Deltoid

Deltoid, the place where trolls come to die.

Jonas, stand up for your national anthem and sing along.

Posted by: Neven | September 12, 2011 1:17 PM

Just for reference in case that "very likely" statement coincidentally comes up for discussion again:

9.4.1.4 The Influence of Greenhouse Gas and Total Anthropogenic Forcing on Global Surface Temperature

Posted by: Andy S | September 12, 2011 3:16 PM

Clippo - You entirely miss the point. I never said that statistics aren't useful. I've been saying the contrary here for a week. But they need to be correctly applied.

As I said, and as it states in your link: You need a model, or a 'guiding theory' which essentially has the same function. The curve fit / equation alone is not enough for predictions.

And still, kiddo, fitting a curve is not 'advanced statistics'. Interpreting data towards a theory might be. And I already answered your questions. Essentially confirming what you just copied. But possibly you missed that too ... Sorry kid.

Posted by: Jonas N | September 12, 2011 3:47 PM

Jonas said: "I never said that statistics aren't useful. I've been saying the contrary here for a week. But they need to be correctly applied".

Of course we've already heard that schtick from M&M, M&S and Wegman and look what a horlicks they made.

Posted by: chek | September 12, 2011 4:15 PM

In a way it is quite flattering, to get my own thread here.

Jeff Harvey (and quite some more) repeatedly claimed I was attention seeking, and not being on topic. But if you go back to the Rick Perry thread, and took out all comments spent on speculating about me, making up stuff about me, wanting to describe who I 'really' am etc ..

.. less than half would remain, I reckon. (Admittedly, I too responded to some of the blathering, and without that there would have been even less)

Funny thing is that the topics I touched upon, including the Mashey stirr weren't really responded to or relevant to discuss. Same thing with the more climate/IPCC related details about attribution etc. (At least not for the majority.)

No, my persona was much more in vouge. And especially among those who complained about me being off topic. But as I've said: Usually I assume that people bring to the table the best arguments the have (left). And being logical or consistent in one's stance just doesn't seem to be for everyone ...

But it's kinda comforting. In this thread i cannot be of topic, I am the topic. And if I just might vent my opionions too about som particluarly stupid remark or commenter, I'd still be on topic. Much more than those who have spent days and weeks here neither adressing the post, or de issues discussed ..

:-)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 12, 2011 4:56 PM

Andy S

You've already shown figure 9.9 several times. Thank you. And weren't you the one (forgive me if i mix up the signatures) who pointed out that 90% isn't 100%?

clippo

One more remark. Neither Wegman, nor McKitrick or McIntyre are really concerned with the models. What they focus on is not bungling the statistics. McIntyre considers himself to be a luke warmer (and left leaning politically, why that should matter). For all practical purposes you can label me as lukewarmer too, and I'm quite positive I made that clear in the beginning.

It is the climate scare or even armageddon I say are unwaranted. And that all politics devised at controling the climate are not only futile. But completely brainless. And detrimental to the environment, the real one (not that possible anthropogening temperature fingerpring in the tropical mid troposphere)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 12, 2011 5:09 PM

Had a quick look through Jonas' contributions on the CHE thread.

Should have known - he exhibits classic signs of Libertarianism (nasty affliction that one).

He's probably a devotee of Anyn Rand as well.

Just feel sorry for him.

Posted by: Michael | September 12, 2011 5:40 PM

@11

Where Jonas tries his hand at concern-troll.

Poor effort - can do better.

Posted by: Michael | September 12, 2011 5:45 PM

GSW.

In my recent posts I have attempted to draw a corollary between cause-and-effect relationships in complex fields in which there are many 'unknowns'. Population and systems ecology are an excellent example. Above I try and explain that humans are a global force whose effects are manifested in other areas (e.g. biogeochemical cycling, redirection of NPP etc.). so why anyone would try and suggest that we cannot influence climate is beyond me. But of course, neither you or JonasN address the important link between scientific uncertainty and public policy. I give many lectures on this field and it lies at the heart of mitigation efforts. Trust both you and Jonas to muff it.

And with respect to 'derailing the thread over policy', your darling bosom buddy above does just that: It is the climate scare or even armageddon I say are unwaranted. And that all politics devised at controling the climate are not only futile. If this is not an 'opinion' calling for inaction, I don't know what is.

Methinks you ought to actually read what I say before you put your foot into your mouth again.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 12, 2011 5:55 PM

GSW:

you non empirical types

Listen lunkhead - I have more empirical papers in peer-reviewed journals than you and most of your buddies put together. My guess is that you don't have a single one.

So put up or shut up, right wing troll.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 12, 2011 5:58 PM

@Harvey,

I do try to read what you say Harvey, unfortunately it's all emotional, irrational nonsense, which doesn't really assist in the flow, if you know what I mean.

Grow up! buy a maths book and start from there!

Posted by: GSW | September 12, 2011 6:03 PM

Jeff,

Your posts are educational for those of us interested in science. We value the contributions and insights of a working, widely published scientist.

However, your eforts are totally wasted on Jonas, GSW and their ilk. They can lie, distort, misconstrue and smear to their hearts content, while you, being a member of the reality-based community, are at a distinct disavantage, restricted to mere facts and logic.

Posted by: Michael | September 12, 2011 6:37 PM

@Michael, Jeff,

Jeff is at a distinct disadvantage solely because he doesn't know what he is talking about, which is limiting in most professions you'll find.

@Jonas,

Quite a successful first evening I think, Keep it going!

Posted by: GSW | September 12, 2011 6:50 PM

I'd suggest that the Booker/Delingpole wannabees here will only continue to play various combinations of denier bingo and are best left alone to mutually masticate over their entirely dull, predictable and evidence-free views.

Posted by: chek | September 12, 2011 7:22 PM

So Jonas is an extreme far-right Libertarian. Suddenly everything is so clear.

;)

Posted by: John | September 12, 2011 7:48 PM

That's called SILENCING DISSENT Jeffery. It just feeds into their paranoia.

Posted by: John | September 12, 2011 8:50 PM

re: 31

There is no actual paranoia. It's contrived. (You can't offer an elaborate, cooked argument w/ cherry-picked data and not know it.) They've decided to scream, so let them.

Over there.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | September 12, 2011 9:08 PM

I quite enjoyed the irony of Jonas calling JeffH "boring".

On the one hand, we have well-written and informative opinions based on real-world observations from a professional whose work is accepted for publication by respected science journals.

On the other hand we have a nauseously long-winded fog of nonsense recycled from idiot-blogs by an anonymous cretin.

No, it isn't Jeff who's "boring".

Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | September 12, 2011 10:45 PM

What is the most common bird on earth?

Yes, its the chicken. Human influence again....

Posted by: John Brookes | September 12, 2011 11:35 PM

Apparently the Vikings used to make wine out of chickens in Greenland during the medieval warm period.

Jonas Curtin told me.

Posted by: Gaz | September 13, 2011 12:41 AM

The main thrust of the sceptic case against Mann is his rather dubious (that's being kind) use of statistical methods

B*. The main case against Mann is politically and idealogically driven, just as it is against Hansen, Trenbarth and others. Mann's 'crime' was to publish a seminal article in Nature that has become the 'Alamo' for the denialist cause. They have used the hockey stick as the icon in their own anti-environmental crusade.

As John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton explain in "Trust Us, We're Experts', the climate change denial lobby has used every method in their book to debunk the science that they hate. That you, GSW, think that most of the so-called sceptics are interested in 'good science' tells me a lot about your understanding on the issue.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 13, 2011 3:16 AM

GSW said: "So No, I don't think we are near the point where it's going to be accepted as a 'valid' piece of work".

Yeah right, hence the untold millions invested in investigation after investigation after investigation of Mann.

The denier industry focus is transparent, GSW. The hockey stick totem is more of a Pavlovian fixation to them than that pigeon was to Dastardly & Muttley.

Posted by: chek | September 13, 2011 3:27 AM

@Harvey

The thing about science Jeff is you are supposed to set aside your own politicial views/prejudices and consider each thing objectively on its own merits.

You don't, it's all politically and idealogically driven, you never ever address the facts or details of whats being said. You operate purely on prejudice. For some reason you think everyone else does to, it's what you accuse them of, the overwhelming majority of empirical scientists don't behave that way.

Are you one that did that Oickos(?) paper, this is exactly what I mean. Think about it for a moment.

Posted by: GSW | September 13, 2011 3:47 AM

Well, that's that's that then.

Jonas has no scientific arguments whatsoever, just a selection of denier greatest hits memes.

Quelle surprise.

Posted by: chek | September 13, 2011 4:00 AM

I'd like to know who "Jonas" is in real life. Is he one of the superannuated academics, usually geologists, who comprise the "Dad's Army" of deniers? (I noticed he uses "kid" to address others ...)

Or is he merely one of the paid claque that goes around disrupting comment sections dealing with AGW; the type of whom Upton Sinclair famously said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!".

Posted by: Scribe | September 13, 2011 4:32 AM

Jonas N.

It seems that you found it profoundly difficult to actually undertake a process whereby you might find the papers detailing the methodology used in the IPCC's establishment of ranges around modelled warming, and/or the researchers who conducted the work.

You certainly gave no indication of the extent to which you undertook any such investigation... and yet, you are determined to spread the meme that no work was done by climatologists in order to establish said ranges, and rather that the IPCC's "numbers are made up, guessed at best".

If you are so confident that you can make this claim, you must have read at least some of the IPCC's references and established that they don't provide the information required to establish the model ranges.

So, can you please list the IPCC reference papers that you have read, and determined do not contain the requisite information, or do not contain information needed to locate the requisite information about the model ranges?

And do you seriously stand by Glen Raphael's muddle-headed attempt at binomial probability?

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 13, 2011 4:46 AM

Although my response following seems to be attacking you GSW, it’s not meant to – I’m just trying to get Jonas N to re-evaluate his ‘denial’ and silly mis-understanding of Statistics – but you have had the courage to ask me to explain more

Re:- GSW @ 8

I re read Jonas's post #107, can you be a bit specific about your criticisms of it? I don't see much there that could be classed as controversial, have I missed something?

Jonas N’s post 107 is general purpose rubbish. He could have looked that up in an elementary textbook – and I think Chris’s in post #110 there claim in post that it is possibly even sub - undergraduate stuff elevates it considerably. My main criticism, and why I entered this ‘whack-a-denier’ Jonas N argument, was his statement in post #71 of the Dressler thread as I’ll call it,

There is nothing wrong with fitting straight lines to noisy and/or varying data, but those should not be confused with the actual data. And fitted lines carry no predictive or explainatory value. The discussion above was about where the hypothesis and real data agreed well, and where not. (trendlines are irrelevant for that purpose)

which shows he’s a naive babe where any science is concerned, but particularly statistics.

Data on its’ own is MEANINGLESS - and tells you NOTHING. My fundamental argument is that scientists collect data to analyse and understand the mathematical relationships that cause the data – as Jeff Harvey suggested in post #18 here and from the extensive Wiki article.

Statisticians fit ‘lines’ to ‘predict’ – FULL STOP.

Re:- GSW @8

Not all data is collected for purpose of building models, in the main it is collected for weather monitoring.

To a slight sense, I agree with the first part but re: the second which I have bolded, what do Meteorologists do with weather monitoring data ? – make a forecast (or ‘prediction) perhaps?. (Furthermore,what is the common name for Meteorologists? - smile). And there’s NO WAY they can do that these days without enormously complex ‘models’ derived from advanced statistics on horrendously expensive computers.

Re: GSW @8

They heavily use statistial analysis, if that is the desired point you are making(?)

YES! – prercisiely the point I was trying to get Jonas N to realise – he doesn’t appear to accept the Statistical models that the IPCC and Climate Change science consensus have generated - but he will believe the Statistics / Models of a few vested-interest AGW deniers.

Re: GSW @8

"And why do they ‘analyse’ the same data as other Staistical experts in Climate Science?"

Think about this question a bit more deeply – in my opinion, and probably many others, they analyse this same data to ‘corrupt’ the analysis to fit their pre-conclusions.

Re: GSW @8

Did you really learn advanced statistics just so you could fit a line? Microsoft sell a packaged called Excel, there are free packages around as well that are probably better.

Seriously, I was doing advanced Statistical analysis before even PCs came out. I did use Excel a little later but frankly, for extensive multivariate analysis, the then Excel couldn’t match other specialised packages.

Re: Jonas N @ 12

It is the climate scare or even armageddon I say are unwaranted. And that all politics devised at controling the climate are not only futile. But completely brainless. And detrimental to the environment, the real one (not that possible anthropogening temperature fingerpring in the tropical mid troposphere)

So, in your opinion, reducing CO2 emissions, by say, lessening the combustion of fossil fuels and/or replanting tropical rainforests as a major carbon sink won’t have any effect on the atmosphere? Neither will the reduction of ‘soot’ from such burning ? Neither will the enormous pollution caused from burning coal ?

My God – you’re really freaked out.

Posted by: CLIPPO uk | September 13, 2011 5:05 AM

There was a guy called Jones Whom on others placed the onus, For his climate science education, But ‘twas mere masturbation, For this libertarian named Jonas.

Posted by: Michael | September 13, 2011 5:32 AM

Re GSW (@ 40)

"Even non sceptics have expressed concern over his work. The CRU guys, Briffa + Osborne was it? (from memory as I don't have the reference to hand) thought his conclusions could not be supported and it is likely that it was as warm 1000yrs ago as it is today."

That's a little sad GSW. I thought you might be a serious sort of chap, but it seems you're one of those misguided individuals that considers nonchalant smearing and misrepresentation of scientists to be all in a days work. Have to say I'm curious about your motives! Perhaps like Dr. Roy W. Spencer you consider your political opinions "trump" honest representation of science [and even to the extent of playing the little cheerleader for the dullard Jonas ;-) ].

Anyhow, for those that might be interested in the science, rather than GSW's lazy falsehoods it's easy to see that "the CRU guys, Briffa+Osborne" (sic) think nothing of the sort. In fact Briffa and Osborn consider that the late 20th century and contempory warming is greater than anytime during the last 1000 years. We know this because they say so in their papers. Let's look at one of these:

Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation M. N. Juckes, M. R. Allen, K. R. Briffa, J. Esper, G. C. Hegerl, A. Moberg, T. J. Osborn, and S. L.Weber (2007) Climate of the Past 3, 591-609.

Briffa and Osborn state at various points:

"The IPCC2001 conclusion that temperatures of the past millennium are unlikely to have been as warm, at any time prior to the 20th century, as the last decades of the 20th century is supported by subsequent research and by the results obtained here."

and:

"The IPCC 2007 conclusion that "It is very likely that average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the warmest in at least the past 1300 years" (Solomon et al., 2007) is also supported by our analysis."

and of their own composite reconstruction:

"A new reconstruction made with a composite of 13 proxies extending back to AD 1000 fits the instrumental record to within a standard deviation of 0.14 K. The maximum pre-industrial temperature in the reconstruction is 0.25 K, in the 11th century, relative to the AD 1866 to 1970 mean. The maximum temperature from the instrumental record is 0.84K in AD 1998, over 4 standard deviations larger."

Obviously they're not too impressed with the flawed 2003 "critique" of Mann's work by a pair of Canadian bullies (McKitrick and McIntyre aka MM2003) whose work they consider to be "discredited".

"Also, data from South West Mexico was omitted in MM2003 (discussed further in the SM). McIntyre and McKitrick (2005b) [MM2005b] revisit the MM2003 work using the stepwise calculated principal components. They claim to reproduce the results of MM2003 by making only minor changes to the MBH1998 proxy data base. However, examination of the relevant figures shows that the MM2005b predictions for the 15th century are 0.3K warmer than the MBH1998 result as opposed to 0.5K in MM2003. This is still significant, but, unlike the discredited MM2003 result, it would not make the 15th century the warmest on record."

Posted by: chris | September 13, 2011 6:47 AM

Chris @ #56

The problem is that on the one hand the denier echo chambers create an alternative reality in which goons who inhabit that undergound like our double act here, come to believe that what is repeatedly rumoured and insinuated must be true, and no matter how flawed their understanding (which can never be admitted). On the other hand they may just as easily be cold, stone-faced, deliberate liars.

It's the only way that their netherworld can sustain itself. Like any cult, really.

Posted by: chek | September 13, 2011 7:11 AM

Since 1998 the science has developed. Interestingly the newer findings largely vindicate the main findings of MBH (and put into perspectives the scale of any failings of MBH -which have been so over-blow by so called skeptics).

Posted by: jakerman | September 13, 2011 7:18 AM

of course, I meant "jakerman" (not "jackerman")

Posted by: chris | September 13, 2011 7:39 AM

self correction - Planck scales

Posted by: Andrew Strang | September 13, 2011 8:12 AM

Jonas, sweetheart? Why are you still wasting your brilliance on us poor, misguided plebes?

As you helpfully collaborated in another thread, there are millions of Exxon dollars to be had if only you publish your laser-like arguments, your thorough and scientific trouncing of all the nincompoops at the IPCC.

Why, Jonas? I'm only looking out for you. I want what's best for the you, and the world. Your insights should be immortalized, stat! The world cannot wait any longer!

Run, Jonas, run!

Posted by: Stu | September 13, 2011 9:36 AM

Which reminds of that funny little saying;

Science advances one funeral at a time.

Posted by: Michael | September 13, 2011 10:14 AM

No, Bernard #65, that's not what I'm saying. Read what I say, and stop inventing your 'facts', OK?

And I can't remember from the top of my head which ones I have checked before. The thing is that I used to follow and read references that AGW-proponents pointed me to, acertaining that certain facts were to be found there. And almost every single time, the supposed fact, settled truth, scientific result etc was overstated (sometimes widely) by them who referred to it.

Unfortunately, this practice is quite common even when one paper references another saying 'it has been shown by XX&YY that .. see [ref]' while it only was surmised tentatively in the dioscussion, or valid under specific restrictions.

Wich is much worse, than when an anonymous blog commenters tries to pull a quicky and dirty ..

So nowadays, I ask the referrer if (s)he has actually read and understood the contents, and would be able to discuss and defend them, if I read it. I don't make the effort to follow references from random people who in their posts show that they cannot phrase specifics, valid arguments or even their own stance.

In short, I need at least to respect them and have the impression of a person who can has some knowledge of the field (preferably has read that reference too)

But I think you make a mistake here.

Finding central scientific results is not (should not be) very difficult today, especially if it is (supposedly) so widely known as the IPCC AR4 centerpiece claim.

You shouldn't need to dig deep into numerous publications which nowehere indicate that this is to be found there. This is the reason people write papers, cite them, and use references.

And I have not libelled the IPCC, or any specific (namned) climate scientists. Merely pointed out that the basis for that claim is immensely difficult to find (and more and more seem to grudgingly agree no).

Yes, tentatively, I have said that (I think) it doesn't exist. Because that is a falsifyable statment.

As i wrote: I am sticking my neck out, go ahead and have a swing.

But I can't (ever) prove a negative (and those few among you who something about science, of course know that)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 13, 2011 10:47 AM

@Bernard

"What substance do you actually have, little troll?"

Come of it Bernard, you can hardly accuse Jonas of being a Troll on his own thread! It's rude if nothing else!

;)

Posted by: GSW | September 13, 2011 11:42 AM

Jeff - Inventing your own 'facts' and 'truths' still is a really lousy method for understanding the world.

Really, how dense can you be? Show me were that claim is based on real science, or shut up! All you guys have been doing is shouting that it must be in there (for the most peculiar reasons) but none of you has seen it either!

The implicit claim you are making is that it is so deeply burried and well hidden, that nobody can find it if he/she is looking really hard for it.

Well, if it indeed exists, it is! You are the living walking proof of that ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 13, 2011 12:26 PM

Re: GSW @59

Clippo - "Statisticians fit ‘lines’ to ‘predict’ – FULL STOP." GSW - I'd prefer to say statisticians fit lines to establish and quantify "relationships". The relationship established one could then go on to make predictions admittedly.

I put ‘lines’ & ‘predict’ in inverted commas for a reason – to imply quantified relationships had been found.

&

Also, at the risk of being pedantic, you said for the purposes of 'building' models, the fact that this data is routinely 'input' to models for weather forecasts is a different matter entirely.

I didn’t say this – please re-read what I wrote. To help you, I said that meteorologists / weather forecasters, put ‘current’ weather information into very complicated ‘models’ (by implication derived by Advanced Statistical analysis of older data), to forecast short term weather. &

You can easily determine that a storm with high winds is heading your way from a series of barometric plots.

Can you ??? I severely underestimated you – but why do NASA, say, monitor the progress of hurricanes and TS worldwide using satellites & state of the art technology?

I'd simply point out that the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy were analysing this data to better understand the physics of the atmosphere long before the subject became controversial.

No they weren’t (except Linzden perhaps) – they only started analysing this data at the bejest of the ‘doubt science’ USA right wing. You should try to read some books like History of Global warming (Spencer Weart), The Republican war on Science, (Chris Mooney) &, of course, Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway) and others. And I agree completely with John in #67

I'd simply point out that not once in the past twenty years has any of their work stood up to even mild scrutiny. Spencer, Lindzen, and Cristy's ideas will die with them.

Finally, I’d like you to clarify some ambiguity in your post # 108 in the Dessler thread :-

Jonas vs Clippo. I'd call that at least part way to a drubbing Jonas.

I have not studied many of your postings before GSW but I’m beginning to become suspicious of YOUR analytical capabilities

Posted by: Clippo UK | September 13, 2011 2:05 PM

Jeff Harvey,

Could you please point to the Nepstad paper that shows specifically the alteration of 'evapotranspiration regimes' in heavily deforested tropical biomes?

Thanks.

Additionally, it would be nice if you could clarify what you mean by such mumbo-jumbo as "alteration of evapotranspiration regimes in heavily deforested tropical biomes". Sounds awfully scientific and like woo - all at the same time.

In my line of work, if a junior reported that such-and-such variable is "altered", "deranged" or something like that, he would be rapped on the knuckles immediately. He/she would have to be more specific.

Posted by: Shub | September 13, 2011 6:11 PM

Shub the nobody said "In my line of work..."

Oh gawd - shub's pulling his voice of authority one out of his grab bag. This should be hilarious.

Remind us again what exactly it is you do shubby, and your achievements to date. Jeff we already know about.

Posted by: chek | September 13, 2011 6:41 PM

@Shub 78,

Apologies Shub, but why do you ask? You haven't been subjected to one of Harvey's biodiversity armageddon rants have you? (That's what Jonas calls them anyway)

Just curious,

;)

PS ignore the proles.

Posted by: GSW | September 13, 2011 7:01 PM

@chek

Not a prob chek. Good site the bish has. v. polite. Now back to your dustbin prole.

;)

Posted by: GSW | September 13, 2011 8:08 PM

GSW@82

Why, yes! Quite a bit of time, and quite some time back too.

Posted by: Shub | September 13, 2011 8:29 PM

Has Shub managed to elaborate on his pompous "my line of work, if a junior....".

No?

Just more self-aggrandizing hot air?

Whodu thunk it??

Posted by: Michael | September 13, 2011 8:52 PM

Thanks Chris, Chek, Holly Stick and others. You've answered Shubbie. The point I was making is that an emergent tree in a tropical rainforest recycles huge amounts of water from its roots that are diffused through above-ground plant tissues back into the atmosphere... millions of liters of it to be precise... convectional precipitation falling on the eastern slopes of the Andes is recycled several times as it moves east across the continent eventually falling on the Mata Atlantica forests of Brazil. Critical in this cycle is the feedback between the vegetation and the atmosphere. More than a decade ago, Shukla and colleagues projected that even a limited loss of tropical plant biomass would interfere with this cycle, with consequences that should be clear.

As for 'ecological armageddon', such a phrase could only come out of an anti-environmental handbook. Sounds a lot like something from Ronald Bailey or 'Rational Readings' etc. Well done Jonas and GSW; join the club. Membership does not require one having even a basic understanding of population or systems ecology in response to global change, but simply to ridicule the message, and damn the empirical evidence.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 14, 2011 2:25 AM

Clippo

It is you who do not understand the basic things discussed here (and I suggest that you refrain from such stupid guessing about me)

What I said in #107 is perfectly correct:

The data is one thing,

Fitting a line (or a curve, an equation) to it is another

A model, a guiding theory, an attempt at an explanation is yet another,

Such a proposed model, may be fitted to observational or experimental data, especially when some factor/parameter of the hypothesis needs to be be determined (estimated, fitted) through that procedure

Predictions (projections) from that model into new (uncharted) territory is yet anotherthing.

The fitting, and the (explanatory) model are two seperate things. Fitting a straight line to dataset doesn't make that line a predictor. I have already mentioned the stockmarket as an example. The same is true for a data series you get when rolling a dice or the roulette wheel a number of times .. You may fit a nice line to it, and not much more.

For predictions you need an attempt at an explanation, a model.

Even when only extrapolating a straight (fitted) line, say into future, you implicitly make the assumtion that ther exists a ~linear relationship between the changes you observe, and the chosen parameter (time here).

And you are right, what I say is basic 101 of data analysis and handling, or any modelling, in physics or engineering. I too found it very strange that you felt compelled to throw a hissy fit ..

Wrt Climate, armageddon and politics:

You seem very prejudiced about that debate (and not very well informed). And yes, it is preferable to use up less resources (oil, coal, forrest) but realistically the effects on 'the climate' are undetectable even if you both manage (the Kyoto protocol) and the model predictions are true. Again, you first need to be aware of the magnitures discussed and compared. Humanitly is nowhere near stopping the using of coal. and soot reduction is desirable for all kinds of reason much more relevant than 'controlling the climate'.

Posted by: Jonas N | September 14, 2011 5:06 AM

The main case against Mann is politically and idealogically [sic] driven...

And you think that the catastrophic man-made warming movement isn't?

Oh, please.

Posted by: Rick Bradford | September 14, 2011 8:11 AM

Is there a point to this stream of semi random letters?

I think it's "look at me!!!". Which is quite pointless over the internet.

Posted by: Wow | September 14, 2011 8:53 AM

@Jonas 93,

Mm, thoughtful post. You're a bit of of an unsung philosopher aren't you? there's a lot of honesty in you words. Some may not agree with them, but there's not much of defence against the truth.

Your thread's proving quite a success! the rest of blog is pretty quite. As someone said earlier "Compeling". Well done! Keep it up!

;)

Posted by: GSW | September 14, 2011 9:00 AM

And yes, it is preferable to use up less resources (oil, coal, forrest) but realistically the effects on 'the climate' are undetectable even if you both manage (the Kyoto protocol) and the model predictions are true. Again, you first need to be aware of the magnitures discussed and compared. Humanitly is nowhere near stopping the using of coal. and soot reduction is desirable for all kinds of reason much more relevant than 'controlling the climate'

The above passage is pure gobbldegook, utterly meaningless drivel (and the grammar is appalling). Its preferable to use up less resources? Soot reduction? And GSW calls this gibberish 'thoughtful'?!?! No wonder most on here think they both deserve each other. The poster Itsyourself nailed it with his response.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 14, 2011 9:41 AM

Jonas N.

No, Bernard #65, that's not what I'm saying. Read what I say, and stop inventing your 'facts', OK?

I've read what you say, and you said that you couldn't name any of the references that might have supported your case. Indeed, by your own words it seems that you have not read any of the IPCC references at all, and hence there is no need for me to "invent... my own facts" - I am simply summarising the gist of your own confessions.

In short, I need at least to respect them and have the impression of a person who can has [sic] some knowledge of the field (preferably has read that reference too)

And so you are hoisted by your own, stinky little petard...

I have no respect for you, nor for your babblings, precisely because you have conclusively shown yourself to have neither knowledge of the field of climatology, nor to have read the relevant references, pertinent to the part of the field which you are counterclaimimg.

Unfortunately, this practice is quite common even when one paper references another saying 'it has been shown by XX&YY that .. see [ref]' while it only was surmised tentatively in the dioscussion [sic], or valid under specific restrictions.

See, this is where Dunningly-Krugered lay folk often come a cropper, when pretending that they can swan around playing at science.

Real, actual science involves really, actually reading the literature in a field. Professionals do this all the time, right from the moment of starting the exploration of an hypothesis, through to writing up the experimental results of a subsequent investigation. Ask any PhD student how many hours weeks of their lives they'll have spent trawling through the references of papers, and photocopying shopping-trollies worth of journal volumes, both for their own work and for their supervisors: and if they started more than about a decade ago, it would have all been done without the magic of convenient web links...

These papers are painstakingly found and read, and their contents understood. It's simply a part of the process of acquiring expertise. The material contained therein is not repeated holus-bolus in subsequent papers, as you appear to think should happen, because that's the whole point of publishing the original articles, and of having reference sections in papers, and in having libaries, and reprints, and photocopiers, and post-grad students...

That you seem to have no awareness of any of this indicates how far removed you are from possessing any scientific competence with which to credibly comment on matters climatological.

A working knowledge of a discipline requires more than a few minutes with a web search engine. It's no different to studying for 10 years to be a surgeon, compared with googling 'astrocytoma' and thinking that you're suddenly equipped to perform a neurosurgical procedure.

Sadly, as the anti-vaccine and anti-HIV movements indicate, such arm-chair science is all too prevalent in the lay population...

You shouldn't need to dig deep into numerous publications which nowehere [sic] indicate that this is to be found there. This is the reason people write papers, cite them, and use references.

FFS, your own second sentence contradicts your first, and puts the lie to it.

No, "[p]eople write papers, cite them, and use references" to document their original work, and to guide readers to previous relevant work. In a new paper the methodologies from previous work are rarely repeated verbatim except where discussion of such is germane to the paper; for example when describing methodological variations. And even then, when parts of methodologies have simply been replicated, they are simply referred to and only the varied components are detailed - otherwise the already expansive stacks in instituional libaries would be even more voluminous than they already are.

Such is the case with the IPCC's AR4. Remember, the IPCC is a body established to summarise the science, and not to perform it all over again or to dump all the literature lock, stock and barrel into a single source. This is exactly what Chapter 9 does - it summarises the literature, and tells the informed reader what the original sources were.

Get it? It's a document prepared by professionals to summarise the state of play for non-professionals. Other professionals and informed non-professionals are able to further their understanding by doing what any professional would do, and tracking down supplementary material. That you are - by your own words - incapabable of doing this with any degree of competence is simply an indictment of your lack of qualification to engage in the process at all.

Just because your ideology doesn't mesh with the science doesn't mean that you get to perform a revision from your soap-box. Sorry buster, but if you have a point, prove it scientifically, or get out of the way and let the experts do their job.

And I have not libelled the IPCC, or any specific (namned) climate scientists.

?!

Go over some of your previous comments and think carefully about their content, petal. You might then want to reconsider this statement.

But I can't (ever) prove a negative

Your "negative" is the claim to the effect that "the IPCC and the body of professional climatologists have not performed the calculations that establish 90% ranges for temperature projections in the future". It only remains unproven for you as long as you don't actually read any of the referenced material, just as not conducting an experiment renders just about any otherwise-testable hypothesis unproven.

If you had the guts to tell us what you've read, it could quickly be established whether your claim is correct or not. Of course, I could review the references myself, but I refuse to do your work for you, at least in the short term (I might perhaps revisit it down the track, as I sometimes do with other trolls - Tim Curtin's potable seawater notion was one such, and factoid's Sydney August 2011 temperature idiocy is another).

and those few among you who something [sic] about science, of course know that

I know enough science to know that you are either completely ignorant of it, or are deliberately misrepresenting it for your own vested interest.

Either way, you're full of the brown sticky stuff.

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 14, 2011 10:04 AM

Mm, thoughtful post. You're a bit of of an unsung philosopher aren't you? Would Jonas pass the Turing test? Is he a test version of an AI? He has gone a long way with no content.

Posted by: itsyourself | September 14, 2011 10:08 AM

@Jonas 93,

Mm, thoughtful post. You're a bit of of an unsung philosopher aren't you?

In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 14, 2011 10:10 AM

Have to agree with GSW that this thread is fascinating - a perfect portrayl of denialism with its essential precept: "the denialist must at all cost avoid engagement with the evidence". The three denialists on this thread can feel proud of themselves by conforming beautifully to stereotype each in their own way:

Jonas simply disregards the existence of the science (he calls it "science", and for example asserts that the IPCC only "pretend" to present this!). He pursues this theme through post after post after post - we won't learn anything from Jonas and he's not going to let you forget it!

Jonas' cheerleader GSW has coined a nice phrase for his particular strategy - he "operates purely on prejudice". He wants to trash the science but lacks the evidence - so he simply makes it up! In classic denialist fashion this is accompanied with industrial scale hypocrisy.

Shub adopts the approach of the bully. Finding himself in the surprising position of being able to interact with someone knowledgeable and productive he doesn't pass up the opportunity for puny insult. Without bothering to try to engage maturely with the subject he attempts to belittle it as "mumbo-jumbo". Excellent! One might wonder why he bothers, but of course the denialist (especially the bully sort), is proud of the fact that he's disgusted by those hi-falutin people that try to explain stuff.

textbook stuff and very illuminating!

Posted by: chris | September 14, 2011 10:33 AM

BJ @ 103 "These papers are painstakingly found and read, and their contents understood..."

It's that last word that trips up the denialists, Jonas just being the lastest in a long line trying to get by with just a facade of understanding.

Posted by: Michael | September 14, 2011 10:50 AM

Andy S - You tried the exact same link already in comment #3, and several times before. And repetition of a claim is somehow (amongst many here) assumed to strengthen that claim.

Well, in the real world, it's not ..

Posted by: Jonas N | September 14, 2011 11:06 AM

Mikem, I think you are making several mistakes here.

Have you not read the rants and raves against Mann on "sceptic" blogs? Have you not read the synthesis of the allegations sent into Penn State in an email bombardment? They mostly involve allegations of systemic fraud and allegations of a criminal nature. Heck, even prominent conservative politicians want him in jail!

you said!

1. You cannot take individual anonymous blog comments and make general statements about people not agreeing with a certain position. (Just look at what can be found here, at RC, at Tamino, Rabet, DC etc. The lowest level is low, by definition, regardless of side. Further, if you compare 'lowest level' )

2. When addressing what is being said by named people with official positions, like journalists, politicians, scientists and academics, government and GONGO employees etc, you need to make relevant comparisons. There have been plenty of hard words and threats from official AGW-proponents. Some worse than others, and would very much doubt that the balance is flattering to the AGW-side.

3. Policy is politics. You cannot propose what you hold to be policy relevant arguments, and claim that no political opposition is allowed. Expecting politics without oppostion, without being questioned, without other conflicting interests and issues would only be naive.

Some more roundup:

Signatures: Alan, Scribe, Andrew S, Harald K, itsyourself addressed me about things not realy central to anything here. If there was a serious question, could you please specify.

Further, signatures Stu and Vince had absolutely nothing to say (and their rambling may well be included among the rest here only venting frustrated wishful beliefs).

Posted by: Jonas N | September 14, 2011 11:08 AM

Jonas, apparently without a smirk on his face, writes about me, saying, "everybody already knows you're upset and angry".

Sheesh, where did you come up with that little gem? Angry? Certainly not; you don't have that power over me, pal. Perhaps exasperated is a more appropriate word. Bernard's excellent post @103 sums it up perfectly. There was once a Star Trek episode, "Spock's Brain" where Captain Kirk and Mr. Scott questioned a primitive tribesman on a planet dominated by women. The tribesman, not understanding the meaning of the words "women" or "mate" replies to the crewmen: "Your words - say nothing". That quote perfectly sums up the musings of JonasN.

I won't comment at length on Jonas' 'humanitly' point. He has repeated this three times, and I assume he means 'humanity', but the point is still lost in translation. His other points are equally badly written but understandable. What I meant is that his first point is silly because of course it is desirable to use less resources (unless of course you are a corporate CEO and your aim is short-term profit maximization - try amking your point to the ACI or API). By soot I presume he means aerosols? But of course there is now evidence that aerosols can mask the effects of greenhouse gases, hence the effects of reducing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols has amplified the warming effects of greenhouse gases. But two wrongs don't make a right in this instance.

At the end of the day the costs of burning fossil fuels are externalized in economic price-cost scenarios (as are the costs of a range of anthropogenic processes on natural and managed ecosystems). If they were fully internalized, a point made by a number of economists and ecologists, then we would be paying a lot more for energy and for fuel, driving technological innovation for sustainable and environmentally friendlier and cheaper alternatives. Problem is, we've relied on economic models of costs formulated by neoclassical economists (e.g. Nordhaus) that either downplay the negative effects of fossil fuel use and attendant climate changes on ecosystems and their services, or else greatly underestimate the amount of technological innovation and investment were the prices to accurately reflect these externalities.

I agree that weaning us off of our addiction to fossil fuels in time to make notable impacts on climate is an almost impossible task, given the immense power of the lobbies that are protecting and profiting from them. However, nature is not so easily forgiving. We are pushing natural systems towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain themselves (see World Scientist's Warning to Humanity, 1992, which says that 'Humans and the Natural World are on a Collision Course'). Like it ot not, humans are conducting a one-off experiment on systems that are truly complex, if all of the biotic and abiotic processes are factored in. You, GSW and others appear to think its just fine to continue along the current trajectory. What else is there to say?

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 14, 2011 11:12 AM

Bernard, are you suggesting Jonas is full of sticks?

:-)

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 14, 2011 11:18 AM

Jeff H

You have never seen that particular science purportedly presenting the analysis for tham 90% certainty claim (and if you had seen it, you couldn't read it, because you don't master that topic)

The exact same is true for Bernard J, for Andy S, for Marco, for those few others who actually have a slight grasp of what is required. Nobody else I've asked has seen it (but my questioning rendered as much puffing and smoke)

And Martin Vermeer has not seen it. But he is the only one who actually gave a reference (which addressed something different). Bernard J can start there, although he rather fantasizes about 'facts' and 'truths' (and calls it 'summarizing my confessions').

Re: That Start Trek quote:

"Your words - say nothing"

Well, I can say it again:

'That science is nowhere to be found, and none of you has seen it'

And now, wweks later with three (four) threads of comments thrown at be about almost anything (else), I can honestly say wrt to my original statement:

"Your words - say nothing"

And the cute thing about it is that many among you know by now. Because you just have not found it, are aware of not haveing seen it, notice that nobody even tries (exept Martin V once), and I reckon that some have been searching quitetly, but in vain. (And yes, you do sound angry and frustrated)

Further, if you agreed with the general tenor of my suggestion not to misuse resources, your reply was even more strange ..

Re your final paragraph:

No, it is not the lobbies, it is the strivings of mankind all over the world that sets the needs for energy and how much is consumed. I already told you what it requires to make a real (measurable) impact on our CO2 emissions.

(which BTW are not particularly dangerous to neither the climate, nor to ecology or its diversity, but desirable to reduce for many other reasons)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 14, 2011 11:36 AM

Bernard J #116

One detail suffices:

Show me that or those reference(s) you claimed were the relevant ones. You know, where that claim actually is demonstrated to be based on proper science!

Simple as that

... or go and play with your sticky-sticks ..

Posted by: Jonas N | September 14, 2011 11:48 AM

@Jonas 120,

Fair enough ;) Every now and then Jeff let's slip that he doesn't really read the Journals. He quotes copious references for this that or the other, but if it's not on the little list he's made for himself, well, he seems to struggle, curious.

Posted by: GSW | September 14, 2011 12:59 PM

re: #102 Michael: thanks for the set of examples. I'd quoted: "John Mashey is a repugnant individual. He is one of the most repulsive compulsively dishonest people around"

but had not done a thorough catalog. That's a fine list. Some Bad Lists are good to be on, although that one is rather lower-rated than some others I'm on

Posted by: John Mashey | September 14, 2011 1:29 PM

But 'the climate' is (at best) one of the lesser reasons for that. Pretty far down the line, I'd say ..

Which is to say that, since your opinion is worthless, it is to be ignored.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 14, 2011 3:16 PM

GSW @ 128, I suspect Jeff Harvey knows that the vast majority of scientists are honest and forthcoming about the research in their fields and are generally excellent sources of expert knowledge.

GSW, pukka scientists don't "operate on prejudice" to the extent of fabricating lies in order to pursue their prejudices, in the manner that you seem quite comfortable doing. I suspect that's sadly something you simply don't get...

As for this waffle:

"The math is not complicated (though often vaguely described), the claims frequently outrageous based on the results, assumptions and methodology presented."

I'm afraid that's just noise. You make up "outrageous" lies, but it's a sad hypocrisy to think that because you lack scientific integrity, others do too. We had the discussion on the other thread about "good faith" and "bad faith" in science. Don't project your "bad faith" onto your betters GSW ;-)

Posted by: chris | September 14, 2011 4:27 PM

"Fair enough ;) Every now and then Jeff let's slip that he doesn't really read the Journals. He quotes copious references for this that or the other, but if it's not on the little list he's made for himself, well, he seems to struggle, curious.

Wow, now that is hypocrisy GSW - industrial scale I would say :-). Judging from Jeff's posts he is not-surprisingly well informed about his own particular aspects of climate-related research. As he attends climate conferences, and (you may not understand this too well) like all scientists generally works within a broad community that informs about the wider aspects of science, I expect he's far better informed about the science than you.

In fact I have seen zero evidence of any knowledge of climate science from you whatsoever [perhaps you consider your role here solely as a cheerleader for the Jonas? have to say it is curious! ;-) ]. But since your single attempt at referral to the scientific literature turns out to be a boring fabrication, it does rather highlight a rather shameless hypocrisy.

Posted by: chris | September 14, 2011 4:47 PM

chris

To start with, you had some measured comments about what was being debated. But when you started to pretend to know whom of Dessler and Spencer was not only right about the what they are proposing, about how the clouds and the LWR varies after warming events ..

.. but also who of them was honest, and who knowlingly suppmitted untruths to make a case for underminig the science, you lost me.

Not for one second do I believe that you are capable of judging the first. And your second claim is just outrageous. I strongly suggest you take that accusation back (actually, I already did, but that comment got 'moderated')

But, that aside, if you think ther is any "evidence of any knowledge of climate science from you whatsoever", you are of course free to contribute to what all others have been fussing about but desperatly trying to avoid ..

Posted by: Jonas N | September 14, 2011 5:15 PM

Chek, apparently it is the term "very likely" in the AR4 that has Jonas so hot and bothered. He cannot find it in the references (that he has never read) and demands someone show him a literal quote.

Or something like that. Either that, or he's just a sad little whiner too incompentent for even Exxon to sponsor.

Posted by: Stu | September 14, 2011 5:29 PM

chris ..

You repeat your accusation, and still the only 'argument' you offer is your hunch. You say that the journal was 'inappropriate'.

Now you claim that Wolfgang Wegner (editor of that 'inappropriate journal') had more understanding of the topic discussed!? That sounds like a contradiction, or a stretch at least.

And you repeat your claim that you are capable acting as an arbitrator between Dessler and Spencer. (I make no such claim, but find yours quite bold)

You say that there are logical faults to Spencer. But what I can see Dessler confirms his main findings, just wants to downplay them. That the difference was less significant. Dessler did not manage to show, nor claim, that there was no difference.

And examining claims, and showing when observations don't match them is a central part of science. Even when people don't agree on every detail. On the contrary, that's part of the process.

And Spencer does not claim to make statements about 'slow feedbacks' which nowhere are the topic or included in what generally is called the climate sensitivity.

I would rather say that you misrepresent his work in every instance (maybe because you haven't read it, and picked up your opinions from sites like this one, I don't know)

So still, you haven't made the case that you can be the arbitrer, or that you can determine that Spencer must have been dishonest. I cannot even see that you've made the case that he is wrong. Only that Dessler wants to view it differently.

Regarding who of them is more accomplished, I'd say that you you are way out here. What you say about "has a 15 or more year record of getting satellite MSU tropospheric temperature measures hopelessly wrong" is pure BS. The kind you can read at activist sites. And even there is so badly argued that it is immedeately seen as only ridicululous.

So: You argument about publishing it in 'the right journals' is backwards and irrelevant and really bad (given what we know about the practices), as is the one of 'accomplished' and citeted scientist. You had absolutely no support for your accusation of dishonesty. And wrt to the actual science, I don't think you have the insight or knowledge to be the judge. Your arguments certanly didn't sound like you possessed the knowledge.

So again, I would urge you to take that accusation back, and accept that this particular questions is not resolved. (Particularly since Dessler's GRL publication nowhere even gets close to such a claim)

One more thing: What I or GSW write in the matter, here or elsewhere, has absolutely no bearing on your 'dishonesty' claim. I am surpised you tried to bolster that with comments from him/us.

Really poor logic ..

Posted by: Jonas N | September 14, 2011 7:08 PM

Jonas said: "What I or GSW write in the matter, here or elsewhere, has absolutely no bearing on your 'dishonesty' claim".

So you say, but as anyone can attest, you and GSW are two of the most fundamentally dishonest trolls to grace this blog since Tim Curtin's epic dollop of stupid. Your tedious, serial, evidence-free declarations don't even make the grade of being half-baked, and your sly avoidance of questions is comical.

Time to return to the shelter of Montford's seedy enclave where some morons acclaim you as a "philosopher". Of the Jay Cadbury flavour, no doubt.

Posted by: chek | September 14, 2011 7:44 PM

You seem to conveniently forget that you have outstanding questions that require answering at comments #81 and #89, shubby.

It would only be good manners to answer them in good faith before demanding the same of others.

Posted by: chek | September 14, 2011 8:03 PM

check

Wait your turn. I asked a question of Jeff Harvey first. Let him show to me, what you are asking of me, first. Then I'll answer your question.

Posted by: Shub | September 14, 2011 8:46 PM

@chris

"(specially when there are apparently like minded individuals like GSW around who choose to fabricate rubbish to suit their particular agendas)"

I think you've got your wires crossed here. I was not referring to the Briffa and Osborn paper as you suggest.

My statement:

"Even non sceptics have expressed concern over his work. The CRU guys, Briffa + Osborne was it? (from memory as I don't have the reference to hand) thought his conclusions could not be supported and it is likely that it was as warm 1000yrs ago as it is today."

This was based on the private emails disclosed from the UEA. In one email Briffa stated (this is a direct quote):

"I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate."

So please don't go around accusing people of "fabricating rubbish to suit their particular agendas".

This touches on another point mentioned here Bad and Good faith.

If an individual (Briffa) holds views privately, but participates publicly in the publishing of papers against those views, can they be said to be working in "Good Faith"?

Posted by: GSW | September 15, 2011 2:43 AM

cris #142

Spencer (and Christy) getting MSU satellite temperatures hopelessly wrong ..

and

some individuals that consider their particular agendas justify science misrepresentation, and there isn't any reason we should give this nonsense a free pass

That sounds more like activist rehash found on climate scare blogs. And is completely wrong. They have improved their methodology continuously for over 20 years. What you are referring to is the ordinary process of science in a new field.

The idea that somebody whose work can (and will) be imroved further, where there exist different views about how to go about that, or who has made mistakes (and corrected them)..

.. that therefor all that work should be not only labelled as nonsense, but purposeful and dishonest misrepresentation ..

.. that idea is laughable (to put it very mildly)

You seem to forget that this is 'climate science', and with your 'logic' exactly everybody must be dismissed on 1) (not giving a free pass to) nonsense, and 2) dishonesty.

And chris, you are not in a position to make those calls. Not wrt to the science, and not wrt their motives. (I'd be more interested in the motives of those who so repeatedly and badly need to misrepresent others, fully aware that they'd never reveal them)

And speaking of good faith, chris, you have here repeatedly displayed that your own faith isn't all that good. That you rather smear individuals badly, whose opinions you don't share (or which contradict your beliefs) than fairly representing a professional disagreement. And that you do so without basis.

I certainly hope that this (now serial) behavior is an 'accident' and not part of your professional conduct. (And no, I have nowhere 'indicated that I don't read papers'. I pretty much said the exact opposite)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 15, 2011 4:48 AM

oh dear GSW. In an attempt to smear Dr Mann and his science you insinuate that there's some published research from Briffa and Osborn that casts doubt on the validity and interpretations of Manns early paleoproxy reconstructions.

Turns out you referring to something Dr. Briffa wrote in an email in 1999 (it wasn't a "reference" after all).

I suspect you simply don't get it GSW but I have pointed out several times now that scientists do their damnest to ensure the stuff they publish is right (not Spencer sadly, but he's in a tiny minority). What one says as part of discussions in emails or over lunch or at meetings is part of the "self peer review" process that undepins all good faith scientific research. It's not surprising that what Dr. Briffa ponders in an email in 1999 may not be what he subsequently considers the evidence directs us to in 2007.

Bottom line GSW. Let's say an individual that wishes in good faith to know about what subsequent research has to say about the early Mann et al research, and (more specifically) what Osborn and Briffa's published work concludes. The good faith individual (we'll call him "chris"), does an appropriate literature search, reads a few papers and comes to the straightforward conclusion that Osborn and Briffa's research broadly validates the early work of Mann et al and the IPCC intepretations. We know this objectively since Osborn and Briffa state it explicitly in their paper.

Sadly the bad faith individual who "operates solely on prejudice" (we'll call him GSW), isn't interested in what the evidence say's either generally or specifically with respect to Briffa and Osborn. He wants to smear Mann by insinuation and hunts around for what he considers might be a kind of "gotcha" (except it isn't really is it) in the form of what someone wrote in an email 12 years ago... pretty creepy, 'though interesting nevertheless!

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from ... and you've learned some straightforward facts about Osborn and Briffa's science and how this bears on very early paleoreconstructions. which no doubt you'll use to bring your prejudices more in line with scientific reality. Like the vast majority of scientists (and me!) it's important to try your hardest to ensure that what you publish is properly done and consistent with the evidence.

Posted by: chris | September 15, 2011 5:24 AM

chris

The only error by C&S was a sign in one term, in the biurnal correction, pointed out by Wentz, and promptly corrected and acknowledged.

All the other improvments where various effects and sources of errors, discovered and adressed as the technology and methodology progressed. Due their efforts, and those of others. Exactly as it should be. If you think differently, you have absolutely no clue of engineering sciences.

Your terms 'nonsense' 'incompetent' 'hopelessly wrong' 'objective fact' 'series of badly flawed analyses' etc are all wrong and inappropriate.

The satellite datasets are today used and preferred to the ground station based versions (and I don't even need to go there, and all the problems which by choice not were adressed by the people there, to show how ridiculous your 'logic' is)

I repeat: You are in no position to judge the scientific issue of Dessler vs Spencer, and even worse when it comes to Spencers (dis)honesty.

I still (and strongly) suggest you'd take that back, and without any reservations.

And if you say, that you'd give Spencer and Christy (what you call) 'the benifit of the doubt' wrt their satellite temperatures, your argument that their 'hopelessly wrong analyses' support your present claim of Spencers dishonesty, becomes even more illogical. Because that is what you brought up when I pointed out your moral high ground posturing ...

As I said, I hope you do far far better when you engage professionally.

Posted by: Jonas N | September 15, 2011 6:22 AM

Jonas writes, And chris, you are not in a position to make those calls. Not wrt to the science, and not wrt their motives

...and you are?

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 15, 2011 6:48 AM

Jeff H

Sorry, maybe you didn't notice the difference here: I am not claiming that one side (of Dessler vs Spencer) must be right and the other wrong (and dishonest too).

I am open for the possibility that both have valid points, and that the last thing isn't said yet.

If you can appreciate the difference ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 15, 2011 7:27 AM

If you read my post @136 rather more carefully (avoiding jumping to false conclusions based on prejudice)

He can't do that! It would ruin his case!

Posted by: Wow | September 15, 2011 7:51 AM

Jonas @ 154

It's helpful to address this: "Sorry, maybe you didn't notice the difference here: I am not claiming that one side (of Dessler vs Spencer) must be right and the other wrong (and dishonest too)."

I think you'll find that I haven't claimed that any scientist is "dishonest" but that a very tiny number of scientists act in "bad faith" (perhaps you or GSW might want to hunt through my posts and see if I've used the "d" word!). It's an interesting question whether one considers there is a fundamental difference between acting in "bad faith" and acting "dishonestly", but I prefer the first term since in my opinion "good faith" is a better description of the general philosophy in which science is done and the results disseminated.

The vast majority of scientists act in good faith and endeavour to ensure the work they submit is correct. If discrepancies between their interpretations and the broader science are observed they take particular care to ensure that their interpretations are justified before asserting that they've uncovered fundamental flaws in others work. Spencer and Christy unfortunately have chosen not to follow the essential elements of scientific good faith. We know this is true since their work wouldn't be repeatedly objectively flawed while they simultaneously attempt to misrepresent the work of other scientists.

That's not to say that a tiny number of scientists aren't genuinely dishonest. A dribble of papers are retracted as a result of rare instances of downright fraud. In the climate research field one might characterize the efforts of Wegman to trash Dr Mann that involved a couple of dubious (!) analyses some of which lead to a retraction of a paper due to plagiarism (which as you know is an act of fraud, especially if perpetrated by a senior scientist).

Posted by: chris | September 15, 2011 8:19 AM

chris ..

Even worse. Now you hope to elevate Dessler's 'likely credibility' by pointing to how the methodology of satellite temperature sets has evovled. Puh ..

And add your phrases:

'astonishing misanalysis' 'long history' 'getting stuff wrong' 'fatal flaws' and 'awesomely overblown' 'analysis debacle' 'he's got stuff quite seriously wrong again'

to the empty rhetoric bin, please. You still are in no position to make any of those calls. And your attempt to argue the 'credibility' and 'motive' instead of the facts underpins that impression.

Further: I just read one of the articles your mentioned in #142. Have you read them yourself? Because, none of your statements about 'objective facts how hopelessly wrong they are' are supported by that one.

Instead, it was a quite normal paper arguing a different interpretation of MSU data, and an ad hoc method to estimate the coefficients necessary for that.

And still, the most amazing thing is that you seem completely unaware of how devastating your 'logic' (or attribution of 'likely credibility') would be if taken seriously and applied to various fields of 'climate science'

I still, and strongly, suggest that you tak back the accusation of dishonesty, chris.

Posted by: Jonas N | September 15, 2011 8:30 AM

The continually amazing thing about your comments Rick Bradford is your seemingly complete faith that everybody else must be as close-minded and short sighted as you yourself are.

Now that really is arrogance.

Posted by: chek | September 15, 2011 8:39 AM

Bernard J .. if you hurry, you might still be able to see a comment directed at you in the Climate Reality thread

And you still haven't found what you claimed only and idiot couldn't .. and thereby making a quite sweeping statement about quite many here ...

;-)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 15, 2011 8:55 AM

Jeff, I am not denying or accepting anything. I just asked for a specific citation.

Right up there in post #14, you said that Shukla and Nepstad have shown that human-caused deforestation has changed evapotranspiration regimes. Now, you say that Shukla's work has projected such changes to occur.

These are two different things.

Why do you ecologists keep doing these types of things? You first project something, then you turn around and claim that it has already been shown to occur.

In this case, I am on your side. It is pretty obvious that if you chop off all the trees in large contigious swathes of the Amazon, there is a good possibility that you will see effects on precipitation at some point. But I cannot understand the need to make the kind of claims that you do.

Posted by: Shub | September 15, 2011 10:43 AM

Dear Tim, just ban me. I don't mind. It is obvious that people here have a really hard time arguing their facts or only their positions in a civil manner.

Many have asked you to ban me before, and vented their frustrations in the most 'charming' ways imaginable while you didn't ...

:-)

I am certain their 'arguments' will improve immedeately after I disappear ... or at least their self confidence.

Posted by: Jonas N | September 15, 2011 11:18 AM

Still nothing but waffle from Jonas?

Posted by: Michael | September 15, 2011 11:51 AM

There you go, Jonas doesn't mind being stopped from shitting in the public baths, since he can then go around going how he was "done for" by those horrible climate scientists.

Nothing pleases the religious like being persecuted.

Ban him.

He doesn't mind, and we don't care to listen to his pathetic whining.

Posted by: Wow | September 15, 2011 12:11 PM

Clippo, once mor you are wrong in your guesses. And I already told you that I know what I'm talking about.

It seems that you now understand that data and fitting a curve to it (if it is rolling of a dice, or a roulette wheel) won't provide you with any predictive powers.

And that's what I told you in the first place. You also write the 'explanatory features' are needed. Which is exactly what I told you from the start.

But then you give it all away, when you say that a 95% statistical fit has predicitive powers for the future (because of the 95%). Because then every stock analyst would only grow richer. He only had to wait for that fit, and then bet on it.

And clippo, nothing I said to you has anything to do with politics. People who cannot keep science and politics apart cannot be scientists.

And you are wron about one more thing: I was the one questioning that that 90% certainty claimed by the IPCC SR4 (it wasn't 95%) was based on science.

It caused quite a stirr here, but nobody offered any argument to the contrary (only their beliefs)

You are (proably) correct in that an IPCC claim is good enough for a majority of the people. But again, taking polls is irrelevant when it comes to science. And that is why the whole 'consensus chatter' is irrelevant too!

In your crime riddled neighborhood, you are implicitly making the assumption that the same (criminal) individuals lurk around at night time also the next night, and base your estimate on that 'model' of explanation. There is no conflict there with what I said.

But if we can leave the absolute basics of modelling and descriptions of physical processes, and data collection for a moment, and get back to the climate:

If you want to make predictions about the temperature of a body (eg the atmosphere) your null hypothesis had to be 'unchanged', meaning: unless you have a continuing 'imbalance' in your energy supply, the bodys heat (ie inertia) will prescribe 'same as yesterday' for its temperature.

Its not different than a cars velocity: It will remain constant unless you either gain or lose energy.

If you extrapolate: It has been accelerating, ie gaining speed for the previous 20 seconds, and thus it will continue to do so, you are speculating that the driving force will continue to increase, and faster that linear, not only to maintain the imbalance but also to overcome the increasing negative feedbacks due to drag, friction and engine efficiency.

What I am saying is that your curve fit is useless, unless you understand the system it measures.

And I am just so surprised that you even challenge me on such trivial stuff ...

(But i think your use of terms such as 'denier' or 'libertarian' or 'right wing' indicate why you stray so much from simple and obvious meanings of the words)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 15, 2011 4:09 PM

Jonas at the bat:

"unless you have a continuing 'imbalance' in your energy supply"

Which we know that we do have RIGHT NOW. The amount of energy coming in from the sun is more than the amount radiating out (as measured by satellites and other ways)

This would be an example of dishonestly.

Go ahead Tim

Ban his lying ass.

Posted by: elspi | September 15, 2011 5:55 PM

Jonas is a fine example of the pitfalls of the google-as-you-go approach of the keyboard warrior.

Step 1 - get involved in a topic of which you know little.

Step 2 - google terms as they come up. Throw in random statements about the term. Try to sound confident.

Step 3 - fall into the massive chasms of ignorance created by such a scattergun approach to attaining knowledge.

Step 4 - be unembarrassed by such falls, as you are so clueless you don't know how clueless you are.

Posted by: Michael | September 15, 2011 9:33 PM

Alan - Feel free to demonstrate what you feel, many here need help with the simplest things ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 16, 2011 12:24 AM

In a way it is quite flattering, to get my own thread here.

This moron is flattered to be on the level of people like Brent and Sunspot.

Posted by: ianam | September 16, 2011 2:54 AM

Jonas wrote:-

And I already told you that I know what I'm talking about.

Of course you would say that wouldn't you (smile) - trouble is all your other offerings on this subject show observers here that in fact you DON'T know what your talking about.

& re:

But then you give it all away, when you say that a 95% statistical fit has predicitive powers for the future (because of the 95%). Because then every stock analyst would only grow richer. He only had to wait for that fit, and then bet on it.

I didn't say that - I said, or implied, that statistically derived equations have probability limits associated with them - so one can be assured that a predicted result will lie in between those 90% or 95% boundary limits.

re:-

And you are wron about one more thing: I was the one questioning that that 90% certainty claimed by the IPCC SR4 (it wasn't 95%) was based on science.

What is it based on then ?

And you avoided answering whether you would go to the dark crime-ridden street near where you live, (even in your unreal world these places will exist) if the Probability of you being 'attacked' is >90% or >95% - your choice. Would you ? or what is your 'safety threshold' ?

Posted by: Clippo UK | September 16, 2011 7:04 AM

Alan - Feel free to demonstrate what you feel, many here need help with the simplest things ...

Captain Subtext translates: I don't know a damn thing, so I'm gonna blame you.

A ban confers too much dignity on deniers.

No ban confers too much dignity on deniers.

Given this, the dignity assigning properties of banning are irrelevant.

Jonas doesn't mind, he's already convinced he's right and yah boo sucks, and he's just giving gunshot here a reason to spew idiocies.

Posted by: Wow | September 16, 2011 8:16 AM

Well, if all of my 'offerings' had been false

They're also incoherent and gibberish.

Usually containing a mixture of two or three of these features.

you would have contradicted them,

They have been contradicted. E.g at #71.

And almost every single time, the supposed fact, settled truth, scientific result etc was overstated (sometimes widely) by them who referred to it.

For example, what fact? The AIT flooding of florida? It's fact. If the Greenland ice sheet and WAIS melt to the extent given, then there will be 20m of sea level rise. It's a fact of mathematics and physics of liquid displacement.

Or is this one fact you didn't read?

How about your first post?

And still, kiddo, fitting a curve is not 'advanced statistics'. Interpreting data towards a theory might be.

Though true, you seem to imply this is not the case with the IPCC science. This is false.

Of course, if you meant to say "and this is what the IPCC are doing, not merely curve fitting", feel free to say so here and now.

How about this statement:

Because me thinks that without the force of the government, that is if you had to earn your money honestly, by offering others your services, at the rate they are prepared to pay you, you would not be as well off.

Which is merely assertion based on no evidence whatsoever. A claim unsupported by data. And false.

And it was Exxon, and the right wing think tanks who manipulated Mann to include the Tiljande sediments upside down ...

This too is false.

How about this?

Only one litte detail remains. You need to show me that you are not an idiot, that you (or any non-idiot) actually can find them ..

Which is illogical, pointless and stupid at the same time.

At #160:

You still are in no position to make any of those calls.

Except he is, so this too is false.

Further: I just read one of the articles your mentioned in #142. Have you read them yourself? Because, none of your statements about 'objective facts how hopelessly wrong they are' are supported by that one.

And this is false, still in #160.

Instead, it was a quite normal paper arguing a different interpretation of MSU data, and an ad hoc method to estimate the coefficients necessary for that.

Which is the point that chris made. You ignored it, though, didn't you. The paper chris pointed to you gave the evidence that the facts you believed in were hopelessly wrong.

Finally to 173:

As I already said in #107, a prediction (using a model) means:

thereafter 2) try to explain more observations with that model/hypothesis you just fitted to some data, preferably outside that data

The key word here is testing your explaination outside the realm where you observed it (and possibly fitted its description).

Which is what Roy Spencer DID NOT do, and what the IPCC models DO do. It's called "Hindcasting". You can also look at this link for other examples where the IPCC models were tested against their explanation outside the realm where it was observed:

Realclimate

Posted by: Wow | September 16, 2011 9:24 AM

@Jonas,

Some vindication for you here I think. One of the CAGW crowd pointed me at an admittedly out of date IOP(2005) policy document. Quoting directly;

"The TAR describes the level of uncertainty with statements such as “it is likely” or “it is very likely that…” where these words have a percentage of likelihood associated with them (66- 90% and 90-99% chance respectively). These estimates are based on expert judgement but as ensemble climate prediction develops we expect to have more objective criteria."

I think your point has always been that the assessment is not necessarily right or wrong, but that it remains someones opinion rather than an objective scientific conclusion.

When you bare in mind that that soemone includes someone like steve schneider for example - you'd want a bit more than that.

rgds.

Posted by: GSW | September 16, 2011 10:09 AM

It's rather ironic that GSW who will continue to prattle on about the 1998 Mann paper and the M&M paper that was shortly after that, wilst ignoring the 2007 Mann update will complain about an "admittedly out of date" 2005 paper.

But intellect and honest are just baggage to the ridiculous rhetoric of the denier.

Posted by: Wow | September 16, 2011 10:33 AM

I know what I am talking about, that's what many find so irritating.

Yes, Jonas, that's exactly it. It is your boundless knowledge that is giving us a rash.

I mean, if everyone that knows anything about the subject disagrees with you, it's THEM that must be wrong, right?

Ah, to live in Jonas-world...

Posted by: Stu | September 16, 2011 11:35 AM

@chek

Ok happy to agree it's not of date. The quote refers to the TAR rather than AR4, but other than that I think it is still correct.

;)

Posted by: GSW | September 16, 2011 11:50 AM

I think your point has always been that the assessment is not necessarily right or wrong, but that it remains someones opinion rather than an objective scientific conclusion.

Except that ensembles DO give an objective scientific quantitty of uncertainty.

Hindcasting DOES give an objective scientific verification of a single model.

Both of which means that Jonas' assertion that you have interpreted here is wrong and that your support of that understanding is also incorrect.

Posted by: Wow | September 16, 2011 12:22 PM

@wow

You are a little late to the party wow. We're discussing the claim of attribution, it's not obvious you understand this.

If so, your views are somewhat at odds with the IOP document referenced by others.

Posted by: GSW | September 16, 2011 12:32 PM

@wow

"Of what to what"

Like I said, you are late to the party, if you are using a browser you can scroll up to see what is being discussed.

As a help (again), we are talking about claims of 'attribution'.

Also your reading abilities don't seem to be able to get past the first line of anything written. I'll repeat it anyway for you, it may take you some time, but try to make it thru to the end;

"The TAR describes the level of uncertainty with statements such as “it is likely” or “it is very likely that…” where these words have a percentage of likelihood associated with them (66- 90% and 90-99% chance respectively). These estimates are based on expert judgement but as ensemble climate prediction develops we expect to have more objective criteria."

;)

Posted by: GSW | September 16, 2011 1:11 PM

No! Just plain: No!

Jonas, did you stomp your little feetsies before you wrote this? Sure sounds like it.

And there is no meaning in discussing this with you either

That's what I've been telling you, sweetheart! Pearls before swine! Go publish your insights for smart people (just like you) to see! Why bother with plebes like us, who demand "evidence", and "actual arguments", and even "a point"!

Posted by: Stu | September 17, 2011 2:01 AM

Usually I wouldn't go quite this far, but as this is the basement of a troll thread...

GSW.

Your sychophantic coprophilia is driving you to obsequious sodomy of Jonas N.

Quite gynastically clever, considering the autoproctological location of your cranium.

Such is your enthusiasm for shit.

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 17, 2011 7:20 AM

"Gynastically"?

A rather unfortunate typo, indeed.

Gymnastically...

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 17, 2011 9:47 AM

@Jonas,

You are a true New Age philosopher and a Gentleman. Not a bad word spoke and banned, v odd IMO. There aren't many sites would put with the language of Bernard & Co - probably how they ended up here.

Your better than this Jonas, find somewhere more fulfilling where your views will be appreciated.

Good Luck!

;)

Posted by: GSW | September 17, 2011 12:30 PM

GSW is living in fantasy land. Jonas repeatedly tells us here, "I know what I am talking about", but then says he can't remember a single peer-reviewed article on climate change he's ever read. We ask him, as is our right, to go through some of the 200-300 articles cited in AR4 and to specify exactly where the scientists got it wrong, and why the estimates of human influence on climate are vastly exaggerated. To this, Jonas replies that its up to us to show him proof in these studies that they got it right. And so on and so on and so on.

In other words, Jonas has been caught with his pants down, and doesn't like it, so he's retreated into demanding that we prove the IPCC has got it right. But since the conclusions of the IPCC were based on an overview of the papers in question, and this involves hundreds of scientists, then I do not believe that the onus should be on contributors to a weblog to prove anything. If Jonas is so uppity, then, as I have repeatedly said, why doesn't he write his won rebuttal or write to some of the authors and go to some of the conferences? Again, reasonable questions and all deflected with the usual evasive bluff and bluster meaning that Jonas has no intention of doing any of these things. I have admitted that, as someone with expertise in another field, I rely on the credibility of the people doing the research to come up with the proper and accurate predictions. I don't read much climate-related literature because I simply don't have the time.

But Jonas and his enthusiastic puppy dog supporter don't think that's fair. So I am called a cretin, a clown, angry, bitter, uninformed etc. etc. etc. My qualifications in science are smeared, and then the whole circus starts over again.

I think that the bulk of the contributors to this thread know exactly who has painted themselves into an idealogical and intellectual corner. GSW, who seems even wackier than Jonas (partly due to his adulation of him) constantly boasts how many replies there are on Jonas' own personal thread, when half or more come from these two and the rest are from exasperated people who think that JonasN is living in his own deluded world. Yes, I expect hi to boast again, "I know what I am talking about", but to add this caveat, "But I won't tell anyone else but readers of general blogs because if I expose my ideas to a broader specialist scientific community they will be shot down and consigned to the rubbish bin where they belong".

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 17, 2011 1:15 PM

Well quite, GSW.

But thanks for drawing attention to the daftness of this week's denier flash-in-the-pan, although sadly soon to be as forgotten as every other denier two day wonder.

These supposedly monumental denier PR events have a shelf life shorter than warm oysters, don't they.

Posted by: chek | September 17, 2011 2:15 PM

I've found a video of Jonas, 'Super Mind of the Universe'.

Posted by: luminous beauty | September 17, 2011 7:22 PM

I wonder whether GSW might not be being ironic in his expressions of Jonas-adulation. But since irony can be difficult to identify on message boards (if only we had access to a versatile set of emoticons!), we can't be certain...

Anyway Jonas (@ 109) is an excellent example of why he's been banned methinks! I can't think of anything of interest in dreary comments about "anti-market emotions", "lefty leaning emotions", "bloated and fragile egos", even if they help us to undestand his motives. [That's not to say that I don't find Bernard's effort above rather unenlightening too!]. Imagine if thoughtful and rational posters had to put up with self-satisfied bone-headedness in every thread (let alone real life!).

Still we've learned something about obsessive pursuit of ignorance. Jonas is so pleased with his unwillingness to engage maturely with the evidence and thinks it's a great debating tool; GSW just makes stuff up. This induces frustration (at least GSW is brave enough to present his fabrications so they can be properly stamped on!) and the thread descends into unproductive stonewalling and bitching. Since our inate sense of fairness and decency compels us to reject the puny strategies of those that act in bad faith, we can be pleased that this rubbish is consigned to a garbage thread, just as we're pleased that bad faith rubbish from the likes of Drs Spencer and Wegman and etc. is similarly highlighted and consigned to "science"-style trash receptacles...

Posted by: chris | September 18, 2011 10:07 AM

chris, quit whining!

I could give you ample of examples about what I meant and you knopw that.

And if you cared the least about what posters "had to put up with self-satisfied bone-headedness in every thread (let alone real life!)" regarding "dreary comments" or " unwillingness to engage maturely" ..

.. this site provides and abundandce of perfect examples, and

Now, you case preciously was:

1. You considered yourself the arbitrator of facts regarding the factual issues refarding how clouds function in Dessler vs Specner, and

2. You mad cliams that one side knowlingly and dishonestly submitted falshoods and substandard science för a malicious purpose.

When asked how you possibly could make such claims, you started to waffle about Christy and Spencer, how incompetent they supposedly were, how hoplessly wrong they got it etc (you called them 'objective facts') instead (although you later denied that this was in support of your first claims). There you linked a number of references which nowhere contained your obverblown claims, rather quite normal practice of scientific progress. I ask you again: Have you read them yourself?

If yes, why were you lying about their contents, esp since you pretend to make a posturing point about other's 'bad faith'?

Just wondering, chris ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 18, 2011 11:17 AM

@chris

I'm sure Jonas will answer you, but reading thru I picked up a couple of points on what you said.

"but that more recently these scientists display bad faith in their misrepresentation of scientific information"

Curious as to what "misrepresentation" you are talking about?

Also,

"He's published a scientifically-disgraceful book in which he attempts to sell the notion that he's right and everyone else is wrong"

I thought that was the whole point of writing your own book, "selling the notion" you're right and everyone else wrong.

Bradley's latest book "Global Warming and Political Intimidation" describes the Hockey stick as "Robust" - well it is his book.

I think you need to get a bit more balance in your perspective. The situation with CAGW is not entirely new, if you have a scientific bent you could reacquaint yourself with the 'Big Bang' todo, plenty of belittling of others' views and theories there, all worked out in the end though.

;)

Posted by: GSW | September 18, 2011 2:56 PM

I am convinced that you are a statistics waffler Jonas N. With your ‘stationary’ and ‘non-stationary’ processes it is quite obvious you are spouting from the wrong orifice and you have never done any serious Statistics. You don’t seem to understand the difference between dependent and non-dependent variables in an equation – vital for ‘prediction’.

Here’s a real life example (only one independent variable so as not to confuse you):- The yield of a chemical process may be dependent on the temperature that you carry out the reaction. So, in practice one would carry out the reaction at different temperatures to determine yield changes. Then, one would analyse the data to see if there is a correlation and regression,. The Regression should give you a best fit equation. From the equation, one can ‘predict’ what range the yield should be for temperatures outside the ones of the dataset. Got you !!!

Secondly, you didn’t answer my earlier question – just tried to slide away from it.

In an earlier post you claimed the IPCC probability estimates weren’t made on the basis of science. So, I asked you what they were based on.

This was your reply (post (#189):-

Well, the claim certainly has been that it (and everything the IPCC presents) is based on climate science. ,

Yes – tell us something new

But nobody I've ever asked has seen that science. ,

Who have you asked? Name names. Perhaps your circle of AGW denier friends are afraid to see the science. Perhaps you don’t get about much in intellectual / scientific circles.

Although folks get pretty worked up if I just ask or point this out. Here, I will be banned shortly because I brought it up and upset so many of the regulars. ,

Irrelevant waffle unrelated to the question

What it really is based on, how it came about, you will never hear or read in an official IPCC statements or reports. Otherwise, they would of course have presented it ... It is after all their latest posterchild claim.

So you can’t actually define what it is based on except your opinion that it isn’t science based. Yet you blithely say it isn’t science based. May fool some – but not many here, (Just GSW probably – he has an astonishing similarity to Dick Dastardly’s dog, Muttley - ).

My understanding of the IPCC process is that several thousand scientists read and review peer-reviewed scientific papers,of any discipline related to climate change, and from other sources, both environmental and business groups and summarize the findings into language that world governments can understand. Why, to allow those governments to plan policies to combat AGW.

So, on the face of it you’re claiming they don’t do, or haven’t done this so .......

PUT UP EVIDENCE – OR SHUT UP.

Posted by: clippo UK | September 18, 2011 3:18 PM

@clippo

Difficult to know where to start.

I'll keep it simple - In the 'world of science' peoples opinion is worth diddley squat. As an example, Einstein, 200 scientists, "Yeah but it only takes one paper to prove me wrong" - I assume you know the story it's trotted out often enough.

I don't think anyone who has been following this thread is in any doubt that the 90% attribution claim is opinion, albeit expert opinion.

Do you have a reference for your chemistry example?

Posted by: GSW | September 18, 2011 3:55 PM

@chris

I think Jonas may have been referring to the GISS 'Y2K' problem.

Posted by: GSW | September 18, 2011 4:05 PM

chris ..

You have been telling me about your beliefs, and I can accept those, although not your allegations of gross misconduct.

Regarding the latter, you have provided no support at all. And I dont expect you to have any either ...

You've claimed 'hoplessly wrong' about UHA MSU and are not aware of the size of what has been discussed. I take it you are neither familiar with the size of errors of ground station data. Or just hte adjustments.

Your only straw seems to be that if there is an improvment of the UHA MSU data, it must have been due to malicious hiding of facts, and the opposite when comes to all other corrections or improvements.

Well, if you honestly hold that belief, I cannot challenge this belief. Only note that it is terribly loopsided.

And if you really think that temperature records (regardless of satellite or ground station based) are 'broadly' in agreement with predictions from models, your live in the realm 'furthest out on the error bars, of those models with the least descrepancy wrt observations' ..

And that's OK, just be aware of that is what you are doing. Both Dessler and Trenberth are arguing the same thing now ...

And (you're probably not aware of this), the main point with Spencer and Braswell, now and last year, is another. Not adressed by the futile attempts of rebuttal, both in the litterature and more loudly on blogs ..

I reckon most of you don't have a clue. And that is why I just have to be a complete imbecill stupid moron, who never has read anythin ... to keep up the narrative ..

But as I've told you many times: Reality doesn't rely on opinion or consensus ... It just is!

Posted by: Jonas N | September 18, 2011 4:15 PM

Well yes, GSW, I wondered if that's what he had in mind.. But the tiny adjustments resulting from the GISS Y2K error had effectively zero implications for the temperature record and its implications with respect to climate science.

The corrections to the UAH record resulting from huge errors in the Christy/Spencer analyses turned a negative temperature trend that was completely confusing with respect to the wider evidence base, to a positive trend that was broadly consistent with the wider knowledge.

Posted by: chris | September 18, 2011 4:23 PM

"That you used the Wagner resignations as a 'proof'..."

Poor Jonas. You really are unable to comprehend the meaning of straightforward sentences... pretty sad. I'm not going to keep correcting your misrepresentations of my posts.

Posted by: chris | September 18, 2011 4:29 PM

Show me that frikking science, or shut up!

Sigh. This is exactly what we've been repeatedly asking you Jonas. Its up to you to show us where the science of AGW is wrong, not for us - contributors to a blog for heaven's sake - to prove its correct. We've asked you to critique the peer-reviewed studies, which you claim either not to have read or to have forgotten. And for asking this I get labeled a 'bore' by GSW. I guess relevant questions hurt, eh gumbo?

I've asked you many times to write a rebuttal for submission to a peer-reviewed journal and then to post it here for all of us to read. But you refuse to do that. For now you're just a prisoner of the blogs. Nobody gives a rat's ass about anything you say - except GSW of course. And he's also an anonymous scientific minion. You see, the big guys - the one's who are doing the climate science - don't spend much time reading blogs.

The fact is, whether you or your one-man fan club like to hear it, science isn't done in blogs. It's done in academic institutions and published in scientific journals. You clearly believe that you are correct, but every time I suggest that you put your ideas on a forum where they will be scrutinized by experts, you and GSW reply saying that I am angry, frustrated, boring, you name it (Actually I am none of those things _ I had a great week at work and have invitations to write several reviews in journals with high impact factors). So go ahead - see what your ideas are made of.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 18, 2011 4:39 PM

@Jeff

I think we can add pompous to the list as well, don't you?

;)

Posted by: GSW | September 18, 2011 4:45 PM

@chris

I won't correct you chris, I'm curious to see whether you can work it out for yourself. Your 'bias' maybe getting in the way of reality again?

;)

Posted by: GSW | September 18, 2011 5:00 PM

Jonas was invited at comment #181 to demonstrate that he has some understanding of the basics of climate science.

So far, he hasn't answered any of the questions.

Posted by: Alan | September 18, 2011 9:39 PM

Alan - Gimme a break, if you want to demonstrate anything, it would be the level of understanding among many of the commenters here. Jeff is already making excuses for them.

BTW, the answers to your 'questions' are not what is the problem with the AGW-scare .. and if they were sincerely meant, you'd already know that.

Posted by: Jonas N | September 19, 2011 12:39 AM

Jonas @246:

Alan - Gimme a break

Can I just ask - as a fully paid-up member of the Murdoch Tea-Party, are you required to give up your Australian nationality altogether, or will peppering your vacuous screeds with Americanisms suffice?

Posted by: Craig Thomas | September 19, 2011 3:57 AM

Jonas, You must be even thicker than even I supposed earlier. And that is saying one helluva lot.

You are repeately screaming: Just show me the frikking science!!!!!

So answer me this, and will you and stop evading the relevant question:

HAVE YOU ASKED ANY OF THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE IPCC THIS SAME QUESTION? AND DID YOU RECEIVE A REPLY FROM ANY OF THEM?

You seem to think that you are scoring brownie points on Deltoid repeating the same dumb question over and over and over again, while never answering our questions. GSW says I am pompous which is a laugh, when you keep saying, "I know what I am talking about". Yet you've never told us what secret intellectual formula you have taken, since its clear you've never done any climate science research - heck ANY scientific research - in your life.

And to repeat: most of us contributing here are professionals, but not in climate science. What we do is to respect the views of the braod community in the field of climate science resesrch who do the research, write the papers, publish their results in rigid journals, and attend the relevant conferences. You clearly do not respect these people, based on your own self-righteous views. So what's your secret, smartie pants?

I think that you are a brazen coward. Writing onto general blogs demanding answers from people not working is a particular field is pure bluff. Its like you writing to a general blog demanding answers to questions of brain surgery techniques that go against the consensus when nobody contributing to the thread is a brain surgeon. Instead, we defer to the opinions of 95% of brain surgeons with respect to a particular method.

You haven't got the guts to put your money where your mouth is and to challenge a bonafide climate scientist with your gibberish. And until you do, you are wasting everyone's time. I have asked you the same question at least a dozen times (see above). When the heck are you going to answer it? You haven't ever told us what your day job is (if any). But the other question should be easy. Yes or no. Which is it?

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 19, 2011 4:12 AM

Jeff H

Science is not presented by responding to email queries, you of all should know that. Get that into your head! Will you please!

Further, I dont give rat's derriere about your opinions of me. You have shown beyond any doubt that you cannot have a measured discussion, not even control your fantasies. Instead: A compulsive urge to make up your own 'facts'.

But I have replied to plenty questions which I find relevant to the topic. (And ignored the skunk-pissing-contest ones, a practice I don't respect, that is correct)

And I don't know why you write the same thing over and over again.

I accept the fact that you don't know where that claim is supposed to be shown with proper science. Even that you believe that 'the big guys' could point it out. But I don't share that belief, and science doesn't work that way: That the major results are so well hidden that only the 'trusted' can find it, and possibly have been allowed a peek at it. Science does not work this way!

And no, neither you nor 'the big guys' get to make up your own 'statistics' and probability definitions/calculations only because you are dealing with 'climate' .. Get that into your head too!

What is it you are so afraid of? Why are you so angry when this quite simple detail is pointed out to you? What is it you are defending? The non-existing science? The claim that it is still there? The practice to hide that fact among armwaiving phrases, footnotes, figures, appendices etc? Or that a wider public becoes aware of the fact? Or possibly that you've been had? What is it you are afraid of, 'scientist' Jeff H? The truth?

Why are you so obsessed with avoiding the facts (and making up your own)?

PS Of course I have asked this and related questions at RC, but as you might know, only 'stupid' sceptical questions make it through there, and only the 1st one, for which there is a ready made reply of Skeptical Science level. Relevant discussions are not possible there ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 19, 2011 5:06 AM

204

@wow

"Of what to what"

Like I said, you are late to the party, if you are using a browser you can scroll up to see what is being discussed.

We're discussing the claim of attribution

But attribution of what to what?

Like I said, your initialism seems to mean "Git Says What?".

You quote

These estimates are based on expert judgement but as ensemble climate prediction develops we expect to have more objective criteria.

But they DO have objective criteria. Models are hindcasted to see how well they match data they are not tested against in development. I even gave you a link to examples of such.

But you're determined, just like Jonarse here not to say a damn thing.

Posted by: Wow | September 19, 2011 5:34 AM

Clippo - If it were based on science, that science would be published somewhere, available to read for anybody interested. That is how science is supposed to work.

As I said, if that 'science' doesn't exist, this claim is just self proclaimed 'experts' opining. And that is what it is. Unfortunately, GSW, kind of gave it away (and I linked to it too)

(You will of course never hear the real story from any official source .. but there is a real story too behind that claim, and it would be really interesting to know the details)

And clippo, forget Jeff H, he has zip to say in this matter. And please don't talk about the 'scientific truth' .. expecially not when it comes to the IPCC (which is a political bureaucratic body)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 19, 2011 7:36 AM

Wow - The "No! Just plain: No!" was in reply to #203. Sorry if that was my mistake. And no, I don't engage with everybody here. But try to answer all whom I deem serious and capable of behaving like grown ups (replying to Jeff is a little 'bonus treat', an offer which I cannot extend to all, sorry :-)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 19, 2011 8:11 AM

Chek.

It's incredible isn't it, just how much Jonas has avoided finding or providing actual evidence to support his claims, and how he has avoided trying to understand the processes of science itself?

By my own reckoning I myself have asked him at least six times to explain why John Mashey is wrong, or otherwise non-credible in scrutinising Wegman. That's not including similar requests by others.

No answer from Jonas N.

I have asked him at least seven times to substantiate his claims by demonstrating that the IPCC's work is not backed by science - and again, that's not accounting for the numerous times others have asked the same thing of him. Jonas N's reply? "Erm, I haven't found them (the references)".

I've explained to him at least three times how science works, and even afterward he still mashes up the process.

Jonas N.

Understand this.

1. The IPCC was set up by governments of the international community in order that the Panel summarise climatological science, and report back.
2. The IPCC summarises climatological science, and reports its results to the international community.
3. The IPCC does not reproduce holus-bolus all of the climatological literature in its reportings. This is not in its remit.
4. The IPCC does list the work that it references, and it does so in clever attachments to its documents; attachments imaginatively called "References" .
5. These references are easily found by anyone properly experienced in scientific methodology, and objectively motivated to find said material.
6. You have not demonstrated any understanding of this situation.

Jonas N.

I have been waiting for you to tell us which IPCC references you have read, and that by doing so have permitted you to make the claim that the organisation makes up its estimation on future temperature ranges. You claim that you can't find them.

I am now going to ask you whether you have looked anywhere in the professional climatological literature for explanation of procedures to assess modelled future temperature ranges?

So, have you?

To make it easier, I will also ask you if you have read and discounted each of the papers below:

• Allen, M. R. & Ingram, W. J. Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrological cycle. Nature 419, 224-232 (2002).

Allen, M. R., Stott, P. A.,Mitchell, J. F. B., Schnur, R. & Delworth, T. L. Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature 417, 617-620 (2000).

• Allen, M. R. & Stainforth, D. A. Towards objective probabilistic climate forecasting. Nature 419, 228 (2002).

• Allen, M. R. Do-it-yourself climate prediction. Nature 401, 627 (1999).

• Andronova, N. G. & Schlesinger, M. E. Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 22605-22612 (2001).

• Collins, M. & Allen, M. R. Assessing the relative roles of initial and boundary conditions in inter-annual to decadal climate predictability. J. Clim. 15, 3104-3109 (2002).

• Covey, C. et al. An overview of results from the coupled model intercomparison project. Glob. Planet. Change 37( 1-2), 103-133 (2003).

• Forest, C. E. et al. Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations. Science 295, 113-117 (2002).

• Giorgi, F. & Francisco, R. Evaluating uncertainties in the prediction of regional climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 1295-1298 (2000).

• Gregory, J. M. et al. An observationally-based estimate of the climate sensitivity. J. Clim. 15, 3117-3121 (2002).

• Hansen, J. A. et al/. Casino-21: Climate simulation of the 21st century. World Res. Rev. 13, 187-189 (2001).

• Kennedy, M. C. & O'Hagan, A. Bayesian calibration of computer models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 63, 425-450 (2001).

• Knutti, R., Stocker, T. F., Joos, F. & Plattner, G. K. Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles. Nature 416, 719-723 (2002).

• Morgan, M. G. & Keith, D. W. Climate-change - subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29, 468-476 (1995).

• Murphy, J. M. et al. Quantifying uncertainties in climate change from a large ensemble of general circulation model predictions. Nature 430, 768-772 (2004).

• Palmer, T. N. Predicting uncertainty in forecasts of weather and climate. Rep. Prog. Phys. 63, 71-116 (2000).

• Pope, V. D., Gallani, M., Rowntree, P. R. & Stratton, R. A. The impact of new physical parameterisations in the Hadley Centre climate model - HadAM3. Clim. Dyn. 16, 123-146 (2000).

• Reilly, J. et al. Uncertainty in climate change assessments. Science 293, 430-433 (2001).

• Smith, L. A. in Disentangling Uncertainty and Error: On the Predictability of Nonlinear Systems (ed. Mees, A. I.) Ch. 2 (Birkhauser, Boston, 2000).

• Smith, L. What might we learn from climate forecasts? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 2487-2492 (2002).

• Stainforth, D. A. et al. Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature 433, 403-406 (2005).

• Stott, P. A. & Kettleborough, J. A. Origins and estimates of uncertainty in predictions of twenty-first century temperature rise. Nature 416, 723-726 (2002).

• Wigley, T. M. L. & Raper, S. L. Interpretation of high projections for global mean warming. Science 293, 451-454 (2001).

Some of these touch upon the questions that you claim are not answered. Some don't. Do you know which ones do, and which ones don't?

These are just a random start. There are plenty more references that can be put to you, and I can play this game for weeks or months yet.

And remember, this is for posterity, so be honest.

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 19, 2011 8:57 AM

Jonas,

First answer Bernard's outstanding post. I dare you to respond to it with any kind of content. Have you read any of the studies Beranrd has listed? A single one? Do you understand any of them?

Second, stop being so bloody evasive. It makes you look even more stupid than you already do. Most importantly, why can you not answer a simple question? Why are you hounding the people who contribute to Deltoid? I have simply asked if you have written to climate scientists with your queries. You refuse to answer this simple question. It is not a hard question; a yes or no would suffice. But instead, I get this kind of irrelevant rant:

What is it you are so afraid of? Why are you so angry when this quite simple detail is pointed out to you? What is it you are defending? The non-existing science? The claim that it is still there? The practice to hide that fact among armwaiving phrases, footnotes, figures, appendices etc? Or that a wider public becoes aware of the fact? Or possibly that you've been had? What is it you are afraid of, 'scientist' Jeff H? The truth?

What has this got to do with my question? I am not afraid of the truth. I want you to tell it to me: have you written to climate scientists outlining your complaints with AR4/IPCC? If so, who? And what was their response? There's no armwaving there. Just curiosity. Like anybody working in another field, I want to hear what answer you got from a climate scientist, if indeed you wrote to one.

But my guess is that you're merely a blog troll. A time-wasting jerk who clogs up web sites but when push comes to shove has to resort to railing on when your nonsense is caught out. Of course you haven't written to any climate scientists. You are afraid to. A coward. If not, let's see if you are up to it, little man. Please tell me if you've sent your rants anywhere other than on a few blog sites.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 19, 2011 10:37 AM

Jeff H - If you are not afraid of the truth, why are you constantly making things up then?

Please provide an example.

Posted by: Wow | September 19, 2011 11:18 AM

Bernard J -

Yet another empty post: Of course I know what the IPCC is and how it came about.

It is also strange that you ask about 'modelled future temperatures', because this is not at all what I have been talking about!? Had you really missed that too?

But yes, some of them touch upon the issue I addressed. But the IPCC claim was very specific, there is no wiggle room wrt what it is supposed to mean. Some of you here were even trying to interpret that statement even stronger (pointing to the most of and the >90%).

re: The references From the titles, one can confidently determine that quite some will not contain what I have been asking for. Some others, as you say (although unaware of the topic) may touch upon the issue.

And (although you completely have missed what I have been talking about for some three weeks now), have you read any of them? Are you making the statement that what I am looking for (a quite specific AR4 claim) is to be found in one of them?

Becaues it shure doesn't sound (read) lika that. It looks much more as a random selection of references, followd by the usual 'there are many more' .. in order to switch the topic.

But seriously: Have you read any of them, any you believe (because that is the method you seem to use) contain that claim?

That claim you had misunderstood until now!? (You can find it on top of page 10in red, in the SPM, link in #195)

Because if you had read them, and thought you've understood them, and you could articulate that understanding, and if you could do so (completely without the 'normal' behaviour of insults and rants about 'sticky stuff' you seem so obsessed with), then there could be a reason to actually discussits content.

But judging from your rants here, statistics is not your field of expertise ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 19, 2011 11:37 AM

Wow - In my experience, commenters who like using terms like 'denialist' almost never have anything of substance to say. Whatever they possibly can say that is not wrong, has been said and understood better by others before.

And quite often they have no clue how to determine anything, the read things and memorize them, repeat them and throw in random nonsense terms. And believe they are making an argument. Sorry, I'll leave you to your self ...

You may call me whatever makes you feel better, I neither mind nor care ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 19, 2011 12:00 PM

Among the two of us (and many more firing their ad homs) I am not the troll.

Unsurprisingly, Jonas has no idea about the definition of ad hominem. We'll just add that to the list, next to "science", "argument", "point", "relevant" and "reference".

Jonas, you're a moron. And no, that's not an ad hominem either. It's an insult based upon plentiful facts.

Posted by: Stu | September 19, 2011 2:29 PM

Just had chance to read some recent posts - and I agree with Jeff H about Bernard J's excellent post #260

Answer it in detail Jonas N.

Posted by: Clippo UK | September 20, 2011 5:33 AM

"Posterchild" - lol. To add to Stu's at comment #270 that should be windy, verbose, incoherent moron with a penchant for obfuscation and avoidance.

Posted by: chek | September 20, 2011 6:33 AM

@Jeff

Sorry have to agree with Jonas on this. Jeff you are not a 'scientist' in any substantive meaning of the word.

You are purely a mixture of emotions, rage & fear. I'll add self importance to that as it is very much in evidence in what you have posted here . You seem unable to take an objective (dispassionate) view on anything.

You may not agree with Jonas, but you cannot even understand the point he is making - which I find most peculiar.

You can disagree, that's Ok. Failure to comprehend, that's, well, odd.

Just continue with your self righteous torrents of abuse Jeff, you've shown you aren't capable of much else.

Posted by: GSW | September 20, 2011 8:48 AM

Jeff H is still trying to turn the question upside down.

I am the one asking which science supposedly is behind that claim. (Others are wishing/hoping for its existence, but mostly obsessing about completely irrelevant stuff)

Bernard gave a random scattergun list of references (proably from a simple ISI or WoS search) and demanded I read those instead.

Funny thing it that he 1) totally missed what my question was about, and 2) probably hasn't read many of them himself. I am very confident that he is very unfamiliar the topic (attribution to and high confidence levels of a proposed hypothesis)

As Jeff suggests, the purpose is to 'keep me away'. Both are asking mw to review and criticize articles that don't make the claim I am questuioning.

This is utterly amazing: Jeff Harvey still pretends (or even worse: truly believes) that a very spefic quantified calim, purportedly based on science, is not presented as such always is: In the published literature, but instead is found diluted in hundreds of references, and confirmed by 'broad agreement in the community' ..

This is such utter nonsense, it baffles the mind (mine, that is, and other real scientists)

And equally funny is his stamping his feet, repeating:

No! You must find what is wrong with what doesn't exist!

Really, how dense can one be?

Finally Jeff Harvey, well if you are so capable of debating science related topics, why then are you only repeating such nonsense, and why must you invent your own 'truths' as you go?

I mean really, I even pointed you (and others) to the passage where you can read that my claim is correct, and still you are flailing your arms ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 20, 2011 8:56 AM

Jonas, I gave you a clear format to follow at post #255. As it is you're just becoming an ever more incoherent moron, if that were possible, and GSW's Heepish support isn't helping you either.

I suggest you use the suggested format in #255 or continue to re-confirm your idiocy by not even understanding how to do that.

Nobody but nobody is ever going to bother re-reading the mountains of sheerfuckwitted rubbish you've produced so far, and most have just lost interest when your tedious repetition stopped being amusing.

Posted by: chek | September 20, 2011 9:56 AM

GSW @ #276

It's a truism that fake blogscientists really, really hate real, professional scientists. Perhaps because real professional scientists won't give the poor little poseurs the time of day, which totally offends the fake blogscientist's sense of self importance. Only an observation, but your posts are if anything yet more confirmation.

No doubt idiot trolls take comfort from your support though, for what little that's worth for both parties.

Posted by: chek | September 20, 2011 10:43 AM

Bernard J, I just read the link to my old comment. And if you don't understand what is said there, that explains why you have such difficulties handling real science. If you don't even understand the words ... of what a measurement is, or a hypothesis ..

And you subsequent comments there are just precious .. and revealing. And 'pertinent' according to your own judgement!

Priceless! :-)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 20, 2011 11:13 AM

Jonas sprays yet more incoherence. No surpise there.

Jonas, if you can't formulate a simple question in the format suggested, you're in no position to construct an argument, let alone a scientific critique.

Of course what this is really all about is the noise machine in action, now that Lindzen and Christy are busted flushes and Pielke Snr. jumped aboard Spencer's sinking ship, Wegman's career is destroyed and McIntyre's still dribbling on about Yamal a decade after the event. The warmest ever decade too.

The backbone of the denial machine is broken and the likes of half-arsed footsoldiers and noise makers such as Jonas and his fan are pretty much all there is left.

Posted by: chek | September 20, 2011 12:42 PM

This is geting quite funny. The thread highlights the numbing impact a troll can have on sensible discussion. Everyone feels that it must be possible to get him to engage with some sort of semblance of reason - but no, it simply ain't going to happen.

Anyway, it shows why a garbage thread is sometimes necessary... and eventually everyone really will give up and that will be that..

Posted by: chris | September 20, 2011 12:58 PM

Hi, Jonas! Which of the references Bernard posted are not "realy science", and why?

Posted by: Stu | September 20, 2011 2:43 PM

if you have seen any realy science backing up the AR4-posterchild claim

That question?

One of these is true:

• The references are not "realy science"
• They don't back up the claim

Which one is it? And why?

Can you name one of the references for which this holds true?

Posted by: Stu | September 20, 2011 4:11 PM

Jonas,

Maybe you too want to claim that the most spectacular scientific findings are not published as such, cannot be read, and are instead hidden among hundreds of references, dealing with other or only partly related questions, and that these findings instead exist as 'a general agreement within a community'

Well, yes. Very few scientific findings are 'spectacular'. Most all scientific research is narrowly limited to very particular and specific questions that are only partially related to general conclusions such as the one you are questioning. Such general conclusions are not so much 'hidden' among those hundreds if not, in some cases, millions of references, but are the result of expert knowledge and the application of careful inductive reasoning upon comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Such a comprehensive review you are either too stupid or too lazy or, quite likely, both to undertake, but rather would have others do your homework for you.

And, yes, scientific findings, no matter how 'spectacular', or not, only acquire standing when they have been broadly accepted within the relevant specialized scientific community, when sufficient other studies, preferably through orthogonal methods and approaches suggest consilient findings and corroborating evidence. There is no one single arbiter of scientific truth, least of all your not so humble self.

Once again. The general conclusion you question is referenced, quite plainly and particularly to Chap. 9 of the WGI, but also, if you follow those references, to Chaps. 2,3 and others. The supporting studies are cited by the lead author's name and date of publication in those chapters and the complete references are made available in the Reference sections. (Thus ending your primary school lesson in bibliographical research.) I don't need to have read them, though I have read several and looked at most, to know how to find them. I do, however assert those I have examined, either carefully or summarily, do provide quality scientific support for the general conclusion you are questioning. My assertion is ad hoc as good as yours.

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Isaac Newton

Jonas, OTOH, sees little because he has been feeding on the feces of nits.

Posted by: luminous beauty | September 20, 2011 5:36 PM

I stand by that Jeff.

The Pompous doomsaying you practice

with emotional rants and abuse.

Jonas point is not complex, it has been explained to you many times.

I can safely open my big mouth and make some noise Jeff

“[...] An ordinary fool isn't a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!”

@Jonas Think we can make the 300 mark? ;)

Always glad to help.

Posted by: Stu | September 20, 2011 6:44 PM

Jonas N:

[Blah blah blah]

...All I have ever read, did not contain that any such science...

[Blah blah blah]

So, what have you read?

Why is is so bloody hard to get any references from you?

Eh?

...if you don't understand what is said there...

In spite of your incoherence, I understand perfectly well what you are claiming. I don't understand why you refuse to tell us which papers you have read,and that led you to claim that there is no science behind the IPCC's statements of attribution.

Unless, of course, you haven't read any at all - which fits in with your claim to not remember which papers you've checked...

Which leads me to my next point. I'm trawling through more IPCC references Joans N, and I am going to ask you in the near future if you have read any of another batch of them - and then another, and another... Given your current refusal to admit that you've actually read any of the ones I have already put forward, I should be able to soon ascertain whether you've read anything at all, and certainly whether you've read sufficient of the IPCC's referred literature to make the silly claims that you have.

You've been yammering for weeks now about how you're all scientific-like, and how the professionals are not, but never once have you coherently made your case, with references as scientists are wont to do. You resort to the "cannot prove a negative" gambit when pressed, but that is a red herring because your claim is eminently provable if you actually chose to do so.

And if it's not provable, how then can you possibly make such a claim in the first place?!

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 20, 2011 11:20 PM

@Jonas Think we can make the 300 mark? ;)

GSW, you might rate yourself as a troll, but you'll need to up your game to match the fool who's path you're seeking to follow.

Posted by: jakerman | September 20, 2011 11:40 PM

This was one of the most entertaining threads I have ever read. Jonas N calmly walks into the camp meeting asking a simple honest question and all he gets in reply are sealed off shaking-tents where Jeffs, Bernards, Wows, stus, clippos and other ill dressed shamans are sweating it out. And the tents are shaking for sure, to say the least. But what's going on in there? Nobody knows, it seems. But it is quite impressive to look at, from a distance. At it sounds a lot too.

Jonas N (and GSW), I admire you stamina as much I'm baffled by the reluctance to answer (or grasp) a simple question. Good show. IPCC(-believers) unveiled, to paraphrase Madam Blavatsky. When will they let us infidels know?

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 21, 2011 6:53 AM

Sorry, I forgot you name chek. Please forgive me.

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 21, 2011 7:15 AM

References to Jonas' answer have been posted several times - which you should have noticed if you'd read the thread as you claim.

Jonas - and now you - say that's not the answer he wants, but unfortunately, his 'special needs' don't allow him to elaborate further, or indeed make the case as to why the provided references don't answer his question despite mucho prompting.

Perhaps when the afterglow of your admiration dies down a little you could help poor Jonas. I suspect not though, troll infestations being what they are.

Posted by: chek | September 21, 2011 7:31 AM

So far, Jonas N is the one seeking the truth

Really? The why doesn't he get off his ar** and read some of the primary literature? Problem is, Olaus, that whatever literature is put right in front of him he will turn away from it, or else put his hands over his eyes whilst shouting, "It's not true! It's not true! There is no frikking evidence". What Jonas wants is for us to go painstakingly through the studies ourselves and to read it out to him like a bedtime story. But then he will turn up the volume of the music to drown us out or else shove cotton wool in his ears. No, Jonas isn't seeking the truth, as elusive as that is in science. What he is doing is trying to ensure that the truth remains buried because that will support his - and GSW's - and yours, apparently - pre-determined worldview that AGW is a myth.

But heck, I have met enough people who deny climate change, high extinction rates, the deleterious effects of clear cutting tropical forests et al. over the years to know that their anti-environmental views are driven by a political agenda that has nix to do with a desire to find out the truth.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 21, 2011 7:50 AM

Olaus, or whoever the hell you are,

Why is Jonas asking people here on Deltoid, a general science blog this question? Why hasn't he asked any number of real climate scientists, and especially those who contributed to the final IPCC draft for AR4? They are the ones who wrote the damned thing! Or why does he apparently refuse to read the literature? He seems incapabale of answering these simple questions. Why is that do you think? It should be bloody obvious why.

Your posts are getting to be as tiresome as those from the twin-trolls.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 21, 2011 8:00 AM

What sticks (sic) out here is that you guys can't give a proper/solid ref to the "science" behind this so called "poster child". Jonas' main point is that it is only an opinion. And so far none of you have contradicted this.

Its very simple and yet you start chanting i tongues about how stupid, ignorant etc he and digress on topics of no significants what so ever.

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 21, 2011 8:43 AM

Dear Marco,

thank you for your kind words on my behalf. Nevertheless you stick (sic) your head in the sand ignoring the core of the problem. Despite your headline lingo of how "boring", "stupid", "trollish" and so forth Jonas is, you keep posting on anything that Jonas wants to be enlightened about.

How come?

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 21, 2011 9:02 AM

Problem is, Olaus, that whatever literature is put right in front of him he will turn away from it,

Or get a sockpuppet.

Posted by: Wow | September 21, 2011 9:11 AM

Bugger.

Wow pipped me with the sock puppet suspicion.

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 21, 2011 9:15 AM

It's telling, isn't it, if Jonas N is indeed recruiting a sock...

Backing up his non-argument with another non-argument, whether his own or one of a conspirator, does not serve his cause at all well.

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 21, 2011 9:24 AM

Jonas Petri.

What is the question, and what is the evidence that supports it?

And calling one's-self "humble", isn't.

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 21, 2011 9:49 AM

Bernard J #298

You are wrong again. It is easy to prove me wrong (if that is what I am). I make a falsifiable statement, a proposition, I pose a hypothesis. And yes, it is a 'negative' ..

You may continue to keep on looking for references, and if you find some science establishing (or attempting to) that AR4 claim, please let me know.

But I very much doubt that you will. And listing references en masse which you haven't read is (almost) pointless, as is listing references you actually have read but which don't contain that particular information.

I see that Andy S once more tries with the same Figure and its captionfor the fourth or fifth time. And that Bernard J asks 'what question' although haveing proclaimed previously that:

In spite of your incoherence, I understand perfectly well what you are claiming

Well, just a few comments before, you weren't even doing that. But I am glad you are progressing.

But does anybody even have an idea of what you are hoping to accomplish by rambling ons as you do? Are you still hoping it is in there somewhere, only not found by anyone, and still completely unknown to the scientific community, 4½ years after its release?

Is this what you are hoping for? Really?

(I see that some here say that I indeed have been shown the proper reference .. why not ask them, quickly check for yourselves, and then beat me over the head with it? Because, that is waht you would like, more than anything! So why aren't you? Why do you so urgently want to discuss other things?)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 21, 2011 11:18 AM

And listing references en masse which you haven't read is (almost) pointless, as is listing references you actually have read but which don't contain that particular information

How do you know which of the articles Bernard cited contain pertinent information, Jonas/Olaus? How many of these articles have you actually read? If, as expected, the answer is 'none', then how on Earth can you say anything?

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 21, 2011 11:45 AM

Jeff, you alread declared that these mass-references should keep me away for a week which is what you so dearly want ...

And Jeff, it doesn't work that way in science:

A major UN-body makes a specific claim, releases it in its SPM 2007, makes shure it is echoed in all news outlets in the world, and adds 'but we've hidden the most spectacular part so well that nobody can find it, not even in the four years to come.. but yes, all the scientific community agrees and stands solidly by it anyway.. '

It just doesn't work that way!

You are the one boasting that you are allowed to 'mingle with the big boys' sometimes, and you were the one (if I remember correctly) bringing up that AR4 statement ..

You may still doubt my proffered assessment, but you can hardly claim anything else but that you all have been taking it on pure faith so far.

(reasonably justified faith, from your corner of the stands, I concede, but still only faith, and quite less justified by now)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 21, 2011 12:06 PM

Wow

You are so immensely boring and unskilled, I lost interest in trying to help you a long time ago (maybe you noticed that). But I'll make an exception:

Jonas, they didn't add that.

Which is correct, and that's why I said:

It just doesn't work that way!

Because, that is not how it works. Get it?

But that is the underlying implication offered by almost everybody here, still trying to rescue its mythological existence, hoping it is in there, somewhere ... and trying nonsense like: 'But have you really looked in every paper? Prove that!'

Get it?

Posted by: Jonas N | September 21, 2011 12:23 PM

Olaus, I know Wattsians have reading comprehension problems, so allow me first to try by repeating myself:

"So, now he has his own thread where he can troll all he like, and where others can troll with him."

Posted by: Marco | September 21, 2011 12:34 PM

Jonas,

Are you still hoping it is in there somewhere, only not found by anyone, and still completely unknown to the scientific community, 4½ years after its release?

Major logic fail. WGI is the product of the scientific community. Particularly that part of the scientific community that has expertise in the subject. It's publication makes it widely available to the broader scientific community, who by their comprehension and acceptance of of the conclusions therein, not to mention the corroborating documentation by such

Why would it be that you pretend to speak for the scientific community, though you haven't demonstrated any standing nor shown competence in science, but rather a sophomoric and malformed understanding of science even as a general topic?

We've found where 'it' is supported in WGI, in particular Chap. 9 where it is carefully explained and graphically shown, using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods, directly from the referenced sources, how it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes. A conclusion that is statistically significant even accounting for the most implausible unknown and scientifically unexplainable serial correlation of natural variability, yet you blindly refuse to accept and understand.

You are, without any doubt, suffering from full blown pathological denial, supported by indications of narcissism, projection of feelings, passive aggressive hostility, self delusion and cognitive dissonance.

You need help but you aren't getting it here.

Posted by: luminous beauty | September 21, 2011 1:50 PM

So after 300+ posts, the lying troll finally defines what the "it" was that he was talking about this whole time and "it" turns out to be total nonsense.

Someone should euthanize this thread.

Posted by: elspi | September 21, 2011 3:33 PM

Luminous, do you have a reference for this?

Yes, its found in >1,000 papers in the empirical literature as well as in the IPCC reports. Now be a good boy and look them up for yourself.

And Jeff, it doesn't work that way in science

So says Jonas, our resident D-K poster boy who has no scientific qualifications whatsoever, has never attended a conference or published a paper in the empirical literature. Yup, he can tell us all here how science works. Yawn.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 21, 2011 3:52 PM

OK Jonas, here's the physical science basis for the anthropogenic fingerprint on the current warming:

www.ipcc.ch/publicationsanddata/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-references.html

I intend to go through these references in the coming weeks. How about you? Ditto for the other two anti-science right wingers, GSW and Olaus. Care to sift through the science, chaps?

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 21, 2011 4:13 PM

Happy to sit by your feet.

Seriously girls, just dispense with the pleasantries and get a room.

So after 300+ post of total disinterest of Jonas person and his mental status

Are you saying we were not interested in his person and mental state? Should we be? Do you know something we do not?

someone (you?) is going to euthanize this thread and remove the (collective) sock/suck puppet out of his/her mouth and answer Jonas' Q?

It's been answered seven times now. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

By the way, you have no idea what sock puppet means in this context, do you?

Posted by: Stu | September 21, 2011 4:46 PM

c'mon stu! :-) On the contrary, you guys are obsessed by Jonas mental status and his person instead of Watt really matters.

And yes, I know what sockpuppet is in this context. Want to elaborate on the sucker punch you just delivered? Or, why not join me and Jeffie on our new quest, that is to actually read the refs so that we – at least – can try to answer Jonas' Q? ;-)

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 21, 2011 5:00 PM

Olaus, if you could delete previous comments, your blustering buffoonery would be your little secret.

But like Jonas and GSW you can't, so I'll let you cogitate on that little gem awhile, before you amplify your (collective - or should that be Collective?) stupidity any further.

Posted by: chek | September 21, 2011 5:16 PM

Olaus, GSW, Jonas' question has been answered seven times. What remains to be seen is if he (and you) can actually understand the literature. Not holding my breath on that one.

Posted by: Stu | September 21, 2011 5:42 PM

@chek

Thank you for your kind words. Why don't you join me and Jeff on our new quest? I'm sure you are as keen as anyone to know what the truth is.

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 21, 2011 5:45 PM

And stu, you are of course also welcome to join me and Jeff. Instead of riding into the sunset, we can read, read. read. Deal?

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 21, 2011 5:49 PM

I understand that you guys feel threatened when your holy words are questioned. But is it necessary to use a vocabulary like luminous bounty's in # 353? Its really out of line, me thinks. You behave like privileged white middle-aged heterosexual men being cornered. But hey, maybe you are privileged white middle-aged heterosexual men being cornered? ;-)

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 21, 2011 6:15 PM

Correct chek, I'm really more interested in the the answer to Jonas' Q. Jeff is on to it – finally. May the force be with him. I'll be working at my end.

What about you?

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 21, 2011 6:40 PM

luminous b

No, you've got it wrong. Completely. Consider the following (fully correct) comparison:

I say that I am a (documented) expert on the probabilities of certain random processes A (with known underlying statistical descriptions), and you ask me:

What is the probability for A falling within bounds B, given that restrictions C apply.

And I answer that this will be the case (true) in 82.67% of all instances (and false in the remaining 17.33%)

That is my 'expert' statement. And if you have confidence and trust in me and my 'expertise' you might act or make descions upon it.

But my statement is not science (even if it might be based on a proper calculation), me presenting a poster or a figure, doesn't make it science. Neihter does circling the number 82.67& with a red marker pen or 29 cheering scientist make it that.

I need to present the basis for, the underlying assumptions, the used statistical descriptions, and the rational for using these etc. And i need to do it in a manner so another expert, like myself, can se what has been done. Usually this is done in a publication, a reference if you will. And that is what is missing here.

Further, you make another gross error:

I am not speakcing for 'the scientific community', actually I think the term, especially when presented as a unanimous voice is a total misnomer, sheer nonsense, because nobody represents and speaks for 'the scientific community' and such a community does not (cannot!) make statements of a singular stance in any (but the most banal) questions. Definitely not about what makes the climate move, and how much.

Your paragraph about Wg1 ch9, about how those numbers are calculated, where you say "using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods" shows that you do not grasp the issues. It is true that the SPM claim is repeated, and some figures are presented with numbers and phrases resembling those in the claim. But the AR4 itself does explicitly not present any solid support. Instead it says 'based on current methodologies/understanding of uncertainties', which is exactly what I've said: Self appointed 'experts' opining.

Further, you ar dead wrong about the "very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes"

Wg 1 ch 9 says explicitly: "Warming during the past half century is not solely due to known natural causes" and gives that statement a 'very likely' rating.

So luminous b, you are still in the same limbo, because no reference has been found where that claim is established based on solid science. The wordings in the AR4 are just that: Words saying various things, but purportedly, based on science, which none of us has ever seen.

Please stick to that simple topic.

I have no clue why you, who has difficulties understanding even that simple observation, adresseing it properly, or only reading the AR4 correctly, believe that you can make diagnoses as in your last paragraph. And I don't know why (you or many more here) seem to have such compulsive urges.

I am very certian, you you are even less competent at understanding individuals you don't understand. So please, stick to trying to understand the simple topic here:

If there is real science establishing that AR4 claim, it can be read somewhere.

Posted by: Jonas N | September 21, 2011 6:47 PM

"The thing is Olaus, this the one site you do not wanna troll when it comes to your own half-witted projections.

Olaus said "Correct chek"

Yeah, thanks I already knew that.

Olaus then said "I'm really more interested in the the answer to Jonas' Q. Jeff is on to it – finally."

I hate to break this to you, but Jeff is a world class scientist who no more cares about Jonas' ill-informed ignorance than I care what colour socks he wears.

Tomorrow is Thursday - I expect Jeff is wondering something along the lines of "should I finish that journal peer review this weekend (the sort of thing you 'blogscience experts' dream about as your drool drips off your well-scraped knuckles and onto your well-hammered,semen-stained keyboards) or should I go shopping with the family (the family everytime, IMHO, Jeff).

Bur take my uninformed word for it, educating yet another anonymous Jonas isn't high up on his radar.

Posted by: chek | September 21, 2011 7:11 PM

Yes, Jonas, do go on! You've got us on the run now!

(Thumbs through the DSM to "pathological projection")

Posted by: Stu | September 21, 2011 7:28 PM

And, true to trollish form, Jonas at #361 is reduced to quote-mining 14 words - from a table column he most likely can't read properly and hasn't followed the references for.

IPCC AR4 WG1 Table 9.4 if anyone wants in on the hilarity.

Posted by: chek | September 21, 2011 7:34 PM

Kudos to Jonas. Great answer, as usual.

@ GSW

Dr. Freud would have had a field day with Cheek and his worshiping of the demi-god Jeff. Its a bit scary that someone can be that anal/religious towards another human being. "Don't touch my Jeff! He thinks very much and I am in bad need of a father figure to function properly."

Way to go Chek.

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 22, 2011 1:21 AM

Olaus, I think you should stop projecting your own feelings on me. We HAVE answered Jonas' question. Many times.

Sadly, Jonas has not answered any of OUR questions. Those questions started with discussing the Wegman plagiarism and its importance, something that apparently was too difficult a topic to maintain for Jonas. And so he grasped the one straw: proclaim uncertainty.

Oh, and it is funny to see you state we are having some kind of preoccupation with Jonas because he rocks our boat. How's your preoccupation (and that of many others) with Thomas going?

Posted by: Marco | September 22, 2011 2:39 AM

Craig, given that we have had what seems to be a temp raise of 0,7 C globally during the last 150 years, it should have had some effect on the glaciers (but in your case its your affect that I find interesting).

Why would I not agree Craig? Ask yourself WHY you need to ask me that silly Q and you might reach some kind of insight: It is all about anti-science dressed up as science, taboos, fear mongering, and exaggerations that undermines science as such.

And Marco, I like to read Thomas' stuff. You got a problem with that? I think he keeps the debate running even though I'm not a dogmatic believer (like he is) and sometimes reacts on blindness in certain respects.

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 22, 2011 3:41 AM

Olaus,

The problem is that Jonas won't be 'joining us on our quest' If you had bothered to read any of his long-winded rants earlier, he will admit to either not reading any of the primary literature or forgetting what he had read. This doesn't sound to me like someone who is either well-informed or who wants to become better informed. It seems to me that Jonas read snippets from the IPCC summary document, focused on the 90% figure that was made in the summary, then ran off with it screaming foul. He has given not a single indication of having read a primary peer-reviewed article in his life. Not a good start for someone who claims to "know what they are talking about".

So you and GSW - the latter who has't said anything of substance on this or other threads either except to defend his pet monkey - also defend this kind of behavior? Hmmm. That is kind of odd in my book. I would also like to know if you think that, given the thrust of the question posed by Jonas, that the bulk of the world's climate scientists are at worst paid liars or at best cunning deceivers. You see, the 90% figure was based upon a reading of the broad base of empirical literature in the field by real bonafide climate scientists, who pieced together the bits and pieces of evidence that constitutes a scientific jigsaw and concluded that humans are the primary forcing agent behind the recent warming. Recall that Jonas has read very little if any of it, and claims to have forgotten the rest. Not a good platform to challenge the scientists, don't you think?

Jonas writes as if we are all starting from a knowledge base of nil, as if the climate scientists who wrote the final draft of IPCC 2007 had not read a single paper and as if they just suddenly scratched their collective heads and said, "Gee, I have better things to do with my time. Are well all agreed on 90%?". Where else can he think the figure was generated? And whenever we have called him out on it, he has responded with insults, innuendo, various other evasive maneuvers, all the while being baited and supported by his puppet-master (you are added to that now; as you seem to be, as Bela Lugosi famously said in one of Ed Wood's films, "pulling the strings!".

You see, unlike you, Jonas and GSW, I am a scientist and I also investigate various theories and hypotheses in the field of ecology. One of the most important areas now relates to the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, in which two hypotheses now prevail: the rivet popper hypothesis and the redundancy hypothesis. Both have generated intense, and sometimes acrimonious debate in recent years, with scientists dividing into both camps. But the debates have been always based around the empirical data, which shows that there may be merit to both hypotheses, showing some degree os associational specificity. But what I see here with Jonas has little to do with empiricism but with ideology. The same is true for GSW and, in all likelihood, you as well. In areas of science that overlap strongly with public policy, such as climate change and other aspects of environmental science where anthropogenic activities may compromise the health of local ecosystems, there has been a strong backlash against environmentalism. This backlash began in earnest in the 1980s, driven in large part by corporations who saw regulations imposed to curtail some industrial activities as a threat to the way they do business. The backlash - or brownlash as Paul Ehrlich calls it - has grown ever since into a huge multi-billion dollar industry from its cottage-industry level roots. Huge amounts of money are flowing into think tanks, public relations firms, in setting up astroturf lobbying groups (often with environmentally friendly names, a form of greenwash known as 'aggressive mimicry' that aims to confuse the public) in order to ensure that any measures to deal with looming environmental problems are killed before they get off the ground.

Climate change has evoked, for obvious reasons, one of the strongest responses from the broad anti-environmental lobby. This is hardly surprising, given the huge amounts of short- and medium term profits that are at stake. What is more surprising is how easily many members of the general public have been duped into believing that it is all part of some vast left-wing conspiracy, in which scientists (like myself) are co-conspirators. When I wrote critical reviews of Bjorn Lomborg's (IMO) monumentally incompetent book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" for Nature and other periodicals in 2001, I was greeted with hoots of derision from some right wing think tanks and others on the political right. My email account was bombarded with virus-laden emails for a time, and some other colleagues who had been publicly critical of the book actually received death threats. You will notice on this thread that one of the tactics used over and over again by both Jonas and GSW is to claim that I am either incompetent, that I do not understand science (although I got my PhD in 1995 and have 108 peer-reviewed publications) or that I am not really a qualified scientist at all. This all comes because I have repeatedly asked Jonas to provide links to the actual articles that were used as the basis for the summary of AR4/2007 and to show where they authors got it wrong. This means reading a lot of material, because, as I said earlier, and a point that has been made repeatedly by Bernard, lb, wow, Stu, Chek and others, it is up to you, GSW and Jonas to prove that the scientists got it wrong, and not the other way around. But any mention of this salient fact results in the usual cries of anger, derision and bitter denunciation that have characterized most of what Jonas has written. All GSW has done is to cheer Jonas on without even a shred of science.

Therefore, to come back to thrust of what I am saying is that the 90% figure so derided by Jonas was not 'plucked out of thin air' by the large number of scientists who contributed to the final chapter. It was certainly based on many discussions at fora, conferences, workshops and through widely circulated e-mail exchanges, university visits and other institutional meetings. In other words, it was based on a stupendous amount of work and co-operation. If Jonas, GSW or you for that matter had any even basic knowledge of how major scientific issues like this are processed, you would realize how silly that your postings read to someone like me.

To be honest, I have far better things to do with my time that are based on the real science that I do than to engage in to-ing and fro-ing with people like Jonas, who have brought this discussion to such a low common denominator that its become a debate that it has little to do with science - which he does not understand anyway - and more to do with posturing. I have admitted several times since wading into this thread and other where Jonas suddenly popped up, that my expertise lies outside of climate science. I was not formally trained in that discipline, and therefore I trust the opinions of the people who have actually been trained as climate researchers and who contributed to the final draft of AR4-2007, either directly or indirectly. Of course I have much more confidence in a field in which I have spent over 20 years of my life - population and evolutionary ecology of plant-insect interactions (which is a massive field in its own right). I have been singled out for the heaviest criticism from Jonas and GSW because I am a scientist. Clearly, scientists who defend the integrity of their colleagues in other disciplines are fair game, as far as people like Jonas and GSW are concerned. I have learned this fact over the years.

For their part, people like Jonas (and GSW) hold no such reservations as to what they know and what they don't in the field of climate science of any science for that matter. This is precisely what the now famous Dunning-Kruger (1998) study showed: that the less someone is trained in a specific field, the more they think they know about that field. Or, as Charles Darwin famously said, "Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge". In the past, I challenged the arguments of some people on anti-environmental blogs who made such flippant remarks as, "The Earth can easily support one trillion people" (this is just one example of many). When I responded that our global ecological life support systems are fraying and unraveling with <1% of this number of human inhabitants, I was torn apart and derided as an idiot by many posters on these blogs who claimed that I did not know what I was talking about. So the behavior of Jonas and GSW is hardly surprising. I am used to it.

The bottom line is that scientists are trained to be cautious and skeptical. The very fact that there was broad consensus amongst the scientists who co-authored the summarizing chapter of AR4 should say tell us that it was based on an immense amount of discussion, and that this figure was not reached superficially. To me, Jonas and his ilk are like trains without brakes. They huff and puff and try to tell the world that they are experts without any kind of formal training. I will always defer to those trained in a specific endeavor over 'pretenders' whose views conflict with the prevailing wisdom. On that note, I will leave this thread to Jonas, you and GSW to ponder over. I have had enough of it. I profoundly support the efforts of those who have 'hung in there' against the vacuous rants of Jonas. But to me its a waste of time. Its clear to me that Jonas is not interested in science but in bolstering his own personal political views, and that science has become a tool in doing so. As I explained earlier, he is not alone.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 22, 2011 4:35 AM

Olaus drivelled: "Dr. Freud would have had a field day with Cheek (sic) and his worshiping of the demi-god Jeff.

Its a bit scary that someone can be that anal/religious towards another human being. "Don't touch my Jeff! He thinks very much and I am in bad (sic) need of a father figure to function properly."

Amazing display of projection, particularly of his religious and parental issues, from Olaus.

Confirmation yet again that there is nothing guaranteed to inflame the ire of fake blogscientists than common or garden respect for professional scientists with a proven track record that support action on AGW.

Posted by: chek | September 22, 2011 5:16 AM

Jeff H

The AR4 posterchild claim about attribution and certainty is not a 'snippet' and you know that.

And you seem to acknowledge what I have pointed out the entire time: that it is a reasoned of opinion. By 'experts' you say, but generally not experts in the necessary disciplines.

And no, expert opinions do not miraculously mutate into science or extablished facts through:

1. Broad agreement in 'the community'

2. Reading much in empirical literature

3. Other jiggsaw puzzle pieces by 'climate scientists'

4. Many of those discussing it often among themselves

5. In widely circulated email exhanges

6. At universities, institutions and visists to such

7. At meetings and workschops, or

8. Repeating this belief at conferences etc.

Nono of this makes it science, it is and remains an opinion, possibly heartfelt by the many 'bonifide climate scientists' (which generally are quite poor at statistics).

Generally, I have no problem with people opining, but it bothers me that it is missleadlingly presented and relayed (and swollowed by the believers) as being science or even 'truth' ...

No Jeff, before you can wave that 90% certainty figure, and claim it has any value beyond opinion, you (meaning: somebody skilled) need to go back to your lab and do your homework, do it properly, meticulously, check every detail, state every caveat, make sure that all underlying assumptions are met, and if not, incorporate those in that homework, and then you still have to do the tedious work of putting it all togethere.

If, after such a process (it's called 'science' and the 'scientific method'), you can show the resulting number, if indeed it is 90%!

And you still need to hand in that homework! and have it checked, not only once, but aopenly vailable for all for the remainder of eterinty ...

But if you are aware of those IPCC likelyhood statements mostly are results of discussions (which I knew all the tima), the question arises why you have to challenge that so bitterly and fervently?

Posted by: Jonas N | September 22, 2011 6:58 AM

Wow #375

The interesting part was/is why Craig think/thought that the topic was/is melting glaciers or not.

And No, science isn't settled regarding climate sensitivity and CO2 and Yes I do think that the CO2-hypothesis is worth scientific inquiries.

I just can't stand that a scientific hypothesis being kidnapped from the laboratory to be manhandled and sodomized by political and ideological forces.

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 22, 2011 7:21 AM

"The interesting part was/is why Craig think/thought that the topic was/is melting glaciers or not."

Except that Craig made no such statement.

It's interesting why you think/thought he had.

It rather looked like he was asking you if you believed in some scientific evidence of warming.

It rather looked like you were trying to avoid agreement.

Posted by: Wow | September 22, 2011 8:18 AM

Jonas N.

You claim that the IPCC and the global body of professional climatologists have not actually calculated the uncertainties that are stated in AR4, and that they instead simply fabricated their figures.

What papers in the scientific literature, and referenced by AR4, have you read in order to arrive at a point where you can make your claim?

Why do you persistently avoid stating your claim in scientific, substantiated, testable form?

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 22, 2011 8:50 AM

Jaff H contd.

You keep on trying with the nonsensical:

"I have repeatedly asked Jonas to provide links to the actual articles that were used as the basis for the summary of AR4/2007 and to show where they authors got it wrong"

Seriously, how totally wrong can you get things? I have been the one asking for exactly those articles? For some ~three weeks now (here, and much longer at other sites also pretending to discuss climate science)

But still, you pretend the exact opposite. Why is it so immensly difficult for you to stick to the truth, to reality, to discuss what actually is the topic, and refrain from inventing your 'facts'?

You (and Bernard J) have tried to counter the appearant non-existence of proper science by demanding:

'Show us what you think is wrong, in that/those paper(s) which cannot be found, write to the authors/scientists who arr unidentified, or point ot the flaws in papers which do not make that claim'

The amounts of twisted logic and pure nonses are allmost surreal. As is of course all that other ranting which you fill your comments with, between all the factual nonsense about the topic.

So far you have not contributed one jota to anything of substance. Instead tyou have tried various version of:

1. Trust me, I am a scientist
2. Trust me to trust others, they are scientists
3. I don't understand, but I do* trust them
4. Stop asking to see what is done. They are the scientists
5. Trust me, I speak for The scientific community
6. No, I don't understand the matter, but we all agree
7. Yes, I sometimes get to mingle with 'the big guys'
8. Look at my CV, you simply must be wrong. Look again!
9. If you don't trust the scientists, accept their words, you must have evil motives
10. If you argue the facts, you must be incompetent
11. If I say Dunning Kruger, I have scientifically 'proved' that my beliefs are the truth
12. ... and so it goes on ... utter drivel for weeks

Sorry Jeff, I don't know what passes as intelligence or logic in your knick of the woods ... but you have to do a lot better in the real world if you want to do some convincing (and stop making up your own 'facts', definitively)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 22, 2011 9:20 AM

Hazarding an estimation based on perceived data Bernard, I'd say Jonas hasn't even read all 18 pages of AR4 WG1 SPM. Forget about the references.

Of course, even the few sentences he possibly has read (but not understood - see his table chart quote gaffe at comment #361) - makes him a regular postdoc compared to most of his ilk.

In the end, as Stein memorably put it, there was no there there. Which came as no surprise whatsoever, I'm sure.

Posted by: chek | September 22, 2011 9:31 AM

There is something that is a bit odd happening with this thread in relation to Olaus and Jonas. This is the sequence of posts between the two of them (format = post number, poster): 278, Jonas; 283, Jonas; 284, Jonas; 289, Jonas; 291, Jonas; 302, Olaus; 304, Olaus; 305, Olaus; 309, Olaus; 312, Olaus; 314, Olaus; 321, Olaus; 324, Jonas; 328, Jonas; 330, Jonas; 335, Olaus; 339, Olaus; 343, Olaus; 344, Olaus; 350, Olaus; 352, Olaus; 354, Olaus; 356, Olaus; 358, Jonas; 361, Jonas; 376, Jonas; 384, Jonas; 385, Jonas;

Their comments cluster and alternate. I wonder why?

Posted by: GWB's Nemesis | September 22, 2011 10:49 AM

Jeff, don't put so much effort into it and the waste of time won't be so frustrating.

Jonas still hasn't actually been able to say what he is asking.

"Attribution" is different from "Confidence levels", but he's used one, either or both to complain.

And his sock posted how Jonas' simple question hasn't been answered, but seemed unable to work out what that one simple question was.

Even if he's not a sockpuppet or coworker, even those most friendly to the troll can't work out what he's asking for.

Posted by: Wow | September 22, 2011 12:10 PM

Here we go again friends, and please make a mental note that numerology now is a part of the analytic framework, thanks to GWB's nemesis. And isn't it ironic? Jonas, GSW and I are asking for some basic scientific principles behind a certain figure, and nobody wants take the climate conspiracy eschatology sock puppet out of the pie-hole. (Jeff seem to be on his way out of the closet though. Good for him). But me think I can start to connect the dots. Maybe the reluctance to present something scientific regarding the origin behind "90%" has more to do with climate numerology than climate science?

Want to help us out GWB's nemesis? ;-)

But seriously, I'm sure we soon all can agree that the 90% is more of an educated guess than anything else, but why is it then dressed up as top notch science when its apparently not? I believe it is because the IPCC has to come up with numbers. It is, after all, an organization with a responsibility to write "summary for policymakers". Some numbers/figures have to be materialized. Of course "science" then has to take a step back in favor of "politics".

Shall we call it a draw?

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 22, 2011 12:21 PM

Jeff

You can repat your rants all you want, your wishful thinking, your made up 'facts' your beliefs don't come true that way.

Your problem is that you have now real grasp of statistics, what they are, what they mean, what the can be used for, how to use them properly etc.

Sure, you can feed observational data into a stats-package, and repeat the numbers you get. But unless you have any real knowledge of the topic, you are helpless beyond that point.

So yes, 'climate scientistis' reinforcing each others opinions about how really certain they are and putting numbers to their grade of personal conviction and faith is not science.

And as you say, you may "trust the opinions of trained climate scientists" but thats all they are, expressions of faith.

And yes, Jeff, if a puported scientific body claims that a certain statement (or hypothesis) is confirmed with 90% confidence, it means something different that a handwaiving ballpark figure, and it should not be understood like how certain the fans are late at the Pub, about their home team winning the upcoming football game.

All I have said, and said from the start is that the AR4 posterchild claim is not established by proper science. (And you seem to grudginly agree to that. Maybe that's why you are losing it now)

And again you bring up your complete nonsense fantasies, things which nowhere have been claimed nor even implied:

1. He's also implying .. that all of the climate scientists who contributed to the summary chapter of the last IPCC document are liars

2. .. who tries to say that they know more about a specific field of research than people who have dedicated their lives to it

3. It is to say, that without 100% unequivocal proof, then the problem does not exist

4. we can dismiss the entire concept of anthropogenic global warming

I have said nothing of the kind: 1) Particularly since not one claimate scientists makes the claim, presents it as science in a paper and puts his name behind it. 2) see answer to 1), 3) & 4) this is total BS, things you cannot resist to make up as you go (you've made up so much more nonsense, its absolutely breathtaking)

And your implication that I know nothing about science, which you have reiterated in every single comment, is as ludicrous as everything else you try.

I'll tell you what Jeff, nobody inventing his own 'facts' is a scientist, he might masquerade as one, even have Phd and a academic position. But the moment he needs to fudge reality, to bolster his narrative, he ceases to deal with science. He becomes an activist, a shenanigan, a cheater, or worse ...

Now, I can be in any room with any scientist and discuss my both opinions and scientific arguments. And I for certain do not need to invent 'facts' at every turn to justify (or arrive) at my desired conclusion.

I don't know about you, is this behaviour you displaya here, is it condoned in the rooms with 'scientists' where you hang? Do they all sound like you? Do the also completely lose it if someone points out that 'this particular argument/logic/evidence does not support the offered conclusion'!?

Do they too, abgrily start shouting back: 'No maybe not in the strict sense, but heck, we all agree that its the truth anyway. And who are you to question us, we've been convinced far longer than you've been here'?

You ar boasting about your deep lunchroom chats, but here all you can muster is the sort of endless drivel and insults everybody can read in your comments. early on you even proclaimedselfrighteously, that you are entitled to insult others, because of your moral superiority ..

And now you start whining because I dont adore your infinite wisdom, your briljant logic and deep understanding (which you've all been hiding very carefully) about things you do not master, not even have a clue of?

Well, you are indeed one pitiful character, Jeff Harvey ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 22, 2011 12:35 PM

Pardon me for the formatting error. The following should have been indented.

Further, you ar dead wrong about the "very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes"

Wg 1 ch 9 says explicitly: "Warming during the past half century is not solely due to known natural causes" and gives that statement a 'very likely' rating.

Posted by: luminous beauty | September 22, 2011 12:45 PM

For the record Wow, (its really 'wow' when reading your echolalia) given the circumstances – you losing in every aspect of the word – and somebody offer "a draw", it is because s/he makes fun of you. But you are so hysterical that you can't see it, cry-baby. ;-)

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 22, 2011 1:08 PM

The disinterest in Jonas N is now pushing 400 posts...:-)

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 22, 2011 1:12 PM

Jonas,

Huntingford et al., 2006: "We find that greenhouse gas forcing would very likely have resulted in greater warming than observed during the past half century if there had not been an offsetting cooling from aerosols and other forcings."

Be my guest.

Posted by: luminous beauty | September 22, 2011 1:28 PM

Jonas,

Jeff Harvey, so now there are 1000s of references in empirical sciences showing that luminous b's nonsens claim is true!?

Seriously.

How effing stupid can you make yourself? I mean, even if you tried your hardest, and wanted to be seen like a total moron?

Posted by: luminous beauty | September 22, 2011 1:49 PM

Dear stu #402

I can assure you that a psych major wont be sufficient when it comes to explain the rise and the fall of CAGW in the first decade of this millie. Its material for many PhD-programs and conferences to come, in the sociology of religions, psychology, anthropo(geno)logy and similar disciplines. I'm rather convinced that the next big break through in CAGW will be in the field of sociology or perhaps religion. Blogs like this one will for sure be good material.

I'm also convinced that your hostility and incapability to deliver straight answers to simple Qs, is a result from CAGW getting out of fashion. Maybe the end is near?

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 22, 2011 2:00 PM

Olaus, that loud whooshing sound is the point flying straight over your head. You do not disappoint!

By the way, the answer has been delivered eight times now, but do keep on flailing precious.

Posted by: Stu | September 22, 2011 2:38 PM

I can't resist, its like picking at a scab you know you shouldn't but you do anyway.

Olaus/Jonas (for they are the same) please look up the word disinterest...it is not a synonym for uninterest. If you learn nothing else from this thread you may at least learn that and thus this thread will not have been completely useless.

Posted by: marco | September 22, 2011 3:11 PM

O Louse,

You aren't paying attention. I have introduced probative evidence, fulfilling with exactitude, Jonas demands for provenance that the 'magic number' and its associated conclusion are both underestimated and understated.

I have also introduced an hypothesis for why this is so.

Feel free to attempt a carefully reasoned and rational rebuttal, if you can. I'm betting you can't.

Posted by: luminous beauty | September 22, 2011 3:50 PM

Olaus: You do know that CAGW is a term invented by denialists when they realised that they could no longer deny the global warming nor the anthropogenic part of AGW?

Where, exactly, do you think that climate scientists have got it wrong and how do you justify your beliefs?

Posted by: Richard Simons | September 22, 2011 6:15 PM

Richard Simons:

Olaus: You do know that CAGW is a term invented by denialists when they realised that they could no longer deny the global warming nor the anthropogenic part of AGW?

Also known as the third stage of denial.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | September 22, 2011 7:07 PM

Jonas,

If so, it describes curve fitting procedures ... that's all fine, but such do not constitute validation of a model, only how well the[sic] fit the fitted data.

No, GCMs are not curve fitting procedures.

Here's a little quiz to test your scientific acumen:

At the core of most every General Circulation Model lies a simple set of differential equations. For ten points;

!. Who first formulated those equations?

1. When was it done?

For extra credit.

1. What are those equations?

2. What are the basic physical principles from which those equations are formulated?

When you can answer those questions correctly, maybe you will begin to understand why everyone here knows you're an idiot. Hint: Knowing this should be a matter of national pride for you.

If you want to read the whole paper, it will only cost you $25.00, but I warn you, you won't understand it.

Posted by: luminous beauty | September 22, 2011 7:32 PM

luminous

Navier Stokes has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing ... I am surprised that you think so.

And no, 'idiot' is still not an argument, but you do not seem alone here in the belief that it is ...

Quite depressing.

Posted by: Jonas N | September 22, 2011 7:48 PM

400 Robert,

I said much the same in another thread a long time ago. Ignore the brain-eating zombie and it will eventually go away looking for brains elsewhere.

Feed it and not only will it stay but new zombies will be attracted.

Some very good people have wasted a lot of time in this thread arguing with the zombies. It was always pointless: they cannot reason and honesty is a concept beyond them.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | September 22, 2011 8:14 PM

Seriously, is this still going? So much time has been wasted on this idiot that could have been put to more productive use. I am reminded of this brilliant story I heard earlier this year:

Growing up in the South Australian industrial city of Whyalla, Gary Gray was old school Labor before he even left high school. Now a minister in the Gillard government, Gray joined Labor's national secretariat in 1986 and became national secretary in 1993, at the fag end of Labor's last period in government.

At his resignation speech at the National Press Club in 2000, Gray recounted his horror when, as a 16-year-old in Whyalla, his steelworker and Laborite father, Gordon, invited the local Liberal candidate into the house during the 1974 federal election campaign. ''I went into a complete tailspin. I was appalled. What would Gough think?'' Gray said.

Gray snr ''sat the Lib down'' and talked to him for 20 minutes before dragging Gray jnr from his bedroom where he had sought refuge and forced him to shake the hand of the candidate.

''It got worse. Dad actually offered him a drink. My father is a Yorkshireman. Yorkshiremen do not give away alcohol,'' Gray said. ''But that day, there was a Liberal Party candidate in the front room of our home sharing a scotch with dad.''

Just as Gray jnr was contemplating running away from home, the Liberal excused himself and left to continue doorknocking. Standing on the porch, the candidate told Gray snr, rhetorically, to let him know if there was anything he could do for him.

''Well, there is,'' said Gray snr, who pointed to the blocked gutter on the verandah and then his own crook back which prevented it being cleared.

The Liberal, a tall man, said ''no worries'' and promptly reached up. ''In no time, he'd cleaned the gutter out completely,'' Gray said. ''That done, he shook dad's hand and headed up the street. I turned to my father and asked him, with all the self-control I could muster, how he could do that, invite this Liberal into our home and make friends with him.''

Gray snr calmed his son: ''He's just wasted an hour with us, he's got alcohol on his breath and muck running down his sleeve. How many votes do you think he'll win today?''

Don't feed the troll. Even on his own thread. He's wasting our time and we're not achieving anything here, and we are getting muck all up our arms (and probably hitting the bottle in the evening too).

Posted by: duckster | September 22, 2011 10:34 PM

Dear Craig,

The CO2-level in the atmosphere is higher. I'm not sure you are aware of this, but we humans are using fossil fuels, which very likely can explain most of the increased level of CO2. That's why its called anthropogenic CO2. Now you know a little more Craig, on the socratic house.

And yes, at the moment, the last 10 years or so not so much though, Gaia has become warmer. In fact, it has become warmer the last 10 k/y or so, with ups and downs on the way.

Anything else?

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 23, 2011 1:21 AM

Dear Chris,

since the CAGW-prophets now are less in political and scientific fashion, their reactions become more agitated and frustrated. That is a natural process.

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 23, 2011 1:33 AM

Marco, "No shifting of goalposts" you require, in an attempt to seriouslyt shift the goalposts.

If I remember correctly, you first claimed that the AR4 claim was properly established Wg1 ch9. Now that it isn't you try two new approaches:

1. Everything is an 'educated guess', and
2. Present your best (alternative) guess

And you are missing the central point here:

1. It is indeed just a 'guess' (which has been the point the entire time, and what has been upsetting people to the point where some finally lose it all together).
2. And since no proper quantitative analysis is presented how that AR4 laim ('educated guess') is arrived at, there is not really any way to say it must be wrong (or any reason for that).

But it is of course possible to present arguments for why an educated guess should arrive at a lower certainty. And the support provided be the references themselves are a considerable part of that. Just by noting how they go about their 'attribution methods'

Posted by: Jonas N | September 23, 2011 2:13 AM

Excellent! So we are agreed:

glaciers are melting planet is warming CO2 levels are increasing increased CO2 is anthropogenic in origin

So...do we agree with this proposition:

• CO2's physical properties enable it to act as a "greenhouse gas", allowing higher-energy radiation from the Sun to pass down, but trapping the lower-energy radiation from the Earth from passing up, thus warming the planet.

?

Posted by: Craig Thomas | September 23, 2011 2:20 AM

I was hoping for something like excessive unicorn funeral pyres or something gloriously whacky, at least. But at the end of this particular shaggy dog thread, we get offered ... natural variability as the punchline.

As the more sensible brethren and sisteren warned, troll feeding is never productive.

Posted by: chek | September 23, 2011 2:44 AM

Craig - The climate is a bit more complicated than that scalar Gore:esque description you present. And the term 'trapping heat' is more appropriate for propaganda nonsense by failed ex VP politicians, directed at scaring kids ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 23, 2011 3:16 AM

@GSW

Yes, I think we can. We are making progress.

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 23, 2011 3:37 AM

Olaus Petri wrote: "I have already stated that I find the CO2-hypothesis worthy scientific inquiries. What more do you want?"

Why are people still wasting time on these scientific illiterate trolls?

Posted by: Andy S | September 23, 2011 3:53 AM

Why are people still wasting time on these scientific illiterate trolls?

Exactly. These trolls are writing as if we are starting from a clean slate with respect to the field. IPCC concluded, on the basis of going through thousands of studies, that the human fingerprint on the current warming is highly significant. In other words, we are responsible for most of it. Certainly there are some of the finer points to be ironed out, but by now it is known what is responsible for most, if nolt all of the recent warming.

We are.

Case closed. This conclusion is beyond debate or discussion. Now we have to move on a better understand what the consequences of AGW are likely to be on natural and managed ecosytstems. This is what I'd be happy to discuss. But the triplet trolls here are trying to drag the discussion down to the lowest common demominator. To argue that humans are not primarily responsible for the rapid warming currently occurring. That is why AndyS, Duckster and TrueSkeptic are spot on with their posts. The trolls are time wasters and I implore others here to leave them stewing in their onw s@#$.

Science moved on 5-10 years ago. The deniers are trying to muddy the waters and slow down mitigation efforts. To do this they focus on the uncertain outcomes of warming and apply this uncertainty to the factors underlying the warming itself. The 90% figure was provided because the media and the public demand 'handles'. What the writers of AR4 meant was 'very highly significant'. That is enough evidence right there.

Tim's web site is a brilliant forum for discussion, but all-too-often some of its threads are hijacked by time-wasting anti-environmental idiots who would not believe the evidence for AGW if it was put right in front of them. We have all wasted too much effort here to debate people who are not interested in scientific discussion but in futile efforts to downplay the human contribution to the current warming, which is agreed upon by the vast majority of the climate science community.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 23, 2011 4:07 AM

Jonas, yes, the AR4 claim is very well established. The "educated guess" that lies behind this claim is as educated a guess as the theory of evolution. But I guess you'll attack that theory, too, if that were to have implications that rock your ideology a bit too much.

As AR4 establishes quite well, we KNOW in which direction the most important forcings have been since 1950: down for volcanic, down for solar, up for GHGs. We KNOW that most of the GHG increase is due to anthropogenic contributions (allow me to add carbon black, too). We KNOW that the temperature has gone up. We can discuss by how much, but not that it has gone up, that is established beyond reasonable doubt. We KNOW that there are some other forcings that may contribute in either direction, but there is no evidence they contribute much on the long term (short term, yes, long term no).

Anyone looking at the basic facts would have to conclude that it is virtually certain that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the primary cause of the complete temperature increase since the 1950s. Compare that to the statement in AR4. It's watered down!

It is telling you claim there are arguments, and then come with "Just by noting how they go about their 'attribution methods' ". That's plain old handwaving, also known as an "uneducated guess".

Posted by: Marco | September 23, 2011 4:47 AM

Dear Olaus Petri,

If you think it is garbage, why don't you demonstrate to us all that you have thoroughly understood what's at the link I gave before. And don't just give us some "they run a couple of simulations" mumble. Show that you understand the methods they are using and demonstrate why they are inadequate. Also show that you understand the results they come to, and in particular the implications of Fig 9.9.

Posted by: Andy S | September 23, 2011 5:16 AM

Finally Jeff admits that 90-95 its a political number and noting else

I never said it was political. I said that the public and media demand 'handles', so we provided one based on the best estimates. And Marco is correct that it was 'watered down'. This is because so many people contributed to the various drafts - on both sides of the so-called debate. A large proportion of the climate science community think its a lot worse than 90% - more closer to 100%.

But, as expected, Olaus digresses. The main point was that the human fingerprint is very highly significant. Those clinging vainly to the 90% figure are doing so in order to try and create doubt as to the human fingerprint. The science is 'in' as far as that is concerned. Too bad that the right wing anti-regulatory denialists missed the boat.

As for 'tipping points', they have already been demonstrated in other fields - for instance lost ecosystem services and processes, such as pollination, seed dispersal, water purification, maintenance of soil fertility and forest re-generation, due to a suite of anthropogenic stresses. But since Olaus apparently isn't a scientist and clearly is not up on the empirical literature, they do not exist as far as he is concerned. And tipping points are exactly that - systems can be pushed and stretched to a certain point and still function effectively enough to sustain life in a manner that we take for granted. But suddenly systems collapse and critical services are lost. Humans are lucky that considerable redundancy is present in most systems, and thus the human assault has only resulted in a few regional effects thus far, and not a systemic collapse. But nature is not forgiving and as long as we maintain the current path there will be serious consequences down the road. The trouble is, that our species is so uttely contemptuous of the natural world that we have fooled ourselves into believing that we, and we alone, have the ability to survive and prosper irrespective of the damage we inflict on nature and the lost services that result from that.

And, since climate control is a largely deterministic process that is characterized by temporal lags in cause-and-effect relationships, Olaus is just another troll expecting instantaneous effects of human actions. We know that the extinction debt occurs, and that the loss of mammals at the terminal end of the food chain is still rippling through ecosystems in North America (Tilman and May, 1994). Some of these effects took decades and even centuries to be realized. The effects of climate warming will also be realized way down the road, long after the forests are cut and the fossil fuels are burned.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 23, 2011 5:39 AM

So Olaus Petri has no clue of the thing he is calling "garbage". Quel suprise! As I said before: waste of time, scientific illiterate trolls.

Posted by: Andy S | September 23, 2011 6:00 AM

Jonas/Olaus are playing a smoke and mirrors game with figures here, or at least using a stick which on closer inspection proves to be made of smoke which serves to beat and impress credulous dolts at places like WTFUWT or Montford's stalker HQ.

To use an analogy, since the first Model T rolled off Henry Ford's production line, engines and their systems have been designed, redesigned, augmented and improved a thousandfold to the limits of human genius using scientific and engineering best practice in use today. And yet even after all that, it cannot be guaranteed with 100% certainty that when the key is turned, an engine will fire. There is only a very high probability that it will.

It's the word 'uncertainty' being puffed up and played to the rubes as a colloquial rather than scientific term. That's what the so-called lukewarmers always have done and what Jonas et all have been wasting their time to eventually tell us.

More fool us.

Posted by: chek | September 23, 2011 6:03 AM

Olaus Petri: "The are biafran..."

I note (without much surprise) that Olaus Petri finds children starving to death during civil war suitable material for witticisms.

Posted by: Andy S | September 23, 2011 6:35 AM

Jonas N,

Judging from Fig 9.9, one could add a helluva lot of more uncertainty and still have at least 90%.

Posted by: Andy S | September 23, 2011 7:02 AM

Andy, if this is how you interpret fig 9.9, you indeed show that you do not understand what the different error bars and confidence levels represent. (But on the other hand, it explains why you so persistently have pointed at a figure instead of addressing the topic)

But that's agian and again the impression I get here. Lots of agtitated conviction, but much fewer being able and even fewer actually doing the homework.

As I've said many times. Usually, the people referring one to some reference haven't even read it (only maybe opened it in their browser, and found some phrases), and that's not good enough. Further, most of them couldn't interpret what is actually done in the papers, and just spout ot that whatever they think there is, also must be science and the truth.

This happens essentially every time, you check to actual science. It is grossly overstated, every caveat, premiss, precondition, restriction, limitiation of applicability, often is completely missing ... but are usually quite well presented in the paper (if one reads them).

That's why I've gotten tired of following references from people who can't conduct a civil discussion.

I mean, just look at Jeff Harvey. He sounds like he is close to a stroke from high blood pressure in almost every comment. And still he never adresses the issues, only demands that everybody shared his faith, and for the same reason ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 23, 2011 7:39 AM

Here's the proper analogy to the Jonas et al. crowd and I will leave it at that.

A dump truck dumps a large pile of sand on an ashphalt surface. Over the course of the coming months, on weekly basis several workman shovel some of it into wheel barrows and take it to naother site, while a smaller amount is blown away in the wind, or else is eroded by rainfall. Over a year or two, the pile is entirely removed.

Researchers are left to estimate which agent took away most of the sand: the guys with shovels who took some every week, or natural agents such as wind and rain. Eventually, studying the evidence, as well as with the use of model estimations of the three factors, they conclude that workers took away the vast majority of the sand. When pressed they say "at least 90%, but probably more like >95%".

The sceptics scream foul. They want to know (1) exactly how many grains of sand there were in the pile to begin with, (2) exactly how many were taken by each agent, and (3) how many there are left. They demand this information even though the evidence that most of it was removed by the workers is abundantly clear. They claim that the 90-95% figure is purely political, yet without it they argue that the total amount taken away by the workers is unknown and might just as well be nil.

This is what Jonas and his chums are doing here. Well done, guys. No wonder most of those posting on this thread are exasperated. Its like trying to knock down a brick wall of illogic.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 23, 2011 7:54 AM

Jeff, are you now comparing probabilities and confidence levels for stated magnitudes in the tails of non established but estimated pdf ..

.. with fractions of a predefined weight which is easily measured, as is the average removed weight in one weelbarrow, and the numbers of those?

You go on to say:

They want to know (1) exactly how many grains of sand there were in the pile to begin with, (2) exactly how many were taken by each agent, and (3) how many there are left. They demand this information even though the evidence that most of it was removed by the workers is abundantly clear

No, Jeff, none of this is demanded. And the analogy is very poor. But your attempt is still indicative of your understanding of the issue.

Posted by: Jonas N | September 23, 2011 8:04 AM

Jeff, I am glad you are physically fine. That's why i specified:

He sounds like he is close to a stroke from high blood pressure in almost every comment. And still he never adresses the issues, only demands that everybody shared his faith, and for the same reason

and it was a metaphorical comparison, I dont think it is the blood pressure that causes anger, emotions runing amok, un uncontrolable urges to spout all that you do ..

.. and I don't think it works in the opposite way either. That those emotions cause strokes.

Relax, will you please (as you say you are). And if possible also in your language and content here ...

OK?

Posted by: Jonas N | September 23, 2011 8:08 AM

Andy S

It is very obvious that you, and many more here start name calling and labelling when you run out of substance.

Your 'substance' here has been one fig 9.9 (which you cannot interpret properly) and that 90% < 100% (which it is)

Have you noticed how many of you (on your side) have managed to argue with out name calling, and empty ad homs etc?

Posted by: Jonas N | September 23, 2011 8:11 AM

Have you noticed how many of you (on your side) have managed to argue with out name calling, and empty ad homs etc?

Diddums, if you demonstrate yourself to be an idiot and a troll, you have to expect to be called for it at some point.

Lose the glass jaw.

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 23, 2011 8:21 AM

And that, through attrition, you are winning an argument that your side lost years ago.

To be specific, over 50 years ago.

Posted by: Wow | September 23, 2011 8:24 AM

man of the incessant misrepresentations (contd.)

Yup, that's you all right!

I noted that the IPCC claim of what can be attributed to manmade GHGs is not very alarming.

This is an opinion.

Indeed an opinion that Niel Craig vehemently disagrees with, but there you go, I don't expect him or anyone complaining of the "alarmists" or "CAGW crowd" to disagree with you.

That what they say is 'at least half of what is seen last 50 years, at 90% likelyhood'

OK, if that's your paraphrasing. Still not seeing where the "IT'S NOT SCIENCE!" comes in.

Which is not a whole lot. In the order of ~0.2 °C, ie nothing to get all worked up about

Another opinion. And an uninformed one too.

in the light of what fluctuations we have had both short term and long term.

Except that after 100 years of fluctuations, you're still around the same temperature. After 100 years of trend, you're 100 times further away from the same temperature as you were 99 years before.

It seems that your "nothing to get worried about" is purely because YOU won't be harmed by it.

If you care so little for the future, you're going to get lambasted by Olaf who cares passionately about the poor little kiddies.

Bah, who am I kidding? Even if he wasn't you, he's a denier like you and they NEVER disagree with each other.

Because immedeately folks started to take those numbers very literately

Indeed you did, you kept screaming about how it wasn't scientific, and ranted and raved about 90% as if that was a very literal number and so extremely important that unless it was arrived at under your definition of scientifically, the whole edifice of AGW falls down.

'Oh, but it could be much more and the likelyhood could be even larger

Well, yes, a trend upwards WILL be a larger difference in temperature after more time has passed. This is the very definition of "an upward trend".

Which is even more hysteric armwaiving than the actual claim

What's hysteric is your splashing about and pretending that you're not drowning, even after you've had to claim that you said "swimming" not "drowning".

But pointing out minor details

What? like your complete revision of your insane ravings after nearly 500 posts?

Posted by: Wow | September 23, 2011 8:34 AM

Bernard

As I said early on, I dont mind the name calling, but I do think it reveals how secure you are in your position (I wouldn't call it 'arguments', because they are almost non existent and if OT very superficial, most often only appeals to perceived authority)

Jeff - typo correction:

You need 30 years to observ 'a climate', you can hardly say much about that chaninging over 50 years ...

Posted by: Jonas N | September 23, 2011 8:39 AM

And so to conclude and leave Jonas mulling away on his own legendary status in his own mind, the troll(s) only mentioned Al Gore six times. Always a giveaway.

Posted by: chek | September 23, 2011 9:11 AM

Ah, another denialist loving the trolling!

You note that this denialist isn't saying that they're right, just that it's great that they're upsetting so many people (which would be how many? Three? Two? One?).

No, all that's wanted from the denialists is delay.

Posted by: Wow | September 23, 2011 9:32 AM

Notice how all of the sock puppets have the same usage styles, focus on certain subjects, and problems with spelling?

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 23, 2011 9:48 AM

Well, You really make me laugh out loudly.

More name calling Martyr, sock puppets.

Problems with spelling. Well pardon me, English is not my first language.

Well I made my little contribution and I am out of here. This is like a sect.

By by!

Posted by: Ingvar Engelbrecht | September 23, 2011 10:11 AM

Olaus Petri:

Dear Chris, since the CAGW-prophets now are less in scientific fashion

Which scientific journal would this be?

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | September 23, 2011 10:16 AM

Wow - Which position is it that you want to take:

1. That the climate has changed since 1850 and during this intergalcial? Or

2. That humans are responsible for the vast majority of claimate change?

Posted by: Jonas N | September 23, 2011 10:22 AM

"So why did you write your drivel blog in English? So you could pretend that any errors were "poor english"?

Oh, I think the blogroll on the right panel of his homepage emphatically negates that possible excuse, Wow.

Posted by: chek | September 23, 2011 10:28 AM

Congratulations to Jonas N to your own thread here!

Jonas, although writing using a pseudonym, is no troll but a well known, lively and outspoken member of the public opinion about global warming in Sweden.

As this picture may illustrate our Nordic country is also affected by the dramatic narrative of the Arctic sea ice meltdown: http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/image001117.jpg

Jonas, your perturbation of the climate debate here has revealed some interesting but not unexpected response in the form of tweaked superficial arguments and ad hominem.

Posted by: Pehr Bjornbom | September 23, 2011 10:37 AM

Ah, great. Another denialist under the illusion that they speak for Sweden this time.

(see also the ad hom in the name "climate scam" for the blogroll for extra denialist cashpoints!)

Posted by: Wow | September 23, 2011 10:40 AM

@chek, wow

Listen to yourselves 486,481.

You've just suggested that someone, who appears to be Swedish(?), has chosen to blog in english and is doing so purely to pass off errors as a problem with language!

I think you both need to step away from the computer for a bit and come back when you're rational again and regained your composure.

Posted by: GSW | September 23, 2011 10:50 AM

485 I think we've agreed that IPCC assessments are subjective 'opinion'.

I don't know if this one has been answered, by the way, but you're wrong there.

YOU have agreed with Jonas/Olaus/OtherSocks that it's subjective opinion.

Apparently because you either haven't read the science underpinning, don't understand the science, or just do not wish to admit error.

I would suggest you go away from the internet and get a good bit of work done at your library.

Posted by: Wow | September 23, 2011 10:59 AM

Ah, again we have projection.

Tell me, how do you know I'm not calm? Your psychic abilities ought to be used to good effect on "The Jeremy Kyle Show".

But I guess you're all frizzed up with being called a denier.

Posted by: Wow | September 23, 2011 11:12 AM

As someone for whom English is his second language, please allow me to say that if you can't properly use a language, DON'T.

I'm so, so tired of that lame excuse. Stilted idiom, fine -- I'm guilty of that myself... but at least put some effort in and run your whining through a spell-checker.

And to all of Jonas's Scandinavian buddies he felt the need to call in: here's a quick refresher course.

You're a moron, therefore you are wrong: ad hominem.

You're wrong, here's why, therefore you are a moron: NOT ad hominem.

Could you spread that around, please? It gets really old seeing clown after clown come in abusing a term they do not understand.

Anyway,

I think we've agreed that IPCC assessments are subjective 'opinion'. Does anyone actually disagree with this? I think we did agree, but a lot of name calling has gone on since.

Sure, if you disregard this entire thread and the IPCC AR4 itself, you can call it "opinion". Anyone who has actually read the report would call it "conservative assessment".

But do go on GSW, you seem to be on a roll.

Posted by: Stu | September 23, 2011 11:18 AM

Judging from what is argued, what is claimed, what is actually understood, I don't think there was anything to lose in the first place. And it is quite remarkable that other regulars here (if there are more capable ones) can watch this kind of intellectual self mutilation and let it continue without helping the poor thing ...

Either there are none around, or they are to embarressed to help a friend in need of some gentle guidance, or maybe they aren't even noticing.

Posted by: Jonas N | September 23, 2011 11:27 AM

Judging from what is argued, what is claimed, what is actually understood

You have shown yourself unable to so judge.

Because you refuse to even attempt to understand what is argued or claimed.

Posted by: Wow | September 23, 2011 11:30 AM

And it is quite remarkable that other regulars here (if there are more capable ones) can watch this kind of intellectual self mutilation and let it continue without helping the poor thing ...

Jonas, why would any of the regulars here help you?

Posted by: Stu | September 23, 2011 11:59 AM

"Jonas has never been banned from The Climate Scam:"

He would have been banned if he had kept up his style, but he stopped posting instead, and apparently surfaced here to the joy of our fellow americans.

Point is, you don´t want these kind of endless tedious rantings on your own blog.

Posted by: magnus | September 23, 2011 12:39 PM

.. see the same method of regression, the three mechanisms taken into account, which on top of that are assuemd to be additive (so that the regression can make sense)

I have done extensive work with modelling. Before you just assume that mechanisms are additive you have to be sure that they are reasonably orthogonal (independent).Is that done here?

Posted by: Ingvar Engelbrecht | September 23, 2011 1:06 PM

Jonas,

that's all fine, but such do not constitute validation of a model, only how well the[sic] fit the fitted data.

This statement, vague and awkward as it is, only makes sense if one believes the model data are themselves the result of regression analysis, i.e., 'fitted data'.

Apparently you do know that climate models are the results of ab initio calculations based on well constrained scientific principles and not statistical regressions, so yes, Navier-Stokes is pertinent here, but it is hardly the sole basis on which GCMs are built. So, do we not agree in principle GCMs are scientific models, complying with your demand that scientific support be shown for the SPM claim you question? It is not surprising you would try to weasel out of admitting it.

You repeat the common denialist trope that since models don't include nor replicate every known and unknown detail of climate, they lack validity. This is absurd, and yes, it is precisely such what makes you a willful idiot. As George Box said, "Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." Climate models have proven their utility, even Syukuru Manabe's earliest models from the 1960s have proven valid for many features of the Earth's climate. Neither Hunterford nor Stott are model validation papers. For that, if we are keeping to the AR4-WGI, we would have to go to Chap. 8 and the references therein. I assure you, you would lose that argument, too.

Regression analysis is used in those papers to compare multiple model runs of a number of models (which I emphasize again, are not the results of regression analysis) using different forcing inputs, i.e., attributions, and comparing them to one real word realization. You have not shown that those calculations and their distributions of confidence levels are in any way done incorrectly. If you know of better methods than the various known tools of regression analysis for making such comparisons, then the world is waiting for your genius. That is not a single experiment, it is the cumulative result of many. Of course, there are other papers in that list that do similar multiple experiments using somewhat different methodologies, others that check the methods of those papers against other methodologies and they all basically come to the same conclusion as Hunterford; "We find that greenhouse gas forcing would very likely have resulted in greater warming than observed during the past half century if there had not been an offsetting cooling from aerosols and other forcings."

Again, your request was for a single, peer-reviewed scientific paper that supported the claim in the SPM. I have done so, even to the point of proving the SPM claim was an understatement of much of the supporting science. Indeed the paper you cite, Stott, et al. does also. Your argument against methods, as we have seen, is unsupported and spurious.

Regarding your understanding of regression analysis and its usefulness, some while ago you made a statement about the unpredictability of rolling dice, ignoring the fact it is predictable that as the number of random rolls of a fair die increase the average value of their outcome will converge on 3.5, a predictability gambling casinos rely on in their business plans. This is known as the Law of Large Numbers and is but one elementary principle of statistics from which regression analysis is developed. I'm sure you know this, yet would pretend not to in order make some ignorant and foolish point.

Yes, you are a willful idiot. It isn't an argument (more evidence of your idiocy. You feign not to know what a formal argument is and ignore or dissemble against a well supported one when it suits you, and think that makes you clever), it's a conclusion based on the kind of non-argument (hand-waving, unsupported assertions of fact) that you make.

Posted by: luminous beauty | September 23, 2011 1:13 PM

Of ourse I'm speculating. But anyone smart enough are free to draw their own conclusions. My opinion is worth as much as yours, insider or not. That's the internet for you :-)

Posted by: magnus | September 23, 2011 2:04 PM

luminous beauty 510,

You wrote: ”...since models don't include nor replicate every known and unknown detail of climate, they lack validity. This is absurd ...”.

What is your opinion on the following paper addressing discussing that issue:

”Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences” by Naomi Oreskes, Kristin Shrader-Frechette and Kenneth Belitz. http://courses.washington.edu/ess408/OreskesetalModels.pdf

From the abstract:

”Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. ….. Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic”.

Do you also think that the primary value of climate models is heuristic and what does this mean for the proper usage of those models?

Posted by: Pehr Bjornbom | September 23, 2011 2:31 PM

Sorry for being absent guys. Reading through the latest comments, I notice that the level of frustration has reached epic proportions, most evident in Jeffie, wowie, stuie, Bernie, luminous bounty, und so weiter. For god's sake calm down. We are only interested in science, not your CO2-affected opinions. So please start talking science and avoid profanities.

Someone said that Jonas N, if he was right (not left?), he would be worthy a Noble prize. Sorry to say, but the only Noble prize that is in reach for CAGWists, is the Noble peace price. On the other hand, Jonas N is not a CAGWist, so there might be an opening here. ;-)

Like GWS said in #X, I though we finally had an understanding here, all of us agreeing that the 90-something figure was an educated guess.

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 23, 2011 4:11 PM

GSW drivelled @ #492 @chek, wow Listen to yourselves 486,481. You've just suggested that someone, who appears to be Swedish(?), has chosen to blog in english and is doing so purely to pass off errors as a problem with language!.

Ingvar's bloglist (which I was referring to but ain't gonna link to) is a paen to pseudoscience and quackery. It's like a wall of dirty protest against the rational, the scientific, and the progressive.

That you find such trash defensible is completely unsurprising given your observed total lack of discrimination as long as you can classify such as an anti-AGW fellow traveller.

Posted by: chek | September 23, 2011 4:18 PM

Cheek, to anyone reading your crap, it becomes obvious that you think and act with the lower hemispheres. You need to shape up and get some scientific posture.

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 23, 2011 4:32 PM

@chek 518

You may very well be right about the blog site, I don't know, I haven't looked, he can be an avid smurf fan for all I care.

But suggesting someone is sly using english on the internet, rather than their native tongue, in some fiendish plan to cover up errors , is, is .... stark raving bonkers.

When you get to start thinking conspiratorial things like that I would suggest going and standing outside in the fresh air for 10 minutes. You'll be in a (hopefully) better mental state when you return.

Posted by: GSW | September 23, 2011 4:45 PM

When you are loosing an argument!

This is the first time Im taking part of a on going debate about global warming on the internet. And I have to say that Im very surpised to see the level of emotions attacks and ad hominems as well as guilt by associations. I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a scientific discussion but obviously its not.

What especially surprises me is that the representatives of the established climate science who Ive expected to stand up and defend climate science with scientific arguments isn`t.

I hold an Phd in rhetoric but I would never use that as an argument to be right r the best on my subject, but obviously there are participants here who think that should be enough to earn trust and gain authority, but clearly its not enough.

Jonas seems to have gone through details on the subject and has found nothing to support the claims by the established climate science to make him comfortable. I`ve tried to catch up o the controvercy concerning M Manns hockeystick and my impression is that the critics have very valid arguments. The best explanation I found for a layman as my self was this presentation of a R Muller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

So now I wonder why spokes persons of climate science defends instead of rejects M Manns behavior and why didnt the climate science takes this oportunity to clean up the mistrust that followed- How can that build trust and gain confidence ?

I simply dont understand what the logic or strategy is supposed to be here! Denial of the hockeystick circumstances can not possbly be a winning strategy.

I think the best arguments is coming from the sceptics here and Jonas N has earned a lot af points (to my dissapointment) in his way to argue and present his case. Maby Im turning to be more of a sceptic myself.

Anyone interested to give me a reasonable answer?

Posted by: Anders S | September 23, 2011 4:52 PM

Someone who claims to have a PhD in rhetoric should be able to recognize how dishonest Jonas' writing is. So is Anders S one of Jonas' buddies or a sock puppet?

Posted by: Holly Stick | September 23, 2011 5:15 PM

For that matter, someone who claims to have a PhD in rhetoric should be a better writer.

Posted by: Holly Stick | September 23, 2011 5:17 PM

stu wrote:

How we talk to you has nothing to do with the validity of our arguments. You can take your tone trolling and put it where the sun does not shine, thank you very much.

Jeeesus! what is wrong with people here?

Posted by: Ingvar Engelbrecht | September 23, 2011 5:26 PM

Oh what a shocker, another heavily spelling-challenged Swede rolls in. Anders, if you're still at

I`ve tried to catch up o the controvercy concerning M Manns hockeystick

you really have a lot more catching up to do. Try searching this blog for "Mann" and/or "hockey stick" and get back to us.

Posted by: Stu | September 23, 2011 5:27 PM

luminous 513

Trying this entry again, previous did not get in

Thanks for a civil answer. I have mostly got non civil answers or comments

Posted by: Ingvar Engelbrecht | September 23, 2011 5:31 PM

@chek

Sorry chek, it was wow 481. You were merely stating that he couldn't get away with it as his english was quite good(?) chek 486

Posted by: GSW | September 23, 2011 5:38 PM

503 Stu,

What, Jonas is doing this somewhere else as well? Which blog is it?

BTW I never guessed that English is not your first language.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | September 23, 2011 5:45 PM

Quite funny!

Posted by: Ingvar Engelbrecht | September 23, 2011 5:54 PM

Can some people here refrain from making an issue of how people spell in the English language?

No, I can not. Please read #498. It's rude. I bothered to learn the language so I can make myself understood; it's not rocket science. Again, I'm not asking for perfect prose here -- it's just that having to read things like "Im" over and over grates and slows down reading.

Its just stupid stupid stupid ad hominem

No, it is not. At no point did I dismiss an argument because of poor spelling, I noted it because it was blatant and repetitive. Again, please read #498.

By the way #1: it's rude to jump in a thread without reading it.

By the way #2: It's not "Its", it's "It's", as in the contraction of "It" and "is". You're welcome.

Ingvar, GSW: do yourself a favor and look up tone trolling. You're completely missing the point, and it's getting a bit painful to witness.

Pehr:

Firstly, the current climate models do have quite a bit of theoretical understanding in them (this is not Wall Street curve fitting). They are not perfect, and never will be: it is impossible to write a fully theoretically underpinned model of an inherently chaotic system.

However, with the best of our current understanding, very sophisticated models have been created -- based on measured data, projected data and mathematical models of interactions between many, many factors. To see if they work, for starters, you can "roll back" and see if their projections match observed data.

They do.

So what would convince you? A mathematical model that predicts the movement of every molecule on the planet?

Posted by: Stu | September 23, 2011 6:37 PM

@stu

"So what would convince you? A mathematical model that predicts the movement of every molecule on the planet?"

Of course not, I'd settle for a model that did a half way decent job of 'predicting' future climate before it happened, as opposed the absolutely fabulous job they do years after. ;)

Posted by: GSW | September 23, 2011 7:20 PM

luminous, don't you just FEEL Freeman Dyson quotes coming? I'm sure there'll be some uninformed banter about flux adjustments and pre-emptive pooh-poohing of Hansen 1988 thrown in. If there's a link to ClimateAudit in there I call bingo right now.

Posted by: Stu | September 23, 2011 7:45 PM

@LB

The practice to fit them to observations (yes, that is what is done >>wrt to the various forcings)

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. They are not fits.

Jonas is correct but he perhaps didn't use the right word. Models are 'calibrated' to give the best 'fit' to past observations. There is a difference, but the end result is the effectively the same.

But you knew that LB, didn't you?

;)

Posted by: GSW | September 23, 2011 7:47 PM

stu

I am convinced that climate models are useful for the purpose of developing theory of climate processes as emphasized by Easterbrook. However, I am skeptical to the usage of climate models for projections, not in principle but in the way those projections currently are used. The empirical components in the models together with the associated tuning of parameters is a weakness which has not even been sufficiently emphasized in the reports of IPCC. This has led to an overconfidence in climate model simulations of a future climate (this view is based on a lecture by a professor who is a specialist in climate modelling).

I think that the view that has been propagated for some years on climate is a simplistic one. This might lead to bad decisions. There is a danger that drastic climate changes in the near future are assumed without any support from robust science resulting in an unacceptable waste of resources. We could for example end up in a transition to insufficient energy systems unable to cope with natural extremes such as unusually cold winters (in case of Sweden).

On the other hand I think that a long term slowly progressing climate warming is supported by theory, observations and model results. This must be closely monitored although it is difficult to see significant harmful effects during the next 50 – 100 years in Sweden. Hence, in our case in Sweden, coping with possible harmful effects abroad is a matter of international solidarity.

Posted by: Pehr Bjornbom | September 23, 2011 8:00 PM

You see Stu, GSW doesn't know about Hansen's scenario B because such things are overlooked at denial central. But then back at GSW HQ, Montford doesn't even know the Earth orbits the sun, giving rise to the long polar night. Perhaps a 'Galileo' moment might in this case actually do the pair of them some good.

Posted by: chek | September 23, 2011 8:18 PM

@chek

You're back! that was a lot longer than 10 minutes though, feeling 'normal'?

Posted by: GSW | September 23, 2011 8:25 PM

This must be closely monitored although it is difficult to see significant harmful effects during the next 50 – 100 years in Sweden.

You do see that the next 50-100 years would have significant harmful effects elsewhere, right? Places where a lot of people live right now? What do you think these people are going to eat? Where do you think these people are going to go?

Posted by: Stu | September 23, 2011 9:08 PM

@stu

Thanks stu. Remember, you only have to ask.

;)

Posted by: GSW | September 23, 2011 10:01 PM

Olaus Petri:

So please start talking science

Obviously you're not really interested in the science otherwise you would point out the scientific journal that supports your assertion.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | September 23, 2011 10:09 PM

It seems to me that Jonas N has gone from arguing that climatologists did not actually do the work to calculate ranges of human-caused warming, and therefore are liars and f-r-a-u-d-s, to now claiming that the methods they used are wrong, or otherwise inappropriate.

By his own moving of the goal-posts, he disproves his own original premise.

Jonas N loses.

Anders S.

You seem to be all excited and sweaty about Richard Muller. Do you mean this Richard Muller?

Or this one?

You must mean the Richard Muller whom Peter Sinclair showcases from 9:15 onward in this video. Watch the whole video, because the second half is all about Muller, and the first half sets the stage for the second...

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 24, 2011 2:29 AM

Stu.

I'd always assumed that you were a native Australian!

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 24, 2011 2:36 AM

stu

Demanding perfect spelling and complaining when it is not done must be a sure way of keeping people that does not have English as their native language out of this blog. I am sure there are many scientists in the world that is cabable of good, not perfect English.

And for the record. Me, Jonas, Olaus and Pehr are 4 distinctive persons. I do not know them personally, I assume they are Swedish or at least Scandinavian.

So the numerology about postings is just an indication of a a higly conspirative way of thinking.

Or maybe this is a club only for likeminded warmists?

Posted by: Ingvar Engelbrecht | September 24, 2011 4:34 AM

luminous #545

The models have lots of parameters describing various physical phenomena, ad hoc assumed assumptions and relationships etc. These are fitted to match various observations. I already described that, I didn't mean, I never said that GCMs were by themselves where statistical regressions and used for 'predictions (clippo made such 'arguments'), I stated the contrary, and you know it. (clippo made such 'arguments').

If you misunderstand what I said, it's OK to ask, but if you must distort things to make (rather 'save') your point, you've already lost the argument.

These are not parts of simulations, these are multiple separate individual realizations in which the various forcings are combined or withheld, as inputs

That's what I said, and that what it says in the paper. But since you now seem to agree with me (you are mostly picking at wordings) that the model simulation runs by them selves don't (and cannot) confirm the validity of the underlying physical assumptions, and what is more important: that they cannot acertain that all relevant mechanisms are properly captured and included, and you now claim this is done in ch8, it seems as if you are abandoning your first position and the paper you linked.

Regarding aerosols, you seem to confuse 'known of' or' addressed' with 'well understood', a quite common misconception wrt climate understandning. It suffices to see how the models all overstated the Mt Pinatubo eruption cooling Fig 1a.

And yes, Thomas Jefferson was a great individual, I don't presume you are trying to compare yourself with him. Your 'riduculing' has mostly been about typos, syntac, and an feeble posturing about Navier Stokes. And looking back, you must feel that various ad homs indeed somehow bolster your stance. Although I cannot see how.

Many here are quite cabable of ridiculing themselves, and I reckon you draw your 'support' here among those. Please, be my guest! Might I just remind you of the following statement in #334:

it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes

And that Jeff H found thousands of supporting references (he didn't even need to read) and you proved it with a Google serach? Wow, just wow ...

;-)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 24, 2011 6:57 AM

@chek 568

I don't think anyone has a problem with models being an effective 'academic tool'; investigating near-term climatic interactions, performing 'thought' experiments etc.

The difficulty is, and this returns to one of Olaus' points earlier, the field is primarily driven (the high profile bit we choose to fund) to predict the climate 50-100yrs from now, which is in all likelihood impossible to do with any degree of 'useful' certainty.

Returning even closer to Jonas original point; the IPCC has a vested interest in a) maintaining CAGW theory as at least plausable b) selling reliability of climate model forecasts c) plugging gaps with 'expert' opinion.

So climate models are useful tools, yes, but there is no 'absolute truth' revealed in them, they are just an expression of our current understanding of how the planet works. Claiming we know enough to say what the climate will be 100yrs from now is pure hubris.

Posted by: GSW | September 24, 2011 7:23 AM

Marco #512

I am fully aware of what science is, and even more so how it is conducted properly (the problem is rather that many here, are not, probably coming from 'soft science' backgrounds). But I would not call every attempt to assess reality as "guesswork" of similar or compareable value.

As I said, you follow proper methodology and you may possibly progress (but slowly) and sort out errors, misconceptions, failed hypotheses etc, as you go.

Thanks for noting (acknowledging?) my pointers re attribution and certainty. And of course: every comment I make is a 'simplification' of what we are talking about. And I might both spell and phrase it poorly at times (which however cannot be usedd as proof that others are right, although this is frequently attempted).

I am fully aware of the spatial patterns, I have commented upon it twice now, and I'd think it is a viable method to improve the refine the hypothesis and models. But it does not, repeat not, an affirmation of the underlying hypothesis.

You are correct that the polar regions should heat more than the tropics. But that is actually true for many sources of warming, eg if it were due to changes in cloud cover, and humidity.

As you (might?) remember, I don't have a problem with the AGW-hypothseis per se (but the CAGW-versions of it). And CO2 should have a warming effect, most clearly observable when it is dry, and cold, that is at night, clear skies, and as you say, more visoble in northern regions. And that is actually observed. But to go from there, to that

1. CO2 controls the climate, to a substantial degree, and
2. CO2, through its marginal heating, causes large positive feedbacks through (mainly) water vapor ...

.. that requires many and huge steps to be identified and taken, and on the way proven correct and properly captured wrt magnitude. And I am saying that we are nowhere close to that. Even if others are convinced that these hypotheses indeed are the final and correct ones, that only minor detlais remain.

But what is missing, is not minor. And it is not the phrasing of the AR4 attribution claim. This just happend to be what has caused three weeks of kerfuffle here, when I pointed it out ... Once that dust settles, there are more problematic parts of the hypothesis worht discussing

(The sad thing though, is that this seems to be the absolute least interest among many, my persona seems much more fascinating. Have youy noticed how many others started to imagine me behind a number of other signatures too? Incidentally, the same people who claim cairvoyant capabilities in other fields as well, and with comparable success ;-)

Posted by: Jonas N | September 24, 2011 7:52 AM

Jonas @ 569:

The models have lots of parameters describing various physical phenomena, ad hoc assumed assumptions and relationships etc. These are fitted to match various observations.

@573:

I don't have a problem with the AGW-hypothseis per se (but the CAGW-versions of it).

Posted by: Richard Simons | September 24, 2011 8:47 AM

Well, well,Stu, wow etc. Have you yet again abondon our common ground? I though we could agree on the fact that the 90(-95)% was an opiniated geusswork in an effort to please politicians and ideologist?

Apparently the figure has the same scientific foundation as the magic CGAW buzz-words stating that 500 millions will lack freshwater during dry season if the galciers melts away.

The sience that backs it up is as hard to find as the Yeti. The footprints that are claimed to be the proof of its existance are often enough of anthropogenic origin though. ;-)

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 24, 2011 9:17 AM

I though we could agree on the fact that the 90(-95)% was an opiniated geusswork in an effort to please politicians and ideologist?

Asked and answered at #528, the 90-95% is the result of toning down by politicians and ideologists. Stop trolling. And for crying out loud, download a browser with spell-checking and pay attention to the squiggly lines.

I do hope Tim has some time to do an IP check on the collective here, because we're either dealing with a frantically sock-puppeting sociopath who is starting to slip up, or there's a national mandate in Sweden to add smileys to everything, tween LJ-style.

Posted by: Stu | September 24, 2011 9:34 AM

GSW, for all your fawning support, Jonas' ongoing D-K syndrome is a failure of understanding, not some triumph of the will agaiunst all adversity to be praised as you seem to think. Nor is adding your own misunderstanding of the term argumentum ad hominem a voting mechanism to make the incorrect right.

Posted by: chek | September 24, 2011 10:31 AM

Poor stu little. What a drama-queen. Him barking like a rabid Paris Hilton dog doesn't improve his case either. Anyone reading this thread, which probably is one of the most read in Deltoid's history, can now see how poorly stu and his CAGW-brats are doing. Naked to the skin and more and more aware of it.

Posted by: Oluas Petri | September 24, 2011 12:16 PM

@GSW

Naturlement! :-)

The sectarian mentality among the CAGW-brats is titanic. Soon it will hit the bottom, honors to a greenlandic iceberg from the scientific Times Atlas. ;-)

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 24, 2011 12:59 PM

Jonas,

The models have lots of parameters describing various physical phenomena, ad hoc assumed assumptions and relationships etc. These are fitted to match various observations.

The models have a small number of adjustable parameters; >10 out of hundreds. If you think that is best quantified as 'lots of parameters' you are welcome to your opinion, but in my opinion that makes you a willful idiot.

One example; Falling raindrops don't fall at an accelerating rate of 9.8 m/s², so much of the energy from g forces is transferred to the atmosphere. Until very recently there were no useful theoretical models of raindrops that could give a realistic result of how much of that absorbed energy was translated into heat from friction and how much into downward wind sheer. Experiments and in situ observations were conducted to derive an empirical formula. As in all empirical observations, there are instrumental errors and errors in measurement that make these formulas 'adjustable' within realistic bounds.

Could you explain, in this context, what you mean by 'ad hoc assumed assumptions? It seems you're saying the use of reasonably approximated and empirically confirmed adjustable parameters is something modelers just pull out of their butts, lacking any careful physical reasoning, making GCMs for all extents and purposes useless. Have I got that right? I'm saying they add realistic information that makes them more complete and more useful. Am I being clear enough?

If you misunderstand what I said, it's OK to ask, but if you must distort things to make (rather 'save') your point, you've already lost the argument.

It's not my place to apologize for your use of vague and ambiguous language.

These are not parts of simulations, these are multiple separate individual realizations in which the various forcings are combined or withheld, as inputs

That's what I said, and that what it says in the paper.

No, you said, "Then the different parts of those model simulations (GHG; SUL, NAT) are spearated[sic]... ' which reads as if there were only simulations done with all forcings and the various distinct forcings were somehow magically extracted from from those simulations.

It's not my place to apologize for your use of vague and ambiguous language

But since you now seem to agree with me (you are mostly picking at wordings) that the model simulation runs by them selves don't (and cannot) confirm the validity of the underlying physical assumptions...

Of course not. The validity of conservation of momentum and energy have been well established since Newton. The validity of empirical observations is confirmed by empirical measurements. It is not the purpose of models to confirm the underlying science. You are a willful idiot.

...and what is more important: that they cannot acertain that all relevant mechanisms are properly captured and included, and you now claim this is done in ch8, it seems as if you are abandoning your first position and the paper you linked.

I make no such claim, though they certainly capture enough of the relevant mechanisms to make them useful. No model will ever perfectly and completely capture every microscopic detail of the real world, nor to replicate it with a one to one correspondence. Such a model would require computing power exceeding the total information content of the universe. How useful they are, however, can be confirmed and quantified. This is the subject of Chap. 8. To think this is a necessary condition for any paper that uses GCMs is incredibly stupid. You are a willful idiot.

Regarding aerosols, you seem to confuse 'known of' or' addressed' with 'well understood', a quite common misconception wrt climate understandning.[sic] It suffices to see how the models all overstated the Mt Pinatubo eruption cooling Fig 1a.

I admit to being more of a technician than a research scientist, so I'm more interested in what works than being able to explain every damn detail perfectly and precisely on a purely theoretical basis. GCMs work pretty damn well, even if they under- or over-estimate certain phenomena. The important thing is that they realistically simulate those phenomena. I have no problem with compensating those under- or over-estimations with scaling factors to make them more realistic. Is that your problem? Why? It turns out that whether one uses those scaling factors or not has virtually no effect on the trend analysis.

And yes, Thomas Jefferson was a great individual, I don't presume you are trying to compare yourself with him.

I'm glad you refrain from making presumptions about that. Now if only you could refrain from making ridiculous presumptions about climate science. As if you couldn't tell, I am comparing you to those he was criticizing.

Your 'riduculing'[sic] has mostly been about typos, syntac,[sic] and an feeble posturing about Navier Stokes.

You're projecting again.

And looking back, you must feel that various ad homs indeed somehow bolster your stance. Although I cannot see how.

Yes. Because when you make ridiculous, erroneous and poorly supported propositions couched in vague and ambiguous language, believing by doing so you are actually making a coherent argument, then it adds clarity and focus to emphasize that makes you a willful idiot. Note that is not an ad hom fallacy, which would be to say that because you are a willful idiot, what you say is wrong. Stu and others have pointed out this simple rule of logic repeatedly on this thread, yet it doesn't seem to sink in. Could this be because you are a willful idiot?

Many here are quite cabable[sic] of ridiculing themselves, and I reckon you draw your 'support' here among those. Please, be my guest! Might I just remind you of the following statement in #334:

it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes

And that Jeff H found thousands of supporting references (he didn't even need to read) and you proved it with a Google serach[sic]? Wow, just wow ...

The point being made wasn't that all those papers are supporting references for my statement, but that there are thousands of papers in the literature that deal with or touch upon the subject of climate attribution.

Jeff Harvey's original statement was "Yes, its found in >1,000 papers in the empirical literature as well as in the IPCC reports. Now be a good boy and look them up for yourself." The operative words being 'found in'.

I was merely confirming that there are, indeed, thousands of related papers in the empirical literature.

You are the one that leapt to the presumption that all those papers supported my proposition. I only made the claim my proposition was well supported by at least one paper referenced in WGI Chap. 9, which you may recall was the challenge you brought. A challenge, which I might add, has been not just met, but exceeded. QED, despite your ignorant quibbling and dissembling about the efficacy of models; a subject of which you obviously have only the most superficial knowledge and apparently cribbed from denialist blather.

You aren't the first Internet Galileo to come galloping in here with your precious blog-science thinking he would lay waste to the barbarians with his superior intellect, and ending up screaming bloody murder about how he doesn't get the respect he deserves.

Au contraire. You are getting precisely the respect you deserve. Idiot.

Posted by: luminous beauty | September 24, 2011 3:18 PM

Hello Vikings!

There is a saying. I will rephrase it a bit. Never argue with xxxx people. They drag you down on their level and win on sheer experience.

Never mind that. I will get down to their level. I know I cant win there but its just for the record

I have never been on a forum where so many have been so outright rude. There must be a reason for that. Maybe they can't (look I made a "'"!) take opposition, especially not from some ugly vikings from the other side of the planet.

Standing back it looks like Jonas really scared them in their private little club where they seemed to enjoy perpetual backscratching.

Maybe we shall leave them at that.

Posted by: Ingvar Engelbrecht | September 24, 2011 5:41 PM

589 Ingvar,

I've been thinking this for a while but now that you say "ugly vikings" (actually I'd say "Vikings"), I can no longer resist. Can you put names to these faces?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | September 24, 2011 7:19 PM

Ingvar,

Are you telling me that when people in a debate call you an idiot, it is evidence for your intellectual superiority?

Does the same principle apply when you are talking to women in bars? If they call me an idiot, does that really mean that they find me irresistibly charming and sexy?

Let the good times roll!

Posted by: Barney Sweatyhands | September 25, 2011 2:34 AM

I believe the altarboy on the left hand side is called stu. The big paternal fella in the middle answers to the name Jeff. The other two luminous beauties are wow and bernhard.

The sparkling and innocent looking thing in the front centre must for sure be Jonas N. ;-)

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 25, 2011 5:52 AM

@595 I suspect we're philosophically opposed but a cool joke friend.

Posted by: Andrew Strang | September 25, 2011 8:08 AM

GSW, your new theme.

Posted by: Stu | September 25, 2011 9:21 AM

Or perhaps this one?

Posted by: Stu | September 25, 2011 9:57 AM

Hehe...Sweatyhands, knew you would bring that one back. "Hippies" is a bullseye, or maybe "heapies"?

Jeff, science is leaving you behind, right now. You know it, I know it. And most of all, anyone getting a sip of the atmosphere in this thread will know it too. CAGW will never rise again until you guys stop blame-gaming and come up with real facts instead of fairytales and ad homs.

Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 25, 2011 11:15 AM

O Louse,

How very droll. For a troll.

The best definition of projection I've ever heard is, 'When one looks into a mirror and sees his critics'.

Prediction: O Louse will respond with a retort with the form, 'I know you are, but what am I?'