Al Gore Slamdunked

[Slim]

Why don't you just read it Slimy, and then maybe you can refute it? 'Urgh', doesn't really do it does it, and certainly doesn't 'add to the discussion' as you put it. But then that's your usual argument against something you don't like isn't it?

 

I did read it, and I'm asking you what it adds. It doesn't appear to add anything new at all.

[Ringwraith]

I did read it, and I'm asking you what it adds. It doesn't appear to add anything new at all.

 

For a start people may not have seen it, and might want to read it.

 

And as I've said before I'll post what I want on the subject, no matter how much you don't like it, or bitch about it, here's another one for you -

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...nravelling-now/

[VinnieK]

Much of what the mock Lord Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Chipshoulder has written has already been discussed on this very forum, adding nothing new bar taking the rhetoric to unhinged new levels of sillyness.

 

Here's a handy hint: citing a repeatedly discredited toffer who prances around wishing he were a) a member of the House of Lords, b) a scientist but isn't cut out for either and who lacks anything even close to a relevant qualification is not the best way to establish the validity of your argument. It's about as convincing as wheeling crazy Jimmy, self proclaimed crown prince of tramps and East Prussia in as a character witness at a trial. That the Jimmy in this instance has a website doesn't really make a difference.

[Ringwraith]

Much of what the mock Lord Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Chipshoulder has written has already been discussed on this very forum, adding nothing new bar taking the rhetoric to unhinged new levels of sillyness.

 

Here's a handy hint: citing a repeatedly discredited toffer who prances around wishing he were a) a member of the House of Lords, b) a scientist but isn't cut out for either and who lacks anything even close to a relevant qualification is not the best way to establish the validity of your argument. It's about as convincing as wheeling crazy Jimmy, self proclaimed crown prince of tramps and East Prussia in as a character witness at a trial. That the Jimmy in this instance has a website doesn't really make a difference.

 

Sorry Vinnie, it just seemed appropriate after your 'poor me' - we're just all poor, honest, scientists guv' crybaby story.

[Dr_Dave]

Why don't you just read it Slimy, and then maybe you can refute it? 'Urgh', doesn't really do it does it, and certainly doesn't 'add to the discussion' as you put it. But then that's your usual argument against something you don't like isn't it?

 

Okay, so his problems seem to be:

 

1) Applying "fudge factors" to data to "hide a decline"

2) The subsequent lack of trust that you can put in tree ring data.

 

Do you agree with those?

 

Next, do you know what it means to "calibrate"? In the case of tree ring data, since tree ring width is a proxy-measure of temperature, you need to convert a width into a temperature. This sounds weird - but its based on us knowing that for the most part, tree ring width correlates with temperature. So you're given a set of numbers and you have to make it into another set of numbers.

 

The way you do this is by comparing to a known source - in this case, thermometer readings. So you know that the temperature was 25 degrees in 1850, and 26 degrees in 1875, and from that you can take the widths of the tree rings in these years and work out the relationship between them. You then test this by back converting from width to temperature at known points, and if your calculations agree with your thermometer, then your calibration is good.

 

But what if your calibration is good for a long period, then it starts to diverge? Say around 1960. Well, if you're confident in your calibration, then another factor must be coming into play. If you can identify that factor, then you can account for it - and the way you account for it is to "fudge" the data. It sounds like a trick or a cheat, and it kind of is...

 

So... how do you do it and remain respectable? Well, you take a hit elsewhere. You've fudged your tree ring temps to match your REAL thermometer temperatures in a small part of your range and introduced some doubt in the process, so you are forced to admit "okay, tree rings might not be as reliable as we thought". The way you do this is by increasing the "error bars".

 

Have you heard of error bars? Error bars are a measure of how confident you are in a reading. Big error bars mean low confidence, small error bars mean high confidence. And this is exactly what has happened with the hockey stick graph. Look here:

 

 

See the grey lines across the chart? These are the error bars. Notice how they're massive to the left, and hardly present on the right? This is because as we introduce instrumental readings, we're way more sure of their accuracy. So the error bars in recent years are way less. Over in 1400, we're saying "we're really not sure, but it's in this range".

 

Can you see how this changes things? I hope you can, it's fairly standard scientific practice. When I first started astronomy, Hubbles constant was frequently quoted as "75 +/- 25"!

 

Dave

[Slim]

For a start people may not have seen it, and might want to read it.

 

And as I've said before I'll post what I want on the subject, no matter how much you don't like it, or bitch about it, here's another one for you -

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...nravelling-now/

 

I didn't say I didn't like it, nor was I bitching about it. I was asking you a question about it. You said yesterday that you post links not because you support them, but because you want to 'broaden the debate'. I'm asking you questions about your link, isn't that why you posted it?

[Ringwraith]

I didn't say I didn't like it, nor was I bitching about it. I was asking you a question about it. You said yesterday that you post links not because you support them, but because you want to 'broaden the debate'. I'm asking you questions about your link, isn't that why you posted it?

 

Really Slimy, so 'Urgh' is a term of endearment for you is it? I'll say it again, I'll post what I like on the subject whether you like it or not.

[Slim]

Really Slimy, so 'Urgh' is a term of endearment for you is it? I'll say it again, I'll post what I like on the subject whether you like it or not.

 

'urgh' was referring to Lord Loony, not the fact that you posted a link.

 

So you don't want to broaden the debate at all then? What do you want achieve with the links you post?

 

Terse, in an effort to make things a little more clear, realclimate has reposted this link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...n-6-easy-steps/

 

I'd be interested to know what you make of it?

[Ringwraith]

Terse, in an effort to make things a little more clear, realclimate has reposted this link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...n-6-easy-steps/

 

I'd be interested to know what you make of it?

 

What do you think about comment 10 by 'danny bee' from your link Slimy, would you agree with it?

 

I hate to say this, but the world needs to stop all car and plane transport right NOW, for a one year test run. To see if we can survive without these co2 machines……the UN should declare a global emergency NOW and ask all member nations to stop all vehicular and plane traffic NOW. For a one year period, and then get together and see what the results are. We are in a major major emergency, and most media are worring about Paris Hilton and Becks. Who cares? Barry Bonds and A-Rod, not important. The Planet is in DIRE DIRE straights….

[Slim]

What do you think about comment 10 by 'danny bee' from your link Slimy, would you agree with it?

 

I hate to say this, but the world needs to stop all car and plane transport right NOW, for a one year test run. To see if we can survive without these co2 machines……the UN should declare a global emergency NOW and ask all member nations to stop all vehicular and plane traffic NOW. For a one year period, and then get together and see what the results are. We are in a major major emergency, and most media are worring about Paris Hilton and Becks. Who cares? Barry Bonds and A-Rod, not important. The Planet is in DIRE DIRE straights….

 

No, I wouldn't agree with that at all, it's a silly and unworkable suggestion. Anyones free to post comments on Realclimate, I was more interested in what you thought of the actual post though?

[Ringwraith]

No, I wouldn't agree with that at all, it's a silly and unworkable suggestion. Anyones free to post comments on Realclimate, I was more interested in what you thought of the actual post though?

 

I thought you were all for ideas like that, myabe not quite as drastic as that though.

 

I'll wait for the results of the various inquiries before forming an opinion on the AGW theory, maybe you should too.

[Dr_Dave]

I'll wait for the results of the various inquiries before forming an opinion on the AGW theory, maybe you should too.

 

No need to wait. Have you read much of the published body of science on it? You don't even need to read anything from the tainted CRU, there's plenty of it about. Here's some stuff from Nasa:

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

 

Dave

[Slim]

I thought you were all for ideas like that, myabe not quite as drastic as that though.

 

Nope, you thought wrong. I own a car, and I wouldn't want to live without a car.

 

I'll wait for the results of the various inquiries before forming an opinion on the AGW theory, maybe you should too.

 

I notice you've been ignoring Dr Daves questions on this, but these pending inquiries won't matter a jot on AGW theory. What will a political investigation into the processes of one or two institutions matter when you've research from many more that's not under fresh scrutiny? And if the inquiry concludes that nothing untoward happened, will you suddenly trust the climate consensus? Is that all it will take to convince you?

 

Here's an interesting quote, regarding 'waiting to see' from the FT:

 

"Yet it is not enough to argue that the science is uncertain. Given the risks, we have to be quite sure the science is wrong before following the sceptics. By the time we know it is not, it is likely to be too late to act effectively. We cannot repeat experiments with just one planet."

 

Good read: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f6c42fc-dead-11...?nclick_check=1

[Ringwraith]

Nope, you thought wrong. I own a car, and I wouldn't want to live without a car.

 

Oh yes, I remember now, you just want to tax people by the mile don't you.

 

I notice you've been ignoring Dr Daves questions on this, but these pending inquiries won't matter a jot on AGW theory. What will a political investigation into the processes of one or two institutions matter when you've research from many more that's not under fresh scrutiny? And if the inquiry concludes that nothing untoward happened, will you suddenly trust the climate consensus? Is that all it will take to convince you?

 

Here's an interesting quote, regarding 'waiting to see' from the FT:

 

"Yet it is not enough to argue that the science is uncertain. Given the risks, we have to be quite sure the science is wrong before following the sceptics. By the time we know it is not, it is likely to be too late to act effectively. We cannot repeat experiments with just one planet."

 

That quote is pure scaremongering. And yes I'll wait for the inquiry results, and see just how far they go. You cannot say that they won't spread to other AGW theory institutions because they may well do just that.

[Dr_Dave]

That quote is pure scaremongering.

 

... supported by the findings of most scientific studies from pretty much every institution. Have you read any of the other work?

 

Dave