HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Military/History Related Hobbies > Research, Reference and Historical Study > Science

Notices and Announcements

Science Discussions about hard science.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 09 Feb 15, 19:58
Savez's Avatar
Savez Savez is offline
General
United_States
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Gallant
Posts: 5,079
Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300]
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
I'll check back in a hundred years and see who's right.
It will be me.
__________________
They defend [the war's] integrity from the evasions of those who insist that the South fought for something other than slavery; they protect it from those who emphasize the North's narrow self-interest. Such myths may be comforting.
Edward Ayers
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09 Feb 15, 20:11
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,944
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Bob,

I don't have time for a detailed reply now... However, this is known as "Mike's Nature Trick"...



It is patently fraudulent to splice a high resolution dataset (instrumental record) on to a low resolution dataset (proxy based reconstruction).

In the private sector, you get fired, probably sued and possibly prosecuted for do this sort of thing. I academia, you get tenure and in government, you get promoted.for doing this sort of thing.

It will probably be tomorrow morning before I can reply in full detail.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09 Feb 15, 20:42
OpanaPointer's Avatar
OpanaPointer OpanaPointer is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 11,682
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post

It will probably be tomorrow morning before I can reply in full detail.
Namu amida butsu.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09 Feb 15, 20:47
G David Bock's Avatar
G David Bock G David Bock is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Tournament 1 of the ACG 2017-2018 
 
Real Name: G David Bock
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bellingham, Washington
Posts: 15,440
G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000]
G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] G David Bock has set a fine example for others to follow [1000]
EXCERPT:
...
The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not. Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue.

Mrs Thatcher is now often considered to have been a great UK politician: she gave her political party (the Conservative Party) victory in three General Elections, resided over the UK’s conduct of the Falklands War, replaced much of the UK’s Welfare State with monetarist economics, and privatised most of the UK’s nationalised industries. But she had yet to gain that reputation when she came to power in 1979. Then, she was the first female leader of a major western state, and she desired to be taken seriously by political leaders of other major countries. This desire seemed difficult to achieve because her only experience in government had been as Education Secretary (i.e. a Junior Minister) in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974. She had achieved nothing notable as Education Secretary but was remembered by the UK public for having removed the distribution of milk to schoolchildren (she was popularly known as ‘Milk Snatcher Thatcher’.)

Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN, suggested a solution to the problem. He pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry. (This is probably the most important fact in the entire global warming issue; i.e. Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry). Sir Crispin pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. He suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue. The influences that enabled this are described in Figure 1 and the following paragraphs.

Figure 1. Influences leading to UK imagined risk of global warming.
Overseas politicians began to take notice of Mrs Thatcher’s campaign if only to try to stop her disrupting summit meetings. They brought the matter to the attention of their civil servants for assessment, and they reported that - although scientifically dubious - ‘global warming’ could be economically important. The USA is the world’s most powerful economy and is the most intensive energy user. If all countries adopted ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, each non-US industrialised country would gain economic benefit over the United States. So, many politicians from many countries joined with Mrs Thatcher in expressing concern at global warming and a political bandwagon began to roll. Mrs Thatcher had raised an international policy issue and thus become an influential international politician.

Mrs Thatcher could not have promoted the global warming issue without the support of her UK political party. And they were willing to give it. Following the General Election of 1979, most of the incoming Cabinet had been members of the government which lost office in 1974. They blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for their 1974 defeat. They, therefore, desired an excuse for reducing the UK coal industry and, thus, the NUM’s power. Coal-fired power stations emit CO2 but nuclear power stations don’t. Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power.

...
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
__________________
Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09 Feb 15, 20:48
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,944
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
Namu amida butsu.
Is Buddha your imaginary friend?

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09 Feb 15, 20:51
SRV Ron's Avatar
SRV Ron SRV Ron is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Ron Picardi
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sag Nasty
Posts: 10,558
SRV Ron is simply cracking [600]
SRV Ron is simply cracking [600] SRV Ron is simply cracking [600] SRV Ron is simply cracking [600] SRV Ron is simply cracking [600] SRV Ron is simply cracking [600] SRV Ron is simply cracking [600] SRV Ron is simply cracking [600] SRV Ron is simply cracking [600] SRV Ron is simply cracking [600] SRV Ron is simply cracking [600] SRV Ron is simply cracking [600] SRV Ron is simply cracking [600]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post

In the private sector, you get fired, probably sued and possibly prosecuted for do this sort of thing.
Not if you work for NBC. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=156373

They are paying the ratings price for their incompetence, slanting, and fabrications of the news. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...239.html?ml=ri
__________________
“Breaking News,”

“Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09 Feb 15, 21:00
BobTheBarbarian's Avatar
BobTheBarbarian BobTheBarbarian is offline
Colonel
United_States
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,956
BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Bob,

I don't have time for a detailed reply now... However, this is known as "Mike's Nature Trick"...



It is patently fraudulent to splice a high resolution dataset (instrumental record) on to a low resolution dataset (proxy based reconstruction).

In the private sector, you get fired, probably sued and possibly prosecuted for do this sort of thing. I academia, you get tenure and in government, you get promoted.for doing this sort of thing.

It will probably be tomorrow morning before I can reply in full detail.
"Mike (Michael Mann)'s Nature Trick," with regard to this exact graph, is not a 'trick' at all, but rather the failure of an observer to carefully analyze the information presented. At a glance, it appears that the green line represents the definitive temperature graph before ~1850, but, as one can see, it reflects only the 'average' of possible conditions. The grey shaded areas (uncertainty) reflect the upper and lower bounds of possible temperatures at that given point in time. With the addition of the "instrumental record," which is both color-coded and labeled as such, there should be little confusion over what both sections of data represent.

The only 'trick' here is one played on the brain by the eyes, forcing a 'snap judgment.'
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09 Feb 15, 21:07
OpanaPointer's Avatar
OpanaPointer OpanaPointer is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 11,682
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Is Buddha your imaginary friend?

Nope, he's a historical figure. And I don't pray to him, I use him for cursing. See Creatures of Light and Darkness.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09 Feb 15, 21:08
OpanaPointer's Avatar
OpanaPointer OpanaPointer is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 11,682
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
"A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09 Feb 15, 21:44
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,944
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
"Mike (Michael Mann)'s Nature Trick," with regard to this exact graph, is not a 'trick' at all, but rather the failure of an observer to carefully analyze the information presented. At a glance, it appears that the green line represents the definitive temperature graph before ~1850, but, as one can see, it reflects only the 'average' of possible conditions. The grey shaded areas (uncertainty) reflect the upper and lower bounds of possible temperatures at that given point in time. With the addition of the "instrumental record," which is both color-coded and labeled as such, there should be little confusion over what both sections of data represent.

The only 'trick' here is one played on the brain by the eyes, forcing a 'snap judgment.'
The specific graph you posted was not Mann's. However the practice of splicing instrumental data onto proxy data is known as "Mike's Nature Trick."

It's far more.than just optics. When you lower the frequency of a signal, you attenuate the amplitude. If you splice a high frequency signal onto a low frequency signal, you create a false amplitude anomaly.

This is basic signal theory.

The only way to merge the instrumental record with a proxy record is to filter the instrumental record down to the same frequency as the proxy record. When you do this the anomaly vanishes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Michael Mann was a nobody until his first Hockey Stick (MBH97) was featured in the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR). Prior to TAR, modern climate change was not anomalous...



Mann's first Hockey Stick made the modern climate unprecedented...



Despite the fact that MBH97 was thoroughly discredited and spectrally consistent reconstructions have restored the non anomalous nature of the modern warming, Mann and his ilk continue to churn out hockey sticks and Mann was offered a top spot at Penn State.

When Mann was implicated in the Climategate emails, Penn State convened an academic "investigation." Penn State's whitewash was ludicrous...
After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. .

There’s no evidence that Mann intended to suppress or falsify inconvenient data. OK. I’ll buy that. It can’t be proven that he intended to suppress or falsify inconvenient data. It's entirely possible that he accidentally devised a method to suppress or falsify inconvenient data.

This bit here was laughable…
In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.
The most benign possible interpretation of the “trick” is that they edited part of Briffa’s reconstruction because the tree ring chronology showed that the 1930s to early 1940′s were warmer than the late 1990′s. So, they just substituted the instrumental record for the tree ring chronology.

I suppose that there is no evidence that Mann did this with intent to deceive… However, when he advised Phil Jones to employ that same method on Keith Briffa's inconvenient reconstruction, he was intentionally acting to suppress or falsify inconvenient data. The fact that they called it “Mike’s nature trick” sure makes it seem like this sort of thing was SOP.

Taking a set of data that shows that the 1930′s were warmer than the 1990′s and using another data set to reverse that relationship is not bringing “two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.” It’s a total bastardization of the data.

To see an example of "Mike's Nature Trick," go here... Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

Click this... EIV Temperature Reconstructions


Open up any of the **cru_eiv_composite.csv or **had_eiv_composite.csv files. All of them splice the high frequency instrumental data into the low frequency proxy data. To Mann's credit, unlike his previous "tricks," he at least documents this one enough to sort it out.

This statement from their PNAS paper is totally unsupported by proxy reconstructions... "Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years."

The anomalous nature of the "recent warmth" is entirely dependent on the "tricky" use of the instrumental data. He didn't even use any proxy data post-1855.

This image from Mann's 2008 paper falsely implies that all of the reconstructions are in general agreement regarding the claim that the "recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years"...



By cluttering up the image with many reconstructions and plastering the instrumental record onto end of the graph, it's impossible to see any details.

Here are Mann (Had_EIV), Moberg and Ljungqvist without the clutter...



Zoomed in on post-1800...



And Mike's Nature Trick...



The Modern Warming appears anomalous because of the higher resolution of the instrumental record, it's position at the tail-end of the time series and the negative deflection of the Little Ice Age trough (ca 1600 AD)...



If the Modern Warming is directly compared to the Medieval Warm Period, it appears to be far less anomalous, despite ithe better resolution of the instrumental record...



Particularly if you clutter the image with multiple reconstructions...



The Modern Warming might be 0.2-0.4°C warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. This would be consistent with a climate sensitivity of 0.5-1.0°C per doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level (the Gorebots say the sensitivity is ~3°C). Although the difference between the MW and MWP is well within the margins of error of the proxy and instrumental reconstructions and could easily be explained by the higher resolution of the instrumental record.

References:

Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010.
A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia.
Geografiska Annaler: Physical Geography, Vol. 92 A(3), pp. 339-351, September 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-459.2010.00399.x

Mann, M.E., Z. Zhang, M.K. Hughes, R.S. Bradley, S.K. Miller, S. Rutherford, and F. Ni. 2008.
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, No. 36, September 9, 2008. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105

Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005.
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data.
Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.

Instrumental Data from Hadley Centre / UEA CRU via Wood for Trees
The NOAA OIG "found eight emails which... warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA's data." Most of the 1,073 emails reviewed by NOAA's OIG did not involve "NOAA scientists or NOAA's data."

This is from the OIG's actual report...
[...]

In our own review of all 1,073 CRU emails, we found eight emails which, in our judgment, warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA's data. As a result, we conducted interviews with the relevant NOAA scientists regarding these eight emails, and have summarized their responses and explanations in the enclosure.

In addition to the foregoing, we also found two other emails that raised questions, one regarding a 2002 contract NOAA awarded to the CRU, and the second involving actions on the part of two NOAA scientists in 2007.

[...]

As detailed in the enclosure, we recommend that NOAA examine the CRU contract issues implicated by the one email and provide the results to us.

[...]

[T]he CRU emails referenced a specific IPCC-related FOIA request received and responded to by NOAA in June 2007 that led to our further examination of how those FOIA requests were handled. We determined that, at the time, NOAA did not conduct a proper search for responsive documents as required under FOIA, and, as a result, did not have a sufficient basis to inform the requesters that it had no responsive documents. Given that federal agencies are legally obligated to publicly disclose records under the terms of FOIA, we recommend that NOAA conduct a proper search for responsive records as required by the FOIA, and reassess its response to the four FOIA requests in question, as appropriate. Additionally, based on the issues we identified in NOAA's handling of these particular FOIA requests, NOAA should consider whether these issues warrant an overall assessment of the sufficiency of its FOIA process.

[...]
The FOIA is particularly troublesome. NOAA claims that work they do related to the IPCC is not subject to FOIA and that they do not have to respond to FOIA requests related to IPCC-related work. NOAA informed the OIG that they made that determination based on legal counsel. The career attorneys, NOAA claims provided the advice, say that they were never asked for such advice and there is no record of NOAA receiving such advice...
Thwarting FOIA

“The Co-Chair of the IPCC AR4 WG1, who was the only NOAA scientist informed of any of the aforementioned FOIA requests, told us that she did not conduct a ‘comprehensive search’ for and forward potentially responsive documents for agency processing. This was based, in part, on her understanding that her IPCC-related work product was the property of the IPCC, due to the confidentiality provisions contained in many of the documents. In addition, she reportedly received verbal guidance from her supervisor and a NOAA OGC attorney that the IPCC-related documents she had created and/or obtained while on “detail” assignment to the IPCC did not constitute NOAA records.” [Emphasis added]

“We interviewed the two NOAA OGC attorneys whom the Co-Chair and her supervisor referenced during their interviews with us to determine what, if any, advice the attorneys provided to these individuals. Both attorneys specifically told us that they had not advised the Co-Chair or her supervisor on this matter at the time NOAA received the FOIA requests referenced herein. One attorney said that he never spoke to the Co-Chair about that issue, while the second attorney told us that he was consulted only after NOAA had already responded to the FOIA requesters that it had no responsive documents.” [Emphasis added]

“Based on our interviews of the two NOAA OGC attorneys, we followed-up with the Co-Chair and her supervisor, both of whom again told us that their handling of the aforementioned FOIA requests was based on advice they had received from these two specific attorneys. We requested from the Co-Chair and her supervisor documentation of any discussions with the NOAA OGC attorneys on this matter, which they were unable to provide. As such, we were unable to reconcile the divergent accounts.” [Emphasis added]

WUWT


FOIA includes provisions as to what constitutes an "agency record." Under FOIA, an agency must exert sufficient control over the requested documents to render them "agency records" such as would be subject to disclosure. To qualify as agency records, documents must be created or obtained by the agency and under its control at the time the FOIA request is made.23 The Co-Chair informed us that the IPCC process was governed by an implicit policy of confidentiality with respect to, for example, the pre-decisional correspondences of its members. We examined IPCC-related records in the possession of NOAA employees, some of which contained the directive "Do Not Cite or Quote," and others of which had "Confidential. Do Not Cite or Quote." However, none of the NOAA employees with whom we spoke who participated in the IPCC AR4 recalled explicit IPCC policies or procedures pertaining to the confidentiality of the material produced as part of the assessment process. Absent such an unambiguous directive, in our view, the IPCC did not demonstrate a clear intent to retain control over the records created or obtained by NOAA employees.24

OIG Report, Page 18
One of the "eight emails which... warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity"...
CRU email #1140039406. This email, dated February 15,2006, documented exchanges between several climate scientists, including the Deputy Director of CRU, related to their contributions to chapter six ofthe IPCC AR4. In one such exchange, the Deputy Director of CRU warned his colleagues not to "let [the Co-Chair of AR4 WGl] (or [a researcher at Pennsylvania State University]) push you (us) beyond where we know is right" in terms of stating in the AR4 "conclusions beyond what we can securely justify."
The CRU's Keith Briffa was warning his colleagues to not allow NOAA's Susan Solomon or Penn State's Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann to coerce them into going along with unsupportable conclusions. This particular e-mail exchange dealt extensively with paleoclimate reconstructions. Briffa also urged his colleagues not to "attack" Anders Moberg, who had recently published a climate reconstruction which actually honored the data and used proper signal processing records.

Susan Solomon is the NOAA official who claimed that NOAA work related to the IPCC was not subject to FOIA.

Michael Mann was the lead author of the thoroughly debunked original Hockey Stick.

Keith Briffa was the lead author of one of the problematic reconstructions in which "Mike's Nature Trick" was employed to "hide the decline."
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #41  
Old 09 Feb 15, 21:45
BobTheBarbarian's Avatar
BobTheBarbarian BobTheBarbarian is offline
Colonel
United_States
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,956
BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by G David Bock View Post
Mr. Courtney has little room to speak on matters such as these, as he has no educational background in this field whatsoever. He holds a Diploma in Philosophy from the University of Cambridge, which has nothing to do with Earth and Environmental sciences.

From desmogblog.com (link: http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney):

Quote:
Interestingly, Courtney's profile states that "Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his academic achievements."
In other words, he's a poser. Not to be trusted for a second, and certainly not credible enough to be referenced in a serious debate.

He affiliates with other posers as well, too. Take the "industry-funded Heartland Institute," for instance. (What a shock, big business looking to deny global warming to make a quick buck! )

A few years ago this site boasted a "list" of tens of thousands of 'scientists' who subscribed to its beliefs. This 'list' is no longer featured, for the following reason:

When it was found out that all one had to do to appear as a name on this list was simply print out the website's 'certification paper,' fill in some bogus credentials and a statement denying man-made climate change, then mail it back to the site, some High School students decided to get in on the act. Dozens of students printed out these 'certificates,' filled them out, and mailed them to the Heartland Institute. Lo and behold, their names appeared on the list as qualified scientists! When the H.I. was called out for it, they were forced to briefly take down their site to remove the names. Needless to say, this list of thousands of 'scientists' no longer appears on their website.

Anyone used to be able to pose as a 'scientist' for the Heartland Institute's propaganda.

From desmogblog (link: http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/17...land-institute) (The first paragraph is a statement by the Heartland Institute)
Quote:
“Fact: Most scientists don’t believe the effect of human activities on climate is sufficiently well understood to make predictions about future climate conditions, and many believe the modest warming that may occur would be beneficial.”


This is a sad, sad attempt to continue what Heartland does best on climate change: say anything but the truth. Without valid refutation, Heartland fully dismissed our citations of two separate peer-reviewed studies (from PNAS, 2010 and Environmental Research Letters, 2013) showing 97%-98% consensus among active climate scientists about the existence and cause of global warming. Nor did Heartland acknowledge the review of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on climate change, concluding that only 24 of 13,950 rejected global warming.

Here's the really sad part: Heartland cites a 2009 survey by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman that supposedly shows “most scientists do not side with Greenpeace on the issue.”

Except that's not what the study concludes at all. Rather, Doran and Zimmerman found a 96-97% consensus among specialized scientists that took part in the survey who agree that the earth's temperature is rising and humans are the cause. The end of the paper specifically points out the greater understanding of climate change by scientists who took part in the survey and those without scientific expertise:

“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”
Heartland's other citations aren't any better. One is Heartland president Joseph Bast's “reasonable interpretation” of conclusions he'll never accept, and the rest comes from a retired TV weatherman named Anthony Watts (who's not a climate scientist), who runs the climate denier blog WattsUpWithThat. Watts was on Heartland's payroll last year for a $44,000 project to undermine climate change evidence gathered from weather stations, funded by Heartland's billionaire “anonymous donor,” Barre Seid. But this is what we expect–Heartland has always demanded legitimacy despite its inherent lack thereof.
Still, I never thought I would be debating Global Warming on a Military History site...
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09 Feb 15, 21:51
Pirate-Drakk's Avatar
Pirate-Drakk Pirate-Drakk is offline
Major General
Pirate
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive Summer Campaign 
Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 Best Pin-Up Of World War II Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Real Name: S. Krause
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: East Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 2,697
Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Humans absolutely do play some role in climate change. Land use changes, aerosol emissions and greenhouse gas emissions all play some unquantifiable role in climate change. However, the fact is that recently observed climate changes do not deviate from the natural climate variability of the past 10,000 years.
This is the key factor against the AGW myth. Any changes induced by humans are in the NOISE of natural climate variation.

I'm sure we all agree that saving our environment from pollution and desecration by mining, industrial waste, and such is a Good thing.

However, propaganda has played it that humans will overheat the planet somehow and all humanity will be destroyed. Then they use this as an excuse to manipulate policy and industry to move money around appropriately. I have no doubt that at least some of that crowd realize their logic is flawed but just don't care. Very large amounts of money don't get pushed around for no reason, even if the reason is based on fluff.

Besides, even if the world does warm up, it will take a LONG time and it's not so horrible. People would migrate to nice areas in the North, fish in the Arctic and see Antarctica as a land mass once again. Think of the skiing! Coastal cities can be protected by dikes like they do in Holland. Technology will make all these things better and easier.

So where's the terror factor?


I would like warmer winters here in Michigan!
__________________
Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09 Feb 15, 21:54
BobTheBarbarian's Avatar
BobTheBarbarian BobTheBarbarian is offline
Colonel
United_States
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,956
BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200]
Geez Doc, those are long posts. How do you come up with them so quickly? Interesting statistical analysis though, BTW.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09 Feb 15, 22:05
BobTheBarbarian's Avatar
BobTheBarbarian BobTheBarbarian is offline
Colonel
United_States
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,956
BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
This is the key factor against the AGW myth. Any changes induced by humans are in the NOISE of natural climate variation.

I'm sure we all agree that saving our environment from pollution and desecration by mining, industrial waste, and such is a Good thing.
Of course!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirate-Drakk
However, propaganda has played it that humans will overheat the planet somehow and all humanity will be destroyed. Then they use this as an excuse to manipulate policy and industry to move money around appropriately. I have no doubt that at least some of that crowd realize their logic is flawed but just don't care. Very large amounts of money don't get pushed around for no reason, even if the reason is based on fluff.
Not exactly, Global Warming will not destroy humanity per se, but it might make things mighty uncomfortable! Imagine creeping inundation of coastal areas by rising sea levels, and giant bugs suddenly finding themselves up in Michigan with you, as the climate down South has become too hot! I don't think you'd want to deal with Palmetto bugs in your house, would you...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirate-Drakk
Besides, even if the world does warm up, it will take a LONG time and it's not so horrible. People would migrate to nice areas in the North, fish in the Arctic and see Antarctica as a land mass once again. Think of the skiing! Coastal cities can be protected by dikes like they do in Holland. Technology will make all these things better and easier.
Not when you're out getting cancer from that giant hole in the ozone layer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirate-Drakk
So where's the terror factor?


I would like warmer winters here in Michigan!
Solar radiation, cancer, eccentric weather (more powerful and frequent hurricanes), etc.

And, in case you missed it, here's that picture again:

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09 Feb 15, 22:31
BobTheBarbarian's Avatar
BobTheBarbarian BobTheBarbarian is offline
Colonel
United_States
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,956
BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200]
From the Wiki article on "Hockey Stick Graphs:"

Quote:
A 2010 opinion piece by David Frank, Jan Esper, Eduardo Zorita and Rob Wilson (Frank et al. 2010) noted that by then over two dozen large-scale climate reconstructions had been published, showing a broad consensus that there had been exceptional 20th century warming after earlier climatic phases, notably the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. There were still issues of large-scale natural variability to be resolved, especially for the lowest frequency variations, and they called for further research to improve expert assessment of proxies and to develop reconstruction methods explicitly allowing for structural uncertainties in the process.[13]

New studies using different methods continued to extend the period covered by reconstructions, and agreed well with Mann et al. 2008, as in the Ljungqvist 2010 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction. Studies by Christiansen and Ljungqvist investigated previous underestimation of low-frequency variability, and reaffirmed Mann et al.'s conclusions about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.[213] as did Ljungqvist et al. 2012 which used a larger network of proxies than previous studies. The hockey stick graph was further extended and confirmed by Marcott et al. 2013 which used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years.[214]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 23:42.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.