Scientific Fraud

[bcollins]

Well NOAA did get caught fudging data before, although when that data supported the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" position not many of your fellow scientists called them out on that....I mean really why would they there's grant money to be had and one never wants to look like a "denier" when in the scientific community now do they?

I've already tried to explain to you that grant money isn't like winning the lottery, as you seem to believe. At most, an academic scientist can receive up to two month's salary as compensation from a grant - which barely covers the time and effort it takes to write a proposal. See previous link to the NSF grant policies and guidelines as an example.

The reason most scientists in the community don't want to be seen as a "denier" is that the evidence doesn't support that position - no matter what the blogs, media outlets, and skeptic websites want to purport. The scientists are much more informed than any of these people, but unfortunately, these people believe their opinions are more convincing than scientific reason.

This is another reason I want you to do the analysis yourself. I don't think you will see the results you tout as true.


His research...yes scoff at it if you will....but it made NOAA change up their hottest years and months. Mr. Watts found that several weather stations are NOT reporting data and NOAA was estimating temperatures for those stations....not certain you'd call that good data to base any kind of model on.

Well...I'd say that's overstating the case quite a bit. He did find issues with some stations, true enough. But again - as is the case with most skeptics - it is making a mountain out of a molehill. Is it reasonable to expect perfection with every aspect of scientific investigation? Absolutely not. Do scientists expect a certain amount of inaccuracies and incorporate a margin of error into all computations? Absolutely. Do a certain amount af inaccuracies imply that the whole data set should be considered "bad", as you put it? I don't think so, the experts at NOAA don't think so, and the science of statistics doesn't think so.

The effect of the bias introduced into the data was statistically insignificant, as clearly demonstrated by real climate professionals - you know, who actually finished an undergraduate degree and went on to earn PhDs, unlike a certain climate skeptic:

On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record - Menne - 2010 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library

Watts is not an expert, nor should he be treated as one. I don't hate the guy at all - I think he's a joke. I've read quite a bit of the material on his blog, and it is honestly funny. He likes to discuss his research and findings - most of which have never been published or even submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal. The papers he has worked on have been roundly rejected by the climatology community as a whole (e.g., the previous link). If this is the best you can do, then I really understand why you have a hard time understanding science. Some guy with about one-third the credentials needed to perform high level scientific research is not a respectable source of scientific information.

Would you go to someone who hasn't even started medical school for serious medical help? This is about where this guy ranks.

Again even the "Don of Global Warming" Dr. Revell had his doubts about how much CO2 affected the climate.

Much of this ballyhoo was due to remarks made by Dr. Revell taken completely out of context. His daughter published a rebuttal to this claim in the Washington Post, September 13, 1992:

Carolyn Revelle, What My Father Really Said — OSS Foundation

(This link is a transcript of that article - you can check its veracity at the Washington Post archives.)

NOAA has admitted to a very long pause in warming

Ok. Once again, this is misleading. The article you posted

Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? | NOAA Climate.gov

addresses surface temperatures specifically. This does not provide the entire picture of global warming - the experts also consider atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures as well. If you examine the NOAA's FAQ section, the NOAA's position on the question

"Didn't the globe stop warming after 1998, a period when human activities emitted more carbon dioxide than in any other period in human history? And, if so, doesn't this mean climate is not as sensitive to carbon dioxide as previously thought?"

is clearly answered with:

"No, the globe did not stop warming after 1998. While 1998 was one of the ten warmest years on record, the other nine warmest years have all occurred after 1998.[2] It's important to remember that, even during global warming periods, every year won't be warmer than the year before, and there may even be several years in a row of cooler average temperatures. That's why it's more reliable to look at changes between 5-year and 10-year blocks of time over a span of decades before drawing conclusions about climate sensitivity.
It's true that humans have released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from 1998 to 2012 than in any other 15-year period in history, and it's true there was a slowdown in the rate of global warming during that time. Most of the excess heat (>80%) from global warming has been going into the ocean.[17] The point is global warming didn't stop over the last decade; most of the warming happened in the ocean rather than in the lower atmosphere.
Scientists are always reassessing their estimates of climate sensitivity based on observed changes in temperature and ocean heat content. It's too early to conclude that the climate system isn't as sensitive to carbon dioxide as scientists thought, though that possibility is being actively researched."

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions | NOAA Climate.gov

But if we're already doomed (and from what most alarmists say we are)...

Once again, this language is the work of skeptics to denounce the reality of what the experts are really saying.

IF we do not take action to reverse current trends, THEN there is a potential for catastrophic consequences. We still have not reached a point where it is too late to stop the warming trend.

...then don't tax the shit out of me for no reason, don't tell me what car I can drive, and don't make life in general more difficult and more expensive.

This is the bottom line, right here. Don't mess up my comforts. Don't make my life difficult. Don't take any actions that might cut into my profit margins.

God forbid we care about anyone other than ourselves.

[bcollins]

Humans are responsible for 3.5% of CO2 emissions which make up a smidgen of the 0.03-0.04% of CO2 that makes up a teeny tiny little speck of the Earth's climate....so again what is the end game here? Do you guys want humans to produce 0% of the CO2 emissions That would mean everyone would have to stop exhaling or do we want to cut that CO2 emission level down to a "reasonable level" which begs the question "What's a reasonable level"? 3.0% 2.5%? 2.0%?

You keep using these percentages of CO2 as if they are insignificant. By doing so, you are again revealing how little you understand about science.This "teeny little speck" is quite significant. Our planet and its atmosphere represent one of the most complex dynamical systems in existence. The very fact that we are able to breathe, exist, and have this discussion is due to a very delicate balance. Dynamic systems IS my area of specialty, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that even the tiniest adjustment to a system parameter can have drastic ramifications for the behavior of the system as a whole.

I've done a lot of work on tumor modeling, with interactions between chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and the body's immune system. By barely tweaking a single parameter by a fraction of a percent, simulations vary from complete remission to rapid death. Our planet's system is MUCH, MUCH more complex - so saying something like "teeny little speck" reflects that you simply do not understand how fragile the equilibrium that enables existence is. It certainly is worth a little discomfort on your end to preserve it.

And then allow me to ask...since you are a man of science and you know the dangers waiting for man in the very near future due to this unholy Anthropogenic Global Warming...what prey tell does YOUR carbon footprint look like? Shrank that down have you? Knowing what you know, surely you must have....I mean if not we're all doomed.

I'm trying. My wife and I drive a Prius, I almost always take public transportation to school, and I walk everywhere possible. We recycle, try to use as little electricity as possible, and in general do the best we can. I would be willing to sacrifice much more if it ensured the continued existence of the species.

I understand that it is difficult to ask people to give up comforts. I understand that the process of curbing emissions is potentially damaging to the economy. But honestly, I don't buy into the economy as the be all end all of existence. I think that its inherent value to the worth of our nation has been dramatically overstated by those who manipulate the system to accumulate wealth.

If economic strength is bought only at the cost of destroying the quality of life for the people of the earth, then what the hell is the point? Is it just a matter of "I'm American, so I've got mine - to hell with the rest of you?" We are all on the same planet. If we don't get our shit together, we are going to render this planet uninhabitable by human life. Then all this blather doesn't really matter anyway.

But why take the chance? Oh that's right. Your all-important "comfort."

[bcollins]

And I still want to see your argument to support your claim.

[El Kabong]

The percentages ARE insignificant when compared to how much CO2 is naturally pumped into the atmosphere.

According to CO2now.org as of 2010 humans emitted 36.7 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Which wow...that seems like a whole lot of CO2 coming from humans until you understand that's only 3.5% of what is naturally going into the atmosphere already which is (correct me if my math is wrong, I know you will) 1011.87 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2. In total 1048.57 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2 is 0.003 to 0.004% of our atmosphere. Meaning our atmosphere has 34952333.33 to 26214250 Billion Metric Tonnes of other gases in the atmosphere (using their percentages and numbers to calculate).

There's kind of a reason the graph of Earth's atmosphere goes from Nitrogen to Oxygen to Argon to TRACE gases. Trace - noun: a very small quantity, especially one too small to be accurately measured

But CO2 a "trace" gas in the Earth's atmosphere is going to destroy us all rather than the regular natural ups and downs of Earth's climate which has had this very planet see unreasonable warm and unbearably cold temperatures well before anyone had ever even thought of the SUV.


But I digress, you're the man with the knowledge, you're the scientist, so I reckon we're all doomed to be burned and or frozen to death from our unholy excesses which have angered our Mother Earth.

[bcollins]

The percentages ARE insignificant when compared to how much CO2 is naturally pumped into the atmosphere.

According to CO2now.org as of 2010 humans emitted 36.7 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Which wow...that seems like a whole lot of CO2 coming from humans until you understand that's only 3.5% of what is naturally going into the atmosphere already which is (correct me if my math is wrong, I know you will) 1011.87 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2. In total 1048.57 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2 is 0.003 to 0.004% of our atmosphere. Meaning our atmosphere has 34952333.33 to 26214250 Billion Metric Tonnes of other gases in the atmosphere (using their percentages and numbers to calculate).

There's kind of a reason the graph of Earth's atmosphere goes from Nitrogen to Oxygen to Argon to TRACE gases. Trace - noun: a very small quantity, especially one too small to be accurately measured

But CO2 a "trace" gas in the Earth's atmosphere is going to destroy us all rather than the regular natural ups and downs of Earth's climate which has had this very planet see unreasonable warm and unbearably cold temperatures well before anyone had ever even thought of the SUV.


But I digress, you're the man with the knowledge, you're the scientist, so I reckon we're all doomed to be burned and or frozen to death from our unholy excesses which have angered our Mother Earth.

I know what a trace is - I mean really. I also understand that what seems like a completely miniscule amount can make all the difference in the world, which is a concept you seem to have trouble grasping. It's cracking me up how you're showing your lack of understanding of, well, just about everything to do with this topic. But I guess that's because you lack a solid scientific background.

This is one of the reasons I'm happy to be able to teach people to think for themselves and develop solid logical skills. It seems like it is a skill that is underdeveloped in a lot of our citizens.

[El Kabong]

And I still want to see your argument to support your claim.

You'll be waiting for my own personal data for a while chief...but I could just throw random numbers out there and it would be just as wrong as all these disaster predicting computer models.

Here I was thinking that you knew propaganda when you saw it....seems you only recognize it when you want to

[bcollins]

And I still want to see your argument to support your claim.

You'll be waiting for my own personal data for a while chief...but I could just throw random numbers out there and it would be just as wrong as all these disaster predicting computer models.

Here I was thinking that you knew propaganda when you saw it....seems you only recognize it when you want to

That's where you are monumentally incorrect. Throwing out random numbers is the equivalent of the science being bandied about on a lot of the websites you frequent. Mathematical modeling is a very precise science. A good modeler is acutely aware of the limitations of the model, all simplifying assumptions being taken into account, etc. We perform rigorous sensitivity analysis on all parameters (to see if that miniscule "trace" you like to babble about actually matters or not). The modeling techniques of this decade are already light years ahead of what were used last decade - and it will be the same for the next decade. The models are only getting more and more accurate.

But you just go ahead and discount the countless hours put in by people whose IQ is higher than your body weight.

Here I was thinking that you knew propaganda when you saw it....seems you only recognize it when you want to

Propaganda can be tricky to recognize. But that's the nice thing about science, if you have a modicum of understanding about it: it speaks for itself. That's why I wanted you to do your own analysis, in order to see what the data tells you.

That's the difference between you and me here. I can distinguish between good science and bad science to a much greater degree than you (thank God). I can also determine for myself when someone is presenting bad science in a purposefully misleading way. This is propaganda, and the fact that you can't see it is very understandable. You can't even do simple high school level data analysis.

Oh, but of course you are qualified to judge the correctness of an entire professional scientific community.

[El Kabong]

If it's so precise then why have they not been accurate? IE all these scientists are shocked and amazed that the warming trend had not continued in decades (as shown by the aforementioned link to NOAA admitting such)....why were they caught so off guard...I mean IF those models are so accurate that is

[VictorCharlie]

I listened to the audio and I wouldn't say that was a misrepresentation at all. It sounded more like a man moving goal posts. Anyway, naturally the trend is upward just as it has since the end of the last ice age and just as it did after every ice age. That being said if we aren't in at least a much slower state of global warming then why are researchers such as David Pierce and Kevin Trenberth then providing studies as to why we have seen a large departure from climate models? Splitting hairs over surface temperature and holistic warming seems pedantic. We have not experienced the climate changes and corresponding secondary/tertiary effects that were predicted at the beginning of the century. This by no means damns the science or scientists but it does suggest a great deal of further research is necessary before using this science to make/change public policy.

[bcollins]

I listened to the audio and I wouldn't say that was a misrepresentation at all. It sounded more like a man moving goal posts.

You attributed the following quote to Dr. Hansen:

"The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade"

In the audio clip, he clearly states that the average rate of warming has slowed from 0.2ºC in the decade before last to 0.1ºC in the past decade. This statement is in direct contradiction to the quote. Flat and increasing are not the same thing. A man moving goal posts? Listen to more video of his comments on YouTube. His statements haven't wavered in years. Sounds like he's pretty consistently agreeing with what the scientific results show.

Anyway, naturally the trend is upward just as it has since the end of the last ice age and just as it did after every ice age. That being said if we aren't in at least a much slower state of global warming then why are researchers such as David Pierce and Kevin Trenberth then providing studies as to why we have seen a large departure from climate models? Splitting hairs over surface temperature and holistic warming seems pedantic.

There are so many misconceptions about this topic. It's almost as if there is an active effort to encourage scientific misrepresentation.

I can't say why David Pierce and Kevin Trenberth are claiming there has been a large departure from climate models - when I get a chance, I'll look at their research and see what they are saying in particular. Are they considering models that only track surface temperatures? This is another misconception that seems to perpetrate itself: the sum total of global warming can be measured by surface temperature trends.

This is obviously silly. To keep track of global warming, it is imperative to also consider atmospheric and oceanic temperatures in conjunction with surface data. It is also important to realize how these models work. The models must account for some variability, seeing as how we are considering an immensely complex, nonlinear dynamical system. I read a paper a few days ago that predicted the current warming slowdown in its model - I'll see if I can find it again and post a link. This slowdown is by no means a "model-breaker" as skeptics claim. The current rate of warming falls easily within bounds of variation.

We have not experienced the climate changes and corresponding secondary/tertiary effects that were predicted at the beginning of the century. This by no means damns the science or scientists but it does suggest a great deal of further research is necessary before using this science to make/change public policy

We have already established that there are an immense number of variables that play into this dynamic system. Of course it is complex! But to imply that this fact means scientists are unable to identify and predict global climate patterns with a large degree of confidence is just plain wrong.

Why haven't the drastic changes occurred yet? There are a lot of hypotheses for this, but one logical claim is the effect of La Niña conditions that have been in place for some time now. This could account for the slowdown in the surface and lower atmosphere warming. However, ocean temperatures have continued rising unabated.

The problem with waiting to make any policy changes is apparent: what if the science is correct? We could end up with a much greater loss in this scenario. Why not make some modest efforts now, just in case? If the trends worsen, then we can make stronger efforts. If the trends ease up, then we can lessen restrictions. Instead, as usual, people go for the all or nothing approach.

I personally don't understand why it's so difficult for people to believe that man-made global warming is possible. I don't think it's solely due to CO2, as Lyle wants to continually attack. But that, in combination with all the other ungodly chemicals we spray into the atmosphere - seems like a reasonable belief that these things could easily have a dramatic effect on our delicate atmosphere.

Or not. It isn't like the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe they have sufficient evidence to make this claim. Let's just gamble with it, see where it goes.