APP - Expert Credibility in Climate Research

[tinfoil]

You know what's funny, Cypress points out exactly what the uathors wanted him to see. what cypress doesn't seem to understand is these guys are using the methods Mann et al have used and now they're forcing them to show the methods were flawed.

It's the point of this paper. It doesn't directly attack Mann's work, but it show that Santer's methods do not and can not be used in the way the warmers used them.

hilarious that you don't understand what you're looking at

 

[tinfoil]

Another study that refutes climate models and their predictions.

Here's the study
http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

BY BLAKELEY B. MCSHANE∗ AND ABRAHAM J. WYNER†
Northwestern University∗ and the University of Pennsylvania†
Predicting historic temperatures based on tree rings, ice cores, and
other natural proxies is a difficult endeavor. The relationship between
proxies and temperature is weak and the number of proxies is far
larger than the number of target data points. Furthermore, the data
contain complex spatial and temporal dependence structures which
are not easily captured with simple models.
In this paper, we assess the reliability of such reconstructions and
their statistical significance against various null models. We find that
the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random
series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various
model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature
produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the
proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in
temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout
blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena
if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.
We propose our own reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere average
annual land temperature over the last millenium, assess its reliability,
and compare it to those from the climate science literature. Our
model provides a similar reconstruction but has much wider standard
errors, reflecting the weak signal and large uncertainty encountered
in this setting.


Suck it, warmers. Go learn some statistics

 

[Minister of Truth]

God, I love the APP!!

 

[Cypress]

Another study that refutes climate models and their predictions.

Here's the study
http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

BY BLAKELEY B. MCSHANE∗ AND ABRAHAM J. WYNER†
Northwestern University∗ and the University of Pennsylvania†
Predicting historic temperatures based on tree rings, ice cores, and
other natural proxies is a difficult endeavor. The relationship between
proxies and temperature is weak and the number of proxies is far
larger than the number of target data points. Furthermore, the data
contain complex spatial and temporal dependence structures which
are not easily captured with simple models.
In this paper, we assess the reliability of such reconstructions and
their statistical significance against various null models. We find that
the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random
series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various
model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature
produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the
proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in
temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout
blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena
if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.
We propose our own reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere average
annual land temperature over the last millenium, assess its reliability,
and compare it to those from the climate science literature. Our
model provides a similar reconstruction but has much wider standard
errors, reflecting the weak signal and large uncertainty encountered
in this setting.


Suck it, warmers. Go learn some statistics

Dance Monkey!!! I love how I've owned you so badly, and stressed you out so much that you're spending your weekends googling for stuff to try to redeem yourself from the "Climate Gate!" embarrassment. Hilarious!

OMG!!!! You found an article written by to business professors, who actually do research on business statistics, and who don’t have any professional relationship with climate research. If they want to get into climate research, these business professors should collaborate with climate scientists who know and understand the data better than they do.

Hate to break your heart bro, but this article does nothing to debunk global warming. Its an attempt to suggest better statistical methods for paleo-reconstructions, and to document uncertainties in paleo-data.

But your OWN article says their paleo-reconstructions are broadly similar to the one published in IPCC, albeit with wider levels of uncertainties...and that there has been an upward trend, or climate shift in the last century.

Further and more importantly, your article not only doesn’t dispute human-caused global warming, it explicitly states that the evidence for human-cause gobal warming is based on multiple lines of evidence, not just on proxy-reconstructions. In other words, that is an explicit admission by the authors that their paper only examines a small component of statistical uncertainty in one method, but does not address – or debunk – the wider science of climate change. If their statistical methods have any merit, they should be able to convince the scientific community of their utility, and they will be employed. Otherwise, this paper is just going to end up being obscure publication that has no impact or importance in science.

You have spent a message board career yucking it up that Climate science is a hoax, full of lies and fraud, and that climate change and global warming are bogus. Are you really backtracking so far away from that, as to know pretend that you only have some innocent questions about some benign statistical uncertainties with just one line of evidence for human-cause climate change? Bro, that’s freaking hilarious. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such blatantly transparent backtracking on this board. Too embarrassed about “Climate Gate” to bring that up anymore?

Tinfoils Article:

“We propose our own reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere aver-
Age annual land temperature over the last millenium, assess its relia-
bility, and compare it to those from the climate science literature. Our model provides a similar reconstruction but has much wider standard errors, reflecting the weak signal and large uncertainty encountered in this setting…..Nonetheless, paleoclimatoligical reconstructions constitute only one source of evidence in the AGW debate.

I hate to say this, because it might cause an emotional meltdown, but the science of climate change is not going to be debunked by an article by two business statistics professors. They don’t even claim their own article debunks human caused climate change, as they explicitly state AGW is based on multiple lines of evidence beyond the mere proxy reconstructions. The science of human cause climate change is very strong and very robust. When the 2013 International Assessement comes out and confirms this, are you really going to be comfortable continuing to scream that its packed full of lies, errors, and fraud? You are getting crazier and crazier, man. But it makes for great comedy!



EDIT:

Tinfoil, your OWN article concedes that the evidence for human-caused global warming is based on the instrumental record, and on basic physical and thermodynamic sciences, which show that human contributions of CO2 force the temperature higher. …completely independent of paleo-reconstructions.

I routinely asked you for a body of peer reviewed work that debunks human-caused climate change, to support your guesses and yelps. You didn’t deliver, in fact you completely failed.

Wanna try again? I don’t think a couple of Business School professors are going to cut it. Your own authors concede on the science of human induced climate change.

Tinfoils Own Article:

"The principal sources of evidence for the detection of global warming and in particular the attribution of it to anthropogenic factors come from basic science as well as General Circulation Models (GCMs) that have been fitted to data accumulated during the instrumental period (IPCC,2007). These models show that carbon dioxide, when released into the atmosphere in suffcient concentration, can force temperature increases."

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I've already told you I reject your list of questions and demands, seeing as how you got them from rightwing websites which have misinformed you.

this makes no sense...it doesn't matter the source of the questions...total and complete wuss out and the questions are good questions. if you're going to have a theory, you can't be afraid to answery any question, it shows you do not have confidence in your assertions.

 

[tinfoil]

Cypress doesn't understand that climate scientists utilize statistics in their analysis and that climate data is just the work of other scientists. Mann, Jones, Hansen et al, simply use other peoples' works and apply statistical analysis. there is no "science" in climate science. It's stats!!
Now learn what the issue is about.

I do not refute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, only that the models have given the greenhouse effect too much weight and that's why the models suck.

 

[Cypress]

Cypress doesn't understand that climate scientists utilize statistics in their analysis and that climate data is just the work of other scientists. Mann, Jones, Hansen et al, simply use other peoples' works and apply statistical analysis. there is no "science" in climate science. It's stats!!
Now learn what the issue is about.

I do not refute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, only that the models have given the greenhouse effect too much weight and that's why the models suck.

Your OWN paper states....

"....our model gives an 80% chance that (the last decade) was the warmest in the past thousand years."

You own paper reports that there's a very high probability that the last decade was the hottest in the last millenium. Your own paper also reproduces a hockey stick for temperature reconstructions, albeit with a higher MWP temps and a higher error bar. In short, it reproduces and validates the hockey stick, and concludes that the last decade is very likely the hottest of the millenium. Your OWN paper goes on to state and concede the the evidence for human-caused climate change is supported by multiple lines of evidence independent of and beyond the proxy temperature record. Squabbling about statistical methods, doesn't change those core facts.

TINFOIL: "I do not refute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, only that the models have given the greenhouse effect too much weight and that's why the models suck."

This is a FAR CRY; light-years away, from your previous assertions that climate scientists are lying, faking data, misleading the public; that the earth isn't warming, and/or that the warming is all natural.

Care to explain why you've backtracked so far away from your original, hilarious assertions, and why now you have embraced a paper that concludes with high confidence that the last decade is the hottest in the last thousand years?


P.S. Your paper is also the draft unpublished version. It hasn't been finalized. We will see what else it says, once the final version is published.

Tinfoil, I have no choice but to dismiss your flailing as another hilarious failed attempt by you to provide anything substantive to back up your assertions and yelps that a global conspiracy of climate scientists are “lying and faking data!”, and that the Earth's warming trend is just a result of "natural variability".

After, what, several years(?), sadly the science deniers have still failed to deliver any body of peer reviewed work, or statements from reputable international science organizations to support your conjectures and denials.


But, feel free to take the Climate Gate challenge anytime! I can wait another year if I have too!

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=663778&postcount=3


Also, if you can peel yourself away from the rightwing ClimateFraudit blog, feel free to take a gander at this vast, gi-normous, and humongous list and citations of scientific sources from the world’s top experts and scientific organizations….

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683374&postcount=1


UPDATE
*****************************************************************************

Open Letter from 250 Members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

250 Members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences: The Scientific Evidence of Human-caused Climate Change is so Strong, it is now on a Par with the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, and the Geologic Age of the Earth…

Assaults on Climate Science by Science-Deniers is “based on dogma and special interests and dishonesty” according to the members of the NAS; …..and perhaps, in my view, just a mere crippling emotional incapacity to avoid admitting they were wrong, and save face.

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

WE ARE DEEPLY DISTURBED BY THE RECENT ESCALATION OF POLITICAL ASSAULTS ON SCIENTISTS in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientificc facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to fi nd and correct them.

This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientifi c consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our
atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due
to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices:

We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively….

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/328/5979/689.pdf

 

[Cypress]

All debunking and comedy aside, I strongly support the right of climate science skeptics deniers to routinely and frequently shift goal posts and bounce all over the map. Its more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

A Brief Trip Through Global warming denialism….

it isn’t happening!
We’re cooling!
It’s natural!
Humans don’t cause it!
It’s the Sun!
Maybe humans cause a little of it, but there’s nothing we can do!
Climate researchers are conspiring to lie, fake data, and mislead!
CO2 isn’t causing it!
It’s a global conspiracy of lying, liberal scientists!
It’s cosmic radiation!
Actually, I don’t deny human impact on climate, I only have some innocent questions about the models and proxy data!

Ode to the Climate Science Denier Skeptic...

Rarely in the history of science (perhaps only previously achieved by the tobacco company “scientists” and the Creationism “scientists) have a group cyberspace armchair scientists been able to so rapidly produce a vast array of self-contradictory impressive scientific guesses theories, in such a short span of time. Theories that are amazingly concocted well researched forays into bullshit scientific inquiry. Theories and conjectures that, amazingly, require no body of peer-reviewed research or legitimate scientific consensus. This accomplishment is not only noteworthy, but virtually unparalleled in the history of legitimate science. Clearly, the evidence of awesomeness speaks for itself.

Truly, we are standing in the presence of arm chair experts scientific giants.