Re: [asa] AGW discussion

----- Original Message ----
From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 3:10:13 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] AGW discussion

John,

I hear this "lost data" claim on a pretty frequent basis and am really quite in the dark as to what, precisely, is being spoken about.

I think if, rather than vague remarks about "missing data" people were to refer to specific data sets (e.g. "daily temperature figures for San Francisco from 1845 to 2003" or something of similar precision) we might be better able to determine the credibility to such claims.

As they stand they lie beyond scrutiny.

What, precisely, is "missing"?

Blessings,
Murray

> Randy,
> Would you not consider the issue of interpreting the original data one of your categories below? Is everyone satisfied that the original adjustments were accurate and warranted? How can we ever resolve this conclusively if we no longer have that data?
>
> John
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 2:44:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] AGW discussion
>
> I'm not quite sure why it would be helpful to start yet another blogsite or debate site on this topic. The experts in the field have posted pretty well everything on the topic and I don't know what we would add to the dialog. Virtually everything we have to say has been said in one way or another. www.realclimate.org has many key contributors to the field weighing in and addressing questions. In fact, it is worth following their contribution to the email issue at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
> Then there is www.skepticalscience.com which seriously considers the top 74 skeptical arguments on global warming at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>
> I previously provided the link to the 2007 conference which has a tremendous amount of information. The overview talks say it all.
> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/agenda.html
>
> I don't think we have anything else to add. Any data or information that counters this are most welcome. The problem is that most arguments from skeptics make one of the following categories of misunderstanding:
>
> 1. Focusing on a subset, spatially or temporally, of the global trend data. (I.e. focusing on the last decade or just Greenland)
> 2. Speculating on amplification effects of solar activity
> 3. Misunderstanding the role and validity of models in climate research
> 4. Confusing surface vs atmospheric vs deep ocean thermal attributes
>
> We would all be thrilled to hear of any data that demonstrates there isn't, or won't be, a problem, or of any analysis of data that alleviates the problem.
> But right now I don't see that a forum of this type would generate any valuable addition to the field. If people do not believe the experts in the websites above, then why would they believe us when we repeat that information?
>
> Randy
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Dave Wallace" <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 11:18 AM
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: [asa] AGW discussion
>
>> Rich, Terry, Randy, Ted
>>
>> I would like to propose a discussion of the AGW science between:
>>
>> -Glenn Morton, a former member of this list, taking the con.  He accepted AGW in the past but is now skeptical.
>>
>> -Randy and Rich taking the pro side, we have heard some of their positions recently on the list.
>>
>> To my mind in order to have a reasonable discussion the ability to show graphs, tables, pictures etc is essential, so I suggest we use one of the blogging services on the web that supports such.  All posts and comments would be moderated prior to posting and would be limited to say 1 a day plus minor clarifications from each side.  Only comments from the moderators or the three participants would be allowed on the blog.  List members with questions could send them to the list and the  moderators or participants could decide whether to take them up or not.  Moderators would be Ted and Terry although I think David Opderbeck would be good if we could get him.
>>
>> I should point out to people that both Glenn and Rich, at one point did not accept an evolutionary origin for life and now do.  Thus if enough data is thrown at them they have in the past changed their positions.
>>
>>
>> Dave W
>> ps I copied Glenn and while I did not run this particular proposal past him, I think he would be willing.  Glenn's GW web side is: http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>     
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 30 15:34:45 2009