Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, May 21. 2013

Gaia caught a cold

Graph via Monckton challenges the IPCC – suggests fraud – and gets a response.



Posted by Bird Dog at 18:56 | Comments (34) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Funny how these doomsday predictions work out huh?
#1 Tom Francis on 2013-05-21 21:16 (Reply)
Yet another reason (do we need any more) why the UN is a waste of money and time. It should not have lasted any longer than the League of Nations.
#2 mudbug on 2013-05-21 22:43 (Reply)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
#3 Zachriel on 2013-05-22 07:27 (Reply)
Cute GIF Zach. Do they have one for other time periods as well?
#3.1 mudbug on 2013-05-22 08:43 (Reply)
It's all about the time frames to the Warmists. When short-term doesn't work for them, they move to mid-term. When mid-term doesn't, they alter the discussion to longer term correlations. When correlation doesn't work, they move to the next thing.

They also make the assumption, in the mid-term graph, that the ONLY reason for any increase MUST be CO2. Although CO2 levels, by their very reasoning, should indicate a much longer larger increase.

Don't worry, Zach will engage in some hand-waving (which he usually decries when he says we do it) and seek to use 'scientific evidence' to support his view.

Intrinsically, he has doubts. He can't engage in science and not have doubts. It's the basis of questioning. When you lack doubt, you live on faith alone. That's religion, not science.
We're skeptics. We accept facts, but we question how they are used.
#3.1.1 Bulldog on 2013-05-22 11:50 (Reply)
Bulldog: They also make the assumption, in the mid-term graph, that the ONLY reason for any increase MUST be CO2.
No. Claim science is based on mechanisms, not naïve correlation.

Bulldog: He can't engage in science and not have doubts.

All science is considered tentative, but Monckton's argument is faulty.
#3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-05-22 14:30 (Reply)
mudbug: Do they have one for other time periods as well?[/i]

Sure.

"For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky."
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm
#3.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-05-22 14:27 (Reply)
Skeptical Science? Seriously? Haven't they won an IgNobel yet?

How Orwellian, the most overtly gullible call themselves "skeptical" and belive it makes it so.
#3.2 DrTorch on 2013-05-22 13:32 (Reply)
That is a graph of the Berkeley land-only surface temperature readings, not global temps.

The inconvenient truth is that warmists predicted rising temps and they did not happen. In scientific terms that is called falsified. Game over.

Youd think scientists would be happy to learn that they were wrong about a global catastrophe. Strangely, they just seem angry and snarky - just like our friend Zachriel here.
#3.3 Tommy Boy on 2013-05-28 21:29 (Reply)
Tommy Boy: That is a graph of the Berkeley land-only surface temperature readings, not global temps.

Ocean Heat Content
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png
#3.3.1 Zachriel on 2013-05-29 07:10 (Reply)
http://www.cfact.org/2013/03/03/pictures-of-cfacts-d-c-billboard-campaign-in-the-field-no-global-warming-for-16-years/
#3.3.1.1 Tommy Boy on 2013-05-29 14:08 (Reply)
That brings us full circle:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
#3.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-05-29 14:18 (Reply)
Ah, I see how you work now.

I provide evidence that the AGW prediction of warming has been falsified, and you respond with deceptive straw man attacks.

I'll stick with actual science, thank you. You can keep staring at your completely useless gif animation.
#3.3.1.1.1.1 Tommy Boy on 2013-05-29 17:33 (Reply)
Tommy Boy: I provide evidence that the AGW prediction of warming has been falsified, and you respond with deceptive straw man attacks.

Theories of anthropogenic climate change don't posit monotonic increases in temperatures. Arguing you have falsified a position no one holds is the strawman, as illustrated in the gif.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-05-29 18:46 (Reply)
Since 1990 the IPCC has made at least 4 specific predictions regarding global temperature rise.

They have all failed.

As have you.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tommy Boy on 2013-05-29 19:02 (Reply)
Predictions of complex system are always subject to margins of error. IPCC predictions are within the margin of error. The vast majority of climatologists accept anthropogenic climate change. The basic physics have been understood for a century, though the details are still being actively investigated.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Predictions_500.gif
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-05-29 19:14 (Reply)
The predictions were off by between a factor of 2 and a factor of 5.

Fail.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tommy Boy on 2013-05-29 19:42 (Reply)
Frame & Stone, Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change, Nature Climate Change 2013: "In 1990, climate scientists from around the world wrote the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It contained a prediction of the global mean temperature trend over the 1990–2030 period that, halfway through that period, seems accurate. This is all the more remarkable in hindsight, considering that a number of important external forcings were not included. So how did this success arise? In the end, the greenhouse-gas-induced warming is largely overwhelming the other forcings, which are only of secondary importance on the 20-year timescale."
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-05-29 20:06 (Reply)
The IPCC best estimate was about twice the observed data. Off by a factor of two.

According to NASA: "A climate model must be accurate to within at least half a percent to be useful."

Useless. Fail. (Unless you consider climatologists congratulating one another for being 100% wrong to be "useful")
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tommy Boy on 2013-05-29 20:29 (Reply)
Tommy Boy: "A climate model must be accurate to within at least half a percent to be useful."

Half a percent of what? {radiation balance at the surface} Useful for what? {to reduce the uncertainty on how much surface temperatures will rise} How? {by collecting more and better data, i.e. research}

That's the problem with taking quotes out of context.

Tommy Boy: The IPCC best estimate was about twice the observed data.

You repeat yourself, while we quote Nature Climate Science.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-05-29 20:56 (Reply)
You are aware, of course, that Frame and Stone did not evaluate the actual prediction made in the IPCC's summary, but rather they cherrypicked an individual prediction made within the report itself.

Kind of like shooting a shotgun at a target, and claiming accuracy when one outlier pellet happens to land near the bullseye.

The actual prediction from the IPCC summary..... was off by a factor of two.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tommy Boy on 2013-05-29 21:18 (Reply)
They assessed the global mean temperature trend. You'll have to be more specific.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-05-29 22:30 (Reply)
Had you read the letter you would have been aware that Frame and Stone did not evaluate the IPCC's Summary prediction. They instead cherrypicked an obscure prediction made on pg. 177 by Bretherton et. al.

Had they evaluated the actual prediction made in the Summary for Policymakers they would have noted that the prediction was off by a factor of two. But there is no mention of this whatsoever in the Frame and Stone letter to Nature.

Tell us, Zachriel: do you think it's honest to selectively cherrypick like that?

Of course you don't. You've already indicated earlier in the thread your disapproval of cherrypicking.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tommy Boy on 2013-05-29 23:02 (Reply)
Tommy Boy: Had you read the letter you would have been aware that Frame and Stone did not evaluate the IPCC's Summary prediction. They instead cherrypicked an obscure prediction made on pg. 177 by Bretherton et. al.

Um, Bretherton et. al. is an entire chapter. Pg 177 is the Executive Summary for Chapter 6 of Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990), "Time-Dependent Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change". It's hardly obscure, but an integral component of the Assessment.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-05-30 07:37 (Reply)
Every one of the 11 chapters has it's own summary.

And then there is a Summary for Policymakers which summarizes the entire body of work. It contains predictions that are quite different and much more detailed than those from chapter 6.

Frame and Stone purposely ignored the Summary for Policymakers and chose instead to focus on a single prediction made in chapter 6.

If you are ok with cherrypicking then so be it. May the best cherrypicker win. But you sound awfully silly when you complain about cherrypicking by your opponents, only to defend cherrypicking when it seems to suit your agenda.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tommy Boy on 2013-05-30 13:33 (Reply)
You called it obscure. It was nothing of the sort. It was the chapter on greenhouse-gas-induced climate change. All you are doing is waving your hands.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-05-30 14:37 (Reply)
It is so obscure that it was not even included in the final summary. A different prediction was used instead. It was so obscure that the page number was not even referenced by Frame & Stone. I had to manually search the document to find it.

It is a brilliant strategy you guys have. Make one bold summary prediction for policymakers, but also make lots more different predictions throughout the paper in hopes that maybe one of the predictions will pan out.

It's not particularly honest or scientific but it makes for good propaganda - which is apparently the thing that most interests you.

Good luck with that.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tommy Boy on 2013-05-30 15:25 (Reply)
Frame & Stone, Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change, Nature Climate Change 2013: In 1990, climate scientists from around the world wrote the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It contained a prediction of the global mean temperature trend over the 1990–2030 period that, halfway through that period, seems accurate. This is all the more remarkable in hindsight, considering that a number of important external forcings were not included. So how did this success arise? In the end, the greenhouse-gas-induced warming is largely overwhelming the other forcings, which are only of secondary importance on the 20-year timescale.
#3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-05-29 20:07 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Monckton: In my letter to the police ...

+40 points
#4 Zachriel on 2013-05-22 07:32 (Reply)
What could be more entertaining than Warmists complaining that someone else is improperly cherry-picking data and playing games with finding temporary trends in long-term noise?

These people have nothing. A power- and money-grab, pure and simple, clothed in a purely fake concern for their fellow humans and the principles of science.
#5 Texan99 on 2013-05-22 10:53 (Reply)
I love how Monckton manages to be both genteel and savage at the same time.
#6 SteveS on 2013-05-22 11:55 (Reply)
Part 1 of global warming was about power, like obamacare they could mandate, mandate, mandate. More of the "fundamental transformation bs". Part 2 was about the money by creating obamacare taxes on anything and everything that looked "warmist". This is simply control of a bigger part of our lives all to make the ruling elite more comfortable in maintaining their statist power and priviledge over all the rest.....can't have those peons threatening the D.C. castle.
#7 indyjonesouthere on 2013-05-22 13:27 (Reply)
Have you noticed that every solution the left ever offers to any problem involvesnew and higher taxes?
#8 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-05-23 09:25 (Reply)
Tommy Boy: It is so obscure that it was not even included in the final summary.

There are only eleven chapters in the report, Bretherton et al. being the one that deals with greenhouse-gas-induced climate change. Of course it's findings are included in the final summary. It's not obscure within the context of the report. You're not making any sense.

You might try citing published research that support your position.
#9 Zachriel on 2013-05-30 18:35 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.