Can anyone prove that man made global emissions are actively

[Nick]

causing climate change that will UTTERLY DESTORY OMG HUMANITY?

Can someone show me the undeniable scientific evidence that utterly proves the case for man made globalised world destroying climate change?

I am not a scientist, so consider me a nubbins on this.

Go.

[Zaelath]

No. They can only say the weight of evidence supports that this is happening.

You might think that it's like asking for God's phone number, but there is no evidence to support the existance or otherwise of God.

To be clear, there's a HUGE difference between *evidence* and *proof*.

Oh and yes, the world won't be destroyed, Humanity will. No great loss imo, but for those that disagree, it's a question of if living well for a short time is more important than the species surviving.

As far as I can see, the only reasonable motivating factor for the opposition is: "If I distract you long enough, my life will be considerably better, then I'll be dead and I won't give a shit about the species." Which I find strange, given most of them are breeders.

[Aabidano]

A bit from The Register on climategate:

The allegations over the past week are fourfold: that climate scientists controlled the publishing process to discredit opposing views and further their own theory; they manipulated data to make recent temperature trends look anomalous; they withheld and destroyed data they should have released as good scientific practice, and they were generally beastly about people who criticised their work. (You’ll note that one of these is far less serious than the others.)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30 ... _analysis/

[Gonzoie - Luclin]

A must read if you have read the emails. Its amazing what is taken out of context from those emails. There is a much longer article in the link.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -cru-hack/

[Avestan]

What I cannot understand is why, still, it is impossible to get a hold of any raw data on the internet.

When in grad school for stats, our group was looking for raw data to actually play with ourselves and could not find anything at all.

The only explanation I have ever heard is that those who have the data do not want it used in a certain way because, frankly, a decent statastician can make large data sets say whatever they want. . .remove some outliers here, ignore sections there due to obscure tree ring science. . .etc. Valid concerns if you are afraid of a certain conclusion, but good statastians do not search for a certain conclusion, they let the data talk.

I think it is unforgiveable that the raw data is not available for everyone to see especially given the newfound lack of trust that these guys have shown.

[Zaelath]

As I understand it, the scientists don't own the data, so you'd have to look elsewhere for complaints there.

e.g. I would really like the "raw data" on the number of subscribers to various MMOs and their server populations so I can make informed decisions... good luck to me there.

[Aabidano]

I still think global warming is a largely irrelevant. The fossil fuel path we are on is a dead end, the sooner governments realize that and begin pushing for a shift to "something else" the better.

Of course "they" don't like oil, gas, coal or nuclear, yet there are no viable substitutes yet. I'm not sure what that global warming fanatics expect people to do, put the world economy on hold until someone miracles a clean energy source into existence?

[Avestan]

As I understand it, the scientists don't own the data, so you'd have to look elsewhere for complaints there.

e.g. I would really like the "raw data" on the number of subscribers to various MMOs and their server populations so I can make informed decisions... good luck to me there.

Big difference. MMO data is owned by a private company. In theory, climate data is collected for the public good. If these are private institutions doing data, I think there are likely a TON of other questions we should be asking about agenda, funding, and bias.

[Zaelath]

As I understand it, the scientists don't own the data, so you'd have to look elsewhere for complaints there.

e.g. I would really like the "raw data" on the number of subscribers to various MMOs and their server populations so I can make informed decisions... good luck to me there.

Big difference. MMO data is owned by a private company. In theory, climate data is collected for the public good. If these are private institutions doing data, I think there are likely a TON of other questions we should be asking about agenda, funding, and bias.

Who's paying for this public good? Most extensive research is funded by corporates...

[miir]

Haha, no shit.
Nobody is going to dump a fuckload of money into research and make it available to every moron on the internet to back up their personal crackpot theories.

[Avestan]

Haha, no shit.
Nobody is going to dump a fuckload of money into research and make it available to every moron on the internet to back up their personal crackpot theories.

Instead, they pay a ton of money to back up their own crackpot theories?

It seems to me there is public good here. Usually that is the domain of governments to fund. Believe it or not, government grants (big ones) are given out every day. I would be completely shocked if research done by all these climate centers is not mostly funded through government grants.

Assuming that is true, those governments should be able to get raw data released.

Honestly, does anyone have a reason other than "because other people might reach other conclusions than me" for this data not to be available? Until that happens, the conclusions of the folks that do control the data are simply not credible in my opinion.

[miir]

Honestly, does anyone have a reason other than "because other people might reach other conclusions than me" for this data not to be available?

Because it requires resources to collect... time and money.
Research data is a commodity.
The organizations that collect this data are not charities.

I'm 100% positive that you can purchase raw research data for virtually anything.

[Avestan]

Not this. That is why there are all these lawsuits flying around about this raw data. They won't sell it or release it. Only the conclusions.

[miir]

Not this. That is why there are all these lawsuits flying around about this raw data. They won't sell it or release it. Only the conclusions.

Of course you can buy it... but I doubt many people could afford it.
Certainly not individuals.

[Avestan]

Did some research and the data in the news today was, in theory, publically available, but they refused to release to anyone "not in acadmia". When someone in academia did request it, he was told the raw data was lost.

“We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

Now, I do not know how many statasticians there are here, but correcting for homogeneity is a completely valid thing to do with a large raw data set. The problem is that if done incorrectly or if done with an agenda, corrections like that can make a data set look however you want it to look. . .seriously. You can take a data set, find points you do not like and then "correct" for those for a number of reasons (autocorrelation and homegeneity are two of the big ones). Without the raw data, it is impossible to test those assumptions. In academia, without that raw data, the entire study is 100% useless and unfounded.

In the world of statistics, there is only one commandment that you never break. It is written something like this: "Thou shalt not destroy raw data". For this reason, these guys are , at best, ludicriously incompetent. They deserve absolutely zero credibility as statisticians.

There was never an effort to hide behind "we own the data, you cannot have it". The fact that it was requested and denied for one reason and then the story was changed and rejected for another different reason later suggests to me that something big time fishy was going on here and someone knew that the core assumptions were, at the least, questionable.

Until raw data becomes available backing up any of the claims that I have heard (and used to believe) about global warming, you can call me a bigtime skeptic of the "science" that has been done so far.

[Avestan]

Not this. That is why there are all these lawsuits flying around about this raw data. They won't sell it or release it. Only the conclusions.

Of course you can buy it... but I doubt many people could afford it.
Certainly not individuals.

There are plenty of individuals who could (and would) afford it if given the chance

[Wulfran]

Honestly, does anyone have a reason other than "because other people might reach other conclusions than me" for this data not to be available?

Because it requires resources to collect... time and money.
Research data is a commodity.
The organizations that collect this data are not charities.

I'm 100% positive that you can purchase raw research data for virtually anything.

When you publish a scientific discovery/breakthrough/study, you have to provide reviewable data to support your conclusions if you want them to be accepted. Thats part of the process to prove you are breaking new ground and reaching valid conclusions as opposed to just making shit up to fit what you want it to be. Even some "peer reviewed" papers are shit because the researcher can have it reviewed by a group of friendly or like-minded researchers who can and sometimes do undermine the process. Part of the problem with the "research" behind GHG emissions is most the researchers are approaching it with a pre-ordained idea of what they want their conclusions to be: "its man's fault", "fossil fuels are evil", etc. or the polar opposite. I don't even take issue with some of their stances but you can't force societal change based on bullshit.

Its ironic: many of us rail on about the lack of transparency in our gov'ts but at the same time, we buy into a smoke and mirror show from parts of the "scientific community" and accept the answer that the raw data is unavailable or proprietary or too complicated for anyone else to understand...

[Sirton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=138178

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0423-fire.html

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbo ... imate.html

http://ftexploring.com/askdrg/askdrg6.html

[Zaelath]

Honestly, does anyone have a reason other than "because other people might reach other conclusions than me" for this data not to be available?

Because it requires resources to collect... time and money.
Research data is a commodity.
The organizations that collect this data are not charities.

I'm 100% positive that you can purchase raw research data for virtually anything.

When you publish a scientific discovery/breakthrough/study, you have to provide reviewable data to support your conclusions if you want them to be accepted. Thats part of the process to prove you are breaking new ground and reaching valid conclusions as opposed to just making shit up to fit what you want it to be. Even some "peer reviewed" papers are shit because the researcher can have it reviewed by a group of friendly or like-minded researchers who can and sometimes do undermine the process. Part of the problem with the "research" behind GHG emissions is most the researchers are approaching it with a pre-ordained idea of what they want their conclusions to be: "its man's fault", "fossil fuels are evil", etc. or the polar opposite. I don't even take issue with some of their stances but you can't force societal change based on bullshit.

Its ironic: many of us rail on about the lack of transparency in our gov'ts but at the same time, we buy into a smoke and mirror show from parts of the "scientific community" and accept the answer that the raw data is unavailable or proprietary or too complicated for anyone else to understand...

The data required to determine the source of the problem is harder to understand, and frankly given there's 100,000,000 slackjawed retards spouting talking points like "The world has cooled in the last 10 years". For the people that would take this graph:



then pick the one unusually hot year (1998) that you could take a trend line from with a downward angle, then construct an "argument" about the science from it, makes me glad it's hard for them to get more data to misrepresent.

That's the ONE reason they like the "last 10 years", which is a laughable timeline for a global climate trend anyway.

Now, really, you tell me who has more credibility? Seriously?

[Badabidi]

I'm sure humanity will find a way to wipe itself out before industrial emissions even catch up to what nature's done. But, maybe going green will divert every other problem this world has!!11

[Avestan]

Honestly, does anyone have a reason other than "because other people might reach other conclusions than me" for this data not to be available?

Because it requires resources to collect... time and money.
Research data is a commodity.
The organizations that collect this data are not charities.

I'm 100% positive that you can purchase raw research data for virtually anything.

When you publish a scientific discovery/breakthrough/study, you have to provide reviewable data to support your conclusions if you want them to be accepted. Thats part of the process to prove you are breaking new ground and reaching valid conclusions as opposed to just making shit up to fit what you want it to be. Even some "peer reviewed" papers are shit because the researcher can have it reviewed by a group of friendly or like-minded researchers who can and sometimes do undermine the process. Part of the problem with the "research" behind GHG emissions is most the researchers are approaching it with a pre-ordained idea of what they want their conclusions to be: "its man's fault", "fossil fuels are evil", etc. or the polar opposite. I don't even take issue with some of their stances but you can't force societal change based on bullshit.

Its ironic: many of us rail on about the lack of transparency in our gov'ts but at the same time, we buy into a smoke and mirror show from parts of the "scientific community" and accept the answer that the raw data is unavailable or proprietary or too complicated for anyone else to understand...

The data required to determine the source of the problem is harder to understand, and frankly given there's 100,000,000 slackjawed retards spouting talking points like "The world has cooled in the last 10 years". For the people that would take this graph:



then pick the one unusually hot year (1998) that you could take a trend line from with a downward angle, then construct an "argument" about the science from it, makes me glad it's hard for them to get more data to misrepresent.

That's the ONE reason they like the "last 10 years", which is a laughable timeline for a global climate trend anyway.

Now, really, you tell me who has more credibility? Seriously?

Where did this graph come from.

Honestly, I just want to see raw data so I can play with it. No graphs or charts, just a raw dump of data. I can run my own regressions.

The argument of "people are too stupid for raw data so we will only show it the way we interpret it" argument is insulting. . .especially to those of us who actually do know how to work with it.

[Zaelath]

Where did this graph come from.

Honestly, I just want to see raw data so I can play with it. No graphs or charts, just a raw dump of data. I can run my own regressions.

The argument of "people are too stupid for raw data so we will only show it the way we interpret it" argument is insulting. . .especially to those of us who actually do know how to work with it.

That graph's off wikipedia, but how "raw" do you want your data? Daily readings from thousands of weather stations globally? Do you want a manifest of all thermometers used at each station? Schematics of each Stephen's box used at each station? Maintenance records? Personel history complete with background checks so you can verify each reading?

The datapoints for the yearly temperatures on that graph are not in question from either side of the debate, so that all seems rather moot. You could work out your own 5 year averages I guess, but seriously, given the datapoints are not in question, how do you post rationalise the blatant misrepresentation of "the earth has cooled in the last 10 years" (assuming you are going from 1998-2008, and ignoring the fact that the graph would have a major upward trend line if you went 1999-2009 or any other year except 1998 really).

It's literally flatlined over the "last few" years, but it's against the trend.

[Avestan]

All I want is excel data with some explanation of how it was collected. That is all.

A graph with no explanation of where or how the data collected is completely useless. If you want, I can post a graph on Wikipedia and post the graphic here too.

I am just looking for some transparency and do not understand why that is a lot to ask of the people in a position to provide it is they are only concerned about the public good. They say they are concerned about amatuers twisting the data, but right now, they all look like the amatuers twisting the data. At least publishing the data would provide open dialog.

[Zaelath]

Yes, but you're just whining and not addressing the issues that:

- all data is aggregated data to a lesser or greater degree.
- the data in that graph is not disputed.

Could you also put a graph up on the NASA page? It's the same one...



They also go to great lengths to explain how they arrive at those figures:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

and

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/

There's also a *lot* of raw data about weather station readings here:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/temperature.html

(yes, that's antarctica)

How much more do you want? Do you have access to google?

[Avestan]

Not all data is aggregated. Data for dummies is aggregated and turned into pretty charts because most people don't know what to do with a 1 gig text file.

I am whining. I don't understand why I should not be able to see the raw data.

Stating in the first place that the data came from NASA would have been more credible than Wikipedia

As for your "raw" data page, this line ruins it:

It should be noted that this is not a primary source. These data are collated from several sources including publications, monthly newsletters from national climate agencies and personal communications with climatologists world wide.

edit: The NASA site is actually pretty good and transparent. If this Brittish place did the same thing, they could have avoided a huge mess. . .but then again, they probably did not do it because they knew they were cheating.

[Zaelath]

As for your "raw" data page, this line ruins it:

It should be noted that this is not a primary source. These data are collated from several sources including publications, monthly newsletters from national climate agencies and personal communications with climatologists world wide.

I see, so your definition of raw data, that I asked for, does actually extend further than "something I can put in excel and make my own graphs from".

Does it or doesn't it go beyond that? The reason I ask is if you can't define what is "raw data" then how can anyone supply it? Skeptics and whiners a) want someone else to scurry out and retrieve everything for them, b) would scoff and deny it constituted what they asked for if you came back and dropped god in their lap.

Even when you do trap one into a revelation about their dodgy representation of the data, they just change the subject. That doesn't refer to Avestan, just the general case with most of the people making money on books for skeptics.

[Winnow]

Something Odd for the Arctic:

"Normal" Sea Ice Extent As Winter Ends

As the winter freeze ends, there's more ice in the Arctic than at any time in recent years. Is this another PR problem for global warming activists?

Only two months ago, it looked as if the Arctic sea ice extent was trending so far below normal that it might set a new record. The extent of Arctic sea ice, a barometer on global warming and one of the most easily visualized effects of climate change, was 1 million square miles short of average throughout February.

But, lo and behold, so much new ice froze in March that the overall extent for this winter will end up nearly normal, as compared to the long-term average. That's a headline no one could have written for years, as the extent of Arctic sea ice has dropped, rhythmically with the seasons, but dropped precipitously and consistently for years. The record-setting extent of melting in the past three summers was to a degree not expected for decades, under mainstream scientific predictions of just a few years ago.

Oh no! Normal!

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmen ... a-ice-0330

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I don't think anyone would disagree with trending greener....but the alarmists claiming all humanity will end because of man-made global warming is absurd. Solar activity has much to do with the earth's temps and those trends are what is going to cause global warming and cooling. Humans certainly can influence it a bit, but the percentage of our emissions and byproducts effects is a tiny fraction of what really drives the global climate.

Nature will (and has been) using its own forces to reclaim what it needs. It is the horde of stupid fucks that keep going back to those areas that nature has taken back that is the problem.

[Canelek]

That, and the alarmists such as Gore make some people completely disregard conservation, almost in "rebellion" to the global warming topic.

So, instead of spreading awareness about recycling and generally living like pigs, well, people generally live like pigs thinking that since there is no man-made global warming, they are free to toss their budweiser cans out of their trucks.