Both Mosh and I are luke-warmer skeptics (if I can speak for him). He is an author on some of the BEST papers under review right now. I am a physical scientist.
1 through 3 are true. 3 is based on “simple” physics.
4. This is the real question although I think 10C is a stretch. All the unknowns about clouds, cosmic radiation, water vapor, and other feedbacks will determine how much the planet warms and how much is due to GH gases.
Hi Greg,
I think we might have to agree to disagree about the implications of your analysis.
The metadata are far more complete than your description of them allows. They show changes in the observing system with time scales measured from years to decades. I think that the ‘structure’ you see in the raw data is contaminated by artificial biases in the data, not just during the 4 year ‘glitch’, although that is their most obvious manifestation, but in the whole of the record.
The raw data can be thought of as a true climate signal (T) plus a bias term (B). i.e Raw data = T+B (for the sake of temporary simplification I’ll discount spatial sampling and other measurement errors although obviously they are important). What you see in the raw data is variations arising from T and from B. You say that the similarity between T+B and B “seems to be pushing the bounds of coincidental similarity”, but I think that by definition there ought to be a similarity. The proper comparison would be between T and B.
Unfortunately, we don’t have T and only estimates of B. The estimated B’s from HadSST3 (remember there are more than one) don’t look like the estimated T’s.
I can understand your uneasiness with the adjustments to the data: the adjustments are large and there are uncertainties. That is why I have been trying to persuade other SST data set developers to address the problem and why I’m keen to see how the Berkeley team approach the problem.
Best regards,
John
Or his apparent inability to use Excel OR ANY OTHER GRAPHING PROGRAM to fit a straight line and get the slope!!
I have not seen this disputed anywhere. In the e-mails released a few months ago he was at work (in 2009?) and said he could not fit some very simple data as everyone had gone home and he was terrible with Excel. I mean, really! How can you be in a field where you interpret and have opinions on scientific data and not be able to work with it? I have at least 3 programs on my Mac I could use to fit a straight line, plus a calculator, plus another 3-4 programs in my lab on a PC I could use.
Even if I did not know how to use a brand of software (or in my case I have never actually used my calculator for this purpose) I could learn how to use any program, even in Spanish or German, neither of which I am fluent in and graph it in 2-10 minutes. Does not inspire confidence in me that he knows much at all.
Looks like his degrees may be more Environmental “Science” as opposed to say Env. Chemistry or Biology.
We have an Env. “Science” program at my university (as do many schools) and they require almost no real science courses. And also don’t teach people how to use Excel to fit a line.
Because she saw a few interesting articles she liked and is tired of people on both sides throwing out the term “pseudoscience”??
Joshua -
It will always look the same if you look at it in the same way. A slightly changed perspective may reveal surprises and wonders.
Interesting post. I always wondered about the science behind nuclear winter, but it seemed to me that it constitute a secondary concern here, because the radiation fallout that would ensue from a nuclear bombing free-for-all would be the major concern for the participating nations, United States and Russia.
I served in naval intelligence and saw that just speaking of one service branch, our Navy possessed plenty of nuclear warheads for delivery to Russia.
Seems apropos a year later.
http://sonofsoylentgreen.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/because-the-greens-will-further-demonize-nuclear-power/
Backup power needs to be located off-site.
I am comparing the above 0.06 deg C per decade warming with the following statement of the IPCC:
IPCC: For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.
The global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade is less than the 0.1 deg C per decade for the case for CO2 kept constant at 2000 level.
Is this not a pseudo science?
total non sequiturs everywhere…commercial nuclear power (outside the USSR where no one bothered about proletarian lives) the accident rate is startlingly low. Compare with lives every year lost in mining for coal or drilling for oil. Fukishima was a freak event and yet the nuclear reactor accident has accounted for zero deaths. So we need to be scared of nuclear. Even in the USSR, how many lives were lost at Chernobyl compared with lives lost at their coal/lignite mines?
You are just going to talk to people you can either bully or just ignore you? My life is so much poorer.
Threading. !!! – Bart was threatening to ignore me above.
While I am here we have several propositions. All of them ill-defined but definitely capitalism and not taxes – except for British Columbia where it is a tax and everyone is richer. Except the data doesn’t do what is claimed – ignore it. Everywhere else has got it wrong – no argument from me – but it takes an economic tutor and 50 experts he personally knows to understand. It all has to ated in a bullying, denigrating, incoherent rant. Hand waving and everything. Clear as mud?
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
… Nuclear weapons programs rely on the existence of large nuclear processing facilities including mining, milling and enrichment of uranium as well as a highly specialized and experienced labor pool. While it is possible to produce nuclear weapons without a nuclear power industry it is far preferable to have a dynamic nuclear industry in place. The nuclear facilities that existed in 1979 would not last forever and the industry was seen as an essential component of the military industrial complex. These factors may well have been over-riding considerations in the DoD JASON committee report.
One of the principle scientists engaged in formulating the AGW theory was Roger Revelle, a US Navy oceanographer who was employed at the Office of Naval Research. The US Navy was actually central to the development of the civilian nuclear power industry in the US due to its reactor designs for nuclear powered submarines and ships.
Another outspoken early proponent of AGW theory was Britain’s Margaret Thatcher who also sought the construction of new nuclear power plants as well as Trident nuclear submarines along with new nuclear weapons. Her Conservative party also sought to crush the coal miner’s unions with which they had intractable disputes. Britain went on to build new nuclear power plants during the 1980s while firing tens of thousands of coal miners.
In the US, the Carter administration sponsored the establishment of the solar energy industry, another carbon free energy source. George Tenet (later named as director of the CIA) became the promotion manager of the Solar Energy Industries Association which included companies such as Grumman, Boeing, General Motors and Exxon. Proposed ‘renewable’ and ‘green’ energy legislation over the decades consistently facilitated the viability of the development of new nuclear power plants. Other ‘alternative’ energy technologies were never seriously expected to become significant sources of electric power generation.
In 2008 another CIA director, James Woolsey would also become involved in promoting “a Fortress America of tanks and solar panels, plug-in hybrids and nuclear reactors,”2 only in his case the service to the carbon free industry would come after the CIA stint rather than before. Woolsey has recently appeared in an anti-oil print ad for the American Clean Skies Foundation. …
Full article:
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/three-mile-island-global-warming-and-the-cia/
‘Trenberth, is the “two index finger hunt and pecker” typist.’
Seriously?
Lost in which mines? The number of lives lost in China per year is three orders of magnitude greater than in the US per year. In the US, miners, demand safe working conditions, OHSA regulates safe working conditions and the miners elect to work in the mines. There are huge differences between the US and China just like between the US and the former Soviet Union.
If it wasn’t for the huge differences, Kyoto would be fine and the IPCC would be fine. They are not though, because it is not yet a Kumbaya world.
Pokerguy,
your rigorous analysis has failed to convince me.
Thorium now, Thorium forever…
“David Wojick
Kuhn’s point against Popper is simply that the journals are not full of falsifications. ”
They are if designed, written and review properly. Pretty much every figure I present has a positive and a negative control. Sometimes the controls are are in previous papers, as when one point has been taken as established it is generally resilient.
So Mitotracker Red is a proxy for membrane potential, MitoSOX is a monitor of mitochondrial superoxide. By adding X to cells with one or the other, comparing the output of the, we are falsifying a wide range of hypotheses. Typically not all hypotheses are presented, but MT up Sox down is completely different from the other three combinations.
I think Popper was right on with pretty much everything he wrote on scientific methodology, the history of science and the philosophy of science should be taught to science undergraduates.
Michael Larkin, I am quite prepared to take a bet.
I will inject or snort the postulated trigger identified by the ‘HIV-not cause of AIDS’ crowd, as long as I get to inject HIV into their blood stream.
Then we see who gets AIDS. Fair enough?
I stand by it as a theatrical science.
====================
