forkyfork Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 lots of posts to read... what happened with roy spencer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The thing is that evolution is scientifically established. For a scientist of any faith - or lack thereof - to publish the non scientific view is just wrong. I live in a country where our Minister of Science, believes the world is 6,000 yrs old. His funding proposals for most scientific research is understandably picayune. A scientist, regardless of his education, ceases to be a scientist when he abandons the scientific method. Roy Spencer seems to have cast his lot with with another group, which is fine, as long as he informs everyone that he's speaking as a preacher, or as an advocate for the FF industry and not as a scientist. BTW I really was hoping to see what data sets you were using when you came up with the hottest global temperatures occurring nearly a decade ago. Terry That is another discussion, not one related to measuring current global temps. There are dissenters to mainstream scientific viewpoints in many fields of science - doesn't make those people not scientists. And that alone does not mean they have abandoned the scientific method. Or are you suggesting that the only scientist is one who adheres to every mainstream theory? As far as the warmest 3 year period, I will have to double check the sources (or you can), but I believe the warmest for HadCRU (and possibly RSS) was 2001-03, 2005-07 for GISS and UAH. 2009-11 may have been close to 2005-07 for GISS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Friv will be happy that the century long trend went up slightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 That is another discussion, not one related to measuring current global temps. There are dissenters to mainstream scientific viewpoints in many fields of science - doesn't make those people not scientists. And that alone does not mean they have abandoned the scientific method. Or are you suggesting that the only scientist is one who adheres to every mainstream theory? As far as the warmest 3 year period, I will have to double check the sources (or you can), but I believe the warmest for HadCRU (and possibly RSS) was 2001-03, 2005-07 for GISS and UAH. 2009-11 may have been close to 2005-07 for GISS. Actually evolution has as much scientific backing as anything that science can work with. I'm not saying anyone has to adhere to any philosophy, but when a preacher weighs is on something totally outside religious dogma, he shouldn't address it as a preacher. When a preacher advises you on whether soft drawn or hard drawn copper pipe is better in your bathroom, he shouldn't start with "As a messenger of God. I'm telling you to use hard drawn". Similarly a scientist shouldn't say "As a scientist I can tell you the intelligent design is proof of God's existence. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Evolution is central to everything in modern biology - it informs EVERYTHING, and lends internal consistency to a lot of disparate fields. Anyone who seriously swallows "creation science" as part of their world view loses all credibility in everything having to do with any type of biological science, regardless of specialty. However, the parallel between denying AGW and denying evolution is rapidly becoming a very good one. The key is in the robustness of the supporting data - the only way you can put together a coherent, internally consistent picture of what is happening is by accepting them. This is very different that some other "mainstream" shibboleths that have very little support but have still been widely adopted. This sometimes happens in science - I've seen it up close and personal in my field of work - but it isn't true of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 That is another discussion, not one related to measuring current global temps. There are dissenters to mainstream scientific viewpoints in many fields of science - doesn't make those people not scientists. And that alone does not mean they have abandoned the scientific method. Or are you suggesting that the only scientist is one who adheres to every mainstream theory? As far as the warmest 3 year period, I will have to double check the sources (or you can), but I believe the warmest for HadCRU (and possibly RSS) was 2001-03, 2005-07 for GISS and UAH. 2009-11 may have been close to 2005-07 for GISS. Wamrest 36 month period (3 years) for RSS was March 2001 through February 2004. So basically '01-'03. Wamrest 36 month period for GISS was November 2004-October 2007. I haven't checked CRU, but it might have been more like RSS. UAH was in the the 2005-2007 period as well before passing it about 14 months ago. Even with the revisions to UAH, I think it would remain close to the 3 year high, but I didn't see their revised numbers prior to 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Friv, you are starting to sound ridiculous. UAH and RSS are peer reviewed data sets and they really aren't that different than GISS or Hadcrut on a long term basis. Did you accuse Hansen of rigging GISS when they retroactively cooled January and February this year? I love the hypocrisy of these people. Hansen is held on a pedestal and Spencer is the devil. Friv and Terry are classic examples of people turning AGW into a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Actually evolution has as much scientific backing as anything that science can work with. I'm not saying anyone has to adhere to any philosophy, but when a preacher weighs is on something totally outside religious dogma, he shouldn't address it as a preacher. When a preacher advises you on whether soft drawn or hard drawn copper pipe is better in your bathroom, he shouldn't start with "As a messenger of God. I'm telling you to use hard drawn". Similarly a scientist shouldn't say "As a scientist I can tell you the intelligent design is proof of God's existence. Terry Evolution has NOTHING to do with measuring global temps. Please stop trying to change this into an off-topic discussion. Just because someone, including a scientist, has religious beliefs does not mean they can't be a scientist. That is basically what you are saying. Roy Spencer is not a preacher. Dogma is present in religion and outside of it. To only view it as a religious thing is ignorant, as everyone has personal beliefs that shape their interpretation of the world. And I don't see you condemning atheists as non-scientific, when atheism is just as strong a world view as any religion, as it completely denies the possibility of a higher power or creator being involved. And there certainly is dogma involved in AGW, on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Guys, create a new thread if you want to talk about evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Evolution is central to everything in modern biology - it informs EVERYTHING, and lends internal consistency to a lot of disparate fields. Anyone who seriously swallows "creation science" as part of their world view loses all credibility in everything having to do with any type of biological science, regardless of specialty. However, the parallel between denying AGW and denying evolution is rapidly becoming a very good one. The key is in the robustness of the supporting data - the only way you can put together a coherent, internally consistent picture of what is happening is by accepting them. This is very different that some other "mainstream" shibboleths that have very little support but have still been widely adopted. This sometimes happens in science - I've seen it up close and personal in my field of work - but it isn't true of these. Evolution is off-topic here. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Wamrest 36 month period (3 years) for RSS was March 2001 through February 2004. So basically '01-'03. Wamrest 36 month period for GISS was November 2004-October 2007. I haven't checked CRU, but it might have been more like RSS. UAH was in the the 2005-2007 period as well before passing it about 14 months ago. Even with the revisions to UAH, I think it would remain close to the 3 year high, but I didn't see their revised numbers prior to 2012. That's basically what I was thinking. So until this revision, UAH was the warm outlier for the past 3 years, compared to their previous temp record. Friv neglected to mention that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Pooh. Denial of evolution is so deeply unscientific as to disqualify any "creationist" in any scientific discourse. Religion is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Evolution is off-topic here. Sorry. Not my point. It is a marker for unscience, which is very much on-topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 That's basically what I was thinking. So until this revision, UAH was the warm outlier for the past 3 years, compared to their previous temp record. Friv neglected to mention that. Yes, its been running warmer than most for a few years. Which is why Spencer/Christy made the announcement last year that they had detected a spurious warming. It wasn't a new discovery that happened because September 2012 looked warm on the Aqua satellite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Not my point. It is a marker for unscience, which is very much on-topic. It has nothing to do with the global temperature measurements. James Hansen has participated in what many would deem crazy activist activities....and been arrested for it. That doesn't mean GISS temperatures are invalid either. If peer review determines that either dataset is unsuitable as a measurement of global temperatures, then it will become a relevant story. Otherwise, its not adding anything to this thread. Go start a new one if you think its important to the climate debate in a different context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Not my point. It is a marker for unscience, which is very much on-topic. That's funny because the University I work at has (I'd estimate) about 50-75% of its researchers that are of Islamic faith (in both Biology and Geology)....I'll go spread the word to them that they are "Unscientists". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 It has nothing to do with the global temperature measurements. James Hansen has participated in what many would deem crazy activist activities....and been arrested for it. That doesn't mean GISS temperatures are invalid either. If peer review determines that either dataset is unsuitable as a measurement of global temperatures, then it will become a relevant story. Otherwise, its not adding anything to this thread. Go start a new one if you think its important to the climate debate in a different context. You keep claiming that the UAH temperature dataset is peer-reviewed - so please share with us what peers are reviewing it? So far as I can determine, it is purely a product of Drs Spencer and Christy (and their minions) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Who are you claiming audits and reviews their work? And where can we see their comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 You keep claiming that the UAH temperature dataset is peer-reviewed - so please share with us what peers are reviewing it? So far as I can determine, it is purely a product of Drs Spencer and Christy (and their minions) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Who are you claiming audits and reviews their work? And where can we see their comments? Who reviews and audits GISS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 You keep claiming that the UAH temperature dataset is peer-reviewed - so please share with us what peers are reviewing it? So far as I can determine, it is purely a product of Drs Spencer and Christy (and their minions) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Who are you claiming audits and reviews their work? And where can we see their comments? Its not my job to do your research on a well known claim. You don't think its peer reviewed? Then show us that it is not. Regardless, you can see one of the original papers on their dataset they did back in 2000 here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:F03Q1k3Txv8J:www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/uah-msu.pdf+spencer+christy+2000&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShQj-CBOkGandRsN9szI7P0l8H8qXdR6iUuwnekRX7v7hBsKWQ0OuFswJoQcAuHTwrb9o6F9d2YSyEJwB9fjRuNUjzhpq_r1qfm6f0s3FPvan43zSXsN4-oUbQV70k7qtGKlWTL&sig=AHIEtbS5LxvSR1dwIKKPqBfAwh3rbfwUmQ You are now touting the same conspiracy theories that many accused IPCC scientists of during "climate gate"...which was "pal review". Why don't you show how the claims of spurious warming are inaccurate rather than use conspiracy theories. Its not that difficult to put it up against other temperature datasets over a period of several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 That's funny because the University I work at has (I'd estimate) about 50-75% of its researchers that are of Islamic faith (in both Biology and Geology)....I'll go spread the word to them that they are "Unscientists". Quite possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'd thought one of the requirements for posters here was to provide links to validate their claims. Actually I know it is, and if you don't believe me - look it up yourself ;-[ Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'd thought one of the requirements for posters here was to provide links to validate their claims. Actually I know it is, and if you don't believe me - look it up yourself ;-[ Terry It's not hard to find something peer reviewed. The big reason why a few are trying to discredit a poster by asking to put forth peer reviewed stuff, is to bust balls. It's a crappy way to do things and in the end, they look foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'd thought one of the requirements for posters here was to provide links to validate their claims. Actually I know it is, and if you don't believe me - look it up yourself ;-[ Terry We've provided these links many times over in the past. Its not a new concept that UAH/RSS/HadCRUT/GISS are peer reviewed sources for global temperature data. It doesn't take much effort to look up one of these datasets. A more obscure or newer study would certainly be link-worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 We've provided these links many times over in the past. Its not a new concept that UAH/RSS/HadCRUT/GISS are peer reviewed sources for global temperature data. It doesn't take much effort to look up one of these datasets. A more obscure or newer study would certainly be link-worthy. How do people think that error in the early 2000s was found with UAH? Third party peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 How do people think that error in the early 2000s was found with UAH? Third party peer review. Yes. UAH has been peer reviewed before 2003. There have been several adjustments since that have actually not been submitted for review. That being said, the one compeleted this month (version 5.5) has a very material impact on temperatures. I'd hope we can get some 3rd party vetting on the adjustments- peer review or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 GISS made several adjustments as well....this is actually how their temperature trend since 2002 is substantially lower than it was a couple years ago when taco, skier, and I had that thread about the different sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I believe that this is the most recent paper that addresses some of the issues with the UAH: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00147.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'd thought one of the requirements for posters here was to provide links to validate their claims. Actually I know it is, and if you don't believe me - look it up yourself ;-[ Terry Do you know who reviews and audits GISS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 To my knowledge, there has been no paper on the GISS adjustments. If there are, it would be interesting to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Yes. UAH has been peer reviewed before 2003. There have been several adjustments since that have actually not been submitted for review. That being said, the one compeleted this month (version 5.5) has a very material impact on temperatures. I'd hope we can get some 3rd party vetting on the adjustments- peer review or not. Have the downward adjustments to GISS that ORH pointed out been submitted for review? Let's look at this evenly. I have yet to see anyone who is questioning UAH acknowledge the fact that this adjustment brings UAH more in line with recent trends in the other global temp sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.