Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Anaxogoras]

Explain how so.

Yes, please do.  You owe us a quote from the methodology that you believe indicates "cherry-picking."

[Widewing]

I found an interesting study relating to the total carbon footprint of various autos and trucks. Dust to dust or design through junkyard.

These guys evaluate each model (supposedly using 3,000 data points) and list each in terms of energy efficiency. What it shows is that hybrids consume an enormous amount of energy (relatively) in design and manufacture, more than offsetting the fuel mileage. It seems that after initial concerns, Toyota accepts the analysis.

Many surprises here, and then again, some were no surprise at all. The Scion xB ranked at the top. However, the Jeep Wrangler ranked fourth. I believe that the Prius ranked 197 due to the vast outlay of energy to produce, and the very high expense to replace batteries. Their analysis shows that taken within the context of dust to dust, the Hummer H2 has a smaller carbon footprint than the Prius.

You can find the analysis using the links below. Whether or not you agree with the analysis is somewhat immaterial. Understanding what is being measured and its significance relative to the debate about C02 related warming and what defines a "green" vehicle. Thus, you should be able to understand why the Jeep ranks so high in total energy efficiency.

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/From%20Low%20to%20High%20by%20Segment%2007%20CY.xls

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf


My regards,

Widewing

[MORAY37]

Yes, please do.  You owe us a quote from the methodology that you believe indicates "cherry-picking."

He's going to come back with a rehash of his "Missouri had three stations represented" argument, saying that Region A is cooler (now) than Region C and "everyone" knows it....not actually comparing the temperatures from Region A in 1900 versus Region A in 2000, mind you.

A true banana argument.    

Nor realizing that station use is determined from a random selection process, like random.org does.  (It is also done multiple times in most analyses)

[CAP1]

He's going to come back with a rehash of his "Missouri had three stations represented" argument, saying that Region A is cooler (now) than Region C and "everyone" knows it....not actually comparing the temperatures from Region A in 1900 versus Region A in 2000, mind you.

A true banana argument.    

Nor realizing that station use is determined from a random selection process, like random.org does.  (It is also done multiple times in most analyses)

DO THese computer programs not have the capacity to use data from ALL of the stations?

 doing anything else, seems just not right.,

[MORAY37]

I found an interesting study relating to the total carbon footprint of various autos and trucks. Dust to dust or design through junkyard.

These guys evaluate each model (supposedly using 3,000 data points) and list each in terms of energy efficiency. What it shows is that hybrids consume an enormous amount of energy (relatively) in design and manufacture, more than offsetting the fuel mileage. It seems that after initial concerns, Toyota accepts the analysis.

Many surprises here, and then again, some were no surprise at all. The Scion xB ranked at the top. However, the Jeep Wrangler ranked fourth. I believe that the Prius ranked 197 due to the vast outlay of energy to produce, and the very high expense to replace batteries. Their analysis shows that taken within the context of dust to dust, the Hummer H2 has a smaller carbon footprint than the Prius.

You can find the analysis using the links below. Whether or not you agree with the analysis is somewhat immaterial. Understanding what is being measured and its significance relative to the debate about C02 related warming and what defines a "green" vehicle. Thus, you should be able to understand why the Jeep ranks so high in total energy efficiency.

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/From%20Low%20to%20High%20by%20Segment%2007%20CY.xls

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf


My regards,

Widewing

I've never regarded the hybrid push as being substantive in the short term.  After all, when you have 4 million electric cars.... it still takes gas or coal to produce all that electricity, so the footprint is still there.

It makes some "feel" better though.  

Long term, it may reduce effect somewhat, but I wonder if it would be substantive.

[kilo2]

The temperature of the earth is driven by the amount of sunspots on the sun at any given time(to an extent). There is a study that has the temperature rise overlaid on a graph with the amount of sunspots and they correlate almost exactly. Global warming is a myth propagated to induce fear or to make money. Here is the study check it out.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html

[MORAY37]

DO THese computer programs not have the capacity to use data from ALL of the stations?

 doing anything else, seems just not right.,

Just like it is explained in the study.... please read the study.

The temperature anomalies are at a 5 degree‐by‐5 degree (latitude‐longitude)
resolution for the GISS data to match that in the HadCRUT analysis. In the lower two maps we
display the GISS data masked to the same area and resolution as the HadCRUT analysis.
The “masked” GISS data let us quantify the extent to which the difference between the
GISS and HadCRUT analyses is due to the data interpolation and extrapolation that occurs in the
GISS analysis. The GISS analysis assigns a temperature anomaly to many gridboxes that do not
contain measurement data, specifically all gridboxes located within 1200 km of one or more
stations that do have defined temperature anomalies.
The rationale for this aspect of the GISS analysis is based on the fact that temperature
anomaly patterns tend to be large scale. For example, if it is an unusually cold winter in New
York, it is probably unusually cold in Philadelphia too. This fact suggests that it may be better to
assign a temperature anomaly based on the nearest stations for a gridbox that contains no
observing stations, rather than excluding that gridbox from the global analysis. Tests of this
assumption are described in our papers referenced below

The 2-sigma bias, when all is considered

Table 1. Two‐sigma error estimate versus period for meteorological stations and land‐0cean index.
                               1880‐1900      1900‐1950   1960‐2008
Meteorological Stations     0.2               0.15           0.08
Land‐Ocean Index            0.08             0.05           0.05

That's an incredibly small 2-sigma error, on the past 50 years.  The previous 70 are due to sampling errors or instrument bias. (19th century/early 20th century measuring inaccuracy)

[CAP1]

I've never regarded the hybrid push as being substantive in the short term.  After all, when you have 4 million electric cars.... it still takes gas or coal to produce all that electricity, so the footprint is still there.

It makes some "feel" better though.  

Long term, it may reduce effect somewhat, but I wonder if it would be substantive.

this is agreed.....hybrids are the absolute worst we could do....with the exception of using coal fired cars.......

[MORAY37]

DO THese computer programs not have the capacity to use data from ALL of the stations?

 doing anything else, seems just not right.,

Also, yes they could, but the resulting data would need to be cleaned and fine toothed relentlessly, while not lowering the inherent error probability.  

  Also, you add in the possibility of multiple corruption of the data due to inaccuracy at each individual station, as they are all not uniform.  By using a base area and then randomly using a number of station geographically in that area, you control the amount of error and bias within that data set, as long as that initial postulate (an area X degrees by Y degrees will show trendline) isn't disproved.

I would imagine at some point, some group of geeks will be pressed into service to do every station just to placate the denialist regime.  When they come back with 99.8 % probability, then the denialist agenda will be to focus on that .2%, wasting the countless dollars poured into a study for an ever more precise approximation closer to 100% that the denialists require.

Like I've said before, it won't be until whatever is left of this species looks back incredulously 300 or so years from now, that the strange truth of this debate will be properly framed.

[kilo2]

Also, yes they could, but the resulting data would need to be cleaned and fine toothed relentlessly, while not lowering the inherent error probability.  

  Also, you add in the possibility of multiple corruption of the data due to inaccuracy at each individual station, as they are all not uniform.  By using a base area and then randomly using a number of station geographically in that area, you control the amount of error and bias within that data set, as long as that initial postulate (an area X degrees by Y degrees will show trendline) isn't disproved.

I would imagine at some point, some group of geeks will be pressed into service to do every station just to placate the denialist regime.  When they come back with 99.8 % probability, then the denialist agenda will be to focus on that .2%, wasting the countless dollars poured into a study for an ever more precise approximation closer to 100% that the denialists require.

Like I've said before, it won't be until whatever is left of this species looks back incredulously 300 or so years from now, that the strange truth of this debate will be properly framed.

Your posting crap now.

[cpxxx]

The things they are picking out have really nothing to do with the "science" part of the equation.

The real damage is in public relations, something which science as a whole is horribly terrible at, IMO.  Good science will be destroyed by badly handled publicity 10 out of 10 times.

Moray clearly you are a obviously good scientist. Quite often the most strident defenders of the AGW are in fact scientists. I crossed swords with a couple on another forum. I'm even married to a scientist, a very good one. Scientists know how it works and they trust the science. Their not unreasonable assumption is that the science is rigorously scrutinised, peer reviewed objectively and open to change as new data becomes available. That's the test.

But can you honestly say that hand on heart the IPCC report maintains that standard? I chose the quotes carefully because quite clearly you are implicitly accepting that the report is flawed. In fact you cannot escape that truth. The glacier thing, the missing Chinese data and these anecodotal reports masquerading as scientific conclusions. These should have been there, particuarly the Himalayan issue as it was known to be false and was included anyway. Saying it was 'badly handled publicity' simply isn't an excuse.

They should not have made into a report which was purportedly the conclusions of numerous experts in the field of climatology. That is not science and it cast doubts on the underlying science. The CRU emails are also very revealing and considering a great deal of the IPCC report was based on conclusions supplied by the CRU only adds to the doubts.

You say

The people that are attacking them know they have pretty much zero to do with the actual science..... but they have interest in seeing it fail at all cost.

That's the warmist version of the conspiracy theory. I'm sorry, explain to me again why they want it to fail? That implies they know AGW is real but want it to fail for some devious reasons, probably to do with oil companies and profits. They apparently know the 'truth' but don't care about the fate of the Earth and it's denizens. On the other hand someone like me you will accuse of not understanding the science. I'm not a scientist after all, just a dull pilot. I can be dismissed as a dupe of the denialists who cannot and will not understand the pure science.

But I would accuse you not understanding human nature. Scientists are not immune to it. If anything came across from the leaked emails it's that scientists are human like the rest of us.

The reality is that the science, the real science has long since been left behind and been replaced by a quasi religious process. The conclusion that we humans are causing climate change, specifically warming was reached many years ago. All research since has been aimed a proving it and finding the mechanisms but all the while there is an essential belief that the Earth is warming and is warming because of carbon dioxide produced by mankind. Is that science? Anyone who demurs is classed as a 'denialist' or as the British PM put it 'Anti science and a flat Earther'. Is that the scientific way of doing things?

All this would be fine if the argument was over something more esoteric like 'Dark Matter' or 'gaseous nebula'  near Omicron Persei 8. But this isn't an isolated scientific argument. AGW means massive changes in how the people of the whole world live their lives. Massive social changes and loss of freedoms we now take for granted. It's already happening. Like all of us, it costs me extra money every day. People have already and continue to die because of changes made in the light of AGW theories.

This cannot be treated like many other scientific discussion or theory. The science must withstand every test thrown at it. So far it hasn't. You are right about one thing. It's all about the science or it should be. The fact that it isn't is a failure of the scientists involved. Excuses about being poor at public relations doesn't cut it.

The onus is on the scientists to prove this, not on the skeptics like me.

[batch]

He's going to come back with a rehash of his "Missouri had three stations represented" argument, saying that Region A is cooler (now) than Region C and "everyone" knows it....not actually comparing the temperatures from Region A in 1900 versus Region A in 2000, mind you.

A true banana argument.    

Nor realizing that station use is determined from a random selection process, like random.org does.  (It is also done multiple times in most analyses)

actually if youre going to try to spew falsities at least try to do so with something that makes sense.....

once again youre not letting facts get in your way......... its not a matter of random selections its a matter of total selections.........  every study released is based on temperature data derived from these sources...... and these sources are all very clear in the data they are using...... they arent even trying to hide their warm bias.........

its hard to have random selections when youve already handpicked which stations are allowed to be randomly selected from

as I pointed out earlier in the thread and will do so again since your comprehension levels seem a bit skewed by bias toward funding:

when you rely on GISS for data and GISS openly admits they are using less than 10% of the data stations to derive that data than they did 40 years ago during the period the "baseline" comes from then you have no argument to make that data is not being cherry picked

so yes I will go back to the MO and CA argument but expand that a little for you since you have problems with basic scientific principles (must need more funding)....... there are literally thousands of data stations in the US and 10s of thousands globally.......... the GISS uses less than 200 for the entire continent and ALL of those stations are hand selected (not random).... they use a 1200Km radius around those stations and determine the temperature for that station must represent that radius (this is all clearly stated on their website for you).......... they then indicate an "error rate" but dont take that error rate into account in their overall averaging they simply quote it as an error rate.......... so the end result is cherry picked data with an error rate that exceeds the defined result

this is the same process used globally...... out of tens of thousands of stations only there are some 1100-1200 selected to represent the entire planet......... and ironically they are all selected from locations within their region that trend higher than the rest of the region........

certainly I could put 6000 stations in antartica and 1 station inside a crematorium and still come up with a warm temperature average.......... and each year after Im going to reduce the number of stations in antartica and see what happens to that average........ my guess is it will rise every year

you seem to let logic escape you completely............... but good luck on the funding.......... hope it works out for you

[MORAY37]

.

This cannot be treated like many other scientific discussion or theory. The science must withstand every test thrown at it. So far it hasn't. You are right about one thing. It's all about the science or it should be. The fact that it isn't is a failure of the scientists involved. Excuses about being poor at public relations doesn't cut it.

The onus is on the scientists to prove this, not on the skeptics like me. This is the biggest failure of the scientists involved.

I agree with that last statement completely.  Science has consistently been extremely bad with the general public..... many of us just scream and point "it's right there!!!!!!" too often, without the ability to relate effectively.  

Like I said, I'm not particularly happy with the way the IPCC went about with its work....but then again, I'm rarely happy when large groups of people take on projects.  Even at my level, as a basic researcher, it becomes obvious that the more hands involved, the more issues the project may have.  Add to the fact that there are politics involved, and the onus is quickly shifted.  

I will say this, I'm incredibly glad I'm not implicitly involved in the AGW research.  I wouldn't take funding to research any aspect of it...it's thermonuclear.  My particular employer (institute) has an overriding policy of silence involving AGW, for fear of any public or corporate reprisal, or funding issues.  I can be fired if I speak about any aspect of this topic, while on paid time.  This is to protect the many different departments from issues ....well, it's all complicated.<edited because i thought it was getting too particular...I like my job>  

  This BBS is actually one of the few places I'll even comment on it, as it is anonymous.  Very few on here know any personal details about me, and those that do have happily remained silent.  
 
What little I've had cited in conjunction with AGW, I've made sure that their work was good and analysis sound, otherwise I requested my papers be withdrawn from citation, even if my work had little to do with theirs.  I will happily point out flaws in methodology when they are apparent.  

 I'll stick to my little world, and watch my corals bleach more each year, as they have for decades.  

[MORAY37]

actually if youre going to try to spew falsities at least try to do so with something that makes sense.....

once again youre not letting facts get in your way......... its not a matter of random selections its a matter of total selections.........  every study released is based on temperature data derived from these sources...... and these sources are all very clear in the data they are using...... they arent even trying to hide their warm bias.........

its hard to have random selections when youve already handpicked which stations are allowed to be randomly selected from

as I pointed out earlier in the thread and will do so again since your comprehension levels seem a bit skewed by bias toward funding:

when you rely on GISS for data and GISS openly admits they are using less than 10% of the data stations to derive that data than they did 40 years ago during the period the "baseline" comes from then you have no argument to make that data is not being cherry picked

so yes I will go back to the MO and CA argument but expand that a little for you since you have problems with basic scientific principles (must need more funding)....... there are literally thousands of data stations in the US and 10s of thousands globally.......... the GISS uses less than 200 for the entire continent and ALL of those stations are hand selected (not random).... they use a 1200Km radius around those stations and determine the temperature for that station must represent that radius (this is all clearly stated on their website for you).......... they then indicate an "error rate" but dont take that error rate into account in their overall averaging they simply quote it as an error rate.......... so the end result is cherry picked data with an error rate that exceeds the defined result

this is the same process used globally...... out of tens of thousands of stations only there are some 1100-1200 selected to represent the entire planet......... and ironically they are all selected from locations within their region that trend higher than the rest of the region........

certainly I could put 6000 stations in antartica and 1 station inside a crematorium and still come up with a warm temperature average.......... and each year after Im going to reduce the number of stations in antartica and see what happens to that average........ my guess is it will rise every year

you seem to let logic escape you completely............... but good luck on the funding.......... hope it works out for you

And yet, surprisingly, not a single represented fact to back up your claim.  I'm not surprised.  All of what you wrote is conjecture until you prove otherwise.  Please feel free to find any paper that shows they hand picked the data.  Cite references.

Don't just type your opinion sir.  That's exactly what "Glacier Gate" is about, albeit they actually had non scientific observations to support their conjecture.  You've shown neither empirical nor even anecdotal evidence for your claim.

You didn't even reference the paper!!!    

But yet find time to marginalize me as a scientist and a person, with personal attacks.  Surprising. 

Specifically, within the confines of either paper, point out a methodological deficiency.  You may even cite denialist websites. Please.  At least attempt to learn.

[batch]

again with the problems you seem to have comprehending ............ the defenciency in either paper is that they rely on GISS data to support their conclusions............... GISS data is clearly cherry picked data..... they dont even try to hide that fact.... it says VERY clearly on their website in their methodology for acquiring the data that it is cherry picked.......... they simply try to sugar coat it by saying "we are scientists and we believe this will work"

source citations: GISS (even you should be able to find this one, would it help if I offer you a dollar?)