Re: Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:12:56 -0800, Joerg <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:05:59 -0800, Joerg <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:49:13 -0800, Joerg <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
[...]

Yes, the world has been warmer. Yes, glaciers have been much less in
abundance. Yes, oceans have been much higher. Etc., etc.

None of this means these are directions we want to head. ...
I do, because I do not like winters :-)

hehe. Joerg, I'm Swedish. Transparent skin, freckles, starkly blonde
hair (lightly golden, I'm told), and I develop 2nd degree blisters
after 20 minutes in the LA sun. As you can imagine, I __love__
overcast skies!!! (Which I may still keep a lot of, up here.)

Careful. A friend of Swedish descent with similar skin complexion died
from melanoma about three years ago :-(

I'm careful. I don't take chances. I spend time outside at latitude
45N or northward (or nighttime!)

Speaking of which, my most energetic time ... the moments outside when
I'm at my peak and absolutely loving it is when there is a deep layer
of snow (three feet or more) and ice about and it's a semi-clear night
with just a few clouds and some brisk winds blowing about, with
ambients from about -5C to +4C. I consider 4C to be t-shirt weather
and often go outside with shorts and t-shirt at those times.

I'm basically "at home" with snow and ice. It's my element.

say there isn't an historically unique rate of change in evidence
today. Nor does it say humans aren't having a pervasive impact that
contributes strongly to both the sign (+ or -) and the magnitude of
recent rates.
You are right. But there is also no proof that humans do.

Proof is not to be had in science. It's something you learn to live
with and even embrace with understanding.

You simply are placing yourself against what the current state of
science theory and result says. And that's not a very smart place to
put yourself unless you are in a position to claim a comprehensive
exposure to it. The scientists active in these areas make it their
business.

You've done nothing to convince me that you are in a better position
to be able to say "this is quite normal," Joerg. It may sting a
little to realize that I would take their word over yours. But in
this case, I do. It's as basic as that.
Ok, I accept your opinion. But on the same token I have not been
convinced that this is not normal. I would have hoped that there'd be
some link about that increased hydrologic cycle, like an article from
reputable scientists and none that use "tricks".

I think you must be referring to those letters I recently downloaded
(cripes, that was a lot to wade through) when saying "tricks." I've
used the exact same term in my own work, though. And I think you may
have in yours, as well. ...

Nope, I haven't. And won't. Don't ever use that word in anything that is
to be submitted to agencies such as FDA or FAA ;-)

hehe. Well, I think these letters were private, as well. I use such
lingo all the time with folks I know well and personally trust. If
some of my private emails to companies were released, there are some
I'd definitely wish were better expressed.

... And neither of us meant it in a bad way or a
disingenuous one. I use the term, not infrequently, when talking to
other mathematicians about some approach to solving a problem. In
short, I saw nothing particularly sinister on that point. I did find
some aspects of what I read objectionable, though. But none of it
affected my opinion about the broader science conclusions. Just of
people. Oh, well.

I don't mind the word but in the context it sure sounded like an attempt
to "somehow" paper over the recent cooling trend. Because it doesn't fit
into their grand scheme I guess.

I read the same text (well, I don't really know that... did you read
the emails in their fuller context or did you read someone else's
"selection" of them?) And as I said, there were two things that
bothered me. But none of it changed the attribution of 'recent'
climate forcing, in my view.

You mention "sounded like," above. I really don't want to get into
the details for reasons I've already stated, but I would just like to
suggest that 'sounds-like' does not mean 'is.' You may feel there is
a strong argument in there. I don't, after having read a lot of it.

I think the only way to find out about their motivation is to ask them
about it. And you've already said as much as the fact that you
wouldn't trust their responses to such questions. So that pretty much
leaves this discussion at a stand-still.

I have watched as the science has gone from fits and starts (for
example, with R&S 1971 paper on CO2 and aerosols) and uncertainty
everywhere to a re-alignment and a course that has gradually improved
over time. You probably have NOT (but you may have) have spent as
much time as I have, reading early papers, reading criticisms of them,
seeing how certain initial impressions were challenged, fixed,
rechallenged, etc. I have watched and read. And I've seen the
transitions as new ideas, better quality minds were injected into the
field, and science tools were applied, and watched the overall quality
of the work product improve over time. I've been following all this
since about 1987, when I was first got involved in Dobson meters and
had all manner of science reports tossed at me. I now frequently
write lead researchers, directly, and ask for copies of their work and
some discussions, at times. I don't even waste a moment doing that
when I want to know more, now. And that experience has been generally
good, as well, though not always.

Mine has not been so good. Upon very polite requests I was at times
basically told to go away. I have published stuff myself and every
single inquiry was answered to the best of what I could do. I consider
that a matter of decency but some scientists nowadays seem not to. This
was back in the 90's when it required much more work, copying, buying
stamps, writing envelopes, trudging down to the mailbox (in Europe they
don't pick up at the house mailboxes). Nowadays all they'd have to do is
send a link.

I find that surprising. I'd have to read your exchanges, though.

Hmm, would you like to make _them_ public, just as this recent
disclosure seems to have done for others? (Do you feel confident
enough about your communications here that they could survive my
scrutiny in this public forum? Or would you feel a lot like some of
these scientists may?) Just teasing, really.

But I have to say that the worst I've experienced from a scientist is
being ignored. And many of the papers have multiple authors, so I'm
always able to secure papers I want without paying for them. Also, I
can get the conversations I want.. just not always _when_ I'd like
them. An example I remember well was a case where the scientist had
been off in Japan for a month and I felt ignored. But when he got
back, I got a phone call and we talked for a while -- both about his
trip and what he felt was brewing as a result, as well as what I'd
originally been asking after.

I simply lack an explanation for your experiences, given mine.

Anyhow, a refusal to disclose underlying data makes me extremely
suspicious and distrustful of scientific "work".

In general, there is no profit for a science team to duplicate work.
If they duplicate the work and get the same or similar results from
it, they've merely stared at their belly buttons and wasted a lot of
money in the process. If they duplicate the work and find an error,
then a correction is made and science moves on. But the team doesn't
really get much credit for it. It reflects more upon the team that
made the error. The ones finding it merely did a 'clean up' job that
shows they can follow procedure like they should be able to and really
doesn't reflect on their creativity and ability to "do science." So
again, they wasted their time even if they helped fix an error that
someone else should have caught.

An example of this later case is the artifact of the diurnal
correction that had been incorrectly applied to MSU T2LT raw data by
Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, scientists outside this
inner circle had been "clubbed" by the University of Alabama's results
that conflicted with pretty much every other approach by teams all
over the world. Both Spencer and Christy were repeatedly asked to go
back through their methodology to see if they could find an error.
Over and over, they insisted they didn't need to do that. Finally,
Carl Mears and Frank Wentz apparently got sick and tired enough with
the continuing conflict that they decided to waste their own precious
time to duplicate the efforts by Spencer and Christy. That effort, by
all rights, should have been Spencer and Christy's efforts. But since
they weren't taking action, if finally all came to a head. In any
case, Mears and Wentz went through all the trouble to secure the data
sets and then attempt to duplicate the processing. In the end, they
discovered an error in the diurnal correction used by the Alabama
team. Once shown their error -- and it took them four or five months
to admit it -- they publicly made corrections to their processing and
republished old data which then, while on the lower end of the
spectrum, was "within" the range of error of the results of other work
long since published. At that point, though, Spencer and Christy's
work had been tarnished and Remote Sensing Systems began publishing
their own analysis in parallel. It happens. But there isn't much
credit given for this. Just credit taken away.

Most scientists want to find creative new approaches to answering
questions that will confirm or disconfirm the work of others -- not
duplicate the exact same steps. Or they want to solve new problems.
That illustrates creativity and leads to a reputation. Novelty is
important.

_Methods_ and _results_ are disclosed, though. But software programs
and interim data aren't that important. If you are going to attempt
replication (and sometimes you do want to, as mentioned), you want to
do it with a "fresh eye" to the problem so that you actually have a
chance to cross-check results. You need to walk a similar path, of
course. To do that, you want to know the methodology used. And of
course you need the results to check outcomes in the end. That's all
anyone really needs.

If you are creative enough to take a different approach entirely in
answering the questions, then you don't even need that.

The methods and sources used are an important trail to leave. And
they leave that much, consistently. Beyond that, it's really just too
many cooks in the kitchen. If you can't dispute or replicate knowing
methods and sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business at
all.

When you say "underlying data," I haven't yet encountered a case where
I was prevented access if I were able to show that I could actually
understand their methods and apply the data, appropriately. That's
rare, in my case, of course. But in the few cases where I've asked, I
have either been provided sources for the data (without question) or
else, when asked, it was clearly not with an eye to block my access
but really to ascertain whether or not I was able to understand it. It
takes time to explain things and they have a right to weigh if it is
worth their time and effort trying to educate every tom, dick, and
harry that comes by their way. But I can't recall ever being denied
something that I actually wanted. Perhaps, because I know my
limitations and don't ask for something I'm not prepared to use (or
learn about before asking for it.)

Not in my experience.

If you want to point out the specific letter that bothers you (quote a
significant sentence or two so I can find it in my saved copies), I'd
be happy to look at the case and see what I think of it. I might even
write and ask about it -- though I won't necessarily expect an answer.
Might get one, though. But I could at least offer my take on it, if I
knew a specific case you were considering.

In short, it's not a matter of entirely looking from the sidelines or
entirely just placing my "trust" somewhere. That trust has been
earned by hard work, both on my end and theirs. I am still nothing
more than an amateur, here. And I still interpret science work
product incorrectly because I don't fully grasp all the ideas. And I
get my face slapped, at times, by those scientists who feel a need to
let me know when I mis-state their work product or the overall arch of
some area they are working within. And I have learned the hard way,
by trying my own hand at the physics and deduction to specifics, that
their work (where it is better understood and I have a chance at
taking my own pot-shot at it because I don't need to worry so much
about whether or not it is well-grounded and can find a variety of
sources which agree) is applied appropriately. So it is a little more
than simple acceptance of their authority. I've questioned things at
times when the knowledge was less-certain, gotten the fuller taste of
their opinions at the time, tried my own hand at it, and then watched
over time as the data and experimental results gradually came in over
time... and saw just how well they had informed me at the outset about
not only what they felt they knew, but also what they felt they didn't
know. Their scores, by my measure, were remarkable. So it's been
earned.

Ok, great that you had such experience. I often didn't. What I do not
like is that people who aren't climate scientists and have not put a lot
of work into it are sometimes brushed aside. I would never ever do that
to a novice or a casual requester. It's against my moral principles.

I think one most sensible people distinguish when to spend their time
and when not to. You do that. So do I. Some people writing in this
group (and other groups) are both ignorant AND willfully so AND where
it is clear they won't spend their own time "getting better." If you
decide that is the case, you don't write. Why should you? We all
have better things to do. On the other hand, if you have a serious
inquiry from someone who _is_ ignorant but at least shows some earlier
work -- even if that effort was in the wrong direction, it was engaged
seriously -- then you may feel better about trying to correct them or
point out some thought of yours that may help them.

Climate science is fraught with well-funded confusion, discord, and
the sewing of far less certainty where there is far more available.
Some scientists are ... wary. They've been caught flat-footed. (I
have been, too.) They might imagine a sincere request, respond in a
fair minded way, and have it cherry-picked and plastered without
context or understanding. At some point, one gets kind of sick and
tired of that, you know?

I do my diligence, first. By reading their recent work and related
materials, for example. When I write to them, I almost always have
something to say that shows them that I've done some work on my own.
That always seems to help a lot. It shows I respect their time by
first spending my own and therefore am obviously not out to just waste
theirs. A dialogue can start from there. But it really helps to not
ask others to spend their time when you haven't spent your own, first.

In a similar way, it helps to know that someone has at least tried to
understand a BJT and maybe even build some things they want to
understand a little better, but don't, when posting a BJT question. If
a poster hasn't ever read a single page of a single book on the
subject, never tried anything, and just jumps in with some completely
random request for "plase expln me how the bjt wroks?" question,
well... yeah.. it's not likely to get anything but suggestions to go
put in some time first (and maybe even learning some English, too.)

Scientists are people.

Here's some quotes from last week's report:

"Has global warming recently slowed down or paused?

"No. There is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the
human-caused climatic warming trend. The observed global temperature
changes are entirely consistent with the climatic warming trend of
~0.2 °C per decade predicted by IPCC, plus superimposed short-term
variability (see Figure 4). The latter has always been ? and will
always be ? present in the climate system. Most of these short-term
variations are due to internal oscillations like El Niño ? Southern
Oscillation, solar variability (predominantly the 11-year Schwabe
cycle) and volcanic eruptions (which, like Pinatubo in 1991, can cause
a cooling lasting a few years).
See the first sentence there? It's quite typical in such reports. They
assume they _know_ it's human cause while IMHO they do not.

This is a summary report intended to do a quick paste-up of the most
recent published results. It isn't intended to make the attribution,
itself. That is the purpose of the IPCC's formal process and has
already been well documented via the IPCC AR4 (and the TAR, if you
want to go back that far.) Attribution is a matter of a lot of
different papers, too. And it also develops out of the fact that no
one has been able to successfully provide an alternative theory that
can explain what is now the overwhelming weight of abundant
observation.

If you see correlated noise spikes in some signal node and you also
_know_ that there is a handy, low impedance output clock source
somewhere that just happens to have the same frequency, and no one
else has a good alternative for you... well, you pretty much feel like
you _know_ what the cause is. And, in fact, there is abundant theory
in electronics to tell you, as well, exactly _how_ the one can couple
into the other. Plus, you then have pretty good knowledge about how
to abate the problem, based upon those theories.

To say it arrogantly I believe I have a better handle on that noise
stuff than many climate guys on the climate :-)

<ducking>

Well, between you and me, I bet you do. Climate is _very_ difficult
to master. Science breaks down into two main approaches --
reductionism and large number statistics. Reduction works great on
problems where ignoring small influences leaves a "good enough"
understanding. Statistics work great in large numbers of events. But
for systems with large numbers of highly correlated, but complex
interactions then neither reduction nor statistics work all that well.
Disease flows through populations fit this latter case. There are
well known processes by which disease passes from person to person,
but the processes by which people interact are... difficult to fully
master. Statistics doesn't work nearly as well as you might imagine
because these processes don't fall into nice Poisson events that
integrate into nice gaussian bell shaped distributions. And there are
so many important factors that reductionism is tough going, as well.

For a time, climate science was more like that Gordian Knot. Data was
scarce, theories were available but nowhere near enough of them, etc.
But as time went by, those large-scale important interactions were
gradually teased apart. Today, it's still very difficult work but at
least more tractable than before. I don't want to minimize the
difficulties. But I also don't want to suggest that they haven't been
addressed with hard and largely successful work.

Of course, if someone _did_ come up with another viable theory and if
that theory _could_ also explain those noise spikes, then you'd have
to consider that, as well.

Exactly. And that (considering others) is one of my points of contention
with IPCC.

Well, you can make the point. But you really have no idea because you
haven't put in the work required. So how should I take this 'point'?
It really isn't made until it is made from an informed position.
Otherwise it's just a random shot in the dark.

If someone (not an electronics engineer, but someone who is a welder,
let's say) just says to you, "well, there is no _proof_ of your theory
about the source of the correlated noise" you'd probably just go and
'fix the problem' with a solution developed out of well-understood
theory and show them that it fixes the problem. In the Earth's case,
we can't do that. It would be nice if we could, because then you'd be
convinced. But sadly, the experiment is ongoing right now and we are
all engaged in arguing about what solution to try and no one is
willing to yet get behind your solution or mine or any one else's. So
we are just stuck, looking on.

Meantime we are missing the boat in so many more important areas. Like
developing safe and efficient nuclear power generation. Everyone wants
electric cars to be the future, wants it carbon-free, and nobody has the
foggiest idea where the juice shall come from. Instead we are pushed
towards wasting our time and energy with carbon credits, taxes and
whatnot. That's what I am squarely against. If we are concerned about
the environment, and I am, then we've got to roll up our sleeves and
find technical solutions for the real issues at hand. Like what our
energy sources will be in the future.

Well, I'm not going to argue much here. Nuclear power can be safe --
the problems are mostly with people, not technical ones. A totally
safe reactor (you could use dynamite to blow the control rods out of
it) was demonstrated back in the 1950's. It's old news. But the
politics and profit motives are another thing. I completely agree on
the electric car point you make. On the carbon credit/tax/whatever
issue, I think we are sadly stuck with the politics of power and
capital and I don't know what to do there. We should have a carbon
tax and ALL of the money received from it should go straight back to
the public and NOT into the pockets of politicians and capital. But
the problem is, while we may be able to pass laws here, money and
power will make damned sure their pockets are lined and that everyone
else loses out. And the public will NOT support graft like that. So
until they can find a way to get that back into _our_ pockets and not
relining the pockets of those already lined with gold... I don't think
the public can get behind the idea. Yet everything else will fail to
achieve the needed results. Oh, well. Life (or the lack of it) in
the real world.

The only thing left is to do what you suggest... roll up our sleeves
and work at real issues facing us. I think those nearer the top of
the food chain will keep fighting each other and the rest of us so as
to see who is left in the game of "musical chairs" they are involved
in right now. It's up to us, or not.

In the case of the correlated noise in a circuit and that welder who
isn't convinced (but must be before he will allow you to screw with
his circuit), if you weren't allowed to try your solution just to see,
then you'd still know you were right because you have abundant theory
and experimental result and practice from elsewhere to make you very
certain you know the right answer... but you'd be barred from "proving
it" because that welder (and other welders, janitors, business
managers, and pretty much everyone around the place) won't let you
show them until you prove this specific case.... which you can't,
unless you are allowed to try your hand and show them.

Similar thing. We are in a situation where the science had reached
the point where attribution is unambiguous given the lack of an
alternative (and there is no other viable alternative that explains
observation, right now) and where existing theory does actually
explain it (some of the theory, such as radiation physics, is
extremely well understood both within and without the laboratory
environment and can be fairly easily shown to anyone who cares enough
to work for their own opinion.)

We do have alternatives. Nuclear power is just one example but it ain't
ready yet. If we'd only be willing to invest in the research again
instead of imposing some <expletive swallowed> carbon tax that just
feeds yet another fat bureaucracy.

Hmm. I hadn't read this, earlier. ;) You anticipated my reply and I
anticipated yours, too. As I said, the public won't get behind a
carbon tax that will merely line the pockets of power or capital. So
we agree there.

Nuclear power has a number of very good alternatives, if we can just
get around to fashioning the right people-mechanisms around them. I've
written at some length on these subjects and won't bore you with that
unless you ask. But suffice it that I see the nuclear power problem
as essentially a human one. Solve that and the rest unfolds.
Technical and science knowledge is already there, ready to go. (And
there are human systems that can work... I know of a few... but enough
people with opportunity to move on this simply won't go there because
of some handcuffs that may mean to them, so we collectively remain at
square one.)

"If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term
variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming
trend. For example, El Niño events typically come with global-mean
temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar
cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind
2008). However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic
eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate
trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest
trend line they show in the global temperature records, and over this
time period the observed trend agrees very well with the expected
anthropogenic warming.

"Nevertheless global cooling has not occurred even over the past ten
years, contrary to claims promoted by lobby groups and picked up in
some media. In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year
trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between
0.17 and 0.34 °C warming per decade, close to or above the expected
anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to
0.19 °C per decade. The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller
warming trends (0.11 °C per decade for 1999-2008) primarily due to the
fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves out the Arctic,
which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years.
Better get in line for the coming winter clothes sales :-)

http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/hadcrut-jan08.png

[ snipped the IPCC article quote]

Jon, I assume you know by know that I (and a lot of other) don't give
much of a hoot what the IPCC writes. Let alone believe it.

Well, I think that is your political choice to make. As it is,
others. I've been involved both directly (in developing and testing
instrumentation) and indirectly (as a hobbyist looking on from the
outside) for many years now. And I've completely disagreed with the
central thrust of active climate scientists beforehand and was, slowly
over time, forced piecemeal to change my opinion. It's been a long,
hard path for me and it took many years to gradually come around
through hard work and effort __ON MY PART__.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. In the
end, the only way to know yourself is to apply your skills and talents
directly to some aspect or facet and see where it takes you. And I
mean, seriously and fully engage yourself. I've done that. It was
painful and a damn lot of time and effort on my part. Sometimes, I
wish I'd just accepted things and not wasted that time. But I did and
in the process I have earned my thick callouses.

Like playing guitar, you don't get the callouses just standing on the
sidelines and kibitzing about it. Or complaining about the music you
hear. You get the scars and callouses by working out, yourself.
Making it personal and paying the price.

Been there, done that, learned my lessons.

Agree. But nevertheless every one of us has to build their opinion about
it (along with a gazillion other issues) because eventually we'll be
asked to make some decisions. Be that at the ballot box or elsewhere.
And not everyone has the time or intellectual wherewithall to delve deep
into the matter. Therefore, many of us must rely on being fed the
"condensed version". That version must be credible to the people and I
think many climate scientists have done themselves a great disservice by
their behavior, and I don't just mean the recent emails.

[IPCC material snipped]

Do you remember watching "China Syndrome?" Jack Lemmon played a
character who _knew_ things cold, but couldn't communicate the
technical issues to a listening public who wasn't ready to understand
them and could only see a "crazy man" talking. Yet he was right. The
problem was that the issues themselves required education and training
to fathom well. And the public couldn't follow.

Suppose, just for argument's sake, that there is a group of people
with a lot of capital at risk and a sincere desire to control the
voting public on an issue.

People respond well to the science of emotional appeal and propaganda.
(In fact, the science is so well refined now that it is sometimes
scary.) Sound bites are easily manufactured and played. Emotional
wedges found and used. Images, not facts, presented.

An example is McDonald's ads. They show happy faces on a beautiful
family, with nary a care in the world between them. Not a word about
the quality of the food, what nutrition is provided, etc. Nothing
technical, at all. No evidence presented. Just pretty images that
convey emotional well-being and goodness. And it works. Well.

Now, for argument's sake, let's say there is a group of scientists who
have a very difficult, very technical subject that taxes the very
state of human science. It's not even easy if you are trained in the
subject to get your mind wrapped around the bulk of it. These
scientists have two choices. They can face the pretty images and nice
platitudes with more of their own and just play out the battle on the
same propaganda battleground and forget wasting any effort on the
facts. Or they can focus on the facts... and lose the audience in the
process. Either way, they lose. They lose the audience if they try
to convey the complex issues, the knowns and unknowns, etc. And in
losing the audience, lose the war. If they choose to go with the
propaganda approach and do the pretty picture and sound bites crap,
they fail because they lose the one advantage they actually OWN....
the science facts in the situation... the one, single thing that
actually separates them from the public fray of every other political
issue. And when they sink to that level, they will get uncovered for
their perfidy. And even if their competition is equally guilty, the
public won't care because the scientists will have lost their respect.

If you haven't gotten it yet, I think almost all of the chips are on
the side of those willing to use all means necessary. The scientists
can't let themselves slide to that level. But in refusing to be just
as bad, just as willing to use any tool that works, they bind their
own feet and give the other side no contest at all.

The only real choice they have is to stay the course and retain the
one thing they have -- science fact. But that means they are running
a race with a gunny sack tied around their feet and the other sides
are having a hay day with that. Oh, well. They can only hope that
they can run the turtle's race and believe that slow and steady will
win. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

Yes, it is frustrating. And yes, sometimes that frustration reaches
out in letters. Oh, well.

See above: cannot be proven, current studies suggest. All assumptions.

That wasn't it's purpose. It's a summary designed to fold in new
information. You need to go back to the IPCC AR4, in particular
Working Group I's work. And even then, all you get is a summary as
the IPCC AR4 doesn't do the actual observation and theoretical work.
All they do is interpret and summarize the actually work. For the
actual knowledge, you have to go find all the relevant source
materials and read each and every one of them and then sit down and
try your own hand at it.

You are asking a cat to act like a dog. The report (nor any of
climate science) attempts to "prove" anything. ...

But is was sure written in that style, along the lines "you've got
questions, we've got the answers". While they don't have them.

They do, really. Have you ever cracked open a book on these subjects?
Try, "Atmospheric and Oceanic Fluid Dynamics," for size. Then repeat
yourself above. It's there, Joerg. It's just damned hard to master
well. You need to work. That's the problem here.

wrong to say "all assumptions." That is obviously over-reaching, and
I am pretty sure you know it is, too. Even if you were right on the
broader point (which you aren't), you must know that is going
overboard. (There is no need to make absolute statements to make your
point -- all it shows me is that you feel the need to speak more
loudly, to shout, in order to make your argument seem stronger.)

Proof isn't to be had. You know that. And "it" isn't "all
assumptions" and you know that, too.

There is no proof. But there is clear evidence of some past things, like
the stuff I pointed out. For example, the notion that many glaciers have
been mostly free of ice not too long ago is fact. There is proof. Roman
coins have no ability to "tunnel themselves" through thick ice and land
at just the right spot.

Again, we are going to go back and forth. Make a commitment to gain a
comprehensive view here. Until then, I've nothing to add. I'm
ignorant on the subject and I'm not willing to work for a serious
opinion here if you aren't, too. One good turn deserves another. But
if you won't work for it, why should I?

[...]

No pun intended but so far this discussio took the usual route of deviation:

a. Notion that a particular glacier grows.

b. Answer that this is due to increased precipitation.

c. I bring link where the precip data is in there since 1948, such trend
not obvious at all.

d. Deviation to other things, no proof that my assumption "c" is clearly
wrong (and it might be).

The point I was making isn't the above thread of thought. I would
have imagined that you'd have remembered where I went. But it seems
you've lost your way in all these details. My apologies.

I wasn't meaning you but the thought process of many other AGW
prononents including some in this NG.

My point doesn't depend on whether or not ONE particular glacier is
growing or shrinking or whether or not someone can offer a specific
explanation about it, either way. Climate is averages. You point to
a specific glacier (or set of glaciers) and point out that they are
growing, as though that is meaningful. My point is that an isolated
data point, whether that data point covers 1 year or 30 years, has no
importance whatsoever when discussing 30-year _global_ averages. You
need to be comprehensive in your view. You weren't. That was my
point. End of story.

It ain't end of story for me. For example I am not a proponent of simply
papering over the recent cooling trend. That is not just an isolated
event. A trend that obviously has even some bigshot climate scientists
from the AGW party concerned, as evidenced in the leaked emails.

I don't think anything has been papered over. Climate scientists are
always working at difficulties and trying to find answers. Same with
evolution, though I don't mean to suggest that climate science is as
well understood, yet.

[...]

I have some serious doubts about that. Especially after the recent email
revelations.

I've read through a lot of them. I find two main issues there that
offend my sensibilities. But they aren't things that in any way
affect my understanding of climate science, itself. No, I'm not going
to go into the details right now. Because it would only be a
distraction into my emotional reactions (and perhaps yours) and that
takes away from a discussion of science theory and observation.

As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther
than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient
truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there
in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and
artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them :-)
Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few
and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me
to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can
track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested
in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point,
I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious
criticism.
Thing is, there's tons and tons of other cases. I mean, guys like old
Oetzi was for sure not doing a glacier hike just for the fun of it. He
was probably hunting on fertile grounds that were ice-free, and then
from what archaeologists have determined killed if not murdered up there.
[...]
In other words, you don't want to spend the time needed to gain a
comprehensive view. I can accept that. But realize what it means as
far as my taking your opinion on any of this.

My feeling here is that climate science is huge. Really huge. No one
masters all of it. But if you can't even be bothered to take a point
you are making -- not something someone else decides to say or write,
but something you decide on your own is true enough that you are
willing to place yourself in a position of making claims about it --
and follow through with even that single thing long enough to find out
where it takes you when you gain a fuller view of even that tiny
corner of things....
All I did is point out some things that happened in the past. Such as
mostly ice free passage ways that existed not too long ago, a few
thousand years, and that existed for a long time. Things that scientists
and also Bill constantly try to brush aside, things that are proven.

I don't think you did point out anything. You need to be
comprehensive in your view, before you can do that. ...

I believe the findings by the Swiss at Schnidljoch were pretty powerful.
If you don't think so, ok, then we differ in opinion here.

I don't know anything comprehensive about that. So no real opinion
about it.

... And so far as
I've seen, not only have you not done that but you haven't indicated
to me a willingness to do it in the future, either. I don't know
anything about this, except one or two summaries I've glimpsed. I
know I don't know anything here. And I'm quite willing to walk this
path with you, if you are serious about it. I've no idea where it
would take us. Perhaps we'd wind up exactly where you predict we
would, largely ignorant right now. Perhaps somewhere entirely
different. I don't know. But without supplying our intellects and
hard work, we never will now for ourselves, either. And my point is
that unless and until you (or I) do the work at hand, our opinions on
this subject really aren't worth the electrons with which they are
written.

But I believe the skepticisim towards some conclusions is worth it,
because they may be premature. That's my whole point.

Well, that is a point you can always keep. It's not a discerning one,
though, because it is "always true" and makes no distinctions.

Well, why should I care, then?

Yeah. It takes work. So what? Spend it, or don't. But if you
don't, even in cases where you feel comfortable talking strongly about
it... then it undermines (to me) what you say. You either care about
your opinion or you don't. And if you don't, why should I? (On this
subject, obviously. On many others, I'm all ears.)
Just like nearly all other people, I have to rely on work by scientists
because I either can't do it, don't want to do it or simply don't have
the time to do it. It is the same in business where micro-management
spells doom. You have to trust others or you go under together with the
whole company. Because you haven't done it all by yourself does not mean
you can't have and voice an opinion.

When looking at the behavior of a substantial number of climate
scientists over the last few years I found lots of red flags. The latest
emails are by far the biggest. IMHO a respectable scientists never ever
thinks that way, let alone write it. I find that highly unprofessional
and it has now thoroughly undermined whatever trust was left for me in
their scientific "evidence". Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

What I do not want is hip-shot actions such as CO2 taxes or dangerous
and untested stuff like CO2 sequestration underneath areas where people
live, all based on science that I now highly question. And believe me, I
am not alone, the number of people around here that believe the IPCC has
dwindled drastically.

What is much more important for me is what each and every one of us is
_personally_ doing to reduce their carbon, smog and other footprints. I
am ready to go to the mat about that at any time.

You and I look at similar things and reach different conclusions. I
will argue that the reason has nothing to do with differences in life
perspectives -- because you and I, I think, have already tested enough
of that and I believe that while we would disagree about some things I
think you and I would agree about a lot more. And I know enough to
trust your intuition, experience, and general background. I believe
that it is because you simply haven't put in enough personal sweat
here. And I think that is all it is.

That's where we differ a bit and I think that's ok. My position is that
it is not always necessary to put tons of sweat into an issue to develop
an opinion on it. There are only about 700,000 hours in the average
person's life and that's a limit. Sometimes we must trust experts. To me
that trust is very important.

You are wrong on this. You really need some thick callouses developed
from real, hard work of your own. And that's where I'll leave that.

On the subject of the exchanges, I've read a lot of them myself. And
in a couple of cases, can say that I 'kind of' know the individuals
involved and enough of what was meant. As I wrote, there are two
things that bothered me after going through years of such exchanges.
But none of it affects the actual _work_ I've done or the
understandings I've earned in the process or the opinions of my own
I've changed as I've learned over time. That is all personally my own
sweat and effort and no one can take that away from me -- least of all
two things I find unprofessional in tone, but otherwise not affecting
what I've learned and done. And as I said, I'm not going to divert a
discussion and have to deal with your emotions, my emotions, and the
emotions of others in some free-for-all -- few of whom have actually
spent any significant part of their own life's blood on the subject. I
know what I'd wish a few had had better sense than... but I live with
the good and bad in all of us, so I can take a longer view here.

Good points.

Thanks. I've enjoyed your replies, as well.

Jon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
    ... but that doesn't say anythihg about global warming. ... If you'd ever done any real science, ... initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the ... Then we were warned by the Club of Rome,supported by large numbers of scientists, that we would run out of natural resources in our lifetimes. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Does Bruce Sing "Change In The Weather" ???
    ... ed by Sarah Palin critical of the Copenhagen climate summit called ... Copenhagen’s political science. ... Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of ... As governor of Alaska, I took a stand ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: How Scientists Cant Communicate
    ... start of his paper - that scientists are heterogenous. ... topics like evolution and climate change are hardly people innocently ... misunderstanding the science. ... or that adjusting to climate ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • O.T. Many Scientists Debunk Gore!
    ... You know the movie that most of the scientists that the AP quoted have NOT ... what do world climate experts actually think about the ... ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. ... whether global warming is really happening? ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Does Bruce Sing "Change In The Weather" ???
    ... ed by Sarah Palin critical of the Copenhagen climate summit called ... Copenhagen’s political science. ... Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of ... This resulted in such government bureaucrats taking ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)