Journal TapeCutter's Journal: Continuation of climate disscussion with robinjo 12
I've tried to answer you main points below, let me know if you think I missed anything.
Sea Levels:
Two years ago I bought a half a million dollar house that is a couple of hundred meters from the beach and a few meters above sea level. The beach is part of Port Philip Bay in Melbourne Australia, since I'm already in my 50's I figure I will be safe.
This is a good summary of expected sea level impacts.
Authoritive Names:
Chris Landsea: His science on Hurricanes simply didin't stand up to scutiny but rather than accept critisisim he quit. I'm not going to deny that scientists have an ego and that sometimes it gets in the way.
Freeman Dyson: Quote: "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
Why didn't Mann and Jones explain tree rings?:
Here is an article from M. Mann's website that talks about the CRU hack and the tree rings. I belive Jones became frustraed at having to reply to over 50 simultaneous FOI requests for data, (most of wich was available in the litrature), the people making the requests were not interested in science they were interested in obstructing his work. Burrying someone under FOI requests is a well known delaying tatic of political hacks. AFAIK Mann has not obstructed requests for data and does not work for the CRU.
Harry:
I have skimmed the infamous HARRY_README, I hold a degree in computer science and have been making a good living from software development for 20yrs now. To me it sounds like every programmer I have ever met when confronted with a large project. The stuff he is complaining about are errors from the raw data, this is exactly what Jones has spent his entire carrer trying to clean up.
The myriad of problems in the raw data actually don't make a very big difference to the end results. I'm sure you have heard of Anthony Watts and his claims about how the instrumental record is worse than useless. Well after ignoring the crank for quite some time NOAA shot his whole theory to pieces with a single experiment. They took 70 stations that Watts himself had rated as "good" or "best" and ran the same analysis on those stations as thay had had run on all 1200+ US stations, lo and behold the curves were vistually identical. There's a nice sarcastic video about it on youtube that Watts attempted to remove with a DCMA takedown notice (climate crock is actually a very infromative series and I highly recommend you watch a few of them). The same principle applies to the global record, you can pick 100 stations at random and a simple least squares fit will give you a trend very close to the more pedantic analysis of Jones, Mann and eveyone else. I know this because I've done it myself! If you want to try it these data links will help.
Artic Ice:
There is a big problem with the Arctic sea ice, here is a NASA video of the NSIDC data from my own youtube channel. Here is another climate crock video on the subject.
Confessions:
Your last paragraph is basically an unfounded ad-hom, the only IPCC error I am aware of that is trully an IPCC error is the Himalayan date. The error was not picked up by "skeptics" it was picked up by IPCC scientists and as soon as it was realised to be a problem the IPCC put a prominent link to a statement about it directly above the links to the reports on their website. I think you a vastly underestimating the efforts that have gone into the IPCC reports and the robustness of their process. I also think you are vastly overestimating the honesty of your sources whatever they may be.
Sea Levels:
Two years ago I bought a half a million dollar house that is a couple of hundred meters from the beach and a few meters above sea level. The beach is part of Port Philip Bay in Melbourne Australia, since I'm already in my 50's I figure I will be safe.
This is a good summary of expected sea level impacts.
Authoritive Names:
Chris Landsea: His science on Hurricanes simply didin't stand up to scutiny but rather than accept critisisim he quit. I'm not going to deny that scientists have an ego and that sometimes it gets in the way.
Freeman Dyson: Quote: "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
Why didn't Mann and Jones explain tree rings?:
Here is an article from M. Mann's website that talks about the CRU hack and the tree rings. I belive Jones became frustraed at having to reply to over 50 simultaneous FOI requests for data, (most of wich was available in the litrature), the people making the requests were not interested in science they were interested in obstructing his work. Burrying someone under FOI requests is a well known delaying tatic of political hacks. AFAIK Mann has not obstructed requests for data and does not work for the CRU.
Harry:
I have skimmed the infamous HARRY_README, I hold a degree in computer science and have been making a good living from software development for 20yrs now. To me it sounds like every programmer I have ever met when confronted with a large project. The stuff he is complaining about are errors from the raw data, this is exactly what Jones has spent his entire carrer trying to clean up.
The myriad of problems in the raw data actually don't make a very big difference to the end results. I'm sure you have heard of Anthony Watts and his claims about how the instrumental record is worse than useless. Well after ignoring the crank for quite some time NOAA shot his whole theory to pieces with a single experiment. They took 70 stations that Watts himself had rated as "good" or "best" and ran the same analysis on those stations as thay had had run on all 1200+ US stations, lo and behold the curves were vistually identical. There's a nice sarcastic video about it on youtube that Watts attempted to remove with a DCMA takedown notice (climate crock is actually a very infromative series and I highly recommend you watch a few of them). The same principle applies to the global record, you can pick 100 stations at random and a simple least squares fit will give you a trend very close to the more pedantic analysis of Jones, Mann and eveyone else. I know this because I've done it myself! If you want to try it these data links will help.
Artic Ice:
There is a big problem with the Arctic sea ice, here is a NASA video of the NSIDC data from my own youtube channel. Here is another climate crock video on the subject.
Confessions:
Your last paragraph is basically an unfounded ad-hom, the only IPCC error I am aware of that is trully an IPCC error is the Himalayan date. The error was not picked up by "skeptics" it was picked up by IPCC scientists and as soon as it was realised to be a problem the IPCC put a prominent link to a statement about it directly above the links to the reports on their website. I think you a vastly underestimating the efforts that have gone into the IPCC reports and the robustness of their process. I also think you are vastly overestimating the honesty of your sources whatever they may be.
Thanks! (Score:2)
I didn't comment in the discussion, but I was quietly following along. When I saw this journal continuation I knew I had to stop by, read it, and thank you. It's great to see a few people left on slashdot who use and cite facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate discussion with TapeCutter (Score:2)
There's a pretty big difference between Pfeffer's article and realclimate's version of it. Pfeffer writes that 2 meters is physically untenable while realclimate writes, that the paper didn't rule out 2 meters. Pfeffer even writes, that 80 cm is more plausible, but requires accelerated conditions. I think it's safe to say that the jury is still very much out, when it comes to sea level predictions.
I don't think that we should spend too much time on authorative names. However, I don't think that you should d
Re: (Score:2)
Realclimate is not my only source the reason I linked heavily to it is because I have found it to be an excellent reference and it explains the tree ring thing from the
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that editorial of Nature is really not balanced. It's an attack against people like me, who are genuinely concerned about what the CRU material reveal. Why am I a "denier" or "paranoid", if I have questions or don't like the way these scientists were conducting their business?
For example, It bothers me, why Mick Kelly was in bed at the same time with Shell and Greenpeace. It bothers me too, that he was very comfortable with the idea, that Shell could have a role at setting research agenda in exch
Re: (Score:2)
There are some excellent tools for exploring NASA GISS datasets [nasa.gov] so first of all let's look up the Sodankyla station's raw monthly figures, (it's a temporary text file, you can see it by clicking the "monthly data as text" link at the bottom of this page [nasa.gov]),
O
Re: (Score:2)
You wonder why you can't see the red spot over Finland on NASA's page. On April 16th NASA fixed the problem by removing all the measurements for Finland. The map was updated with data calculated from neighbouring stations. There's no mention about any error ever happening on NASA's page and they don't credit JeanS or climateaudit of noticing the problem. However, I know that the CA picture is real as I saw it myself on NASA's page before they quietly fixed it. There's also a lively discussion about the inci
Re: (Score:2)
McInyrye is cut from the same cloth but agrues on the opposite side of the spectrum. He claims N
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree with you about Greenpeace. However, I find it quite strange that you consider RC a reliable source, even though the people controlling that site cooperate with Greenpeace.
McIntyre is absolutely hated by the Mann and Jones and probably the rest of the hockey crew. From the mails you can see that Mann is taking everything about McIntyre very emotionally. In the same mails other scientists do comment, that McIntyre is onto something or that Mann's work has been sloppy. But Mann is pure emotion.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Mann has published over 60 papers in the top journals such as Nature, Science and Geophysical Rev, none of these journals are known to be swayed by emotional arguments. His hockey stick paper is probably the most famous and scutinised scientific paper of the past 50yrs.
"So McIntyre's sin is, that he found errors in other peoples work and reported them."
No, I agree that McIntyre finding an error is usefull, McIntyre's sin [realclimate.org] is the conclusions and FUD he draws from it and
Re: (Score:2)
Let me make a quick note, that I really do enjoy your input in this discussion. I'll be traveling for a few days, so I can't continue the discussion right away. As you obviously put down a lot of time and effort in your answer, it is fair, that an answer to it is not sloppy.
I can already see, that there is a big difference between how much we trust the climate scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'm back. I don't think I can convince you that the scientists are not right only because they say so. Maybe it's better to move beyond that and agree to disagree. So let's move on to the physics.
Doubling of CO2 will make a difference of about 3.6 W/m2. Of that, 1.8 will radiate up and 1.8 down. If this is handled the same way as solar forcing, that 1.8 will become 2.88 W/m2. Now, the average surface temperature of the earth is 288K, which according to Stefan-Boltzmann's law corresponds to a surface ene