2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[IanC]

Ian C -

In an age where there are literally dozens of sets of data and hundreds of monitoring stations, it makes little sense to me to obsess about the one that may have been altered for any one of a dozen perfectly good reasons.

I’ll leave the final words to Trausti Jonsson, one of the most experienced and respected scientists at the Iceland Met Office :-

In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.

I think you must agree that this is a rather dramatic change! the GHCN was contacted over a year ago for a fuller explanation than just being pointed to this website (sorry the link no longer goes through. it appears that they have joined GISS in making large areas of their work inaccessible). no answer was forthcoming.


it is amazing that almost everytime you look closely at some aspect of climate science it turns out to be either shoddy or distorted.

 

[SSDD]

It seems to come to the fact that you and the other denier cultists are too ignorant about science to know what you're talking about. You don't understand why climate scientists are working with the data in some way so you assume that they must be wrong or deliberately altering the data to achieve a certain result. LOL. It's your ignorance, not the scientific methodology that is the problem. Too bad you're too brainwashed to recognize that fact.

So your claim is apparently that you aren't to ignorant to know why the numbers are being manipulated. Personally, I don't believe you when you claim to not be ignorant as you are completely unable to discuss the topic and endlessly cut and paste instead.

Give me in your own words (if you actually have any of your own words) a rational, scientific reason why since 2008, 739 months prior to 1960 have been cooled and 570 months since 1958 have been warmed. What rational, and honest reason could there be for cooling the temperature record from 50 years ago.

If you, as you claim, actually understand the science, then you should be able to give a lucid and interesting reason for this data manipulation in your own words. If you are just a cut and paste drone, as I suspect, then nothing more will be forthcoming from you than your usual impotent name calling.

 

[Saigon]

it is amazing that almost everytime you look closely at some aspect of climate science it turns out to be either shoddy or distorted.

Is it?

I think it's more amazing that there are probably close to a hundreds services collecting information on our climate, and of those you have found one major anomaly, and that in Iceland in 1965.

Even then, you have no reason to suggest that there was any foul play involved.

I call that clutching at straws.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Insisting other people to explain your own paranoid and largely fictional theories doesn't strike me as being particularly useful to the debate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ian C -

In an age where there are literally dozens of sets of data and hundreds of monitoring stations, it makes little sense to me to obsess about the one that may have been altered for any one of a dozen perfectly good reasons.

I’ll leave the final words to Trausti Jonsson, one of the most experienced and respected scientists at the Iceland Met Office :-

In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.

I think you must agree that this is a rather dramatic change! the GHCN was contacted over a year ago for a fuller explanation than just being pointed to this website (sorry the link no longer goes through. it appears that they have joined GISS in making large areas of their work inaccessible). no answer was forthcoming.


it is amazing that almost everytime you look closely at some aspect of climate science it turns out to be either shoddy or distorted.

There you have it!

They alter the data to fit their preconceived conclusions, that's not how science is done.

 

[IanC]

SSDD -

Universities rely on money and if there is enough of it, then they aren't so shy about compromizing principles...just look at how much money penn state has spent keeping data paid for by the public from public eyes....ditto for CRU, NOAA, NASA and GISS.

Again, you simply can not possibly believe this nonsense.

If you want to be a scpetic, then go with that, but at least try and come up with some kind of reason to deny science which isn't just that every university in the world is part of some giant conspiracy. And yes - it would be a giant conspiracy and not an "error cascade".

If every developed country in the world monitors its own climate independently - and we know they do - how could there be an "error cascade"?

You need to try to think this stuff through, rather than just flail away with whatever excuse springs to mind first.

do you ever actually look into skeptic's claims?

Penn State was one of the climategate inquiries, or should I say whitewashes, that gave a clean bill of health to climate science. PS only asked Mann whether he deleted emails or caused others to delete emails ( I cannot remember the other four main points offhand). when he denied it they simply accepted his word. there was no IT inspection to see if the emails were deleted, or deleted and put back later. there was no questioning of Wahl to see if he got the email from Mann and deleted the AR4 emails (he did). Penn State has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars protecting Mann from releasing those AR4 emails, in contrast to the one month it took to release Wegman's emails from Carnegie Mellon.

I could go on and on, especially about Mann.

do you remember the NAS panel that investigated the science behind the Hockey Stick Graph? who was worse? the panel for dropping the subject of the r2 validation statistics (even though they had been informed that they were very close to zero) after Mann said he didnt calculate them. or Mann for lying about calculating the r2 stats? when he finally released his computer methodology it had a built-in subprogram just for doing the r2s. is it conceivable that he didnt run them? or did he just ignore them once he found out he would be laughed at if he showed them to anyone? how could he lie so easily and why did they let him lie so easily?

saigon you think climate science is pristeen but in reality it is a stinking mess and there have been a lot of ethical lapses by more than a few scientists.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

I am sure there have been real cases of poor science. In any field which involves a thousand scientists, there will be one or two bad apples. And I have no problem accepting that there may have been some serious errors made somewhere along the line and, who knows, maybe even a whitewash.

But these are straws in a haybarn. Of the last 1,000 papers published on various aspects of climate change, perhaps 2 will contain some bad science.

Perhaps the charts for Iceland were wongly tampered with. Another hundred charts in other countries were not.

I just think the bigger picture is more important.

I have looked also into a few of the points sceptics have raised on this board, and I have to say that the intellectual standard has not been much higher than that of Holocaust denial.

Oddball posted a list of scpetical scientistific organisations the other day - one was funded by the automotive industry, two by coal and one by the Moonist Church.

He then posted a petition signed by 58 million-odd people. It then turns out most were tricked into signing, and few would sign the petition again. Names like 'I.C.Ewe' also appeared on the list if signatories.

At the time I see sceptics dealing with this kind of thing, perhaps I'll look into more valid lines on enquiry.

 

[SSDD]

Ian C -

I am sure there have been real cases of poor science. In any field which involves a thousand scientists, there will be one or two bad apples. And I have no problem accepting that there may have been some serious errors made somewhere along the line and, who knows, maybe even a whitewash.

But these are straws in a haybarn. Of the last 1,000 papers published on various aspects of climate change, perhaps 2 will contain some bad science.

How many papers accept mann's data and use it as if it were fact? Error cascade siagon. WHen poor data is accepted as fact and in turn used by others as if it were fact.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

So you mean like when sceptics use "scientific" papers as sources, and then Oddball lists details of sceptical scientific organisations, and it turns out that those sources were funded by the coal industry, the automotive industry or the Reverand Sun Myung Moon?

One thing I think any honest poster will agree on - scepticism is riddled with some of the most junk science ever presented in any field.

Until that is cleaned up, I doubt scepticism will ever have much impact.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

So you mean like when sceptics use "scientific" papers as sources, and then Oddball lists details of sceptical scientific organisations, and it turns out that those sources were funded by the coal industry, the automotive industry or the Reverand Sun Myung Moon?

Not at all. I have asked you repeatedly to provide one shred of hard proof that trenberth's energy budget and resulting model are correct. If they aren't then every bit of climate science today is in error as all models and projections are based upon that energy budget and model.

The claims that model makes are pure fantasy... it claims that the surface of the earth receives more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the sun.

As to the impact of skepticism...considering that the AGW hoax is funded at a rate of more than 1000 to 1 when compared to the skeptics...the fact that the argument remains is testament to the strength of the skeptic's argument. Weasly liars such as yourself really don't do much in the way of arguing against skeptics because you can't argue the science. If you would like to prove me wrong, then lets talk about trenberth's energy budget.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Why would you "repeatedly" ask me for proof about a topic I've never mentioned?

Seriously, dude, at least try and present solid, coherent arguments, otherwise no debate is possible at all.

 

[IanC]

Ian C -

I am sure there have been real cases of poor science. In any field which involves a thousand scientists, there will be one or two bad apples. And I have no problem accepting that there may have been some serious errors made somewhere along the line and, who knows, maybe even a whitewash.

But these are straws in a haybarn. Of the last 1,000 papers published on various aspects of climate change, perhaps 2 will contain some bad science.

Perhaps the charts for Iceland were wongly tampered with. Another hundred charts in other countries were not.

I just think the bigger picture is more important.

I have looked also into a few of the points sceptics have raised on this board, and I have to say that the intellectual standard has not been much higher than that of Holocaust denial.

Oddball posted a list of scpetical scientistific organisations the other day - one was funded by the automotive industry, two by coal and one by the Moonist Church.

He then posted a petition signed by 58 million-odd people. It then turns out most were tricked into signing, and few would sign the petition again. Names like 'I.C.Ewe' also appeared on the list if signatories.

At the time I see sceptics dealing with this kind of thing, perhaps I'll look into more valid lines on enquiry.

Saigon- perhaps I am not getting my point across clearly enough.

the adjustments made to Iceland's temperature records are not only happening there. it is happening in a substantial portion of all temperature stations, perhaps the majority. a few months ago I googled GISS temp graphs, and for everyone I could find I then went to the GISS website and compared the old graph with the up-to-date graph. about 80% of the examples showed either cooling of the past, warming of the present, or both. the changes made to Iceland are neither extreme nor uncommon. if you consider the changes in Iceland to be ill-considered, then there are hundreds or even thousands of other stations that need to be examined.

you say that only 2 of 1000 climate science papers contain 'bad science'. perhaps that is true for some areas but paleo reconstructions are almost all flawed with bad data and worse methodology. I feel sorry for the honest researchers who use reconstructions from someone like Mann. they have tainted their work through no fault of their own because peer review has failed so many times in the past, and the climate science community cannot find the fortitude to publically criticize past egregious errors.

last spring Gergis et al passed peer review but was demolished in web review. their failing? they published a good methodology but then failed to follow it, which lead to retraction. if they has simply described the usual cherry-picking then the skeptics would have complained but nothing would have happened and Gergis2012 would have a prominent place in AR5.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Why would you "repeatedly" ask me for proof about a topic I've never mentioned?

Seriously, dude, at least try and present solid, coherent arguments, otherwise no debate is possible at all.

You mention it de facto every time you claim that climate science is good science. It is all based on trenberth's energy budget...ergo, if that budget is wrong, then all climate science which is based upon it is wrong. You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of an error cascade.

 

[SSDD]

you say that only 2 of 1000 climate science papers contain 'bad science'. perhaps that is true for some areas but paleo reconstructions are almost all flawed with bad data and worse methodology. I feel sorry for the honest researchers who use reconstructions from someone like Mann. they have tainted their work through no fault of their own because peer review has failed so many times in the past, and the climate science community cannot find the fortitude to publically criticize past egregious errors.
.

He doesn't seem to be able to understand that it only takes a couple of papers early on that are considered to be important (like trenberth's energy budget and mann's hockey stick) to corrupt an entire field of science as so much of the present state of the science is built upon them. If they are flawed, then every paper after which took their conclusions at face value is also flawed.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD

How does one 'de facto mention' something, without ever mentioning it?

Try and post on topic, coherent points.

Time and again on these threads you seem to keep banging on about some nonsensical red herring that no one else as the slightest interest in.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

The story about Iceland is interesting, but without any real evidence, it's hard to know what to make of it.

It could be the sign of poor science - it could be the sign of good science.

Without hearing from a reliable source who knows the details, I wouldn't want to say more.

 

[ima]

SSDD -

Why would you "repeatedly" ask me for proof about a topic I've never mentioned?

Seriously, dude, at least try and present solid, coherent arguments, otherwise no debate is possible at all.

"97% of climate researchers most active in the field accept the concept of climate change"

The earth's climate is ALWAYS in constant change. Do the other 3% think that it isn't?

So if the earth's climate changes constantly, why should I care now that it's changing? I don't get it.

 

[polarbear]

Ian C -

I am sure there have been real cases of poor science. In any field which involves a thousand scientists, there will be one or two bad apples. And I have no problem accepting that there may have been some serious errors made somewhere along the line and, who knows, maybe even a whitewash.

But these are straws in a haybarn. Of the last 1,000 papers published on various aspects of climate change, perhaps 2 will contain some bad science.

Perhaps the charts for Iceland were wongly tampered with. Another hundred charts in other countries were not.

I just think the bigger picture is more important.

I have looked also into a few of the points sceptics have raised on this board, and I have to say that the intellectual standard has not been much higher than that of Holocaust denial.

Oddball posted a list of scpetical scientistific organisations the other day - one was funded by the automotive industry, two by coal and one by the Moonist Church.

He then posted a petition signed by 58 million-odd people. It then turns out most were tricked into signing, and few would sign the petition again. Names like 'I.C.Ewe' also appeared on the list if signatories.

At the time I see sceptics dealing with this kind of thing, perhaps I'll look into more valid lines on enquiry.

Saigon- perhaps I am not getting my point across clearly enough.

the adjustments made to Iceland's temperature records are not only happening there. it is happening in a substantial portion of all temperature stations, perhaps the majority. a few months ago I googled GISS temp graphs, and for everyone I could find I then went to the GISS website and compared the old graph with the up-to-date graph. about 80% of the examples showed either cooling of the past, warming of the present, or both. the changes made to Iceland are neither extreme nor uncommon. if you consider the changes in Iceland to be ill-considered, then there are hundreds or even thousands of other stations that need to be examined.

you say that only 2 of 1000 climate science papers contain 'bad science'. perhaps that is true for some areas but paleo reconstructions are almost all flawed with bad data and worse methodology. I feel sorry for the honest researchers who use reconstructions from someone like Mann. they have tainted their work through no fault of their own because peer review has failed so many times in the past, and the climate science community cannot find the fortitude to publically criticize past egregious errors.

last spring Gergis et al passed peer review but was demolished in web review. their failing? they published a good methodology but then failed to follow it, which lead to retraction. if they has simply described the usual cherry-picking then the skeptics would have complained but nothing would have happened and Gergis2012 would have a prominent place in AR5.

The changes made to the Iceland records were no exception.
The entire record collection had to be revised after "ignorant skeptics" pointed out the flaws & methodology:

Now the "corrected" version of of CRUTEM3 and HADCRUT3 have replaced the flawed data of the last 10 years. But the only thing that has been "corrected" was the standard deviation.
The root of the problem remains the same and has not been addressed:
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

In the latest update of CRUTEM3 we have made a number of corrections to the station level data on which the gridded product is based. The map below shows the locations of station data (grey dots) and highlights those that have been changed (coloured dots). Any subsequent changes will be similarly documented and we continue to welcome feedback.

The vast majority of the land based stations are still in densely populated urban heat islands within 45 deg. latitude of the equator and for the rest of the globe the distribution is still as poor as it`s been since the data collection started. The number of sampling points out in the oceans, the land mass north of 50N and south of 50S are still as sparse as they have been before this "correction" .

 

[SSDD]

SSDD

How does one 'de facto mention' something, without ever mentioning it?

Sorry, I didn't realise that I was talking over your head. When you make the cliaim that climate science is good science, you, by default, are making the claim that the underpinnings of climate science is good science. Obviously, you can provide no evidence whatsoever that said underpinnings in fact are good science.

Try and post on topic, coherent points.

Try to focus enough to see coherent points when they are given to you. If I must speak at a grammar school level in order for you to understand, then just say so.

Time and again on these threads you seem to keep banging on about some nonsensical red herring that no one else as the slightest interest in.

Sadly siagon, you are the only one who is crying red herring. Those who are interested in seeing you actually defend your position are simply waiting for you to do it. No rational defense seems to be forthcoming.

 

[SSDD]

The vast majority of the land based stations are still in densely populated urban heat islands within 45 deg. latitude of the equator and for the rest of the globe the distribution is still as poor as it`s been since the data collection started. The number of sampling points out in the oceans, the land mass north of 50N and south of 50S are still as sparse as they have been before this "correction" .

He doesn't seem to be able to think deeply enough to grasp the fact that the temperature record in those sparcely covered areas (most of the globe) are simple fabrications and have about as much actual meaning as the output of flawed computer models. It would be far to much to ask of him to actually notice that some of the areas of the globe that are claimed to have the most remarkable warming are oddly enough areas of the globe with the least instrumental coverage.