[ldavidcooke]

Hey All,

As we all know it is neither the popularity, consenus, authority or credentials that define science, it is the facts. If the facts were wrong then the conclusion drawn may have been in error. It is very unlikely the papers that the IPCC report were based on were wrong. Peer review would have cleared that issue. As to the conclusions drawn or reported, well, without peer review they could be wrong. Hence the reason that the report was left open for comments for nearly 6 months for the errors to be addressed.

So what happened, did climate sceptics ignore the opportunity? No..., did climate sceptics issues get tabled or ignored? No..., it took what 5 years for the basis of conclusions presented to be challenged and the false basis to be revealed. Why? Were the basis of the conclusions not referenced, No..., were the references buried, No..., it was that the science was correct only the examples or evidence that was questionable.

As the evidence or examples could have multiple degrees of freedom they only offer less then a 10% contribution to certainity, so now rather then being at a 95% confidence level we are at what a 85% confidence level... Sorry, even with the errors and the issues with poorly drawn conclusions the science remains pretty convincing... Hopefully, the science will have improved enough in the last 5 years that the next report will be better and the conclusions scientifically supportable.

Until then for me at least, this type of post is just more noise or a failure to follow and abide by the guidence for posting in UKww forums, an attack on a sceptic or an alarmist is no different then attacking a member; however, feel free to challenge the science or conclusion if you have either a different POV or insight as to scientifically based cause and effect...

[John Mason]

andre, on 08 February 2012 - 15:01, said:

I'm afraid the appeal to authority is worn down nowadays, John, Judith Curry explains why. Joanne Nova is a bit more radical.

It is indeed, Andre. That is why, on comment threads after news articles, there has been a reduction in comments that use the opening gambit: "I am a physicist/chemist/earth scientist/teacher of science and I think that.........(add appropriate climate myth here)

They have realised that it does not tend to work in their favour.....

David Cooke has the grasp of it.

Cheers - John

[John Mason]

BTW - I'd ignore everything Nova spouts. Australia's WUWT is about the measure of it. Curry, OTOH, has tried to generate an honest discussion about uncertainties but she, I think, had no idea as to how politicised the debate has become before she started.

Cheers - John

[andre]

I'm afraid things will turn a lot worse than that, David. And maybe verify what Joanne Nova has to say. Is it mere heresy? or are all allegations based on factual evidence? Maybe the outcome may surprise you, as it surprised the German Monbiot, who converted himself.

The IPCC reports have not been "peer"-reviewed. Some scientists have looked at it and made remarks, which were ignored.


And about faulty papers in the IPCC, let's compare these two:

C.R. Harington 2011 Pleistocene vertebrates of the Yukon TerritoryVolume 30, Quaternary Science Reviews Issues 17–18, August 2011, Pages2341–2354

and

Bonelli, S., et al 2009: Investigating the evolution of major Northern Hemisphere ice sheets during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. Climate of the Past, 24 5, 329-345.

Notice where Harington's bisons, horses and mammoths roam on the Mammoth steppe in the Yukon territories throughout the late Pleistocene that Bonelli et al put an ice shee there eventrually accumulating 4000-6000 meters thick ice on the same spot (page 336 fig 4) during the same period. BTW Harington publishes about the Yukon magafauna for two decades now

Now guess, which paper will be in the AR5 of the IPCC?

[G Henry Davenport]

Dave W, on 08 February 2012 - 14:52, said:

As does James Delingpoles slant as well

Indeed.

I wonder why the frenzied blogosphere should give much weight, by the way, to an apparent change of heart by a geologist/paeleontologist who seems heavily involved with black shale?

[John Mason]

G Henry Davenport, on 08 February 2012 - 18:54, said:

Indeed.

I wonder why the frenzied blogosphere should give much weight, by the way, to an apparent change of heart by a geologist/paeleontologist who seems heavily involved with black shale?

It's all a game called solitaire........

Cheers - John

[Peter H]

Chris Lloyd, on 08 February 2012 - 18:47, said:

Can I just correct you on something - THERE IS NO AUTHORITY on AGW. AGW is a theory based on the probability of one event causing an effect in the presence of other causal effects. That's it.

No-one knows what goes on with our climate. To say that non authorities shouldn't comment when there is actually doubt about the so called authorities on the subject doesn't wash with me.

It's a bit like saying that people who don't know the probabilities of their being life on other planet's shouldn't challenge Drake's equation.

Drake's equation is not fact. It is a likely scenario. Nothing more, nothing less. To doubt the equation does not give it weight.

Disclaimer: As we are a weather and climate forum I expect the usual backlash of opinion.

I said I was a non authority. Therefore I can comment.

[ldavidcooke]

andre, on 08 February 2012 - 18:51, said:

I'm afraid things will turn a lot worse than that, David. And maybe verify what Joanne Nova has to say. Is it mere heresy? or are all allegations based on factual evidence? Maybe the outcome may surprise you, as it surprised the German Monbiot, who converted himself.

The IPCC reports have not been "peer"-reviewed. Some scientists have looked at it and made remarks, which were ignored.


And about faulty papers in the IPCC, let's compare these two:

C.R. Harington 2011 Pleistocene vertebrates of the Yukon TerritoryVolume 30, Quaternary Science Reviews Issues 17–18, August 2011, Pages2341–2354

and

Bonelli, S., et al 2009: Investigating the evolution of major Northern Hemisphere ice sheets during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. Climate of the Past, 24 5, 329-345.

Notice where Harington's bisons, horses and mammoths roam on the Mammoth steppe in the Yukon territories throughout the late Pleistocene that Bonelli et al put an ice shee there eventrually accumulating 4000-6000 meters thick ice on the same spot (page 336 fig 4) during the same period. BTW Harington publishes about the Yukon magafauna for two decades now

Now guess, which paper will be in the AR5 of the IPCC?

Hey Andre,

It is pretty hard to have bone/fossil/carbon14 evidence within the same time frame as an ice sheet, unless the ice sheet were seasonal or the donor sources were elsewhere geograhically and redeposited due to ice/water/mud tansportation. Then again we have the issue of resolution. Fill the valleys with rivers of ice and let mammals run the mountain peaks between the ice floes. In short, both can be true, it is a matter of the reader applying common sense or to query how both conditions could co-exist. To deny one and hold the other to be incontrovertable is disengenerous at best and fraud at worst... As we strive to approach science with an open mind it is best to hold both parties to be innocent until research proves otherwise. Again, this simply adds to the confusion factor for those uninformed as to the details of the scientific process. (As an aside, I agree there is more to be unearthed; however, any serious comments prior to publishing AR4 were addressed publically.)

[andre]

Come on David, A seasonal ice sheet of 4-6000 meter thickness? Something that should have triggered sceptism in the first place. Here Bonelli et al have some 90,000 years available to grow that ice sheet in their computer model whereas the age of the 3000m high ice sheet of Greenland has an age of at least 200,000 years while the 4000 meter high ice sheet of Antarctica can be dated to a million years. And then 4000-6000 meters in 90,000 years? But change some parameters in the model and you can let spherical cows fly.

Meanwhile here are some more independent studies about a megafauna steppe in the Yukon territories throughout the late pleistocene.

Grant D. Zazula, et al 2006; Vegetation buried under Dawson tephra (25,300 14C years BP) and locally diverse late Pleistocene paleoenvironments of Goldbottom Creek, Yukon, Canada; Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 242, Issues 3–4, 8 December 2006, Pages 253–286


Grant D. Zazula, et al 2005; Paleoecology of Beringian “packrat” middens from central Yukon Territory, Canada
Quaternary Research, Volume 63, Issue 2, March 2005, Pages 189-198


Here is the oldest publication I could find of Harington: 1973
http://www.nrcresear...10.1139/e73-069


Now can you explain how these animals could have been there in an ice sheet of 4-6000 meters? Extensive mountain glaciers, sure, that's no problem but kilometer thick ice sheets? I don't think that anybody else but you would consider denying one and holding the other to be incontrovertable to be disengenerous at best and fraud at worst... It would also be the first time that abundant fossils (in situ) were found prior glaciation, where the ice tends to sweep everything clear. Moreover if Bonelli et al had been aware of the paleontologic paradise of the Yukon during their computer ice sheet period, they would certainly have discussed it.

Consequently, these modellers had insufficent knowledge and did insufficient research to check their ice sheet predictions and so did the peer reviewers, resulting in a faulty paper.

[NileQueen]

ldavidcooke, on 08 February 2012 - 23:07, said:

Hey Andre,

It is pretty hard to have bone/fossil/carbon14 evidence within the same time frame as an ice sheet, unless the ice sheet were seasonal or the donor sources were elsewhere geograhically and redeposited due to ice/water/mud tansportation. Then again we have the issue of resolution. Fill the valleys with rivers of ice and let mammals run the mountain peaks between the ice floes. In short, both can be true, it is a matter of the reader applying common sense or to query how both conditions could co-exist. To deny one and hold the other to be incontrovertable is disengenerous at best and fraud at worst... As we strive to approach science with an open mind it is best to hold both parties to be innocent until research proves otherwise. Again, this simply adds to the confusion factor for those uninformed as to the details of the scientific process. (As an aside, I agree there is more to be unearthed; however, any serious comments prior to publishing AR4 were addressed publically.)

David I must be misunderstanding you. The range of Radicarbon dating can extend back to around 50,000 years ago.
The Laurentide ice sheet was at its maximum extent around 20,000. We can radiocarbon data organic material
in the moraines, in the periglacial lakes, and reconstruct where the ice sheet was by moraines, eskers, drumlins etc.
I don't understand what you are talking about with mountains in between rivers of ice. WHy do you think megafauna would be up on the mountains? Those would probably have been
ice covered for the Cordilleran ice sheet. Mammoths would have been populating the grassy steppes and mastodons would have ranged in the spruce sedge
parklands.

Andre is certainly not adding to the confusion by providing this information.

Guess what, Devonian? We can ALL comment, and have a right to think for ourselves. We should all use our critical thinking skills
to the extent we can, and not just accept what anyone says without question. The point is, even when someone has a degree,
does not automatically guarantee they are competent, ethical or never make a mistake. It's a dangerous world where we are censored
and free thinking is suppressed.

Climate is a very complex system, and as Chris Lloyd succinctly says, no one is an authority on AGW.

[scrapemedic]

Chris Lloyd, on 09 February 2012 - 12:56, said:

Well, either or, whether you are agreeing or relaying Andres' words - the analogy is exactly the same.

My point is exactly as it was. There is no authority on AGW - it is nothing but an unproven theory.

You can't have a non authority when you don't have an authority in the first place.

Just because something isn't fully proven, one way or the other, doesn't mean you can't have an authority on the subject. I think the implication is the difference between someone who has studied and devoted alot of time exploring fully all the issues on something, as against someone who hasn't. Quantum physics is a case in point, we are still trying to prove the existance of many of the smaller particles, would you not call a quantum physiscist an authority or just as ill informed as the vagrant drinking coffee in the shop on the corner whilst hiding from the rain.

Actually a better example is metereology, I have some knowledge in the subject, but I would not count myself as an authority in it; there sre huge gaps in my knowledge. I rely on people with greater knowledge for interpreting the models. Are they authorities on the subject, could you definately say they fully understand the complex nature of the weather, if they could then surely they would be able to predict the weather accurately. Well whilst they do a pretty good job, they don't always get it right. so does this mean there is no authority on the weather?
It seems it only becomes an issue when people get emotive over a subject.

[Peter H]

NileQueen, on 09 February 2012 - 13:09, said:

David I must be misunderstanding you. The range of Radicarbon dating can extend back to around 50,000 years ago.
The Laurentide ice sheet was at its maximum extent around 20,000. We can radiocarbon data organic material
in the moraines, in the periglacial lakes, and reconstruct where the ice sheet was by moraines, eskers, drumlins etc.
I don't understand what you are talking about with mountains in between rivers of ice. WHy do you think megafauna would be up on the mountains? Those would probably have been
ice covered for the Cordilleran ice sheet. Mammoths would have been populating the grassy steppes and mastodons would have ranged in the spruce sedge
parklands.

Andre is certainly not adding to the confusion by providing this information.

Guess what, Devonian? We can ALL comment, and have a right to think for ourselves. We should all use our critical thinking skills to the extent we can, and not just accept what anyone says without question. The point is, even when someone has a degree, does not automatically guarantee they are competent, ethical or never make a mistake. It's a dangerous world where we are censored and free thinking is suppressed.

Climate is a very complex system, and as Chris Lloyd succinctly says, no one is an authority on AGW.

NQ, hang on, who is calling for either censorship or suppressing free thinking? I'd be much obliged if you make clear you're not thinking of me when you use such words in a reply to me

You, Chris, everyone are, imo, free to write what you like here within the rules. Now, I am also free (I think you'd agree?) to think what I want to and to write what I think is right.

I think when I'm looking for information on climate I will continue pay attention to climate scientists.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Andre,

Sure can, the same as we define the movements of the Clovis people. You have to consider that to these people there was no 3km ice sheet below them just dangerous creavas laden passes with islands of flora/fauna. Kind of like a desert and oasis hopping. The movement of the Clovis at 34kya and then a second surge at roughly 17kya , followed by a different group at roughly 13.5kya all travelled the same path as did your mega fawna.

The overall, nature would not be terribly different then the Alps that Hannibal crossed with Elephants. The point is, the area in question could be traversed. Bones would have been collected either in the crevases, the land islands or the surface to be either locked in ice/mud-rock until melted/broken-up or deposited near the base and covered over with a fine slate making silt/clay ripe for discovery 20ky later.

It still amazes me that conclusions drawn were unrealistic based on evidence; however, as I have said before we see what we want to see more often then what is really evident. It all comes down to trying to explain the evidence to ourselves first and then seek evidence that supports our hypothesis. From there you get a theory and if other scientists agree you get fact. (The difference between derived fact and measured fact needs to be elaborated on; but I will defer this until later f you wish.) On the other hand, if we get a disagreement, some scientists cannot let their hypothesis go... If we are to progress the science, we need all minds facing tbe truth and to move forward. In fighting in the ranks is to be expected; however,arrogance or "because I said so" does not make a thing right.

Part of the problem we face is that not everything can be resolved, so the missing data gets bridged over and used as pry-bars to upset the train tracks. As long as we are willing to keep in mind the missing planks it is still possible to climb the stairs of knowledge. Our task is to choose the best explanation and move on. If more data becomes apparent later we can always revisit the past missing planks; however they do not change where the stairs lead nor how high they reach...

[Peter H]

Chris Lloyd, on 09 February 2012 - 14:33, said:

All I did Peter was refer to what you said. You seemed to be echoing Andres' words by saying "Oh I don't know either so I must be right too"

The weather is random, climate is random and the effects of Co2 on temp are there. BUT...... the net effect of Anthro Co2 within that; well, we are getting into the realms of absolute uncertainty and theory.

No-one is an expert on it. By criticising non authorities, by association an inference is drawn that the authorities know what they are talking about - they do not and that is the point I am trying to make. If they did we wouldn't have CRU hacks 'et al' that seek to show the truth, or constant re-examination of the IPCC's findings.

But, Chris, should I take you views expressed above about the effect of CO2 as those of a non expert and probably wrong? Or those of a non expert but right? You write as if you think you are right, but using what should I judge your words? My limited climate science education, what climate science says or do I just accept you're right?

Well, sorry, I don't accept you're right. I think you are wrong and that it is climate science that is more (not totally, see what scrapmedic wrote) right. We mess with the radiative balance of this planet at the risk of a significant climate changing extent and not a change we wont see out of normal randomness.

This post has been edited by Peter H: 09 February 2012 - 14:43

[John Mason]

Chris, I think it was Kevin Trenberth who recently asked the following: if you had a heart condition, would you go on from your GP to: a cardiologist or a dentist?

That is the likely bottom line here. When I read some interesting climate science, typically first at a blog, I then look for the paper in question. If I have questions, I then email the authors who have done the work. I allow the idea that because they have looked at something in depth, their findings warrant consideration. Not blind acceptance neither blind rejection. Consideration based upon the evidence they have presented plus any further answers. Does that not make sense??

Cheers - John