Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

[OohPooPahDoo]

OK. Maybe I'm wrong about what you are saying, but my understanding of the term "backradiation" is the radiation by the Earth's surface after absorbing radiation from the sun during the day - it's IR radiation (heat) that it emits as , what I understand to be, backradiation.

As you can see from the discussion above, CO2 absorbs a bit of that IR radiation, converts it to kinetic energy, which generates heat, of course. So, because the CO2 is generating heat, not much, but some, the heat from the Earth (what I understand to be backradiation) does not flow as much. Heat transfer is dependent upon temperature gradients, so that heat transfer (Earth back to space) is slowed.

So, without GHGs, we would lose much more heat during the night than we do.

That is my understanding of the term, backradiation. Of course, because of the misnomer "Greenhouse Effect", I could be completely wrong. Climate scientists have been know to use terms that have little to do with reality.

If I misunderstand you, please correct me.

That's an interesting question - how cold would the Earth get at night time with no greenhouse effect?

Will see if that's easily calculable.....

It probably is easier to calculate/model - fewer variables.

So, I just did a search of the backradiation term as it applies to the climate and I saw a cartoon that indicates the 'flows' of radiation. The backradiation arrow is toward earth. I would imagine that this is to indicate the heat generated from the CO2. Smaller flux, but still slows the flux of blackbody radiation from the Earth at night.

I still don't see any problem with that. Similar concept.

Edits:

EDIT1: Off the top of my head the answer is not much. The Earth is a huge mass and has a lot of thermal energy, and the amount that can radiate at night is tiny compared to that.

EDIT2: Yet night and day on the moon are very different temperatures. They are very different on Mercury, too, but that's because mercury is tidally locked so only one side is exposed to the sun all the time and the other remains night. Hmmmmm

Good examples.

I am not seeing much problem with what is described as the "Greenhouse Effect", except the name, of course. Grrrrrr.

The name is at least roughly correct. Radiation enters a greenhouse, generates heat, and the heat is trapped. The trapping mechanism is just different - one traps the actual hot air, the other traps the radiation

 

[Si modo]

That's an interesting question - how cold would the Earth get at night time with no greenhouse effect?

Will see if that's easily calculable.....

It probably is easier to calculate/model - fewer variables.

So, I just did a search of the backradiation term as it applies to the climate and I saw a cartoon that indicates the 'flows' of radiation. The backradiation arrow is toward earth. I would imagine that this is to indicate the heat generated from the CO2. Smaller flux, but still slows the flux of blackbody radiation from the Earth at night.

I still don't see any problem with that. Similar concept.

Edits:

EDIT1: Off the top of my head the answer is not much. The Earth is a huge mass and has a lot of thermal energy, and the amount that can radiate at night is tiny compared to that.

EDIT2: Yet night and day on the moon are very different temperatures. They are very different on Mercury, too, but that's because mercury is tidally locked so only one side is exposed to the sun all the time and the other remains night. Hmmmmm

Good examples.

I am not seeing much problem with what is described as the "Greenhouse Effect", except the name, of course. Grrrrrr.

The name is at least roughly correct. Radiation enters a greenhouse, generates heat, and the heat is trapped. The trapping mechanism is just different - one traps the actual hot air, the other traps the radiation

Grrrrr. Right. The heating mechanisms are different - conduction vs. radiatitive. And, I, of course, , have issues with the term "trap". The GHGs don't trap radiation. They absorb it. And, we both know the rest of the story.

See, this is one of the reasons I think there are a lot of misunderstanding about climate science. Terms confuse folks. I know you know what you are saying, but it can and will be barriers to understanding.

Anyway, I believe we all should try to increase understanding to others. Just a stickler for that sort of stuff because it can block understanding.

Just a peeve of mine.

 

[wirebender]

Why hasn't Mr. Postma tried to publish his work?

My bet would be the sort of gatekeeping and professional misconduct that prompted this thread in the first place.

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf Most of the paper all he does is attack a simplified classroom model that was never meant to be the all encompassing proof of AGW - real GCM's are far more sophisticated.[/QUOTE]

Not more sophisticated. They simply make a greater appeal to complexity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It probably is easier to calculate/model - fewer variables.

So, I just did a search of the backradiation term as it applies to the climate and I saw a cartoon that indicates the 'flows' of radiation. The backradiation arrow is toward earth. I would imagine that this is to indicate the heat generated from the CO2. Smaller flux, but still slows the flux of blackbody radiation from the Earth at night.

I still don't see any problem with that. Similar concept.

Edits: Good examples.

I am not seeing much problem with what is described as the "Greenhouse Effect", except the name, of course. Grrrrrr.

The name is at least roughly correct. Radiation enters a greenhouse, generates heat, and the heat is trapped. The trapping mechanism is just different - one traps the actual hot air, the other traps the radiation

Grrrrr. Right. The heating mechanisms are different - conduction vs. radiatitive. And, I, of course, , have issues with the term "trap". The GHGs don't trap radiation. They absorb it. And, we both know the rest of the story.

See, this is one of the reasons I think there are a lot of misunderstanding about climate science. Terms confuse folks. I know you know what you are saying, but it can and will be barriers to understanding.

Anyway, I believe we all should try to increase understanding to others. Just a stickler for that sort of stuff because it can block understanding.

Just a peeve of mine.

Well in that sense, a real greenhouse doesn't "trap" air - it simply reduces the flow rate of air out of the greenhouse.

EDIT: I mean, in a generalized sense, you can consider a "greenhouse effect" to be any case where energy enters a system easily in one form, but then changes forms and because of that, has trouble escaping from the system.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why hasn't Mr. Postma tried to publish his work?

My bet would be the sort of gatekeeping and professional malfeasance that prompted this thread in the first place.

So now - because a few thousand emails got released - all of a sudden, the literally dozens of peer reviewed scientific journals that would accept a paper in this subject have all conspired together to rig science and keep out views that Al Gore isn't paying them to have.

Got it. Don't need evidence - it just sounds right to you, so it must be true!

 

[Si modo]

Why hasn't Mr. Postma tried to publish his work?

My bet would be the sort of gatekeeping and professional malfeasance that prompted this thread in the first place.

So now - because a few thousand emails got released - all of a sudden, the literally dozens of peer reviewed scientific journals that would accept a paper in this subject have all conspired together to rig science and keep out views that Al Gore isn't paying them to have.

Got it. Don't need evidence - it just sounds right to you, so it must be true!

I think that is the entire point.

The last batch of released email showed collusion, among other things, to keep papers from passing peer, not because the science was bad, but because some did not like the results.

This batch demonstrates a bit of the same, but also concern about concealing relevant data, among other things.

Can science and scientists be trusted after folks see this? I believe it is a reasonable doubt.

So, the point is when folks see this is can the science be trusted? As a scientist, I am no fan of folks questioning my integrity in that area. I would imagine most scientists would have the same view.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My bet would be the sort of gatekeeping and professional malfeasance that prompted this thread in the first place.

So now - because a few thousand emails got released - all of a sudden, the literally dozens of peer reviewed scientific journals that would accept a paper in this subject have all conspired together to rig science and keep out views that Al Gore isn't paying them to have.

Got it. Don't need evidence - it just sounds right to you, so it must be true!

I think that is the entire point.

The last batch of released email showed collusion, among other things, to keep papers from passing peer, not because the science was bad, but because some did not like the results.

This batch demonstrates a bit of the same, but also concern about concealing relevant data, among other things.

Can science and scientists be trusted after folks see this? I believe it is a reasonable doubt.

So, the point is when folks see this is can the science be trusted? As a scientist, I am no fan of folks questioning my integrity in that area. I would imagine most scientists would have the same view.

Sorry but in this latest batch all any poster has shown me is some email making vague references to a Mann paper and asking another person about some data that was excluded.

 

[Si modo]

So now - because a few thousand emails got released - all of a sudden, the literally dozens of peer reviewed scientific journals that would accept a paper in this subject have all conspired together to rig science and keep out views that Al Gore isn't paying them to have.

Got it. Don't need evidence - it just sounds right to you, so it must be true!

I think that is the entire point.

The last batch of released email showed collusion, among other things, to keep papers from passing peer, not because the science was bad, but because some did not like the results.

This batch demonstrates a bit of the same, but also concern about concealing relevant data, among other things.

Can science and scientists be trusted after folks see this? I believe it is a reasonable doubt.

So, the point is when folks see this is can the science be trusted? As a scientist, I am no fan of folks questioning my integrity in that area. I would imagine most scientists would have the same view.

Sorry but in this latest batch all any poster has shown me is some email making vague references to a Mann paper and asking another person about some data that was excluded.

You were given part of the conversation and a link to the rest of that convo. ???? The site rules prevent including the entire page.

And, there are plenty more at the numerous links you've been given.

And, that single one, demonstrates an intentional lack of transparency and data exclusion (not for statistical reasons, either), which you know is not any part of scientific integrity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I think that is the entire point.

The last batch of released email showed collusion, among other things, to keep papers from passing peer, not because the science was bad, but because some did not like the results.

This batch demonstrates a bit of the same, but also concern about concealing relevant data, among other things.

Can science and scientists be trusted after folks see this? I believe it is a reasonable doubt.

So, the point is when folks see this is can the science be trusted? As a scientist, I am no fan of folks questioning my integrity in that area. I would imagine most scientists would have the same view.

Sorry but in this latest batch all any poster has shown me is some email making vague references to a Mann paper and asking another person about some data that was excluded.

You were given part of the conversation and a link to the rest of that convo. ???? The site rules prevent including the entire page.

And, there are plenty more at the numerous links you've been given.

And, that single one, demonstrates an intentional lack of transparency and data exclusion (not for statistical reasons, either), which you know is not any part of scientific integrity.

Show me the best link you've got. I'll read it because I know (unlike other posters) you have actually read most of it yourself.

 

[Si modo]

Sorry but in this latest batch all any poster has shown me is some email making vague references to a Mann paper and asking another person about some data that was excluded.

You were given part of the conversation and a link to the rest of that convo. ???? The site rules prevent including the entire page.

And, there are plenty more at the numerous links you've been given.

And, that single one, demonstrates an intentional lack of transparency and data exclusion (not for statistical reasons, either), which you know is not any part of scientific integrity.

Show me the best link you've got. I'll read it because I know (unlike other posters) you have actually read most of it yourself.

It's hard to choose. In this one, they admit that Mann padded his data. Although, they THINK that padding would have little effect. Who the hell pads their data in a peer-reviewed publication?

In this one, they deliberately EXCLUDED tree ring data since 1950, because it shows a decline in temperatures. The entire convo, time stamped, is there.

Here, from FOIA, shows data exclusion and confirms the non-falsifiability of the Mann model (the input of random time series). Non-falsifiable models have no business in anything scientific.

/// Temperature Reconstructions ///

Wilson:

any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.

Jones:

what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

Mitchell/MetO

Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no

Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.

Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

Esper:

Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?

Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.

Cook:

One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.​

Here, the collusion is clear that the emails are to be deleted specifically because of ClimateAudit (2009 emails) and FOIA.

I could go on, but each set of convos I have read so far (over 100, I guesstimate) is relevant to the misconduct.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You were given part of the conversation and a link to the rest of that convo. ???? The site rules prevent including the entire page.

And, there are plenty more at the numerous links you've been given.

And, that single one, demonstrates an intentional lack of transparency and data exclusion (not for statistical reasons, either), which you know is not any part of scientific integrity.

Show me the best link you've got. I'll read it because I know (unlike other posters) you have actually read most of it yourself.

It's hard to choose. In this one, they admit that Mann padded his data. Although, they THINK that padding would have little effect. Who the hell pads their data in a peer-reviewed publication?

In this one, they deliberately EXCLUDED tree ring data since 1950, because it shows a decline in temperatures. The entire convo, time stamped, is there.

Here, from FOIA, shows data exclusion and confirms the non-falsifiability of the Mann model (the input of random time series). Non-falsifiable models have no business in anything scientific.

/// Temperature Reconstructions ///

Wilson:

any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.

Jones:

what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

Mitchell/MetO

Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no

Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.

Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

Esper:

Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?

Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.

Cook:

One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.​

Here, the collusion is clear that the emails are to be deleted specifically because of ClimateAudit (2009 emails) and FOIA.

I could go on, but each set of convos I have read so far (over 100, I guesstimate) is relevant to the misconduct.

Beginning with the first:

Mike did pad his data a little at the ends and beginning to get common periods, but only by a maximum of 10 years. This would make little difference. You can just average the
lot and get pretty much the same result.

What specifically does this refer to? What is "padding data" ? What data is being padded and how?

 

[westwall]

Show me the best link you've got. I'll read it because I know (unlike other posters) you have actually read most of it yourself.

It's hard to choose. In this one, they admit that Mann padded his data. Although, they THINK that padding would have little effect. Who the hell pads their data in a peer-reviewed publication?

In this one, they deliberately EXCLUDED tree ring data since 1950, because it shows a decline in temperatures. The entire convo, time stamped, is there.

Here, from FOIA, shows data exclusion and confirms the non-falsifiability of the Mann model (the input of random time series). Non-falsifiable models have no business in anything scientific.

/// Temperature Reconstructions ///

Wilson:

any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.

Jones:

what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

Mitchell/MetO

Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no

Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.

Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

Esper:

Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?

Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.

Cook:

One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.​

Here, the collusion is clear that the emails are to be deleted specifically because of ClimateAudit (2009 emails) and FOIA.

I could go on, but each set of convos I have read so far (over 100, I guesstimate) is relevant to the misconduct.

Beginning with the first:

Mike did pad his data a little at the ends and beginning to get common periods, but only by a maximum of 10 years. This would make little difference. You can just average the
lot and get pretty much the same result.

What specifically does this refer to? What is "padding data" ? What data is being padded and how?

This refers to his data set for the hockey stick graph. McIntyre was able to deduce that the entire graph was formulated by the data from a single tree within a specific grove of trees (the rest of the trees showed the cooling trend beginning in the 1950's that led to the hysteria in the 1970's of a coming ice age) and it was his and McKitricks concerns that prompted NAS to review his findings.

They concluded in the Wegman report that...

"The recently released final report of a panel of three independent statisticians,
chaired by an eminent statistics professor, Edward Wegman, chairman of the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee on theoretical and applied
statistics, has resoundingly upheld criticisms of the famous "hockey stick" graph
of Michael Mann and associates.
The Wegman report, which was submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives
energy and commerce committee in July, stated that our published criticisms of
Mann's methodology were "valid and compelling," and concluded that "Mann's
assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the
millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be
supported by his analysis."
This comes on the heels of an earlier report in June by a National Research
Council (NRC) panel chaired by Gerald North, of Texas A&M University, which
also endorsed specific criticisms of Mann's methodology and which concluded
that no statistical confidence could be placed in his claims that"

 

[wirebender]

So now - because a few thousand emails got released - all of a sudden, the literally dozens of peer reviewed scientific journals that would accept a paper in this subject have all conspired together to rig science and keep out views that Al Gore isn't paying them to have.

Got it. Don't need evidence - it just sounds right to you, so it must be true!

The evidence is there. To bad you won't see it.

By the way, thanks for the comment on my CP. It erased any doubts I might have had about the sort of person you are and the content of your character. Challenge your intellectual integrity and you immediately call your antagonist a child molester. With that, you said all you need say about who and what you really are.

 

[konradv]

So now - because a few thousand emails got released - all of a sudden, the literally dozens of peer reviewed scientific journals that would accept a paper in this subject have all conspired together to rig science and keep out views that Al Gore isn't paying them to have.

Got it. Don't need evidence - it just sounds right to you, so it must be true!

The evidence is there. To bad you won't see it.

By the way, thanks for the comment on my CP. It erased any doubts I might have had about the sort of person you are and the content of your character. Challenge your intellectual integrity and you immediately call your antagonist a child molester. With that, you said all you need say about who and what you really are.

Why should we trust what you see in the evidence? It's become quite clear that you don't even know the difference between a photon and heat!!! I agree calling someone a child molester is dirty pool, but you have no room to talk on the "intellectual integrity" issue.

 

[Si modo]

So now - because a few thousand emails got released - all of a sudden, the literally dozens of peer reviewed scientific journals that would accept a paper in this subject have all conspired together to rig science and keep out views that Al Gore isn't paying them to have.

Got it. Don't need evidence - it just sounds right to you, so it must be true!

The evidence is there. To bad you won't see it.

By the way, thanks for the comment on my CP. It erased any doubts I might have had about the sort of person you are and the content of your character. Challenge your intellectual integrity and you immediately call your antagonist a child molester. With that, you said all you need say about who and what you really are.

Why should we trust what you see in the evidence?

....

No one expects you to, Konrad. That's why just a smidgen of the evidence has been presented to you.

If you missed the links or the quotes, I will be happy to tell you in what posts they are.

There are plenty more conversations (via hacking and/or FOIA supoenas) you can read demonstrating the misconduct, too.