Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 Next
Comments 117251 to 117300:
-
How climate skeptics mislead
Sorry Albatross I agree this conversation has taken some esoteric turns, but since the theme of this post is the "consensus of evidence", I feel that a philosophical discussion of why such a consensus has relevance is somewhat on topic. In any case I can't help myself but indulge BP in this discussion a little bit more, I apologize if I'm just running in circles here. I think it's pretty clear he disagrees with you by the way that skeptics mislead. BP feels that a focus on minute particulars is far more relevant than weighing the totality of evidence. I'll defer to John's judgement as to whether this conversation needs to end where it stands. BP, That was a very interesting post, but it only serves to weaken your own arguments. You write that often in science we start with a huge inductive leap, then work backwards deductively establishing evidence for the general principle. I'll agree this is often the case, but not with climate science. AGW fell out of an attempt to reconstruct the behavior of our climate from our low level understanding of physical processes. It is clearly a theory borne out from inductive methods. Early attempts did try to deduce our climate's behavior from broad generalizations, but these attempts were met with failure (take a look at that link, it's a good read if you haven't seen it already). Furthermore, in your own entreaties you have urged us to stop looking at the "big picture" and working backwards, rather you'd prefer we work out the individual pieces and see where it takes us. You propose a method that is clearly inductive when applied to the general theory of AGW. Why then can we not evaluate your approach as such? > We can never be sure if these signs give us truth or not. However we have no choice but consider them true until proven false (by experiment or observation). Utter nonsense BP. You are now in direct contradiction to the basic principles of scientific skepticism (and of course, all modern judicial systems). Positive claims require positive evidence before we even entertain the idea that they are true. I propose to you that there is an invisible unicorn standing behind you right now. Did you honestly have to wave your hands in the air before assuming that my claim is false? >If something is 95% true, it may take quite a lot of counterexamples to get one convinced it must be false after all. Yes. This is exactly how the scientific method is supposed to work in fields where the evidence itself is complex, and is perfectly consistent with how theories have historically been modified or replaced. In such fields, each piece of evidence standing on its own is questionable. Only when you take the evidence in summation does a case for general theory arise. If a single piece of complex evidence can unambiguously falsify a theory, then I again submit that observations of SST's falsify your claims on UHI. >we are doing science and in this fine tradition you should let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. That communication has been a direct and clear "YES": based on the mass of all current evidence, AGW is true. It is the "skeptics" that have harped on the question of uncertainty. >In science the standard practice is to get rid of uncertainty by improvements to your measurement system, postponing your judgment until the job is done. There is no such thing as "getting rid of uncertainty" in science BP, I thought we had established that fact already. As such, the "job" is never complete and your claim implies we will never make any judgements whatsoever. If you honestly believe there is such a thing as 100% certainty (the equivalent of saying all uncertainty has been removed), then there is no point in continuing this conversation. -
Berényi Péter at 11:13 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#183 doug_bostrom at 11:40 AM on 17 June, 2010 It seems to me that overzealous application of Kolmogorov's axiom system could lead us to effective paralysis Yes. In real life it is imperative to be able to handle obscure issues. However, the way we do it should not be confused with applications of probability theory in the strict scientific sense. This is exactly the problem with the way IPCC presents its assessment system with guidelines for quantification. It is made to look scientific while in fact it is just plain old-style guesswork. Insufficient knowledge of sample space (field of possible events) is a serious issue. There are several extremely complicated systems like commercial airplanes or nuclear power plants where failure is not tolerated easily. Guys are developing sophisticated models to assess probability of failure but the thing is, retrospective analysis of actual accidents almost always uncovers some momentum or coincidence of otherwise independent chains of events, that no one expected, therefore it was missing from any previous risk assessment scheme as well. The rule is rare events happen often. There is an enormous tail of the probability distribution spanning unexplored expanses of the sample space. In this region each individual event has a vanishingly small probability, but all taken together, some of them is to be expected to happen rather soon. There is no good scientific way to handle situations like this. You have to rely on structural safety, engineering expertise, responsibility and common sense. There is another issue. This is personal communication from a guy trading in Decision Theory. In fact it happened in a pub, drinking beer, so I don't have references. Anyway, he described an experiment where subjects were asked to play a game and they were actually payed some small money for winning. There were a dozen or so marbles, all yellow, except one, which was blue. These were put into a black velvet bag in front of the subject, so he could see and count them. Then the experimenter pulled the marbles out of the bag one by one and the subject was to bet on its color in advance. Later on the betting strategies people followed were analyzed. There is a known optimal strategy for this game and it was found their performance was seriously suboptimal. The guy (the one I was drinking beer with) wondered why was it so. Well, there was a quirk to the experiment. The black velvet bag had a small hidden pocket inside and the experimenter trained himself in advance to be able to put the blue marble into the pocket in plain view without being noticed. This way he could always invariably present it on the last turn. It made sense, because this way he had more data (as soon as the blue marble is out, there is no uncertainty left in the game whatsoever). I told him the subjects probably guessed he was cheating on them and adjusted their strategies accordingly. He thought he had taken all the necessary precautions to prevent this, each subject played the game only once, they were not allowed to communicate with each other, and he, being an amateur magician otherwise, could really perform the cheat undetected. Well, I told him people have a general knowledge of psychologists cheating in experimental situations like this, so he has to look for the specific cheating model people had in their mind making the betting strategy they have actually followed close to optimal. So did he. Not in the pub, but during the days following. Next week he came up with a probability distribution for the blue marble along consecutive turns that made the average observed strategy optimal. It was tail-heavy, that is, looked like some mixture of the correct uniform distribution and the actual one, where the blue marble was always the last one. He could not repeat the experiment without cheating, because by then it was common knowledge among the students that the last one is blue. No one knows what has actually happened. There is a small possibility of the subjects communicating their experiences to the ones still waiting. But the distribution has not looked like that. It didn't have a single spike at the last turn, but a rising slope. People may be too dumb for this game. But it is also possible the sample space they had in mind and on which they have (mostly unconsciously) computed their strategy was wider then it was supposed to be and on top of possible configurations of marbles also included guesses on ways they might be cheated on. After all it can happen anytime, not only in controlled experimental situations. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:02 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Thank you johnd, you extended the life of my analogy by another few miles. Notice how John seized on a single indicator or metric and began to work it as a source of doubt? We've also got the strange clattering from the engine but let's ignore that aberration and focus instead on how the flickering oil light might not be telling us anything because it's an indirect diagnostic of the oil level. Later-- after we've wrestled the oil pressure light to the ground-- we'll forget about lubrication quality and instead exclusively quibble over what a mechanical thrashing noise may or may not tell us about the engine. Don't ever consider the symptoms as a whole because that might lead to a conclusion. This form of abstract mental disintegration will lead to physical engine disintegration Berényi Péter, the fossil fuel gas tank is rapidly approaching empty and there's no fuel station in sight. The car's shortly going to run out of gas leaving us stranded regardless of the actual state of the oil pan. The anthropogenic warming thing is one issue, fossil fuels are another. The two are closely related but fossil fuels are on their own trajectory quite apart from climate problems. -
NewYorkJ at 10:30 AM on 18 June 2010Astronomical cycles
"The fact that the IPCC says that almost all late 20th warming is due to GHGs" The IPCC is actually quite conservative and nuanced. Here's what they conclude: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic" "Most" meaning >50% and "very likely" meaning >90%. Interestingly, Scafetta makes a similar statement in his latest: "This estimate should be compared with the IPCC’s estimate that 100% of the warming observed since 1970 is anthropogenic." Perhaps there's a different statement in the IPCC report that you both are referring to, but this appears to be another reason to suspect a sloppy/poor review of this paper. -
scaddenp at 10:23 AM on 18 June 2010Astronomical cycles
HR - its all to easy to say "could be a natural cycle" which is somehow supposed to be a causeless phenomena too mysterious to penetrate. However, tomorrow's weather has physical causes; the ESNO has a physical cause etc. Where is this other mysterious cycle which somehow has rates of change so much higher than we are used to? Now it might exist - but the alternative hypothesis that the temperature record can be understood entirely on the basis of forcings plus some internal variability seems one how of a lot stronger and the best basis for a risk assessment. How much up trending would it take for you abandon the natural cycle hypothesis and what would it cost us by then? -
HumanityRules at 10:09 AM on 18 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Philippe Chantreau at 16:22 PM on 17 June, 2010 Lies, damn lies and... science. Scaffetta puts forward an analysis that is there to be questioned. That's not lying that's stepping into the unknown, that's science. Good post Riccardo, as usual it leaves me with more question than answers. I guess it is not controversial to state that the 20th century temperature record could be understood as cycles overlaid by a trend? Understanding the nature of those cycles seems important. Do you know any other theories out there regarding the cycles? How do other's try to separate out the natural cycles from the temperature trend? The fact that the IPCC says that almost all late 20th warming is due to GHGs suggests to me that they do not recognize that this period is part of the upward trend of one of these cycles? Is that true? Finally only last week I was trying to work out the amplitude of the natural cycle. Scafetta seems to put it at ~0.4oC. I was interested in this in connection to the supposed affects AGW would have of seasons, phenology, extinctions etc. It's interesting to consider that species naturally would have to cope with 0.4oc changes every 30 years if Scaffetta's analysis was true. Adaptibility within species (even over a short period) does not seem to be figured into the more doomsday scenarios. -
Albatross at 09:49 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
John if you don't mind, I'm going to take some initiative here. BP et al., you have steered us way off topic. As fascinating as the philosophy behind the science is, it should not detract from the fact that "skeptics" show a propensity to distort and mislead when it comes to the science. Perhaps BP you are trying to detract from that inconvenient fact? BP, please, at least have the gumption to call foul when "skeptics" mislead, which is actually the topic of this post. Or do you disagree with John's (and others') assertion that "skeptics" mislead? -
Marcus at 09:38 AM on 18 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Seriously JohnD, if you're going to come here & debate the issue, then at least try & make an effort! Dusting off tired old "skeptic" arguments & passing them off as new might work in the denialosphere-or even in the blogs of the Mainstream Press, but you'll need to do a bit more leg-work here! For the record, the usual convention in determining decadal trends is to use *actual decades* (say 1980-1989). If we do that, then we get the following warming trends: 1970-1979: +0.06 degrees/decade; 1980-1989: +0.055 degrees/decade; 1990-1999: +0.16 degrees/decade; 2000-2009: +0.13 degrees per decade. Now average sunspot trends for these decades were: +2/year; -5/year; -9/year & -14/year. So that *really* makes your argument look incredibly shaky JohnD! Time to go home & do your homework I reckon! -
Berényi Péter at 09:22 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#193 kdkd at 05:53 AM on 18 June, 2010 how to deal with uncertainty and poor measureability properly In science the standard practice is to get rid of uncertainty by improvements to your measurement system, postponing your judgment until the job is done. In real life this procedure is not always practicable, because decision is urgent and resources are lacking. In this case you have to make-do with what you have. But do not call that science please. your comments are showing your susceptibility to the Dunning-Kreuger effect So are yours :) -
Berényi Péter at 08:54 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#195 doug_bostrom at 07:33 AM on 18 June, 2010 I ought to pull off and check my oil level Except your car is the world economy, already on a bumpy road along the river, on a floodplain with swamp on both sides, water level is rising fast so you have to reach high ground as soon as possible. Make your choice. -
Albatross at 08:38 AM on 18 June 2010Astronomical cycles
JohnD, The question remains why you chose 1998-- a year frequently cited by "skeptics", some erroneously, as the warmest year to date in the instrumented record. The follies of "cherry-picking" start dates, has been discussed ad nauseum. The only reason I chose 1986-1998 is because you chose 1998-present (~12 years), so I selected the 12 years prior to 1998 so that we would at least be comparing trends determined using the same number of data points. To calculate stat sig. trends one needs at least 15 years or so of data in the GISTEMP data. The trend in GISTEMP from 1978 to 1998 (i.e., using the dates that you suggested @24) was +0.123 K/decade, compared to +0.134 K/decade from 1998 to present. The trend from 1978 to preset is +0.168 K/decade. So, the trend between 1998 and present is positive, and even greater than that observed between 1978 and 1998 (although the difference between the two is probably not statistically significant). Anyhow, your suggestion that global temperatures have been stable since 1998 or have even cooled since 1998 is simply not correct. Hansen et al. have a paper (which you can download from his web site) in which they demonstrate that the long term rate of warming in the GISTEMP until present has not showed signs of a (prolonged) slow down in the warming. It is a very interesting paper and well worth reading if you have the time (it is rather long). -
Lon Hocker at 08:15 AM on 18 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
scaddenp: Sorry I don't understand what you are saying. Add a linear trend to what? No need for magic. The equilibrium is between the bottom of the atmosphere and the top of the ocean, and if the ocean needs to add CO2 to the atmosphere to keep equilibrium, it will add it. If it needs to sink it, it will sink it. If you dump CO2 into the atmosphere more quickly than the change in the surface temperature would demand, it sinks it. All: Many thanks for all your contributions to this thread. Clearly, I did not do a good enough job of presenting my model. Time to do a rewrite instead of trying to address your questions one at a time. Keep your eyes on WUWT! -
johnd at 08:05 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
doug_bostrom at 07:33 AM, doug, perhaps your oil level may be low, but there is no direct correlation between a flickering oil light and the oil level. They may coincide much of the time, and be plotted on a graph, but the mechanism that drives each are separate with only indirect links. PS. Don't trade in the car yet, there is a lot of mileage left in the analogy tank. -
scaddenp at 07:41 AM on 18 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon, my point is that you add a trend to the data so it was even an anti-correlation between temperature and co2, you would still be able to derive your model. ie it makes no statement about trend. On top of this, you still have to explain the magic by which co2 comes from ocean while ocean co2 increases and how to reproduce the atmospheric isotope data with an increase in ocean CO2. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:33 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Retracing our footsteps back from the interesting and informative and completely necessary conversation on epistemology, I'm still left with hints about climate behavior that my feeble brain can readily analogize to a more prosaic level. My vehicle's engine is making some unusual clattering noises. The oil pressure light is flickering. I've not checked my oil level recently, I can't really remember how many miles ago. I know my car consumes a certain amount of oil but my notion of exactly how much oil is consumed per mile is hazy. None of these things are a certain indication that my engine is about to burn up. The clattering could be a collapsed lifter, the flickering lamp could be a short. My assumptions about a potentially diminishing quantity of oil are hazy at best. I should add, this is all behavioral information from my actual experience with one of my cars. So none of the indirect information I have about what's going on under the hood is anything like conclusive when I consider each clue in isolation. I've had a clattering lifter before. The engine wiring harness is in poor shape and I've seen the oil pressure light flicker and even light solidly in past only to find a full oil pan. My last measurement of oil level is even more uncertain, I have only the vaguest notion of how much oil ought to be present. Taking all that information together, however, I can form a reasonably useful judgment that my vehicle is about to undergo a drastic change and I ought to pull off and check my oil level. In all probability I'll find the level to be critically low. For me, that's the model of what I'm seeing with regard to climate. We've got all sorts of signs and portents pointing more or less in the same direction. None are perfectly reliable, some are quite imperfect, but it would actually be unreasonable to ignore the overall message. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:12 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Berényi Péter while I still cannot seem to arrive at a state of paralysis based on your thoughts and opinions, that was really nicely written post. Thanks also to 'e' and 'KR.' -
kdkd at 05:53 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
BP #191 This latest comment, and others really does look like your own training has ill equipped you to understand how to deal with uncertainty and poor measureability properly. Which is leading me down the track of thinking that rather than trying to actively mislead, a lot of your comments are showing your susceptibility to the Dunning-Kreuger effect. -
pdjakow at 05:02 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Differences in temperature anomaly (10-year running mean) in nearby stations. Base period is 1971-2000. Sniezka is mountain without UHI effect and Wroclaw is city with pop= ~600000.
-
NickD at 04:51 AM on 18 June 2010Podcasts, interviews and Monckton bashing
This is the best site I come to for information and good discussions. I am typically one of the "silent" regulars on this forum, and I imagine there are many more like me. I would like to say a sincere thank you to John Cook, all the commenters (from all sides) and all contributors to this great site. While I find valuable information on other forums, such as RC, Open Mind, etc., this is the clearest and least hostile place I will first link to in discussions elsewhere. -
Riccardo at 03:42 AM on 18 June 2010Astronomical cycles
johnd, from NCDC data the linear trend from 1998 is positive. Same conclusion eyeballing the blue line in your graph. Only if you take the value of the single year 1998 and the single year 2009 you'll get a slightly decreasing temperature. Is this what you mean? -
johnd at 03:33 AM on 18 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Albatross at 02:38 AM, the trends are taken from the chart below. The question really is why did you choose 1986 when it appears the upward trend began about 1978?
-
Albatross at 02:38 AM on 18 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Johnd @22, I'm not sure what the point of your cursory analysis is. That sunspot number explains decadal trends in the global surface air temperature? Anyhow, I disagree with your assessment that (e). The OLS trend in the GISTEMP data between 1998 (~12 years) and now is +.134 K/decade, compared to +.09 K/decade between 1986 and 1998 (~12 years prior to 1998). Stats generated at woodfortrees.org. Why did you choose 1998? -
Lon Hocker at 02:03 AM on 18 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
scaddenp: Challenge response: Pull back to 1850. According to most data, the temperature was pretty much flat at a value about 0.8C less than now. My model would show CO2 would stay constant. Linear Trend response: Add a linear trend to the Mauna Loa CO2 data, and the 0.58 term would change accordingly. Figure 2 would look the same, since the equation would subtract out the revised 0.58 value, and the shape of the Modified Mauna Loa data would be reproduced. Doug: I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if you are suggesting backing off the rhetoric, I all for it. -
Sheila at 02:00 AM on 18 June 2010Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Obviously the whole point of the hacking was to look for dirt to publish. I'd love to know how many other people got hacked with nothing published, because there was no dirt to find. I know the answer might be "none", but equally, it could be hundreds. -
canbanjo at 01:05 AM on 18 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
JB, not sure why you said 'nice try' regardless of whether this was directed at Canbanjo or Joe Blog. May I suggest that a lot of the controversy surrounding the IPCC reports could be (and could have been) avoided by having a formal IPCC questionaire to be completed by all of the contributors and reviewers following publication of the final report. This would then enable simple statistical analysis to determine eg percentage who endorse the core findings of the report. The survey refered to in post 12 is better than nothing but considering the damage the denialists are causing we need much better amunition (facts) to clearly highlight the consensus. -
Berényi Péter at 00:47 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#189 skywatcher at 19:32 PM on 17 June, 2010 we've established there was no evidence for your hypothesis No, you have not. dealing with multiple lines of evidence, none of which may show you exactly what you want to know, but all of which point strongly to some overall conclusion Sounds like the prosecutor's job. -
Berényi Péter at 00:38 AM on 18 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#185 e at 15:04 PM on 17 June, 2010 We are not born with this knowledge implanted in our minds, we have no choice but to construct that knowledge from our senses and our ability to apply logic. When that application of logic is used to derive general principles from given observations, that logic is by its very nature inductive, and thus can never give us a truly binary answer. Except it usually does not happen that way. What we actually do is to postulate universal principles very early in the process, based on little observational data. This step can be called inductive if you will, but it goes far beyond what is strictly necessary to explain the set of observations available at the moment. Ancient Greeks postulated circular motion for the Heavenly Bodies this way, because the Circle is the only perfect closed curve (whatever "perfect" means) and the behavior of the Heavens certainly looked like somewhat cyclic even at a first glance. The theory was extremely successful, had considerable predictive power, Ptolemaic cosmology has prevailed for one and a half millennia. As soon as the conceptual framework is given, we can happily rely on deductive reasoning using perfectly binary logic. Observation is still necessary to fine tune model to reality (you still need to determine the number, sizes, positions, orientations, orbits, periods of epicycles), but otherwise all you do is to calculate projections of these motions to the sphere of Heavens (which needs quite a bit of spherical geometry). Even its demise is enlightening. From retrospective analysis we know any quasi-periodic motion can be approximated by a sufficient number of epicycles with arbitrary precision. The proof goes something like the one for Fourier series. Therefore there was no way observation could falsify the theory provided of course the challenge was the accurate description of kinematic behavior of projections of Heavenly Lights to the Celestial Sphere. The model could be refined ad infinitum, with an ever increasing number of epicycles. Unfortunately during this process it became less and less understandable, and that was the real problem with it. With our vast computing power we could do even better on Ptolemaic calculations than medieval thinkers, there would be almost no limit to increasing the number of epicycles recursively. In reality came Nicolaus Copernicus and failed miserably. His model was much more transparent, than Ptolemy's (after all those epicycles added), but he was sill sticking to circular motion (this time around the Sun). Initially his theory was rejected not because of theological objections of the Catholic Church (those came later, preceded by early expression of distaste by Luther), but because it was all too easy to falsify it. Parallax predicted by his theory was unobservable and on top of that, with simple circular orbits its performance was much inferior to improved Ptolemaic predictions. One could of course add epicycles to planetary orbits around the Sun, but in that case what's the point of the whole exercise? Just to leave poor birdies behind in empty Air as Earth orbits the Sun? It was only after Johannes Kepler discovered elliptic orbits that the system got actually simpler. At least in a conceptual sense, if not computationally. By the way, the first two laws of Kepler were derived from a single case (Martian orbit), not from some induction on a wide sample of orbits. The pattern is the same even much later. Albert Einstein in developing his theory On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies didn't have to do inductive inferences on vast observational databases. He only used a single experiment (Michelson & Morley, 1887, not even citing them by their name, but just as unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'') and some symmetry properties of the Maxwell equations discovered earlier by Lorentz. Compared to this the inductive step he took was enormous. Ten years later he repeated the performance with his Geometrodynamics, this time only using the Eötvös experiment, geometrization of Electrodynamics by Minkowski along with some more symmetry speculations. I could go on with this ad nauseam from QM to String Theory. The general pattern is that very little empirical data is used for huge inductive leaps and most of the induction is done at rather high level by introducing some invariance principle, transforming the mathematical form of existing laws or even better, by finding mathematical structures that include the description of several unrelated fields as limit cases. The role of induction is more like a heuristic principle here, rather than a systematic tool working on many instances of observation. The bulk of work goes into derivation of specific cases from general equations obtained this easy and reckless way on the one hand and performing experiments to check these consequences on the other hand. Mathematics seems to play a central role in this process. Already Galileo has noted the great Book of Nature was somehow written in the language of Mathematics. It means even induction can be performed mainly on the symbolic level, as with quantization of certain representations in classical physics that are directly transformed to QM equations. Wigner's fifty years old essay, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences still ponders on this question. We can never be sure if these signs give us truth or not. However we have no choice but consider them true until proven false (by experiment or observation). With fuzzy truth-values assigned to propositions, even proper falsification becomes impossible. If something is 95% true, it may take quite a lot of counterexamples to get one convinced it must be false after all. Even then only a lower certainty might be claimed, 90% perhaps - still very likely. If even falsifiability is abandoned, we are left in the outer darkness. Binary logic is not for all. Spouses, not driven by logic, can perfectly well love and hate each other at the same time and one still have to deal with situations like this somehow. But right now we are not doing zen, we are doing science and in this fine tradition you should let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. -
johnd at 23:42 PM on 17 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Marcus at 21:18 PM, this chart perhaps helps with sunspot numbers. The relevant temperature trends are (a) A small temperature fall 1900 to 1906. (b) An extended temperature rise 1906 to 1940. (c) A steady or very slowly descending temperature period from 1940 to 1978. (d) An extended fairly rapid rise in temperatures from 1978 to 1998. (e) A short steady or slightly descending temperature period from 1998.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aassn07.jpg
-
JMurphy at 22:54 PM on 17 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
Why do so-called skeptics find it so easy to believe in and trust (totally, without scepticism) one or two sources or scientists, against thousands of scientists and scientific reports ? -
Riccardo at 22:11 PM on 17 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, you should have noticed that, although criticizing the analisys shown in the paper I ended the post open to other possibilities and welcoming further studies on decadal variability, which anyone may admit is a bit in its infancy. I can't see where you criticism of underestimation is based on. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:09 PM on 17 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
Hans von Storch - exactly -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:08 PM on 17 June 2010Andrew Bolt distorts again
"The AR4 report was indeed written, edited and reviewed by many thousands of expert scientists including the lead and contributing authors and the expert reviewers." professor Hans von "hot" supporter of AGW theory, the author III raport ICC: "Der eigentliche Sündenfall dabei war, dass sich der Rat entgegen seiner Regeln in seinen Aussagen nicht mehr allein auf wissenschaftlich legitime Quellen verlassen hat. Stattdessen hat er bei manchen Themen auf Zeitungsartikel und Berichte von Interessenverbänden zurückgegriffen. Schlimmer noch: Es ist der Eindruck entstanden, dass Umwelt- und Naturschutzverbände, aber auch wirtschaftliche Interessen direkten Einfluss auf Aussagen des IPCC nehmen konnten." - "The real sin is that the Council [IPCC] in support of their case has benefited not only from reliable sources, peer-reviewed research. Instead, the use of certain newspaper articles and reports of interest groups. Worse, there is a presumption that environmental organizations, but perhaps also economic interests have a direct impact on the IPCC reports. " "... normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but… this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning. The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only ‘reform’ I could envisage would be its abolition." (Gray, 2007). -
JMurphy at 21:27 PM on 17 June 2010Peer review vs commercials and spam
chriscanaris wrote : However, science has its share of powerful personalities who dominate the scene by their presence (and not always by their integrity). This applies to the sceptical side as much as (in some cases more)to the AWG side. Could you give some names of those on the "AWG side" who are "more" likely (according to you) to "dominate" by their lack of integrity - "not always by their integrity" ? -
Marcus at 21:26 PM on 17 June 2010Peer review vs commercials and spam
Funny, Arkadiusz, but many US scientists complained that the Bush Administration was cutting off Federal Funding to institutions pushing the pro-AGW line. Here in Australia, the former Howard Government did much the same thing. However, wheras politicians, & the press, are happy to act in a partisan fashion-I doubt that Reviewers could long get away with similar behaviour. -
JMurphy at 21:21 PM on 17 June 2010Peer review vs commercials and spam
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, could you give links for those quotes, please ? I don't think anyone should be able to quote others without a link, but maybe that's just me. -
Marcus at 21:18 PM on 17 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Arkadiusz, if planetary alignments were truly having such a strong impact on the sun, then we'd see some kind of outward sign-such as a large increase in solar activity-yet if anything the sun's activity is *declining*. Also, your talk about the supposedly asynchronous nature of the MWP is a complete red herring-because whatever the northern & southern hemispheres were doing during the MWP, we *know* that sunspots were increasing throughout that entire time-the same is *not* true at the moment. Also, the last time sunspot numbers peaked (the 60 years from 1890-to 1949) temperatures rose at a rate of +0.06 degrees per decade. By contrast, the warming of the last 60 years (1950-2009) has been at +0.11 degrees per decade-in *spite* of being dominated by a decline in solar activity. Still, at the end of the day, this article is more about Scaffetta's attempt to squeeze the trend to fit his hypothesis, on extremely flimsy pretexts, as Riccardo eludes to. Still, Arkadiusz, I've got to admire your talent for rejecting perfectly rational explanations of warming-even when based on strong empirical evidence-yet happily cling to the most outlandish explanations the Denialist Club can come up with! -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:05 PM on 17 June 2010Astronomical cycles
In part, I feel guilty about working Scafetta. In a discussion of his earlier work: Is climate sensitive to solar variability? (2008), pointed out that it may be important not only: "Modeling the TSI variability Earth's atmosphere, landmasses, and oceans absorb and redistribute the total solar irradiance (TSI) ..." The discussion (also) was attended by Richard Mackey ... Agreed. Scafetta papers much simplifies the problem and is "fraught" with considerable range of possible deviations. But I hope that the problem resulting from the fact that: "Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to the Moon's orbital cycles."; will be appreciated - clearly explained and "priced". Ricardo: problem can not be underestimated. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:19 PM on 17 June 2010Peer review vs commercials and spam
Svensmark: "But for some unknown reason I never could publish our work. We sent it to 4 different letters, but each time met with refusal. No one accused is not anything - do not reproached errors[...]. They said: We are not interested, either: the text is too long. There was no substantive criticism of our work - it gave rise to even greater disappointment. [...]" Eugene Parker, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Chicago, commented on this: "Publishers tend to be very naive [!?]. A negative opinion of the reviewer, if you did not put it in her compelling reasons against the publication, should lead to reflection. In such a situation should appoint another reviewer. [...]" "Global warming has become a "hot" and political topic. I have evidence that, for example in the United States, blocked the publication of serious scientific research on warming. People who are convinced that they know the truth, deny others the right to vote. It harms science, the United States and globally. [...] Tying the discussion does not help in solving the problem." -
Riccardo at 19:51 PM on 17 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, the problem at hand is the validity of Scafetta approach. What I tried to show is that it's weak, at best. -
skywatcher at 19:32 PM on 17 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
BP: And some firm evidence is better than lots of shaky one. That's fine, but we've established there was no evidence for your hypothesis that led us down this fascinating road. So I guess that leaves us with lots of 'shaky' evidence, although I'd hardly call the multiple independent lines of evidence terribly shaky as they've not been successfully challenged. Each line of evidence is pretty sound, many together is very strong. One line on it's own, perhaps could be questioned... but when several lines, with different measurement strategies converge on one answer, that answer is, ah, robust. From what I can guess you're a software engineer? I think kdkd @177 may have it right that it is your training that is blinding you to the concepts required in environmental science, be they the right kind of inductive reasoning, or the dealing with multiple lines of evidence, none of which may show you exactly what you want to know, but all of which point strongly to some overall conclusion. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:08 PM on 17 June 2010Astronomical cycles
sorry "[60 lat]" - 60 years -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:53 PM on 17 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Note the facts: 1st Maximum solar activity in recent times (1957-1958 - XIX solar cycle) very closely coincide with the maximum: "mass moments of the 4 largest planets" (The cyclic fluctuations of air temperature in Europe in the 19th-21st centuries and their causes, Boryczka, Stopa-Boryczka, 2007). Perhaps this is the impact of increased "gravitational activity," the Sun? Okay, Marcus says: that in 30 years solar activity is falling ..., but our recent discussion about the MWP shows that (asynchrony: NH - SH), Earth's climate system can respond to changes are with considerable delay. 3rd The cycle average of 60 years in long periods of time Millennium fits perfectly such as AMO, CTH ..., but also in a cycles of Millennium. In the latter - only the LNC. (Ledu, Rochon de Vernal, Labrie, 2007. Holocene climate oscillations in the Eastern part of the Northwest Passage: A possible influence of the Lunar nodal cycle: Preliminary results.). The importance of lunar cycles is undeniable. I recommend: - Lunar nodal tide effects on variability of sea level, temperature, and salinity in the Faroe-Shetland Channel and the Barents Sea (Yndestad at al., 2008); - The 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle and surface temperature variability in the northeast Pacific (McKinnell , and Crawford; 2007 ), - The impacts of the Luni-Solar oscillation on the Arctic oscillation (Ramos da Silva and Avissar; 2005), - Trends and anomalies in sea-surface temperature, observed over the last 60 years, within the southeastern Bay of Biscay (Goikoetxea, 2009), - Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth's Rotation Solar (Mazzarella, 2008). 2. Effect of LNO-LNC on the extent of THC is proven, to be only measured how big the impact is and how "to translate" the retention of solar energy by the global climate system. I hope that someone will do it, I do not have the appropriate team of "human" and financial resources. 4. And (once again) I recall a diagram: http://www.rni.helsinki.fi/research/info/sizer/fig2big.jpg (unfortunately, my computer software is not able to paste this chart - here - and we would show it off.) The climate of Fennoscandia is a "terminal" for at least two climate circulations, also applies to the polar latitudes; and is therefore highly sensitive climate change. The main noticeable change in the climate of Fennoscandia may thus be important also for the Earth ... In the diagram Finnish scientists, it is clear that we are now at the stage of warming (after rapid cooling) - in a very similar period to circa 4.2 and 8.4 thousand years ago ... There are multiple Millennium cycles. This "same" Rahmstorf says that: "the Millennium cycle is dependent on the cycles of the sun [60 lat ?] - but not directly. So far, created a few theories to explain this relationship." Rahmstorf, Ganopolski, 2005: "We attribute the robust 1,470-year response time to the superposition of the two shorter cycles, together with strongly NONLINEAR DYNAMICS and the long characteristic timescale of the thermohaline circulation." PS Sorry for the big shortcuts (for: gravity Sun) - I hope that this is not from my lack of knowledge, but the lack of "place" on a precise explanation. -
Neven at 18:36 PM on 17 June 2010Websites to monitor the Arctic Sea Ice
I have written and updated a blog post on my Arctic Sea Ice blog that collects more than 25 graphs and maps (satellite images, extent, area, volume, concentration, air and SST temperatures, weather maps, arctic oscillation, buoys, ice displacement) for monitoring the Arctic Sea Ice on a daily basis: Interesting websites for watching the ice -
NewYorkJ at 18:18 PM on 17 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Apparently this is a pattern with Scafetta. http://www.physorg.com/news189845962.html "The first thing we do when we approach a time series with a strong random component is to perform standard statistical analyses like plotting of probability density distributions on different time scales,” Martin Rypdal told PhysOrg.com. “We look at the shape of these rescaled distributions. If the signal is statistically self-similar, it looks almost the same on all time scales. [Here, we’ve shown] that the solar flare signal and the global temperature signal are both self-similar, but their distributions are very different, and so are the exponents used for rescaling. We were very surprised that Scafetta and- West never show such results in their papers. It seems that they have designed all their tests with the purpose of proving a wanted result, and deliberately avoided analysis that points in other directions." "The theory of anthropogenic global warming consists of a set of logically interconnected and consistent hypotheses,” Martin Rypdal said. “This means that if a cornerstone hypothesis is proven to be false, the entire theory fails. A corresponding theory of global warming of solar origin does not exist. What does exist is a set of disconnected, mutually inconsistent, ad hoc hypotheses. If one of these is proven to be false, the typical proponent of solar warming will pull another ad hoc hypothesis out of the hat. This has been the strategy of Scafetta and West over the years, and we have no illusion that our paper will put them to silence. " -
How climate skeptics mislead
BP > And some firm evidence is better than lots of shaky one. Agreed. -
kdkd at 16:30 PM on 17 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
BP #186 You're now verging into solipsism which is yet another technique that so called climate sceptics use to mislead. This is especially true in that you are demanding reductionist deductive proof in a field of knowledge where such things are not possible. -
Berényi Péter at 16:23 PM on 17 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#185 e at 15:04 PM on 17 June, 2010 lots of evidence is better than a little evidence And some firm evidence is better than lots of shaky one. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:22 PM on 17 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Lies, damn lies and... -
Doug Bostrom at 16:17 PM on 17 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
It may well be that the appropriate moment for a graceful climbdown passed unnoticed while Lon was issuing jibes about "freshman calculus." History analogizes itself again? -
Bern at 16:13 PM on 17 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Donald Lewis - well, yeah, that's the thought I had. The author "detrends" the data, and then goes to great lengths to show there may be a cyclical influence on the Earth's climate by the orbits of the gas giants. Ignoring the issues of choice of underlying trend that Riccardo has pointed out, it might explain some of the ups'n'downs over the years, but the fact that he gets such a neat correlation surely means that it *cannot* explain the underlying trend. I.e. doesn't this paper, when accepted at face value, 'prove' that orbital variations cannot be causing global warming?
Prev 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 Next
