Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Down

Author Topic: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories  (Read 64846 times)

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #120 on: October 24, 2011, 05:00:06 pm »

Skeptics re-analyze the entire instrumental temperature record and find that, yes, the world is warming rapidly:

http://www.economist.com/node/21533360
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Alex Libman

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 353
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #121 on: October 24, 2011, 06:42:21 pm »

First of all, "Global Warming" is a political concept, the validity of which depends on the multi-point progression of proof I've summarized above.  What they are referring to is much more specific - a slight increasing trend in heterogeneous data.  We're talking about people as far back as 150 years ago squinting at a mercury thermometers and writing down numbers on a piece of paper, often treating it as matter of silly routine that doesn't require perfection.  Look at an old thermometer under the wrong angle and you could be off by a degree or two.  The human capacity to observe temperature has changed substantially in that time, in many complex ways that introduce a significant margin of error into any comparison of data gathered via old methods vs the new.  Whether that constitutes an actual change in the actual temperature of the actual globe remains an open question that cannot be answered without taking modern equipment backwards in time.

That article actually makes more valid points for skepticism rather than belief in Global Warming:

Quote
The uncertainty arises mainly because weather stations were never intended to provide a climatic record. The temperature series they give tend therefore to be patchy and even where the stations are relatively abundant, as in western Europe and America, they often contain inconsistencies. They may have gaps, or readings taken at different times of day, or with different kinds of thermometer. The local environment may have changed. Extrapolating a global average from such data involves an amount of tinkering - or homogenisation.

It might involve omitting especially awkward readings; or where, for example, a heat source like an airport has sprung up alongside a weather station, inputting a lower temperature than the data show. As such cases are mostly in the earlier portions of the records, this will exaggerate the long-term warming trend. That is at best imperfect.

Many things could account for that change.

The most obvious problem is what is called "urban warming".  Temperature isn't measured by an omnipresent deity that can observe the entirety of the "Globe" without affecting it - it is measured by people, whose lifestyles have changed substantially over the past few decades.  The local area around the thermometers became warmer due to larger and more powerful Navy ships producing more heat, asphalt from paved roads around weather stations retaining more heat, and probably hundreds of other small human trends that don't encompass the entire "Globe".

Arctic explorers have always had the tendency to exaggerate the harshness of their environment, like perhaps through a subconscious bias in rounding the temperature numbers in a particular direction - something that they could no longer get away with as measurements became more accurate and more verifiable.  This is similar to how fishermen describe the size of the fish that got away, or how the average male penis size is a lot higher in anonymous chat-rooms, where claims aren't likely to be verified.  Scientists are still human, and some of the data is likely to have been taken by some poop-deck-scraper in a big hurry to get back indoors.

But, guess what - all of the aforementioned critical thinking and margin for doubt are now completely invalid!  How do we know?  Because a bunch of people who stand to profit from Global Warming, who are paid by other people who stand to profit from Global Warming, applied a magical algorithm that takes inaccurate data and makes it accurate and reliable!  Anyone who questions this magic is obviously against science and believes in young-earth creationism, dontchyaknow!   ::)

In reality, while things like gaps and high-frequency variations can be smoothed out, there are simply too many trends and biases that simply cannot be corrected for.  For some reason left-wingers have a particularly hard time grasping the concept of unknown unknowns.  Real scientists should know when to say "we aren't certain", and the alleged yearly warming of 0.018 degrees Celsius (0.03 degrees Fahrenheit) is well below the margin of error.

So, no, they cannot yet prove that the globe has warmed at all, much less that the warming is anthropogenic, harmful, permanent, etc, etc, etc...
« Last Edit: October 24, 2011, 06:59:26 pm by Alex Libman »
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #122 on: October 24, 2011, 08:20:26 pm »

The article goes on to say that even when climate skeptics adjusted for all those problems, they still find a warming trend extremely close to that established in the existing datasets.

BTW, high margin of error =/= bias, & therefore cannot account for any spurious trend in the data.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Alex Libman

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 353
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #123 on: October 24, 2011, 10:50:17 pm »

And my previous post goes on to explain that "adjustments" can only correct for some of the issues, but not the major concerns that make the data uselessly inconclusive.  In analogy - you can sharpen a photograph, but you can't remove solid walls from it and render what's behind them (assuming there are no reflections of objects behind walls elsewhere in the picture, etc).  If you start drawing things behind the walls, then you're no longer relying on the original data / the photograph.

The word "bias" can be applied to this situation in several different meanings.  First there's the likelihood of human bias, even if it is subconscious.  People think in terms of "even if the evidence is not 100% yet today, it will be tomorrow, and we scientists must circle our wagons or the greedy pollution-loving Armageddonists win"...

There is also measurement bias, the error margin of which changes over time.  Measuring equipment becomes more accurate for newer data, so if there were slight too-cold measurement errors in the past you'd get the illusion of a warming trend.  (And if the records were showing a slight cooling trend, they could spin it into a man-made crisis also.  And they get to choose the trend start time.  As total temperature stability and total measurement error stability (or total compensative resonance between the two) are highly improbable, they get their politically-needed "climate crisis" irregardless of the data.)

There are cultural changes taking place across generations - people didn't used to look at a thermometer in terms of fractions of a degree but in terms of "how many sweaters do I need to put on today".  The training and discipline of the average temperature-taker have increased since the 1950s, as did the perceived importance of keeping super-accurate temperature records.  Rounding errors are more likely to result in improper rounding down than improper rounding up.  Analog thermometers were not always held perfectly at eye-level.  Etc, etc, etc.  And, of course, the "urban warming" effect - how the heck do you decide exactly how much you need to adjust for that?!

In the end, it becomes an art-form of picking which factors you choose to adjust for (and to what degree) and which you choose to ignore, and any of these decisions can push the data a degree in one direction or the other.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2011, 11:37:04 pm by Alex Libman »
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #124 on: October 25, 2011, 09:06:14 am »

Measurement instruments in the past were all too-cold? LOL That's a new one.

You don't understand the types of issues that are in the data and how statistical techniques can correct for them.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Alex Libman

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 353
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #125 on: October 25, 2011, 10:19:26 am »

Yet another case of skeptics making rational arguments for reasonable doubt, and the government-influenced "academic" elite applying magical / esoteric tricks to justify their power - in this case algorithms that input garbage data, with countless immeasurable known and unknown offset biases, and make it infallibly reliable...  It's just particularly disappointing to hear this from one Jason P. Sorens, as I've said, because it creates the suspicion that you've applied the same hubris in your data analysis for NH and the FSP...

I've already provided many examples of why data biases / measurement error trends would change over time, and the probability of there being 0.0 degree variation as measurement tech improves is highly unlikely.  You cannot deny that the "urban warming" effect exists, and you cannot claim to be able to measure it accurately enough - and that is just one of the uncertainly factors.  The data was inevitable to inch a little bit up or a little bit down, and the political interests have hedged their bets between "Global Warming", "Global Cooling", and "Global Climate Change".  Now they can spin all weather phenomena for political gain...  Typical GIGO tricks that are very familiar to me from studying the history of Soviet "science" - Garbage data goes In, Government power comes Out.

And here comes my oft-repeated reminder:  Reliable temperature data showing a significant and global warming would be just the first thing the alarmists have to prove.  If they were to succeed in this first step, which so far they are nowhere close to doing, they would still have to prove that: (2) the change is anthropogenic, (3) significantly harmful, (4) permanent, (5) solvable through their political agenda, and (6) that their agenda wouldn't have unintended consequences that do more than harm than good.  The only thing they have proven so far is their capacity for deceit!
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #126 on: October 25, 2011, 01:00:18 pm »

Actually, lots of the tests for factors are done in a lab.
Why? Because some group of scientist, and people that support them, want to inhabit areas other than terrestrial.
You aren't possible one of those are you? ::)

And by the way, climate scientists are working on science... not some political agenda.
Which is what your long rant at the end is about.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 01:09:47 pm by John Edward Mercier »
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #127 on: October 25, 2011, 01:38:58 pm »

Vague hand-waving doesn't count as examples. Here, let me help you out a little. In the case of an airport being built nearby and recorded temperatures adjusted accordingly - it's straightforward to build a spatial model of the effects of airport size and distance on recorded temperatures, then use the coefficients extracted from the model to adjust the recorded temperatures to what they would be in the absence of the airport. There is some uncertainty associated with this procedure, but it's measurable uncertainty, in the sense that we can assign a confidence interval to it.

And again, uncertainty =/= bias. To argue that every temperature dataset is biased toward a recent warming you have to insert fantastical claims about every thermometer in the 1950s being off in the same direction...
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

swamp_yankee

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 228
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #128 on: October 26, 2011, 12:47:52 am »

Global wrming alarmist moving the goal posts again? I thought the science was settled. They told us a consensus was reached... in 2004.

Just wait six months, they'll change their tune again then again then again.

Its the opposite of science. They start with a desired end and then manipulate the scientific method to rationalize their goals.
Logged

MS Libertarian

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #129 on: October 26, 2011, 06:21:24 am »

Global wrming alarmist moving the goal posts again? I thought the science was settled. They told us a consensus was reached... in 2004.

Just wait six months, they'll change their tune again then again then again.

Its the opposite of science. They start with a desired end and then manipulate the scientific method to rationalize their goals.
But why would they do that... it is not like they have some economic incentive to this.  O wait, yea they do.
Logged
Only Jedis should use the force!

The Second Amendment is my gun permit.

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #130 on: October 26, 2011, 03:41:51 pm »

Global wrming alarmist moving the goal posts again? I thought the science was settled. They told us a consensus was reached... in 2004.

Just wait six months, they'll change their tune again then again then again.

Its the opposite of science. They start with a desired end and then manipulate the scientific method to rationalize their goals.
A consensus isn't science. But climate scientists haven't set any 'goal posts'... they only wish to determine what regulates the terrestrial (and possibly secondary planet) climates.

Logged

swamp_yankee

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 228
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #131 on: October 26, 2011, 08:36:01 pm »

Global wrming alarmist moving the goal posts again? I thought the science was settled. They told us a consensus was reached... in 2004.

Just wait six months, they'll change their tune again then again then again.

Its the opposite of science. They start with a desired end and then manipulate the scientific method to rationalize their goals.
A consensus isn't science. But climate scientists haven't set any 'goal posts'... they only wish to determine what regulates the terrestrial (and possibly secondary planet) climates.



The only wish to determine what the end results they want.  In 2002, people like me were called names because we questioned the science.  In time, the science proved faulty, so they went back to the drawing board to find new data to support their end result. Same in 2004. Same in 2006. Same in2008.

They start with an end supposition and then work backwards. That a scholastic thought process, not academic and certainly not scientific. They have an agenda. The process has been compromised by politics, both the politics of ideology and of peer pressure and funding.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #132 on: October 26, 2011, 08:52:15 pm »

It's interesting that the further to the right you are on the ideological spectrum, the better a scientist you become...
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #133 on: October 26, 2011, 11:15:06 pm »

So Swamp Yankee...
What makes the surface of the Moon hotter in sunlight and colder in darkness than the surface of the Earth?
Because that is the question that you start with.

Logged

Alex Libman

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 353
Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
« Reply #134 on: October 27, 2011, 12:39:42 am »

Actually, lots of the tests for factors are done in a lab.
Why? Because some group of scientist, and people that support them,
want to inhabit areas other than terrestrial.
You aren't possible one of those are you? ::)

And by the way, climate scientists are working on science... [...]

That's some interesting misuse of language these, so I can't tell exactly what you're saying, but it's clear that you keep making appeals to authority.  (You should read some "peer-reviewed" studies conducted by respected "scientists" working in "labs" in 1930s Germany...)  I keep presenting substantive technical points that cast doubt (or, in some cases, completely invalidate) what your authorities are claiming.

Granted that my background is in software engineering rather than atmospheric sciences, but that still gives me some crucial insights into understanding data gathering, data analysis, and complex computational models, which some people seem to mystify into an infallible truth machine.  I also have some knowledge of history of 20th century totalitarian regimes, and their use of the word "science" to promote some of the most irrational ideas in the history of mankind!


[...  Science,] not some political agenda.  
Which is what your long rant at the end is about.

The word "rant" can be defined as "a wild, incoherent, emotional articulation" - which seems to describe your post, but not mine.  I am known to at times do some "emotional" or satirical writing, but only as a dessert that follows a structured reasonable argument, and I am never "incoherent".  I put a lot of effort into writing my posts, proof-reading and revising them multiple times.  You write in shallow slogans and accusations, and your grammar would make any 5th grade English teacher weep.  (And I bet English is even your first language...)


Vague hand-waving doesn't count as examples.

Based on your contributions to this thread, you calling me "vague" is almost as funnysad as JEM implying I am "incoherent".

"Hand-waving", maybe, but no one is paying me to write scholarly articles here.  (And the amount of diligence I should be applying to these forums should in theory decline after Ian Fraudman demonstrated how inconsequentially years of such writings can be flushed down the toilet...)  Moneyed interests seem to line up overwhelmingly on the side of AGW, from government funding to funding by government-entangled corporations like GE.


Here, let me help you out a little. In the case of an airport being built nearby and recorded temperatures adjusted accordingly - it's straightforward to build a spatial model of the effects of airport size and distance on recorded temperatures, then use the coefficients extracted from the model to adjust the recorded temperatures to what they would be in the absence of the airport. There is some uncertainty associated with this procedure, but it's measurable uncertainty, in the sense that we can assign a confidence interval to it.

Of course the "adjustment for nearby airport" program would need to take into account things like the history of this airport's construction, runway area and reflectiveness of the pavement at any particular time, how many planes took off and landed at any particular time, what kind of engines and fuel they've used, and a dozen of other things -- for each of the sites where temperature measures were taken -- and there would still be a considerable margin of error.  They would need dozens if not hundreds of such special adjustment programs taking into account known "urban warming" sources like building size, ship size and engine properties, reflectiveness of the roofing, road construction and traffic, local landscaping, etc, etc, etc.  And those are just the known variables...  Maybe you'll end up adjusting for 99 categories of things that offset the averages by a thousandth of a degree, and miss the 100th thing that offsets by a whole degree!

What you cannot measure is human attention to detail, but it is rather obvious that it has changed over the past decades.  As stated above, weather stations were never intended to provide a climatic record.


And again, uncertainty =/= bias. To argue that every temperature dataset is biased toward a recent warming you have to insert fantastical claims about every thermometer in the 1950s being off in the same direction...

I think I may be using the word "bias" in a broader sense than you are.  The change in measuring equipment, human cultural attitudes, and the local environment around the thermometer (aka "urban warming") all constitute forms of bias.  Are you really going to dispute that we have more asphalt on the ground, more houses, more cars / planes / trains / automobiles, higher per-capita energy consumption, and more powerful navy ship engines than we did in the 1950s?!  All of those things retain or generate heat that isn't caused by greenhouse gases, and is by no means global.


It's interesting that the further to the right you are on the ideological spectrum, the better a scientist you become...

What I observe is a correlation between the belief in a one-dimensional "ideological spectrum" and the belief in AGW.  Both involve simplifying your view of reality until it fits your preconceived notions.


---


As an aside...  You know, I almost hope that the temperature data shows an on-going, global, and verifiable warming trend.  This would move the debate to point #2, proving that it's anthropogenic - it's a lot more fun to argue cosmology than human error trends.  And other points are more interesting still.   ;)
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 11:58:43 am by Alex Libman »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Up