White House repeatedly edited global warming reports

parados- I am afraid that you don't know what you are talking about.

First of all, I gave you Crichton's temperatures PROVIDED BY THE United States Historical Climatology Network. CRICHTON DID NOT MAKE THEM UP. You responded that I could not cherry pick.

Then I asked you what the average of all the readings are across the globe. You did not provide it.

I find it strange that the Temperature has dropped according to surface readings in may towns in the USA since 1900. I guess the USA is not part of the world, right, Parados?

Well, now I will answer some of the questions I asked you.
average of all of the readings across the globe?

One degree Fahrenheit--over the past 100 years.

Source- the National Academy of Sciences.

Global Warming?????

According to the National Academy's report there has been a warming of 1 degree F, in the last 100 years but these QUALIFICATIONS OF THAT FACT MUST BE OBSERVED.

l. There was a strong surface warming between the 1890's and the 1940's followed by a pronounced cooling(WARNINGS ABOUT ICE AGE TO COME-REMEMBER THAT PARADOS?)from the 1940's to 1970's then rising temperatures from 1970's to today. WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THAT CO2 EMISSIONS WERE INSIGNIFICANT IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY YET

SUBSTANTIAL WARMING OCCURRED ANYWAT.

Explanation for this, Parados?


and, the recent warming, according to the National Academy's report has been observed ONLY on the surface of the earth, using thermometer measurements that have major uncertainties such as the local heating produced by growing mechanized cities( exactly what Crichton laid out in his charts)

More sophisticated temperature records taken from the surface to a few miles up into the lower atmosphere using NASA satellites show NO WARMING OVER THE LAST TWENTY TWO YEARS.

How do you explain this, Parados???

Your answer concerning Computer simulations simply doesnt wash.

It is clear that without computer models, there would be no evidence of global warming, no evidence of disaster, no Kyoto.So far, the earth has increased its temperature just one degree in a century.By simulating the climate on giant ultrafast computers, scholars will TRY to find out how it will react to EACH NEW STIMULUS--LIKE A DOUBLING OF CO2. BUT, ANIDEAL COMPUTER MODEL, HOWEVER, WOULD HAVE TO TRACK FIVE MILLION PARAMETERS OVER THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH,

INCORPORATE ALL RELEVANT REACTIONS AMONG LAND, SEA, AIR AND VEGETATION.

ACCORDING TO ONE RESEARCHERM SUCH A MODEL WOULD DEMAND TNE MILLION TRILLION DEFRESS OF FREEDOM TO SOLVE---A COMPUTATIONAL IMPOSSIBILITY EVNE ON THE MOST ADVANCED SUPERCONPUTER.


The National Academy of Science put it this way in their report--
"CLIMATE MODELS ARE IMPERFECT.

THEIR SIMULATION SKILL IS LIMITED BY UNCERTAINTIES IN THEIR FORMULATIONMTHE LIMITED SIZE OF THEIR CALCULATIONS,AND THE DIFFICULTY IN INTERPRETING THEIR ANSWERS THAT EXHIBIT ALMOST AS MUCH COMPLEXITY AS IN NATURE."

You said, Parados, when talking about Computer simulations-"Perhaps you need to go do some research before you attack the science". Now what do you say about the NAS comment about computer simulations???????


Additionally the forecasts are so new that they haven't been tested. For example, an economic model might have predicted in 1990 that GDP would grow by 4 percent in 2000. Economists could see if it was right, and if not, change it. BUT CLIMATE MODELS CAN ONLY BE BACKTESTED--THAT IS, APPLIED TO THE PAST, AND EVEN THEN THEY COME UP SHORT.

The great Climatologist, Richard Lindzen, noted that there was a widespread agreement among climate sciences that LARGE COMPUTER MODELS ARE UNABLE TO EVEN SIMULATE MAJOR FEATURES OF PAST CLIMATE,

This means we can have no confidence in the models to forecast future climate.

I really don't think you have done much reading on Computers and globalwaring measurements, Parados.

When you read the National Academy's Report, it is clear that there is difficulty in understanding NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGES. Your smarmy remarks about the sun shows your ignorance.NASA SATELLITES HAVE UNCOVERED THE FACT THAT SUN'S CHANGING MAGNETISM OVER THE COURSE OF ITS SUNSPOT CYCLE IS ACCOMPANIED BY A CHANGE IN TOTAL ENERGY OUTPUT.

You don't know much about the sun's energy output either, Parados.

The amount of energy reaching us increases or decreases as the sun brightens or fades, And the change in solar magnetism or total energy output is highly correlated with changes in the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere gong back 240 years( unfortunately, records of the entire earth over this period are not accurate enough to study).
'
IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, FROM NASA SATELLITE DATA THAT THE SUN TODAY IS

AS MAGNETICALLY ACTIVE AS IT HAS BEEN

IN 400 YEARS OF TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS.

The 1 degree rise in F over the last 100 years could easily be ascribed to the sun.

I note., parados, that you did not have a great deal to say when I indicated that on one knows how to calculate correctly the climate's response to the added energy.

Indeed, the Academy Report states that "the nature and magnitude of these hydrological feedbacks give rise to the LARGEST SOURCE OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY, Hydrological feedbacks might diminish or magnify warming trends BUT ALL THE COMPUTER MODELS ASSUME THAT WATER VAPOR FEEDBACKS PRODUCE A LARGE GAIN IN GLOBAL WARMING.

IF THAT ASSUMPTION IS UNTRUE, THEN EVERY MODEL EXAGGERATES WARMING AT THE LOWEST LEVELS OF THE ATMOSPHERE. BOTH CLOUDS AND WATER VAPOR-E ACH M O R E I M P O R T A N T IN THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAN CO2 ARE SIMPLY NOT UNDERSTOOD BY CLIMATOLOGISTS.

Richard Lindzen believes that Cirrus clouds may act as thermostats. As the earth warms, clouds admustin their surface coverage, shedding more energy back to space. BUT ALL THE COMPUTER MODELS ASSUME NO CHANGE IN CLOUD ACTIVITY FROM WARMING.

In fact, Lindzen believes that clouds tend to REDUCE MUCH OF THE WARMING EXPECTED FROM INCREASED C02


Parados, you obviously did not read my previous post carefully. Crichton did not say that there was no man made effect on global warming.He merely said that no one knows HOW MUCH of the warming is natural and how much is man made( c02)

If the solar magnetism theory is correct, man made global warming might be quite low indeed.




Now, to another aspect of this discussion.

Did you know=, Parados, that the US Senate, voted against the acceotance of the Kyoto Protocol during Clinton;s last term- 97-1?

Do you know what the major argument was for voting against the protocal?

It was-_ Why should we impact our economy while Developing Nations will not be held to the parameters of the Kyoto Protocol?

And just who were those developing nations? Among the largest was India and China.


As I said previously, I think you have a lot of reading to do. i don'r think you have read enough about Global warming to make an intelligent judgment..
'

Well, I went to that site myself today and looked up the temperatures.

Firstly, the site itself shows a half Fahrenheit degree increase in temperature over a 50-year period. The data shows only US climate change, not the globe.

Then I asked you what the average of all the readings are across the globe. You did not provide it.

Secondly, I can't imagine for the life of me why the researchers there insist on using Fahrenheit. That scale of temperature has no bearing scientifically, for the Fahrenheit scale is based such that 0 is the freezing point of a mixture of ice and salt or some say it was based on horse blood. Either way, it has no scientific use and Kelvin and Celsius are better.

(I'm not questioning the validity of your source, just the bizareness of them using a non-scientific scale of temperature measurement).



The USA is a part of the world, but it is not the entire world. It would appear from the last two pages that you are assuming that Global Warming data can be achieved from just one point on the globe.



That's not a source and not even a proper quotation.

Now this, http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/may/glob_jan-may_pg.gif, is a source (but not a very good one). Give us enough detail to allow us to search for the source ourselves and find the original data. Just citing the National Academy of Sciences is not good enough.

And the data given here that there is a global surface rise of 0.6 degree C (that's 1 degree Fahrenheit) over a period of approximately 60 years, not 100.



Show us this data, then. We can't comment, if we can't see the original data.

EDIT: I'll just put these up so people joining the debate can read up on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

chic,

Your ramblings are really quite funny.

I can't figure out which argument you are making. You keep making contradictory statements on the following.

1.) Are you claiming there is NO global warming or are you saying the globe warmed 1 degree F over the last 100 years?

2.) You state that computer models are needed to show global warming then use EXISTING RECORDED temperatures to argue both that there is and isn't global warming. How are recorded temperatures the same thing as a computer model? Aren't recorded temperatures ACTUAL DATA?

3.) You argue that RECORDED temp increases are a result of large cities. Which large cities presently exist on a.) Antarctica b.) The Atlantic Ocean c.) the Pacific Ocean d.) the thousands of other recording sites that are not near or in a city.

4.) How do you test an economic model based on your example? Aren't economic models BACK TESTED? THey are in my world. Explain to us how you propose to test your economic model using only FUTURE data. Explain the difference in how you are testing your economic model compared to any climate simulation.


5. Explain how recent satellite readings of the sun back up your statement earlier that the sun is warmer than 400 years ago.
The change in sunspot cycle is a RECENT science discussion. There was no discussion of "sun spot cycles" 400 years ago nor was there any recorded energy output from satellites 400 years ago.

wolf,

The NOAA site includes the GHCN data set. That would the GLOBAL Historical Climatology Network vs the USHCN that chic keeps using as his reference.

oh..

Number 6 for you chic..

6.) Explain how a few points in the US can represent the entire globe.
Isn't it more accurate to find the global average temparture using the 6000 GHCN recording stations for every year for the last 100 years than it is to use 6 stations for only 2 years?
GHCN Temperature recording sites

Could you explain what you mean by RESEARCHERM and by DEFRESS?

I think RESEARCHERM is supposed to be some kind of a research company but I can't tell what kind or if it is even a valid research firm since you give no name.

As for DEFRESS? Who knows? I know of no computer that uses "DEFRESS OF FREEDOM" to compute anything. They use MFLOPs or GFLOPs to determine computational speed.

Is that your opinion, or is there some standard of which I am unaware that you can cite?

It's called academic and scientific integrity. It is a standard that is based upon common sense.

But I would really like to see you make the counter-argument, that it is alright to go around changing scientific reports (or ANYTHING really) to suit political needs.

I believe that scientists expect their work to be unchanged by lawyers. There are some instances in which legal departments may make revisions but the final paper is always given back to the scientists for an OK. This has been my personal experience.

I've shared this story with a lot of my collegues and there is nothing but disgust all around. The general attitude is, 'why bother asking scientists for reports if you are just going to change what they write anyways? Why not just have your lawyers do the report in the first place?'

Scrat Wrote


Not as far as I can tell. Nice to see you are coming around.

Cycloptichorn

Is that your opinion, or is there some standard of which I am unaware that you can cite?


How about you just pay attention to the arguments I've made, rather than asking me to make arguments you feel competent to refute?


I believe that scientists who supply information to the government know that the information will be edited--hopefully in benign ways--as it passes from hand to hand. Your belief that these specific edits were not benign does not justify your claim that no one should ever edit any scientific report given to government. With respect, that's absurd. And absent that surety, we're left only with our opinions of what was intended. I understand yours, and I think you know mine. So this seems a good time to move on to other topics.

Scrat Wrote:


How nice of you to agree with my position completely! I agree that now that we have reached consensus, that it is wrong to change scientific reports for governmental reasons, we can move on to other topics.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

Hey, @sswipe, stop editing my posts to change my point of view. What are you, 12 years old?

What a dickless wonder. I'm done taking anything you have to say the least bit seriously. (Actually, I'm done reading anything you write. Period.)

What's the deal with that Cycloptichorn?

Don't you guys read?

The question or statement was asked or made that since it was OK with you guys to change the words of a scientist it must be OK to change words in here.

Interesting how suddenly it is NOT OK with you.

At least I know who the children are in here.

Parados responds to my post with a dribbling and inadequate babble which does not, in any way, even attempt to rebut more than one fourth of my post.
'
I do hope that Parados is a man of letters and familiar with the play, Cyrano De Bergerac. In that play, when Cyrano is accosted by a fop, the fop says--Your nose is rather large. Cyrano responds--"Is that all"? Good sir, you are too modest, You could have said a great many things, for example, thus--
Parados has apparenty run out of gas and has a reading problem since he cannot figure out what argument I was making.

Parados asks:
"Are you claiming there is NO global warming or are you saying the globe warmed 1 degree F over the last 100 years"

Hoping that Parados is not dyslexic, I point out EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

quote:

average of all of the readings across the globe?

One Degree Fahrenheit --- over the past 100 years.

( with some qualifications of that fact to be observed)

end of quote

Then parados says:

You state that computer models are needed to show global warming and then use EXISTING RECORDED temperatures to argue that here is and isn't global warming. How are recorded temperaures the same as a computer model> aren't recorded temperatures ACTUAL DATA?

Parados apparently does not understand that computer models are FED existing recorded temperatures. THEN THE CLIMATE IS SIMULATED ON GIANT, ULTRA-FAST COMPUTERS TO TRY TO FIND OUT HOW A CLIMATE WILL REACT TO ECH NEW, EACH NEW, EACH NEW, EACH NEW, STIMULUS.

Your comment, Parados, that I argue that RECORDED temp increases are a result of large cities and that I also mean that the recorded temp increases in Antartica, The Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean's RECORDED temp increases are due to large cities is incorrect. I said that " I find it strange that the Temperature has dropped according to surface temperature in many towns in the USA, is NOT SAYING a thing about Antarctica, The Pacific Ocean or the Atlantic Ocean. All that I have said relies on the theory that the Urban Heat Island effect, results in the higher temperatures in some cities while other cities close to those cities do not have a corresponding increase in temoerature over the last hundred years, In fact, some of those cities have a lower temperature.

This is based on data for the USA, not Antartica, The Atlantic, and the Pacific( which may have some unusual changes based on El Nino,but that would be the topic for another thread)

Aren't economic models backtested? asks Parados.

Of course they are backtested. Did I say they were not? You must reread my post on this. It is clear that you do not understand my quote from LIndzen--"There was a widespread agreement among climate scientists that LARGE COMPUTER MODELS ARE UNABLE TO

EVEN

SIMULATE

MAJOR FEATURES OF PAST CLIMATE.

This means we can have no confidence in the models to forecast future climate.

You really should try, if you are interested, to become familiar with the writings of Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an expert on Solar Variablity and Global Climate Change. There you might learn that the sun is indeed warmer than it was 400 years ago.


quote:

"One possible natural cause of climatic change is variation in the brightness of the sun....such changes in irradiance could, if large enough, drive significant climate change and the climatic record, indeed, does indicate a solar reference of this kind. Figure 3 shows records of the sun's magnetism an of land temperature of the northern hemisphere over the last 250 years...
There is additional evidence of the sun's effect over the climate over several millennia, Every two centuries or so, the sun's magnetism drops to very low levels for several decades. One instance is the low level of the sun's magnetism during the seventeenth century( ca. 1640 to 1720, the Maunder Minimum) A fainter sun at that time could have contributed to a climatic period called the little ice age when the average global temperature was about 1 C cooler than it is today.


QUANTIATIVE RECORDS OF THE SUN'S MAGNETISM OVER MILLENIA COME FROM MEASURES OF RADIOCARBON( 14C) IN TREE RINGS AND BERYLLIIM(10Be) IN ICE CORES."


Source for above--

Solar Variability and Global Climatic Change by

Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.



Parados_ I am really disappointed in you, I thought you would bring EVIDENCE TO BEAR REBUTTING EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT I MADE.

Instead, you dribble several inconsequential questions in an answer to my multipaged post.

How shallow of you!

But I really must respond to your post where you point out some really avoidable spelling mistakes on my part--Inexcusable, Thereforem I will retype-

'EACH NEW STIMULUS--LIKE A DOUBLING OF CO2, BUT AN IDEAL CONPUTER MODEL, HOWEVER, WOULD HAVE TO TRACK FIVE MILLION PARAMETERS OVER THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH, AND INCORPORATE ALL RELEVANT REACTIONS AMONG LAND, SEA, AIR AND VEGETATION.

ACCORDING TO ONE RESEARCHER, SUCH A MODEL WOULD DEMAND TEN MILLION TRILLION DEGRESS OF FREEDOM TO SOLVE--A COMPUTATIONAL IMPOSSIBLITY EVEN ON THE MOST ADVANCED SUPERCOMPUTER.

scrat wrote (angrily):


Now, now. No need to result to insults.

I see you don't like it so much when YOUR words are changed to mean what I thought you SHOULD have said, do you? A little hypocrisy showing there.

It isn't as if I didn't tell you I was going to start doing it. And as your argument supports my position, I will continue to do it.

Cycloptichorn