2016 Arctic sea ice thread

[Crick]

I've gone back several pages and cannot discern what it is that Matthew's purported video shows a Berkely professor doing. You seem to know, Ian. What would it be?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I've gone back several pages and cannot discern what it is that Matthew's purported video shows a Berkely professor doing. You seem to know, Ian. What would it be?

I spent about a half hour looking myself but it is a video by Professor Richard A. Muller, which in one of his physics classes uses a heat lap, fish ball,etc to show that co2 does warm. It is one of his physics for future presidents classes but the ones I looked over didn't have this experiement from 2006-2007..So it must of been another term or year.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've gone back several pages and cannot discern what it is that Matthew's purported video shows a Berkely professor doing. You seem to know, Ian. What would it be?

Matty answered in response to this,

"It that were true why doesn't 120PPM of CO2 cause any warming in the lab?"

 

[IanC]

I went through Muller's videos a few years back. there was no experiment with a difference of 120 ppm CO2. there may have been an experiment but it was with increases many orders of magnitude larger than 120.

because I had seen the videos I knew that the only thing Muller was skeptical about was Mann's atrocious disdain for the scientific method.

 

[Crick]

And yet he arrived at precisely the same result when the BEST study was complete. What a surprise.

 

[jc456]

And yet he arrived at precisely the same result when the BEST study was complete. What a surprise.

And that's when a statement was made that any data would produce Mann's result. And why the calculations are bogus. Try again

 

[Crick]

And yet he arrived at precisely the same result when the BEST study was complete. What a surprise.

And that's when a statement was made that any data would produce Mann's result. And why the calculations are bogus. Try again

That is incorrect. The BEST study took place long after Wegman, McIntrye and McKittrick had their little go at Mann.See Summary of Findings - Berkeley Earth

 

[IanC]

And yet he arrived at precisely the same result when the BEST study was complete. What a surprise.

???? Muller redid Mann's work? when? can you link me up?

 

[IanC]

 

[jc456]

And yet he arrived at precisely the same result when the BEST study was complete. What a surprise.

And that's when a statement was made that any data would produce Mann's result. And why the calculations are bogus. Try again

That is incorrect. The BEST study took place long after Wegman, McIntrye and McKittrick had their little go at Mann.See Summary of Findings - Berkeley Earth

Well sir, there are others who have been in the fight saying stuff like:

"According to real scientists, the graph also gave extreme weighting to datasets that showed unusual 20th-century warming at the expense of those that did not. And the program that Mr Mann created to draw the graph would have shown the 20th century as unusually warm even if random red noise rather than real-world data were fed in. There were numerous other statistical curiosities. Mr Mann’s graph is perhaps the most laughable and widely-discredited object in the history of bad science supporting worse politics.""

Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Michael Mann's hockey stick graph is the most laughable & widely discredited object in the history of science

Monckton to Mann: Forget personalities, science is about truth
Source: Christopher Monckton, The SPPI Blog

Lord Monckton
The Editor, Richmond Times-Dispatch, August 15, 2013.

 

[Old Rocks]

Monckton, eh? Lord Monckton? The lying bastard is not a Lord, and he is not a scientist. He is a fraud, the truth is not in him. That you refer to him simply demonstrates your idiocy.

 

[jc456]

Monckton, eh? Lord Monckton? The lying bastard is not a Lord, and he is not a scientist. He is a fraud, the truth is not in him. That you refer to him simply demonstrates your idiocy.

you don't even know him and you act as if you're Mann. Mann I'd expect doesn't care much for him since he proved his shit stupid. LOL. dude you have to get over yourself. Mann lied accept it. he has.

 

[Crick]

Monckton is very clever at sounding as if he knows what he's talking about, when he is talking with folks unfamiliar with the topic. He is, in fact, completely unqualified to speak to the subject of AGW. His statements have been widely and roundly refuted on more than one occasion. Quoting Monckton on AGW is akin to quoting Donald Trump on diction and syntax.

 

[Old Rocks]

'Lord' Monckton is a fraud in his claim to be a member of the House of Lords, and is the same in all his other claims.

Climate sceptic Lord Monckton told he's not member of House of Lords

The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic and the UK Independence party's head of research, should stop claiming to be a member of the upper house.

The move follows a testy interview given by Monckton to an Australian radio station earlier this month in which he repeated his long-stated belief that he is a member of the House of Lords. When asked by ABC Sydney's Adam Spencer if he was a member, he said: "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote … [The Lords] have not yet repealed by act of parliament the letters patent creating the peerage and until they do I am a member of the house, as my passport records. It says I am the Right Honourable Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. So get used to it."

The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords' website, states: "You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)."

 

[Olde Europe]

Look:

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER JULY 28, 2012

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. [...]

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. [...]

What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.​

 

[IanC]

Look:

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER JULY 28, 2012

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. [...]

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. [...]

What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.​

I have been through all this at the time that it was happening. I had great faith that Muller was going to do what he originally said he was going to do, create a fully accessible databank with all the temperature info, with various types of adjustments that could be implimented singly or in combination. this did not happen. between concept of the idea and the four BEST papers that were finally published in the first issue of a new Indian journal years after the initial preview, a lot of changes were made. perhaps he abdicated a lot of the actual grunt work to his daughter and his statisticians. Judith Curry actually requested that her name be taken off the papers.

the method for homogenization uses kriging and scalpel cuts. I believe this puts a constant pressure to increase the temperatures. while Muller admitted that roughly a third of all long term temperature series were cooling, after homogenization no series have a cooling trend. the use of data breaks with realignment with no metadata reasons is highly problematic to me. everything is simply adjusted to meet 'expectations'.

the paper on UHI is even more troubling, at least to me. concluding that urbanization is a cooling effect rather than a warming one goes against commonsense and measurement of reality.

 

[Crick]

And what do you conclude from all those feelings and impressions and commonsense? Has Muller joined the Grand Global Conspiracy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Look:

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER JULY 28, 2012

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. [...]

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. [...]

What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.​

I have been through all this at the time that it was happening. I had great faith that Muller was going to do what he originally said he was going to do, create a fully accessible databank with all the temperature info, with various types of adjustments that could be implimented singly or in combination. this did not happen. between concept of the idea and the four BEST papers that were finally published in the first issue of a new Indian journal years after the initial preview, a lot of changes were made. perhaps he abdicated a lot of the actual grunt work to his daughter and his statisticians. Judith Curry actually requested that her name be taken off the papers.

the method for homogenization uses kriging and scalpel cuts. I believe this puts a constant pressure to increase the temperatures. while Muller admitted that roughly a third of all long term temperature series were cooling, after homogenization no series have a cooling trend. the use of data breaks with realignment with no metadata reasons is highly problematic to me. everything is simply adjusted to meet 'expectations'.

the paper on UHI is even more troubling, at least to me. concluding that urbanization is a cooling effect rather than a warming one goes against commonsense and measurement of reality.

Bernie Madoff would still be raising funds if he were able to do AGW accounting.

Loss? What loss? We adjusted the loss to look like a gain

 

[Crick]

So, we're actually talking about Muller and a dozen other scientists. Did they ALL join the Grand Global Conspiracy?

 

[Olde Europe]

I have been through all this at the time that it was happening. I had great faith that Muller was going to do what he originally said he was going to do, create a fully accessible databank with all the temperature info, with various types of adjustments that could be implimented singly or in combination. this did not happen. between concept of the idea and the four BEST papers that were finally published in the first issue of a new Indian journal years after the initial preview, a lot of changes were made. perhaps he abdicated a lot of the actual grunt work to his daughter and his statisticians. Judith Curry actually requested that her name be taken off the papers.

the method for homogenization uses kriging and scalpel cuts. I believe this puts a constant pressure to increase the temperatures. while Muller admitted that roughly a third of all long term temperature series were cooling, after homogenization no series have a cooling trend. the use of data breaks with realignment with no metadata reasons is highly problematic to me. everything is simply adjusted to meet 'expectations'.

the paper on UHI is even more troubling, at least to me. concluding that urbanization is a cooling effect rather than a warming one goes against commonsense and measurement of reality.

That's a lot of assertions, with some innuendo mixed in, with nothing by way of support in the form of links, quotes, and I suspect that you got most of that from, say, "interested" sources.

As to your last paragraph: Urbanization, while resulting in heat islands, may still have a partly cooling effect, if urban areas reflect more (short wave) sunlight back into space than, say, forests do, while forests emit more water vapor, adding to the greenhouse effect more than cities do. Yeah, I know, that is counter-intuitive, but sometimes "common sense" doesn't suffice to understand the complexities of the earth's climate system.