Climate-gate

[iceaura]

I am thankful there are still two 'sides' who are willing to expose stories the other would tend to ignore even though limits are imposed on both

There are no such "sides".

You are mistaking lies and slander and bullshit - the forms of false witness - for one "side". Having no integrity, in any sense of the word, they do not cohere into a "side" - they are destruction alone, incapable of establishing themselves as an entity in the real world, tools and expediencies rather than protagonists. If you were to attempt making a "side" out of them, they would destroy themselves and each other.

The beneficiaries of the false witness are elsewhere, not sides in the conflict but profiteers from the ruin they have financed.

You think my position is politically based?

Of course. There is no other basis for it.

18% of democrats think seriousness of GW is exaggerated. 45% of Independents.

So?

 

[milkweed]

So?

 

[billvon]

From the Guardian:

=====================
In the weeks and months leading up to the publication of the final 2013 IPCC report, there has been a flood of opinion articles in blogs and the mainstream media claiming that the models used by the IPCC have dramatically over-predicted global warming and thus are a failure. This narrative clearly conflicts with the IPCC model-data comparison figure shown above, so what's going on?

These mistaken climate contrarian articles have all suffered from some combination of the following errors.

1) Publicizing the flawed draft IPCC model-data comparison figure
Late last year, an early draft of the IPCC report was leaked, including the first draft version of the figure shown above. The first version of the graph had some flaws, including a significant one immediately noted by statistician and climate blogger Tamino.

"The flaw is this: all the series (both projections and observations) are aligned at 1990. But observations include random year-to-year fluctuations, whereas the projections do not because the average of multiple models averages those out ... the projections should be aligned to the value due to the existing trend in observations at 1990.

Aligning the projections with a single extra-hot year makes the projections seem too hot, so observations are too cool by comparison."

In the draft version of the IPCC figure, it was simply a visual illusion that the surface temperature data appeared to be warming less slowly than the model projections, even though the measured temperature trend fell within the range of model simulations. Obviously this mistake was subsequently corrected.

This illustrates why it's a bad idea to publicize material in draft form, which by definition is a work in progress. That didn't stop Fox News, Ross McKitrick in the Financial Post, Roger Pielke Jr., the Heartland Institute, and Anthony Watts from declaring premature and unwarranted victory on behalf of climate contrarians based on the faulty draft figure.
======================

 

[milkweed]

From the Guardian:

======================

Well you did it again... Not paying attention to detail.

Thats NOT the pic I posted. Not even related to your reply.

More logical fallacies...

 

[billvon]

Well you did it again... Not paying attention to detail.
Thats NOT the pic I posted.

Right. But your pic was based on the early release, which in turn used the erroneous baseline. Here's what the final release contained:

 

[milkweed]

Right. But your pic was based on the early release, which in turn used the erroneous baseline. Here's what the final release contained:

I
w
i
l
l
t
y
p
e
s
l
o
w
e
r

My version is current CMIP5

LOOK at yours --- AR4 CMIP 3 Pay attention to details. Two different graphs.

 

[origin]

So to answer your question, No it wouldnt change my position.

Interesting, so your opinion is not based on science or politics. So what is it based on religion or possibly drugs?

 

[billvon]

LOOK at yours --- AR4 CMIP 3 Pay attention to details. Two different graphs.

Ah, OK. So your graph claiming "the newest IPCC climate models" is incorrect, then. CMIP3 was released in 2007; CMIP5 was released in 2013, and uses the more accurate model.

I'd suggest you pay a little more attention to details!

 

[Photizo]

You really could have done better. Why post the daily caller when you can go to the source yourself?

True...I was on my out the door to help someone move, so...sure, I've actually done that in the past for that very reason...

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

18% of democrats think seriousness of GW is exaggerated. 45% of Independents.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167960/americans-likely-say-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx

So to answer your question, No it wouldnt change my position.

Ok... first off: this is OPINION
Second: you are choosing to ignore science for the sake of someone else's opinion? because?
what would happen if those exact same people decided that you should commit suicide to help control crowded population problems in an Urban city?
it is OPINION... not scientific evidence
not fact
not reality

Americans' views on climate change

The series will explore public opinion

Americans Most Likely to Say ...

a very relevant passage which proves, like it or not, that the general public in the USA is scientifically illiterate

...a slim majority collectively see these reports as generally correct (23%) or generally underestimated (33%).

IOW- Americans don't understand the science and thus fall back upon their religion, political affiliations, succumb to peer pressure, succumb to conspiracy theory or whatever else they will selectively and intentionally choose over the scientific evidence because they do not want to address the facts (or plain cannot see them through the haze of selective acceptance, conspiracy, peer pressure, etc )
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

Even when confronted with blatantly obvious facts, those who choose to hide behind the facade of their belief, no matter how wrong or delusional it may be, are simply ignoring the evidence for the sake of their fear, delusion or belief.

they don't understand the methodology, competition or anything else about the scientific method, therefore they choose to ignore evidence for delusion. This is not ignorance by any means at all, but intentional stupidity. There is a serious problem with ignoring the high level of the evidence produced for the sake of a belief that is not substantiated by reality.

Look at it in another context: driving.
Ignoring the laws of the road and mowing down a cross-walk full of children because you don't believe that the gov't has the right to restrict your speed or mobility in a vehicle and you don't think that crosswalks exist, despite them being painted on the road, marked or laws being published regarding the actions motorists should take in selected areas will get you not only put in jail, but it will likely get you ostracized from society as a lunatic.

selectively choosing to ignore reality and scientific data for the sake of your personal delusion is stupid, especially when there are plenty of ways to get the data explained to you.

it really is that simple.

 

[milkweed]

Ah, OK. So your graph claiming "the newest IPCC climate models" is incorrect, then. CMIP3 was released in 2007; CMIP5 was released in 2013, and uses the more accurate model.

I'd suggest you pay a little more attention to details!

lol... does not change the fact you posted an irrelevant response to my CURRENT cmip 5 graph.

BTW here is the discussion of the IPCC bait and switch:

Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

Comments are wonderful as people pick through and try to figure out how they came up with this. It is revealed. Move the goalposts...

 

[iceaura]

My version is current CMIP5

Your version is not the IPCC official report, stops at the year 2012, omits error bars, and contains the following false statement: "Actual temp is well below all model predictions".

It is also not directly supportive of any assertion that AGW is being exaggerated as a threat by the scientific community involved - because it only deals with air temperatures, because the models are known to treat natural medium-scale regional climate variation patterns inadequately (insufficient time for calibration, as yet), and because much of the threat from AGW rides on factors other than air temperature, among other obvious issues.

(For example: The faster than predicted absorption of AGW heat by the oceans, and its transfer to subsurface water, is not reason to regard AGW as less of a threat. )

These and similar misleading features characterize and bias all such "evidence" from your chosen sources, because they serve the political agenda of those sources. Your repeated and continual inability to screen your sources for even the most obvious of political biases demonstrates your own.

 

[milkweed]

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

Even when confronted with blatantly obvious facts, those who choose to hide behind the facade of their belief, no matter how wrong or delusional it may be, are simply ignoring the evidence for the sake of their fear, delusion or belief.

it really is that simple.

Yawn. You are in my ignore until you stop posting that discredited (and refuted) study.

Reanalysis of the survey data sets of Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac (2013) and Lewandowsky, Gignac, and Oberauer (2013) indicates that the conclusions of those articles—that conspiracist ideation predicts skepticism regarding the reality of anthropogenic climate change—are not supported by the data.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/03/26/0956797614566469.full

As we argue below, all this really shows is that people who are undecided about one fairly technical matter (conspiracy theories) also have no firm opinion about another (climate change). The complex statistical models used by Lewandowsky et al. mask this rather obvious and uninteresting finding.

https://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/commentary-in-psychological-science/

But that doesnt fit into your particular bias does it?

 

[milkweed]

Your version is not the IPCC official report, stops at the year 2012, omits error bars, and contains the following false statement: "Actual temp is well below all model predictions".

From Dr Currys blog:

The IPCC process is actually slowing this down, since presumably those involved in producing these simulations or otherwise involved in the IPCC AR5 are holding these results until the final AR5 report so that some ‘consensus’ can be built in terms of how to interpret these results and ‘communicate’ the uncertainty to the public.

Spinning the climate model – observation comparison
http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/22/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison/

lol...

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

But that doesnt fit into your particular bias does it?

i don't have a bias. i follow the evidence
and i will review your study link

but i find it fascinating that your continued assertions and refusal to accept the scientific evidence continually validate the study i linked and their claims

so for all the "refute" you give, you still continue to validate the findings
what does that say?

your arguments mirror the GW situation: there is the overwhelming evidence of GW; and there is your belief

i prefer the evidence

 

[iceaura]

From Dr Currys blog:

There's your problem. You are posting garbage from liars, and you are unable to screen it.

You really can't see what Curry is doing, or the issues visible in your pasting here from her blogs and graphs. Even when it is pointed out to you, or visible in the boldface big type, you can't see it.

Example? I pointed to a false statement included in the graph, the lack of error bars, the culmination in 2012, etc; here's another one right at the top:

the claim that this latest leaked draft version misrepresentation is not only the IPCC report, but "similar to the older models" in its "failure". That's hard to miss. It's a subtitle, in bold font.

But as billvon posted example of, and you emphasized and called attention to, those older models were not failures - only the stolen draft versions put out and misrepresented by Curry et al at the time are representable, by carefully misleading language, as "failures" .

So Curry is building an entire record of misrepresentations, and arguing each new one from the others rather than from a base in reality. This is the bubble world of the American "conservative", and it is entirely driven, supported, and motivated, by a political agenda.

 

[billvon]

BTW here is the discussion of the IPCC bait and switch

So a draft publication with an error in it is a "bait and switch?" You have a very fundamental misunderstanding about how the peer review process in science works. No wonder you are so easily misled by deniers.

 

[milkweed]

So a draft publication with an error in it is a "bait and switch?" You have a very fundamental misunderstanding about how the peer review process in science works. No wonder you are so easily misled by deniers.

Ah, deflecting again... its all my fault for being mislead. Obviously you didnt read the text and comments only looked at the pictures.

For the envelopes from the first three assessments, although they cite the same sources as the predecessor Second Draft Figure 1.4, the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection envelopes. You can see this relatively clearly with the Second Assessment Report envelope: compare the two versions. At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this.

None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.

A comment:
On page 1-34 in the AR5-WG1 Final Draft, the report states how they modified the plot in Figure 1.4:

“For FAR, SAR and TAR, the projections have been harmonized to match the average of the three smoothed observational datasets at 1990.”

They simply moved the projections to match observational data at 1990 and get a better fit. It is basically an arbitrary change with, as you say, no justification. Amazing.

A follow-up comment to above:

Very crafty! By continually do this they can hope that their faulty graphs will always appear as an upwardly acceleration of temperature shortly about to occr. This way they can never be proved wrong and their cash flow will remain intact as the catastrophe will always be but a few years into the future.

Another comment:

The essence of a scientific advance is being able to make significant theoretical predictions that are confirmed by experiment. If predictions fail the test of observation, that is a centrally important, if not fatal, matter.
You don’t get to simply go back and fudge your error envelope retrospectively to get agreement. Certainly if you do that sort of adjustment you had damn well better have some good reasons for it. You are clearly obliged to answer the question: If the convenient, newly adjusted error bars are the correct ones, why didn’t you use those back when you first made the prediction?

And finally:
I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed this bait and switch game: actual CO2 has followed the “worst case” scenario, but actual warming has followed the “no additional CO2 at all” prediction. The models were falsified years ago if that is taken into account.

 

[billvon]

Ah, deflecting again... its all my fault for being mislead.

Well, it is both your fault and the fault of the people who misled you.

Obviously you didnt read the text and comments only looked at the pictures.

Incorrect again.

They simply moved the projections to match observational data at 1990 and get a better fit. It is basically an arbitrary change with, as you say, no justification.

Also incorrect. The models and the data have to share a starting point. Otherwise they are useless. The first draft did NOT share the right starting point. The second draft did.

By the way, I am glad you backed down from your earlier claims that the two graphs are completely different, and that your graph represented the latest IPCC models.

 

[Photizo]

Photizo and milkweed, when the republicans finally change their minds (they will eventually) and accept human caused global warming, will you 2 change your minds too?

Speaking for myself, No.
Also, I'm not a republican...I couldn't care less what they do.

You are mistaking lies and slander and bullshit - the forms of false witness - for one "side".

It's been awhile, but there you go with this curious "false witness" thing again...anyway, no, I'm not mistaken. Have a nice day.