Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 Next
Comments 82701 to 82750:
-
Tom Curtis at 22:08 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Eric the Red @64, if that is what jonicol meant, then the claim is still without substance. Of course, I am not certain to whom he refers when he says "climate group", and it may refer to some obscure group of which his claims are true. But then his claims are irrelevant in that some very non-obscure groups have provided or reported on copious evidence both for the existence of AGW, and for the existence of the consensus. -
Paul D at 21:30 PM on 14 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
The more evidence gathered, the more virulent and vicious the deniers, backed into a corner, fight. -
Eric the Red at 21:24 PM on 14 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
Sphaerica, I will agree with you on this one. The changes in the Arctic are both more rapid and greater than changes elseware. This will make for an excellent barometer. -
Eric the Red at 21:10 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Tom, I think that jonicol was stating that the "climate group" had not provided any evidence of a "consensus." At least, that is how I interpreting his comment. -
les at 21:09 PM on 14 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
37 - batvette 1/ No one said you weren't allowed your opinion. In saying that you are playing the Martyr; just as cheap a trick as saying "it's common sense" when it isn't. 2/ I see you have not provided evidence to backed up your assertions that "People aren't going to the movies, they rethink that trip on summer vacation." due to climate change. nor that AGW is "one of if not the primary factors why our economy is in such trouble?" 3/ IMHO (note, it is my opinion, not "common sense") not all environmental management policies require making consumption a "sin" (another cheap trick, using the word "sin"). Smart consumption, low/zero carbon technologies, recycling etc. all provide environments for new industries, innovation, services etc. As such it's completely in scope for AGW amelioration to provide a huge economics boost... indeed this is how many industries are treating it. There are lots of economics and social factors... non of which are "common sense"! -
skywatcher at 20:36 PM on 14 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Well said Tom. Batvette, you've managed without evidence to continue unfounded accusations agains Mann and Penn State, and imply some kind of global conspiracy. Apart from the multiple independent inquiries that exonerated the science of all involved, many of which were not internal, nobody has quite explained how the global conspiracy would work, given the tens of thousands of researchers in a multitude of field who have findings perfectly consistent with, and in many cases distinctly driven by, the increase in GHGs. The economic argument is ridiculous though, and I'm sure you know it. When the motor car was invented around the turn of the 20th Century, eventually putting a vast number of horse stables, farriers, saddle manufacturers etc out of business, did the economy go into meltdown? No, it moved onto the new technology with vast numbers of new jobs in car manufacture, maintenance, road building, infrastructure etc. Why do you think that a transition to a low-carbon economy is a bad idea, with a high proportion of renewable energy on the grid, and the development and production of many new technologies and products, and all the supply chain infrastructure that goes with the development? The old industries may die (or at least eventually become greatly reduced in their influence, like horses today), but the new industries will provide just as much opportunity for employment in R&D, manufacturing and maintenance as their predecessors. The only people who would think otherwise might be the employees and acolytes of the old industries that are under threat from the new. -
Tom Curtis at 20:17 PM on 14 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
batvette @36, 1) I note that you now call your very inflammatory comment that:"... people are going bankrupt and putting their babies to sleep at night with empty tummies"
was simply a "rhetorical claim". As is plain on reading that "rhetorical claim", it is presented in the present tense as something that was actually, currently happening. There where no markers in the comment that it was intended as rhetorical. Your new claim that the comment was "rhetorical" and that therefore it can require no justification completely vindicates my suspicion that "You think the way to debate is to simply make up 'facts' that suite your case." Indeed, it now turns out that your finding that suspicion offensive was itself rhetorical in that you were merely being suspected of doing what you in fact did do. 2) I further note that you have nothing to add in defence of your criticism of the Penn State inquiry into Michael Mann. You now know that Penn State did exactly what their regulations required them to do, and that it is standard practise in Universities, at least in Australia and the United States. You further know that the critical stage of the inquiry was conducted by five senior academics with no faculty ties to Michael Mann, and who therefore would not have has their faculties reputation damaged by an adverse finding against Michael Mann. This knowledge has not changed your position in the slightest. It should also be noted that you have not raised one iota of evidence to suggest Mann should not have been exonerated. So, in the end, your opinion that there is a reasonable perception of a cover-up is based solely on your opinion that there is a reasonable perception of a cover up, an opinion which does not adjust in the light of new evidence. Given points (1) and (2), let me assure you it is not just with me that you have no credibility. However, there is still your little scare campaign against letting people know the truth about global warming. Apparently, according to you, it is unacceptable to tell people about the truth of global warming because "...scaring people and making them feel guilt that every bit of fossil fuel they consume imperils the planet." Well, first let me say, If we do nothing about global warming, they should be scared, and they should be guilty. The risks of inaction regarding global warming run from massive economic losses and the deaths of hundreds of thousands at the low end of the scale to the deaths of billions at the high end. (I do not include the physically possible, but equally and very low probability scenarios of little net harm and the extinction of all life on Earth.) But the proponents of informed debate on global warming do not advocate doing nothing. They advocate taking concrete action on global warming which will reduce the harm to minimal levels. What is more, with few exceptions they advocate doing so in ways that will not wind back consumerism one iota. Green Peace may be running an anti-consumerist scare campaign based on global warming, but nobody on this forum is to my knowledge (although some would see winding back consumerism as beneficial). Personally, I am on record as objecting to methods of combating global warming that do wind back consumerism, because they will not work. Not only will they not work, but they will delay the taking of effective action, and the longer that is delayed, the more costly it will be. So it turns out that all that remains of your position if we remove the rhetorical factoids, and dogmatic opinion is simply a straw man, and an inflammatory straw man at that. -
adelady at 19:33 PM on 14 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
DSL 'two boots to the head' - never forget the sacred mantra of property values. When people start realising that the value of their prized McMansion is declining relative to all the others with PV they'll be lining up to get in on the act. It's already happened in my family, with the older generation living in a retirement village. Don't want to leave you with property less valuable than all the others round here - was what my mum said. -
adelady at 19:28 PM on 14 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
batvette Because most countries just sat on their hands and waited for someone else to get the ball rolling. Kyoto was, like many international agreements, fine in theory but patchy in practice. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:15 PM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
CLimateWatcher Your post merely demonstrates that you don't know what a null hypothesis is. Secondly if the observed trends are within the stated uncertainty of the projections, that means that the projections are as accurate as they claimed to be. -
Tom Curtis at 19:13 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jonicol @60 the claim that the "climate group" do not provide any substantial evidence is straight forwardly false. Nor is it a falsehood that could be believed by anyone who has made a serious attempt to understand the evidence for global warming, as for example, by reading the IPCC reports and referenced papers. By publishing an an article in Quadrant, as also by taking a position as Chairman of the Australian Climate Science Coalition you have set yourself up as an expert on climate change. Despite that your writings are littered with errors and you plainly do not understand the underlying physics. You repeat egregious errors with no apparent attempt at fact checking. For example, you could have fact checked your claim that the "tropospheric hotspot" is a "signature" of global warming by reading that part of the IPCC AR4 which deals with spatial variability in forcings, ie, section 9.2.2. There you will find not a single claim of that nature, although the difference between solar and greenhouse warming in their effects on the stratosphere is clearly mentioned. Given that, why, I wonder, have you identified as a "signature" of greenhouse warming something the IPCC does not so identify, but fail to identify as a "signature" something they clearly do mention? Einstein may have boasted that it only takes one paper to show the was wrong. In your case it takes not even that, but only simple editorial fact checking. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:12 PM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Philippe Chantreau sadly this is nothing new I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.George Bernard Shaw With the approach Jones took, he made the point to those willing to listen and he stayed clean. -
JMurphy at 19:07 PM on 14 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
cloa513 wrote : "Its going to get colder for 20 years just like in 1930-70 period (then they thought we heading for an ice age)." Four questions : 1) When do you believe it is going to start getting colder ? Please discuss this further here. 2) What scientific evidence do you base that on ? Please discuss further as above. 3) Which 20 years in the (40 year) 1930-70 period are you referring to ? Please discuss further as above. 4) Who do you think "thought we heading for an ice age" ? Please discuss his point further here. -
adelady at 18:58 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jn "A hundred papers may show that I am right. Only one paper is required to show that I am wrong." This is often cited - and it's right in a limited sense. Someone could conceivably (just barely) come up with a physically coherent scenario where CO2 (and other GHGs) in the upper atmosphere had different radiative properties from CO2 (and other GHGs) at ground level or in lasers or whatever. Fine, one paper. But not nearly enough. Now we need a few extras to back this up. One on how the satellites got the LW absorption observations wrong. One on how everyone across the world has mistakenly recorded LW returning to the surface. A dozen on how the temperature record is wrong in some mysterious way(s). One on how, why, when glaciers and icesheets and Arctic sea ice are melting without heat input. A score on how plants and animals are not changing their breeding seasons. Or..... another landmark paper showing that there is some previously unknown forcing driving temperature changes in the oceans and the atmosphere that, mysteriously, exactly parallels what we would expect from GHG forcing. -
batvette at 18:55 PM on 14 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
So I gotta ask, if a carbon tax/cap and trade scheme is supposed to fight global warming... why is it that since Kyoto was introduced in 1998, global GGE have soared in the 13 years since? Can you explain why it doesn't simply cause industry and capital to flock to non-annex 1 nations, and increase industrialization of larger population masses? (preempting the expected, US being non signatory is obviously not a factor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_emissions_China_USA_1990-2006.svg ) -
cloa513 at 18:48 PM on 14 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Of course it will be hotter in 20 years- the multidecadal oscillation will kick in. Its going to get colder for 20 years just like in 1930-70 period (then they thought we heading for an ice age).Response:[DB] Both of these claims have been thoroughly researched and debunked. Any interested parties should go to:
-
batvette at 18:35 PM on 14 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Les I'm not denying that many factors contribute to our bad economy. However this economy is highly dependent on consumption and the mantra of climate change is that we've got to stop consuming or we're committing a horrible sin. If anyone wishes to argue this doesn't affect the economy they can go right ahead, in my opinion this is highly disingenuous. I would assume I am allowed an opinion. -
jonicol at 18:04 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Adelady, I would agree with you totally in your remarks on Gerlich and Tscheuschner. I do not know how such a simplistic paper got into the "peer eviewed" literature which everyone clamours for these days. As an aside, in my 35 years as a physicist, most of my colleagues in any field and scientists generally were happy to read unpublished internal research group reports,and would often challenge much more harshly peer reviewed articles even in what were considered top journals. Everyone had a sufficient grip of the science to make their own judgments. I believe that still persists in most other sciences except climate science, for some unknown reason, where anything which is written and not "peer reviewed" is criticised for that alone, without any scientifically based criticism seen as being necessary to refute what has been presented. -
jonicol at 17:49 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
KR I would have to say that the ultimate in "Argument from Authority" is the claim by the climate group who keep reminding us of the "consensis" on climate change without providing any substantial evidence beyond that claim. Not everyone is so confident, but one is mindful of Einstin's oft quoted comment. A hundred papers may show that I am right. Only one paper is required to show that I am wrong. -
Kevin C at 16:52 PM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Albatross: Is that an ordinary least squares calculation? If so, caution is required. OLS isn't generally applicable to time-series data because of the correlations. IIUC the slope should be OK but the uncertainty will be underestimated. You need general least squares, and feed it some estimate of the covariance matrix (banded diagonal based on autocorrelation will probably do - or maybe detrend first - I'm out of my depth). If this is a GLS calculation, then you're way ahead of me, but hopefully this warning will be useful to others! -
Bern at 16:37 PM on 14 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
I'd guess the Akerman article is this one. It contains a reference to the Carter article in Quadrant. I saw this article cross-posted on ClimateSpectator earlier today. As of now, the comments include the myths "97% of CO2 is natural emissions", "only a tiny % of the atmosphere", "it's natural", and "it's just a theory". I did my best to rebut them, and so did several other posters (which was good to see - many early postings on that site had a barrage of denier comments) -
adelady at 16:10 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jonicol "I don’t know what all of the researchers now believe, but some at least have become ardently sceptical of Arrhenius’ hypothesis." Who are these people? The only ones I can think of challenging the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are the seriously strange products of Gerlich & Tscheuschner (not providing a link - not good enough science) and a couple of others whose names escape me just now. Anyone who doubts the properties of CO2 has a very big job ahead of them explaining how CO2 lasers work. -
Tim Curtin at 15:44 PM on 14 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
Evidently my last has been "moderated". Here is the actual letter I have sent to Prof. Steffen: Dear Professor Steffen There is a basic fallacy throughout the discussion in Chapter Three of The Critical Decade of the so-called carbon budget, and that is the (-imputation of fraud and scientific misconduct snipped-) confusion there between gross emissions of CO2 and net additions to the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This procedure enabled your report to claim that “In the first nine years of the period (2000 through 2008), humanity emitted 305 Gt of CO2, over 30% of the total budget in less than 20% of the time period.” Your budget to 2050 of one trillion tonnes of CO2 apparently assumes that as has since 1958 been the case, on average only 45% or so of gross emissions remain aloft (Knorr, GRL, 2009). Thus in truth less than 15% of your “budget” had been used up by 2008, which is less than the 20% of the time period. I hope you and the Climate Commission will correct this gross error with as much publicity as in its original release of The Critical Decade. By the way, I note your report cites Meinshausen et al 2009 as the source for this very misleading budget approach. My attached published Note showed how they (-imputation of fraud and scientific misconduct snipped-) assumed 100% retention of emissions in the atmosphere. [Tim Curtin] www.timcurtin.comResponse:[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
scaddenp at 15:15 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jon Nicol. the tropospheric hotspot is NOT as signature of GHG warming. Read that article. and you will see that you are making a host of incorrect statements in your post. What is your source for this? -
jonicol at 14:33 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Thanks Adelady, KR and Scaddenp for the links. I have read the foirst "the tropospheric hotspot" and will read it again as well as trying to obtain the references given in the article. I will now lookat the others as well. Below is an explanation of the signature I was referring to: The "signature" I am referring to is the warming in the upper troposphere betweeen about -20 S and +20 N latitude and 7,000 and 11,000 m, which certainly up until 2006 was defined clearly and consistently as a most important parameter to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural warming, and was widely accepted as such. I understand that everyone searching for it were expecting it would be found and were using apparatus which was little, if at all, different from what is available now. Good quality well calibrated detectors have been in use since the 1940s at least, and have continued to be refined, leaving little to be improved upon since the late 1980s when very refined atom trapping experiments using IR lasers were taking place. People I know of, and one whom I know, working on the experiments were certainly expecting the model predictions to be correct. I don’t know what all of the researchers now believe, but some at least have become ardently sceptical of Arrhenius’ hypothesis. In 2005 and 2006, when it became obvious to most of those workers looking for the signature that the hot spot would not be found, and papers were published explaining the difference between the predictions and the results of measurements, there were several following papers claiming that reworking the data could show the semblance of a warming. No one questioned the accuracy of the measurements the accuracy of which were well within that needed to distinguish the warming from the noise. Since this warming signature has not been found, it now seems that the answer to the problem is that this is not what should have been looked for as indicated in the article I have just read, the references for which are all post 2006(2) and the rest later. It is all very confusing but I will withhold my judgment until I have had a chance to follow through at least the 2010 publications among the references given. Thank you all again for the interesting links. -
Albatross at 13:57 PM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
This is priceless, in a incredibly desperate move to try continue the deception and confusion, a 'skeptic' blogger has now feigned ignorance and claimed that the warming in the HadCRUT data since 1995 and 2010 is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level because they could not figure out which data Jones is using. Well, it would help if they used the same data that Jones used (and that I used below). Of course, uncritical 'skeptics' have bought their deception hook line and sinker. Here is the output from a professional statistics package. Note the bolded p-value of 0.042 is less than 0.05,that means that that the warming trend in the variance adjusted HadCRUT data is indeed statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Regression Analysis: HadCRUT3 (1995-2010) versus Year The regression equation is HadCRUT3 (1995-2010) = 0.293 + 0.0109 Year Predictor Coef SE Coef T P Constant 0.29328 0.04685 6.26 0.000 Year 0.010865 0.004845 2.24 0.042 S = 0.0893442 R-Sq = 26.4% R-Sq(adj) = 21.2% Analysis of Variance Source DF SS MS F P Regression 1 0.040134 0.040134 5.03 0.042 Residual Error 14 0.111754 0.007982 Total 15 0.151888 Unusual Observations HadCRUT3 Obs Year (1995-2010) Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid 2 2.0 0.1390 0.3150 0.0386 -0.1760 -2.18R 4 4.0 0.5290 0.3367 0.0312 0.1923 2.30R To be fair the "skeptic" does state that "I don’t think this lack of significance has great scientific importance..." Exactly, this whole cherry-picking exercise is moot, and I am getting tired of playing whack-a-mole. -
scaddenp at 13:47 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Jon, I would also say that "signature" is something to use carefully. If you take a climate model and change GHG you get a pattern. Change solar and you get another etc. There are a large no. of predictions made and some would be what you expect for say solar OR GHG; some for GHG OR reduced aerosols and so on. Its the whole suite of predictions that are important. There is also the question of robustness. They cant make decadal predictions. There is no robust prediction for effect on ENSO. Warming from ANY cause should show a "troposphere hot spot" but measuring that is very difficult. Stronger would be prediction that CO2 should cool the upper stratosphere but then you also have filter ozone effects in the lower stratosphere and stratosphere has not been well observed. Stronger would be arctic amplification, warmer nights, warmer winters. If there is one thing you cant complain about it, is that climate models dont produce testable predictions. Models produce a huge no. of predictions and with remarkable skill so far. -
Chris4795 at 13:45 PM on 14 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
John You may want to look at Today's Telegraph where Piers Ackerman has written an article denying the science of Climate Change. He refers to an article written in Quadrant by Bob Carter and 3 other scientists that refutes all the scietific research as overblown and exaggerated. Cater even makes the claim that the peer reviewed scientists are liars.Response: [JC] Link? -
Bob Austin at 13:41 PM on 14 June 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Chris, only Hugh Falconer and Chuck Norris don't make mistakes. And Mike, don't forget what academic freedom is all about. -
scaddenp at 13:07 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jonicol, I would recommend the science of Doom series for the basic textbook physics. On the same site this series is also good. KR has pointed you to Weart which has the key historical papers. Ramanathan & Coakley 1978 is the key to radiative physics in models but read the background first! -
sailrick at 13:03 PM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
@21 Albatross "Ironic beyond belief, because the CRU employs the same group of scientists who the 'skeptics' accused of fudging" Not only that, but UAH is home to two of their favorite skeptic scientists, Christy and Spencer. Priceless. double irony? -
KR at 12:41 PM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jonicol I would suggest reading this excellent history of the science of the greenhouse effect. If you have further questions, please, ask them. But read this first. -
adelady at 11:55 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Greenhouse signature?? Are you referring to the tropospheric hot spot ? If so, I suggest a careful reading of the link - and strongly suggest the links within it. If not, can you clarify which signature you're looking for? Thanks.Response:[DB] Fixed link.
-
jonicol at 11:47 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Thanks Tom Curtis and KR for your comments. However, the links in the articles on Christy and Lindzen, take one only to criticisms, most if not all of which I have read, which state simply that those scientists are "wrong". I could find none which goes deeply enough into the science to show "WHY" they are wrong. What I am looking for is something which spells out the physics of the atmosphere, the interactions between carbon dioxide, radiation and other molecules and how these cause the earth to become warmer as CO2 increases. Perhaps some which give details of the principle features of the models. Professor David Karoly recently gave a very good summary of the case made for accepting the hypothesis that carbon dioxide causes global warming. He explained that the case is based on models being able to determine patterns of change in the global climate - warming here, cooling there which is consistent with the injection of an increased or new "forcing" into the models, assumed to come from increased carbon dioxide. As Andy Pitman says, the assumption is based on the fact that carbon dioxide concentration is the only thing that has changed, so it is natural to point to carbon dioxide. These are basic pieces of evidence which represent a scientific approach. They also meet the criteria of the "scientific method", first enunciated by Karl Popper and embraced universally by most if not all scientists from every discipline for many years. This "scientific method" involves formulating an hypothesis, in this case Svante Arrhenius' hypotheis, and testing it using empirical measurements or theoretical analysis, all of which must be "falsifiable" i.e. has an underlying reason for its pronouncement which could be found to be wrong by the presentation of further evidence. As Einstein once said: "I could write a hundred papers, proving I am right, it would only take one paper to prove that I was wrong". Karoly's and Pitman's statements are falsifiable, and therefore represent a basic scientific approach. One of the stronger arguments, which does not "falsfy" Karoly's and Pitman's statements, but does tell us that they are not complete in demonstrating the link between CO2 increases and Global Warming, is the absence, after 25 years of dedicated searching by a large number of internationally distributed groups including in Australia, of any evidence of the "Green House Signature", which was and still is, a very significant result from the atmospheric modelling. he models need to show noe that this warming is not part of the green house effect. It was the modelers who defined it as a "signature", such was their confidence in its existence. That would/should be the next logical step for the modelers in a truly scientific analysis of the problem where there is evidence coming in from both sides of the hypothesis - some which proves and some which disproves it. Statements that Christy is wrong here or Lindzen made a mistake there because someone else said the opposite, do nothing to clarify the science. The comment 15. above, is an example. -
Bibliovermis at 11:42 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Scratch that last bit. It's been a long day, and my eyes crossed when I looked at the data. How is there a cooling trend from 2001, when 2001 was cooler than 2010? The only 2 years warmer than 2010 were 1998 & 2005.Response:[DB] Per CRU, "The years 2003, 2005 and 2010 are only distinguishable in the third decimal place."
-
dhogaza at 11:27 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
"On rare occassions, those on the edges of the scientific spectrum are proven correct". Someone had better hope that Hansen's not ... -
Bibliovermis at 11:23 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Here are the decade numbers from my previous comment; #19. 1970s: -0.074 1980s: 0.098 (+0.172) 1990s: 0.242 (+0.143) 2000s: 0.430 (+0.189) CW, your claim that there is a cooling trend since 2001 is a sham based on selective data extraction in order to affirm a preconceived notion, aka "cherry picking". Rational Wiki: cherry picking Cooling trend to 2010: 2001, 2005 Warming trend to 2010: 1850-2000, 2002-2004, 2006-2009 -
Norman at 11:11 AM on 14 June 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
Albatross, Here is the Accuweather article about the jet stream. The claim is they predicted the severe weather in February. Accuweather article. Quote from article: "AccuWeather.com meteorologists knew by February of this year that the upcoming spring was going to be a wild one in terms of severe weather and flooding, and it was not because climate change was ongoing. The combination of a weakening La Nina and the anticipated sharp temperature anomaly gradient between the northern U.S. and the southern U.S. told us that the jet stream running across the U.S. would be abnormally strong this spring. A strong jet stream leads to more powerful storms and thunderstorms, which increases the chances of large tornadoes and widespread flooding." -
David Horton at 11:08 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
"way too much attention is placed on the single metric of average annual global mean temperature of the troposphere" - yes, why oh why is no attention being paid to increased frequency of catastrophic events; changes in species distribution and breeding seasons; ocean acidity; more and more record high temps; melting glaciers and ice caps - how silly those old climate scientists are. -
ClimateWatcher at 11:06 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
48. if a 0.12 trend over 15 years is not statistically significant, then a -0.0281 trend over 10 years certainly isn't. For the record, I didn't question whether or not the trend was significant ( Though Lucia has concluded it is not and offers up the source code of her analysis ). My point was that the rate is fairly low. We shall know in the fullness of time ( hence my nonsensical moniker ).Response:[DB] "For the record, I didn't question whether or not the trend was significant"
On the contrary, yes you did.
-
scaddenp at 10:59 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
"On rare occassions, those on the edges of the scientific spectrum are proven correct". Rare enough, that it would be extremely unwise for policy not be based on scientific consensus. You apparently think Christy could be right, but then how do you feel about the Christy Crocks? -
ClimateWatcher at 10:55 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
46. The "null hypothesis" for the significance tests is taken as "there is no trend". For AGW, as postulated by the IPCC, this is not the case. The IPCC predicts a range of possibilities for both a 'Low' and 'High' scenario. The "likely" range of 1.1C to 6.4C warming this century defines the null hypothesis. Anything lower ( or higher ) falsifies the theory as embodied by the models. The trends since 1979 in various data sets are from 1.3 to 1.7 C per century, which do lie within the range, though at the low end. The chorus here is the modeled trends are not linear, and they're not, but they're pretty close. And anyway, the IPCC gave us another prediction to measure things by when they predicted the 0.2C per decade rate for the next two decades regardless of scenario.Response:[dana1981] No. The IPCC projected temperature trends are not even remotely close to linear, unless we dramatically cut GHG emissions.
As for your 0.2°C per decade claim, if it was made in the 2007 IPCC report, we're 15% of the way there. Please, stop obsessing over short-term cherrypicked data, and please stop misrepresenting the IPCC report.
-
Norman at 10:47 AM on 14 June 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
Albatross, I did wander over to Desmogblog and read your exchange with NicholasV. NicholasV does hold a similar position to mine concerning the Bill McKibben video. I did get that jet stream info from a Accuweather piece but rather than talk through my "hat" I am interested in updating my knowledge. I did take one course in college on meteorology but that was long ago. Here is a resource that I found that may help update my knowledge base. Online weather learning site. Reading your posts, you do seem a very intelligent person. Thanks for taking the time to share your views and resources. -
scaddenp at 10:28 AM on 14 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Another point, continental distribution (and especially mountain range distribution) also has profound influence on THC - and one that is somewhat difficult to model. -
scaddenp at 10:24 AM on 14 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Truckmonkey, are you looking for a coherent model for a reality or looking for excuses to ignore climate science? As I interpret your remarks, you are claiming that past climates cannot be explained by known climate physics. Well, the best model we have (practically uncontested unless you count the "iron sun" crowd) gives us faint young sun and with it an explanation for cold episodes despite high GHGs. The fact that you get season and response to Milankovich is evidence that climate is not a random chaotic process but controlled strongly by the forcings present at the time. Continent position modulates albedo effect as land at high altitude assists in maintaining summer ice - but it is ONE parameter in the whole equation. There are two important notes on deep paleoclimate. 1/ Uncertainty with forcings. If you were asked to set up model for some early period, then finding values for fundamental variables, like land albedo, continental position, solar constant, atmospheric composition and rate of volcanism, is fairly challenging and so gives you a range of climates. What you are looking for and wont find is a configuration that cant be explained in terms of the likely range of forcings. 2/ Multiple hypotheses does not challenge climate physics. Having more than one way to create a past event (eg the mid Pleistocene transition) is not the same as having no hypothesis. It means that at present there is insufficient data to constrain the possibilities. It would only be relevant if any the hypotheses had an implication for present day physics. -
John Hartz at 09:56 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
@Phillipe Chantreau #47: In the US, the political process has morphed into a mass marketing process. In other words, the masses are being manipulated like puppets on a string. -
Tom Curtis at 09:51 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
The main thrust of the 39 comments on this thread while I slept, that cherry picking is cherry picking no matter which short term trend you pick cannot be improved upon, and should have been learnt by now by the deniers. A couple of points: DB inline comments @7: I believe the peer reviewed article by Tamino based on the analysis from which your charts @2 comes from is not yet published. (I am unsure whether it has been accepted yet, or is still in review.) Dana @5 does not "fail to acknowledge the data", he just does not restrict his analysis to just one data set. In fact of the four major data sets, just one shows a negative trend over that period. RSS is almost exactly flat, but very slightly positive. GISStemp and UAH are strongly positive over that interval. Climatewatcher @2, if a 0.12 trend over 15 years is not statistically significant, then a -0.0281 trend over 10 years certainly isn't. (But see following comment.) -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:28 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
John Russell, I think, makes some good points. The problem is, as was demonstrated by the trap set for Phil Jones, that the "skeptics" are so deeply dishonest and devious, one can never come out clean of any exchange with them, especially in their representation of the exchange. The methods CW attempted to use here are telling. This can be seen in politics also, where anything (really anything, it's appalling) goes, as long as one side can be represented as "bad" in the resulting rethorics. It is a profound failure of critical thinking in the masses that makes this possible. All objective reality can be dismissed, everything becomes a matter of opinion and all opinions are equally valid by virtue of being just opinions. Sad. -
Bern at 09:26 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Here's a question I'd like answered. The "null hypothesis" for the significance tests is taken as "there is no trend". Is that really an appropriate test to make, when you've got decades of data which provide a trend with a high degree of confidence? I.e. surely, when adding to a pre-existing data set, the test should be "is this indicative that the trend has changed from the previously established and highly significant trend?" I'm sure there's a detailed statistical answer as to why this isn't done, but it's not one I'm aware of. Then again, it might just be custom, to test against a "no-trend" hypothesis. -
Tom Curtis at 09:19 AM on 14 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
trunkmonkey, the faint young sun is also directly predicted by the physical theory of stellar evolution. Consequently any evidence for that theory is evidence for a faint young sun. As I understand it the physical theory of the faint young sun is very well confirmed. Further, the direct evidence is not just the apparent evolution within the Hertzprung-Russel diagram, but also the correlation between helium concentrations and luminosity for stars of similar mass. Admitedly mass is normally determined by position on the Hertzprung-Russel diagram (although it can be determined independently for binaries), so that may be what you are referring to. Further, the luminosity of various stars which are just forming, and hence not yet in the main sequence also provide evidence for the faint young sun.
Prev 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 Next
