Reply With Quote
So you going to take back your slander about only publishing what you call lies?
Bombs : Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution
“The decadal land-surface average temperature using a 10-year moving average of surface temperatures over land. Anomalies are relative to the Jan 1950 – December 1979 mean. The grey band indicates 95% statistical and spatial uncertainty interval.” A Koch-funded reanalysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports finds that “essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
Muller has been a skeptic of climate science, and the single biggest funder of this study is the “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000).” The Kochs are the leading funder of climate disinformation in the world!
It gets better:
Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.
In short, a Koch-funded study has found that the IPCC “consensus” underestimated both the rate of surface warming and how much could be attributed to human emissions!
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...bon-pollution/
So you going to take back your slander about only publishing what you call lies?
Well, had they been there in 1889, they would have seen a melt like this. I'm not sure why the method of observing an event makes the event, itself, any more or less extraordinary.
I'll let you noodle this out, Manny.
The first of the two commentaries linked below seems to be saying is that a recent convert from skepticism (who wasn't really ever a true skeptic) pre-published a paper on temperatures (financed by the evil Koch Brothers, no less) that supports the IPCC's paper that has been beaten up so much and that it is because of his independent findings that he has moved from skeptic to AGCC proponent.
MULLING OVER MULLER
The second, from the same website, seems to direct us to a second website that blows Muller out of the water -- using his own methods.
BREAKING: FROM BEST TO WORST IN LESS THAN A DAY
I have no comment as this obviously isn't my area of expertise but, it sure seems the AGCC crowd crapped in their Post Toasties on this one.
I haven't seen the information Watts put out but right off the bat I am less likely to trust Watts over what BEST did. I don't have time to read it this weekend but I'll comment on it after I read it early this week.
But here, this seems to be the crux of Watt's take down of Muller and the IPCC and, apparently, the NOAA...
Global Warming? Yeah, right
Have a look at this chart. It tells you pretty much all you need to know about the much-anticipated scoop by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?
What it means, in a nuts , is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – the US government body in charge of America's temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it.
There's more...
Comments On The Game Changer New Paper “An Area And Distance Weighted Analysis Of The Impacts Of Station Exposure On The U.S. Historical Climatology Network Temperatures And Temperature Trends” By Watts Et Al 2012
Anthony has led what is a critically important assessment of the issue of station quality. Indeed, this type of analysis should have been performed by Tom Karl and Tom Peterson at NCDC, Jim Hansen at GISS and Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia (and Richard Muller). However, they apparently liked their answers and did not want to test the robustness of their findings.
In direct contradiction to Richard Muller’s BEST study, the new Watts et al 2012 paper has very effectively shown that a substantive warm bias exists even in the mean temperature trends. This type of bias certainly exists throughout the Global Historical Climate Network, as well as what Anthony has do ented for the US Historical Climate Reference Network.
You know what I find exceedingly strange. All these man made
increases in temp can be solved very simply: Raise taxes on the
rich nations.
Of course, there ain't no rich nations anymore. So just raise it on
the Americans, no one likes them anyhow.
I sure am glad I wont be around to smell all the horse manure like they
had to in the 1800's and early 1900's. And all that methane.
You suckers are arguing a mute point anyhow. You note all these
"experts" always put the date that we burn long after we are all dead
and gone.
WTH are you talking about.
WOOHOO let's just make up !!! WOOHOO!!!
Ah, Fuzzy, I have confused you haven't I. Not hard to do. (confuse you)
Now go play with your Lumpkins.
Interesting admission
I think they call it "confirmation bias" in here.
Thanks for bumping the thread. I await Manny's findings.
Manny...
Car to tell us how mach a 0.1% increase in TSI will increase greenhouise gas radiative forcing?
Long-Term Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Variability Trends: 1984-2004
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Muller was never a skeptic,
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...rd-muller.html
"I was never a skeptic" - Richard Muller, 2011
"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants." - Richard Muller, 2008
"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008
"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003
Its definitely a bias but not a conformation bias. First, I'm not dismissing what he's put forth (just now about to read it). If he has good points, then there's no reason not to take it seriously.
That being said, Watts does not have an excellent track record regarding his publications and his research. THAT is why I'm hesitant to to take his work at face value (although, to be fair - NO science should be taken at face value and all should be scrutinized no matter the study author).
I also don't like what he did here. He released the information likely simply because the BEST publications are now coming out of the peer review process. This is an incomplete paper that has not been vetted by fellow scientists and yet it will get a fair amount of press. This is the exact type of media sensationalism I deplore when it comes to scientific issues.
Anyway, I'm reading it now.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/2...-2/#more-68286
This pre-publication draft paper, led An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication.
The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American’s Michael Lemonick in “Science Talk”, said:
I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed “preprints” of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees.
I dare you to go back and find a place where I advocated BEST doing it as well. In fact, you should be laughing at Watts since I'm 99% sure he was upset when they released their papers early and said as much and now he's doing the same.
Laugh away.
Yup
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...ics/?ref=earthMr. Watts, a former television meteorologist, contended that the study’s methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness.
I guess whats good for the goose and all that but its still a poor practice. Also very ironic considering there are quite a few grammar mistakes in this draft. I guess he really was just trying to emulate Mueller.
So, here's what I got from it. The paper I read didn't have any of the figures which really sucks since thats where you get a good deal of the data but I don't think it matters too much to what I'm going to say. Now, I'm not a statistician by any stretch of the imagination and much of what is in that paper yells out for just that but anyway.
-Watts doesn't dispute its warming but he disputes that the US has warmed about half of what NOAA claims it has. This study doesn't attempt to say the earth is not warming or disprove AGW but it has issues with with the way temperature is gathered here in the United States.
-Watts claims his method proves that the placement of surface stations is having a large and noticeableeffect on the temperature record here in the United States because his statistical sampling methods show that it is. The main problem is that every other major look at these stations has said the opposite. BEST said that. A study Watts himself was involved with within the past 2 years also came to that conclusion. This has been a focus of his for some time now.
-Watts points to flaws in the statistical methods used by NOAA but he doesn't expand on it at all. He pulls a quote from a recent study which basically points out the data processing methods used by NOAA are not perfect. Well, duh? But he goes no further in proving or stating how or why his method is better than the ones currently in use. This is the big problem with the paper, IMO. If you're going to say that the conclusion that everyone has come to before you is wrong, then you definitely need to logically lay out the argument as to WHY that is the case and I believe the paper fails miserably in this dept. Simply pointing to a quote from a previous paper and saying "they aren't perfect so this method is better" is not going to cut it at all.
I don't know enough about the methods being used here and their flaws in order to say why NOAA has a better method than Watts or why Watts has a better method than NOAA so I have to defer to what has been discussed within the literature. My analysis of the paper is extremely superficial and I may be missing something, but I don't think Watts makes a case for choosing his method over the previous methods other than it comes to the conclusion that he has been seeking since starting surfacestations.org.
If anyone has any professional commentary on the paper I would be interested in reading it.
Uh-huh I'm just so confused.
Climate scientists only want to tax 'rich countries.' There are no more 'rich countries. I sure am glad I wont be around to smell all the horse manure like they had to in the 1800's and early 1900's. And all that methane.
Evolutionists narrowmindedly and dogmatically accept evolution without questioning it. Atheists want to crucify Christians and burn them in their homes. Everyone knows scientists use complex terminology to make it harder for christians to refute them.
It's the same stupid 'logic' you see from christian literalists. I was just considering the source.
Shall we look at per capita income per nation? How about GDP?
You're right there is no difference between the US and Haiti. There is no difference between China and North Korea. There is no difference between Germany and Greece. There is no difference between South Africa and Swaziland.
Of and you are right a carbon tax is going to send us right back to horse drawn carriages.
Making up is fun!
It's nice to see apsie and Darrin are back to the there is no warming argument.
You're an idiot.
So Manny once again, avoids a post of mine that shows AGW isn't as strong as claimed.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
