Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 Next
Comments 50201 to 50250:
-
gpwayne at 16:36 PM on 10 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
It seems very unfortunate that we have to endure so much hypocrisy from climate change sceptics. Many of their attacks have been on the scientists rather than the science, which does not support their denial of the problem. In particular, the CRU emails focused on the probity and ethics of climate scientists. It appears that this is something of a one way street: demands for ethical behaviour are not accompanied by demonstrations of it. One rule for us, another for climate change deniers, apparently... -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:00 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
I'll my voice to congratulate you on a brilliant piece of work. The animation is excellent. It's interesting that the recent 16 year "trend", once removed the ENSO/volcanic influences, is actually a smidge faster than the trend since 1980... -
Philip Shehan at 15:40 PM on 10 January 2013The Y-Axis of Evil
Apologies to moderators for my personal remarks about Boehm, I have tried to be polite in discussions with folks over at WUWT even when they are slightly snarky and even abusive, but Boehm is apparently permitted to tip buckets of manure over people in post after post, and I had had enough of being on the receiving end. Tom Curtis informs me that we are not permitted to discuss "ethical issues" here, and that is what I was really getting stuck into Boehm about. Tom Curtis: Thank you for your explanation. I am still a little confused. According to the Wood For Trees help section: Mean (Months) Running mean over the given number of months. Keeps the number of samples the same, but smooths them by taking the average of that number of months around each sample. Isolate (Months) Does the same running mean as 'mean', but then subtracts this from the raw data to leave the 'noise' I thought the functions you mention were performed by (quoting from WFT help again) Scale (Scale factor) Multiplies each sample by the given scale factor Offset (Offset amount) Adds the given offset to each sample (can be negative) Normalise - Scales and offsets all samples so they fall into the range 0..1 I posted the following to you over at WUWT but appear to be now banned. Do you have any comment? My suspicions were aroused by informal inspection of the graph (and presentation of another graph from the same source in which extraneous processing had been used which did nothing but introduce extraneous lines which flattened the temperature data obscuring the curve of the data which the graph was supposed to be showing did not exist) shows that the match of the data sets is ridiculously good. Given that temperature is affected by solar cycles, aerosols, volcanic eruptions, El Niño and la Nina events etc etc, how could there be such a near perfect correlation between temperature and CO2 content alone? Well we now know there isn’t. -
Composer99 at 14:35 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
My congratulations as well to Kevin C and Daniel Bailey for their effort in putting this post and especially the video together. -
YubeDude at 14:21 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Hit the wrong button...please edit out the last 2 words and this post -
YubeDude at 14:20 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Is someone going to send a link to WUWT? Any chance we can get Climate Depot to review the video? Might have to rework my YT channel and make this video my homepage. Is it -
John Brookes at 13:37 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
This is right up there with the escalator as a beautiful exposition. -
Alpinist at 13:09 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Very nice post! Good work Kevin and Daniel! -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 12:16 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Brilliant work. More please. -
Lotharsson at 12:11 PM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Not sure where to put this thought, but the left sidebar has a "Most used" climate myths list. What about having a "Trending" or "Currently hot" climate myths list for claims that are currently getting some media attention? -
littlerobbergirl at 12:03 PM on 10 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
Lars @ 7; sorry for leading you into an ad feminem i couldnt resist such a juicy pun. On quote you give us; its also a non seccutur, embracing a 'greener, slower' etc way of life does not mean throwing out all tech at all! The rightest on hippies i know use solar, smartphones etc , even the amish use gm seed i believe. putting the two ideas in opposition is so not fair and so effective. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:46 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Thanks for the accolades and plaudits, everyone, but Kevin C is the real star here. Kevin did all the heavy lifting: concepting, storyboarding, scripting, programming and editing. Others contributed, but this is his moment. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:35 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Animating the removal of forcings such as ENSO, solar and volcanic, is a brilliant way to get the message across. I will be keeping this post in mind, as I attempt to debunk contrarian nonsense in other venues. Thanks for the effort, Kevin and Daniel. I hope it gets translated, the same way the Debunking Handbook has been. -
LarryM at 11:27 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Kevin C - Thanks for this excellent teaching tool. One could speak a thousand words about the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols and the cyclical nature of ENSO being superimposed on AGW and it wouldn't sink in nearly as deeply as watching this 2-minute video. Nice work! Alexandre @11's comment caused me to go look at all the SkS climate graphics, and it is quite an impressive collection. Don't forget to add this one! -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:12 AM on 10 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
Tom Curtis @ 15, I totally agree that Edenic civilisation would support far fewer people than are alive today. On the other hand, a 4°C-6°C warmer world would also support far fewer people, but in a hostile environment. I was not meaning to suggest that we have the opportunity to return to Eden; I was just expressing the view that the relatively few people who could be supported by a return to Eden at today's temperatures, would have an easy life compared with the lifestyles we could expect our (smaller) population to enjoy(?) in a world transformed by AGW. I see what you mean about non-biodegradable plastics being a form of carbon sequestration, but their manufacture would still require us to be pumping oil out of the ground: wouldn't that rather defeat the purpose? Making plastics from plant materials sounds like a good idea. The few times I have encountered this, it has been expressed as a proof-of-concept technology that has not yet reached commercial scale. This Scientific American article concludes:The research could become the basis of a process that turns biomass such as trees, cornstalks and algae into feedstock for chemicals, plastics and fuels at roughly 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit), which is a lot cooler than the 600 degrees C (1,112 degrees F) needed for oil refining or the high temperatures (as well as pressure) such oil must undergo when it is formed naturally. "A number of steps, including process development and optimization, have to take place before full-scale commercialization," Zhang notes. "It may take several years to reach that stage."
If the hurdles can be overcome and production can be ramped up to industrial scale, to keep the cost reasonable for the production of consumer goods, we will only have the problem of growing biomass quickly enough to feed the beast. At the scale required to feed our addiction to gadgets, plants-to-plastic might have a measurable effect on atmospheric CO2. Ditto plants-to-biofuels. I must admit to being somewhat sceptical that we could produce enough bio-plastic and bio-fuel to give our civilisation a seamless transition away from sucking oil out of the ground. Any way I look at it, I am led to the conclusion that a society free from fossil carbon fuels will consist of fewer members than the 10 billion expected around the middle of the century. Am I being unduly pessimistic? -
Tom Curtis at 10:15 AM on 10 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
Doug Hutcheson @14, 1) Edenic agriculture would not be able to sustain even a quarter of the World's current population. However desirable (and I do not think it is) a retreat to eden is simply not a viable policy alternative. But as LaFramoise knows, suggestions that it is what her opposition desires sure makes a handy substitute for thought. Demonize your opposition and your accolytes will swallow any rubbish in justification. 2) Non-biodegradable plastics are an effective means of carbon sequestration, so will still by viable in a low carbon economy (though we may want substitutes for other reasons). Further, at need, plastics can be made from plant material, a process that will actually reduce atmospheric CO2 by small amounts. -
Doug Hutcheson at 09:54 AM on 10 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
Lars Karlsson @ 7, you quote from the book:Apparently the answer is a return to Eden – to a slower, greener, more, ‘natural’ pace of life that embraces traditional values rather than mindless consumerism
To me, a return to Eden, a slower, greener way of life and no rampant consumerism sounds a great deal more attractive than the 4°C warmer world denialism is heading us to. CBDunkerson @ 8, I see challenges to our ability to build and deploy high technology, in a low-fossil-carbon future. The computer I am typing this message on consists of plastics and related materials that come from oil, as well as numerous metals that are already expensive to produce and distribute using machinery powered by fossil fuels. I imagine many products and services we take for granted in a high-fossil-carbon economy will become, at least, more expensive; at worst, unobtainable, when we turn off the pumps. The IPCC documents shine the light on where we are headed, in terms of temperatures and effects upon the biosphere, but do not map out the kind of society we can expect to develop under such environmental pressures. I have read that a 4°C increase in average surface temperatures is not compatible with organised global society, but have not found much discussion of the kind of society with which such a warmer world would be compatible. I have also not read much that discusses the changes and compromises we should expect, if we choose to move rapidly away from fossil fuels. I don't expect it to be business as usual, but have only a hazy idea of how Mr. and Mrs. Average would conduct their daily lives. -
Tom Curtis at 09:38 AM on 10 January 2013The Y-Axis of Evil
With reference to Philip Shehan's comment, this is the image used by Boehm to argue that temperature increases are responsible for the increase in CO2. The essential function used is the isolate function, which removes the trend and resets the mean of the series to zero. This has been illustrated here, with the "isolated" data offset for ease of comparison. As such, Boehme has joined a long list of deniers who have "proved" that temperature increases cause the rising trend of CO2 concentration by first removing that trend from the analysis. Shehan thinks such arguments raise serious ethical concerns, but that is not a permitted topic of conversation on SkS. I will note that Boehme rescales the CO2 data by a factor of 0.25. That means, even if we accept his premise, each degree rise in temperature will only cause a 4 ppmv increase in CO2. With temperatures rising by approximately 1 degree C since the pre-industrial revolution, that means at best he has shown that 4 ppmv of the 110 ppmv increase in CO2 is due to increased temperatures. Yet again we have a denier thinking only sufficiently to give himself a convenient sound bite, and not carrying the analysis through to see its full implications. That is, of course, because people who do carry the analysis through cease to be deniers (if they ever were). -
Philip Shehan at 09:05 AM on 10 January 2013The Y-Axis of Evil
A comment I have just posted on the WUWT thread for which the link is provided at comment 38 I refer to his post of January 9, 2013 at 11:37 am I recognise that this comment is decidedly "ad hominem' in the sense of being highly critical of Boehm personally as opposed to his adeas but I beleive the remarks are entirely justified being an reasonable description of his conduct and in the interest of exposing Boem's conduct I request it be posted. D Boehm Stealy [snip] I have previously drawn attention to your manipulation of Wood for trees data sets to flatten the appearance of the temperature data sets. Your conduct [snip] . Your chart in your post purports to be a plot of Muona Loa CO2 output and Hadcrut3 temperature data. It is nothing of the sort. As the WTF website states your use of the Isolate function means that you are plotting the noise after subtraction of the data, not the data itself. [snip]Moderator Response: TC: Ad hominens snipped. -
Tom Curtis at 09:04 AM on 10 January 2013Temperatures Continue Up the Escalator
Klapper @38, a person who is not a "simpleton thinker" does not stop their analysis when they have a convenient sound bite in support of their position. Thus, when they notice, for example, that the switch from generally negative ENSO conditions in the late sixties and early seventies to generally positive ENSO conditions may have contributed to the positive trend over that period (it did), they not only note that fact but find somebody who has quantified the effect; or if they have the skills, quantify it themselves. Doing so, they would find Lean and Rind 2012 and see that the ENSO contribution was minimal compared to the anthropogenic contribution to the rise in temperatures after 1975:
(Note in particular the 1955-2005 contributions.)
The problem is that while ENSO's contribution to global temperatures is large relative to the change in temperature due to AGW over short periods (say 16 years) it is small relative to the contribution over extended periods.
-
Alexandre at 08:39 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Heeeey... you guys are getting better and better. -
perseus at 07:47 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Great work everyone, and well timed! -
Bob Loblaw at 07:44 AM on 10 January 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Yes, KR's explanation is better. I was looking at the text in the rebuttal where it said "carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006).", and got messed up by the "earth's surface" part. Of course, with no atmosphere at all, there isn't any IR towards the earth's surface, but that still doesn't apply to an atmosphere with no CO2... which would have downward-direct IR at the surface. I was hasty, and messed up. The point that you need to be careful about surface vs. TOA fluxes is valid, but I'm not explaining the actual numbers that were asked about. -
dana1981 at 07:39 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
By the way, there's a myth pervading the media that this year's Met Office global surface temperature prediction shows that global warming has 'stalled'. We'll have a post with a specific rebuttal to those articles tomorrow, which makes use of Kevin's video. -
Tom Curtis at 07:36 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Few presentations cut through the obfustication, contradictions and worse that constitute denier talking points as succinctly and clearly as this. Well done Kevin C; and well done also to Daniel Bailey for his excellent voice over. The sheer quality of this presentation will spark, I have no doubt, another round of conspiracy theories as the deniers refuse to admit that this work was done entirely by volunteers determined to cut through their bullshit to allow people to see the truth of global warming. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 07:36 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Brilliant work, Kevin. Good contribution, Daniel ;) Take a bow. -
Albatross at 07:36 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Superb. That the "skeptics" and those in denial have to keep pushing this particular meme speaks to their desperation. The sad part is that unless the media and public are educated/informed about such nuanced issues the "skeptics" will be able to keep trying to push this meme. Even as we speak Monckton and his enablers are scheming as how to cherry pick those time windows of time that produce statistically insignificant temperature trends. Unbelievable but true. So, hopefully this video can be used by the media to educate and inform the public. That way, people will turn a blind eye to ridiculous "skeptic" antics and efforts to obfuscate and the informed public will also be in a position to expose the disingenuous games of fake skeptics whenever they try and push it again. I sincerely hope that this video goes viral. -
Brian Purdue at 07:32 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Wow! What a video and post! This will have the pseudoskeptics boiling, but will educate the public on what the real “16 years” facts are. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:30 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
You have a great speaking voice, Daniel. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:29 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
That rocks!! -
Tom Curtis at 07:29 AM on 10 January 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Bob Loblaw @132, the 32 W/m^2 is the CO2 contribution to the net difference between surface upward longwave radiation and top-of-atmosphere upward longwave radiation, and hence its contribution to the total greenhouse effect as measured at the TOA. As such, KR's account of the situation is accurate. I initially skimmed your post and did not pick up that your account differed from that of KR and myself. As previously noted, the estimate of Kiehl and Trenberth (1997)given in the intermediate article has since been superceded by the estimate given by Schmidt et al, (2010). -
Composer99 at 07:27 AM on 10 January 2013Observed Warming of the Ocean and Atmosphere is Incompatible with Natural Variation
From the OP:So how do greenhouse gases accomplish this ocean heating? This is discussed in this SkS post, but briefly; greenhouse gases radiate heat (longwave radiation) back toward the surface and, although they cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, they warm the uppermost surface of the thin cool-skin layer. The thermal gradient in this [the cool-skin] layer dictates the rate of heat loss from the (typically) warmer ocean surface, to the cooler atmosphere above. When greenhouse gases increase, more longwave radiation is directed back at the ocean surface, which warms the cool-skin layer, lowers the thermal gradient, and consequently reduces the rate of heat loss. The sum effect is that the oceans trap more of the sun's energy and therefore warm over time. [Emphasis mine.]
Correct me if I am wrong: the thermal gradient in question is the gradient between the cool-skin layer and the ocean layers beneath it, correct? Could the paragraph cited be amended slightly to include this added precision? Personally speaking I feel the passage is ambiguous with regards to which thermal gradient is being reduced (especially since a warmer cool-skin ocean layer would have, as far as I am aware, a stronger thermal gradient with the atmosphere). -
Daniel Bailey at 07:19 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Nice job, Kevin! -
dana1981 at 07:18 AM on 10 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Super cool video guys, great job. Hopefully it gets spread far and wide to a large audience! -
Tom Curtis at 07:13 AM on 10 January 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
AlanSE @132, as noted by Bob and KR, the 32 W/m^2 is the total strength of the greehouse effect from CO2, whereas the 8 W/m^2 is the change in the total strength of the greenhouse effect as atmospheric concentration increases from 278 to 1000 ppmv. I notice in reading the graph from Science of Doom, you use the highest estimate of radiative forcing (IPCC 1990). Subsequent to the publication of the IPCC first and second reports, Myrhe showed that models where then overestimating the forcing from doubling of CO2. The correct value is 6.85 +/- 0.68 W/m^2 for an increase in CO2 from preindustrial levels to 1000 ppmv. Further, since the intermediate article above was last updated, Schmidt et al, (2010) (PDF) have come up with a more accurate estimate of the all sky CO2 contribution to the GHE of 29.5 W/m^2 for 1980 concentrations. That will have increased by 0.8 W/m^2 since then, to 30.3 W/m^2. A further increase of CO2 concentration to 1000 ppmv will increase the CO2 contribution by 5.0 W/m^2 relative to 2010 levels, taking the total CO2 contribution up to 35.3 W/m^2. It should be noted that most of the non-CO2 contribution to the total greenhouse effect comes from water and clouds, which would largely disappear from the atmosphere given a lack of CO2, and hence constitute a feedback rather than a forcing. I should also add that while the formula given by KR above is accurate for calculating change in forcing for levels of CO2 found in the atmosphere over the last 600 million years, but becomes inaccurate for very low levels of CO2 and so cannot be used to calculate the total contribution. -
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
AlanSE - The 32 W/m^2 value is for the difference between no CO2 at all and current values. 8 W/m^2 is for two doublings of CO2, with a logarithmic effect, estimated at: ΔForcing = 5.35 W/m^2 (ln [CO2_new/CO2_previous]) or ~3.7 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2. So these are indeed two different numbers for two different situations. The ΔF of 0ppm -> 390ppm does not equal the ΔF of 250pp -> 1000ppm, in particular since at low concentrations of a greenhouse gas (near zero) it will have a linear rather than logarithmic effect.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link. -
Bob Loblaw at 05:59 AM on 10 January 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
AlanSE: Took a bit to find the 32 W/m^2 - it in the intermediate version of the rebuttal, which disappears when you go to the third page of comments. ...but to answer the final question you have: yes, they are different things. The 32 W/m^2 value refers to what is coming back down to the surface from the atmosphere. The other numbers (8 W/m^2 for 1000ppm CO2 - you'll also see other references that mention about 4 W/m^2 for doubled CO2, i.e. 600ppm) refer to the change in flux at the top of the atmosphere (i.e. the exchange with space). It is this latter value that creates the imbalance that leads to global warming - reduced losses to space require a warmer system to restore balance with absorbed solar. The failure to distinguish between surface fluxes and top-of-atmosphere fluxes is a common error. -
william5331 at 05:50 AM on 10 January 2013Observed Warming of the Ocean and Atmosphere is Incompatible with Natural Variation
As mentioned, the oceans are mainly warmed by short wave radiation (light) penetrating and being absorbed by the water. Hence, the amount of cloud cover is a very significant factor in how much ocean warming we will see. Clouds are seeded, to a significant extent by the dimethyl sulphide release by marine phytoplankton. What happens when the overturn of the ocean is decreased as the Arctic Ocean becomes more and more ice free. Phytoplankton production decreases and with it, cloud seeding. Will we go into a period of cloudless heat waves punctuated by very strong hurricanes when surface water becomes so warm that such storms are inevitable. In the present transition period, the ocean overturn should be stronger, if anything, as a lack of insulating ice cover allows very fast freezing of Arctic waters in the fall. At some point, though, so much heat will be absorbed by the Arctic ocean that the total amount of ice created each winter will plummet. -
dana1981 at 05:44 AM on 10 January 2013Temperatures Continue Up the Escalator
Note also that we've got some excellent posts on this very subject that will be posted in the next day or so. Stay tuned. -
dana1981 at 05:43 AM on 10 January 2013Temperatures Continue Up the Escalator
I do agree that ENSO amplified surface warming in the '90s and dampened surface warming in the '00s. That's why we look at long-term trends rather than these short-term 'steps' which contain a lot of noise. As KR @45 notes, this discussion is a great demonstration of the Escalator. -
AlanSE at 05:43 AM on 10 January 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Near the beginning of this article it gives "carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2" But that's not right, is it? I looked at the paper, and yes, the numbers are in there. But just a cursory look at what else is out there gives different information. http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/ This data is extremely straight forward and extremely well quantified, but they give 8 W/m^2, even at 1000 ppm of CO2. No where near 30 W/m^2. So what's going on? Are these two sources reporting figures that represent different things? -
shoyemore at 05:39 AM on 10 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
Lars & CBDunkerson, #7 & #8 Here is another example. The removal of lead from petrol has had a remarkable spin-off - about 50% of the decrease of violent crime in urban areas since the 1970s can be statistically ascribed to reduction in lead poisoning. Kevin Drum: America's Criminal Element: Lead Just this year, Tulane University researcher Howard Mielke published a paper with demographer Sammy Zahran on the correlation of lead and crime at the city level. They studied six US cities that had both good crime data and good lead data going back to the '50s, and they found a good fit in every single one. In fact, Mielke has even studied lead concentrations at the neighborhood level in New Orleans and shared his maps with the local police. "When they overlay them with crime maps," he told me, "they realize they match up." Can you imagine how this would have gone if the connection had been made BEFORE the lead ban? As it was, the industry fought the EPA regulations that brought about the change, and of course had their own tame scientists to back them up. -
Temperatures Continue Up the Escalator
While the discussion with Klapper has been entertaining (not), it is an incredibly clear demonstration of the very denial meme that the Escalator graph illustrates. A trend (particularly of a cherry-picked short term) isn't significant, isn't proven, isn't "real", unless there is enough data to separate either the longer term warming trend or the null hypothesis from the noise. Claims to the contrary indicate (IMO) ignoring statistics in favor of beloved talking points. And yet 'skeptics' repeat this myth, over and over again ad nauseum, claiming significance where it doesn't exist. The Escalator graphic is a fantastic, readily comprehensible debunking of the myth, and SkS is to be complimented for it. -
Bob Loblaw at 05:08 AM on 10 January 2013Temperatures Continue Up the Escalator
Klapper (at various points): "I didn't argue the latest 15 year trend was statistically significant" ...and therefore you are admitting that you have no justification for claiming that it is "real". "they [AOCGCMs] are "tuned" to replicate the warming from 1975 to 2000 via feedbacks as if it is solely due to GHGs" ...balderdash. Climate modelling does a very serious job in trying to include known significant forcings. What is your source for this claim? Whatever it is, you need to find better sources. "I think my other point in posting here is to show your community that skeptics are not the simpleton thinkers they are made out to be on this forum." ...you are not doing a very good job at this, either.Moderator Response: [DB] Unless Klapper has new evidence passing statistical significance testing, this matter is now closed, as it detracts from the OP of this thread. Thanks to all participants for your efforts. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:02 AM on 10 January 2013Temperatures Continue Up the Escalator
This is a case of DNFTT. For fun we could also pick the 15 years periods with very high warming, there are quite a few. The same endless "conversation" happened with R.P. Sr. on the same subject, and he evaded every pointed question on significance. The way to treat these data are well known and when you do that, you obtain what the escalator shows. It's quite simple. Klapper's distraction is a pile of BS, just like R.P. Sr.'s argument. The issues of statistical significance and cherry picking of end points have been analyzed to death. Klapper's nonsense has been adressed adequately. Until he has something interesting to say, he should be ignored. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:32 AM on 10 January 2013Temperatures Continue Up the Escalator
Klapper Whether you are aware of it or not, you are making exactly that claim when you say "My point is that the flattening in temperature growth is real". If you want to claim that the flattening is real (rather than being merely an artefact of the noise), you need to show that the observed trend is statistically inconsistent with the underlying rate of warming having remained the same, and the difference being down to noise. You have not done so, so you should not be making the claim. -
Klapper at 04:28 AM on 10 January 2013Temperatures Continue Up the Escalator
#30 Bob Loblaw #32 DSL #33 Dikran ....statistical significance.....I didn't argue the latest 15 year trend was statistically significant (not for SAT anyway), however as this warming pause gets longer it may become so soon.Moderator Response: [DB] At this point, per Dikran's and Philippe's summary comments below, this issue is now closed. Barring statistical significance testing by you for support, subsequent such claims by you will be moderated out due to "sloganeering". -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:16 AM on 10 January 2013Temperatures Continue Up the Escalator
Klapper... At risk of running off topic here, I would suggest that the reason those terms get used here frequently is because we are dealing with a wide range of people rejecting the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. We address people who flat out reject the greenhouse effect. We address people who think CO2 is not a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. We address people saying that all the temperature records are doctored (except when they find something in the data that supports their preferred position). I could go on and on. There is skepticism inherent in the scientific process. SkS works hard to address the places where people are claiming to be "skeptical" but are, in fact, only working to reject the overwhelming scientific evidence. Those are fake skeptics, and in more extreme cases, deniers. (I can't think of any other way to accurately characterize someone who flat out rejects the radiative properties of CO2 other than to say they are in denial.) -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:02 AM on 10 January 2013Temperatures Continue Up the Escalator
John @ 37... That's what I'm continually pointing out to skeptics. Where is the statistically significant cooling trend? Don't give me this "flat temps" stuff. Where is the actual cooling? Even the "mid-century cooling" trend from 1940 to 1970 is not statistically significant: GISTEMP -0.015 ±0.051 °C/decade (2σ). -
Klapper at 03:51 AM on 10 January 2013Temperatures Continue Up the Escalator
#28 Dana1981 My point is that the flattening in temperature growth is real. The Met Office prediction to the end of 2017 just recently published shows more sluggish growth. You make the point that all natural factors are working against warming right now. It is true that the average MEI is negative since 2000 or so which would suppress temperature growth (average about -0.1). It was also more strongly negative from 1950 to 1975 or so (-0.3). However, it was strongly positive from 1975 to 2000 (+0.4). Consider the possibility that if warming is being now suppressed by ENSO, it was being aided by ENSO in the period 1975 to 2000, so that some part of that warming is not due to GHGs. The problem for the AOCGCM models is that if there is a natural cycle in ENSO, they don't know about it. Therefore they are "tuned" to replicate the warming from 1975 to 2000 via feedbacks as if it is solely due to GHGs. If that is not true they are possibly overpredicting the warming rate going forward. I think my other point in posting here is to show your community that skeptics are not the simpleton thinkers they are made out to be on this forum. There should be room for alternative interpretations without generating the "fake skeptic/denier" type of name calling.
Prev 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 Next
