Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 Next
Comments 65251 to 65300:
-
Composer99 at 02:02 AM on 5 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
MangoChutney: Being somewhat guilty of less-than-entirely-civil comments here on SkS and elsewhere myself earlier this week, I am definitely in favour of raising the tone and will hopefully follow through in my own behaviour. However, I must strongly disagree with the notion of a live debate with Christopher Monckton. Monckton's debate & presentation style leans heavy on rhetoric and less on solid evidentiary grounds(as Peter Hadfield alias potholer54 shows ably on YouTube). IMO he tends to spout off so many incorrect claims that effectively countering them all in verbal debate is usually not possible given the time constraints involved. He also has both a superficial knowledge of a great deal of topics and an overweening confidence that comes across during presentations, which can leave others with deeper knowledge in some topics but less in others appearing to be his intellectual inferiors (Hadfield shows a video clip where Monckton gets one over an actual scientist with a few soundbites and his over-the-top assertiveness alone, and is not called to account for his poor evidentiary support due to the limits of the medium). As such, I would suggest any debate involving Monckton be strictly on a written basis, with sources clearly linked to and clear premise-conclusion chains of inference made to show how all participating parties' conclusions follow from the evidence they have brought to the table. If I recall correctly, Monkcton has refused to participate in such endeavours in the past. -
John Russell at 01:58 AM on 5 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
I should add that I really value when you cover a post on a fake sceptic site and take it apart to show exactly why it's in error. The quicker you can do this the better. I can often see reasons why it's wrong but -- many heads being better than one -- you sometimes see angles that are not immediately apparent and your links to the contradictory evidence are invaluable in helping those like me who seek to take on the misinformation. -
John Russell at 01:50 AM on 5 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
I've been reading about 4/5 years now since I found it during a google search. I look in 5/6 times a week. I find it the best place to find the numerous strands of evidence relating to any particular topic, together with links to all the peer-reviewed papers. Hard facts from credible sources, like NASA, NOAA etc., help to shut up those who seek to confuse. I rarely quote SkS directly now but instead always refer back to the source as far as I can. I'm happy that you continue to follow up on whatever you think is topical. I can't say you've ever failed to cover any issue adequately. My only comment: try not to be too aggressive with the fake skeptics. Remaining calm when provoked is the best way to win any argument. Remember that it's not the person you're putting right that matters, it's the undecided onlooker who can be influenced by the way you deal with dissent. John Cook was always very good at this -- some later contributors (no names no pack drill) have shorter fuses than John, and would be wise to learn from his approach. -
Ari Jokimäki at 01:43 AM on 5 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Diversity is indeed one thing I want to show with the "new research of last week" series (and this extract of it). It is also a deliberate effort to include mostly papers that wouldn't get much publicity otherwise. So I tend to note papers outside Nature/Science/PNAS. -
L. Hamilton at 01:34 AM on 5 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Thanks for putting in the effort, Ari. I just went through your list and read 15 or 20 of the abstracts, and have bookmarked the list to come back for more browsing. Many of these are papers I hadn't seen, in journals I wouldn't normally read. But you're right, they are cool and diverse. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:32 AM on 5 February 2012It's a natural cycle
Thanks Composer99 for pointing to this thread. There are many natural cycles that get discussed on the fringes of science, everything from pure Fourier analysis results (temperature effects with no discussion of cause) to complex orbital or lunar mechanics (causes that generally lack a plausible magnitude of effect). I don't find those very convincing. Instead I would like to put forth a combination of solar, oceanic and AGW (with or without AGC). SkS analyzes each non-anthro cause in separate articles, such as PDO and It's (not) the sun Those arguments are a divide and conquer approach to GW, including some oversimplification such as using TSI as the primary solar factor. In contrast, I believe GW results from a combination of some natural cycles and AGW. Here is an example of oceanic cycles from http://www4.nau.edu/direnet/publications/publications_m/files/McCabe_etal_2004.pdf showing the NH temperature response to PDO and AMO:
Second, an example of a weather response to solar: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL043091.pdf This is important because the weather controls some climate in general and sensitivity in particular. In this paper, the increase in solar UV is shown to decrease CAPE leading to weaker cyclones. The higher solar cycles of the 80's and 90's (including higher minimums) caused an overall increase in solar UV which caused lower CAPE, weakened tropical cyclones and thus less heat loss to space. The latter is an old and well-established fact (e.g. http://www.dca.ufcg.edu.br/mna/Anexo-MNA-modulo03i.pdf) that increased tropical convection, regardless of cause, will result in more latent heat transfer and cooling. I would then have to show that there was a worldwide decrease in convection, particularly tropical, coinciding with the greatest warming of the 80's and 90's. I do not yet have a good data source for that claim.
-
muoncounter at 01:17 AM on 5 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Tarcisio: For this apparent mirror imaging to be considered a theory, it needs substantiation with reference to scientific literature. Until you have some body of research to support your idea, it is just that: an idea. It is also off-topic for this thread. -
Tarcisio José D at 01:08 AM on 5 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
DSL@96/97 and Moderator: See my theory on this chart.
The mechanism used by nature to raise the parcel of heated air beyond the 500mb is the turbulent convection which depends on the availability of soil water. Missing soil water, nature seeks to balance the scheme by increasing evaporation from ocean heating it up. This concept is not covered by the "models" because it's occur below 2 meters high in the atmosphere. You can write in English that I understand better than Google. -
JMykos at 21:25 PM on 4 February 2012More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
True. I guess you are referring to Canada or Australia during the Carboniferous period. -
scaddenp at 20:17 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Ian, Al Gore etc. is publicising the work of climate scientists, not doing the work himself. The authority comes from the science that his views are based on. The "dentists" do not have climate science to support their misinformation. -
scaddenp at 20:12 PM on 4 February 2012More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Maybe - important coal seams here are from cool climate peats with quite low plant growth rates. However, the environmental stability allowed them to develop to significant thickness. On the other hand, no amount of CO2 will make many plants grow in the Sahara unless the resulting climate change also brings rain. -
MangoChutney at 20:07 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
@Elsa @ 14 As others have said, I don't think Phil Jones qualifications are in doubt and I'm not even sure, relevant. His publication record alone illustrates his background. You can question his methods, data and results, but you can't question his qualifications -
MangoChutney at 19:22 PM on 4 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
BTW - I've just checked the WUWT page and the offending reference has been removed. -
MangoChutney at 19:18 PM on 4 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
@Doug H #19 I agree, John Cook should respond - perhaps the two of them could host a joint discussion to try and get AGW supporters and sceptics talking, ideally in a neutral blog, where no side can be accused of manipulating the comments? Perhaps even a live debate next time Monckton is down under. For what it's worth, I totally agree the name calling isn't necessary or desireable, from either side of the debate. I know I am sometimes guilty of this, but I do try to be civil. I do know WUWT is actively encouraging people to use "SkS" when referring to this website. It's a start. -
Ari Jokimäki at 18:34 PM on 4 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Thank you all. :) #2, Doug H, perhaps I should insert a start here sign there somewhere. #3, rpauli, I bet many of the behind the paywall ones have free copies somewhere in the Internet by now. Those can be found rather easily by inserting the name of the paper to Google. #4, tmac57, yep. Our diurnal scale climate here is very cool currently (-15 deg. C and snowing). #6, Old Mole, thank you for the info. Here in Finland it's sort of national hobby to get drunk every now and then, so perhaps I had that in mind. ;) But at any case, you offer very good example of something that might first appear as positive side of climate change but when consulting the details it necessarily isn't so positive after all. -
owl905 at 18:28 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
@Composer99-91 The latest greatest unknown, that may be a natural variation or cyclical, is the methane releases from the floor of the Arctic shelf and the possibly-related co-incidental freshwater bubble centred in the Beaufort Gyre. The potential repercussions are very serious. -
Old Mole at 16:21 PM on 4 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
"Week 14: Webb et al. noted that grapes in Australian vineyards are attaining maturity earlier than before, so this must be one of the positive sides of global warming." Errr ... not so much, unless getting drunk is your goal. Ripening earlier means that you have the higher sugars, but less time to develop the tannins and flavors you need for a balanced wine. Climate change also brings with it greater incidence and severity of extreme weather events (which wine grapes hate). Climate change may be of some slight benefit to winemakers, but only in areas that were cool to begin with, like the Mosel ... and would certainly not be good for areas like the newer Queensland plantings or even older and more established ones like the Hunter Valley. You might check this out for more info, should you be interested. www.sou.edu/envirostudies/.../Whitman%20College%20WP_07.pdf -
chirhophoros at 15:59 PM on 4 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Fear not Ari - these are all extremely interesting. I appreciate the time and trouble taken to assemble these. CC -
Composer99 at 15:55 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
My HTML-fu apparently is weak just around midnight.Moderator Response: [DB] Your HTML-fu is restored to its former glory. -
Composer99 at 15:54 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Ian: I think my reply to Carbon500 effectively addresses your objection to the Trenberth et al letter, so I will reiterate it here:With regards to the two Wall Street Journal letters, what is important is that the letter written by Trenberth et al is in line with the overwhelming body of empirical evidence, and it is this conformance to the evidence which grants Trenberth and company their authority. By contrast, the letter/editorial written by Lindzen et al consists mainly of a series of rehashed, long-refuted contrarian claims which are out of line with what the evidence shows. This lack of evidentiary support negates the implicit claim to authority that Lindzen et al appeal to through highlighting their credentials.
With regards to non-scientists such as Gore or Flannery, such authority as they possess in communicating climate science comes from the degree to which their claims are based upon the available evidence - just as is the case with Trenberth et al and with the contrarian 16. The more one's statements are based on the evidence, the more authority with which one can make them. By this standard even the likes of Gore come off looking favourable in comparison with the contrarian 16 Wall Street Journal signatories. As such, I feel your suggestion that Trenberth is setting up a double standard is unreasonable.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed html-fu. -
chirhophoros at 15:51 PM on 4 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I must say that over the last week and a half, comments on other threads have been vastly more measured in tone - keep it up :-) CC -
JMykos at 15:50 PM on 4 February 2012More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
I am implying that coal seams are indicators of high plant growth with low sedimentation and low oxidation. But back to the topic, which was that high co2 was detrimental to plant growth, and my point was that the breadth of the investigation into soya bean, and only investigating some narrow aspects of the plants issues is way too narrow to disprove that higher co2 overall would be detrimental to the planets overall plant growth. It's some aspects of 1 plant and didn't even mention if the soya grew better or not. It's too narrow to prove or disprove. -
Composer99 at 15:37 PM on 4 February 2012It's a natural cycle
Cross-post from this thread with my inquiry of Eric (skeptic) where it is on topic. -
Composer99 at 15:36 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic): This is not the thread for further back-and-forth, but what I'm hoping for is a reference to the existence of any natural variations & cycles not already widely known to climate scientists. As far as I can see, you have not provided any reason to conclude that any such cycle exists. I propose if you have any further comments specifically relating to cycles that you follow them up here.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed html-fu. -
Steve L at 15:27 PM on 4 February 2012New research from last week 4/2012
Because of some research I've got myself tangled up in, I'm interested in the recent Carbon isotope papers. The first one suggests high 14C in the northern hemisphere in summer and fall -- wouldn't that be from plant life contemporaneously taking up 12C in northern hemisphere summer? The second abstract listed indicates some interaction with the ocean. Is there much trend in Carbon isotopes in ocean surface waters? I don't know enough of this stuff to contribute properly to a joint research project and really would like to learn. Good links appreciated! -
Jose_X at 14:29 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Robert S, I went over to William's site and followed links to http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4368#comments but was not able to comment. This is what I wanted to say and perhaps you want to address the comment here: **** If our goal is to find the average of all of those points, I did not see a rationalization (or math) here showing that the tighter interval isn't a good fit ("good" meaning say that 95% of the time we should expect the average of those points to fall within these bounds). In fact, the example you give suggests that the average of those points does in fact lie in the narrow bound. So if you are after a set of yearly averages in order to try and identify trends and make predictions, why should be ignore a tight bound that appears to be correct a high percentage of the time? For example, as a way to answer my question, can you show that the tight bound does not identify the average of those points a large number of the times. If you can't prove this, then I don't see why you would be confident that the wide bound is needed for that 95% prediction level. Note that I am not ever suggesting that 95% of the points lie within the band but rather that the average of the points lies in that band. Why are yearly average global surface temperature values useful to know? I am not sure, but those with more experience in climate, biology, etc, likely have reasons to believe that is a useful metric (eg, to help identify trends useful in improving models or making predictions). FWIW, I arrived at this page from climate change discussion taking place elsewhere, and I want to know what math you use to rationalize that the BEST plot of yearly temp values and similar such plots (1850-present) require drastically wider error margins. Let me say that I understand that a temp of 100 C here and 0 C over there won't lead to the same exact effect as 50 C everywhere, but that is an issue for relevant scientists to debate and outside the purview of a statistician determining whether the values they are using in their debate can be reasonably trusted to lie within the given calculated error bounds. **** -
Phila at 14:25 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Ian, You use of the vague term "climate matters" may be what's making it hard for you to grasp this rather simple point. Dr. Trenberth's analogy more properly has to do with collecting and interpreting data. As "skeptics" demonstrate in these threads almost every day, people who don't understand statistics do a poor job of interpreting and understanding statistical data. Therefore, it's reasonable to expect them to defer to people who actually know what they're talking about -- or failing that, to withhold judgment until they've acquired the knowledge they need to have an informed dissenting opinion. Dr. Trenberth's point isn't that no one but a climate scientists is allowed to discuss AGW; it's that the starting point for the discussion should be what the best available science is telling us. Obviously, climate scientists are in a better position to know this than anyone else. What people like Gore and Flannery are doing is reporting on the scientific consensus and advising people to take it seriously. That's very different from gathering or interpreting data. Of course, not being experts, they may make the occasional error. But if you're capable of looking honestly at these errors, you'll find a) that "skeptics" make far more; and b) that they tend to get corrected much more quickly than the errors of "skeptics." -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:22 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
KR, I agree global warming has not stopped, I said so here a year ago and nothing significant has changed since then. Thanks for the clarifying post on acceleration which I basically agree with. -
Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic) - My apologies, an incomplete answer in my last post. Acceleration: 10-25 year trends, in the presence of noise, are not going to have the statistical significance to clearly identify acceleration. They are sufficient to identify linear trends, but more questionable for more complex fits. However, based upon the physics, based upon the greater than exponential growth of CO2 levels - we have a great deal of evidence supporting a greater than linear warming. We also have a huge amount of evidence for greater than linear cryosphere melt (as just one example). There a great deal of evidence supporting > linear warming, very little otherwise. If you have such evidence, please point to it so it may be considered. -
Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic) - No, Eric, I cannot agree that the claim (of continued anthropogenic global warming) should be withdrawn. Why? Look at Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, or Lean and Rind 2008. There are attributable short term variations in the solar cycle and the ENSO - accounting for those clearly shows that the global warming trend has not stopped. -
RyanStarr at 14:02 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
That final step could have been lengthened to 14 years and still have been -neg or flat, which would make it the longest such period in that whole chart. Obviously longer is more significant. It could stay flat for the next 100 years and the linear overlay would still be positive. Question is: how long does the final step need to be flat before we conclude global warming has not lived up to modelled expectations? And as with cricket where the required run rate is not met it further blows out. (I expect most of us can deduce the relevance)Response:[dana1981] I don't think your assertion is true. Even cherrypicking the peak of the 1997-1998 El Niño, the trend through December 2011 is positive.
To conclude that global warming has not lived up to modeled expectations, we would first have to see evidence supporting that conclusion. Thus far there is no such evidence. The rate of warming is consistent with model projections.
-
DSL at 13:46 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Ian, that's not really a fair comparison. Trenberth's analogy is one of expertise. In his analogy, Al Gore and Tim Flannery would be the people (nurses or technicians) who call you and tell you what the test results were. Gore would say, "the doctor says we need to continue to run tests to get a better understanding of the disease." A guy like Monckton would say, "The doctor says you need more tests, but he's full of it. I listened to his diagnosis of you through the keyhole, and in my professional opinion, you're going to be fine -- peachy even. Tests cost a lot of money, and so do the drugs that might 'allegedly' cure you. Indeed, someone stole some emails from the doctor, and if you read them in just the right way, they are evidence that the doctor is a fraud! I know! If I were you, I'd ignore the odd aches and pains, and the rapidly declining hair extent. These things are natural." -
tmac57 at 13:33 PM on 4 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
I stumbled on to that article this morning just by chance,and I wondered if John Cook had seen it. Despite their claim to not tolerate ad hominems in their comment policy,I noticed that one comment referred to him as John 'Crook'. Apparently that is OK there.And why are they so quick to advocate suing people?What's up with that? -
oamoe at 13:32 PM on 4 February 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
I realize this is late, but perhaps it can be answered. In the graph in the moderator response to comment #1, we see a sharp rise in OHC700 and OHC2000 from roughly 2002-2005. That time period was one of a lengthy El Nino. Seem odd. Any explanation? Also, how was OHC2000 measured before ARGO in the year 2000? Thanks. -
Ian6195 at 13:24 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Dr Trenberth suggests only climate scientists are qualified to comment on climate matters comparing this with medical and dental consultations. He conveniently omits to note that although none of Nicholas Stern, Al Gore, Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery are climate scientists their pronouncements in support of AGW are given wide publicity. This suggests Dr Trenberth has one rule for proponents of AGW and another for those who are less convinced -
tmac57 at 13:20 PM on 4 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Aha!!! So you admit that climate is cool! ;) signed, I. Dennai -
Stephen Baines at 13:17 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric, statistically insignificant differences cannot be said to disprove the existence of an increasing trend in warming, or anything else for that matter. They simply tell you you can't detect a difference that may or may not exist. If you go a step further, you could do a power analysis and determine the probability that an accelaration parameter is >0, or you can say that the acceleration is not likely to be above or below a certain value, given a specific model. That's about it. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:09 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
KR, thanks for the link to wood for trees. Sorry about the accusatory tone, but it is clear that the assumption that warming is accelerating has been disproven, at least based on 25 year linear trends: (wood for trees graph) Do you think that the claim made in the FAQ should be withdrawn? -
r.pauli at 13:06 PM on 4 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Thanks so much for this excellent list and links. Nice to note that so many are free of cost - and those behind paywall offer abstracts for free. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:04 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Composer99, the latest 25 year linear trend (1985 - 2010) is not significantly different from 1975 - 2000. See (wood from trees graph). Your second question can be answered without a citation. Imagine a sinusoid of period 1000 time units; a linear trend of 100 units or even 10 units may be statistically significant in the linear portion of the sinusoid curve. Thus it all depends on what we are testing for. A linear temperature response to CO2 is reasonable in 25 years considering weather such as ENSO, but may not be sufficient in the presence of long term natural fluctuations. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:02 PM on 4 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Ari, I appreciate your posts here and I keep your site open in a tab in Firefox. It's just that there is soooo much info on your site, it is hard to know where to start - or to stop once I get going. You are doing valuable work. Please keep it up. -
Composer99 at 12:59 PM on 4 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Very nifty post. Obviously, I need to spend more time on your blog as well as here at SkS. -
Composer99 at 12:42 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic): But that also begs the question of why a 25 year linear fit is significant in the context of long term natural variations and cycles.[Citation required] -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:42 PM on 4 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
MangoChutney @ 18 You just spoiled my morning. I followed your link, partly to see what all the fuss is about concerning WUWT. I read Christopher Monckton's article and the thread of comments following it. The comments thread had very few entries challenging the article, or even asking for clarification, contrary to the case at SkS where challenging and questioning is actively encouraged. My conclusion is that following WUWT results in diminished ability to critically assess the scientific evidence. As a true sceptic, seeking evidence-based conclusions, I have found SkS to be an excellent learning resource. Several comments on the WUWT thread claimed that John Cook would not post Christopher's article on SkS, because John's arguments had been 'eviscerated' by Chris's calm and 'scientific' deconstruction. Some urged that he take John to court for slander. I am hoping that John can find the time to respond to Chris in an appropriate manner. -
Stephen Baines at 12:41 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
mc @ 47 I agree that more uncertainty in observations leads to more uncertainty in estimates. But I don't see how Brigg's can use this basic observation to critique analyses (like Dana's) showing increasing temp as naïve and misleading. In fact, I think taking account of observational uncertainty it would cut the other way. Let me explain. First, the prediction of individual points is really not of interest to us, so that's a red herring. No one in their right mind would use a simple linear extrapolation to predict temperature for other than heuristic reasons- that's what physics is for. What is of interest in this case is the slope parameter that allows us to make the best predictions of the data in hand. If we have confidence that the slope parameter is positive, we can say confidently that temperature has increased. Second, the error in estimation of yearly means is already implicit in the spread of the data. That error was not removed when the means were calculated. In the simplest model one can imagine, the variance around the predicted line should be equal to the sum of the variance associated with the central tendency (intercept and slope) and the variance in the yearly means associated with observational uncertainty. Suggesting that the existence of variance about the yearly means adds to variance already observed in the data is a form of double-counting, as far as I can see. Now often one does not often have the wherewithal to decompose the variance about a trend line into separate components related to the line parameters themselves, and the observation error. But in this case, the information to do so exists...and in spades. A fully Bayesian model would use the observed errors around individual yearly means to estimate a probability density function (pdf) for the measurement error...and would use this information and the residual errors to estimate pdfs for the slope and intercept parameters. Those parameters pdfs would be constrained to have less variance than would be inferred simply from the total variance of the residuals. The only way that wouldn't be true is if there were some strange positive correlation between the parameter and the observation error pdfs. -
Composer99 at 12:37 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic): On what evidentiary basis do you make this claim?the periods that IPCC are showing in the graphic you posted in #68 imply acceleration which has now ended. The chart should be updated to reflect the fact that the acceleration has ended or it should be withdrawn.
-
Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic) - If you follow the links I gave here you can take a look at the 125 and 75 year trends as well. But since you didn't make that effort, here it is. The trends for 125 and 75 are closer to 150 and 100 years (respectively), but the trend increases for each shorter time period. "The chart should be updated to reflect the fact that the acceleration has ended or it should be withdrawn. Where is the 75 year trend line and why was it left out of the original chart? Same question for 125?" Eric, I hope I'm incorrect, but are you implying that there is some deception here? Note that the statistically significant 17 year trend (as per Santer 2011) is also 0.16C/decade, almost identical to the 25 year trend - and that's with the late '90's El Nino and 2000's La Nina's. There is no statistical support for claiming that acceleration has now ended - and unless you're willing to also include insignificant periods like the 2x "acceleration" in the late 90's (which I quite frankly hear very little mention of by skeptics), I think your rather accusatory tone is unwarranted.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link and text per request. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:31 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Dana, sorry I didn't see your last post. I basically agree that a longer term trend is not a good linear fit. But that also begs the question of why a 25 year linear fit is significant in the context of long term natural variations and cycles. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:28 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Dana, the caption says "(Top) Annual global mean observed temperatures1 (black dots) along with simple fits to the data. The left hand axis shows anomalies relative to the 1961 to 1990 average and the right hand axis shows the estimated actual temperature (°C). Linear trend fits to the last 25 (yellow), 50 (orange), 100 (purple) and 150 years (red) are shown, and correspond to 1981 to 2005, 1956 to 2005, 1906 to 2005, and 1856 to 2005, respectively. Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming." in http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf -
dana1981 at 12:26 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
The figure caption, among many other statements, says "Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming." I don't particularly like fitting linear trends to the longer-term data which clearly isn't linear. Some sort of exponential fit would be preferable, but of course that would also support the 'accelerated warming' conclusion. I fail to see what the issue is with this graphic. Eric claims the acceleration has stopped - based on what? The short-term data in the 'skeptic' Escalator view?
Prev 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 Next
