Climate Change

by **Sokolova** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:17 pm

Dream's End asked me to start this thread. Well, this is quite long, but I think it needs the space. First I have to say I am an agnostic on climate change with no decided views in either direction. I’m not a climatologist either, or a member of the petro-chemical lobby, so if you think this disqualifies me from offering evidence then read no further. What I am trying to find is the best evidence in the case. And I have tried to weigh that evidence on its own merits, regardless of its source. I don’t hold with dismissing information because it comes from the ‘wrong side’. I prefer to examine the information myself, look at its background and sources and then decide for myself. I began researching the climate question as a firm believer in climate change, and I started out by simply looking for the basic materials, the core evidence in the case in order to be clear in my mind about what was going on. And this was where I received my first surprise. The core evidence wasn’t really there. Not in anything like the clear unambiguous form I had been led to believe. But let me take you with me on the same journey.  WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE ON THE CASE? Okay. We need to know some things here don’t we 1. Is the world warming? 2. if it is how much? 3. Are the causes of any such possible warming anthropogenic (man made) or are they a natural fluctuation? The answer to 1 is a definite ‘yes’. The world IS warming and has been since the middle of the 19th C. The answer to 2 – ‘how much is it warming?’ is a lot less easy to establish. The popular press usually give a figure of something like +0.8 degrees C warming since 1880, and this is generally presented as if it were an incontrovertible figure. But in fact within climate circles that figure is highly debated and uncertain. The debate centers on the nature of the data used to obtain the result. The data used to obtain the result of +0.8degrees was what is known as ‘surface temperature’ readings, as compiled by the Goddard Institute in the US. The problem is that surface readings can be very inaccurate. One thing that can highly distort them is the phenomenon of ‘urban heat islands’; the effect of warming given off by large cities. Many of the weather stations used in developing the data are in urban areas, and as the city around them has grown they have become affected by this ‘heat island’ effect. Thus the data from these stations can show an apparent warming effect that is entirely due to the urban sprawl happening around them. This could radically distort the data going into and therefore the result coming out of the Goddard calculations. Unfortunately no attempt was made to compensate for this distortion. The newest and best method of measuring temperature is the satellite method, which has been employed since 1979. Because it measure temperature in the lower troposphere it is not affected by local distortions like urban heat islands and is consequently much more accurate. The satellite temperature measurements show a rate of warming of +0.086 per decade since 1979. About +0.215degrees altogether. A lot less than the surface record. Nearly 75% less in fact. (Data available on this website: <a href="http://">www.john-daly.com/</a> Scroll down to the graphs etc. Yes it is an anti-greenhouse site, but it doesn’t just rant, it gives its source data, which is rather more than many pro-greenhouse sites tend to do in my experience). A second anomaly exists in that many of the more rural stations recording surface temperature also fail to record the ‘+0.8 degree’ increase, which again indicates that this figure might be inaccurate and corrupted by the ‘urban heat island’ phenomenon. Again, the surface record for the USA, taken since the 1930 also fails to support the ‘+0.8degree’ figure, probably because the US stations tend to correct more succesfully for the heat island effect. So maybe we can see that what might have appeared in the popular media to be quite straight forward is becoming a little less so. We might also wonder why this anomalous lower figure from the satellite data is not reported as widely as the scary figure of ‘+0.8’. And the implications are quite profound. If the higher figure of +0.8 degrees is true then there could genuinely be some reason to believe there is (or may be) a problem with the climate, whereas a figure of +0.215 is fairly easily explained as the continuing and quite natural warming following the mini-ice age of the 17th- 19th C. It’s important therefore to know which figure is the more reliable. But where is the discussion of this topic? Where do the greenhouse proponents show their good evidential reasons for supporting the seemingly flawed Goddard figures? I have not yet found any plausible counter argument here. Though of course there may be one, and I am always open to new sources. WHY? Another important question – why is this ambiguity not being reported in the same popular press that regularly touts the warnings of climate catastrophe? Why the presentation of conclusivity and certitude when the data is actually inconclusive and divided? Why do those who wish to point out the well-sourced ambiguities not get their proper hearing alongside the proponents of the ‘+0.8degree’ hypothesis? Why is the issue being seemingly massaged? This concerns me. Whatever ‘side’ proves to be correct, I don’t like to feel I am being fed a line, sold an idea on incomplete information. Does it concern you? If so, read on.  MELTING ICE AND RISING SEAS We are currently being told in the popular press the earth is already much hotter and that the signs of the warming are showing everywhere. But even the most ardent scientific supporters of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) would hesitate to support some of these populist and extreme claims. Although the alternative view is rarely given any space by our media, there are well argued cases – particularly by John Daly on his website – for many of the effects routinely touted as evidence of our overheating planet being either a) imaginary (for example sea-level risings; see some of the data here: <a href="http://">www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm</a>) or b) the normal fluctuating functions of things like ice-sheets (which are subject to both growth and collapse as part of their normal cycle; see the articles here: <a href="http://">www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm http://www.john-daly.com/thin-ice.htm</a>). I know these are all links to one site, but it really quotes his sources and provides excellent background material. I have yet to find any really good rebuttal of the points made here by Daly and others. But as ever I am always looking. Yet again though, we have to ask – why is the alternative viewpoint, which is at least as well supported by data as the ‘greenhouse’ view – never given any space to make its case in the popular media? THE MANN GRAPH Then there is the question of the Mann graph. The piece of data which, more than anything else, focused the attention of the media and the world on the problem of our out-of-control climate. Remember that graph that shows modern temperatures just climbing, climbing climbing far higher than anything ever known before in recorded history? Well, that’s the Mann graph. Otherwise known as the ‘hockey stick’ because…well, it looks like one. If you have ever watched a tv program or read a newspaper feature on climate change you’ve probably seen the Mann graph; it’s everywhere, the iconic image of our modern age and modern fears. What you probably don’t know about is the fierce controversy surrounding it. To give you a brief background: Dr. Michael Mann unveiled this graph in 1999 as part of a paper published in ‘Geophysical Research Letter’. It was intended to support Man’s contention of an unprecedented period of warming in the late 20th C . But in order to achieve this visualisation Mann had to do some quite odd things with climate . For example, before his graph every history of climate had included what is known as the ‘Medieval Warm Period’(when temperatures were reckoned much warmer than today) and the ‘mini-Ice Age’ of the 17th – 19th C. He replaced these two peaks and troughs with a relatively straight line. Mann did this by using only tree-ring data for all his pre-1900 temperature information. However – and quite bizarrely – for the later post-1900 data he reverted to surface temperature readings (which we have already seen are under some dispute). Thus not only did he employ the questionable surface temp readings while ignoring the satellite temp readings, but he actually grafted two entirely different data sources onto a single graph – with nothing to indicate he was doing this! And this was how he achieved the spike of massive and unique warming in the late 20th C. By any stretch of the imagination this is rather odd science. (See Daly’s analysis here: <a href="http://">www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm </a> which also has links to other sources of information on the Medieval Warm Period and all related topics). The rationale for excluding the medieval Warm Period and the mini-Ice Age was that they were only ‘regional’ and affecting ‘parts of’ the northern hemisphere. (see here:<a href="http://">www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=33</a> ). This is a very new and quite daring claim, and so far I have not been able to find any data that really supports this view. On the contrary, there seems to be widespread indications that the Medieval Warm Period was not regional at all. Radiocarbon dating of the Sargasso sea for example shows the water was approx 2 degrees warmer 1000 years ago than today. Similar data has been returned from places as diverse as West Africa, Taiwan, Peru and China, all indicating the occurrence either of the medieval warm period, or the mini-Ice Age or both. The curious things is that, although Mann’s work was controversial to say the least, and clearly posed many questions about his methodology and conclusions, and although it effectively overturned all previous thinking on the history of climate, there was virtually no demurring or counter-argument in any academic journal or any forum at all! No one pointed out the major flaws in his work in any major journal, and those who tried to get dissenting views published – for example in Nature – were all but censored out of existence. This is the exact reverse of what usually happens when new ideas are put forward. New ideas - even very good ones based on very good evidence – are usually marginalised for many years before becoming mainstream. Yet Mann introduces and entirely new version of climate history and overnight it becomes the new orthodoxy with barely a murmur breaking out. That feels very weird to me. CRITIQUE OF MANN GRAPH Recently the Mann graph has come in for some very cogent criticism from Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (see here: <a href="http://">www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html</a>), but again they are having an almost impossible time being heard by the mainstream media. Question 3 was ‘are the causes of any such warming man-made?’ In a way this question needs to wait until we have a firm answer to no. 2. Unless we know how much the world is warming and how much reliance we can really place on the Mann graph etc .we can’t really go any further. But I’ll try to address that another time if people here would like me to. I know also that I am posting links almost exclusively from one side of the argument. That is not because I consider the case closed (I don’t), but it seems to me that the ‘pro-greenhouse lobby’ have ample space to air their viewpoints, and their arguments are consequently well known, while the potential flaws in their presentations along with the entire ‘other side’ of the case remains largely unknown, even to the point of many well-read people believing it doesn’t exist. I’m also aware that much (though not all) the ‘anti-greenhouse’ lobby has its own agenda and bias, and probably the sources I am quoting subscribe to other ideas I would not wish to be a part of. This gives me an emotional desire to reject them, but I feel it’s necessary to get over that. The fact that they subscribe to ideas I don’t like doesn’t per se make them wrong on everything. They could well prove to be right here even if possibly for the wrong reasons (if you see what I mean). The only thing that matters in such a scientific enquiry is the quality of the evidence, and presently it seems to me that – much against my natural instinct and inclination – the pro-greenhouse evidence is weaker, less honest and less rigorous than that of the other side. The crucial points seem to me to be: 1. the Mann graph and its manifold weaknesses – if we can’t rebut the obvious criticisms of its methodology (including its bizarre omission of the well-documented Medieval Warm Period) then the central evidence for unique warming in our present era is at best in serious doubt and at worst entirely discredited. 2.the dichotomy between surface record and satellite record. The surface record show a high amount of warming, the satellite record does not. I have not yet found a good argument form the pro-greenhouse lobby’ for why we should reject the traditionally more reliable satellite data in this case. But if we don’t do that then much of the pro-greenhouse case is all but defunct. 3.the seemingly well-sourced data suggesting that much of the ‘ice sheet melting’ and sea level rising used to provide evidence for great warming is either invented or misconstrued. Again, I can’t so far find any good rebuttal of this anywhere, and if it’s true the pro-greenhouse case is all but falling apart. Maybe there is stuff I still don’t know and people here will be able to show me the way. Are there good sources of counter-information to these central points I haven’t been able to find? Always interested and always looking. Here’s some more pages of interest. I’m avoiding the more polemical and hysterical stuff which seems just as flawed as the pro-greenhouse approach and focusing on those sites that offer real evidence that can be verified: <a href="http://">www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm </a> This one is pretty superficial and not too informative. <a href="http://">www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=1</a>75 here’s a series of ‘myth versus fact’ observations. I can’t verify all of these and they don’t use sources so take it with some salt. I can verify that their take on myths 4 through 6 and myth 9 is pretty accurate as far as I presently know: <a href="http://">www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4</a> This is a blog run by McCitrick, the chief questioner of the Mann graph: <a href="http://">www.climateaudit.org/ </a> Best Ellie

by **wolf pauli** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:59 pm

Sokolova - thanks for the detailed, thoughtful post. Just a couple points for starters. ... we have to ask – why is the alternative viewpoint, which is at least as well supported by data as the ‘greenhouse’ view – never given any space to make its case in the popular media? This comment seems contextualized pretty specifically to your section on 'MELTING ICE AND RISING SEAS', but it's worth noting that, in general, the popular media runs quite a bit of skeptical material on (anthropogenic) climate change. While I have no statistics on the ratio, for/against, among climate change reports in the MSM, skeptical items do seem to crop up pretty frequently in WSJ, Fox, etc. An example from Newsmax: The Fake Consensus on 'Global Warming' <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/2/185108.shtml">www.newsmax.com/archives/...5108.shtml</a> On a separate note: Are you or any other readers familiar with Naomi Oreskes' December 2004 Science piece, 'The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change'? (Oreskes appears to have missed Daly's work -- presumably its not in the ISI database?) Here's a brief notice from Eugene Takle: <a href="http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/history/trends/consensus.html">www.meteor.iastate.edu/gc...ensus.html</a> Scientific consensus on climate change? Overwhelming. Politicians seeking to downplay risks of climate change and corporate executives whose company revenues might be adversely affected by regulations on carbon emissions tend to cite "scientific uncertainty" as reason for public inaction on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases. Oreskes (2004) analyzed abstracts from 928 articles published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 having key words "climate change" that were listed in the ISI database. She found not a single paper in this group disagreed with the consensus position that humans are responsible for at least part of the currently observed climate change. Reference Oreskes, N., 2004: The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306, 1686. The Oreskes piece: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686">www.sciencemag.org/cgi/co.../5702/1686</a> FYI, I don't consider any of this a substitute for drilling down to details, but thought it worth citing. Thanks again for your post.

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:57 am

I've been looking with some interest at <A HREF="http://www.trump.net.au/~greenhou/home.html">What's Wrong With Still Waiting For Greenhouse?</A>, a site that appears to be run by John Hunter. Are you familiar with it? From the main page: "This site aims to address misinformation that appears on the Internet in relation to Global Warming (also called the Greenhouse Effect). In particular, it seeks to expose errors of fact on <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/">Still Waiting For Greenhouse</A>" -- the John Daly site that you mentioned. BTW, none of your links are working, in my browser at least.

by **Sokolova** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:26 am

Sorry about the dead links, which made it impossible for anyone to look into what I was saying. I'm reposting the original here with working links, then I'll respond to the replies beneath... WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE ON THE CASE? Okay. We need to know some things here don't we 1. Is the world warming? 2. if it is how much? 3. Are the causes of any such possible warming anthropogenic (man made) or are they a natural fluctuation?  The answer to 1 is a definite 'yes'. The world IS warming and has been since the middle of the 19th C. The answer to 2 'how much is it warming?' is a lot less easy to establish. The popular press usually give a figure of something like +0.8 degrees C warming since 1880, and this is generally presented as if it were an incontrovertible figure. But in fact within climate circles that figure is highly debated and uncertain. The debate centers on the nature of the data used to obtain the result. The data used to obtain the result of +0.8degrees was what is known as 'surface temperature' readings, as compiled by the Goddard Institute in the US. The problem is that surface readings can be very inaccurate. One thing that can highly distort them is the phenomenon of so-called 'urban heat islands'; the effect of warming given off by large cities. Many of the weather stations used in developing the data are in urban areas, and as the city around them has grown they have become affected by this 'heat island' effect. Thus the data from these stations can show an apparent warming effect that is entirely due to the urban sprawl happening around them. This could radically distort the data going into and therefore the result coming out of the Goddard calculations. Unfortunately no attempt was made to compensate for this distortion. The newest and best method of measuring temperature is the satellite method, which has been employed since 1979. Because it measure temperature in the lower troposphere it is not affected by local distortions like urban heat islands and is consequently much more accurate. The satellite temperature measurements show a rate of warming of +0.086 per decade since 1979. About +0.215degrees altogether. A lot less than the surface record. Nearly 75% less in fact. (Data available on this website: <a href="http://www.john-daly.com/">www.john-daly.com/</a> Scroll down to the graphs etc. Yes it is an anti-greenhouse site, but it doesn't just rant, it gives its source data, which is rather more than many pro-greenhouse sites tend to do in my experience). A second anomaly exists in that many of the more rural stations recording surface temperature also fail to record the ‘+0.8 degree’ increase, which again indicates that this figure might be inaccurate and corrupted by the ‘urban heat island’ phenomenon. Again, the surface record for the USA, taken since the 1930 also fails to support the plus 0.8degree figure, probably because the US stations tend to correct more succesfully for the heat island effect. So maybe we can see that what might have appeared in the popular media to be quite straight forward is becoming a little less so. We might also wonder why this anomalous lower figure from the satellite data is not reported as widely as the scary figure of plus 0.8? And the implications are quite profound. If the higher figure of plus 0.8 degrees is true then there could genuinely be some reason to believe there is (or may be) a problem with the climate, whereas a figure of +0.215 is fairly easily explained as the continuing and quite natural warming following the mini-ice age of the 17th- 19th C. It's important therefore to know which figure is the more reliable. But where is the discussion of this topic? Where do the greenhouse proponents show their good evidential reasons for supporting the seemingly flawed Goddard figures? I have not yet found any plausible counter argument here. Though of course there may be one, and I am always open to new sources. WHY? Another important question - why is this ambiguity not being reported in the same popular press that regularly touts the warnings of climate catastrophe? Why the presentation of conclusivity and certitude when the data is actually inconclusive and divided? Why do those who wish to point out the well-sourced ambiguities not get their proper hearing alongside the proponents of the +0.8degree hypothesis? Why is the issue being seemingly massaged? This concerns me. Whatever 'side' proves to be correct, I don't like to feel I am being fed a line, sold an idea on incomplete information. Does it concern you? If so, read on. MELTING ICE AND RISING SEAS We are currently being told in the popular press the earth is already much hotter and that the signs of the warming are showing everywhere. But even the most ardent scientific supporters of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) would hesitate to support some of these populist and extreme claims. Although the alternative view is rarely given any space by our media, there are well argued cases - particularly by John Daly on his website - for many of the effects routinely touted as evidence of our overheating planet being either a) imaginary (for example sea-level risings; see some of the data here: <a href="http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm">www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm</a>) or b) the normal fluctuating functions of things like ice-sheets (which are subject to both growth and collapse as part of their normal cycle; see the articles here:<a href="http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm">www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm</a> <a href="http://www.john-daly.com/thin-ice.htm">www.john-daly.com/thin-ice.htm</a>). I know these are all links to one site, but it really quotes his sources and provides excellent background material. I have yet to find any really good rebuttal of the points made here by Daly and others. But as ever I am always looking. Yet again though, we have to ask - why is the alternative viewpoint, which is at least as well supported by data as the 'greenhouse view' never given any space to make its case in the popular media? THE MANN GRAPH Then there is the question of the Mann graph. The piece of data which, more than anything else, focused the attention of the media and the world on the problem of our out-of-control climate. Remember that graph that shows modern temperatures just climbing, climbing climbing far higher than anything ever known before in recorded history? Well, that's the Mann graph. Otherwise known as the 'hockey stick' because, well, it looks like one. If you have ever watched a tv program or read a newspaper feature on climate change you've probably seen the Mann graph; it's everywhere, the iconic image of our modern age and modern fears. What you probably don't know about is the fierce controversy surrounding it. To give you a brief background: Dr. Michael Mann unveiled this graph in 1999 as part of a paper published in 'Geophysical Research Letter'. It was intended to support Mann's contention of an unprecedented period of warming in the late 20th C . But in order to achieve this visualisation Mann had to do some quite odd things with climate . For example, before his graph every history of climate had included what is known as the 'Medieval Warm Period'(when temperatures were reckoned much warmer than today) and the 'mini-Ice Age' of the 17th - 19th C. He replaced these two peaks and troughs with a relatively straight line. Mann did this by using only tree-ring data for all his pre-1900 temperature information. However - and quite bizarrely - for the later post-1900 data he reverted to surface temperature readings (which we have already seen are under some dispute). Thus not only did he employ the questionable surface temp readings while ignoring the satellite temp readings, but he actually grafted two entirely different data sources onto a single graph - with nothing to indicate he was doing this! And this was how he achieved the spike of massive and unique warming in the late 20th C. By any stretch of the imagination this is rather odd science. (See Daly's analysis here: <a href="http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm">www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm</a> which also has links to other sources of information on the Medieval Warm Period and all related topics). The rationale for excluding the medieval Warm Period and the mini-Ice Age was that they were only 'regional' and affecting 'parts of' the northern hemisphere. (see here:<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p">=33]www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=33</a> ). This is a very new and quite daring claim, and so far I have not been able to find any data that really supports this view. On the contrary, there seems to be widespread indications that the Medieval Warm Period was not regional at all. Radiocarbon dating of the Sargasso sea for example shows the water was approx 2 degrees warmer 1000 years ago than today. Similar data has been returned from places as diverse as West Africa, Taiwan, Peru and China, all indicating the occurrence either of the medieval warm period, or the mini-Ice Age or both. The curious things is that, although Mann's work was controversial to say the least, and clearly posed many questions about his methodology and conclusions, and although it effectively overturned all previous thinking on the history of climate, there was virtually no demurring or counter-argument in any academic journal or any forum at all! No one pointed out the major flaws in his work in any major journal, and those who tried to get dissenting views published - for example in Nature - were all but censored out of existence. This is the exact reverse of what usually happens when new ideas are put forward. New ideas - even very good ones based on very good evidence - are usually marginalised for many years before becoming mainstream. Yet Mann introduces and entirely new version of climate history and overnight it becomes the new orthodoxy with barely a murmur breaking out. That feels very weird to me. CRITIQUE OF MANN GRAPH Recently the Mann graph has come in for some very cogent criticism from Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (see here: <a href="http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html">www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html</a>), but again they are having an almost impossible time being heard by the mainstream media. Question 3 was 'are the causes of any such warming man-made?' In a way this question needs to wait until we have a firm answer to no. 2. Unless we know how much the world is warming and how much reliance we can really place on the Mann graph etc .we can't really go any further. But I'll try to address that another time if people here would like me to. I know also that I am posting links almost exclusively from one side of the argument. That is not because I consider the case closed (I don't), but it seems to me that the 'pro-greenhouse lobby' have ample space to air their viewpoints, and their arguments are consequently well known, while the potential flaws in their presentations along with the entire 'other side' of the case remains largely unknown, even to the point of many well-read people believing it doesn't exist. I'm also aware that much (though not all) the 'anti-greenhouse' lobby has its own agenda and bias, and probably the sources I am quoting subscribe to other ideas I would not wish to be a part of. This gives me an emotional desire to reject them, but I feel it's necessary to get over that. The fact that they subscribe to ideas I don't like doesn't per se make them wrong on everything. They could well prove to be right here even if possibly for the wrong reasons (if you see what I mean). The only thing that matters in such a scientific enquiry is the quality of the evidence, and presently it seems to me that - much against my natural instinct and inclination - the pro-greenhouse evidence is weaker, less honest and less rigorous than that of the other side. The crucial points seem to me to be: 1. the Mann graph and its manifold weaknesses  - if we can't rebut the obvious criticisms of its methodology (including its bizarre omission of the well-documented Medieval Warm Period) then the central evidence for unique warming in our present era is at best in serious doubt and at worst entirely discredited. 2.the dichotomy between surface record and satellite record. The surface record show a high amount of warming, the satellite record does not. I have not yet found a good argument form the pro-greenhouse lobby� for why we should reject the traditionally more reliable satellite data in this case. But if we don't do that then much of the pro-greenhouse case is all but defunct. 3.the seemingly well-sourced data suggesting that much of the ice-sheet melting and sea level rising used to provide evidence for great warming is either invented or misconstrued. Again, I can't so far find any good rebuttal of this anywhere, and if it's true the pro-greenhouse case is all but falling apart. Maybe there is stuff I still don't know and people here will be able to show me the way. Are there good sources of counter-information to these central points I haven't been able to find? Always interested and always looking. Here's some more pages of interest. I'm avoiding the more polemical and hysterical stuff which seems just as flawed as the pro-greenhouse approach and focusing on those sites that offer real evidence that can be verified: <a href="http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm">www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm</a> This one is pretty superficial and not too informative. <a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=175">www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=175</a> here's a series of 'myth versus fact' observations. I can't verify all of these and they don't use sources so take it with some salt. I can verify that their take on myths 4 through 6 and myth 9 is pretty accurate as far as I presently know: <a href="http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4">www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4</a> This is a blog run by McCitrick, the chief questioner of the Mann graph: <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/">www.climateaudit.org/</a> Best Ellie

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:49 pm

Sokolova, maybe you can give us your thoughts on Hunter's response to Daly, cited in my last post.

by **Sokolova** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:00 pm

Wolf - 1. Yes I am sure you may be able to find some coverage of the anti-greenhouse viewpoint, but I don't think it can be rationally denied that the pro-greenhouse viewpoint tends to be presented pretty exclusively and non-critically in the majority of the media. And this obviously raises all of the issues and questions I outline above. 2. I do know the site you link to, which claims to rebut 'Still Waiting for Greenhouse'. and I've examined it carefully. Firstly I am always alerted whenever anyone begins to use generalised abuse and ad hominems in place of rebuttal - and this site certainly does that. Personally I have a problem with someone describing the work of a man who's dead and no longer able to defend himself as 'pathetic' without giving any detailed analysis at all; it seems a pretty low deal to me. I wonder if his site was up and saying such stuff while Daly was still alive? I don't know when it was opened, do you? Beyond this, I can't find anything on the site that offers a rebuttal of the basic anti-greenhouse case as I've tried to sum it up above. Can you? So far as I can see... He doesn't  deal with or even mention the alleged failure of the Mann graph, or its alleged manipulation of the data. He doesn't  deal with or even mention the seeming dichotomy between surface and satellite temps. He neither denies it nor explains how this dichotomy might fit within the 'pro-greenhouse' premise of unprecedented and dangerous global warming.  So, two of the most pressing questions are not being dealt with at all, while instead he concentrates on a few esoteric details that are entirely decontextualised from the wider question and thus rendered almost meaningless. For example he shows some calculations that indicate the Hobart sea-level does manifest actual rising. This is potentially interesting, but he doesn't make it easy to check his sources so I am still unsure here. He could be right, he just makes it so obscurely hard to be sure. And I'm concerned that he doesn't address all the other aspects that need to be factored into assessing sea-level rise (for example the rebound after the melting of glaciers), he just quotes the ICC report, but I've learned that this report itself is far from error-proof, so I think we need more than this. Without some kind of contextualising and deeper sourcing I can't evaluate his point. And for the most part, in place of serious rebuttal of the major issues, this site seems (in my view) to give us quibble. For example in response to Daly's article (refuting the claims in the press that the north pole had been ice free for the first time in ’50 million years’) he only points out that the picture Daly used to illustrate his article was inaccurately labeled! - while adding as a kind of footnote that ”we are not disputing” the actual content of the article.  Well, what is that? Again his correction of the temps as quoted in the Times for a particular day seems largely meaningless. Does it show Daly is unreliable? Not unless there are consistent and much greater inaccuracies in his work. Hunter doesn’t quote any major inaccuracies in any of the man’s core data, so presumably he doesn’t know of any. So I am left wondering what his point is here. And then - Lord serve us - we have the <a href="http://www.cod.edu/library/research/faq/evalnet.htm"> ‘excellent site’</a> he links to in order to help people decide if any given website is reliable or not. One of the guidelines for acceptability being - is the site created by an 'expert' in the field(ie presumably a purveyor of any given orthodoxy)! It also interestingly describes a pro-greenhouse site as being ‘factual’ and an anti-greenhouse site as being ‘opinion’. Hmm…I thought they were both a mix of both fact and opinion, didn’t you? The fact that he’s willing to ally himself with this kind of gross paternalistic attempt to control people’s thinking doesn’t endear me to anything Hunter is offering. He seems to potentially have a primary motive of enforcing conformity rather than disseminating information. He's too keen to tell us what is 'right' without telling us much about why (other than some large organisation says it is). It's a little mind-police isn't it? However I will try to get beyond this emotional response and check out the claims he is making. One thing – his ‘corrected’ USA temp graph seems to have some anomalous figures in it. Daly’s original shows the highest temps occuring in the early 1920s and 1930s. But Hunter’s shows a curve in line with the famous Mann graph and the highest temps in the late 20th C. But oddly he doesn’t claim to be altering Daly’s numbers – just his layout, so why the apparent differently placed highs? Maybe I am wrong, check it out and see what you think. The way I see it what is needed is a good solid sourced and complete rebuttal of the primary anti-greenhouse arguments - ie the alleged temperature anomalies between surface and satellite and the seemingly discredited Mann graph. Without such a rebuttal we are looking at individual trees and ignoring the forest. Ellie

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:07 pm

Sokolova wrote: I do know the site you link to, which claims to rebut 'Still Waiting for Greenhouse'. and I've examined it carefully. .... I will try to get beyond this emotional response and check out the claims he is making. OK. Let's hope we can draw others to this thread, particularly those more knowledgeable than myself on the subject. I see an ecologist dropped in on the 'Population' thread; maybe we'll have the benefit of a visit from a climatologist on this one. wp

by **Sokolova** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:21 pm

hey Wolf - start by not selectively quoting me. There's quite a lot of material in my last post that tries to analyse the site you asked me to look at, so don't just ignore it. Tell me what you think; does it make sense or not? What's your view on it all? You know, you don't need an ecologist to tell you what to think honey. Think for yourself. Find out for yourself. I'm no expert I've just done the background reading. Why don't you do the same? Take a good look at all the data, see if you can find stuff I've overlooked. Make up your own mind. I thought that was what this place was supposed to be about Ellie

by **Dreams End** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:06 pm

This is one of those cases where laymen have trouble making judgments purely on data. After all, there is so MUCH climate data that it take supercomputers to crunch the numbers and even then different models get different results. I got kicked out of the supercomputer room for bringing in a Pepsi, so I'm right out altogether. Is there no one besides Daly out there doing this stuff? I mean, I'm sure there are some obvious oil company front groups but basing everything on one self trained scientist makes me wonder. There must be others, no? The critique site, of Wolf's post, showed how Daly had compared two different graphs using different scales which exagerrated the differences which turned out to be minimal (world temps vs. US temps part.) This is such a blatant and typical data manipulation technique (I should say data "presentation" technique") that I immediately lost some faith in Daly. His use of the "tide marks" made by someone else a long time ago who was not looking for scientific rigor really didn't impress me. As for the ad hominems...yes, namecalling is silly. It is sometimes necessary to question the messenger, especially when there's really too much data and spin for a layman to cut through. I can't do my OWN data gathering, so trustworthiness of those doing so is important, especially when in the realm of "prediction" and in the areas such as climate models which can't really be tested in a lab. That said, the critique didn't raise anything about Daly personally that I found to be a smoking gun. He's made a little money off books and I think he's worked consulting for an oil company, but I wasn't too bothered by that. However, if he turned out to simply be in the pay of some oil company rather than some maverick I'd be far more suspicious and I think rightly so. Still have more reading to do, though. I think the real debate is extent of human involvement. I know these are anecdotal, but I've just seen too many before and after glacier shots and dramatic ice shelf collapses not to think there's some climate change happening.

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:09 pm

The world is full of people who have 'made up their own mind' without adequate study. I guess the authors of the 928 articles in the ISI database pretty well prove that. You know, you don't need an ecologist to tell you what to think honey. Thanks for the advice lambchop. I'll be happy to look into both issues in more detail when I don't have OUP breathing down my neck about a deadline.

by **Sokolova** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:41 pm

Hey Dreamsend Yes I am with you. There's a lot of stuff to absorb and you need to be constantly open to having missed stuff. I totally agree the use of two different scales could look like data manipulation and we need to look at it more closely. But I'm bothered about the different peaks in Hunter's avowed correction and Daly's original. All Hunter was supposed to be changing in that graph was the scale not the numbers yes? So the peaks and troughs should be in the same relative position as in Daly's graph. But as I am seeing it Daly's graph shows the highest temps in the 1920s-30s, while Hunter's shows the highest temps in the late 20th C. So is Hunter changing the numbers without admitting it? Or am I screwing up here? Check the graph Dream and see what you think. BTW - some non-Daly sites: <a href="http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html">www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html</a> this site covers the work of McCitrick et al who have offered a detailed critique of the Mann graph. Heavy but worth struggling through. This is McC's blogsite: some total assholes there as always, but worth digging around. <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/">www.climateaudit.org/</a> There are a lot more but most of them (on both sides) are so polemical they seem worthless for mining real information. Ellie

Climate Change

Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

John Daly and John Hunter

Climate Change - repost with working links

Re: Climate Change - repost with working links

Daly versus Hunter

Re: Daly versus Hunter

make up your own mind

one of those cases

Re: make up your own mind

the two graphs

Who is online