That cherry picking thread sure has legs. More than 400 comments is too many. Here’s a new one!
37 thoughts on “Cherry Picking III.”
Comments are closed.
That cherry picking thread sure has legs. More than 400 comments is too many. Here’s a new one!
Comments are closed.
Thanks Lucia. It appears I did remmeber (sic) correctly. I still can’t proof worth crap. But yeah, my vote for throw-big-science-a-bone-if-they-leave-me-alone luke-warmer. 😉
Talking about cherry picking. I love my coffee mug (big one for tea). Will you post an updated graph when the data comes out Lucia?
I wanted to continue the discussion of Yamal and the other cherry picking (AOGCMs) but wanted an updated graph to see how far off they were or weren’t off.
I can’t wait for the bet on October to come out either. 😉
I stand corrected. It’s Steven Mosher who is responsible for this Lukewarming silliness. 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#22925) November 1st, 2009 at 7:37 am
I stand corrected. It’s Steven Mosher who is responsible for this Lukewarming silliness.
If you look at the scientific basis, the only real debate is over just how much warming there will be. All the rest is a side show, that serves to demonstrate how wacky people’s belief systems can be.
“All the rest is a side show”
Close, bugs. The whole thing is a side show.
Andrew
bugs (Comment#22926)
The CO2 physics may say warming but what we don’t know are the atmospheric/hydropsheric dynamics well enough to say what will happen and what other effects may intervene. For all we know we may be at the edge of another LIA and that CO2 may be the only thing buffering the coming cold.
“All the rest is a side show”
Hurricane debate is sideshow?
Sea level inches versus feet is sideshow?
Extremes are sideshow?
You haven’t thought about this much at all…
bugs lives in a binary world: all action or no action. Never mind what one means by “action”; action without direction is aok. Maybe that’s why bugs’ arguments spin around in circles, much as a top. spin, bugs, spin. see bugs spin.
bender (Comment#22934) November 1st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
bugs lives in a binary world: all action or no action. Never mind what one means by “actionâ€; action without direction is aok. Maybe that’s why bugs’ arguments spin around in circles, much as a top. spin, bugs, spin. see bugs spin.
I haven’t made any comments on what action should be taken, IIRC.
Bugs:
You say the temperature goes from one extreme to the other. However, these are not extreme temperatures: they are within a very narrow window that has continued to support life as we know it for billions of years. Given the extreme temperatures in our solar system, it is obvious that the geonitrooxyhydrosphere has a very powerful moderating effect.
If temperatures actually went between extremes, all life would be completely wiped out and we wouldn’t be here to rant back and forth. You have gone beyond cherry-picking to chicken-littleing.
Howard:
It’s no use, he simply doesn’t understand high school physics, namely “dynamic stability”.
And we spend time arguing with him…
You say the temperature goes from one extreme to the other. However, these are not extreme temperatures: they are within a very narrow window that has continued to support life as we know it for billions of years. Given the extreme temperatures in our solar system, it is obvious that the geonitrooxyhydrosphere has a very powerful moderating effect.
If temperatures actually went between extremes, all life would be completely wiped out and we wouldn’t be here to rant back and forth. You have gone beyond cherry-picking to chicken-littleing.
Extreme as in the extremes of the physical limits. That’s all I said, that’s all the graph showed. Those extremities are the difference between snowball earth and tropical earth. The change between the two does not support life as we know it. Life will continue, no doubt about, life as we know it does not. Mass extinctions happen and new life has to evolve.
As for dynamic stability, we are forcing the climate into something new, it can’t go back to what it was if the climate is retaining a significant amount of energy above what it was previously storing.
Howard-extreme in a statistical sense is usually meant in a relative sense, not an absolute sense. Thus “extreme” generally refers to the tails of a distribution in a population. When talking about terrestrial weather and climate, the population of weather on other planets is of very little interest.
Yes, i’m responsible. ( actually I think bender coined the term.. i’ll research it) BUT in terms of turning the lukewarmer term into a written credo that would be me. But basically It’s not me. I listen to people who make sense to me, lucia, bender, McIntyre, ( others sorry I cant ) and try to distill that into simple form. Basically if you subtract all the non scientific stuff from the warmists and the coolists, you are left with the utterly rational and purely scientific center: lukewarmers.
“The Evolution Of An Eco-Prophet”
Al Gore’s views on climate change are advancing as rapidly as the phenomenon itself.
The chapter is an astute analysis of the psychological barriers that keep most Americans from taking the threat of climate change seriously, his acknowledgment that emotion, not just reason, drives the decisions people make. The sentence is this: “Simply laying out the facts won’t work.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552
Yes, laying out the facts is too preposterous for us to consider.
Andrew
As an amateur psychologist, Al might want to study up on “projection.”
bender:
October 3rd, 2006
“I’ve dared to classify myself as an uncertain luke-warmer.”
David Smith:
November 26th, 2006
“It appeals to my lukewarmer, we’re-gonna-be-OK inclination.”
Around this time – this was during post-Katrina analysis – I had asked CA commenters to answer this poll question: “How much of 20th century warming do you think is attributable to human-caused greenhouse effects?” We called it the “A in AGW” question (using Gerry North’s words).
Two groups emerged. The 14 “skeptics” turned out to be “warmers”, attributing a mean of 23% to A in AGW. The “alarmists” (only two willing to go the record) had A in AGW averaging 60%.
Conclusions:
1. What the “deniers” were denying was not what the “alarmists” said they were denying.
2. The two sides were not as far apart as I thought they would be (and, I suspect, not as far apart as they thought they were).
3. There was a middle ground that nobody seemed to want to occupy.
4. Do blog polls yield a biased sample? Are people of moderate opinion not drawn to blogs? (As noted above, no females responded.) Is the silent majority of the population “lukewarm”?
I didn’t invent the category. It fell naturally out of the data. What else would you call people who believe in the greenhouse hypothesis because of what they’ve read in the papers, but could be swayed by new data either way on the potential magnitude of the effect?
NB:
The following (among others) did NOT participate in the survey:
lucia
mosher
bender
McIntyre
Those last two were supposed to go on the Fuller’s survey thread, but it was clsoed.
Bugs you are back to cherry picking mixed with revisionist geologic history and geologic fantasy. The 400K year temp graph sawtooth is all during the most recent moments of our current and on-going ice age oscillating from glacial advance to retreat. No world-wide tropics, no snowball earth, no mass extinctions to speak of.
Andrew FL: Fine. Statistic rules and conventions are not the real world. This is just an excuse to use inflammatory language when you don’t have any real data to make a point. We could measure microscopic changes over seconds and speak of extremes, this is what Bugs does with the 400K yr plot, which shows temperature oscillations between low and slightly lower temperatures during a generally cool period of earth’s history. As far as the rest of the solar system where significantly wider temperature fluctuations are evident (including an actual extreme near absolute zero), it is clear evidence that earth exists in a very hostile anti-life environment. Due to the moderating effects of the atmosphere, the temperature variation for hundreds of millions of years on earth are insignificant by comparison. This is a nice real world non-statistical easily understood example of the atmosphere’s life affirming negative feedback system.
Cherry picking and controlability
Cherry picking and statistical issues are important to the validity of modeling.
Correct modelling and noise are much more important are real dynamic systems.
See: Chemical Engineer Takes on Global Warming who comments and reposts
Neither the IPCC nor any climate scientist have shown any evidence that ANY of these essential requirements could be met to actually “control” climate change, let alone that they even understand the issues involved.
Hard engineering exposes the global warming hysteria as primarily an effort to requisition and control funds, as it has nothing to do with any real life ability to “control” climate.
No amount of “cherry picking” of data can provide a robust controllable climate system.
Typical cherry picking of CO2 vs temperature data is further exposed by Frank Lanser in: Making Holocene Spaghetti Sauce by Proxy Holocene, historic and recent global temperatures from temperature proxies. See:
PDF
Any claim that such highly chaotic variations in temperature vs CO2 are in any way controllable by regulating CO2 is laughable and exposes a total ignorance of robust control systems and of natural climate drivers.
Further up this (very long) thread there was much discussion about the peer review process (and the usual attack of ‘well if you’re so smart why haven’t you published’ and ‘if you think that paper is so bad why haven’t you published a rebuttal’) perhaps the experience of Rick Trebino, a physicist at Georgia Tech is instructive:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/How-to-Publish-a-Scientific-Comment-in-1-2-3-Easy-Steps
I think we are luck to be alive and to have built a civilization where we can email about this. “Warm” periods only seem to last about 10,000 years in between 100,000 years where the ice covers much of the Northern Hemisphere.
I’m thinking that the ending of Speilberg’s movie “Artificial Intelligence” may better describe living conditions on planet earth rather than the heat sweltering greenhouse effect predicted by GCM’s.
You are talking about samples from populations that are irrelevant. We don’t live on other planets, we don’t live in the same “environment” as them either.
Andrew FL How can the physical environment surrounding and containing the earth be irrelevant to earth’s climate? Is the Sun irrelevant? How about cosmic rays, the solar wind, the great cold vacuum of space?
Your attitude is the same as deeming man’s social and agricultural activities surrounding a lake irrelevant to the sediment accumulations therein.
Lucia,
I think it is time that you made a REAL CHERRY-PICKING Thread.
That is, YOU pick all the comments you like and put them in one thread!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Howard (Comment#22981)-You don’t seem to get it at all. What I am saying is that the rest of the planets climates are there own, and the temperature differences between them are not a metric on which to gauge how “extreme” temperatures are. What you are saying is essentially that “man’s social and agricultural activities surrounding a lake relevant to the sediment accumulations within another lake on the other side of the world”. Your argument is that unless the earth gets as hot as the Sun or as cold as the vacuum of space, it’s small. That’s absurd. Different planets have different orbits, we haven’t hit heat death yet, and different planets have different orbits.
Tell you what, why don’t you sit in a room where the temperature is 136 °F and then in one where the temperature is −128.6 °F. Tell me those aren’t “extreme”.
But they are the highest and lowest temperatures “ever recorded” on earth (Note that wiki cautions about the high (from Al ‘Aziziyah, Libya, 1922-09-13: There are a few reports of temperatures higher than this during phenomena known as heat bursts, including a report of an incredible 87 °C (188 °F) in Abadan, Iran in June 1967. These temperatures have never been confirmed, and are not recognized as world records.).
Anything beyond that has zero relevance to the Earth. The rest of the universe is in this instance a red herring.
Ok Then. I’ll settle on -130 F to + 130 F. The average high and low temperatures on this planet have never gotten near these extremes.
“Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,†profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in…”
“Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/02/nyt-admits-gore-making-fortune-global-warming
Big money got a heavy hand
Big money take control
Big money got a mean streak
Big money got no soul -Rush
Andrew
Models and violations of nature laws – not only climate models might be committing that sin.
As the model discussion thread is closed, I’m posting this here.
A new poster at Climate Audit writes on her webpage about the problems with criticizing an ontogenetic growth model published in Nature that violated the energy conservation law. A relevant comment of theirs was submitted to and rejected by Nature and the whole story is described here:
http://www.bioticregulation.ru/news.php?nn=15&lang=en
EW,
interesting main page at that site. -100c to +400c???
EW,
interesting temperature range on the Main page of the link you gave!!
Simon Evans and Nathan will be interested to know that the email received by David Deming, described earlier in this thread, was submitted as part of his testimony in the Senate committee hearings in the US. So it wasn’t just some dude talkin’. I did not know that. So why don’t you boys tell us here and now that you think he lied under oath?
bender (Comment#23268)
So why don’t you boys tell us here and now that you think he lied under oath?
I don’t.
“…under oath”
Incidentally (though I don’t think it’s an issue, but simply out of interest), is all such testimony under oath? The following suggests not:
By statute, any Senator is authorized to administer the oath to a witness (2 U.S.C. 191). Committee rules commonly allow testimony under oath at the discretion of a committee’s leaders. In practice, most committees rarely require witnesses to testify under oath at legislative hearings; sworn testimony is more common at investigative hearings and confirmation hearings.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26*2%3C4P%3C%3F9
Apparently a former CRU director doesn’t think that rings are selected based on temperature data.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1037&filename=1254751382.txt