Warming, Measurements and Science Stuffs

So, they never got any grants to do that work, right? Because that would make them corrupt, according to you. Have you examined their data? How do you know it isn't falsified?

Good that you admit Christy's credentials are impeachable, though. Saves me from having to look him up again.

I'm totally in favor of the scientists winning and the politicians taking their cues from the scientists. However, Spencer and Christy are not the only scientists in the world, merely nearly the only ones that agree with your politics.

barfo

 

Maybe you might look at what their data set is and who uses it, and how it's been corrected over time.

I have no idea what their politics are.

Maybe the guys getting grants should be administrators instead of guys writing papers and doing the pro quo thing for their politician benefactors.

 

I'll leave it to the specialists in the field to do that. I'm not that interested.

Ok, that's got to be the most implausible claim ever made on S2. The only reason you've ever even heard of those guys is their politics! You gave me a link to a wiki page that mostly talks about Spencer's politics. I guess you averted your eyes when you looked it up for me?

barfo

 

They may have voted for Obama for all I know. I'm not interested in their politics, but rather the best science can do. The "consensus" thing is by nature a political thing. You know like a vote or election.

 

I'm all in favor of scientists making money. Good for them. It's when they take $50M in grants from the government and politicians direct that $50M to them that science is questionable.

 

Christy's testimony before congress in 2012.

In case you're wondering...

1) Here's a second scientific analysis of those 37 CMIP5 computer models that agrees with the first.

2) I am expert enough about computer modeling to see he's 100% spot on. It has nothing to do with politics, but truth.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...20/HHRG-112-IF03-WState-ChristyJ-20120920.pdf

2. RECENT CLIMATE MODEL SIMULATIONS

One of the key questions policymakers ask is what will happen with the Earth’s weather in the decades to come. More importantly, they want to know how things might change specifically for their constituents. One pathway to seek answers is to examine the output of climate models that attempt to predict likely outcomes. If one has confidence in the model projections that terrible weather is on the horizon, then it is tempting to devise policy that the same models say would indicate would somehow mitigate that problem.

In Figure 2.1 below, I display the results from 38 of the latest climate model simulations of global temperature that will be used in the upcoming IPCC AR5 assessment on climate change (KNMI Climate Explorer). All of the data are given a reference of 1979-1983, i.e. the same starting line. Along with these individual model runs I show their average (thick black line) and the results from observations (symbols). The two satellite-based results (circles, UAH and RSS) have been proportionally adjusted so they represent surface variations for an apples-to-apples comparison. The evidence indicates the models on average are over-warming the planet by quite a bit, implying there should be little confidence that the models can answer the question asked by policymakers. Basing policy on the circles (i.e. real data) seems more prudent than basing policy on the thick line of model output. Policies based on the circles would include adaptation to extreme events that will happen because they’ve happened before (noted above and below) and since the underlying trend is relatively small.

 

Maybe you aren't interested in the very narrow sense of who they voted for, but you are totally their fanboi because of their politics. I note that your next post is about Christy's congressional testimony, not a scientific talk he gave at the last conference.

And statistically, a creationist like Spencer probably didn't vote for Obama.

barfo

 

I'm interested in the truth. I know computer modeling isn't reliable and they say it is unreliable. The ones who say it is reliable and forecast the apocalypse are ones I find hard to believe.

These are the guys that gather the data and are experts in what the data means. They look at their own data and don't see apocalypse. What "politics" do they care about? What's their agenda, cheaper energy? Neither one of these two take $.01 from the petroleum industry, so you can't play that card against them.

 

I won't argue your credentials in computer modeling, but you are (a) wrong when you say it isn't reliable (it depends upon the problem and the model); and (b) clearly biased.

They are two such guys. There are many other such guys who disagree with them.

Their political agenda is, at a minimum, self-promotion. You can't claim a guy who writes a book titled "Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor" is non-political.

barfo

 

If computer models were accurate, they wouldn't actually crash test cars. Modeling a car accident is way less complex than modeling the planet. The computer model wouldn't satisfy anyone about the safety of the vehicles.

The models are studied, and compared with actual results. If the models are 400% higher than actual and people tout them as reason the apocalypse is on us (rather, take some anti capitalist social action that otherwise isn't justified)... I say there's the real bias. Be the denier.

The book is warning that politics driven science leads to bad science. Golly gee, the honest scientist wants good science. You want something else?

 

Ego has nothing to do with the truth. It's as obvious as the lights going out when you turn off the switch. The technology is what it is, no matter how you want it to be otherwise.

 

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warming-593355-global-temperature.html

Mark Landsbaum: Climate alarmists' search for proof going cold

Even China’s coal-burning is offered to explain lack of global warming.

Recall global warming hysteria’s halcyon days? Just 13 years ago, Dr. David Viner, senior scientist at Britain’s University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit, confidently predicted that, within a few years, winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.”

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Of course, that doesn’t mesh with what happened. This past October, the UK Express headlined, “Worst winter for decades: Record-breaking snow predicted for November.”

By the end of November, Brits were shivering, “as Britain faces snow, ice and plummeting temperatures,” reported the Mirror newspaper. “Most of Scotland has been issued severe weather warnings for ice, and temperatures are expected to remain low, causing problems with snow and ice across the country.” Winter yet lay ahead.

We shouldn’t pick on Great Britain. There is plenty of global warming foolishness here at home. Recall James Hansen, global warming guru whose alarmist campaign was underwritten by his NASA paycheck. By the 2020s, Hansen predicted in 1986, the U.S. average annual temperature would rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit, or more, and up to 3 degrees by the 2010s.

A funny thing happened on the way to the 2010s and 2020s. It didn’t get so hot. In fact, depending on which data set you use, it probably has cooled down for 17 years.

...

There’s no shortage of inventive excuses for why things aren’t so hot, including, incredibly, China’s increased use of coal, even though “dirty” fossil fuel is supposed to increase, not decrease temperatures.

Implicit in this “where-did-the-heat-go” shell game is an inconvenient reality.

 

You hear the one about the global warming scientists who went to antarctica to take pictures of ice flows they expected to have receded and who ended up getting stuck in the ice that wasn't supposed to be there?

 

I think you misread what I typed.

barfo