I was referring to this one A.C.
The one who made up the hockey stick that the IPCC used (peer reviewed don't you know) and who refuses to release his data. Real science there.
Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann
@Mainelion: Ah, I see.
From what I gather (and honestly, when lawyers get involved I generally tune out unless it's a matter of actual public policy), he refused to release his methodology (probably at the insistence of his attorney, because that's what they usually are like). The data he used were existing publicly available data sets (you can usually get data from any climate scientist by just emailing them).
Of course, what's relevant when you are generating a blended data set is the methodology, so of course I don't agree with Mann.
That being said, the hockey stick graph was never really something that was a convincing fact for me - what was convincing is the radiative transfer physics.
(As a general rule I think any time you are mixing data sets that's a bad thing, precisely because there is so much room for interpretation in the blending process. Why not just show each independent data set and leave the readers to interpret the data for themselves? Why do we have to try to dumb down everything?)
1. After presenting the following positions in previous posts (see below):
"As I've stated many times before, the science behind man made CO2 warming is pretty solid. There will always be people who don't believe in it -….."
" That being said, the question, "what happens when shit gets hotter?" is a less investigated question. I would think that we would want to dig into that question in greater detail, as how warming affects us compared to Europe/Russia/China is a pretty important question." " But until people acknowledge that warming is real, I don't see how we're going to get there." "I would first just like you to accept that we are warming the climate because of man-made CO2 and CH4 emissions.""Specifically what kind of scientific proof would you need to see to get you to believe the Earth is warming?"
"What studies would you need to see published that would change your mind? What kinds of things measured would you need to see before you decided that it was real?"
"It follows that there will be a temperature increase. ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THIS."
2. AC then posts:'
“I'm not trying to "prove global warming" to you guys. If you think that, then you need to read what I'm saying a little more closely, instead of reading what you think I'm saying.”
3. AC is delusional….over and out.
Lol way to take all my statements out of context... have you considered a career in fake alt right news?
Again I ask AC, what would it take for you to admit that climate science is populated, in large part, by people with an agenda who are intent on making the data fit the hypothesis?
They've been cooking the books. Report - CAUTION PDF!!!
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA's GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.
This "paper" (because it's not actually peer reviewed in an actual journal) is ridiculously slanted and mostly just BS.
1) There is no scientific reasoning behind their objection to the adjustments
2) They attempt to use a measurement of extreme events to make a point (both sides tend to do this, it's statistically flawed because the number of degrees of freedom is fewer, so you need a bigger signal to get the same level of statistical significance.)
It's just garbage. Sorry.
Don't you mean blasphemy?
then head of the CRU, Phil Jones in the dump of East Anglia emails…
"HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
"I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted – the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper"
Global warming is a hoax. There is no global warming caused by the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Testimony of Dr. Terry Hughes, retired, from U of Maine:
While much of the debate over climate change surrounds whether or not it is occurring, one glaciologist and retired professor says the real issue is that the topic is being used as a political pawn to siphon money and votes.
Dr. Terry Hughes, in an interview with The College Fix, said researchers want to keep federal funding for climate change alive, and politicians want to earn environmentalist votes, and both predict global pandemonium to that end.Hughes – who worked for 35 years at the Department of Earth Sciences and the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine – said climate cycles overlap with election cycles, which helps politicians “get electoral visibility by pounding the panic drums.”
But what he wants people to understand is that climate change researchers and politicians collude to create fear of a disaster that will never happen.“You will never read or hear any of this from the scientific and political establishments,” he said. “I’m now retired, so I have no scientific career to protect by spreading lies.”
Review of Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data validity:
‘The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data
sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of
their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical
temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and
credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to
conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years
have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting
‘Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for
EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these
Caution, it is 30 pages in length.
“On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding”
‘The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report:’
Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston
Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
“…interrupted interglacial periods…..”
The Climate oscillates between glacial periods….we are between glaciers and Al Gore and Anonymous Coward would have you believe we, insignificant humans, are responsible and should give money to those ‘studying’ global warming.
That is what Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace is trying to tell you in 4.54 minutes.
AC: no scientific reasoning? Did you read the same paper?
I did. They are not objecting to the adjustments because they disagree with the reasoning, they are pointing out that the adjustments are skewed. Same as the last link you (or watcher, I can't remember who) posted.
Everyone knows that those unbiased climate researchers know much better what the temperature was 100 years ago than the guy who actually read the thermometer and recorded the temperature. The data must be tortured until it acquiesces to fit their models.
Trust the data....which data?
Karl, et al.’s 2015 “pause busting” research purported to show, contrary to every temperature dataset in existence at the time, Earth had not experienced an 18-year pause in rising temperatures, claiming instead everyone else’s data had been wrong and temperatures had continued to rise at an alarming rate right along with carbon-dioxide levels. As Bates put it, Karl’s team put their “thumb on the scale” to produce the results they wanted.
Much of the climate science community became suspicious of Karl’s claims over the months after the study was released, when it was discovered in the words of David Rose in the Daily Mail, “[Karl, et al.] took reliable readings from buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards – using readings from seawater intakes on ships that act as weather stations … even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot.” As a result, the ocean temperature dataset used by Karl exaggerated the warming.
Well I look at the folks pushing this and they do not really seemed concerned. Using private jets, multiple homes, cars orchard to take them seriously. Like the healthcare debate, it is all about control.
Hey, nice to see you post. Hope all is well.