Friday, November 20, 2009
AGW Info Just Wants To Be Free
I'm still reading the healthcare bill, so I can't really read this massive group of files, but this is hawt:
From: Tom Wigley [...]The ah, implicit mind set is that they can do anything with the data they want - there is no respect for whatever the real measurements may be - but the result should be plausible.
To: Phil Jones [...]
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
In other words, there ain't no science in climate science. The reason for this attitude can be explained by the flood of grant money it produces. It is easy to believe anything when you get millions of dollars for believing it.
This is no surprise to anyone who has been watching the mutatis mutandis of official climate records over the last decade. It's merely very entertaining.
Also see James Delingpole and Andrew Bolt who both have a bunch of excerpts.
Langmuir's "Colluquium On Pathological Science" is online at this site, and may be relevant. This talk was given in the 1950s. I had heard about it and read an excerpt but I had never encountered the whole lecture. I got the link from comments on this Althouse post.
Symptoms of Pathological Science:
- The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
- The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
- Claims of great accuracy.
- Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
- Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
- Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.
The Lamestream media is not going to run with this. It's going to be up to bloggers, commenters, and people who will write their Congress Critters, their newspaper editors, their e-mail correspondents, and to leave comments on blogs. This may be the facts to put a stop to Cap and Tax.
The post title is great!
They never learn. Mind you, this AFTER the FDIC takeover.
Links to this post: