MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

[Crick]

Nice graph of the urban heat island effect

Sorry, but that's bullshit. There are nearly a half dozen national or national-level institutions producing global temperature data and despite their independent data collection and processing the correlation between them is high. That says it is extremely likely that they are getting it right. Berkely Earth is one of those organizations and I'm sure you're familiar with their story.

 

[ding]

Sorry, but that's bullshit. There are nearly a half dozen national or national-level institutions producing global temperature data and despite their independent data collection and processing the correlation between them is high. That says it is extremely likely that they are getting it right. Berkely Earth is one of those organizations and I'm sure you're familiar with their story.

uh huh.

 

[Crick]

uh huh.

View attachment 650108

Wow, there's a world-shattering response. Do you actually have anything to say about the institutional consensus on global temperature trends?

 

[ding]

Wow, there's a world-shattering response. Do you actually have anything to say about the institutional consensus on global temperature trends?

It's not a popularity contest. You act like this is a slam dunk. It's far from that.

Scientists reach opposite conclusions based upon the datasets they use. Your guys include urban station temperature data and use the low variability solar output dataset. My guys exclude urban station temperature data and use the high variability solar output dataset. So don't act like there's only one game in town. There's not.

Correlation is not proof of causation. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not driven by CO2 or orbital forcing.

 

[Crick]

It's not a popularity contest. You act like this is a slam dunk. It's far from that.

Scientists reach opposite conclusions based upon the datasets they use. Your guys include urban station temperature data and use the low variability solar output dataset. My guys exclude urban station temperature data and use the high variability solar output dataset. So don't act like there's only one game in town. There's not.

Correlation is not proof of causation. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not driven by CO2 or orbital forcing.

It IS a popularity contest. Scientists examine the evidence and choose the hypothesis with the best evidentiary support. The one with the most support is the most likely to be correct. And the temperature records now produced by NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT, UAH, JAXA, Berkely Earth, C&W, ECMWF, NCDC in ridiculously close alignment are a slam dunk. Those records are compiled from measured temperature data. There is no solar irradiance data in them. Regarding UHI, check this out from The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

GISTEMP also adjusts to account for the effects of urban heat islands, which are differences in temperatures between urban and rural areas.

The procedure used to calculate GISTEMP hasn’t changed significantly since the mid-1980s, except to better account for data from urban areas. While the growing availability of better data has led to adjustments in GISTEMP’s regional temperature averages, the adjustments haven’t impacted GISTEMP’s global averages significantly.

While raw data from an individual station are never adjusted, any station showing abnormal data resulting from changes in measurement method, its immediate surroundings, or apparent errors, is compared to reference data from neighboring stations that have similar climate conditions in order to identify and remove abnormal data before they are input into the GISTEMP method. While such data adjustments can substantially impact some individual stations and small regions, they barely change any global average temperature trends.

In addition, results from global climate models are not used at any stage in the GISTEMP process, so comparisons between GISTEMP and model projections are valid. All data used by GISTEMP are in the public domain, and all code used is available for independent verification.

 

[ding]

It IS a popularity contest. Scientists examine the evidence and choose the hypothesis with the best evidentiary support. The one with the most support is the most likely to be correct. And the temperature records now produced by NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT, UAH, JAXA, Berkely Earth, C&W, ECMWF, NCDC in ridiculously close alignment are a slam dunk. Those records are compiled from measured temperature data. There is no solar irradiance data in them. Regarding UHI, check this out from The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

GISTEMP also adjusts to account for the effects of urban heat islands, which are differences in temperatures between urban and rural areas.

The procedure used to calculate GISTEMP hasn’t changed significantly since the mid-1980s, except to better account for data from urban areas. While the growing availability of better data has led to adjustments in GISTEMP’s regional temperature averages, the adjustments haven’t impacted GISTEMP’s global averages significantly.

While raw data from an individual station are never adjusted, any station showing abnormal data resulting from changes in measurement method, its immediate surroundings, or apparent errors, is compared to reference data from neighboring stations that have similar climate conditions in order to identify and remove abnormal data before they are input into the GISTEMP method. While such data adjustments can substantially impact some individual stations and small regions, they barely change any global average temperature trends.

In addition, results from global climate models are not used at any stage in the GISTEMP process, so comparisons between GISTEMP and model projections are valid. All data used by GISTEMP are in the public domain, and all code used is available for independent verification.

Great. Like I've been saying for months. Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of the recent warming trend depending on which datasets they consider. Your guys include urban station temperature data and use the low variability solar output dataset. My guys exclude urban station temperature data and use the high variability solar output dataset. So don't act like the science is settled. It's not. Correlation is not proof of causation. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not driven by CO2 or orbital forcing so there is no certainty that your guys are right and my guys are wrong.

 

[Crick]

Great. Like I've been saying for months. Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of the recent warming trend depending on which datasets they consider. Your guys include urban station temperature data and use the low variability solar output dataset. My guys exclude urban station temperature data and use the high variability solar output dataset. So don't act like the science is settled. It's not. Correlation is not proof of causation. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not driven by CO2 or orbital forcing so there is no certainty that your guys are right and my guys are wrong.

For the fourth time THERE ARE NO SOLAR OUTPUT DATA IN THOSE TEMPERATURE DATASETS

 

[ding]

For the fourth time THERE ARE NO SOLAR OUTPUT DATA IN THOSE TEMPERATURE DATASETS

Climate MODELS use either a low or high variability solar output dataset in the model. The panel on the left is using the low variability solar output dataset. The panel on the right is using the high variability solar output dataset.

 

[Crick]

Global temperature datasets are not created using GCMs. They are created from empirical data.

 

[ding]

Global temperature datasets are not created using GCMs. They are created from empirical data.

GCM's are used to explain why the temperature readings are what they are and not something else and the models relied upon by the IPCC are routinely adjusted to tune out natural climate variations.

 

[Crick]

You're dancing. Global temperature datasets are NOT CREATED USING GCMs. GCMs can and are used to determine what may be causing trends. For instance, models that do NOT include AGW are unable to recreate the current warming trend. Models with AGW can match the historical trend quite closely.

 

[ding]

You're dancing. Global temperature datasets are NOT CREATED USING GCMs. GCMs can and are used to determine what may be causing trends. For instance, models that do NOT include AGW are unable to recreate the current warming trend. Models with AGW can match the historical trend quite closely.

I didn't say global temperature datasets are created using GCM's.

 

[Crick]

I didn't say global temperature datasets are created using GCM's.

These certainly look like temperature datasets to me. And they aren't labeled "modeled" in bold like your last one. From your post #362

 

[ding]

These certainly look like temperature datasets to me. And they aren't labeled "modeled" in bold like your last one. From your post #362
View attachment 651830

Yes, those are observed temperatures. Can't put anything past you. That's the data the models are history matching. Do you understand the concept of history matching?

 

[Crick]

Yes, those are observed temperatures. Can't put anything past you. That's the data the models are history matching. Do you understand the concept of history matching?

I have to admit that having come to the conclusion some time ago that you're not all that smart, I don't spend a lot of time examining your claims. That's why I have had you on ignore for months. I would only look at your posts if there was nothing else to look at. So, my limited understanding of the basis of this logical threat is that you are claiming that scientists come to different conclusions depending on which temperature dataset they look at. Now that contention leaves a lot of questions unanswered that I really didn't think an in-depth conversation with you warranted asking. But give your persistence, let's have a go at it.

What particular scientists do you believe changed their minds as to the cause of warming depending on what dataset they look at?

Did each of these scientist see both datasets or were there two test groups, each shown only one of the generated datasets? Because, when you use the phrase "changed their minds", it reather strenuously implies that all the scientists in question saw both datasets.

Do these scientists know that they are looking at two different model-generated datasets and therefore know the provenence behind each? Because, if they knew why the two datasets differ, they would credit that difference and realize that both are 'measurements' of the same reality. But if they did not know the provenence behind the two sets, why should anyone be surised that they would come to the wrong conclusion about what produced them? When you lie to people, do not be surprised that they do not come up with correct answers.

 

[ding]

I have to admit that having come to the conclusion some time ago that you're not all that smart, I don't spend a lot of time examining your claims. That's why I have had you on ignore for months. I would only look at your posts if there was nothing else to look at. So, my limited understanding of the basis of this logical threat is that you are claiming that scientists come to different conclusions depending on which temperature dataset they look at. Now that contention leaves a lot of questions unanswered that I really didn't think an in-depth conversation with you warranted asking. But give your persistence, let's have a go at it.

What particular scientists do you believe changed their minds as to the cause of warming depending on what dataset they look at?

Did each of these scientist see both datasets or were there two test groups, each shown only one of the generated datasets? Because, when you use the phrase "changed their minds", it reather strenuously implies that all the scientists in question saw both datasets.

Do these scientists know that they are looking at two different model-generated datasets and therefore know the provenence behind each? Because, if they knew why the two datasets differ, they would credit that difference and realize that both are 'measurements' of the same reality. But if they did not know the provenence behind the two sets, why should anyone be surised that they would come to the wrong conclusion about what produced them? When you lie to people, do not be surprised that they do not come up with correct answers.

If you want to pretend the IPCC models don't include urban temperature station data, use the low variability solar out put dataset instead of the high variability dataset and routinely tune their models to tune out natural variations, that's up to you.

But the only point I am making is the IPCC models use circular logic and cherry picked data that has nothing to do with the radiative forcing of CO2 and everything to do with the urban heat island effect.

 

[Stryder50]

That the public's imagination should be tickled by the conclusions of scientific research does not detract from the validity of those conclusions

That the majority of the "scientific research" you reference, such as your chain of links/URLs in post #6, receive funding to prove an 'a priory' supporting the ACC/AGW hypothesis, does detract from the validity and psuedo-objectivity of those conclusions.

 

[Crick]

That the majority of the "scientific research" you reference, such as your chain of links/URLs in post #6, receive funding to prove an 'a priory' supporting the ACC/AGW hypothesis, does detract from the validity and psuedo-objectivity of those conclusions.

What are you trying to say with "prove an 'a priory' (sic) supporting the ACC/AGW hypothesis"? There are VERY few studies these days in which people attempt to find evidence for AGW. It is already widely accepted science. There has been no debate on the topic among actual scientists for several years now. I just went back to post #6. That was a collection of studies indicating (to Toddsterpatriot) that global warming was creating increased amounts of extreme weather. They were not attempting to "prove AGW". BtW, no study in the natural sciences attepts to PROVE anything. Astounding that you could strike out that many different ways in a single sentence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That was a collection of studies indicating (to Toddsterpatriot) that global warming was creating increased amounts of extreme weather.

Were any of them successful?

 

[Crick]

Were any of them successful?

I believe they all concluded that global warming was indeed causing increases in severe weather or increasingly severe weather. Whether any of them were successful at steering you towards the conclusions of mainstream science, I'd have to say I've seen nothing suggesting such a thing has happened. Shame though.