The IPCC and the herd mentality

Or self proclaimed scientist isnt a scientist...

 

Well, why don't I let the author explain the source of his data, and why a 5 year rolling average might change the absolute numbers you are apparently more familiar with? Although by now ANYONE interested in climate modeling should be as familiar with this graphic, done by one of those climate scientists, because it is a core point in my argument that the authors of the projections themselves should do this to validate their models. Unless of course they would rather this question not be asked.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06...-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

Certainly the author, his experience in this matter,annotations on the graphic and in the article, should cover any questions you have. Funny that you included an ad-hom in your commentary however, ad-homs are very unscientific but then...you aren't claiming to have ever learned that by DOING science, now are you?

 

Not any more. But for 15 years, that is what the awards on the wall say, right after the "Excellence as..." part. And I am perfectly willing to discuss how science works based on that experience, publications, 3rd party independent reviews, professional society sub-committee reviews of pertinent details, etc etc. Certainly my work was not within climate science, but oil and gas research. After 100+ peer reviewed science pubs, domestic and international, I am qualified to discuss the general aspects of how science in that arena worked.

I would be fascinated to hear of anyone else's experience in this regard as well, certainly one career in science cannot be claimed as a representative sample. It might be that my science career was overly constrained, the requirements were too top notch, the rules too rigid, peer review was too strict.

Making up some cool computer program, having it crank out numbers until hell won't have it, not worrying in the least if those numbers match reality? Someone ought to be irritated that the quality of their projection could be tested so easily....AND THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE IT THEMSELVES.

Isn't that really the REAL indictment here? If someone has built a model to create a projection, it behooves them to check the quality of their projections. It turns out, someone did, and it didn't create a flattering picture. In science, that doesn't mean an ad-hom is instantly employed to discredit what is in reality A QUALITY CONTROL CHECK ON THE ORIGINAL PROJECTION.

This isn't even SCIENCE people, just plain, logical thinking on verifying a model or projection. Nothing more, done every day all around the country by all sorts of professionals, from car dealerships checking profit or sales projections to petroleum engineers checking last years production estimates.

SO WHY IS IT WRONG FOR CLIMATE SCIENTISTS TO DO IT AS WELL?

 

The hilarious thing is how you're so clueless, you don't even realize there are _two_ such lawsuits.

The Canadian one, Mann vs. Ball, is fairly certain a win for Mann, as Canadian law makes it much easier to successfully sue for libel. In a very recent case, conservative Canadian kook Ezra Levant just lost a libel suit for doing more or less exactly what Ball did. He lied and slurred someone brazenly in his blog. The judge was not sympathetic to his claims of free speech, and pointed out that wasn't the issue, that his lies were the issue, and since his lies were indeed lies, he owed big bucks.

Tim Ball, by the way, is the whackjob that you can currently read on WUWT screaming that climate scientists are Nazis, and that the Vast Global Socialist Conspiracy controls AGW science. Most of the WUWT crowd agrees enthusiastically. That is, they're conspiracy nutters. WUWT is devolving fast into pure conspiracy fantasy, much like an Alex Jones blog.

The USA lawsuit, Mann vs. Steyn, is much more questionable, given that it's nearly impossible in the USA to prove libel. I put the odds against Mann winning there. However, the important thing isn't the verdict, it's the discovery. Mann has no problems about discovery, but the deniers are terrified of it. They have something to hide, so let's find out what it is.

And yes, Steyn counter-sued Mann for a gazillion dollars. And nobody cares, except denier rubes, because it was so damn stupid, rehashing points that the judges had already rejected.

As far as the case itself, there were incredibly boring hearings on Nov. 25, which blogger Eli Rabett attended and reported on, if anyone cares.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/11/pro-se-cei-nr-michael-mann.html

 

Mann lost his last Canadian lawsuit. Mann's continued attempts to silence opposition is counter to free speech. Steyn brought the countersuit especially for discovery. Mann has even lied about being a Nobel Laureate in his lawsuit so it will be interesting.

What do the ACLU, the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia (The Village Voice et al), NBC Universal, Bloomberg News, the publishers of USA Today, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, The Arizona Republic and The Bergen County Record have in common?

 

Or they can be irritated that you fell for denier fudging and conspiracy theories concerning the models. The models are fine, your understanding of them is erroneous. Given the choice between "vast secret global conspiracy" and "I screwed up", it's generally wisest to assume the latter.

Try to lose your model fixation. AGW scientists don't make the mistake of having model fixation. Models are just icing. AGW science is solid based only on the hard physical data.

Can you tell us why you're so fixated on Kobashi 2011? That paper pointed out Greenland was warming now, but that it's not the warmest it's been in the past 4000 years. I fail to see the logic of declaring that to be a refutation of global warming. The first clue might be the word "global". The second would be how, despite some warm decades, the bulk of those decades in Greenland were cooler than now. And it's still warming.

 

The models are so fine that observational science has completely falsified them. LOL You do realize that all of the 100+ failed predictions are based on models don't you?

 

So, you're not even going to argue that Steyn and Ball didn't lie their asses off?

If Steyn wants discovery, why is he trying with all his might to get the case dismissed? He can get discovery simply by allowing the case to proceed. He filed the countersuit hoping to get Mann to drop the case. It didn't work.

None of them are addressing the issue of whether Steyn lied his ass off. They're just saying he has the right to lie his ass off. Is that your opinion as well?

 

LOL, all of them have filed briefs in support of Steyn. Guess how many briefs have been filed in support of Mann.

 

No, because that's a kook denier conspiracy theory. Endlessly repeating it doesn't make it less crazy.

Those not consumed with overwhelming narcissism might consider the fact that, no, it's not likely that the entire world messed up and that only a select few people who are just coincidentally part of your political tribe stumbled on the RealTruth.

- - - Updated - - -

So again, your defense is also that Steyn has the right to lie about people?

 

In other words you have no idea how many of the 'science' community have backed up Mann with briefs. The total is zero.

You still have absolutely no idea what the disagreement is in the climate science community is, do you? You seem to only be interested in the politics instead of science.

 

Oh now I get it. You're posting upper atmosphere data, without saying so, and trying to pass it off as surface data.

Do you really think that's honest? I sure don't. So, were you being deliberately deceptive? Or were you the one deceived, by your pals in Denierstan?

Anyone truly interested in climate, and not just climate modeling, should be familiar not only with the graph, but also with the science. And that's especially true for one who describes himself as a scientist.

Since that's what you claim for yourself, perhaps you can answer the following questions, which would have been asked by any competent peer reviewer:
1. Why did Dr. Roy use only model runs from the RCP8.5 scenario, which is (a) the highest-emission scenario, leading to the highest temperatures; and (b) is already higher than actual emissions? Is Dr. Roy cherry-picking, or does he have something to hide? Why didn't he use model runs from the RCP4.5 scenario, which is in line with the emissions we have actually experienced?
2. Why did Dr. Roy use only mid-tropospheric temperatures (which almost nobody cares about) while ignoring surface temperatures? Is he cherry-picking, or does he have something to hide?
3. Why did he use only tropical temperatures and not the entire globe? Is he cherry-picking, or does he have something to hide?
4. Dr. Roy claims to be using five-year running means, yet he shows satellite data during the full span of 1979-2012, which is not possible if you're using five-year means from a dataset ending in 2012 and published in mid 2013. Please explain how Dr. Roy achieves what is mathematically impossible.
5. Why, after breaking down each of 73 model runs into individual spaghetti graph lines, didn't Dr. Roy do the same for the six observational datasets, so that we could see the spread among them? Does he have something to hide?

I'll even make it easy for you, Mr. Peak "I'm a scientist" Prophet: I'll answer number 5. Dr. Roy does have something to hide. For example, the two satellite datasets he uses are UAH and RSS, which, in the tropical mid-troposphere, differ in warming rate by a factor of three. This is remarkable because both RSS and UAH use the same underlying raw data from the same instruments on the same satellites. The only thing that differs is how that data is analyzed. Which means that at least one of these two groups is doing something pretty badly wrong. That's what Dr. Roy wants to hide from you, Peak: the huge difference between what his own data shows and what RSS shows.

The other thing that Dr. Roy wants to hide from you is similar large differences between various radiosonde datasets. And here it's the same issue: the underlying data is the same, from the same instruments, but it's analyzed differently by different groups. This is because those various instruments from different decades have different responses to temperature and pressure, different response times, different transmission rates, different (or no) shading schemes, and so on. Which means that in order to compare one instrument to another in a different decade can require some pretty sophisticated analysis. Some groups do this better than others, because some groups consider factors that other groups ignore.

So let's do what Dr. Roy was afraid to do, and show the data Dr. Roy was afraid to show. Let's take the latest-and-greatest radiosonde dataset (RATPAC) and the best of the two satellite datasets (RSS) and plot them on Dr. Roy's graph, spaghetti-style, using the same five-year running means. Here's what we get:


And what do you know? Even after cherry picking the wrong emissions scenario, and cherry-picking the latitude band, and cherry-picking the altitude, the models still look pretty good.

In other words, Peak, your non-peer-reviewed "evidence" is crap. Which Dr. Roy himself knows, which is exactly why Dr. Roy didn't submit this crap to peer-review. Dr. Roy knew he couldn't fool an expert, so he put it on his blog, knowing that he could fool gullible chumps like you.

There, I've answered number 5. Now you can answer the other four.

 

I doubt they care what I think, and unless I happen to be on one of those fundamental 3rd party review boards (as I am for various resource and reserve issues) it won't matter. Particularly if they refuse to even ask for outside review of their statistical sampling and aggregations.

The models are not fine, otherwise Hansen would never have laid down a CO2 scenario that involved the cessation of CO2 emissions from mankind, and the temperature with full bore emissions wouldn't have remained under that particular projection.

I don't know who you are claiming even has this conspiracy. Scientists coming together, and WRITING DOWN their ideas on how they should tell scary scenarios instead of trying to explain science to folks is not a conspiracy, it is fact.

As I mentioned before, you know about hard physical data and how sciences uses it..HOW…exactly? You do not get to pretend that a statistical aggregation in a model without a representation of uncertainty is any such thing, I know this because statistics is the language of science. So when the sampling size issue for the aggregations done by at LEAST Hansen in the US aren't even discussed in any way showing the slightest hint of quantification, there is one thing that can be said with CERTAINTY….there is no way to determine if the effect being claimed is within the bounds of said uncertainty, or beyond them.

And if you don't know what that means, it also explains why you keep using the word "science" without apparently understanding all the things that come along with it. Let alone speak the language.

 

I provided the authors own work, just as someone recently provided me with the work of Hansen, and from that it was possible to determine how he manufactured his warming profile for the US.

Tear it all apart, enjoy, THAT is actually how science gets done. People seem to have a tough time understanding this, and as I am an admitted amateur in the "watching the climate scientists in action" game, it is all great fun.

 

Oh…now I think we might disagree. One of those two lines shows the no warming trend nearing two decades now…and all those other squiggly lines…why are they trending upwards? You call this models looking pretty good when they can't even get the VECTOR right? Project the reality over the past 15 years…project forward on all the squiggly lines….do you really think that the best position to take is that the empirical and the models have any ability to arrive at the same conclusion?

Is that really the point you want to make with this wonderful reconstruction of what the climate scientists THEMSELVES should have done to demonstrate that their models can't even get the vector right? Are you SURE that is the position worth defending after looking at all those wonderful datasets and model results and whatnot?

 

As an aside Poor debater, I realized I didn't mention HOW you can determine that your additional lines have problems, other than mentioning the obvious directional issues. Calculate the residuals between the models central tendency (or even particular models if you'd like), and those new lines you added, and you will understand why the models aren't working.

 

And from that it is also possible to determine:

1.) Mr. Science doesn't read the stuff he posts. As long as it comes from a denier blog, it's absolutely true and no other thought is required to accept it as gospel. And even if the blogger in Denierstan says it's global, it still comes out as "US" in the mind of Mr. Science, because when your mind is already made up, reading is not required.
2.) Mr. Science demands high standards from others that he refuses to apply to himself. While Mr. Science endlessly rails about the alleged lack of QC in science -- and thus endlessly ignores peer-review, which is exactly that QC process he falsely complains is missing -- Mr. Science is more than happy to post non-peer reviewed, non QC'd crap and pretend it golden, as long as it fits with his preconceived political ideas. In short, Mr. Science is a hypocrite.

The people who have the hardest time understanding this are the guys like Dr. Roy, who refuse to submit their work to peer-review where it can get torn up. They would much rather spend their time suckering the gullible chumps who read their blogs. People like you.

 

And then you will also understand that the difference in trends between models and observations are not statistically significant.

So when you say that "models aren't working", I assume that you just read that somewhere on some denier blog, and are repeating it without checking ... without doing the QC that you demand of others, but that you refuse to apply to anything that comes out of Denierstan.