Climate-gate

[river]

Nothing new there to me, I think, or to NOAA - See next post. This has been globally the hottest summer ever - well since 1880 when global records began.

Hope he tells the three main reason why IPCC puts out crap as I have been doing for a few years:
(1) IPCC does not do science, but follows a political compromise processes that 190 nation must agree to before any report can be released (Some political hacks re-write sections before approval, when original text would cause too much expense to their government if not just ignored.)

(2) Oil company personnel sever on the IPCC staff, in high positions (including one committee chair). They know how their bread is buttered.

(3) Reports freeze all the positive feed back term - a snap shot, not a model. Then project into the future the linear slope of the current change rates; but Global Warming is a very dynamic non-linear process with rapidly changing feed backs. This is why IPCC never can get it correct if predicting more than 6 years ahead. For example, in 2007 (I think it was) report they projected Arctic Ocean would be briefly "ice free" after 2100; then in next report changed it to "after 2050." etc. They make new report every half decade or so to correct their prior errors.

My dollars to your doughnuts say correct answer is "before October 2020."

the book gets into the history of the IPCC , with depth , and the consequences of its affect on the media and us , an eye opening read

its a short read , 289 pgs

 

[Billy T]

the book gets into the history of the IPCC , with depth , and the consequences of its affect on the media and us , an eye opening read ... its a short read , 289 pgs

You quoted me before I finished my edit - Please edit to quote me with qualifications added after your first quote - thanks.

 

[iceaura]

I've been reading a book by Tim Ball , - - -

When are you guys going to quit going back to those same few discredited guys for your "information"? How many times does an ignorant crank like Tim Ball have to be slapped in public before you catch on to the fact that he is a shill for the petroleum industry?

 

[river]

When are you guys going to quit going back to those same few discredited guys for your "information"? How many times does an ignorant crank like Tim Ball have to be slapped in public before you catch on to the fact that he is a shill for the petroleum industry?

how do you know this ?

 

[iceaura]

how do you know this ?

From following the public debate on the effects of human boosting of CO2 levels for the past decade or so. You can find the same stuff on any number of websites and the like - including Tim Ball's own web contributions, if you think a minute while you are reading them.

Look, there are only a few places you can find an author like that recommended. And you should have learned by now to treat anything recommended or promoted by such places with vigilance - fact checking, background research, etc.

 

[river]

From following the public debate on the effects of human boosting of CO2 levels for the past decade or so. You can find the same stuff on any number of websites and the like - including Tim Ball's own web contributions, if you think a minute while you are reading them.

Look, there are only a few places you can find an author like that recommended. And you should have learned by now to treat anything recommended or promoted by such places with vigilance - fact checking, background research, etc.

yes you will find in the book that he admits to giving lectures on the global warming or climate change thinking

what he admits he DIDN'T DO , was to investigate the facts , and that's what he gets into in the book

Tim made a mistake , and many others did as well

here's his site


http://drtimball.com/


when one reads the book by someone , it is the only way to get to the depth of what they are trying to put across , their thinking and why

there is NO alternative way

read the book , I hope you do , and Tim gives many, many websites as footnotes in the book

 

[Billy T]

Brief & clear (by photographs & dynamic illustrations) telling why Greenland's ice sheet's melting rate is doubling every ~ 5 or so years now in video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PEi0Retg8A&list=UUtZdUYUZr493AUh_EInBYxQ

Here is video on the Antarctic ice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71l9lzLsBRc&list=UUtZdUYUZr493AUh_EInBYxQ&index=3
Yes the area of ice covering the Antarctic Oceans is increasing - in major part because the floating sheets are leaving the pole, moving northward but that is allowing the glaciers to slid into the sea, much more rapidly.

 

[zgmc]

yes you will find in the book that he admits to giving lectures on the global warming or climate change thinking

what he admits he DIDN'T DO , was to investigate the facts , and that's what he gets into in the book

Tim made a mistake , and many others did as well

here's his site


http://drtimball.com/


when one reads the book by someone , it is the only way to get to the depth of what they are trying to put across , their thinking and why

there is NO alternative way

read the book , I hope you do , and Tim gives many, many websites as footnotes in the book

Care to elaborate on the mistakes that Tim is admitting to? How about a brief synopsis of the book that you are referring to?

 

[Trippy]

This is what happens when I get bored:

Series1 is a synthetic series. I prepared it by normalizing CO2 Concentration, the NAO Index, the PDO Index, the ENSO Index and the Wolf Number against the highest absolute value in the time series. All numbers represent the Jan 1 - Dec 31 average for that year. These values were added together without weighting and then normalized a second time. Rather than using the straight CO2 concentration I applied the equation I posted earlier: $$ \Delta F = \alpha ln(\frac{C}{C_0})$$. I used a value of 7 for $$\alpha$$ and 280 for $$C_0$$.

I wanted to include Methane and albedo, but I haven't been able to find any useable data for either of these, although, I did consider using polar ice-cap coverage as a proxy.

Series2 is the GISS Temperature anomaly, averaged across each year (Jan 1 - Dec 31). The trend line fitted to this is a third order polynomial.
Series3 is the Series2 normalized in the same way that Series1 has been to illustrate the effects of the normalization.

Note that it tends to overestimate the temperature, which isn't really surprising (to me anyway) That just means I need to put some weightings in (and I suspect I already know where to start). Spreadsheet available here

 

[iceaura]

yes you will find in the book that he admits to giving lectures on the global warming or climate change thinking

what he admits he DIDN'T DO , was to investigate the facts , and that's what he gets into in the book

The confused bs I linked to is posted on his website right now, dated from less than a month ago.

{edit in: Sorry, that was the other thread you linked to Tim's website - I just grabbed a recent essay of his entitled "All Rain is Acid Rain", more or less at random, from his website linked by you. Read it and weep.}

He's completely full of shit, and like all professional denialists his think tank and other centers of authority are funded directly and indirectly by fossil fuel interests. You would be foolish to rely on anything he says as physical fact, and no actual researcher in the field takes him seriously as an analyst.

Take notice of where you got his name, who recommended him to you, and flag them as deceptive manipulators who have set you up to look foolish in public spreading their manure. Avoid them in the future. Do not spam this forum with their bs, unless you want to use it as an example of the garbage that is out there obscuring the issues and confusing the public.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Adding to what iceaura said,


In papers filed in court in response to a defamation of character lawsuit (he was blasted in the press for lying) the following facts came out:

(1) "Dr." Timothy Ball has a PhD in GEOGRAPHY, not climate science, which he taught for 8 years.
(2) Despite this, he posted, or a proxy of him posted, that he was "the first person to receive a PhD in Canada in climatology and has 32 years of academic experience as a climatologist"*
(3) He has not taken the core courses in math, physics, chemistry or any earth sciences needed to even get the BS degree in climatology.
(4) He has never been published in any journal concerned with physical sciences or climatology.
(5) His PhD dissertation addressed the weather reports from a couple of sites in the colonial era, but it was purely a historical treatment.



He therefore a liar and a fraud.

Subsequent to these points being argued in court, he withdrew his lawsuit.

pleadings


river is promoting trash. Garbage in, garbage out.
'
:shrug:


____

*it was shown in court that Canadians have earned degrees in Climatology at least since 1950.

 

[milkweed]

yes you will find in the book that he admits to giving lectures on the global warming or climate change thinking

what he admits he DIDN'T DO , was to investigate the facts , and that's what he gets into in the book

Tim made a mistake , and many others did as well

when one reads the book by someone , it is the only way to get to the depth of what they are trying to put across , their thinking and why

there is NO alternative way

read the book , I hope you do , and Tim gives many, many websites as footnotes in the book

While I dont like Balls writing style, I think its good your looking into counterpoints. I really like some of Jim Steeles essays, but havent read the book yet.

http://www.amazon.com/Landscapes-Cycles-Environmentalists-Journey-Skepticism/dp/1490390189

His essay on one of the blue butterflies gave an excellent source that may help the group I volunteer for with efforts to increase the Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis).

 

[Aqueous Id]

While I dont like Balls writing style, I think its good your looking into counterpoints. I really like some of Jim Steeles essays, but havent read the book yet.

http://www.amazon.com/Landscapes-Cycles-Environmentalists-Journey-Skepticism/dp/1490390189

His essay on one of the blue butterflies gave an excellent source that may help the group I volunteer for with efforts to increase the Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis).

The sock puppet army strikes again.


Both men are perpetrating frauds. Ball is a geographer pretending to be a climate expert and Steele is a guide for a summer camp pretending to speak authoritatively on climate and its effect on organisms. Nether men have any credentials to speak authoritatively, and both have been demonstrated to be liars.

Knowing the Latin nomenclature for the butterflies in question does not overrule the years of research by the PhDs in Biology who have reported on the matter.

Propounding Right Wing fraudsters in the science threads as authorities on science is trolling. Take this bullshit to the creationist sites where it came from.

 

[milkweed]

Fanatic:
noun - 1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fanatic

The only known population of the Aldabra banded snail Rhachistia aldabrae declined through the late twentieth century, leading to its extinction in the late 1990s.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/5/581.full.pdf

A snail once thought to have been among the first species to go extinct because of climate change has reappeared in the wild.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/seychelles-snail-thought-extinct-alive-25347700

The problem with the above quote is 'reappeared'. It didnt reappear. It was never extinct.

The Royal Society journal refused to publish the rebuttal, saying it had been “rejected following full peer review”. The journal sent Mr Hambler the reviews of the rebuttal by two anonymous academic referees, who had rejected the criticisms made of Mr Gerlach’s paper. However, the Royal Society admitted this week, after questions from The Times, that the referees who had rejected the rebuttal were the same referees who had approved Mr Gerlach’s paper for publication. The society said it had since changed its policy on reviewing rebuttals… The society has refused to publish the rebuttal because it is seven years old. –Ben Webster,

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/20/royal-society-in-trouble-over-false-extinction-claim-paper/

So 7 years ago problems with the paper were submitted and rejected.

While Parmesan indicted climate change in “the grand finale” during which frost killed 99.9% of the annual Collinsia, she omitted the crucial detail that the frost had little effect on the perennial food plants that sustained the natural population. More importantly, Parmesan also omitted that she had observed survival for the natural population “was higher than previously recorded, an estimated 80% of larval groups survived”...

Parmesan never told her readers that the natural population thrived or that the natural population maintained their synchrony with both the weather and their food plants. By re-constructing only half of the details, and with the apparent blessings of Dr. C.D. Thomas and her husband Dr. Singer, Parmesan metamorphosed a story of nature’s adaptability and resilience into another story of climate catastrophe.

http://landscapesandcycles.net/fabricating-climate-doom---part-3--extreme-weather.html

Parts one and two are an enlightening read, with updates to these essays posted at WattsUpWithThat. Updates include the maps of how close the thriving populations were to the Collinsia populations. Close enough that it is possible that all populations were mixed sibling caterpillars from the same egg laying parent. We are talking 300 feet apart.

The Wild Indigo duskywing is rapidly expanding its range and abundance by colonizing plantings of crown vetch along roadways and railroad beds.

http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species/Erynnis-baptisiae

Adaptability. Its not just the Ediths Checkerspot that is known to incorporate new food sources.

 

[sculptor]

nothing turns me off faster than an ad hominem attack.

 

[zgmc]

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/5/581.full.pdf



http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/seychelles-snail-thought-extinct-alive-25347700

The problem with the above quote is 'reappeared'. It didnt reappear. It was never extinct.

The snail was thought to be extinct with a greater than 95% probability. It was certainly reasonable to assume that it was extinct based on the dwindling population over the years. Obviously it was not extinct, because 7 examples were found recently. Mistakes can happen. I can't find any real info on the so called rebuttal that you are talking about? here is a link to the paper in question:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2391199/

 

[milkweed]

The snail was thought to be extinct with a greater than 95% probability. It was certainly reasonable to assume that it was extinct based on the dwindling population over the years. Obviously it was not extinct, because 7 examples were found recently. Mistakes can happen. I can't find any real info on the so called rebuttal that you are talking about? here is a link to the paper in question:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2391199/

I linked to the original paper via the royal society link.
You will have to look at Watts up which has the link to the Times Story.
The Times story requires you to sign up for $1 euro.
You wont read the rebuttal because the Royal Society refused to publish it, but the Royal society admitted to the Times reporter that the same anonymous reviewers that had approved the paper also rejected the rebuttal. SEVEN years ago; shortly after the royal society published the paper.

Peer review failed (again).

95% probability. Where have I heard that before?

 

[zgmc]

If the times is the only place to find the rebuttal, than you're right, I won't be paying to read it. as for designating a species extinct, it is not realistic, or even possible, to be 100% certain. Does not mean that the peer review has failed.

 

[Billy T]

Others think (with supporting facts) IPCC makes gross errors and since last 2012 data, the exponential decay fit curve is now going to zero ice some years before 2020.

 

[milkweed]

If the times is the only place to find the rebuttal, than you're right, I won't be paying to read it. as for designating a species extinct, it is not realistic, or even possible, to be 100% certain. Does not mean that the peer review has failed.

well heres a bit from the times article as posted by Forbes:

Mr Hambler and three other leading scientists wrote to the Royal Society in 2007 pointing out that: “The vast majority of the habitat is virtually inaccessible and has never been visited. It is unwise to declare this species extinct after a gap in known records of ten years. We predict rediscovery when resources permit.”

The same two peer reviewers who approved Dr Gerlach’s original paper rejected their rebuttal, which was therefore not published by RS Biology Letters.

The journal has decided since then to refer such rebuttals to a third, independent reviewer in future.

However, it declined to retract the Gerlach paper and publish the rebuttal because it is seven years old.

You could even take the initiative and ask Mr Hambler himself:

http://www.hertford.ox.ac.uk/about/people/mr-clive-hambler