The IPCC: Bogus data on "Climate Sensitivity"!!!

[Saigon]

Depotoo -

I really have no idea at all where you might get such an idea - research into various aspects of climate is published every year, right around the world, and always has been. Certainly much of it might be in the form of updates, released data or focus on specifics like the fate of a group of local glaciers, rising ocean levels in local cities, etc, but it has always been available.

Of course scientific journals are looking for stories with a bit more international appeal than something on rising ocean levels in Bangladesh, but that does not mean such research has not been available through a number of channels.

SSDD often seems to fall into the trap of assuming American sources of data are the only ones that exist, whereas in fact - and as this story proves - there are endless sources of good material if you have the time or interest to go and look for it, but that might not ever appear in National Geographic, Time or Newsweek.

Just as one example - here is Finland's climate agency: http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/research

 

[Saigon]

Here is an example of local research....the kind of thing SSDD claims suffers from an international "error cascade", despite the fact that ALL of the data is sourced from within Finland, and that the results concern only Finland.

Thunderstorms in Finland:

Because of the high-latitude position of Finland (about 60-70N), the Finnish thunderstorm climatology can be termed as "modest". However, although the thunderstorm season is short, roughly from May to September, severe thunderstorms occur also in Finland every year.

Finnish thunderstorm research dates back to 1887, when observations of thunder days at observation sites were established on routine basis. These human observations were partly replaced in 1960 by a network of flash counters; the model of the counter was a Finnish version of the so called CIGRE-counter, widely used in different parts of the world. The counter was not able to locate flashes, but merely gave information about the number of flashes. The network made possible the automatic observations of lightning (thunder days and flash density).

In the early 1980's, the network was a further updated with a lightning location system (LLS). The system consisted of several electromagnetic sensors, which detected the low frequency pulses originating from the return strokes of ground flashes, and reported the signal azimuth; from the cross section of the azimuths, it was possible to estimate the strike point of the flash. The flash counter and LLS networks operated simultaneously for some time, which made possible the comparison of the data.

Thunderstorms in Finland - Ilmatieteen laitos

For the conspiracy theories to be false, not only would these results have to be falsified, but so would similar research conducted in 40 or more countries right around the world.

It is exactly this kind of research which is taken into consideration by global experts in the field of, say, thunderstorms, which allow us to build up a more global perspective of the thunderstorm patterns.

 

[IanC]

Depotoo -

I really have no idea at all where you might get such an idea - research into various aspects of climate is published every year, right around the world, and always has been. Certainly much of it might be in the form of updates, released data or focus on specifics like the fate of a group of local glaciers, rising ocean levels in local cities, etc, but it has always been available.

Of course scientific journals are looking for stories with a bit more international appeal than something on rising ocean levels in Bangladesh, but that does not mean such research has not been available through a number of channels.

SSDD often seems to fall into the trap of assuming American sources of data are the only ones that exist, whereas in fact - and as this story proves - there are endless sources of good material if you have the time or interest to go and look for it, but that might not ever appear in National Geographic, Time or Newsweek.

Just as one example - here is Finland's climate agency: Research - Ilmatieteen laitos

you never did find the Finnish historical temperature data from that site. let alone a copy from 10 or 20 years ago to compare with to see what changes have been made.

 

[IanC]

if anyone needs to focus, maybe it is you. Since the assessment came out, suddenly we do have other research findings being reported. Before that it was nil, whch I feel pretty certain is the time period in which the poster is speaking of. Though I know you are smart enough to know where they are coming from, and I believe you to just be trying to change that fact around to your advantage, hoping it will take, even though false.

"Before that it was nil"??

What ARE you talking about?

Are you seriously suggesting that the 40 or so countries collecting data did NOT release any research based on in until now?

I think we can be sure you do not believe that, either!

Reread what I stated. Yes, the research was there, but journals would not print it if it did not agree with the IPCC. Now that the IPCC has been brought to task, suddenly these journals are actually accepting and publishing other studies.

I believe you are correct to a large extent. many of the more prominent journals have a much higher standard that they apply to 'skeptical' papers and comments. climategate emails, and information produced on such sites as Climate Audit have shown pretty conclusively that science papers on climate with the 'wrong' stance have to buck a very high headwind while papers with seemingly obvious gaffs can get through quickly with 'pal' review.

 

[Saigon]

I believe you are correct to a large extent. many of the more prominent journals have a much higher standard that they apply to 'skeptical' papers and comments. climategate emails, and information produced on such sites as Climate Audit have shown pretty conclusively that science papers on climate with the 'wrong' stance have to buck a very high headwind while papers with seemingly obvious gaffs can get through quickly with 'pal' review.

It does make sense to me that in an era when most scientists consider the evidence of AGW to be overwhelming, science which contradicts that conclusion faces a greater challenge to be published. I understand sceptics find that irritating, but such is life.

Journals are not the only options - any research unit could publish material on their own website with very little cost involved.

Skooks has proven that good scientific material will be published, after all.

you never did find the Finnish historical temperature data from that site

True - I couldn't find it. It may be published through one of the other research units like VTT or Aalto University. I will look for it properly one day.

 

[IanC]

Google Image Result for http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2012/07/12607.jpg

In January 2009, Nature magazine ran the a "http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html">cover story (pictured) conveying dramatic news about Antarctica: that most of it had warmed significantly over the last
half-century. For years, the data from this frozen continent – with 90 percent of the world’s ice mass – had stubbornly refused to corroborate the global warming narrative. So the study, led
by Eric Steig of the University of Washington, was treated as a bit of a scoop. It reverberated around the world. Gavin Schmidt, from the
RealClimate blog, declared that Antarctica had silenced the sceptics. Mission, it
seemed, was accomplished: Antarctica was no longer an embarrassment to the global warming narrative.

He spoke too soon. The indefatigable Steve McIntyre started to scrutinise his followings along with Nicholas Lewis. They found several flaws: Steig et al had used too few data sequences to
speak for an entire continent, and had processed the data in a very questionable way. But when they wanted to correct him, in another journal, they quickly ran into an inconvenient truth about
global warming: the high priests do not like refutation. To have their critique (initial submission here,
final version here) of Steig’s work published, they needed to assuage the "http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-trick/">many demands of an anonymous ‘Reviewer A’ – whom they later found out to be Steig himself.

this is a perfect example of what I said. it has the added benefit of playing out, piece by piece, in Climate Audit. a faulty paper that should have been corrected in peer review, is corrected in web review and when no acknowlegements were made, a long and odious journey was made to attempt to get the corrections made public. it turns out that the myriad of changes demanded by the reviewers were actually initiated by the author of the paper being corrected. then to make matters worse, that author Eric Steig, had the gall to publically criticize the changes he had insisted on!

 

[depotoo]

Google Image Result for http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2012/07/12607.jpg

In January 2009, Nature magazine ran the a "http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html">cover story (pictured) conveying dramatic news about Antarctica: that most of it had warmed significantly over the last
half-century. For years, the data from this frozen continent – with 90 percent of the world’s ice mass – had stubbornly refused to corroborate the global warming narrative. So the study, led
by Eric Steig of the University of Washington, was treated as a bit of a scoop. It reverberated around the world. Gavin Schmidt, from the
RealClimate blog, declared that Antarctica had silenced the sceptics. Mission, it
seemed, was accomplished: Antarctica was no longer an embarrassment to the global warming narrative.

He spoke too soon. The indefatigable Steve McIntyre started to scrutinise his followings along with Nicholas Lewis. They found several flaws: Steig et al had used too few data sequences to
speak for an entire continent, and had processed the data in a very questionable way. But when they wanted to correct him, in another journal, they quickly ran into an inconvenient truth about
global warming: the high priests do not like refutation. To have their critique (initial submission here,
final version here) of Steig’s work published, they needed to assuage the "http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-trick/">many demands of an anonymous ‘Reviewer A’ – whom they later found out to be Steig himself.

this is a perfect example of what I said. it has the added benefit of playing out, piece by piece, in Climate Audit. a faulty paper that should have been corrected in peer review, is corrected in web review and when no acknowlegements were made, a long and odious journey was made to attempt to get the corrections made public. it turns out that the myriad of changes demanded by the reviewers were actually initiated by the author of the paper being corrected. then to make matters worse, that author Eric Steig, had the gall to publically criticize the changes he had insisted on!

pretty sad commentary isn't it?

 

[SSDD]

you never did find the Finnish historical temperature data from that site. let alone a copy from 10 or 20 years ago to compare with to see what changes have been made.

He is not likely to either...seeing that his precious finnish scientists have altered their data just like everyone else would send him screaming into the countryside.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

This thread has proven that there is no global conspiracy. This thread proves that there are countries like Norway conducting independent research and reaching independent conclusions.

The Finnish temperature data is available, but I can't find it in English.

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

This thread has proven that there is no global conspiracy. This thread proves that there are countries like Norway conducting independent research and reaching independent conclusions.

The Finnish temperature data is available, but I can't find it in English.

Find it for us in Finnish. We can run with it from there.

 

[Saigon]

Find it for us in Finnish. We can run with it from there.

Seriously? I could post an article on race horse results and you'd be none the wiser!

I'll try and find it in English tomorrow, but if not of course you can have the Finnish version if you like.

 

[westwall]

Find it for us in Finnish. We can run with it from there.

Seriously? I could post an article on race horse results and you'd be none the wiser!

I'll try and find it in English tomorrow, but if not of course you can have the Finnish version if you like.

No, post it in Finnish. I have many friends in Finland who will happily translate for me.

 

[Saigon]

No, post it in Finnish. I have many friends in Finland who will happily translate for me.

Hilarious as the idea of your friends "happily" spending 8 - 10 hours translating climate data for you is, I'll try and find it in English first.


Edited to add - ok, I have the material here. I'll post it tomorrow, as it will take a few minutes to translate the graph titles etc. After that I think it is relatively self-explanatory.

 

[westwall]

No, post it in Finnish. I have many friends in Finland who will happily translate for me.

Hilarious as the idea of your friends "happily" spending 8 - 10 hours translating climate data for you is, I'll try and find it in English first.


Edited to add - ok, I have the material here. I'll post it tomorrow, as it will take a few minutes to translate the graph titles etc. After that I think it is relatively self-explanatory.

Don't be ridiculous. Native speakers can translate in an hour or so. They can seperate the wheat from the chaff quite easily. And truly, I would prefer it in its original, unadulterated form.

 

[Saigon]

Native speakers can translate in an hour or so.

Can they really? So it wouldn't depend how long the text was, or how technical the vocab was?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

This thread has proven that there is no global conspiracy. This thread proves that there are countries like Norway conducting independent research and reaching independent conclusions.

The Finnish temperature data is available, but I can't find it in English.

You keep throwing up that conspiracy strawman...when no one is claiming conspiracy...error cascade...say it a few times...take a minute or two to learn what it means and try to actually form a coherent response based on what is being said to you rather than on your strawman.

The Finnish temperature data is available, but I can't find it in English.

Finns don't use numbers? They spell out temperature measurements?

 

[SSDD]

Don't be ridiculous. Native speakers can translate in an hour or so. They can seperate the wheat from the chaff quite easily. And truly, I would prefer it in its original, unadulterated form.

You don't expect any data to actually be deliverd do you? And if it is, it won't be the data originally requested.

 

[Saigon]

Don't be ridiculous. Native speakers can translate in an hour or so. They can seperate the wheat from the chaff quite easily. And truly, I would prefer it in its original, unadulterated form.

You don't expect any data to actually be deliverd do you? And if it is, it won't be the data originally requested.

So....you will agree to leave the board for one month if it is delivered?

And I'll leave if it isn't?

Would that be a fair bet?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

This thread has proven that there is no global conspiracy. This thread proves that there are countries like Norway conducting independent research and reaching independent conclusions.

The Finnish temperature data is available, but I can't find it in English.

You keep throwing up that conspiracy strawman...when no one is claiming conspiracy...error cascade...say it a few times...take a minute or two to learn what it means and try to actually form a coherent response based on what is being said to you rather than on your strawman.

The Finnish temperature data is available, but I can't find it in English.

Finns don't use numbers? They spell out temperature measurements?

Dear SSDD - how can there be an error cascade when Finland conducts its own observations and compiles its own data?

I am most interested to understand how this works!

Weirdly enough, most charts have a headline and brief explanation. These need to be transated. Otherwise I could post charts of toilet roll consumption and you wouldn't know the different.

 

[SSDD]

Dear SSDD - how can there be an error cascade when Finland conducts its own observations and compiles its own data?

Did finland invent its own unique climate science...its own unique set of atmospheric physics...its own unique energy budget...its own unique set of computer models? If not, then that is how an error cascade happens.

Take a minute or two and look at the error cascade the WORLDWIDE medical community has admitted that it has fallen victim to over the past decade or so...An error can begin anywhere...usually in a paper...if that error is not caught and passes through peer review, then future researchers simply reference the paper in which the error originated and is further reinforced as fact...with that sort of reinforcement going on, it doesn't take long before an error is accepted by an entire scientific community as fact.

The medical community is much more rigorous in its research than climate science and it has fallen victim to an error cascade of epic proportions....medicial science isn't the only branch of science to find itself in such a situation...and climate science is in the middle of an error cascade right now.

I am most interested to understand how this works!

Why lie. If you were really interested, it wouldn't have taken you 10 seconds to find some good material on the topic.

Here is a short article on the phenomenon...from there, if you are actually interested as opposed to pretend interested for condescension's sake, you might want to look at some of the more technical papers on the topic highlighting how the medical research community world wide got into the position it is in and how they are going about rooting out the fundamental errors and correcting them...and how they forsee avoiding this sort of thing in the past.

Error cascade: a definition and examples