Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Also I am not going to waste many more brain cells arguing with you MalabarJag but here are two studies that discuss the tropospheric hotspot.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007;jsessionid=BF2E4FB1F77915ADC6010A9F83D32C01.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org'>http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007;jsessionid=BF2E4FB1F77915ADC6010A9F83D32C01.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org</a>

Abstract

[font=inherit]
<span style="font-size:12px;">We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2), now extended through February 2013, following the method used in the original version (Sherwood et al 2008 Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data J. Clim. <a class="bbc_url" href='http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2320.1'>[font=inherit]21 5336–52</a>). This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model that includes both natural variability, trends, and time-changing instrument biases, thereby avoiding estimation biases inherent in traditional homogenization methods. One modification now enables homogenized winds to be provided for the first time. This, and several other small modifications made to the original method sometimes affect results at individual stations, but do not strongly affect broad-scale temperature trends. Temperature trends in the updated data show three noteworthy features. First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface. Second, as shown in previous studies, tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models. Third, cooling has slackened in the stratosphere such that linear trends since 1979 are about half as strong as reported earlier for shorter periods. Wind trends over the period 1979–2012 confirm a strengthening, lifting and poleward shift of both subtropical westerly jets; the Northern one shows more displacement and the southern more intensification, but these details appear sensitive to the time period analysed. There is also a trend toward more easterly winds in the middle and upper troposphere of the deep tropics.[/font]
The original IUK dataset (Sherwood et al <a class="bbc_url" href='http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007;jsessionid=BF2E4FB1F77915ADC6010A9F83D32C01.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org#erl510711bib20'>2008</a>) extended only through 2005. Here we present changes over time from an extension of this dataset through February 2013. These results confirm those of the other newer studies, suggesting that tropospheric warming has indeed proceeded as expected in spite of the problems that earlier studies have had in detecting it.
[font='franklin-gothic-urw-cond']3. Updated trend results[/font]
3.1. Temperature


<span style="font-size:12px;">The chief value of such records is in the more accurate estimation of long-term changes, of which the simplest characterization is the linear trend. The estimated temperature trend versus latitude and height (figure <a class="bbc_url" href='http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007;jsessionid=BF2E4FB1F77915ADC6010A9F83D32C01.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org#erl510711f1'>1</a>) is somewhat noisy since each latitude band is based on a different and independent set of stations, but its features are clearer and somewhat stronger than those shown in S08. A maximum can be seen in the tropical upper troposphere in every latitude band from about 30S–20N, centred near 300 hPa. Because the trend reliability varies significantly among stations (with very scattered results in particular for stations in India), we follow S08 in taking the median of stations in latitude bands, although results are not highly sensitive to this choice.
The time evolution of average temperature in the troposphere (from roughly 1.5–14 km) in each of three latitude bands agrees closely with those of the Hadley Centre-Climate Research Unit Temperature Version 4 (HadCRUT4) surface record (Morice et al <a class="bbc_url" href='http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007;jsessionid=BF2E4FB1F77915ADC6010A9F83D32C01.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org#erl510711bib13'>2012</a>), both in terms of overall warming trend and year-to-year variation (figure <a class="bbc_url" href='http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007;jsessionid=BF2E4FB1F77915ADC6010A9F83D32C01.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org#erl510711f3'>3</a>) supporting the accuracy of the estimates at least on large scales. Atmospheric warming is slightly slower than surface warming in the extratropical bands, but faster in the tropics, as expected. The southern extratropics warmed rapidly from 1960 up until the late 1970s but more slowly after that, while the Northern extratropics warmed only after the mid−1970s; these features are similar in the troposphere and surface data. Interestingly, tropical warming appears steadier in the troposphere than at the surface, and did not slow after 1998 despite slower warming in the surface record. This is the main reason why the trends are now slightly stronger than those shown in S08.
</span>

[/font]</span>

It doesnt matter what you do with false data, the outcomes are still false.

Quote:Not understanding what "significant" means makes it clear you don't have a background in science. If results are statistically significant it means that you accept or reject the null hypothesis (something like there is no warming or warming = 0). There are various test to determine the degree of significance usually based on the probability of having a 5% (p < 0.05, 95% confidence) chance of finding a difference as large or larger than the one in your study given that the null hypothesis is true. I'll give you a very basic illustration of how this works. 

 

Say I am interested in the effect of solar radiation on tropospheric warming, and using average temperatures over a span of 50 years as an endpoint. Say you took 100 temperature measurements for each of those 50 years (you might need to run a power calculation to determine if this is an adequate sample size).You could use other endpoints but I am using temperature as one in this example. 

 

HO (null hypothesis): Solar activity has no significant effect on tropospheric warming.

HAalternative hypothesis): Solar activity has a significant effect on tropospheric warming. 

 

So in this very very simplistic exercise you might run a ANOVA (this would probably be a bad test because the data is likely not normally distributed and the test is not very robust, Kruskal-Wallis, PERMANOVA, etc might be better). on the averages using a program like R.

 

The output will have a test statistic (F-value) and the degree of significance. Let's say we were testing at p < 0.05. If our results indicate p = 0.002, then we would reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative. We reject the null because at the significance level of 0.05, the results obtained happen too frequently for us to be confident that solar activity has a effect on tropospheric warming. The opposite can also happen. If p = 0.06, the you would accept the null and the results would indicate that solar activity has no effect on tropospheric warming. Again this is very very basic. 

 

You could do other things like create a linear mixed model but I won't get into that.

 

Blah Blah blah. A TLR treatise on statistics. You apparently want to claim that the evidence that CO2 is involved in the warming is statistically significant.  But that's not pertinent to the comment I was referring to. How significant is the warming? What percentage of the recent warming is caused by CO2?

Quote: 

Also I am not going to waste many more brain cells arguing with you MalabarJag but here are two studies that discuss the tropospheric hotspot. 

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108...ld.iop.org

 

Abstract

<div style="margin:0px;font-family:'minion-pro', Georgia, 'Times New Roman', STIXGeneral, serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);">
<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;">We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2), now extended through February 2013, following the method used in the original version (Sherwood <i>et al</i> 2008 Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data <i>J. Clim.</i> 21 5336–52). This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model that includes both natural variability, trends, and time-changing instrument biases, thereby avoiding estimation biases inherent in traditional homogenization methods. One modification now enables homogenized winds to be provided for the first time. This, and several other small modifications made to the original method sometimes affect results at individual stations, but do not strongly affect broad-scale temperature trends. Temperature trends in the updated data show three noteworthy features. First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface. Second, as shown in previous studies, tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models. Third, cooling has slackened in the stratosphere such that linear trends since 1979 are about half as strong as reported earlier for shorter periods. Wind trends over the period 1979–2012 confirm a strengthening, lifting and poleward shift of both subtropical westerly jets; the Northern one shows more displacement and the southern more intensification, but these details appear sensitive to the time period analysed. There is also a trend toward more easterly winds in the middle and upper troposphere of the deep tropics.

<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;">The original IUK dataset (Sherwood et al 2008) extended only through 2005. Here we present changes over time from an extension of this dataset through February 2013. These results confirm those of the other newer studies, suggesting that tropospheric warming has indeed proceeded as expected in spite of the problems that earlier studies have had in detecting it.

<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;">3. Updated trend results

<div style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;">3.1. Temperature
<div style="margin:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;">
<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;">The chief value of such records is in the more accurate estimation of long-term changes, of which the simplest characterization is the linear trend. The estimated temperature trend versus latitude and height (figure 1) is somewhat noisy since each latitude band is based on a different and independent set of stations, but its features are clearer and somewhat stronger than those shown in S08. A maximum can be seen in the tropical upper troposphere in every latitude band from about 30S–20N, centred near 300 hPa. Because the trend reliability varies significantly among stations (with very scattered results in particular for stations in India), we follow S08 in taking the median of stations in latitude bands, although results are not highly sensitive to this choice.

<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;">The time evolution of average temperature in the troposphere (from roughly 1.5–14 km) in each of three latitude bands agrees closely with those of the Hadley Centre-Climate Research Unit Temperature Version 4 (HadCRUT4) surface record (Morice et al 2012), both in terms of overall warming trend and year-to-year variation (figure 3) supporting the accuracy of the estimates at least on large scales. Atmospheric warming is slightly slower than surface warming in the extratropical bands, but faster in the tropics, as expected. The southern extratropics warmed rapidly from 1960 up until the late 1970s but more slowly after that, while the Northern extratropics warmed only after the mid−1970s; these features are similar in the troposphere and surface data. Interestingly, tropical warming appears steadier in the troposphere than at the surface, and did not slow after 1998 despite slower warming in the surface record. This is the main reason why the trends are now slightly stronger than those shown in S08.

<div style="margin:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;"> 
</div>
</div>
<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;"> 

</div>
 

</div>

 

You seem to gloss over this:



 

Quote: 

 

Second, as shown in previous studies, tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models. Third, cooling has slackened in the stratosphere such that linear trends since 1979 are about half as strong as reported earlier for shorter periods.

 

The very text admits that the models are wrong. The hot spot is supposed to be in the upper troposphere. The warming they are measuring is in the mid-troposphere, hence the not quite as high statement ("high" here refers to elevation). This does not support the existence of the hot spot.


Why are they using the limited radiosonde balloon data when the satellite data has full coverage of the region, and shows no hot spot? Could it be because the satellite data give an even worse fit to the models?


 

You have pasted parts of two papers. Both paper select data that fits the narrative (eliminating what doesn't fit) and adjust the remaining data to better fit the narrative. That's not what science does, that's what religion does.


 

And why are you not appalled at the lie from NASA.gov? If you really are a scientist you should be.

Quote:You seem to gloss over this:


 

 

The very text admits that the models are wrong. The hot spot is supposed to be in the upper troposphere. The warming they are measuring is in the mid-troposphere, hence the not quite as high statement ("high" here refers to elevation). This does not support the existence of the hot spot.


Why are they using the limited radiosonde balloon data when the satellite data has full coverage of the region, and shows no hot spot? Could it be because the satellite data give an even worse fit to the models?


 

You have pasted parts of two papers. Both paper select data that fits the narrative (eliminating what doesn't fit) and adjust the remaining data to better fit the narrative. That's not what science does, that's what religion does.


 

And why are you not appalled at the lie from NASA.gov? If you really are a scientist you should be.

 

This is part of the introduction which includes a review of the available literature. It is fairly common to point out gaps in knowledge, and to illustrate how your research fills these gaps in. So, saying previous models where "wrong" or missing key information isn't really big deal. Secondly, the paper does find evidence of tropospheric warming as summarized by (

 

Additionally I think you need to re-read the following text, because you've misinterpreted what they said.

 

Quote:Second, as shown in previous studies, tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models. Third, cooling has slackened in the stratosphere such that linear trends since 1979 are about half as strong as reported earlier for shorter periods.
 

 

This doesn't disprove the tropospheric hot spot in the upper region. They said the warming does not reach "quite" as high in the tropics and the subtropics when looking at previous studies and those included models. The rest of the paper addresses what the weakness of these models are and how their work improves on them. 

 

Quote:Why are they using the limited radiosonde balloon data when the satellite data has full coverage of the region, and shows no hot spot? Could it be because the satellite data give an even worse fit to the models?
 

 
Radiosonde balloon data is not only very reliable but strongly correlates with satellite data (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/sate...ments.html). However, satellite data does not offer the resolution of radiosonde balloon data. One of your climate denier websites even agrees (http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/new-sat...-balloons/). They say:
 

Quote:Satellites are not particularly good at finding the hot spot because it is a very thin layer over the tropics and satellites peering down from on high find it difficult to measure signals from 10km up and separate them from signals, say 8km up. Radiosondes are much better at resolving the different layers, which is really what matters — only the uppermost layer of water vapor counts, not the total column. Having said that, satellites are pretty handy over the oceans where not many weather balloons get released, and it would be good if we could use them.
 

 
You say it is "limited" but that is an inaccurate description.  Weather balloons work very well. 
 

Quote:Both paper select data that fits the narrative (eliminating what doesn't fit) and adjust the remaining data to better fit the narrative.
 

 

What proof do you have of this? What data have they eliminated and adjusted (other than noise which is common in any research). Fudging data is a serious accusation. Where is your proof?

 

Here is an excerpt that describes exactly what these scientist did:

 

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques—linear regression and Kriging.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">The results show that even though there has been a slowdown in the warming of the global average temperatures on the surface of the Earth, the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere except for a very thin layer at around 14-15km above the surface of the Earth where it has warmed slightly less.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-sci...t.html#jCp

It's telling that scientists are actually encouraged that differing points of view will no longer be punished and silenced.

 

That's not "killing" science... it's encouraging better science.  It's a direct mirror of flat earth vs round earth.  The propagandists called it "settled" (as did those who believed the world was flat,) but that's far from the truth.  The truth will guide to the answers, and not the opposite (which is what's happening with those with a militant political unscientific agenda.) 

Quote: 

<div>Radiosonde balloon data is not only very reliable but strongly correlates with satellite data (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/sate...ments.html). However, satellite data does not offer the resolution of radiosonde balloon data. One of your climate denier websites even agrees (http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/new-sat...-balloons/). They say:
 
"Satellites are not particularly good at finding the hot spot because it is a very thin layer over the tropics and satellites peering down from on high find it difficult to measure signals from 10km up and separate them from signals, say 8km up. Radiosondes are much better at resolving the different layers, which is really what matters — only the uppermost layer of water vapor counts, not the total column. Having said that, satellites are pretty handy over the oceans where not many weather balloons get released, and it would be good if we could use them."
 
You say it is "limited" but that is an inaccurate description.  Weather balloons work very well. 
</div>

 

Are you really arguing that balloon launches have the coverage of satellites? Really? How many radiosonde datasets did they use? Where were they launched (a map would be nice)? I doubt there were many over the oceans, which comprise most of the planet. Satellite coverage over the tropics is total.


Here is an article describing the latest satellite measurements (which find no hot spot) that also answers the criticism that the satellite data can't separate the layers.


 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-...l-hotspot/

 

Quote:What proof do you have of this? What data have they eliminated and adjusted (other than noise which is common in any research). Fudging data is a serious accusation. Where is your proof?

 

Here is an excerpt that describes exactly what these scientist did:

 

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes.
This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques—linear regression and Kriging.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them
," said Prof Sherwood.

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.544px;">The results show that even though there has been a slowdown in the warming of the global average temperatures on the surface of the Earth, the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere except for a very thin layer at around 14-15km above the surface of the Earth where it has warmed slightly less.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-sci...t.html#jCp

 

See the highlights above. They admit to removing data! Some of those removed changes were done to correct instrument drift. Eliminating those incorporated the drift into their data rather than removing an error. And somehow I doubt they actually looked at each case individually. If so it would be a first in CliSci.


And from your previous entry:


 

Quote: 

 

We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected

from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations.

 

How many models did they start with? One hundred? How many survived the purge? Twenty? Five? One? Whatever the numbers, the conclusion is that the eliminated models are garbage. How much tax was taken from hard working Americans to develop the garbage models?


You claim to be a scientist.


1) Link a paper you have published in a scientific journal.

2) What would happen to your job if the Federal Government cut off funding for climate change research? Are you tenured? You claim Environmental Science. Is your present funding not from the climate change pool?

Quote:Are you really arguing that balloon launches have the coverage of satellites? Really? How many radiosonde datasets did they use? Where were they launched (a map would be nice)? I doubt there were many over the oceans, which comprise most of the planet. Satellite coverage over the tropics is total.


Here is an article describing the latest satellite measurements (which find no hot spot) that also answers the criticism that the satellite data can't separate the layers.


 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-...l-hotspot/

 

 

See the highlights above. They admit to removing data! Some of those removed changes were done to correct instrument drift. Eliminating those incorporated the drift into their data rather than removing an error. And somehow I doubt they actually looked at each case individually. If so it would be a first in CliSci.


And from your previous entry:


 

 

How many models did they start with? One hundred? How many survived the purge? Twenty? Five? One? Whatever the numbers, the conclusion is that the eliminated models are garbage. How much tax was taken from hard working Americans to develop the garbage models?


You claim to be a scientist.


1) Link a paper you have published in a scientific journal.

2) What would happen to your job if the Federal Government cut off funding for climate change research? Are you tenured? You claim Environmental Science. Is your present funding not from the climate change pool?

 

You didn't actually read the paper did you? Where did I say balloons have more coverage than satellites? The website you linked was described in the climate denier website (http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/new-sat...-balloons/). This is what Dr. Roy Spencer said:

 

Roy Spencer has used new methods to improve the satellite signal of the hot spot, and is “increasingly convinced” the all important mysterious hot spot is really not there, which fits with 28 million weather balloons and humidity data too.  Satellites are not particularly good at finding the hot spot because it is a very thin layer over the tropics and satellites peering down from on high find it difficult to measure signals from 10km up and separate them from signals, say 8km up. Radiosondes are much better at resolving the different layers, which is really what matters — only the uppermost layer of water vapor counts, not the total column. Having said that, satellites are pretty handy over the oceans where not many weather balloons get released, and it would be good if we could use them.

 

The study I cited was published later in May 2015. 

 

Quote:See the highlights above. They admit to removing data! Some of those removed changes were done to correct instrument drift. Eliminating those incorporated the drift into their data rather than removing an error. And somehow I doubt they actually looked at each case individually. If so it would be a first in CliSci.
 

 

I honestly don't know else to say to you, other than that your level of ignorance is astounding. It's one thing to remove data, to force your predictions to match your hypotheses. However it is completely statistically valid to remove artifacts or nuisance factors. In fact, they are often controlled for in experiments. Somehow "you doubt they actually looked at each case individually"...That sounds like conjecture to me. 

 

Quote:How many models did they start with? One hundred? How many survived the purge? Twenty? Five? One? Whatever the numbers, the conclusion is that the eliminated models are garbage. How much tax was taken from hard working Americans to develop the garbage models?

You claim to be a scientist.

1) Link a paper you have published in a scientific journal.
2) What would happen to your job if the Federal Government cut off funding for climate change research? Are you tenured? You claim Environmental Science. Is your present funding not from the climate change pool?

 

 

Read the paper. How much tax was taken? Are you serious? So science shouldn't be funded when it fails to meet your own misinformed expectations?

 

I don't have anything to prove to you. I will not link a paper so you can know my personal information outside of academic/professional spheres. No thanks. 

 

I don't work in climate change research. My expertise is in microbial ecology/bioinformatics.

 

Funding comes from multiple departments: DOE, DOD, CDC, EPA, FDA, USDA, NSF...I'm funded by DOE, and partially by NSF.

 

Tenured? I'm not in academia.

Quote:Read the paper. How much tax was taken? Are you serious? So science shouldn't be funded when it fails to meet your own misinformed expectations?

 

I don't have anything to prove to you. I will not link a paper so you can know my personal information outside of academic/professional spheres. No thanks. 

 

I don't work in climate change research. My expertise is in microbial ecology/bioinformatics.

 

Funding comes from multiple departments: DOE, DOD, CDC, EPA, FDA, USDA, NSF...I'm funded by DOE, and partially by NSF.

 

Tenured? I'm not in academia.

 

I've already told you I can't read the full paper. The abstract stated that only a subset of models match the observations. Since you can read the paper I asked you how many models were included and how many were excluded. 
You can't be that clueless that you think tax dollars didn't pay for the models that didn't work. Your own list of funding sources is all from tax dollars taken by force from hard-working Americans. Hopefully it was better spent.

You claimed to be a scientist but you can't link to a published paper? Some scientist. And you still haven't addressed the NASA.gov lie. A real scientist should be outraged.


 

Risky career. If you are not in academia and not tenured, then you're up the creek if Trump significantly cuts DOE and EPA grants.

Quote:You didn't actually read the paper did you? Where did I say balloons have more coverage than satellites? The website you linked was described in the climate denier website (http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/new-sat...-balloons/). This is what Dr. Roy Spencer said:

 

Roy Spencer has used new methods to improve the satellite signal of the hot spot, and is “increasingly convinced” the all important mysterious hot spot is really not there, which fits with 28 million weather balloons and humidity data too.  Satellites are not particularly good at finding the hot spot because it is a very thin layer over the tropics and satellites peering down from on high find it difficult to measure signals from 10km up and separate them from signals, say 8km up. Radiosondes are much better at resolving the different layers, which is really what matters — only the uppermost layer of water vapor counts, not the total column. Having said that, satellites are pretty handy over the oceans where not many weather balloons get released, and it would be good if we could use them.

 

 

First off, the term "climate denier" is a slanderous hate-filled lie. That particular writer does not deny climate change, or even that CO2 is a factor. Your attack is a prime example of the lack of integrity of the entire CliSci community. (You also insulted me, well done).


If you read the entire discussion, the part you underlined refers to the problem before the new methods. It's clear she accepts the new method as valid. There is also a discussion of the problems with the radiosonde paper you linked to.

Quote:You seem to gloss over this:


 

 

The very text admits that the models are wrong. The hot spot is supposed to be in the upper troposphere. The warming they are measuring is in the mid-troposphere, hence the not quite as high statement ("high" here refers to elevation). This does not support the existence of the hot spot.


Why are they using the limited radiosonde balloon data when the satellite data has full coverage of the region, and shows no hot spot? Could it be because the satellite data give an even worse fit to the models?


 

You have pasted parts of two papers. Both paper select data that fits the narrative (eliminating what doesn't fit) and adjust the remaining data to better fit the narrative. That's not what science does, that's what religion does.


 

And why are you not appalled at the lie from NASA.gov? If you really are a scientist you should be.

 

quoted for cause

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/a..._cold.html

 

This is encouraging.  There's life coming back to science.  That's the opposite of the false narrative the OP is feebly attempting to peddle.



 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">“Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. blog.

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">Politics, not science, has been forcing opposing scientific viewpoints aside where they cannot be heard and are not accepted.  Broader perspectives are necessary for real science to exist.



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is similarly optimistic. “I think we’re making progress,” Happer said. “I see reassuring signs.”

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">For the first time in years, skeptics believe they can find a path out of the wilderness into which they’ve been cast by the “scientific consensus.” As much as they desire a more open-minded reception by their colleagues, they are hoping even more that the spigot of government research funding – which dwarfs all other sources – will trickle their way.

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">Funding, not science, is what has lead climate research.  Only with a more open mind will there be true progress in climate science, where honesty and real science might be able to replace political agenda and the "snake oil" that's currently being sold in climate research.



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">“In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, a longtime government consultant who has closely tracked climate research spending since 1992.

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">While it could take months for such expanded fields of research to emerge, a wider look at the possibilities excites some scientists. Happer, for one, feels emboldened in ways he rarely has throughout his career because, for many years, he knew his iconoclastic climate conclusions would hurt his professional prospects.

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">When asked if he would voice dissent on climate change if he were a younger, less established physicist, he said: “Oh, no, definitely not. I held my tongue for a long time because friends told me I would not be elected to the National Academy of Sciences if I didn’t toe the alarmists’ company line.”

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">Scientist in the field for the sake of science, and not lead lead there to be corrupted by research funding, face professional peril if they do not "toe the alarmists' company line."  Just.  Wow.  Again, this is the opposite of science.



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">That sharp disagreements are real in the field may come as a shock to many people, who are regularly informed that climate science is settled and those who question this orthodoxy are akin to Holocaust deniers.

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">It's far from "settled" science in the scientific world.  It's only sold that way to the unknowing public.  It's why you see such extremist positions and name calling (so-called "deniers" etc.) to sell the false narrative.



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">“I think that the vast ‘middle’ will want and seek a more collegial atmosphere,” Georgia Tech’s Curry told RealClearInvestigations. “But there will be some hardcore people (particularly on the alarmed side) whose professional reputation, funding, media exposure, influence etc. depends on cranking up the alarm.”

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">Again, it's worth pointing out the reasons for the extreme viewpoint of alarmism.  Without it, the funding is not sustained at such high levels.  It's also reason for the attacks on any scientists and viewpoints that run counter to theirs.  They will defend their "precious" not unlike Golem, becoming pure beasts when threatened.



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">“Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">And that pretty much sums up the reason for the extreme, misaligned viewpoints.  The harder the buy-in, the better the funding.  And unfortunately, the higher the corruption and lack of real "science."



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">"They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">*mic drop*



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">We can only hope climate science can be revived before it's too late.  Otherwise, it's already dead and we're stuck with only flat-Earth "conclusions."

Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2016/12/31/skeptical_climate_scientists_coming_in_from_the_cold.html'>http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2016/12/31/skeptical_climate_scientists_coming_in_from_the_cold.html</a>

This is encouraging. There's life coming back to science. That's the opposite of the false narrative the OP is feebly attempting to peddle.



“Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular <a class="bbc_url" href='https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/05/climate-heretic-to-be-or-not-to-be/'>Climate Etc. blog</a>.


<span style="font-family:tahoma;">Politics, not science, has been forcing opposing scientific viewpoints aside where they cannot be heard and are not accepted. Broader perspectives are necessary for real science to exist.

</span>

William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is similarly optimistic. “I think we’re making progress,” Happer said. “I see reassuring signs.”

For the first time in years, skeptics believe they can find a path out of the wilderness into which they’ve been cast by the “scientific consensus.” As much as they desire a more open-minded reception by their colleagues, they are hoping even more that the spigot of government research funding – which dwarfs all other sources – will trickle their way.


<span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:tahoma;">Funding, not science, is what has lead climate research. Only with a more open mind will there be true progress in climate science, where honesty and real science might be able to replace political agenda and the "snake oil" that's currently being sold in climate research.

</span></span>

“In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, a longtime government consultant who has closely tracked climate research spending since 1992.

While it could take months for such expanded fields of research to emerge, a wider look at the possibilities excites some scientists. Happer, for one, feels emboldened in ways he rarely has throughout his career because, for many years, he knew his iconoclastic climate conclusions would hurt his professional prospects.

When asked if he would voice dissent on climate change if he were a younger, less established physicist, he said: “Oh, no, definitely not. I held my tongue for a long time because friends told me I would not be elected to the National Academy of Sciences if I didn’t toe the alarmists’ company line.”


<span style="font-family:tahoma;">Scientist in the field for the sake of science, and not lead lead there to be corrupted by research funding, face professional peril if they do not "toe the alarmists' company line." Just. Wow. Again, this is the opposite of science.

</span>

That sharp disagreements are real in the field may come as a shock to many people, who are regularly informed that climate science is settled and those who question this orthodoxy are akin to Holocaust deniers.


<span style="font-family:tahoma;">It's far from "settled" science in the scientific world. It's only sold that way to the unknowing public. It's why you see such extremist positions and name calling (so-called "deniers" etc.) to sell the false narrative.

</span>

“I think that the vast ‘middle’ will want and seek a more collegial atmosphere,” Georgia Tech’s Curry told RealClearInvestigations. “But there will be some hardcore people (particularly on the alarmed side) whose professional reputation, funding, media exposure, influence etc. depends on cranking up the alarm.”


<span style="font-family:tahoma;">Again, it's worth pointing out the reasons for the extreme viewpoint of alarmism. Without it, the funding is not sustained at such high levels. It's also reason for the attacks on any scientists and viewpoints that run counter to theirs. They will defend their "precious" not unlike Golem, becoming pure beasts when threatened.

</span>

“Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”


<span style="font-family:tahoma;">And that pretty much sums up the reason for the extreme, misaligned viewpoints. The harder the buy-in, the better the funding. And unfortunately, the higher the corruption and lack of real "science."

</span>

"They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”


<span style="font-family:tahoma;">*mic drop*

</span>

<span style="font-family:tahoma;">We can only hope climate science can be revived before it's too late. Otherwise, it's already dead and we're stuck with only flat-Earth "conclusions."

</span>

You're making the assumption that climate scientists only work to produce research, in an effort to secure funding, that agrees with their initial hypotheses or the narrative of the agencies that fund them.


During the grant writing process you might state in your specific aims that you are interested in the effect of X on Y. Assuming you are funded for a couple of years you may find that there is no significant effect of X on Y, however that doesn't mean your research is any less valuable. Finding data that doesn't agree with your hypotheses doesn't mean you research isn't valid. It could mean either A) you did not account for a particular confounder ( e.g. Maybe Z affects X from affecting Y), your experimental design was flawed (this does happen periodically), you utilized the wrong tools to analyze the data or the tools themselves have flaws etc etc. Having said that it's perfectly valid to do a literature review on existing datasets and write an entire paper analyzing a particular dataset using new techniques or a more profound understanding of the subject. In fact, we scientists do this all the time by looking at the available literature and finding flaws or gaps in other studies. What you seem to be implying is that scientists, particularly climate scientists, fudge their data in order to secure more funding. I have not seen any evidence of this. It's also fairly easy to spot fudgers as the data is required to be publically accessible.


During the Deepwater Horizon blowout there was a lot of federal dollars allocated to understand the short term and long term ecological effects of crude oil on on the marine ecosystem. Some research indicated that there were severe ecological consequences in the interim period directly after the blow out, some research found that there was no significant effect depending on the location studied, some found that the most profound effects were in very localized areas but mitigated fairly rapidly by microbial processes and photoxidation.


I co-authored a paper will a colleague (still in prep) who was fully funded by NOAA to study the effects of the blowout and we found no significant effect of crude oil on microbial communities marine habitats situated along the Gulf. Now being the liberals we are, we could have very easily fudged the research, you know because we hate oil rigs out in the open ocean and want alternative energy, but we reported the data we had and NOAA was perfectly fine with our results. I believe this is pretty common practice. But saying most of the scientific community conducting climate research are manipulating data, fudging data, to secure more dollars on a supposed "gravy train" is a slap in the face of those scientists who have worked for decades in their respective careers.


How much do you think these scientists make? It's not the financially lucrative career you might think it is. It's a gigantic money/time investment requiring years upon years of schooling and professional training. That is why most people don't pursue careers in STEM.

The quotes from Dr. William Harper are particularly troublesome as it seems he has a very narrow minded view of climate change. He was rebuffed by another professor who address all 25 of his points in a critique. I think you should keep an open mind and read all of them.


Dr. William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, who also serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Marshall Institute in Washington DC, has been a prominent and outspoken critic of the science of climate change, its impacts, and proposed policies to deal with it. In the June/July 2011 issue of First Things, Dr. Happer published a summary of his views: “The Truth About Greenhouse Gases: The dubious science of the climate crusaders” (see <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases'>http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases</a>). The paper is so misleading that, in my view, it merits a paragraph-by-paragraph response. Indeed, being an alumnus of Princeton University and having devoted my career to study of climate change science, preparing a response almost seemed an obligation.


In offering these comments, my intent is to present the findings and perspectives of the national and international science community, illuminated with insights gained over more than four decades of seeking to improve understanding of how the Earth system works and is affected by natural and human events. In contrast to Dr. Happer’s view that the science of climate change is like a house of cards (i.e., find one flaw and the whole sense of understanding will fall), I have tried to give a sense of why, as Professor Henry Pollack of the University of Michigan has put it, the science of climate change is like a rope hammock (i.e., with lots of interconnections and linkages, such that weaknesses or failure of any particular detailed finding does not weaken the overall strength of scientific understanding).


Unless footnoted, the views I have offered are primarily drawn from IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and/or from perspectives on climate change that are summarized at <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/science-in-six-findings.html'>http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/science-in-six-findings.html</a> and references, including a review paper, that can be downloaded from that site.


The full set of points made by Dr. Happer is included below, in paragraph-by-paragraph order, with my comments on each paragraph immediately following. To assist in referring to Dr. Happer’s various paragraphs, I have numbered the paragraphs sequentially, and my response is provided in italics. To provide a sense of the issues covered, the table gives a sense of the questions that an independent moderator might ask that would lead to the exchange regarding each paragraph, and the reader may want to use this to jump to comments and responses on a topic of particular interest.


A key to Will Happer’s assertions and Mike MacCracken’s responses:


1. Is the climate change community really off on a “climate crusade”?


2. Is CO2 a pollutant or a vital molecule for life on Earth—or both?


3. On what basis is EPA moving to regulate CO2?


4 through 7. Isn’t CO2 a nutrient for plants? Don’t we really want to have a higher CO2 concentration? Wasn’t the CO2 level actually nearly too low? Won’t more CO2 be beneficial?


8 and 9. How high can the CO2 level be without impacting human health? What is the optimal range for the CO2 concentration?


10 and 11. Is the increasing CO2 concentration really having adverse impacts?


12 and 13. Will increasing CO2 really cause warming? Is it really human activities causing the warming?


14 through 17. What does the history of Earth’s climate tell us over centuries to tens of millions of years? Hasn’t the Earth’s climate always been changing? So what makes the present warming significant?


18, 19, and 20. Has the IPCC really considered what has been learned from the study of Earth’s climatic history?


21 and 22. Is the “hockey stick” curve indicating recent warming really solid? Don’t the hacked emails show that climate data were manipulated?


23, 24 and 25. Has peer-review been compromised? Isn’t it biased?


26. Will the warming in response to the rising CO2 concentration be significant? How fast will these changes be occurring?


27. Will shifting to renewables enrich a few with political ties at the expense of the majority?


28, 29 and 30. Are computer models reliable enough to depend on? Aren’t they tuned and therefore unreliable? Can they really be used to project into the future?


31, 32, and 33. What has led to climate change being seen as so controversial? Has the science been co-opted by politics? How large is the funding for climate change research?


34 and 35. Are the views of those who are critical of the climate change results being suppressed? Aren’t their reputations being impugned?


36, 37, and 38. Are professional societies being corrupted by the climate change proponents? Has the American Physical Society misrepresented the views of its members?


39, 40 and 41. Is the public getting a balanced picture of climate change science? What is the trend in public understanding and viewpoint? Is the public just being rushed to judgment?


42 and 43. Aren’t there other environmental problems more deserving of emphasis than climate change? Where should the attention lie?


From MacCracken’s conclusion:


Building a better future can only be accomplished by facing up to the impacts that increasing CO2 emissions are having on the climate, on sea level, and on ocean acidification. That Dr. Happer is slowing this down by putting forth scientific statements that indicate so little understanding (presumably, because of reading too narrowly or with too closed a mind) is very disappointing. In the years that I was at Princeton and the grading system went from 1 (high) to 7 (low), I regret to say that Dr. Happer would have earned the 7. This grade was actually hard to get because it indicated “flagrant neglect” in one’s studies. For his generally uninformed and limited discussion and understanding of climate change science, however, I very much regret to say that Dr. Happer seems clearly to have earned that designation.


Full text of the article: The Real Truth About Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change


Please read the entire document so we can have a civil and meaningful debate:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change_1.pdf'>http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change_1.pdf</a>

I can personally address some of the points like 4-7and others...more CO2 is not a good thing...there is a threshold where too much is actually a bad thing.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/03/1000-...Q8uH8.dpbs