From Watching the Deniers
[olist]

Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

Acceptance repudiates key philosophy – For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that
a) they would allow such “evil” and
b) the god/s is omnipotent.[/olist]

You do know that both sides do pretty much what you've listed here, don't you?


In fact, you yourself are guilty of using the 'six aspects' on these boards.

Black is actually white!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 9:41pm:

Black is actually white!

Nope, black is black and white is white..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 15th, 2013 at 9:41pm: Black is actually white! Nope, black is black and white is white..

Oh you're onto it ay buddy  ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 10:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15th, 2013 at 9:55pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 15th, 2013 at 9:41pm: Black is actually white! Nope, black is black and white is white.. Oh you're onto it ay buddy  ::)

Yep, much closer to being 'onto it' than you seem to be.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 10:10pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 15th, 2013 at 10:08pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15th, 2013 at 9:55pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 15th, 2013 at 9:41pm: Black is actually white! Nope, black is black and white is white.. Oh you're onto it ay buddy  ::) Yep, much closer to being 'onto it' than you seem to be.

Why, cos i didn't vote for copper internet in the asian century that will make my kids cry forever and ever!????????

:-*

Seeing as Scientists in general are a microcosm of the human race; I would expect frauds and charlatans within their ranks and probably in similar proportion.

To believe that scientists are above the common herd in regards to the above is disingenuous.

You see the big problem we have with global warming is that there is no global warming, you at least need that key ingredient if you are going to claim that the world is warming.  ;D



http://treeofmamre.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/global-temperature-changes-since-1997.jpg


Damning isn't it?  ;D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

... you yourself are guilty of using the 'six aspects' on these boards.

I don't doubt that, in your imagination, that's so.

You can't substantiate your assertion though, can you?

lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

Seeing as Scientists in general are a microcosm of the human race; I would expect frauds and charlatans within their ranks and probably in similar proportion. To believe that scientists are above the common herd in regards to the above is disingenuous.

All of which seems like very good reasons to go with the majority. What makes you think that the minority will hold a lesser proportion of "frauds and charlatans"?

In general, the rigours of the scientific establishment do tend to weed out the most extreme abuses. If you want to say that puts them "above the common herd", then I wouldn't disagree with you. I tend to think that of any highly skilled group.

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

You see the big problem we have with global warming is that there is no global warming, ...

The vast majority of the best qualified disagree with you, it seems.


Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

... Damning isn't it?

I'm no better qualified to judge than you or Anthony Watts.

# wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15th, 2013 at 9:39pm: ... you yourself are guilty of using the 'six aspects' on these boards. I don't doubt that, in your imagination, that's so. You can't substantiate your assertion though, can you?

Actually, I can..

Quote:
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist Aspect 1 Doubt the Science
, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. .  Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries. Aspect 2 Question the motives and integrity of scientists


How is any of this different to the 'Six Aspects'??

You attack the science, which is amusing, since Watts' uses 'official' pro-AGW sites, like NOAA National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. and then you use the 'paid by Heartland so he must be corrupt' excuse, which again, can also be used against ANY researcher...since the scientists working for any of the pro-agw groups, IPCC, HADCRUT, CSIRO etc are NOT working for free, they are being paid and the non-government, university based researchers are funded by grants..( again, paid to produce the results).

# wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 12:01pm: ... Damning isn't it? I'm no better qualified to judge than you or Anthony Watts.

Can't you even read a graph?  ;D

Doram, Zimmerman questionaire-

This was the full set of questions that Zimmerman asked in their survey:

    Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
    1. Risen
    2. Fallen
    3. Remained relatively constant
    4. No opinion/Don't know
'76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.” '
    
    Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?  [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. I'm not sure
'75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.” '

Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer (or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)? [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]

Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.

Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?

Q6. Age

Q7. Gender

Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?

Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?
   
Not even a mention of CO2 either.

No vested interests to see here- MOVE ALONG PRETTY PLEASE

http://www.nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/images/temporary_exhibitions/behind_the_lines_2006/large/john_howards_australia_large/files/16473/John_Howards_Australia_w480.jpg

# wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 12:01pm: You see the big problem we have with global warming is that there is no global warming, ... The vast majority of the best qualified disagree with you, it seems.

Ah, consensus.

::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

# wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 12:27pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 12:01pm: You see the big problem we have with global warming is that there is no global warming, ... The vast majority of the best qualified disagree with you, it seems. Ah, consensus.

Indeed.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

... You attack the science, ...

No, I'm sceptical of the interpretations of the unqualified.

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:

# wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 12:27pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 12:01pm: ... Damning isn't it? I'm no better qualified to judge than you or Anthony Watts. Can't you even read a graph?

Do you know the difference between reading and interpretation?

lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Doram, Zimmerman questionaire- This was the full set of questions that Zimmerman asked in their survey: ...   Not even a mention of CO2 either.

Relevance? Your qualifications for interpretation?

AGW is supposedly caused by CO2. Shouldn't that have been a question or in a question somewhere?

Is 79 statistically significant out of a survey that returned 3,146 replies?

lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 5:25pm:

AGW is supposedly caused by CO2. Shouldn't that have been a question or in a question somewhere? Is 79 statistically significant out of a survey that returned 3,146 replies?

I presume you're question is about the majority? It's hard to tell sometimes, what you're on about.

The 'Quote' button is provided for good reason. Use it to quote what you're commenting on.

Anyway; it's Doran, not Doram. If your source got that wrong, what makes you believe the rest is accurate?

Over the years, there have been many such surveys. We've been down the rabbit hole with the papers published this year. I don't see any point in repeating the exercise. The outcome is unlikely to change.

# wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 5:40pm:

Anyway; it's Doran, not Doram. If your source got that wrong, what makes you believe the rest is accurate?

Please forgive my typo. I am obviously not as perfect as you. :-[

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

# wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 12:27pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 12:01pm: You see the big problem we have with global warming is that there is no global warming, ... The vast majority of the best qualified disagree with you, it seems. Ah, consensus. ::)

Ah, of fact or fiction?

VOLUME IS VANITY PROFIT IS SANITY!!!!!!!!!'

# wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 12:38pm: ... You attack the science, ... No, I'm sceptical of the interpretations of the unqualified.

What interpretation??...He has simply used a list of temperatures provided by an official climate monitoring service.
The temperatures listed are not 'interpreted'

77 out of 3164 scientists reckon that man made global warming is real, thats a consensus according to the warmies.  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 9:06pm:

77 out of 3164 scientists reckon that man made global warming is real, thats a consensus according to the warmies.  ;D

Actually it's 77 out of 79. They removed everyone else of the 3164 because they didn't list climate science as their main area of expertise, and less than 50% of their published papers weren't about climate.


Oh and #, that's what Doran and Zimmerman actually say, in their OWN published conclusions.

7. Jesus loves you

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 11:34pm:

7. Jesus loves you

No, he doesn't. He doesn't exist.

http://www.nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/images/temporary_exhibitions/behind_the_lines_2006/large/john_howards_australia_large/files/16473/John_Howards_Australia_w480.jpg

You're in the wrong thread again Biff.

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 9:06pm:

77 out of 3164 scientists reckon that man made global warming is real, ...

You can't substantiate that assertion, can you?

Over the years, there have been many surveys of scientific opinion on global warming. We've been down the rabbit hole with the papers published this year. I don't see any point in repeating the exercise. The outcome is unlikely to change.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

... The temperatures listed are not 'interpreted'

Selection doesn't involve interpretation?

# wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 8:16am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 8:35pm: ... The temperatures listed are not 'interpreted' Selection doesn't involve interpretation?

Not when he has just reposted the finds in total from another site. At least, not on Watts' part.

Here is the map he used, from the original site.
http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/climate/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin,snow

Put your mouse pointer over the coloured dots, and it shows the current condition (as a December 9th) and the date of the previous record, for high temp, low temp snowfall and rainfall. As you can see, Watts' was reporting the evidence, not inventing it or interpreting it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 8:51am:

# wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 8:16am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 8:35pm: ... The temperatures listed are not 'interpreted' Selection doesn't involve interpretation? Not when he has just reposted the finds in total ...

Has he though?

Are you familiar with the term cherry picking? How does the picker know which cherry to pick, without first interpreting the available cherries?

# wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 8:51am: # wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 8:16am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 8:35pm: ... The temperatures listed are not 'interpreted' Selection doesn't involve interpretation? Not when he has just reposted the finds in total ... Has he though? Are you familiar with the term cherry picking? How does the picker know which cherry to pick, without first interpreting the available cherries?

LOL yes he actually has...
You can complain all you like, but the info used is from a weather site, which means, that it's from the US National Weather service info..
He has used 'approved' temperature readings.

Oh and if you are going to quote my posts, quote ALL of my posts, rather than cherry picking.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

# wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 12:43pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 8:51am: # wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 8:16am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 8:35pm: ... The temperatures listed are not 'interpreted' Selection doesn't involve interpretation? Not when he has just reposted the finds in total ... Has he though? Are you familiar with the term cherry picking? How does the picker know which cherry to pick, without first interpreting the available cherries? ... You can complain all you like, ...

Not complaining; just experienced and cynical. With a disreputable source like Watts, my default is to ignore. If there's anything of interest, a reputable source will comment.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

... Oh and if you are going to quote my posts, quote ALL of my posts, ...

I'll quote as much as necessary. No more and no less.

And Cherry picking is definitely not choosing 79 of 3,146.

# wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 3:39pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 1:59pm: # wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 12:43pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 8:51am: # wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 8:16am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16th, 2013 at 8:35pm: ... The temperatures listed are not 'interpreted' Selection doesn't involve interpretation? Not when he has just reposted the finds in total ... Has he though? Are you familiar with the term cherry picking? How does the picker know which cherry to pick, without first interpreting the available cherries? ... You can complain all you like,but the info used is from a weather site, which means, that it's from the US National Weather service info.. He has used 'approved' temperature readings. ... Not complaining; just experienced and cynical. With a disreputable source like Watts, my default is to ignore. If there's anything of interest, a reputable source will comment. gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 1:59pm: ... Oh and if you are going to quote my posts, quote ALL of my posts, ... I'll quote as much as necessary. No more and no less.

You might consider Watts to be the Great Satan in the Church of Climatology, but the source was in fact the US National Weather Service, so it you are displeased with the temperature reading, take it up with them.

I thought current climate change theory allowed for low temperatures as well as high temperatures. You're not a fundamentalist global 'warming only' proponent are you??.....tsk tsk, Gaia won't be pleased...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 11:02pm:

I thought current climate change theory allowed for low temperatures as well as high temperatures.

Yep, it pretty well covers any eventuality, they all have very sore arms from shifting the goal posts all over the friggin field  ;D

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics_v_Realists.jpg

Crack Pot AGW denialist priests see what they want to see

lee wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 6:30pm:

And Cherry picking is definitely not choosing 79 of 3,146.

You picked that cherry and that interpretation. Over the years, there have been many surveys of scientific opinion on global warming.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 11:02pm:

... You might consider Watts to be the Great Satan in the Church of Climatology, ...

No, just disreputable. As I said: If there's anything of interest, a reputable source will comment.

# wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 9:44am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 11:02pm: ... You might consider Watts to be the Great Satan in the Church of Climatology, ... No, just disreputable. As I said: If there's anything of interest, a reputable source will comment.

You mean like ALL the warns from the US National Weather service???

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/

# wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

lee wrote on Dec 17th, 2013 at 6:30pm: And Cherry picking is definitely not choosing 79 of 3,146. You picked that cherry and that interpretation. Over the years, there have been many surveys of scientific opinion on global warming.

You did note the Full Stop and not a question mark at the end of my text? I was merely making an observation. Are you paranoid?

Chimp Logic, It has been warming since the LIA. Historical data goes back to the 1850's, with and without anomaly adjustments.

Edit: BTW a new article by Trenberth and Fasullo (2013). They generally in their graphs use data to 2012. The NOOA mean temperatures anomalies graph (Fig 4) appears to use data up to 2008. Although the graph legend says 2009. but the graph doesn't extend to the 2009 timeline. Why not use the available data up to 2012? Just a question.

Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/pdf

Lee, you are wrong, and have been conned. I won't be posting on here much, as I've started with the "evil" LNG industry in a fairly pivotal role.

Despite that, I won't suddenly forget basic atmospheric physics. At least methane has a lower carbon footprint than oil or coal.

I'll drop in from time to time.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

... You mean like ALL the warns from the US National Weather service??? ...

What do you think you see there?

lee wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 10:31am:

... Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/pdf

By way of which denialist blog? Clearly, you don't understand enough to come up with your skewed interpretations yourself.

I don't buy AGW for epistemological reasons.

"The existence of disagreement between climate model predictions and observations doesn’t provide any insight in itself to why the disagreement exists, i.e. which aspect(s) of the model are inadequate, owing to the epistemic opacity of knowledge codified in complex models."
Judith Curry



The "epistemic opacity of knowledge codified in complex models" - beautifully put.

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

I don't buy AGW for epistemological reasons. "The existence of disagreement between climate model predictions and observations doesn’t provide any insight in itself to why the disagreement exists, i.e. which aspect(s) of the model are inadequate, owing to the epistemic opacity of knowledge codified in complex models." Judith Curry The "epistemic opacity of knowledge codified in complex models" - beautifully put.

do you use the same rationale to validate your deranged sense of selective racism and bigotry?

....or do you always smell this way?

# wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2013 at 9:58am: ... You mean like ALL the warns from the US National Weather service??? ... What do you think you see there?

Last 30 Days      Nov 17 - Dec 16, 2013      446      618      2,699      840      1,805      1,168

2699 low temperature records matched or set for that period.

Cc denial is snobbery!

# wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 12:40pm:

lee wrote on Dec 18th, 2013 at 10:31am: ... Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/pdf By way of which denialist blog? Clearly, you don't understand enough to come up with your skewed interpretations yourself. Once again shooting the messenger.  :D Muso - The 'evil ' oil? Surely you jest? Look at who helped fund the AGU Fall meeting. ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Schlumberger. http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/general-information/thank-you-to-our-sponsors/

Talking to man made climate change kooks is like trying to convince a jehovas witness that they need a blood transfusion  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 1:52pm:

Talking to man made climate change kooks is like trying to convince a jehovas witness that they need a blood transfusion  ;D

Snobs hate their children!

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

The "epistemic opacity of knowledge codified in complex models" - beautifully put.

Paraphrased - "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong."

Judith likes to play at being a denialist because she meets so many interesting people.

anti-intellectual snobs are marching us toward WORLD WAR 3!!

8-)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:

anti-intellectual snobs are marching us toward WORLD WAR 3!! 8-)

I thought that the Rothschilds were behind all wars

They certainly bank roll both sides

Lots of money to be made

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

... 2699 low temperature records matched or set for that period.

So: extreme weather?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

# wrote on Dec 18th, 2013 at 12:37pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2013 at 9:58am: ... You mean like ALL the warns from the US National Weather service??? ... What do you think you see there? Last 30 Days      Nov 17 - Dec 16, 2013      446      618      2,699      840      1,805      1,168 2699 low temperature records matched or set for that period.

- and you fail to make the connection with this?

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/images/arctic_sea_ice_extent6_sm.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2013/03/130326-arctic-sea-ice-global-warming-science-environment-spring/

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2013 at 1:11pm: # wrote on Dec 18th, 2013 at 12:37pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2013 at 9:58am: ... You mean like ALL the warns from the US National Weather service??? ... What do you think you see there? Last 30 Days      Nov 17 - Dec 16, 2013      446      618      2,699      840      1,805      1,168 2699 low temperature records matched or set for that period. - and you fail to make the connection with this? http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/images/arctic_sea_ice_extent6_sm.jpg http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2013/03/130326-arctic-sea-ice-global-warming-science-environment-spring/

playing devils advocate for once: doesn't the above graph simply mean the model in question was made in the 1950s!??!

The model is not the important part. It's the observational data.

Models can be run retrospectively.

Part of that second link:


Quote:

Is Shrinking Sea Ice Behind Chilly Spring? Melting Arctic ice may be making winters colder and longer, scientists say. Sea ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.       Sea ice forms in Canada's Gulf of St. Lawrence in February 2013. Image courtesy Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS/USGS/NASA Daniel Stone National Geographic News Published March 26, 2013 First it was the fault of Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog who mistakenly forecasted a quick end to winter. Now climate scientists are saying that Arctic sea ice—or the lack of it—is a driving force behind the Northern Hemisphere's unseasonably cold spring. As Northern Hemisphere temperatures remain below normal more than a week into the official start of spring, a team of meteorologists and climate scientists are pointing to recent research that suggests sea ice cover is a likely culprit. Recent imaging from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center showed a historic minimum in Arctic ice cover last fall, and current data reveals that sea ice cover—which recently reached its maximum for the year—is at its sixth lowest extent in the satellite record. (Related: "Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low—Extreme Weather to Come?")

So Gizmo, I agree that those records show a general lack of agreement with your strawman that there must be a totally uniform rise in temperature in every corner of the globe, even for short timescales of 1 year.

Nice try, but the climate will never work in accordance with your strawman. You must admit, but as strawmen go, yours is extremely crude and simplistic.

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2013 at 4:57am:

The model is not the important part. It's the observational data. Models can be run retrospectively. Part of that second link: Quote: Is Shrinking Sea Ice Behind Chilly Spring? Melting Arctic ice may be making winters colder and longer, scientists say. Sea ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.       Sea ice forms in Canada's Gulf of St. Lawrence in February 2013. Image courtesy Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS/USGS/NASA Daniel Stone National Geographic News Published March 26, 2013 First it was the fault of Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog who mistakenly forecasted a quick end to winter. Now climate scientists are saying that Arctic sea ice—or the lack of it—is a driving force behind the Northern Hemisphere's unseasonably cold spring. As Northern Hemisphere temperatures remain below normal more than a week into the official start of spring, a team of meteorologists and climate scientists are pointing to recent research that suggests sea ice cover is a likely culprit. Recent imaging from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center showed a historic minimum in Arctic ice cover last fall, and current data reveals that sea ice cover—which recently reached its maximum for the year—is at its sixth lowest extent in the satellite record. (Related: "Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low—Extreme Weather to Come?") So Gizmo, I agree that those records show a general lack of agreement with your strawman that there must be a totally uniform rise in temperature in every corner of the globe, even for short timescales of 1 year. Nice try, but the climate will never work in accordance with your strawman. You must admit, but as strawmen go, yours is extremely crude and simplistic.

What 'strawman' are you talking about??

My whole point in this thread is that information posted by Watts (that there have been record low temperatures set across a large part of the US) is correct, and supported by other groups.
That's IT, no comment on his conclusion, just on the data posted.

It might well be, but it's posted with the intention of implying that it is not supported by IPCC data or that it somehow contradicts it. Two posters on here have already caught that spin.

He cherry picks data, papers and findings. I doubt if you can find anything on his site that confirms AGW in any way, but of course there are many papers that do.   

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 11:04pm:

muso wrote on Dec 18th, 2013 at 9:25pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2013 at 1:11pm: # wrote on Dec 18th, 2013 at 12:37pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2013 at 9:58am: ... You mean like ALL the warns from the US National Weather service??? ... What do you think you see there? Last 30 Days      Nov 17 - Dec 16, 2013      446      618      2,699      840      1,805      1,168 2699 low temperature records matched or set for that period. - and you fail to make the connection with this? http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/images/arctic_sea_ice_extent6_sm.jpg http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2013/03/130326-arctic-sea-ice-global-warming-science-environment-spring/ playing devils advocate for once: doesn't the above graph simply mean the model in question was made in the 1950s!??!

Not necessarily

Models predict data and trends of the past.

In fact, a good way of validating the accuracy of a model is to examine how accurate its predictions are for previous data/trends.

So this model could have been developed last week - it really doesn't matter when. You run the model and stack up its simulation accuracy with respect to all the data you have at the time.

You are then in a position to run the model forward in time and make projections and predictions (with the appropriate error bars).

And this is where it becomes tricky. The further the model is run into the future, the more uncertainty there is with its predictions.

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

I don't buy AGW for epistemological reasons.

You assume that AGW can only be predicted using models.  You're making conclusions about epistemology from the viewpoint of a barren epistemological wasteland.

Paraphrased - You don't have a clue.

Muso  "Despite that, I won't suddenly forget basic atmospheric physics."

That's good; but remember Climate Sensitivity is not basic physics. (I read that elsewhere.)

There have been doubts expressed about CO2 levels in 'young' ice due to bubbles moving. What are he error bars like? How accurate are the data for ice under 400 years?

I know that there is now a calculation that reflects braodly the ice core data; but if the ice core data is wrong then the calculation of necessity is also wrong.

Running models retrospectively is called hindcasting isn't it?

In fact you can see from the graph that muso posted, that the standard deviation increases from the 1950s to the 2050s.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 19^th, 2013 at 11:44am:

In fact you an see from the graph that muso posted, that the standard deviation increases from the 1950s to the 2050s.

I will scratch my monkey had for awhile and maybe smoke a durrie or two whilst snacking on these food items for thought, cheers!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 3:09am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 19th, 2013 at 11:44am: In fact you an see from the graph that muso posted, that the standard deviation increases from the 1950s to the 2050s. I will scratch my monkey had for awhile and maybe smoke a durrie or two whilst snacking on these food items for thought, cheers!

what do you mean?

---

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 9:04am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 20th, 2013 at 3:09am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 19th, 2013 at 11:44am: In fact you an see from the graph that muso posted, that the standard deviation increases from the 1950s to the 2050s. I will scratch my monkey had for awhile and maybe smoke a durrie or two whilst snacking on these food items for thought, cheers! what do you mean?

Monkey head... bloody typos: i will scratch my monkey head but now i realise how gross that sounds lol.... too tired! Ill interpret this graph stuff you were saying maybe over the weekend!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 3:14am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 20th, 2013 at 9:04am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 20th, 2013 at 3:09am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 19th, 2013 at 11:44am: In fact you an see from the graph that muso posted, that the standard deviation increases from the 1950s to the 2050s. I will scratch my monkey had for awhile and maybe smoke a durrie or two whilst snacking on these food items for thought, cheers! what do you mean? Monkey head... bloody typos: i will scratch my monkey head but now i realise how gross that sounds lol.... too tired! Ill interpret this graph stuff you were saying maybe over the weekend!

Yeah, those 3 monkeys you have are a problem...See No Reality, Hear No Reality and Speak No Reality...

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 3:14am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 20th, 2013 at 9:04am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 20th, 2013 at 3:09am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 19th, 2013 at 11:44am: In fact you an see from the graph that muso posted, that the standard deviation increases from the 1950s to the 2050s. I will scratch my monkey had for awhile and maybe smoke a durrie or two whilst snacking on these food items for thought, cheers! what do you mean? Monkey head... bloody typos: i will scratch my monkey head but now i realise how gross that sounds lol.... too tired! Ill interpret this graph stuff you were saying maybe over the weekend!

...forgiven

Namaste