AtticaFanatica Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Keep up the good contributions. Probably not, it'd be quite hypocritical to contribute to the dumb, pointless bickering I've already criticized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The fact is if it weren't for the sources of funding this paper received, who the authors are, and the media attention they have created, it would be relegated to obscurity in a very minor journal. Muller is basically a gold-digger. MANY MANY people have done 'new' independent analyses of temperature over the years... most of them don't even get published because it's redundant and there is very little new except tweaking the statistical techniques in fairly trivial ways which would not/cannot alter the essential finding of ~.8C of warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 And I would say the same about you. So much for giving a substantive response. I'm not disagreeing with you about warming, all I said as someone who has gone through the papers, is to take a step back until proper peer review occurs. I fully expect there to be no problems with any of the reviews of these papers. But the thread is suppose to be discussing the actual study, not a pissing match between you and taco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The fact is if it weren't for the sources of funding this paper received, who the authors are, and the media attention they have created, it would be relegated to obscurity in a very minor journal. Once again, stop making these uneducated and unfounded statements, these papers would had received just as much attention in the science community, regardless of the points you raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Probably not, it'd be quite hypocritical to contribute to the dumb, pointless bickering I've already criticized contributed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Once again, stop making these uneducated and unfounded statements, these papers would had received just as much attention in the science community, regardless of the points you raised. You obviously are not very familiar with this subject matter. There have been many many similarly 'independent' analyses over the years and many of them don't even get published. Why? Because they're redundant. All the BEST people have done is fiddled with the statistical techniques in a way that had ZERO chance (theoretically speaking) of changing anything substantive about the GISS/HadCRUT findings. For example, ever heard of the Li et al. study? Of course not. It's the exact same thing as one of the BEST papers, but nobody cares about it because it wasn't done by skeptics and it wasn't funded by the Koch brothers. What about Parker 2006? Heard of that one? Or Peterson 2003? Jones 2008? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I fully expect there to be no problems with any of the reviews of these papers. That is the EXACT same thing I have said and it is the EXACT same thing taco has spent 6 pages trolling me for. Where the hell do you think you have the expertise or knowledge to pass ANY sort of judgment like that before peer-review has occurred? Remember we're supposed to play dumb and pretend like none of this has ever been done before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 This study is like a birthday party.. it happens every year and you have to pretend to be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 That is the EXACT same thing I have said and it is the EXACT same thing taco has spent 6 pages trolling me for. Where the hell do you think you have the expertise or knowledge to pass ANY sort of judgment like that before peer-review has occurred? Remember we're supposed to play dumb and pretend like none of this has ever been done before. I hold a PhD in Atmospheric Science, I review papers every month for reputable scientific journals. I took the time to read through these papers after they were released, and were satisfied with the content. So it's not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I hold a PhD in Atmospheric Science, I review papers every month for reputable scientific journals. I took the time to read through these papers after they were released, and were satisfied with the content. So it's not the same thing. Except you obviously have little familiarity with this subject matter and what has and hasn't been done before. and I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Except you obviously have little familiarity with this subject matter and I do. Thanks, I'll keep my PhD and you can keep your "familiarity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Thanks, I'll keep my PhD and you can keep your "familiarity". Sounds good to me! What good is your PhD if you haven't read 99% of the papers in the field? How do you expect to know what is new/relevant research worthy of publication and what is not? There are literally dozens of independent temperature analyses using various methods, data etc. and they all show the same thing. Many don't even get published because they lack the clout of BEST.. a claim you have mocked me for and which reveals your lack of familiarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Sounds good to me! What good is your PhD if you haven't read 99% of the papers in the field? It's good to see that the anti-intellectualism is strong on the pro-AGW side too! ....stay classy, bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 It's good to see that the anti-intellectualism is strong on the pro-AGW side too! ....stay classy, bud. Reading the work of peer-reviewed scientists makes me an anti-intellectual? That's a new one. Holding a PhD is nice, but you actually have to read the relevant studies if you want to know what you're talking about. You obviously have not, or you'd know that this study is redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 And with good reason I become more disillusioned with the prospect of ever coming together to reach a satisfying and productive resolution to climate change. We have a common enemy and it is us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 No I haven't used the terms interchangeably.. you have just assumed that. It's funny how skeptics won't allow anybody to use the term denier, as if deniers like Anthony Watts don't actually exist. You assume that when the term denier is used it refers to all skeptics because you are overly sensitive and because you always see things as black and white. How would you define a skeptic? (keeping in mind the fact that the essential components of AGW theory have been objectively corroborated and that the skeptic position is fundamentally wrong). I think the main thing anyone would take away from this thread is just how closeminded you are. A skeptic is simply someone who is skeptical of some aspects of AGW theory or associated hype. It doesn't mean they doubt the fundamentals of AGW, though of course some do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 You choose to ignore the scientific consensus. Do you consider the scientific consensus arrogant? Take the personalities out of it. Am I arrogant because I respect the scientific consensus? Is Hansen et al? Part of that consensus is that an immediate, radical shift in the way we produce and utilize energy is in order, such that CO2 emissions are reduced to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050 if we are to successfully avoid a warming of greater than 2C. If I have those numbers wrong, someone please correct. Nope....I disagree with the "consensus". The papers this thread addresses is NOT part of the "consensus" that I would disagree with. There are other aspects of the AGW hypothesis and the hypothesized consequences that it comes with that I feel are embraced as having higher certainty than I would give them, thus my lower risk assessment to any 'dire" consequences proposed as a result of the hypothesis. The scientific consensus, by definition is a make up of people who have a wide range of thoughts on the value of the prediction and the measures taken to take on any hypothesized consequences....consider me on the lower end of that make up, wrt the value of said predictive confidence level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I think the main thing anyone would take away from this thread is just how closeminded you are. A skeptic is simply someone who is skeptical of some aspects of AGW theory or associated hype. It doesn't mean they doubt the fundamentals of AGW, though of course some do. So you would call somebody who understands the fact that we will likely warm close to 2C or more by 2100 and that this will lead to dire consequences a 'skeptic'? Understanding that the skeptic position (at least those who deny the likelihood of nearly 2C+ warming) is fundamentally and objectively wrong doesn't make me close-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Kart Mozart Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Question: Is there a reasonable consensus as to how much the planet has warmed since the end of the LIA? Also, when did the LIA end? I am trying to gain perspective regarding the 1c warming which the study describes for the past 50 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 So you would call somebody who understands the fact that we will likely warm close to 2C or more by 2100 and that this will lead to dire consequences a 'skeptic'? Understanding that the skeptic position (at least those who deny the likelihood of nearly 2C+ warming) is fundamentally and objectively wrong doesn't make me close-minded. Just like there are different tiers of skeptics, with some disagreeing more than others on the science of AGW, there are also different tiers of AGW. I think you are staking your ground on the fringe part of your camp. I have never seen a post in which you admit you were wrong about something, or one in which you feigned less knowledge. There are mets and forecasters who are professionals contributing to this forum and who provide insight all the time, and during this thread you have repeatedly insulted them with comments regarding their lack of knowledge. Have you ever stepped back and thought that maybe you do not know more than they do? It's time to take the foot off the gas pedal before you lose most of us and your messages become background noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gracetoyou Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Question: Is there a reasonable consensus as to how much the planet has warmed since the end of the LIA? Also, when did the LIA end? I am trying to gain perspective regarding the 1c warming which the study describes for the past 50 years. It is very clear that most of the warming has occurred since 1978. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gracetoyou Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I still can't believe that there has been anyone in the field of science that actually believed the earth hasn't warmed the last 50yrs. I think someone already posted this but I'll do it again...the debate for most is not whether the earth has warmed but the debate is "WHY" has the earth warmed. The study in which this thread is the topic does not help answer that question whatsoever. So no one should be claiming anykind of victory at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Question: Is there a reasonable consensus as to how much the planet has warmed since the end of the LIA? Also, when did the LIA end? I am trying to gain perspective regarding the 1c warming which the study describes for the past 50 years. The planet has warmed about 0.9C since the LIA with about 0.8C occurring during the 20th century until now. 0.4C to 0.5C has occurred since about 1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Nope....I disagree with the "consensus". The papers this thread addresses is NOT part of the "consensus" that I would disagree with. There are other aspects of the AGW hypothesis and the hypothesized consequences that it comes with that I feel are embraced as having higher certainty than I would give them, thus my lower risk assessment to any 'dire" consequences proposed as a result of the hypothesis. The scientific consensus, by definition is a make up of people who have a wide range of thoughts on the value of the prediction and the measures taken to take on any hypothesized consequences....consider me on the lower end of that make up, wrt the value of said predictive confidence level. The consensus is that the Earth has been warming and that human activities are currently the principle cause of that warming. So the study confirms one of the two main points of the consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 So you would call somebody who understands the fact that we will likely warm close to 2C or more by 2100 and that this will lead to dire consequences a 'skeptic'? Understanding that the skeptic position (at least those who deny the likelihood of nearly 2C+ warming) is fundamentally and objectively wrong doesn't make me close-minded. There is a ton of uncertainty with how much and how fast we will warm. Doesn't negate the solidity of fundamental AGW theory. Many skeptics like myself are simply skeptical of the worst case scenarios and dire consequences often pushed by those with their own agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The planet has warmed about 0.9C since the LIA with about 0.8C occurring during the 20th century until now. 0.4C to 0.5C has occurred since about 1970. And about 75% of the warming occurred during +PDO phases. The 1975-2005 period was dominated by +PDO, so of course that plays a role in the amount of warming since 1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 There is a ton of uncertainty with how much and how fast we will warm. Doesn't negative the solidity of fundamental AGW theory. Many skeptics like myself are simply skeptical of the worst case scenarios and dire consequences often pushed by those with their own agenda. Well you can define a skeptic however you want, but to me somebody that understands we will likely warm 1.5C+ by 2100 and that this will have serious consequences is not a skeptic. Anybody who doesn't understand that is a skeptic and is also wrong in that their 'position' isn't supported by a rational objective view of the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 And about 75% of the warming occurred during +PDO phases. The 1975-2005 period was dominated by +PDO, so of course that plays a role in the amount of warming since 1970. As does the price of beans in China which has also increased over that period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Just like there are different tiers of skeptics, with some disagreeing more than others on the science of AGW, there are also different tiers of AGW. I think you are staking your ground on the fringe part of your camp. I have never seen a post in which you admit you were wrong about something, or one in which you feigned less knowledge. There are mets and forecasters who are professionals contributing to this forum and who provide insight all the time, and during this thread you have repeatedly insulted them with comments regarding their lack of knowledge. Have you ever stepped back and thought that maybe you do not know more than they do? It's time to take the foot off the gas pedal before you lose most of us and your messages become background noise. Skier is very good for this forum. He researches his claims well and brings a great deal of substance. He used to be a skeptic until he did an extensive research of what for him was the "other side". He, like me, has been convinced by the physical science and the realization that in addition to the honest skeptics there resides a political/ideologically driven disinformation machine. He is in no way an "alarmist". However he does realize how disruptive a total temperature increase of even just 2C would mean to our environment. That 2C of warming represents a full 40% of the change which occurred between the last ice age and the average of the Holocene. 5C has driven ocean rise of many 10's of meters and we stand to raise temps at least 40% above that. It's not going to be pretty, even if that sea rise occurs over several centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Just like there are different tiers of skeptics, with some disagreeing more than others on the science of AGW, there are also different tiers of AGW. I think you are staking your ground on the fringe part of your camp. I have never seen a post in which you admit you were wrong about something, or one in which you feigned less knowledge. There are mets and forecasters who are professionals contributing to this forum and who provide insight all the time, and during this thread you have repeatedly insulted them with comments regarding their lack of knowledge. Have you ever stepped back and thought that maybe you do not know more than they do? It's time to take the foot off the gas pedal before you lose most of us and your messages become background noise. I have 'admitted' that I'm wrong about many many things on this forum, beginning with my former skepticism and failure to understand the science of AGW. Recently, I've been wrong about global temperature and sea ice on multiple occasions (at least half a dozen in the last year). But I'm not about to admit I'm wrong about the probability that we will warm 1.5C+ over the remainder of the century. It is not even my place to make a judgment upon that as I do not have the expertise myself. All I can do is try to understand the science that has been done by others through the peer-review process. This isn't about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.