when they put together these climate models that "predict" the last 150
>years climate, did the researchers know roughly what the past climate was
>and adjust their model until it fitted?
Get the code. Get the data. Run the models. Then, if you can demonstrate
some sort of error or fraud, let us know. Making accusations and asking
somebody else to do the work for you is intellectually dishonest.
oriel36
Funny,funny,funny ! - Galileo betrayed the Pope by putting the words
of the Pope in the mouth of a fictional fool 'Simplicio' and the Pope
threw him to the curia for this public betrayal of the friendship,when
the politicians realize what the recent batch of empiricists have done
to them it won't be pretty.
A few researchers indeed !,these guys were part of the enormous
fiction generating machine of empiricism with enough clout to bring
the populations of the world to the brink of insanity in the belief
that humanity could control global temperatures.
The politicians made me do it !,that is just plain funny but
thankfully it is a long way from dictatorial pronouncements of
empiricism from a few years ago.
wsne...@hotmail.com
You can't really "predict" the past, only infer it from scientific
evidence, or from records and observations made at the time. A model
which gives correct "predictions" of what happened 100 tears ago would
still be a faulty model if it gave incorrect "predictions" of what
happened at other times.
The value of GOOD science lies in its predictive value. If a model
can't even predict the near future very well, then it must not be used
as a basis for political and economic decisions. Even if it DOES
predict the near future it should be taken with a large grain of salt,
since it might have been right for the wrong reason.
Chris L Peterson
>You can't really "predict" the past, only infer it from scientific
>evidence, or from records and observations made at the time. A model
>which gives correct "predictions" of what happened 100 tears ago would
>still be a faulty model if it gave incorrect "predictions" of what
>happened at other times.
No, it wouldn't, anymore than Newtonian gravity is "wrong" because it
fails to describe observations in the relativistic realm. Climate
operates across a continuum of time scales, and across a geographic
continuum. Models are designed for specific regimes. What a
meteorologist uses to predict the weather (the shortest climate range)
in some particular geographic region is different from what a
climatologist uses to examine global temperature over a century, and
different yet from what a paleoclimatologist uses to study climate over
millions of years. None of the models are "wrong", but clearly all must
be properly applied over the conditions they were designed for.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:58:47 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>
> >So, when they put together these climate models that "predict" the last 150
> >years climate, did the researchers know roughly what the past climate was
> >and adjust their model until it fitted?
>
> Get the code. Get the data.
I remember reading a few months ago about someone who wanted the data
under a FOIA, but was unable to obtain it.
> Run the models. Then, if you can demonstrate
> some sort of error or fraud, let us know.
Yes, reproducible results and a falsifiable theory, that would be
science, or at least a step in that direction.
> Making accusations and asking
> somebody else to do the work for you is intellectually dishonest.
He probably has other work to do. His taxes probably support the work
of scientists. Governments want to tax him even more. He has a right
to ask questions.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:41:59 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >You can't really "predict" the past, only infer it from scientific
> >evidence, or from records and observations made at the time. A model
> >which gives correct "predictions" of what happened 100 tears ago would
> >still be a faulty model if it gave incorrect "predictions" of what
> >happened at other times.
>
> No, it wouldn't, anymore than Newtonian gravity is "wrong" because it
> fails to describe observations in the relativistic realm. Climate
> operates across a continuum of time scales, and across a geographic
> continuum. Models are designed for specific regimes. What a
> meteorologist uses to predict the weather (the shortest climate range)
> in some particular geographic region is different from what a
> climatologist uses to examine global temperature over a century, and
> different yet from what a paleoclimatologist uses to study climate over
> millions of years. None of the models are "wrong", but clearly all must
> be properly applied over the conditions they were designed for.
The "other times" I mentioned would be say 150 years ago, or 50 years
ago, etc., not 101 years ago or 99 years ago, or the day before
yesterday, or 3 million years ago. You need to improve your reading
comprehension.
Obviously, if a model was correct for a time 20 years ago, incorrect
for a time 40 years ago, one would have no reason to believe any
predictions that it makes about conditions 20 years from now.
Tweaking it to be correct for both 20 years ago and 40 years ago
doesn't help; we still have to wait and see what happens. Even so, it
might still be right for the wrong reasons.
The models in question cover the recent century or so. Even so, if
the temperatures have been generally rising since the last ice age, or
even during the last few centuries, that info needs to be considered
before using a model to support something such as AGW.
Chris L Peterson
>I remember reading a few months ago about someone who wanted the data
>under a FOIA, but was unable to obtain it.
For one particular study, maybe? The code for most models is published,
and the vast majority of raw climate data is also published and freely
available.
>He probably has other work to do. His taxes probably support the work
>of scientists. Governments want to tax him even more. He has a right
>to ask questions.
Sure, he has the right. He has the right to make a fool of himself as
well. "Uh... I don't know how to find the data. I don't know how to
analyze the data. I have a suspicion that the results of the models are
falsified. Can somebody do the work and tell me if that's the case?"
Chris L Peterson
>The "other times" I mentioned would be say 150 years ago, or 50 years
>ago, etc., not 101 years ago or 99 years ago, or the day before
>yesterday, or 3 million years ago.
Okay. And the models are all in close agreement for the last 150 years,
and also in agreement with the best available observational data.
>Tweaking it to be correct for both 20 years ago and 40 years ago
>doesn't help; we still have to wait and see what happens. Even so, it
>might still be right for the wrong reasons.
It is certainly possible that the models are dramatically wrong. But it
isn't very likely, based as they are on well supported physical theory
and effective as they are at describing the last century or more.
>The models in question cover the recent century or so. Even so, if
>the temperatures have been generally rising since the last ice age, or
>even during the last few centuries, that info needs to be considered
>before using a model to support something such as AGW.
And indeed, there are many studies that compare the rate of change in
the last 150 years to rates seen over the last few thousand years.
Nobody seems to be overlooking this comparison.
Peter Webb
But yet you don't answer my question.
Do you know the answer?
Peter Webb
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:od0pl51h38jr6bsiv...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:54:44 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>I remember reading a few months ago about someone who wanted the data
>>under a FOIA, but was unable to obtain it.
>
> For one particular study, maybe? The code for most models is published,
> and the vast majority of raw climate data is also published and freely
> available.
>
>
>>He probably has other work to do. His taxes probably support the work
>>of scientists. Governments want to tax him even more. He has a right
>>to ask questions.
>
> Sure, he has the right. He has the right to make a fool of himself as
> well. "Uh... I don't know how to find the data. I don't know how to
> analyze the data. I have a suspicion that the results of the models are
> falsified. Can somebody do the work and tell me if that's the case?"
You put that in quote marks.
I can't see where anybody has said that, let alone me.
Quote marks generally mean you are quoting somebody.
BTW, I take it you can't answer my question, as you won't. Which surprises
me, as you claim to know something about AGW and this is a pretty key point.
Or maybe you do know the answer but won't say?
Impossible to tell with you. All you seem to be capable of making ad-hominem
attacks.
Why don't you answer my question? Is it because you don't know, or you don't
want to say?
Peter Webb
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:pk0pl518ogr49do6h...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:08:46 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>The "other times" I mentioned would be say 150 years ago, or 50 years
>>ago, etc., not 101 years ago or 99 years ago, or the day before
>>yesterday, or 3 million years ago.
>
> Okay. And the models are all in close agreement for the last 150 years,
> and also in agreement with the best available observational data.
>
Did the people who produced the climate models which agree over the last 150
years have access to the last 150 climate data when they created their
model, and did they use this data in model construction?
If so, the agreement over the last 150 years is NOT independent
verification.
>>Tweaking it to be correct for both 20 years ago and 40 years ago
>>doesn't help; we still have to wait and see what happens. Even so, it
>>might still be right for the wrong reasons.
>
> It is certainly possible that the models are dramatically wrong. But it
> isn't very likely, based as they are on well supported physical theory
> and effective as they are at describing the last century or more.
>
As I understand it, you claim that if we supply accurate figures for
anthropogenic CO2 over the last 150 years, then the models accurately
predict climate over the last 150 years.
If we were to provide accurate anthropogenic CO2 figures for the next 150
years, will they be equally good at predicting climate over the next 150
years?
If not, why not? Given accurate figures for anthropogenic CO2 emissions in
the future, what is the "domain of applicability" (as you put it) of current
climate models? 1850 to when?
>>The models in question cover the recent century or so. Even so, if
>>the temperatures have been generally rising since the last ice age, or
>>even during the last few centuries, that info needs to be considered
>>before using a model to support something such as AGW.
>
> And indeed, there are many studies that compare the rate of change in
> the last 150 years to rates seen over the last few thousand years.
> Nobody seems to be overlooking this comparison.
> _________________________________________________
Funnily enough in a previous reesponse you said data more than a few hundred
years old was useless for verifying AGW theories. You did this after I
pointed out that historically the correlation between CO2 and temperature is
actually quite poor.
Returning to my main question, if current climate models can accurately
predict the earth's climate for the last 150 years if provided with accurate
anthropogenic CO2 data over that period, can they also accurately predict
the temperatures for the next 150 years if given accurate CO2 emmissions
data over that period as well?
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>But yet you don't answer my question.
>
>Do you know the answer?
Yes, I do know. And if you have enough intelligence and education to
participate in this discussion, you can get the answer as well. Do your
own homework! (Actually, since the question has been answered multiple
times in these discussions, you shouldn't have to look very far.)
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>As I understand it, you claim that if we supply accurate figures for
>anthropogenic CO2 over the last 150 years, then the models accurately
>predict climate over the last 150 years.
Yes.
>If we were to provide accurate anthropogenic CO2 figures for the next 150
>years, will they be equally good at predicting climate over the next 150
>years?
No.
>If not, why not? Given accurate figures for anthropogenic CO2 emissions in
>the future, what is the "domain of applicability" (as you put it) of current
>climate models? 1850 to when?
Because CO2 isn't the only input to the models. When you reconstruct
past data (for 150 years), most of the inputs are known fairly
accurately. But the mechanisms for some of those inputs remain poorly
characterized, which means that assumptions have to be made about future
values, and therefore errors will accumulate as you look further and
further ahead. If you look at the primary research results, you'll see
that these errors are part of the analysis, and that the confidence
levels decrease as the projection time increases. None of this is a
secret.
_________________________________________________
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:48:22 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>But yet you don't answer my question.
>>
>>Do you know the answer?
>
> Yes, I do know. And if you have enough intelligence and education to
> participate in this discussion, you can get the answer as well. Do your
> own homework! (Actually, since the question has been answered multiple
> times in these discussions, you shouldn't have to look very far.)
> _________________________________________________
>
So, you claim to know the answer, but for some reason you won't tell us what
it is.
Here's a couple of hints for looking less foolish:
1. Don't claim to know answers to questions if you aren't also prepared to
state those answers. It makes you look like you are lying, claiming to know
the answer to a question but steadfastly refusing to provide that answer.
2. If you have nothing to say, don't bother posting.
HTH
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:07:29 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>As I understand it, you claim that if we supply accurate figures for
>>anthropogenic CO2 over the last 150 years, then the models accurately
>>predict climate over the last 150 years.
>
> Yes.
>
>>If we were to provide accurate anthropogenic CO2 figures for the next 150
>>years, will they be equally good at predicting climate over the next 150
>>years?
>
> No.
>
>>If not, why not? Given accurate figures for anthropogenic CO2 emissions in
>>the future, what is the "domain of applicability" (as you put it) of
>>current
>>climate models? 1850 to when?
>
> Because CO2 isn't the only input to the models. When you reconstruct
> past data (for 150 years), most of the inputs are known fairly
> accurately.
What other inputs other than anthropogenic CO2 over the last 150 years were
used in the preparation of the models of the last 150 years climate?
> But the mechanisms for some of those inputs remain poorly
> characterized, which means that assumptions have to be made about future
> values,
Please give me an example of such an input (other than CO2) that was used in
the preparation of climate models over the last 150 years.
> and therefore errors will accumulate as you look further and
> further ahead. If you look at the primary research results, you'll see
> that these errors are part of the analysis, and that the confidence
> levels decrease as the projection time increases. None of this is a
> secret.
How were these errors eliminated for the climate over the last 150 years?
What additional inputs other than CO2 levels over the last 150 years were
used in the preparation of the models? Specifically, were past temperatures
(those over the last 150 years) used as inputs to the model?
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
Not, of course, that I expect you to answer these questions. You don't
answer questions on AGW; you merely claim to know the answers, don't say
what they are, and then launch into an ad-hominem attack or suggest that I
find out from some other unspecified source.
I am still trying to work out why you constantly evade questions on AGW
theory. It is like you are trying to hide something.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>What other inputs other than anthropogenic CO2 over the last 150 years were
>used in the preparation of the models of the last 150 years climate?
In addition to greenhouse gases, most models use data for historical El
Nino cycles, volcanic aerosols, the solar cycle, global ice cover. Some
use sulfate aerosol data, soot particle data, and precipitation data.
Most of these are known or can be estimated with reasonable accuracy for
the last 150 years, but many can't be reliably predicted into the future
(years, decades, or in some cases not at all). So if you look at the
primary published data for each model, it will accurately track past
temperatures, and then present multiple future scenarios, based on
various assumptions about the poorly predictable inputs.
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:27:14 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>What other inputs other than anthropogenic CO2 over the last 150 years
>>were
>>used in the preparation of the models of the last 150 years climate?
>
> In addition to greenhouse gases, most models use data for historical El
> Nino cycles, volcanic aerosols, the solar cycle, global ice cover.
Funny, none of the models I have seen appear to compensate at all for short
term events. The curves they show for temperatures in the past are all
smooth curves. There is no evidence I can see whatsoever of El Nino, solar
cycles or volcanic aerosols in the graphs that I have seen; all are smooth
montonically increasing functions.
Are you certain what you say is correct? How come the predictions of past
temperatures are smooth curves without any evidence of cyclical or one-off
events? Can you show me such a prediction?
> Some
> use sulfate aerosol data, soot particle data,
For the last 150 years? Really?
> and precipitation data.
Funny, you don't mention if they use past temperatures as inputs, which is
the question I asked.
You have listed lots of things that they do consider, but remain silent on
whether they consider past temperatures, which is what I asked.
> Most of these are known or can be estimated with reasonable accuracy for
> the last 150 years,
Which of these were known 150 years ago, used in the model, but cannot be
estimated for 150 years in the future?
> but many can't be reliably predicted into the future
> (years, decades, or in some cases not at all). So if you look at the
> primary published data for each model, it will accurately track past
> temperatures, and then present multiple future scenarios, based on
> various assumptions about the poorly predictable inputs.
Yes, but you list lots of things that the models used as inputs, including
things often used as proxies for temperature such as global ice cover.
But for some strange reason you won't say if past temperatures were used as
inputs to the models, which is actually the question I have now asked you
several times.
Perhaps you don't understand why this is important.
If past temperatures (over the last 150 years) were used as inputs to the
model, then the fact that the models agree with past temperatures does not
provide any independent verification of the climate models accuracy. It is
easy to produce a model which exactly reproduces past temperatures but
completely lacks predictive capability.
As this agreement with past climate is apparently the lynch-pin of the
argument that the models are correct, it is important to verify that these
really were predictions, and that the models were not massaged to simply
produce the correct answers for past temperatures.
Having spent so much time listing many inputs to climate models, could you
take a second and tell us if these inputs included past temperature data?
Thanks in advance.
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:27:14 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>What other inputs other than anthropogenic CO2 over the last 150 years
>>were
>>used in the preparation of the models of the last 150 years climate?
>
> In addition to greenhouse gases, most models use data for historical El
> Nino cycles, volcanic aerosols, the solar cycle, global ice cover. Some
> use sulfate aerosol data, soot particle data, and precipitation data.
> Most of these are known or can be estimated with reasonable accuracy for
> the last 150 years, but many can't be reliably predicted into the future
> (years, decades, or in some cases not at all). So if you look at the
> primary published data for each model, it will accurately track past
> temperatures,
Were past temperatures also used as inputs?
If that is the case, then the fact that the models track these temperatures
should come as no surprise. They were known in advance, and used in the
preparation of the model. If past temperatures can be used as inputs to
climate models, and the success of these models is determined by how well
they predict past temperatures, then I can create a far more accurate
climate model than any I have saeen through simple curve fitting.
> and then present multiple future scenarios, based on
> various assumptions about the poorly predictable inputs.
> _________________________________________________
>
Is one of the inputs that the climate models require in order to predict
past temperatures the actual past temperatures that are in fact already
known?
If so, how do the models predict future temperatures when the actual future
temperatures are not yet known?
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Were past temperatures also used as inputs?
That is a stupid question, that simply reveals your total ignorance
about climate models.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Funny, none of the models I have seen appear to compensate at all for short
>term events. The curves they show for temperatures in the past are all
>smooth curves.
All the current models do a good job of tracking past temperatures, and
the outputs are far from being smooth and monotonic. The farther back
the models go, the longer the averages for some of the variables that
aren't known as precisely. Recent models rather spectacularly
reconstruct the last 30 years with annual resolution, because the inputs
are so accurately known.
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:54:58 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Were past temperatures also used as inputs?
>
> That is a stupid question, that simply reveals your total ignorance
> about climate models.
> _________________________________________________
>
Hmmm.
No answer, just an ad-hominem attack.
Classic Peterson.
Somebody else in this thread said that if they had used past temperatures in
constructing the model, so the arguments was circular, that would be
scientific fraud. Indeed, I was castigated for the suggestion that such
fraud may have occurred.
Perhaps you could re-assure that poster that no, old temperature data was
not used in the construction of the models, so no fraud occurred. Or
otherwise, of course.
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
Funny how you won't answer even very simple and obvious questions about AGW.
You remind me a lot of 9/11 conspiracy cranks - like you, they enjoy
ad-hominem attacks, but steadfastly refuse to answer simple questions about
their version of the truth.
So, you going to make another post explaining why you won't answer simple
questions about AGW theory, or are you going to finally answer the question?
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:38:09 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Funny, none of the models I have seen appear to compensate at all for
>>short
>>term events. The curves they show for temperatures in the past are all
>>smooth curves.
>
> All the current models do a good job of tracking past temperatures, and
> the outputs are far from being smooth and monotonic. The farther back
> the models go, the longer the averages for some of the variables that
> aren't known as precisely. Recent models rather spectacularly
> reconstruct the last 30 years with annual resolution, because the inputs
> are so accurately known.
> _
Were any of the inputs the actual last 30 years temperature data? If so, its
hardly surprising. The problem with the models which rely on knowing the
correct answer in advance is that they are useless for predicting future
temperatures, as we don't actually know these in advance.
BTW, have you a link to a model which spectacularly predicted the last 30
years annual climate data (as you say exists), or is this another one of
those imaginary reports, articles, climate science models and studies that
you say support your position, but which you can never supply a link for?
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>No answer, just an ad-hominem attack.
You need to spend less time complaining about ad hominem attacks and
educate yourself about climate models. That you are ignorant on the
subject is painfully obvious. That is nothing more than a simple
observation.
>Perhaps you could re-assure that poster that no, old temperature data was
>not used in the construction of the models, so no fraud occurred.
The output of the models is temperature. It is not an input, and anybody
even the slightest bit familiar with the topic would know that. The mere
suggestion that temperature was used as an input serves to demonstrate
gross ignorance about the entire subject.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>BTW, have you a link to a model which spectacularly predicted the last 30
>years annual climate data...
J. L. Lean, D. H. Rind, Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L15708 (2009)
_________________________________________________
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:11:14 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>BTW, have you a link to a model which spectacularly predicted the last 30
>>years annual climate data...
>
> J. L. Lean, D. H. Rind, Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L15708 (2009)
> _________________________________________________
>
If you are referring to Lean, J.L., and D.H. Rind, 2009: How will Earth's
surface temperature change in future decades? Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,
L15708
Then no, it doesn't.
Funny you left off the title of the paper. If you had remembered to include
it, the title alone would have told you that it would be extremely unlikely
to include the data that you say it does.
Perhaps you were thinking of a different paper? Or maybe you lied, and
thought you would get away with it?
Looking forward to your explanation!
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:02:43 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>No answer, just an ad-hominem attack.
>
> You need to spend less time complaining about ad hominem attacks and
> educate yourself about climate models. That you are ignorant on the
> subject is painfully obvious. That is nothing more than a simple
> observation.
>
I'm trying to educate myself. I'm asking questions. Its just that you won't
answer them.
>>Perhaps you could re-assure that poster that no, old temperature data was
>>not used in the construction of the models, so no fraud occurred.
>
> The output of the models is temperature. It is not an input, and anybody
> even the slightest bit familiar with the topic would know that. The mere
> suggestion that temperature was used as an input serves to demonstrate
> gross ignorance about the entire subject.
> _________________________________________________
>
So at no stage whatsoever did the people creating the model compare its
predictions to actual temperatures and subsequently modify the model to
improve the match?
What temperature data did they use as inputs? I am assuming that they did
not calculate the earth's temperature from "first principles", they must
have used at least some actual temperatures for baselines.
So, what known temperature data was considered in construction of the
models?
Peter Webb
"We use large-ensemble energy balance modelling and simulate the temperature
response to past solar, volcanic and greenhouse gas forcing to determine
which climate sensitivities yield simulations that are in agreement with
proxy reconstructions."
That's from
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/nature04679.html
Published in Nature, no less.
In this case, the authors explicitly state the past temperatures were used
as inputs - they modified the model to produce the correct answers (ie the
proxy reconstructions of temperature they were using).
So it seems that Peterson is wrong when he says this doesn't occur.
And maybe the poster who said that this would amount to fraud should be more
than a little worried.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:54:44 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >I remember reading a few months ago about someone who wanted the data
> >under a FOIA, but was unable to obtain it.
>
> For one particular study, maybe? The code for most models is published,
> and the vast majority of raw climate data is also published and freely
> available.
Are the climate models and the data confidential? If not, why is some
not available?
> >He probably has other work to do. His taxes probably support the work
> >of scientists. Governments want to tax him even more. He has a right
> >to ask questions.
>
> Sure, he has the right. He has the right to make a fool of himself as
> well. "Uh... I don't know how to find the data. I don't know how to
> analyze the data. I have a suspicion that the results of the models are
> falsified. Can somebody do the work and tell me if that's the case?"
You can just answer the question.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:08:46 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >The "other times" I mentioned would be say 150 years ago, or 50 years
> >ago, etc., not 101 years ago or 99 years ago, or the day before
> >yesterday, or 3 million years ago.
>
> Okay. And the models are all in close agreement for the last 150 years,
> and also in agreement with the best available observational data.
>
> >Tweaking it to be correct for both 20 years ago and 40 years ago
> >doesn't help; we still have to wait and see what happens. Even so, it
> >might still be right for the wrong reasons.
>
> It is certainly possible that the models are dramatically wrong.
But I thought the "debate is over" and the "science is settled." You
mean to say that the models MIGHT BE WRONG?
> But it
> isn't very likely, based as they are on well supported physical theory
> and effective as they are at describing the last century or more.
How might they describe the next century?
> >The models in question cover the recent century or so. Even so, if
> >the temperatures have been generally rising since the last ice age, or
> >even during the last few centuries, that info needs to be considered
> >before using a model to support something such as AGW.
>
> And indeed, there are many studies that compare the rate of change in
> the last 150 years to rates seen over the last few thousand years.
> Nobody seems to be overlooking this comparison.
Does that include rates of DOWNWARD change of temp as well?
wsne...@hotmail.com
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> A quick update:
>
> "We use large-ensemble energy balance modelling and simulate the temperature
> response to past solar, volcanic and greenhouse gas forcing to determine
> which climate sensitivities yield simulations that are in agreement with
> proxy reconstructions."
>
>
> Published in Nature, no less.
>
> In this case, the authors explicitly state the past temperatures were used
> as inputs - they modified the model to produce the correct answers (ie the
> proxy reconstructions of temperature they were using).
>
> So it seems that Peterson is wrong when he says this doesn't occur.
>
> And maybe the poster who said that this would amount to fraud should be more
> than a little worried.
AFAICT, temperatures observed at a given time have absolutely no
effect whatsoever on temperatures that were observed earlier than that
time.
A model that would be instructive, but by no means definitive, would
be one that took accurate, complete, known data from a earlier date
(150 years ago, pehaps) and then ran the numbers using updated info of
parameters that might affect the weather, but that didn't include
anything that WAS weather. So beyond the initial date, no known temp,
precip, pressure. cloud cover, etc., would be allowed to used as
inputs, only actual measurements of other parameters (solar input,
CO2, etc.) for each time period of the simulation. This could then be
compared to what actually happened. We can then form an opinion of
the model's value for predicting future "climate."
No adjustments (tweaking) should be made to the model if it fails this
test. It should be scrapped and a new model constructed.
Is this the gist of your question?
Chris L Peterson
>Are the climate models and the data confidential? If not, why is some
>not available?
Not generally. Most are available- model code and data both.
>You can just answer the question.
I did- more than once. He just won't acknowledge it. A classic crank
strategy.
oriel36
It is amazing to see these guys running around trying to 'predict'
global climate in the future yet cannot explain the exact difference
between global climate and hemispherical weather patterns such as
Spring/Summer/Fall/Winter,not even with the ability to make direct
planetary comparisons where it becomes a matter of simple reasoning.
The role of 'tilt' or what is rotational orientation to an intelligent
person determines whether a planet has an equatorial or polar climate
but it requires an additional orbital component to explain why there
are temperature fluctuations at different latitudes with more greater
variations towards the poles and lesser swings at the equator.The clue
is the length of time a location spends in solar radiation or the
orbital shadow and not inclination to solar radiation as the 'tilt'
guys have it.
What is it with you lot ?,at the North/South pole locations where
daily rotation,to all intents and purposes,does not exist there is a
single daylight/darkness cycle indicative of the specific way our
planet and any planet orbits the Sun.All locations on Earth experience
this single daylight/darkness cycle and it is fascinating how two
independent motions (daily and annual cycles) work together to create
both the variations in the natural noon cycle and global climate which
then splits in two with hemispherical patterns of the seasons.
Do you clearly understand that if you can't explain the enormous
temperature fluctuations using planetary dynamics,there is not a
chance you can explain local weather conditions where geographical or
oceanic influences are thrown into the mix.That's right,none of you
are astronomers and are lost when a little effort is required to
understand basic planetary dynamics.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>If you are referring to Lean, J.L., and D.H. Rind, 2009: How will Earth's
>surface temperature change in future decades? Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,
>L15708
>
>Then no, it doesn't.
Yes, it does. Did you look at it? It has a annualized calculation of
temperature from 1980 calculated from a fairly simple model. It
reproduces the observed temperatures very well, with all their little
ups and downs, and demonstrates nicely the way that decadal-scale inputs
like El Nino and solar cycles influence the longer term view.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>"We use large-ensemble energy balance modelling and simulate the temperature
>response to past solar, volcanic and greenhouse gas forcing to determine
>which climate sensitivities yield simulations that are in agreement with
>proxy reconstructions."
>
>That's from
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/nature04679.html
>
>Published in Nature, no less.
>
>In this case, the authors explicitly state the past temperatures were used
>as inputs - they modified the model to produce the correct answers (ie the
>proxy reconstructions of temperature they were using).
They do NOT say that they used past temperatures as inputs, and there is
no indication from the abstract that they did. Quite the opposite. They
adjusted parameters to existing models to get the best fit to the North
American temperature record for the last few centuries. That means they
DIDN'T use temperature as an input. By adjusting the actual input
parameters to produce the known temperatures, they were able to place
constraints on the range of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases.
You simply don't understand how these models work.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
>> It is certainly possible that the models are dramatically wrong.
>
>But I thought the "debate is over" and the "science is settled." You
>mean to say that the models MIGHT BE WRONG?
It is possible that evolution is dramatically wrong. It is possible that
the standard model for particle physics is dramatically wrong. It is
possible that the Big Bang is dramatically wrong. But the fact is, all
of these theories, like that of anthropogenic climate change, are so
well supported in their broadest aspects that very few researchers
consider any of them to be significantly in error. Colloquially, they
are considered to be "settled science" and there is little debate about
their overall accuracy. As a result, researchers in those areas no
longer spend much time looking for completely different theories, but
invest their effort in refining and better understanding the details of
the existing ones.
>> And indeed, there are many studies that compare the rate of change in
>> the last 150 years to rates seen over the last few thousand years.
>> Nobody seems to be overlooking this comparison.
>
>Does that include rates of DOWNWARD change of temp as well?
Downward when? And over what interval? There are no sustained periods of
downward temperature change over the last 150 years, and decadal
variations are readily explained by decadal climate components: El Nino
type patterns, solar cycles, and both natural and anthropogenic
aerosols. Downward trends over longer periods outside the era of
significant anthropogenic input are studied using different sorts of
models and have various explanations.
Mike Collins
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you insane/ The poles rotate through 360 degrees each siderial day
as does the Equator.
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:39:36 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>If you are referring to Lean, J.L., and D.H. Rind, 2009: How will Earth's
>>surface temperature change in future decades? Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,
>>L15708
>>
>>Then no, it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does. Did you look at it? It has a annualized calculation of
> temperature from 1980 calculated from a fairly simple model. It
No, exactly the title suggests (which you snipped, for that reason) and as
its abstract states, it is a qualitative examination of climate drivers over
the *next* few decades.
Perhaps you googled "few decades" and thought that a paper covering the next
few decades climate qualitively could be passed off as a paper which
analysises the last few decades quantitively.
> reproduces the observed temperatures very well, with all their little
> ups and downs, and demonstrates nicely the way that decadal-scale inputs
> like El Nino and solar cycles influence the longer term view.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
I actually believed that you finally found some reference for one of your
flights of fantasy. Alas not.
How's the development of your new philosophy of science - "metatheory
theory" - which does not require metatheories such as AGW to have
experimental verification? It seemed a perfect way to get over the lack of
predictive capability of climate science models - redefine them so they lie
outside the scientific method. You seem to have gone quiet on meta-theory
theory; are you still working on it?
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:59:33 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>"We use large-ensemble energy balance modelling and simulate the
>>temperature
>>response to past solar, volcanic and greenhouse gas forcing to determine
>>which climate sensitivities yield simulations that are in agreement with
>>proxy reconstructions."
>>
>>That's from
>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/nature04679.html
>>
>>Published in Nature, no less.
>>
>>In this case, the authors explicitly state the past temperatures were used
>>as inputs - they modified the model to produce the correct answers (ie the
>>proxy reconstructions of temperature they were using).
>
> They do NOT say that they used past temperatures as inputs, and there is
> no indication from the abstract that they did. Quite the opposite. They
> adjusted parameters to existing models to get the best fit to the North
> American temperature record for the last few centuries. That means they
> DIDN'T use temperature as an input.
They did. You say they did. They used the actual recorded historical
temperatures to modify their model, so they were "inputs".
I can do that as well, and get a perfect match.
> By adjusting the actual input
> parameters to produce the known temperatures, they were able to place
> constraints on the range of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases.
Not only that, by adjusting the model so that it matched previous
temperature records, it then matched previous temperature records, proving
it must be correct!
>
> You simply don't understand how these models work.
>
I do now, at least for this one.
They created a model. It did not match past temperatures, and so nobody
would believe its correct. So then they took the actual recorded
temperatures, and modified free variables in their model until it reproduces
the right curve. Then they announce to the world that their model is
probably correct, because it reproduces past temperatures.
This is a circular argument. Agreement with past temperatures cannot
possibly be independent verification of the model, as these temperatures
were known and used in the construction of the model.
Its not science; its curve fitting. I can easily produce a model which shows
eating ice cream causes climate change by simply putting ice cream
consumption into the model and seeing whay weighting my curve fitting
program produces for ice cream consumption.
Are their any climate models which reproduce past temperatures
independently, ie where the past temperatures were not known in advance and
used in the construction of the model?
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>No, exactly the title suggests (which you snipped, for that reason) and as
>its abstract states, it is a qualitative examination of climate drivers over
>the *next* few decades.
I didn't snip the title, I just missed it when I copied it off the PDF.
I've got the paper right here in front of me, complete with a very nice
graph of the output of a model compared against annual global
temperature from 1980 to 2009. The model uses only four inputs: the El
Nino-Southern Oscillation magnitude, volcanic aerosol concentration, the
Solar cycle, and anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentration. Just these
four inputs produce a close correlation between the model and actual
data- in this case over a period where both the inputs and the
temperatures are known with a high degree of accuracy.
I have no idea what you're looking at, but the reference I gave provides
just what I said it does- an example of a climate model accurately
matching the annualized global temperature record.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>They did. You say they did. They used the actual recorded historical
>temperatures to modify their model, so they were "inputs".
Since you don't even understand the most basic thing about what a
physical model is or does, you have no qualifications to even discuss
this.
Peter Webb
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:02:47 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>They did. You say they did. They used the actual recorded historical
>>temperatures to modify their model, so they were "inputs".
>
> Since you don't even understand the most basic thing about what a
> physical model is or does, you have no qualifications to even discuss
> this.
> _________________________________________________
>
No answer, just an ad-hominem attack.
Classic Peterson, of course, but you are giving the appearance of being a
one-trick pony.
Bruce
news:4b5e4d5f$0$14137$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
Actually, they didn't even get that right as the Midievil Warm Period is
missing.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Bruce
Easy accusation to make without any evidence to back it up. Having the name
of an observatory in your sigline doesn't make you an expert, either.
oriel36
> Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote innews:jtlsl59djm55smfiv...@4ax.com:
Peterson is correct,few understand what exists at the core of the
modeling agenda insofar as he himself doesn't understand it,he knows
enough that he inherits the peer review process from somewhere but it
is not his business to question the lucrative agenda nor travel back
in history to where it originates in the late 17th century in
observational astronomy.
The story which ends with the world's leaders declaring to limit
global temperature within a a certain range has a very definite
beginning 3 centuries ago and it is fascinating even without the
terrible implications it so nearly dumped upon our race,the worst
being over now,it may be possible to find people who can set aside
the
reckless speculation which nearly brought our race to the brink of
insanity and look at how modern imaging power can provide planetary
comparisons to sort through issues which are currently wrapped up in
the hyperfuss of a minor atmospheric gas.
In a world where peer review is now dysfunctional,peer-to-peer reigns
and the Usenet with all its disadvantages and no merit system will
have to suffice until some stability and authority returns from the
wild speculative computer modelling which introduced fear through the
normal processes of global climate.
Chris L Peterson
>Easy accusation to make without any evidence to back it up.
What evidence would you suggest for a fool who obviously doesn't
understand what a model is. He is unable to even make the distinction
between a model's input and its output! Short of writing a complete
treatise on physical models (Physical Modeling for Dummy's, perhaps?)
there's not much to be said. If people are going to try and argue a case
(especially a crank idea like anti-AGW) they at least need to educate
themselves about what they are arguing against!
Bruce
Yeah, as previously stated, you're great with ad homenim attacks, but short
on answers.
Chris L Peterson
>Yeah, as previously stated, you're great with ad homenim attacks, but short
>on answers.
It is only reasonable to be patient for so long in trying to answer
questions. Eventually some people reveal themselves to be cranks, or
stupid, or obtuse- something that makes any reasoned discussion
impossible. After you answer the same questions over and over enough
times, you just have to give up. Cranks are real- there are a handful on
this forum, and identifying them as such is a service to everybody.
Bruce
Want some cheese with that whine?
Here, educate yourself on the scam:
The scandal deepens � IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers
24 01 2010
All the years I�ve been in TV news, I�ve observed that every story has a
tipping point. In news, we know when it has reached that point when we
say it �has legs� and the story takes on a life of its own. The story may
have been ignored or glossed over for weeks, months, or years until some
new piece of information is posted and starts to galvanize people. The
IPCC glacier melt scandal was the one that galvanized the collective
voice that has been saying that the IPCC report was seriously flawed and
represented a political rather than scientific view. Now people are
seriously looking at AR4 with a critical eye and finding things
everywhere.
Remember our friends at World Wildlife Fund? Those schlockmeisters that
produced the video of planes flying into New York with explicit
comparisons to 9/11?
911tsunami-large
The caption in the upper right reads: �The tsunami killed 100 times more
people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve
it.�
Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and
as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce
opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC�s rules are such that
they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears
they�ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri�s watch.
A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of
NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day
of looking.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-
nobel-winning.html
Here�s an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF
and cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC AR4 report:
* Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the
financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07:
http://www.wwf.org.uk/ filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf]
* Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R.
Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South
Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF),
Denmark, November, 104 pp.
* Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East
Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project
Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.
* Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael,
C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate
Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp.
http://www.wwf.org.au/ publications/acg_solutions.pdf
* Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change � agenda for
action: the financial sector�s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich
[may be the same document as "Allianz" above, except that one is dated
2006 and the other 2005]
* Fritsche, U.R., K. H�necke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K.
Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. �ko-Institut
e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November
* Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin,
2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC
Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Accessed
01.10.2006 at
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/medreportfinal8july05.pdf.
* Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A
User�s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in
Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.
*
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/our_solutions/bu
siness_industry/climate_savers/ index.cfm
* Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005:
Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal
* Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds.,
2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally
Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature,
Gland, 40 pp.
* Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires.
WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp.
http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications
/files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf
* WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity.
World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. http://www.wwf.org/
* WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for
Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
* WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier
retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife
Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.
* Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail?
Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World
Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland
Finally, there are these authoritative sources cited by the IPCC �
publications with names such as Leisure and Event Management:
* Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to
Ontario�s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
* Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of
climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special
events in Canada�s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76
Not only should Pachauri resign, the Nobel committee should be deluged by
world citizenry demanding they revoke the Nobel prize granted to the body
that produced this document.
Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-
ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/
Bruce
Here is a little more education:
�The Science is Scuttled� � NASA climate page, suckered by IPCC, deletes
their own �moved up� glacier melting date reference
23 01 2010
And the purge begins.
Here�s the NASA Climate Change �evidence� page where they list a series
of visual earth topics that support AGW as factual. In the sidebar they
have heavy reference on IPCC AR4.
click for NASA website
Scrolling down through the page you come across the section that talks
about glacier melt. Here is the screencap of that section BEFORE
(courtesy of Google Cache) and AFTER as it appears now:
BEFORE- from Google Cache - click to enlarge
Yellow highlight mine. Note not only did they cite the now famous false
glacier melting alarm from IPCC AR4, they moved it up five years to 2030!
Feel free to check it yourself with Google cache here. I also saved the
entire cached web page as a PDF file here: climate.nasa
Here is the NASA climate page after the recent change:
AFTER - click to enlarge
A big hat tip to WUWT reader �Jaymam� for spotting this. I wonder how
many other pages are now going to start seeing IPCC references
disappearing?
UPDATE: While the discovery by �Jaymam� was independent, it appears that
the UK Register first posted on this on Jan 20th, from a tip from their
reader, Charles W., who was the first to notice NASA rewriting history
with the glaciers:
Spotted 19th January. Posted 20th January:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/20/glacier_latest/
As the article mentions, at the same time, a bunch of celebs were on top
of Kilimanjaro crying for the ice.
h/t to Andrew Orlowski of the Register.
Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/nasa-climate-page-suckered-
by-ipcc-deletes-a-moved-up-glacier-melting-date-reference/
Chris L Peterson
>Here is a little more education:
Actually, it's just more evidence that you don't know how to evaluate
scientific data. IPCC AR4 is a metastudy. It isn't primary data, and
doesn't claim to be. Some sites may mistakenly treat it as if it were,
but that doesn't change the science.
The simple fact is that IPCC AR4 is substantially accurate. Finding a
few errors changes nothing in terms of our understanding of climate
science. There are thousands and thousands of primary research papers
which paint a clear picture of where the climate is headed in the short
term, and how we got there.
Gloating over errors in IPCC AR4 betrays your own lack of understanding,
and it betrays your own agenda, but that's all. It's about as profound
as bringing up Al Gore in discussing global climate change. It is also a
standard strategy of pseudoscience and crank science: latch on to one
tiny discrepancy in the data, and ignore the million other supporting
data points. Keep bringing up that tiny discrepancy over and over, and
continue to ignore everything else. Sound familiar?
Peter Webb
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:h02ul5ton083kic9l...@4ax.com...
I have no idea who you are talking about, but I hardly think that didbelief
in AGW makes you a "crank". If you were familiar with the IPCC publications,
you would realise that even they apply a probability to anthropogenic CO2
being the primary cause of global warming. Many scientists and other people
are skeptical about AGW; this does not make them "cranks".
Indeed, given the extremely poor predictive capability of AGW, there is
every reason to be skeptical about its predictions for future climate.
A belief in the scientific method is hardly a sign of being a crank. Quite
the opposite. Einstein was skeptical about Newton's implicit assumption of
absolute time. As were Maxwell, Hiesenberg, Galileo and many other
skeptical about existing scientific theories. Being skeptical is of itself
not a sign of being a crank. Perhaps you should think about AGW
scientifically, and on its merits as a scientific theory.
I note again that this post of yours above contains no scientific arguments
or justifications of your opinions; its another ad-hominem attack, as usual
directed against people who disagree with you on scientific issues.
Unless you have something to say about the science (which is what is being
discussed in this thread), perhaps you should start a new thread devoted to
ad-hominem attacks. Being your only "contribution".
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
Speaking of cranks, how is your new metatheory based philosophy of science
proceeding? Proved that AGW doesn't need experimental support because it
isn't a scientific theory (its a "scientific metatheory"!) yet?
Jax
>
> Gloating over errors in IPCC AR4 betrays your own lack of understanding,
> and it betrays your own agenda,
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
I wonder, what is your agenda?
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>I have no idea who you are talking about, but I hardly think that didbelief
>in AGW makes you a "crank".
No, but adopting crank tactics (like asking questions that have been
answered, and ignoring evidence that argues against your position) is a
good indicator somebody is a crank.
> If you were familiar with the IPCC publications,
>you would realise that even they apply a probability to anthropogenic CO2
>being the primary cause of global warming. Many scientists and other people
>are skeptical about AGW; this does not make them "cranks".
All scientists are skeptical about AGW. But most scientists, including
virtually all climate scientists, accept that it is extremely probably
that AGW is real. Many people who are not scientists don't believe AGW
is real, mainly because they lack the scientific literacy to decide that
on their own, and rely instead on cranks or those with a political
agenda for their information.
>Indeed, given the extremely poor predictive capability of AGW, there is
>every reason to be skeptical about its predictions for future climate.
Simply using a meaningless expression like "poor predictive capability
of AGW" demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the subject. I'd
say that the extremely good predictive capability of modern climate
models gives every reason to have high confidence in the predictions for
future climate.
>Being skeptical is of itself
>not a sign of being a crank.
Being skeptical is critical to science, and any competent scientist will
be skeptical. "Skeptical" doesn't mean you think something is unlikely,
however, it only means you always leave room for doubt. I'm skeptical
about AGW, and at the same time think it is overwhelmingly likely to be
a real phenomenon.
>Speaking of cranks, how is your new metatheory based philosophy of science
>proceeding? Proved that AGW doesn't need experimental support because it
>isn't a scientific theory (its a "scientific metatheory"!) yet?
This statement places you squarely in the crank camp.
_________________________________________________
Peter Webb
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:7q0vl5dkkb0ss47ru...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:37:08 +0000 (UTC), Bruce <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
>>Here is a little more education:
>
> Actually, it's just more evidence that you don't know how to evaluate
> scientific data. IPCC AR4 is a metastudy. It isn't primary data, and
> doesn't claim to be. Some sites may mistakenly treat it as if it were,
> but that doesn't change the science.
>
> The simple fact is that IPCC AR4 is substantially accurate. Finding a
> few errors changes nothing in terms of our understanding of climate
> science.
They were not errors; they were deliberate lies. And they were neither
trivial or innocent.
1. The statement that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 (at 90%
confidence) was not an error as such. The editor of the report said he knew
at the time it was wrong, but included it for shock value. Numerous
glaciologists have said it is obviously wrong. None spoke up until a few
weeks ago. That the IPCC deliberately falsifies the impact of AGW for
political reasons, throws in doubt the claim that the reports are scientific
based.
2. The source of the 2035 figure did NOT at any stage alert the IPCC that
the figure was wrong. He did subsequently accept a multi-million grant to
study Himalayan glacier disappearance, on the the strength of the fact that
they will all disappear in 25 years.
3. This has caused a much closer look at the scientific provenance of much
of the information in the report. It turns out that many of the "scientific
predictions" are in fact opinions from the WWF (which conducts no scientific
research at all). Passing off opinions from political lobby groups as
science is lying.
4. About 1 billion people in India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China and
SE Asia depend on the continuity of water supply from glacial fed rivers for
survival. Lying to a billion people and telling them that in 25 years the
glaciers will disappear and their children may not survive, when it is known
that its not 25 years, its 340 years, is not only fraud but its also totally
cynical political exercise.
Imagine this happened in astronomy. Imagine somebody said that an asteroid
would hit the earth in 25 years (with 90% probability) affecting the
environment of over a billion people. Imagine that NASA published this, even
though they knew it was wrong, and the correct figure was 340 years away.
Imagine that somebody then used the NASA report (knowing it was wrong) to
get a multi-million dollare research grant into exactly where the asteroid
was going to hit in 25 years.
Does this seem OK to you?
> There are thousands and thousands of primary research papers
> which paint a clear picture of where the climate is headed in the short
> term, and how we got there.
But not, unfortunately, any IPCC reports.
>
> Gloating over errors in IPCC AR4 betrays your own lack of understanding,
> and it betrays your own agenda, but that's all. It's about as profound
> as bringing up Al Gore in discussing global climate change. It is also a
> standard strategy of pseudoscience and crank science: latch on to one
> tiny discrepancy in the data, and ignore the million other supporting
> data points.
Its not a tiny discrepancy in the data. It is a deliberate falsification to
make the problem seem worse than it is. It became fraud when climatologists
accepted grants on the strength of a scientific assessment by the IPCC which
they knew to be false.
> Keep bringing up that tiny discrepancy over and over, and
> continue to ignore everything else. Sound familiar?
> _________________________________________________
This is now twice that you have called it a "tiny discrepancy". It was
neither of these.
The disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers within 25 years is not a "tiny"
thing. And nor is there any discrepancy in the report; the figure of 25
years is consistent with everything else in the report.
It was a deliberate lie, included for political reasons, and having no
scientific basis. It quite possibly became criminal fraud when it was
misrepresented as scientific evidence, and grants were allocated on the
strength of it. And it was a lie in which the editor was complicit, and all
other reviewers were either complicit or spectacularly unqualified to act as
a reviewer.
The IPCC cannot claim that is publishing scientific evidence if it
deliberately publishes things it knows to be false for political reasons.
And as the subsequent investigation has shown, the IPCC also publishes the
opinions of political lobby groups (such as WWF) as peer reviewed scientific
evidence.
It can have no claim to being a scientific body if it so loose with the
truth. This is not about a "tiny discepancy", its about whether the IPCC
tells the scientific truth. By their own admisiion, they don't.
Peter Webb
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:ciuul51q1t0sq44ah...@4ax.com...
I already said you were great at ad-hominem attacks, and short on answers to
my questions.
I *yawn* don't need another ad-hominem attack from you to prove my point.
Sam Wormley
>
> "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:7q0vl5dkkb0ss47ru...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:37:08 +0000 (UTC), Bruce <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a little more education:
>>
>> Actually, it's just more evidence that you don't know how to evaluate
>> scientific data. IPCC AR4 is a metastudy. It isn't primary data, and
>> doesn't claim to be. Some sites may mistakenly treat it as if it were,
>> but that doesn't change the science.
>>
>> The simple fact is that IPCC AR4 is substantially accurate. Finding a
>> few errors changes nothing in terms of our understanding of climate
>> science.
>
> They were not errors; they were deliberate lies. And they were neither
> trivial or innocent.
>
Those glaciers are likely going to be gone--we will only know if by
the year 2035 by direct observation.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>They were not errors; they were deliberate lies. And they were neither
>trivial or innocent.
They were trivial. And there isn't any evidence they were deliberate
lies. And even if they were, does it really matter all that much? The
primary research is accurate, and that's what the science is based on,
not the IPCC metastudies, which are just policy reports- reports that
remain substantially accurate. The concept of AGW isn't derived from the
IPCC reports.
_________________________________________________
Peter Webb
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:48:55 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>I have no idea who you are talking about, but I hardly think that
>>didbelief
>>in AGW makes you a "crank".
>
> No, but adopting crank tactics (like asking questions that have been
> answered, and ignoring evidence that argues against your position) is a
> good indicator somebody is a crank.
>
Hardly a problem for you; you don' answer questions, you just make
ad-hominem attacks on people (often apparently imaginary) you don't agree
with.
But if you say so ...
>> If you were familiar with the IPCC publications,
>>you would realise that even they apply a probability to anthropogenic CO2
>>being the primary cause of global warming. Many scientists and other
>>people
>>are skeptical about AGW; this does not make them "cranks".
>
> All scientists are skeptical about AGW. But most scientists, including
> virtually all climate scientists, accept that it is extremely probably
> that AGW is real. Many people who are not scientists don't believe AGW
> is real, mainly because they lack the scientific literacy to decide that
> on their own, and rely instead on cranks or those with a political
> agenda for their information.
>
I see. So there are scientists who don't believe AGW is real, and these
scientists have the scientific literacy to decide that on their own?
Are they cranks as well?
Or are you claiming that *some* people who are AGW skeptics are cranks? If
so, I agree with you. I would also add that some people who believe in AGW
may be "cranks", and indeed collections of people that include "cranks"
would include "people who believe 17 is prime" and "people who believe Paris
the capital of France".
Its a *very* weak claim indeed.
>>Indeed, given the extremely poor predictive capability of AGW, there is
>>every reason to be skeptical about its predictions for future climate.
>
> Simply using a meaningless expression like "poor predictive capability
> of AGW" demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the subject.
Gee, an ad-hominem attack, apparently based upon you not knowing what
"predictive capability" means for a scientific theory.
> I'd
> say that the extremely good predictive capability of modern climate
> models gives every reason to have high confidence in the predictions for
> future climate.
Yet you haven't posted a single example of a temperature prediction made by
an AGW model that isn't wildly wrong.
And no, "predicting" the past - when it is already known - is not a
prediction. Otherwise astrology would have superb predictive capability, and
be accepted as scientific theory.
You have to predict the *future*, or at least something not known when the
model was constructed.
>
>>Being skeptical is of itself
>>not a sign of being a crank.
>
> Being skeptical is critical to science, and any competent scientist will
> be skeptical. "Skeptical" doesn't mean you think something is unlikely,
> however, it only means you always leave room for doubt. I'm skeptical
> about AGW, and at the same time think it is overwhelmingly likely to be
> a real phenomenon.
>
Gee, so you aren't a crank for being skeptical about AGW. Excellent.
>>Speaking of cranks, how is your new metatheory based philosophy of science
>>proceeding? Proved that AGW doesn't need experimental support because it
>>isn't a scientific theory (its a "scientific metatheory"!) yet?
>
> This statement places you squarely in the crank camp.
> _________________________________________________
Its true that I have asked this question several times, but alas you have
never answered it. It therefore fails your own definition of crank
behaviour.
Perhaps you should think this through a bit better.
Peter Webb
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:27:25 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>They were not errors; they were deliberate lies. And they were neither
>>trivial or innocent.
>
> They were trivial.
A prediction that the Himalayan glaciers - source of much of the water for
hundreds of millions of people - would dry up in 25 years (instead of 340
years) is hardly trivial.
> And there isn't any evidence they were deliberate
> lies.
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that
Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was
included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on
peer-reviewed scientific research.
> And even if they were, does it really matter all that much?
Does it matter that the IPCC deliberately lied in its reports for political
reasons?
Does it matter that that the IPCC claims to base its statements on peer
reviewed scientific articles, but actually uses the in-house magazines of
political lobby groups?
Does it matter that the scientist at the centre of the fraud parlayed the
IPCC report on Himalayan glaciers into a $500,000 research grant based upon
the seriousness of the problem, despite the fact that he knew that the story
was a complete fiction?
Short answer: yes.
> The
> primary research is accurate, and that's what the science is based on,
> not the IPCC metastudies,
Economic decisions of huge importance are based on IPCC findings, which
pretend to be scientifically based. Including the disbursement of grants
monies.
> which are just policy reports- reports that
> remain substantially accurate.
The issue is not one of accuracy. Its one of probity.
> The concept of AGW isn't derived from the
> IPCC reports.
> _________________________________________________
>
The IPCC can have no scientific credibility after this latest fiasco. To
start with, they admit to deliberately lying by publishing statements that
were patently wrong purely for political purposes.
And you seem to think this is all OK.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:21:40 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Are the climate models and the data confidential? If not, why is some
> >not available?
>
> Not generally. Most are available- model code and data both.
But not all is available. I ask again, why is some not available?
> >You can just answer the question.
>
> I did- more than once. He just won't acknowledge it. A classic crank
> strategy.
Evading questions is another.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:39:36 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >If you are referring to Lean, J.L., and D.H. Rind, 2009: How will Earth's
> >surface temperature change in future decades? Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,
> >L15708
>
> >Then no, it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does. Did you look at it? It has a annualized calculation of
> temperature from 1980 calculated from a fairly simple model. It
> ups and downs, and demonstrates nicely the way that decadal-scale inputs
> like El Nino and solar cycles influence the longer term view.
The longer term view being what, a general rise in temperatures over
the last several hundred years, starting prior to large-scale fossil
fuel use?
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:59:33 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >"We use large-ensemble energy balance modelling and simulate the temperature
> >response to past solar, volcanic and greenhouse gas forcing to determine
> >which climate sensitivities yield simulations that are in agreement with
> >proxy reconstructions."
>
> >That's from
> >http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/nature04679.html
>
> >Published in Nature, no less.
>
> >In this case, the authors explicitly state the past temperatures were used
> >as inputs - they modified the model to produce the correct answers (ie the
> >proxy reconstructions of temperature they were using).
>
> They do NOT say that they used past temperatures as inputs, and there is
> no indication from the abstract that they did. Quite the opposite. They
> adjusted parameters to existing models to get the best fit to the North
> American temperature record for the last few centuries. That means they
> parameters to produce the known temperatures, they were able to place
> constraints on the range of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases.
Uh, Peterson, if they used the "known temperatures" to tweak the
models so that the models then "produced" the "known temperatures"
then the modelers were actually using the "known temperatures" as
inputs.
So how are the modelers going to find out the unknown temperatures for
future years to further tweak the models, so that the model predicts
those future (and unknown) temperatures correctly?
> You simply don't understand how these models work.
Perhaps they don't.
Thomas Womack
>Uh, Peterson, if they used the "known temperatures" to tweak the
>models so that the models then "produced" the "known temperatures"
>then the modelers were actually using the "known temperatures" as
>inputs.
Well, yes: it's the nature of models that they have parameters which
need to be tweaked to get them to match observed data. If you have
several different models which, when tweaked to match observed data,
give similar predictions for the future, then you can be reasonably
confident about the predictions.
If you have models which you've tweaked to get the right answers for
1900, 1925 and 1950, you can decide how much to trust the answers they
give for 2050 by seeing how well they predict the results for 2000.
These are chaotic systems with large forcings, they're hard things to
model in the first place (were they not hard, the modelling wouldn't
be argued about). If you're trying to match historic data it's
reasonable to include the dates of known large volcanic eruptions, for
example; on the other hand it's unreasonable to expect to predict
volcanic eruptions in the future. Equally, you need to do runs with
different amounts of anthropogenic CO2, since it's really unreasonable
to expect to *predict* 2040 Chinese industrial policy.
Tom
Dennis Woos
> more than a little worried.
You really need to be honest with yourself, and recognize that there is
nothing that is going to change your mind. You are right, and virtually the
entire scientific community is wrong. You ignore any information presented
that doesn't suit your position, and fail to present any evidence to support
your contentions. There are good scientists who question various aspects of
the accepted methodology and results, and their positions are published and
considered. You, however, display no knowledge of climate science or physics
or chemistry or anything scientific in your posts. It is clear that you have
read or heard this stuff that you endlessly repeat, without being able to
speak with any specificity. Simply stated, you are ill-informed. If you
genuinely desire to learn something about climate science while not too
directly threatening your conclusion, why don't you check out the work of
one or more of the bona-fide scientists (e.g. Lindzen) discussed here:
I look forward to a better discussion a year from now. Good luck to you.
Dennis
yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> The main evidence for AGW is the strong agreement of many climate models
> (most of them in fact) with the last 150 years of recorded global
> temperatures.
>
> I have a suspicion that in fact these are not "predictions" of the data, but
> in fact the researchers already knew the last 150 years of data before they
> created the model, and just tweaked parameters in their models to force them
> to agree with known historical data.
>
> This is akin to a stage mentalist or psychic secretly learning some fact
> about a person in advance, and then pretending to divine these facts on
> stage to prove they actually are psychic. Its easy to predict the past if
> you know it already. People seeing a stage mentalist who correctly divined
> facts about a person, and then later finding out that the mentalist already
> knew the person and the facts before the show would be somewhat less
> impressed.
>
> I can't find any of the climate modelers who say that they already knew
> global temperatures before they even created the model, and just tweaked the
> model to make it agree with the data. But nor can I find any that describe
> the operational protocols that were used to quarantine known historical
> data.
>
> I know this is a grave allegation; if AGW theorists already knew the correct
> answers - like the mentalist on stage who already knew the answers to the
> questions - this would mean that the historical data did not provide
> independent verification of the model, and AGW is left with no experimental
> evidence at all.
>
> Can anybody confirm my suspicion that these predictions of the last 150
> years of climate are not predictions at all - the researchers already knew
> the answers and just modified their computer programs until they generated
> the answers the researchers wanted?
Peter why do you keep repeating the same lie over and over and over
again?
The basis for global warming is observed data that clearly shows that
there have significant changes in the global climate. The observed
data is along multiple threads, not just temperature data. Have you
read Menee et. al. 2010 On the Reliability of the US Temperature
Record Journal of Geophysical Research. It finally lays to rest the
LIE that Tony Watts and his photoshopping crowd keep pushing. Quoting
"Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic
documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes
have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum
temperatures" Translated the inclusion of all stations (good and bad)
results in SMALLER INCREASE in global temperatures NOT AN INCREASE as
Watts and his morons keep telling us.
No Peter as I keep telling you the models are based on fundamental
radiative transfer physics, classical thermodynamics and classical
fluid dynamics. The only "tuning" that is done is related to how
detail in the output the researcher are interested in. Source, theory,
documentation and output are freely downloadable at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/
and has been for 10 years
Stop reading Pilmer and The Austrailian (A "newspaper" that is even
worse than the National Inquirier for US audiences)
Chris L Peterson
>But not all is available. I ask again, why is some not available?
This is true of all science. When active research is underway, most
scientists restrict the release of their raw data. They do this to
preserve their ability to be exclusive publishers of the results. In
these cases, they generally release the information to selected other
groups in order to support peer review.
In the U.S., data that is obtained from publicly funded research is
usually embargoed for one year, after which it becomes available to
everyone. Raw data obtained from privately funded research may or may
not be widely released. No reputable journal will accept material for
publication if the data and experimental protocols haven't been released
to one or more specialists for review, however.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
>Uh, Peterson, if they used the "known temperatures" to tweak the
>models so that the models then "produced" the "known temperatures"
>then the modelers were actually using the "known temperatures" as
>inputs.
Ah, another crank reveals his ignorance of physical modeling.
Jax
> read Menee et. al. 2010 On the Reliability of the US Temperature
> Record Journal of Geophysical Research. It finally lays to rest the
> LIE that Tony Watts and his photoshopping crowd keep pushing.
A report from the organization under scrutiny that uses a subset of
preliminary data is the final word on the subject?
Peter Webb
"yourmommycalledandsaidbehave" <yourmom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e9b62ef-1218-47a6...@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
_____________________
What lie?
The basis for global warming is observed data that clearly shows that
there have significant changes in the global climate. The observed
data is along multiple threads, not just temperature data. Have you
read Menee et. al. 2010 On the Reliability of the US Temperature
Record Journal of Geophysical Research. It finally lays to rest the
LIE that Tony Watts and his photoshopping crowd keep pushing. Quoting
"Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic
documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes
have led to an artificial negative (�cool�) bias in maximum
temperatures" Translated the inclusion of all stations (good and bad)
results in SMALLER INCREASE in global temperatures NOT AN INCREASE as
Watts and his morons keep telling us.
________________________
What has this got to do with climate models?
No Peter as I keep telling you the models are based on fundamental
radiative transfer physics, classical thermodynamics and classical
fluid dynamics. The only "tuning" that is done is related to how
detail in the output the researcher are interested in. Source, theory,
documentation and output are freely downloadable at
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/
and has been for 10 years
_______________________
That site does not answer my question. It does not state how the model was
tuned, and specifically what existing temperature data was used in its
construction.
Stop reading Pilmer and The Austrailian (A "newspaper" that is even
worse than the National Inquirier for US audiences)
_______________________________
I don't read the Australian, or know who Pilmer is.
Can you answer my question?
Peter Webb
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:v5n0m55b58106pdru...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:32:11 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>But not all is available. I ask again, why is some not available?
>
> This is true of all science. When active research is underway, most
> scientists restrict the release of their raw data. They do this to
> preserve their ability to be exclusive publishers of the results. In
> these cases, they generally release the information to selected other
> groups in order to support peer review.
>
I see you snipped the question.
As a result, people may not notice that you have answered a very different
question to that which was asked.
It is true that pre-publication a scientist is under no obligation to put
source data or anything else in the public domain.
However, the question was about data that has already been published, indeed
in some case many years ago.
Here the "rules" are very different. In most sciences (and I am explicitly
excluding climate science), for a paper to be published in a peer reviewed
journal it must be completely transparent in how its conclusions were
formed. If, for reasons of space, raw data cannot be published it must still
be available. This goes right down to the level of laboratory notebooks.
There are, or should be, no secrets in science. If your conclusions are
based upon experimental data, this data should in principle be available to
people wishing to review your conclusions. Peer review is impossible
otherwise.
I know of no exceptions to this rule excepting for climate "science". Papers
that are published which do not contain the raw data (or make it available)
or which use undocumented algorithms are impossible to peer review. Its only
in climate "science" that I have ever heard of this happening, unless
somebody can tell me of one.
> In the U.S., data that is obtained from publicly funded research is
> usually embargoed for one year, after which it becomes available to
> everyone. Raw data obtained from privately funded research may or may
> not be widely released. No reputable journal will accept material for
> publication if the data and experimental protocols haven't been released
> to one or more specialists for review, however.
> __
And no reputable journal will accept papers on anything except climate
science where the raw data and algorithms that are needed to form the
conclusions are not potentially available to any researcher in the field.
That is what "peer review" is, and indeed why they are called "peer reviewed
journals". If only a few selected people could fully review the paper, they
would probably be called "reviewed by hand picked experts journals" or
similar.
Only in climate "science".
Peter Webb
"Thomas Womack" <two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:k4v*sV...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
That is hugely re-assuring.
You see I have built this climate model of my own, based upon the theory
that ice cream consumption causes global warming.
You see ice cream consumption has been increasing at an every increasing
rate since the 1950s, and so have global temperatures. I modeled the
transfer function - the rate at which the earth soaks up heat in the human
consumption of ice cream as a 5th degree polynomial. I then used existing
temperature data to find the best fit polynomial to match the existing data.
This gave me two things. A very good match with historical temperatures, and
the exact value of the transfer function between the earth and ice cream.
Using this model, I have extrapolated from 2009 to see that in the short
term the news is good - we have peaked in temperature - but then it will
rapidly decrease and 200 years the earth's temperature is -273 degrees C.
Peter Webb
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:5hn0m5ljfrmb2p8ar...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:48:24 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Uh, Peterson, if they used the "known temperatures" to tweak the
>>models so that the models then "produced" the "known temperatures"
>>then the modelers were actually using the "known temperatures" as
>>inputs.
>
> Ah, another crank reveals his ignorance of physical modeling.
> _________________________________________________
>
Ah, another ad-hominem attack.
FWIW, I actually know quite a lot about curve fitting. Which is what they
are *really* doing.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:48:24 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Uh, Peterson, if they used the "known temperatures" to tweak the
> >models so that the models then "produced" the "known temperatures"
> >then the modelers were actually using the "known temperatures" as
> >inputs.
>
> Ah, another crank reveals his ignorance of physical modeling.
Ah, another tool of the leftist propaganda machine reveals his
ignorance of just about everything.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:32:11 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >But not all is available. I ask again, why is some not available?
>
> This is true of all science. When active research is underway, most
> scientists restrict the release of their raw data. They do this to
> preserve their ability to be exclusive publishers of the results. In
> these cases, they generally release the information to selected other
> groups in order to support peer review.
>
> In the U.S., data that is obtained from publicly funded research is
> usually embargoed for one year, after which it becomes available to
> everyone. Raw data obtained from privately funded research may or may
> not be widely released. No reputable journal will accept material for
> publication if the data and experimental protocols haven't been released
> to one or more specialists for review, however.
Any climate data that is used as a basis for government policy needs
to be available to anyone and everyone. Any climate data that is
government funded belongs to the people who paid for it, the
taxpayers. Any climate scientist whose doesn't like that should find a
different field.