Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 196
  1. #151
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr View Post
    Bob I think you made my point so much more better than I did. Stats are very different from data. In my mind we use data to derive statistics, and we use statistics to make decisions about complex problems.

    In your first two sentences you talk about statistics, then in the third sentence you talk about data like they're the same thing. Then in your fourth sentence you use data again. Just what is it that you're talking about? Your big long list of shite is just data mate. Not one statistic in there from what I can see.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrB0b
    I don't understand your question about improving the quality of life for people, what on earth makes you think that research on anything is intended to do that?
    So what are you doing it for mate, so you can throw data (or statistics as you call them) around on a web forum. Good luck getting your next research grant mate . This is my first negative post on this forum, maybe I shouldn't mix business with pleasure. Pleasure being having fun on TD.
    Dictionary.com

    sta·tis·tics (stə-tĭs'tĭks)
    1. The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling.
    2. Numerical data.
    Always happy to help improve a chap's vocabulary, you're very welcome Wayne. By the way, I'm not a researcher, Wayne, just a polymath and renaissance man Why do I post the stuff here?, purely to give Dr Zaius ammunition because I enjoy his trolling.
    Last edited by DrB0b; 14-09-2007 at 08:22 AM.

  2. #152
    Hifaluten Member
    Wayne Kerr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Last Online
    08-02-2019 @ 10:23 PM
    Location
    Fiji Islands
    Posts
    3,186
    Don't like your definition of statistics much. Personally I prefer the one from Wikipedia better. I put the important bit in bold .

    Statistics is a mathematical science pertaining to the collection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data. It is applicable to a wide variety of academic disciplines, from the physical and social sciences to the humanities. Statistics are also used for making informed decisions.

    Statistical methods can be used to summarize or describe a collection of data; this is called descriptive statistics. In addition, patterns in the data may be modeled in a way that accounts for randomness and uncertainty in the observations, and then used to draw inferences about the process or population being studied; this is called inferential statistics. Both descriptive and inferential statistics comprise applied statistics. There is also a discipline called mathematical statistics, which is concerned with the theoretical basis of the subject.

    The word statistics is also the plural of statistic (singular), which refers to the result of applying a statistical algorithm to a set of data, as in economic statistics, crime statistics, etc.

    Statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    What you provided above was just a big list of data. Mate climate change is an inescapably political issue – certainly one which I shouldn’t comment on with a belly full of beer at 2am in the morning . Anyway you may like the paper I attach below. Was written by the chap who wrote the article entitled “Apocalypse Cancelled” in the Sunday Telegraph, 5th November, 2006. Author is an extremely well known climate change researcher.

    The summary of his argument was that ALL TEN of the propositions listed below must be proven true if the climate-change “consensus” is to be proven true. The first article attached considers the first six of the listed propositions and draws the conclusions shown. I think you may find some consideration in the other two articles posted below the “Apocalypse Cancelled” one.

    His Propositions and Conclusions were:

    1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed - False

    2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional - Very unlikely

    3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism - False

    4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured - Unlikely

    5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature - Not proven

    6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good - Very unlikely

    7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life - Unlikely

    8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference - Very unlikely

    9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective - Very unlikely

    10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course - False

    He's done a good job of steering between the strongly-held opinions and propaganda statements of climate change true-believers and contrarians alike - Check it out.


    Apocalypse Cancelled

    Hope that contributes more to the discussion than my drunken ramblings last night .

  3. #153
    Hifaluten Member
    Wayne Kerr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Last Online
    08-02-2019 @ 10:23 PM
    Location
    Fiji Islands
    Posts
    3,186

    An article entitled something like Climate Chaos Don't Believe It


    An article entitled something like A (Pre) Cautionary Tale on Climate Change

  4. #154
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr View Post

    An article entitled something like Climate Chaos Don't Believe It


    An article entitled something like A (Pre) Cautionary Tale on Climate Change
    Your second link confuses me a little, I can't really see the relevance, it's about Radiation Safety Precautions in Canada, did you actually look at those links before you posted them? Were you trying to make a point regarding the "precautionary principle" discussed in the paper, if you are could explain in your own words as I'm not too sure what you're getting at.

    "Particularly important is the emphasis on the link to scientific knowledge, rather than the whims of activist groups, together with the exhortation to assess the real and potential impacts of making a precautionary decision (whether to act or not to act), including social, economic and other relevant factors and risk-risk trade-offs."

    I entirely agree with this. Perhaps you're thinking that "activist groups" refers only to tree-dwelling environmentalists, it doesn't, it also refers to groups sponsored by Oil Companies, Chemical Manufacturers, Big Agriculture and other, similar, groupings.

    The first link you gave is very interesting, I have a lot of respect for Monckton as a person (none whatsoever as a scientist), the polar opposite of Littlejohn in every way but gender but I would appreciate it, if you expect me to respond appropriately, if you would put some personal effort into your posts rather than just posting links. Much as I enjoy debate it's a little insulting when a poster posts links and makes no attempt to summarise them in his own words or to express his own opinion or understanding of the issues but instead relies solely posting, bare, unadorned links.

    However, as an act of courtesy, I'll respond to some of the allegations made in Viscount Monckton's article.

    We need to be clear as to what Monkton is actually discussing - for much of the article he is actually talking about Climate sensitivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia rather than climate change though at no point does he explicitly state this.

    Fisrtly Monckton states "In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch)."

    This is untrue. Hansen described three possible scenarios for temperature change in his testimony to congress, low, middle, and high. He stated the the low and high scenarios were implausible but that the middle scenario was highly probable. The middle scenario, as it turned out, was right on the button. Nor did he claim, ever, that sea levels would rise several feet by 2000. A climatologist, Patrick Michaels, took Hansen's testimony to congress, removed references to the middle and low predictions and re-presented it as Hansen's prediction. Patrick Michaels receives $100,000 dollars per year from the Intermountain Rural Electric Company, a company which operated several coal-fire power station. What does he do for the money? He's theor consultant for countering stories related to climate change.

    Next up are the two graphs Monckton presents as evidence that the UN dliberately left the Medieval Warm Period out of its calculations. There are two problems here. The first is that there is no evidence tahat Medieval Warm Period or a little ice age as global events ever happened, "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries (IPCC Report)". There were localised warming events in the Northern hemisphere but that's all. What is also puzzling is that the graphs are showing different things with different scales, I'm not entirely sure what relationship he's implying they have.

    Secondly, he has no understanding of the "hockey stick" graph, this worn out argument is trotted out regularly. This graph is not false and the methodology has been shown to be sound - improvements and refinements have been made over the years as new research and evidence has come along, The US Academy of Science was asked by Congress to investigate the claims and counterclaims related to this graph and a commitee was convened, comprising both sceptics and believers, the report from that committee is here;
    2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf)

    Also an article here;
    BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Backing for 'hockey stick' graph

    This report states "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world"

    There are, of course, still some uncertainities over ancient temperature ranges, such is the nature of good science, but as the report says "This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence".

    Probably the best article I've read on why this was controversial in the first place is this one from New Scientist, published before the completion of the Academy's report;

    "IT IS a persuasive image. Dubbed "the hockey stick" soon after it was first drawn, the graph shows the average temperature over the past 1000 years. For the first 900 or so years there is little variation, like the shaft of an ice-hockey stick. Then, in the 20th century, comes a sharp rise like a hockey stick's blade. The graph seems proof at a glance that we are drastically altering the climate of our planet.

    So it is not surprising that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chose to put the graph in the summary for policymakers in its 2001 report. Some of the scientists must have hoped that the image would become an icon of climate change.

    An icon it has certainly become, but not always for the reasons those scientists hoped. For the sceptics who dispute that global warming is real, or say it's nothing to worry about, the graph was like a red rag to a bull. They made it the focus of their attacks, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they would destroy the credibility of climate scientists and the notion of global warming as a phenomenon caused by human activity.

    In the minds of many people they have succeeded. The hockey stick graph is widely regarded as controversial, if not plain wrong. "The hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics," physicist Richard Muller wrote in Technology Review in 2004. Others have described it as rubbish or even as a downright fraud. So what's all the fuss about? And who should you believe?

    The saga began in the late 1990s, when palaeoclimatologist Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, and his colleagues embarked on one of the first serious attempts to work out the average global temperature over the past millennium. Direct temperature measurements go back only as far as 1860, so to extend the record back in time they had to use indirect or "proxy" records of temperature, such as the annual rings of trees and isotopic ratios in corals, ice cores and lake sediments.

    Such proxy records have been painstakingly assembled by thousands of researchers around the world, but their reliability varies and there are also regional biases. Many records come from temperate parts of Europe and North America, for instance, where scientists are plentiful and trees have clear annual rings; there are very few from the southern hemisphere.

    Prior to 1998, attempts to reconstruct past temperatures had been based only on a handful of regional tree-ring records. Mann's team tried to build a more global and reliable picture by including as many proxies from as many different regions as possible. It was pioneering work. The first version of the hockey stick graph, showing average temperatures in the northern hemisphere going back to AD 1400, was published in Nature in 1998.

    The following year the team extended the reconstruction back to AD 1000, relying on the few proxy records that go back this far. This 1999 version appeared in the 2001 IPCC report, and is the one to which the term "hockey stick graph" usually refers.

    At the time, 1998 was the warmest year on record (now surpassed by 2005, according to NASA), so based partly on Mann's work, the IPCC summary stated that "it is likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year during the past thousand years". That got headlines. And trouble - not least for the voluble, self-confident Mann. It was the start of a barrage of detailed questions and well-publicised attempted refutations. The hockey stick turned into an implement with which to beat climate scientists.

    The debate has spread well beyond the scientific community. Republican senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who calls global warming a "hoax", has repeatedly attacked the hockey stick. Last year, Congressman Joe Barton of Texas ordered Mann to provide the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which Barton chairs, with voluminous details of his working procedures, computer programs and past funding. "There is a concerted effort to undermine the IPCC. There are people who believe that if they bring down Mike Mann, they can bring down the IPCC," says Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California. Santer himself came under attack after writing a chapter in the 1995 IPCC report.

    Mann, however, still brims with self-confidence. Now at Penn State University, he treats his critics with something close to contempt. "A lot of scientists would have retreated, but Mike is tenacious," says Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, his collaborator on the climate science blog RealClimate.

    Mann's style does not always help matters. "The goddam guy is a slick talker and super-confident. He won't listen to anyone else," says Wally Broecker of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York. "I don't trust people like that."

    So the politics is nasty, but what about the science? First, the big picture. The rise in temperatures during the 20th century is generally accepted because it is based on direct measurements. What the hockey stick graph shows is that such a sustained and rapid rise is an anomaly in the context of the past thousand years. This is what you would expect if human activity is to blame for the 20th-century warming, but it is suggestive only. The warming might be caused by natural factors.

    Evidence of human involvement comes from many other sources, including climate models. The simulations created by these models can be made to match the temperatures measured over the past 140 years only when the increase in greenhouse gases is included. These graphs also appeared in the 2001 IPCC summary.

    The hockey stick has been repeatedly misrepresented as the crucial piece of evidence when it comes to industrialisation and global warming. It is not. Even if the hockey stick were shown to be a doodle that Mann did on a napkin during a night out, the evidence that the world is getting warmer, and that this warming is largely due to human activities, would still be overwhelming.

    Fraught with danger


    Leaving that aside, did Mann get it right? Does the hockey stick accurately reflect northern hemisphere temperatures over the past 1000 years? There is no doubt that reconstructing past temperatures from proxy data is fraught with danger. Take tree ring records. They sometimes reflect rain or drought rather than temperature. They also get smaller as a tree gets older, so annual or even decadal detail is lost. "You lose roughly 40 per cent of the amplitude of changes," says tree ring specialist Gordon Jacoby at Lamont-Doherty.

    To reveal the "signal" behind the noise of short-term and random change, a proxy record for one region must be based on as many tree ring records as possible. It must also correlate with direct measurements of local temperature during the period of overlap - which adds another layer of complication, as in some cases human factors such as pollution might have affected recent tree growth.

    So the first question is whether the proxy records Mann chose are reliable indicators of temperature. Some have been questioned. "He has a series from central China that we believe is more a moisture signal than a temperature signal," Jacoby says. "He included it because he had a gap. That was a mistake and it made tree-ring people angry."

    Mann accepts that some of the measurements he uses do not directly represent temperature change. His argument is that, for instance, coral records showing rainfall levels in the Pacific are proxies for the El Niño cycle and so for changes in ocean temperatures. Jacoby is not convinced. "I'm not slamming what he did overall. It was a great effort, a great step," he acknowledges. "But he got into hot water by defending it too hard in places where he shouldn't."

    Broecker is less accommodating. He says that Mann's hockey stick cannot be right because it does not show the Little Ice Age from roughly 1550 to 1850 or the Medieval Warm Period after 1000, whereas most tree-ring chronologies do show these periods. It is a point seized on by many sceptics, but Mann is unmoved. His point of departure almost a decade ago was that tree ring records alone won't do when it comes to measuring global temperatures, because they are biased towards temperate North America and Europe.
    Many other researchers agree. "The Little Ice Age is primarily a European and North Atlantic phenomenon," says Keith Briffa, a tree ring analyst from the University of East Anglia, UK. "And the geographical extent of the Medieval Warm Period is still massively uncertain, because data is sparse."

    Indeed, the proxy records suggest that high temperatures in one region tend to be balanced out by low temperatures in another. The tropical Pacific, for instance, appears to have cooled during the Medieval Warm Period and warmed during the Little Ice Age. "The regional temperature changes in our reconstruction are quite large; it's simply that they tend to average out," Mann says.

    Most attacks on the hockey stick, however, focus on Mann's statistical methods. The meta-analysis he pioneered, in which different proxy records are merged, involves sorting and aggregating these signals and smoothing the result. Mann then meshed this proxy synthesis with the instrumental record.

    Critics complain that by combining smoothed-out proxy data from past centuries with the recent instrumental measurements, which preserve more short-term trends, Mann created a false impression of anomalous recent change. "To be fair, Mann did correct that later on," Jacoby says. This made the blade shorter, but did not change much else. Mann also points out that he was one of the first to include error bars, which show how much variance is lost due to smoothing.

    Flaw in methodology


    A more serious accusation has come from two non-climate scientists from Canada, who claim to have found a flaw in Mann's statistical methodology. Stephen McIntyre, a mathematician and oil industry consultant, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, Ontario, base their criticism on the way Mann used a well-established technique called principal component analysis. This involves dividing "noisy" data into different sets and giving each set an appropriate weighting. McIntyre and McKitrick claim that the way Mann applied this method had the effect of damping down natural variability, straightening the shaft of the hockey stick and accentuating 20th century warming.

    There is one sense in which Mann accepts that this is unarguably true. The point of his original work was to compare past and present temperatures, so he analysed temperatures in terms of their divergence from the 20th-century mean. This approach highlights differences from that period and will thus accentuate any hockey stick shape if - but only if, he insists - it is present in the data.

    The charge from McIntyre and McKitrick, however, is that Mann's computer program does not merely accentuate this shape, but creates it. To make the point, they did their own analysis based on looking for differences from the mean over the past 1000 years instead of from the 20th-century mean. This produced a graph showing an apparent rise in temperatures in the 15th century as great as the warming occurring now. The shaft of the hockey stick had a big kink in it. When this analysis was published last year in Geophysical Research Letters it was hailed by some as a refutation of Mann's study.

    McIntyre and McKitrick say that their work is intended to show only that there are problems with Mann's analysis; they do not claim their graph accurately represents past temperatures. "We have repeatedly made it clear that we offer no alternative reconstruction," McIntyre states on his Climate Audit blog.
    The obscure statistical arguments were overshadowed in late 2005 when Mann refused to give Congressman Barton his computer code. Mann regarded the code as private property, but his opponents claimed he feared refutation of his findings. Mann did eventually publish the code, but the damage was done.
    In the meantime, three groups had been scrutinising the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick. Hans von Storch of the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, concluded that McIntyre and McKitrick were right that temperatures should be analysed relative to the 1000-year mean, not the 20th-century mean. But he also found that even when this was done it did not have much effect on the result. Peter Huybers of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts came to much the same conclusion.

    The work of Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, New York, and Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, raised serious questions about the methodology of Mann's critics. They found the reason for the kink in the McIntyre and McKitrick graph was nothing to do with their alternative statistical method; instead, it was because they had left out certain proxies, in particular tree-ring studies based on bristlecone pines in the south-west of the US.

    "Basically, the McIntyre and McKitrick case boiled down to whether selected North American tree rings should have been included, and not that there was a mathematical flaw in Mann's analysis," Ammann says. The use of the bristlecone pine series has been questioned because of a growth spurt around the end of the 19th century that might reflect higher CO2 levels rather than higher temperatures, and which Mann corrected for.

    What counts in science is not a single study, however. It is whether a finding can be replicated by other groups. Here Mann is on a winning streak: upwards of a dozen studies, some using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records (excluding the bristlecone record, for instance), have produced reconstructions more or less similar to the original hockey stick.
    More variability

    Some reconstructions show much more variability, especially those based only on tree rings, but every reconstruction to date supports the main claim in the IPCC summary: the past decade is likely the warmest for 1000 years (see Graphs). Whatever the flaws in Mann's original work, it seems the broad conclusion is correct.

    McIntyre is not impressed. "There is a distinct possibility that researchers have either purposefully or subconsciously selected series with the hockey stick shape," he told one reporter.

    The sceptics are unlikely to give up, whatever the conclusions of a panel set up by the US National Academies to assess temperature reconstructions. But for most climate scientists, the controversy is a sideshow. Whatever happened before 1860, the world has been getting warmer since that time, and there is no doubt in their minds that industrialisation is mostly responsible.

    What really matters is the future. The IPCC is predicting a rise of between 1.4 and 5.8 °C by 2100. Now take a look at the scale on the hockey stick graph. As Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany points out: "If humanity takes no action and this century sees a temperature rise of 2 °C, 3 °C or even more, the current discussions over whether the 14th century was a few tenths of a degree warmer or the 17th a few tenths cooler than previously thought will look rather academic."
    The subtext of many attacks on the hockey stick is that if the world was warmer 1000 years than it is now, this shows there is nothing unusual going on and we can all stop worrying. Not so, says Briffa. If the world was warmer 1000 years ago, it would suggest the climate system is very sensitive to outside influences, whether past solar cycles or present accumulating greenhouse gases. "Greater past climate variations imply greater future climate change," he says. From this perspective, it would be most worrying if all the hockey sticks really are wrong."
    Climate: The great hockey stick debate - earth - 18 March 2006 - New Scientist Environment


    Back to Monckton. He claims the Chinese sailed around the Arctic in 1421. The evidence points to this being a myth. The claim comes from Gavin Menzies, author of 1421 How Chinad discovered the World and 1421 how China Discovered America, among similar titles.



    These are works of entertainment, not scholarly works. They were not verified or peer reviewed, his archaeolgical evidence has been refuted, and his historical technique ridiculed by professional historians. As an example, "Robert Finlay professor of Chinese history at the Univeristy of Arkansas has denounced the work as deeply flawed and dubious: "Menzies flouts the basic rules of both historical study and elementary logic. He misrepresents the scholarship of others, and he frequently fails to cite those from whom he borrows. He misconstrues Chinese imperial policy, especially as seen in the expeditions of Zheng He, and his extensive discussion of Western cartography reads like a parody of scholarship"

    And this wonderful piece of invective;

    "Unfortunately, this reckless manner of dealing with evidence is typical of 1421, vitiating all its extraordinary claims: the voyages it describes never took place, Chinese information never reached Prince Henry and Columbus, and there is no evidence of the Ming fleets in newly discovered lands. The fundamental assumption of the book—that Zhu Di dispatched the Ming fleets because he had a “grand plan,” a vision of charting the world and creating a maritime empire spanning the oceans (pp. 19–43)—is simply asserted by Menzies without a shred of proof. It represents the author’s own grandiosity projected back onto the emperor, providing the latter with an ambition commensurate with the global events that Menzies presumes 1421 uniquely has revealed, an account that provides evidence “to overturn the long-accepted history of the Western world” (p. 400). It is clear, however, that textbooks on that history need not be rewritten. The reasoning of 1421 is inexorably circular, its evidence spurious, its research derisory, its borrowings unacknowledged, its citations slipshod, and its assertions preposterous. Still, it may have some pedagogical value in world history courses. Assigning selections from the book to high-schoolers and undergraduates, it might serve as an outstanding example of how not to (re)write world history."
    (Finlay, Robert (2004). "How Not to (Re)Write World History: Gavin Menzies and the Chinese Discovery of America". Journal of World History)

    1421 hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    History News Network
    The myth of Menzies' "1421 " exposed

    His assertion that Greenland was warmer more fertile in the past than it is today is true but his reasoning is again fallacious, it was warmer because of a localized climate change, not a global one.

    Monckton also says

    "Even a 0.6C temperature rise wasn't enough. So the UN repealed a
    fundamental physical law. Buried in a sub-chapter in its 2001 report
    is a short but revealing section discussing "lambda": the crucial
    factor converting forcings to temperature. The UN said its climate
    models had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per watt of forcing.
    You don't need computer models to "find" lambda. Its value is given
    by a century-old law, derived experimentally by a Slovenian
    professor and proved by his Austrian student (who later committed
    suicide when his scientific compatriots refused to believe in atoms).
    The Stefan-Boltzmann law, not mentioned once in the UN's 2001
    report, is as central to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein's
    later equation is to astrophysics. Like Einstein's, it relates energy to
    the square of the speed of light, but by reference to temperature
    rather than mass.
    The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase
    the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's
    true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively
    repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper
    by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take
    your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN's scientific
    assessment working group until recently, tells me it now puts
    lambda at 0.8C: that's 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2.
    Most of the UN's computer models have used 1C."

    This is just bamboozling people, worse than that it's mendacious, Monckton is assuming that his readership won't have the background to understand this and is trying to con them with numeric legerdemain. Unfortunately for Monckton his own scientific background is weak and what he's stated above is nonsense. His statement about James Hansen has already been disproved above.

    The steffan-boltzmann law deals with black-body radiation, the Earth is not a simple black body, it radiates heat back into space. Lambda is defined for a perfect black-body. Monckton has failed to understand this and drawn completely erroneous conclusios, he has also forgotten that, in Scmidts words, "climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept". As he hasn't taken this time lag into account climate sensitivity to CO2 looks much smaller than it really is. Mich more detail here; http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/resea...ensitivity.pdf

    realclimate.org puts it quite well;


    "Readers need to be aware of at least two basic things. First off, an idealised 'black body' (which gives of radiation in a very uniform and predictable way as a function of temperature - encapsulated in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) has a basic sensitivity (at Earth's radiating temperature) of about 0.27 °C/(W/m2). That is, a change in radiative forcing of about 4 W/m2 would give around 1°C warming. The second thing to know is that the Earth is not a black body! On the real planet, there are multitudes of feedbacks that affect other greenhouse components (ice alebdo, water vapour, clouds etc.) and so the true issue for climate sensitivity is what these feedbacks amount to"

    Monckton also says that "A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. This is also untrue, if you look at Lyman's revised paper here http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf he admits that introduce an error caused by sampling biases in his work and that the new and corrected results show no cooling at all.

    In his references he cites Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". It may have escaped Monckton's notice but State of Fear is work of fiction. It's about as relevant as me citing Enid Blyton's "Five go to Smugglers Top" as an authoritative source for a thesis on the larcenous propensities of the Cornish.


    And here's what happens when somebody actually checks some of Moncktons references;

    (From RealClimate » Cuckoo Science )


    "Edward, your request highlights the problem not only with Monckton’s “stuff” but the general problem with having to address wilfully misleading pseudoscience. The pseudoscience is easy to write (I imagine it takes a certain chutzpah!), and one can scatter references throughout to give it a “faux-respectable” appearance. But it’s extremely tedious to go back and hunt down that papers and see whether the particular point (of Monckton’s in this case) is properly suported by the reference Moncknton cites in support.
    However, I’ve spent two hours of my valuable time doing that for the specific point you raise (out of the 4 that I included in my original post, #30).
    I said:

    “‘Monckton makes the standard attack on the Mann “hockey stick” temeperature reconstruction and then asserts that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was “up to 3 oC warmer than now. However the temperature reconstructions in the proper scientific literature show that the MWP was significantly cooler that now.”
    you responded with:

    “That begs the question. Monckton cites numerous papers that suggest ‘northern-hemisphere evidence’ for the mediaeval warm period, and cites a dozen studies from the southern hemisphere.”
    So let’s look at the references that Monckton cites in the sentence that jumped off the page at me and which I referred to in my post.

    Here’s what Monckton says:
    (page 5 of the supplementary ‘brief’ that Monckton url’s in his Telegraph article)
    Monckton: “According to Villalba (1990, 1994), and Soon and Baliunas (2003), the mediaeval warm period was warmer than the current warm period by up to 3C. From c1000 AD, ships were recorded as having sailed in parts of the Arctic where there is a permanent ice-pack now (Thompson et al. 2000; Briffa 2000; Lamb 1972a,b; Villalba 1990, 1994).”

    Let’s look at the papers that Monckton cites in justification of these statements:
    1. Villalba (1990) “Climate Fluctuations in Northern Patagonia During the Last 1000 Years Inferred From Tree Ring Records” Quaternary Research 34, 346-360.
    In summing up the variation in temperature during the period under study Villalba says (and this is the only point in the entire paper where Villalba discusses absolute temperature variations):
    “The temperature departure mean for the coldest interval (1520-1670) is 0.33 oC lower than for the warmer interval (1080-1260)” [see page 354, 2/5ths down second column of the page]

    2. Villalba (1994) “Tree Ring and Glacial Evidence for the Medieval Warm Epoch and the Little Ice Age in Southern South America” Climate Change 26, 183-197.
    As in his article above (1.) Villalba makes one statement about absolute temperature variations from his analysis. He says:
    “The mean temperature departure for the coldest interval (A.D. 1520-1660) is estimated to be 0.26 oC lower than the warmest interval (A.D. 1080-1250)” [see 186, 1/2 way down the page]

    Notice that these variations between the Medieval Maximum and the Little Ice Age (no more than 0.3 oC or so) are not that different to what Mann showed in his ‘hockeystick’ curve. Why Monckton cited this work in support of his assertion that the MWP was up to 3C warmer than the current warm period is extremely difficult to fathom. After all there’s no question that the N. hemisphere temperature is now at least 1 oC warmer than the Little Ice Age. That would put the MWP around 0.7 oC cooler than now using the very data that Monckton cites in support of his assertion that it was “up to 3C warmer” than now.

    3. I can’t access Soon and Baliunas’s paper. I’ll leave someone else to discuss this one. However I did read some of the papers that, themselves, cite Soon and Baliunas’s work and it it’s clear that the latter is highly flawed. [Read for example Osborne and Briffa (2006) Science 311, 841-844.]

    4. Thompson et al (2000) “A High-Resolution Millennial Record of the South Asian Monsoon from Himalayan Ice Cores” Science 289, 1916-1919.
    This paper bears no relationship to the sentence to which it is attached in Monckton’s “piece”. It’s about hydrology on the Tibetan plateau from analysis of a high-resolution ice core from Dasuopu, Tibet. It seems an odd paper for Monckton to cite in support of his “notion” that it’s not that warm now relatively speaking since the very last sentence of Thompson et al’s paper is:
    “For the 20th century, the isotopically inferred temperatures on both Dunde and Dasuopu are the warmest of the millennium, and the recent warming is most pronounced at Dasuopu, the highest elevation site.”
    Just to be absolutely clear, Monckton is using as a justification that the MWP was much warmer than now a paper that concludes that (in Tibet at least) the 20th century is “the warmest of the millennium”!

    5. Briffa (2000) [I forgot to write down the title of this review] Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 87-105.
    This is a general review of analysis of tree ring proxy data for reconstructing past climate. Again there is nothing in this review that in any way is supportive of Monckton’s statements. In describing the work in this field Briffa several times notes the unusual warmth of the 20th century inferred from the tree ring data. For example he says “The authors of this work again stress the ‘unusual’ nature of the apparent 20th century warmth.”, and there are several similar statements about the particluar warmth of the 20th century, especially that later parts.
    Briffa has prepared and shows a couple of relevant Figures. In His Figure 2 he shows a composite figure of “Southern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstructions for Tasmania and Northern Patagonia” Each of these shows that the MWP was cooler than the present day temperature by this proxy data. In his Figure 5 under a section entitled “A New Northern Hemisphere Summer Temperature Record” he shows that the mid to late 20th century temperature as determined from tree ring analysis is far warmer than any period in the past that his analysis includes (this only goes back to 1400 AD).
    I wonder if you’re beginning to get the point. At least in these two sentences Monckton is just saying “stuff” and “supporting” this with “apparent” citations to research that either has nothing to do with the point heâ??s trying to make, or which has been grossly misrepresented. Now perhaps some of the other stuff that Monckton says is better supported. But I’d rather you pointed it out to me, than that I spend hours and hours hunting down the papers, reading them, comparing what they say to what Monckton pretends that they say etc. That’s really the job of an editor. Sadly, the editorial process in the Telegraph has gone massivly awol in this case."


    Finally, Monckton's propositions and conclusions;

    "All ten of the propositions listed below must be proven true if the climate-change “consensus” is to be proven true."


    This is just ludicrous. Bombastic nonsense. What basis does he have for saying all of his propositions, chosen by himself, must be proven. His propositions are his own and are as carefully chosen as street surveys that ask you "which is better, Starryshine Toothpaste or paedophilia" and later proudly announce that 99% of people think Starryshine Toothpaste is just great! I could come up with 10 propositions myself, make them sound pseudo-scientific, and rely on the fact that 90% of the people who read them won't know that they bear no relationship to reality - however nobody would take me seriously because I'm just an internet poster rather than a journalist in a national paper. His "propositions" have already been dealt with by many people, there are links above in this thread to the answers.


    I've shown in the examples I've given that at very least a goodly proportion of his article is composed of myth, lies, and ignorance. If the IPCC reports contained errors in anything even approaching the same proportion it would be dismissed out of hand by everybody.

  5. #155
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    Hmm, you've changed the second PDF link now, I see.

  6. #156
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr View Post
    beer at 2am in the morning . Anyway you may like the paper I attach below. Was written by the chap who wrote the article entitled “Apocalypse Cancelled” in the Sunday Telegraph, 5th November, 2006. Author is an extremely well known climate change researcher.
    Good grief, you are drunk aren't you? Monckton's not a climate researcher, not even close - he's not any kind of researcher, he's an ex-journalist with an education in classics.

    "Although his critics charge that "Monckton's science is self-taught and his paper qualifications nonexistent," Monckton takes the view that it is "a very modern notion that you need paper qualifications to pronounce on anything and it comes from the socialist idea that people need to be trained in the official, accepted, dogmatic truths"

    Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr
    What you provided above was just a big list of data.
    Err yes, data is the bedrock of science, are you suggesting we shouldn't use it and concentrate on pretty pictures instead?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr
    Mate climate change is an inescapably political issue
    Yes, of course it is, who said it wasn't? It is not however solely a political issue, changing policies or voting on it won't make it go away.
    Last edited by DrB0b; 14-09-2007 at 03:28 PM.

  7. #157
    Thailand Expat
    Marmite the Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Online
    08-09-2014 @ 10:43 AM
    Location
    Simian Islands
    Posts
    34,827
    Mummy! My head hurts. I want to go home.

  8. #158
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    ^I told you, stay off the Guinness!
    Last edited by DrB0b; 14-09-2007 at 04:02 PM. Reason: whoops, <blush>

  9. #159
    Thailand Expat
    Marmite the Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Online
    08-09-2014 @ 10:43 AM
    Location
    Simian Islands
    Posts
    34,827
    ^ A fucking Pikey who can't spell Guinness. Disgraceful!

    Then again, I very much doubt that he can drink it either...

  10. #160
    Hifaluten Member
    Wayne Kerr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Last Online
    08-02-2019 @ 10:23 PM
    Location
    Fiji Islands
    Posts
    3,186
    I need beer. Just put those links in case someone was interested in reading them. Will stick to traveller's tales from now on .

  11. #161
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    ^Wish I had beer too

  12. #162
    Thailand Expat Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    13-09-2019 @ 04:18 PM
    Location
    Samui
    Posts
    44,704
    Check out what these scientists in this study found:
    1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that
    2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
    3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly
    4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings
    5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat
    6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate
    A Deplorable Bitter Clinger

  13. #163
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    41,562
    ^
    Booners that has already been posted and discussed. Read the thread.

  14. #164
    Thailand Expat Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    13-09-2019 @ 04:18 PM
    Location
    Samui
    Posts
    44,704
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    ^
    Booners that has already been posted and discussed. Read the thread.
    OK...has anyone mentioned this book? Looks like a good read.




    Link

  15. #165
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    41,562
    ^
    Now you see, this is the problem when you get your 'opinions' from cut 'n pasting.

    Yes, Booners. It's from the same article that you posted and, likewise, has already been covered. Did you actually read what you've linked to or simply think: 'Hey, this is anti all that global warming stuff. I know, I'll copy and paste it in the place of actual critical thought!'

  16. #166
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Boon Mee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    ^
    Booners that has already been posted and discussed. Read the thread.
    OK...has anyone mentioned this book? Looks like a good read.






    Link
    Read the thread. Both of the authors are discussed in it.

  17. #167
    Thailand Expat Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    13-09-2019 @ 04:18 PM
    Location
    Samui
    Posts
    44,704
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    ^
    Now you see, this is the problem when you get your 'opinions' from cut 'n pasting.

    Yes, Booners. It's from the same article that you posted and, likewise, has already been covered. Did you actually read what you've linked to or simply think: 'Hey, this is anti all that global warming stuff. I know, I'll copy and paste it in the place of actual critical thought!'
    Got one of them linky things to where this book is discussed?
    BTW - you forgot to add: 'Italics added for emphasis' - above...

  18. #168
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Boon Mee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    ^
    Now you see, this is the problem when you get your 'opinions' from cut 'n pasting.

    Yes, Booners. It's from the same article that you posted and, likewise, has already been covered. Did you actually read what you've linked to or simply think: 'Hey, this is anti all that global warming stuff. I know, I'll copy and paste it in the place of actual critical thought!'
    Got one of them linky things to where this book is discussed?
    BTW - you forgot to add: 'Italics added for emphasis' - above...
    In this thread, read it.

  19. #169
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    41,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Boon Mee
    Got one of them linky things to where this book is discussed?
    No need. It's in this very thread, something you would've noticed if you'd actually bothered to check and hadn't just come in with your usual pre-packaged, cut 'n paste, 'opinions'.

    This is why nobody takes you seriously, Booners.

    BTW - you forgot to add: 'Italics added for emphasis' - above...
    No I didn't.

  20. #170
    Thailand Expat Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    13-09-2019 @ 04:18 PM
    Location
    Samui
    Posts
    44,704
    ^
    Well, nowhere in this thread has there been a refutation of what the above-mentioned authors have written:

    "The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line"

    Back to you...

  21. #171
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Boon Mee View Post
    ^
    Well, nowhere in this thread has there been a refutation of what the above-mentioned authors have written:

    "The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line"

    Back to you...


    The authors are proven liars and shills of the power, oil, and big Agro companies. They are bribe taking mercenaries whose books are as trustworthy and reliable as a book of Tantric Sex Practices written by Dick Cheney. They have been comprehensively debunked, links are in this thread and in other threads on the same subject in this forum. The information is already there if you really want it, I am not even slightly inclined to repeat those arguments yet again.

  22. #172
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    08-12-2011 @ 06:20 PM
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Boon Mee View Post
    6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate
    Ummm....

  23. #173
    Thailand Expat Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    13-09-2019 @ 04:18 PM
    Location
    Samui
    Posts
    44,704
    Wait! There's more for all you global warming climate alarmists!
    It seems less than half of all published scientists endorse the global warming theory!

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus.

    And, for all you really serious believers - serious defined as an Al Gore clone (you know who you are) here's your big chance!

    If you think it's a no-brainer that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, here's your opportunity to earn an easy US $100,000! .

    Be sure to post what you've spent the money on over in the 'Gloat' thread!

  24. #174
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    20-10-2017 @ 05:37 PM
    Posts
    684
    That should be the end of that. Excellent work, BM.

    Brace yourself for the same old codswallop from the usual suspects.

  25. #175
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Boon Mee View Post
    Wait! There's more for all you global warming climate alarmists!
    It seems less than half of all published scientists endorse the global warming theory!

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7&#37 gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus.

    And, for all you really serious believers - serious defined as an Al Gore clone (you know who you are) here's your big chance!

    If you think it's a no-brainer that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, here's your opportunity to earn an easy US $100,000! .



    Be sure to post what you've spent the money on over in the 'Gloat' thread!
    Read the threads. On the off-chance you understand any of them feel free to express your own opinion. I'll offer you a $100,000 reward if you can post a coherent refutation of global warming, both forced and anthropogenic, in your own words, using current data and backed up by evidence from peer-reviewed sources who do not get research funding from industry. No blogs or commentators please, just your own conclusions and how you reached them.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •