Recent Comments

Prev  663  664  665  666  667  668  669  670  671  672  673  674  675  676  677  678  Next

Comments 33501 to 33550:

33501. michael sweet at 21:19 PM on 5 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       Kevin,

       In a more intuative way can we say that the Theory of Global warming is supported by the occurance of a record hottest year every 5-10 years.  The hypothesis of cooling is contradicted by the fact that 2006-2009 and 2011-2012 were warmer that all years before 1998.  Everyone here was alive  well before 1998 so every year is warmer than when we were all born.  When you consider the fact that weather has a lot of random variation (a fact that every five year old knows from personal experience), we do not expect every year to be record hot.

       According to Tom's link at 9 we now expect a year comparable to the record hot year every six years (!!!).  With continuing heating those years will be likely to exceed the record hot year.  Tom's graph also shows the USA having three record or near record years in the past ten years, consistent with the Australian projections.  Global records have occured in 1998, 2005, 2010 and are looking strong for this year.  Since we are emitting more and more CO2 those will be hotter and hotter.  Pray that politicians recognize the issue sooner rather than later.

33502. Ashton at 21:17 PM on 5 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       scaddenp   Nowhere in my original post did I refer to scientists but to the way Australian politicians and the Australian media spin climate change.  However, I do accept that my phrase "virtually everything" was inaccurate and that being so, I appreciate why you commented as you did.  

       No, I certainly don't think scientists are politically motivated although it would be a brave person who said none of them are.  As a retired  university academic who conducted research for many years, I am paid by the federal government and also by government granting bodies such as the ARC.  No scientist that I know would falsify results for any reason at all,  let alone "just to please their paymaster".  But every, well virtually every, utterance from a scientist about the climate  is spun by the media and even by  blogs.  This site publishes findings that support anthropogenic climate change/global warming but is critical of scientists that do not.  An  example is your question "So Ashton, given this from BoM on Rutherglen, what do you thoughts on Marohasy and LLoyd now?"

       As I'm not sure to which particular  comments from Dr Marohasy and Mr Lloyd  you refer, I'm not really able to answer your question constructively.  And on the sceptic or if you prefer, denier, side,   Watts Up With That publishes findings that do not support anthropogenic climate change/global warming   and is critical of scientists that do.   A prime eample of this being the way Dr Michael Mann is referred to on that site.  

       And because I'd really like to know the answer, why, given that human CO2 emissions are relentlessly increasing, were global temperatures in 2006 to 2009 and 2011 and 2012 cooler than those temperatures in both 2005 and 2010.  Is the answer that this is due to natural phenomena and if so what were these phenomena?

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] See "CO2 Is Not the Only Driver of Climate."

33503. scaddenp at 19:15 PM on 5 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       "virtually everything about climate change/global warming in Australia is now politically motivated so why should the BoM be exempt from it?"

       Politicians are politically motivated but scientists? This is pure projection. Are you seriously claiming that BoM scientists are tampering with the record for some dark political purpose? This is conspiracy ideation.

       I do contract science for my government where the paymasters fervently hope that the money spent will lead to new prosperity. Do you seriously think that this means me and my colleagues would falsify results to please our paymaster? Such a scheme would be pointless because reality wins. Ditto for climate science.

       It is absolutely absurd that there is political shennigans over reality and cause of climate change. The political divide should be over different approaches to dealing with that reality. Instead we have people denying that reality instead because the only solutions on offer dont fit their ideology. They should be thinking of something that does fit instead of this stupid attack on scientists. 

       So Ashton, given this from BoM on Rutherglen, what do you thoughts on   Marohasy and LLoyd now?

33504. Kevin C at 18:02 PM on 5 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       Your post was indeed posted, and mine was written in reply to it. While I was writing my reply your was deleted by a moderator.

33505. Ashton at 17:39 PM on 5 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       A short time ago I put up a post, or at least I thought I did but admittedly didn't check thoroughly.  It may have been removed by the moderator for any one of a number of reasons but I'm not sure it was.  In any event what I posted referred to Tom Curtis's statement "It is pointing out that specific studies showed that Australia was very hot in 2013 because of global warming."  I suggested that according to that argument global temperatures in 2006 -2009 were cooler than 2005 and in 2011 and 2012 were cooler than 2010 because of global cooling.  To me that seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on the argument advanced by Tom Curtis. Of course I realise this isn't the case but it is a logical follow on from Tom Curtis's statement.   I don't think this post is offensive or off topic but then I'm not the moderator so if it is deemed to be so then my apologies to all especially Tom Curtis.  

33506. Kevin C at 17:01 PM on 5 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       This is not a simple concept, because it involves thinking in terms of distributions of probabilities, rather than in terms of logical propositions. This is an alien way of thinking for all of us.

       Roughly speaking the conceptual problem is that it involves 'thinking in parallel' - holding and weighing many hypotheses against the data at the same time. This involves what are historically called 'inverse probabilities' which are particularly confusing.

       So the concepts are hard. But I'll take a shot at explaining the application here:

       1. One year of extreme global temperatures is not proof of global warming.
       2. One year of extreme local temperatures is not proof of global warming.
       3. However, both of these do provide information of a form.
       4. Evaluating information of this form of information is rather difficult. It is an area of active research.
       5. There are two questions which can be meaningfully asked: "How much more extreme was this event due to global warming", and "How much more probable was this event due to global warming".
       6. Readfearn reviews 5 recent articles on this kind of analysis concerning the 2013 temperatures in Australia.
33507. ubrew12 at 14:56 PM on 5 October 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #40B
       

       'Merkel adviser' link doesn't work at the topmost summary, but works further down in the article.  Possibly the tail trips it up (#ixzz3F8FexKt6)

       Moderator Response:

       [BW] - link corrected. Thanks for the heads-up!

33508. sauerj at 13:41 PM on 5 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       On a Positive Note: A Powerful Way to Harness the Power of Christians in Effectively Reserving AGW: Thanks to a recent 350.org petition drive, it became immediately obvious to me that getting the vatican fully on board would have tremendous beneficial impact. Its time for the catholic church to put its money, time & energy where its mouth is (the gospel of Jesus Christ). The all-out attack (such as the following points), if well coordinated and planned out would greatly help grease the grass-roots movement. Sks and 350.org (et al) need to take this to the highest level of activism. I plan to write to my local bishop the same message.

       1) Pope Francis issues encyclical on climate change and man's global responsibility to care for future generations.

       2) Vatican divests from FF's and strongly requests all the worlds catholic dioceses to do the same.

       3) Vatican develops plan to become FF free by year 20XX. And, requests catholic dioceses to track parish, school & hospital carbon footprint, and develop plans to reduce usage and stick to their plans.

       4) Vatican sponsors a blue-ribbon panel of scientists, policy leaders and climate knowledgable clergy to issue global strategical recomendations  on how the catholic church can best make meaningful and effective long-term impacts on mitigating and reversing the sorry trend of AGW.

       5) Vatican holds inter-faith conference with representatives from all religions to be part of the above blue-ribbon panel as well as to request equal efforts by all represented religions to do the same on their own accord.

       6) Pope Francis announces the 'Year of the God's Creation' with expectation that dioceses hold seminars, novenas, special liturgical prayers for the sake of the world's future generations.

       7) Pope Francis gives constant focus on this effort (don't let up), calling for all catholics to pray, pray, pray for positive changes to take place. That the world should come to acknowledge its greed. And, come to rely on God's grace and pray to repent. God will listen, and swords will fall. Slow but sure the fiber of holy life within our societies will start to rebuild and move toward the right direction. It is amazing what the power of prayer, over deep time, can do to instill God's goodness, grace and bring about holy, peaceful, healthy & sustainable living.

       Probably many other things could be done such as getting the youth involved. A all-out attack like this would have a major impact on the 1.5 billion catholics; such a message would start to drive a wedge into many a thick skull thru-out the world. The message has to stay completely neutral politically, otherwise its no longer God at work (think MLK, not the moral majority). If Pope Francis and the whole church magisterium really got on board (as it should do, so to be true to the gospel of Jesus Christ), then the above would have an amazing impact.

       Join me in praying at the foot of the cross, that God speaks to Pope Francis and his immediate staff, and that they have the strength and inspiration to do the right thing.

       Today (Oct.4) is St. Francis feast day (patron saint of the environment). Never a better time to start praying.

33509. Tom Curtis at 07:57 AM on 5 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       Ashton, as you bring it up, the contiguous United States' hottest year was 2012, with 1934 only ranking fourth:

       

       More importantly, as we don't want to cherry pick, the world's hottest year was 2010, with no year prior to 1979 warmer than any year after 1996 :

       

       Back on topic, your response shows categorically that you have rather missed the point.  The article is not simply claiming that "Australia was very hot in 2013, therefore global warming is true".  It is pointing out that specific studies showed that Australia was very hot in 2013 because of global warming.  To quote one example:

       "In one group, they included the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere being added at the rates they are now. In another group of models, they left out the human contribution.

       They found that on average, the computer models with current levels of carbon dioxide managed to reproduce the temperatures comparable to that scorching year of 2013 every six years.

       For the computer models without the added greenhouse gas emissions, they got a year as hot as 2013 only once in more than 12,000 years."

       Quoting further:

       "Another study found that the risk of Australia experiencing more heat waves had now tripled when compared with an atmosphere without the added greenhouse gases."

       And another:

       "The study found that the risk of Australia getting a year of maximum temperatures hotter than 2002 is 23 times greater than it was in the late 19th century. There was an at least seven-fold increase in the risk of Australia getting a combination of extreme heat and drought occurring at the same time."

       The article above is about all the various studies, and one indeed was a straight forward attribution study.  That single study (mentioned in just two sentences) can be interpreted as being about evidence that global warming is not only occuring, but is man made.  But being personally at risk of the sevenfold increase of a combination of extreme heat and drought (as an Australian), so far as I am concerned the article is really about impacts.

       We know that global warming is happenning and is anthropogenic.  The Australian year of 2013 shows us that that has more than unpleasant consequences.

33510. Ashton at 04:00 AM on 5 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       Tom Curtis   Globally, the science (according to NOAA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13), says 2013 was the fourth hottest year since records began in 1880.  Is the fact that 2013 was the hottest year in Australia really of any global significance or just of interest to Australians?  

       This is what Skeptical Science had to say about the hottest year in the USA

       (http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm)

       "Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.

       The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is not an argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year."

       These comments seem to apply equally to the claim "2013 was Australia's hottest year"  Is that claim just "cherry picking a single fact that supports global warming?  If not, why not?

        

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - A cherry-pick is where one deliberately chooses a a small piece of evidence that is completely at odds with the full body of evidence. It is a logical fallacy.

       Australia experiencing its hottest year ever recorded in 2013 is consistent with the full body of evidence - the Earth is warming in a global, but not uniform, manner. The contiguous USA experiencing its warmest year ever recorded in 2012 is also consistent with the full body of evidence.

       Hope this helps.

33511. John Hartz at 02:41 AM on 5 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       An interesting sidebar to the OP and comment thread can be found at:

       Readers’ Experiences with Creationist Education by Dana Hunter, Scientific American, Oct 2, 2014

33512. Paul D at 02:17 AM on 5 October 2014
       How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
       

       keithpickering@1 "The problem with wind (and solar, for that matter) has always been how to back it up when the wind dies. Currently that's almost entirely gas, making wind a crypto-fossil energy source."

       Your analysis is incorrect or incomplete. You have included your solution in the analysis which is a poor start. If you do a correct assessment then the problem is variation in output of renewables, where the output may sometimes be greater than demand or at other times less than demand.

       OK now that we understand the problem then the solution must fill in those gaps when output doesn't meet demand and when we have to much output.

       The solution is energy storage and probably nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can't handle variation very well, France has to export it's electricity to cope with that like of flexibility. Energy storage is the real solution for filling the gaps.
       
       
       But also intelligent demand management can make a significant contribution. To often it is assumed that generation capacity should meet demand, but with modern technology it is possible to alter demand without sacrificing any degradation in the use of technology. It's called smart grid.

33513. Tom Curtis at 01:13 AM on 5 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       Any interested readers should reread Ashton's responce to me.  It will demonstrate conclusively that:

       1)  He is not here because of concerns about science;

       2)  He is merely tarnishing the name of scientists because he does not like the science; and

       3)  He has nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

33514. PhilippeChantreau at 01:00 AM on 5 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       Ashton, you're not making a convincing case but in fact reinforcing Tom's arguments. Politicians are politically motivated. I had no doubt about that. People have mistaken perceptions about the state of climate change, and the consequences of mitigation policies. No doubt there either. A certain current of thought has managed to load the word "tax" with the same emotional charge that the word "devil" enjoyed for centuries. Politicians working against this current of thought have to navigate the public opinion landscape created by the skilled mind manipulators employed by that current of thought.

       You do not show that scientists currently working in the field are politically motivated. You seem to add to the idea that the attacks on the BoM are politically motivated. You say nothing about the data. You confirm that any negative perception of the BoM is new thing caused by politically motivated attacks from people who seem to intentionally mislead the public or have no clue about what the subject. The rest of your post is about details in Australian political games and steer far enough from the OP to attract moderation.

33515. Ashton at 00:30 AM on 5 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       KevinC please read what I actually wrote. I did not express a personal opinion on  the BoM readings but commented on the opinions of others.   In fact I specifically noted that I thought the criticism of the BoM was likely to be ill founded.

       Tom Curtis:  virtually everything about climate change/global warming in Australia is now politically motivated so why should the BoM be exempt from it?  Did you think Rudd and Milne and Gillard were not politically motivated?  Rudd rapidly backed away from the "the greatest moral challenge etc"  when opinion polls showed it to be politically damaging in the 2010 election year. Was this "positive policy" on climate change?  The Green's  sided with the LNP in the Senate to defeat the CPRS.  Positive policy?  Julia Gillard total backflip on the ETS  was solely to gain support of the Greens to prop up her government.  That was positive policy but for purely opportunistic political reasons as just prior to the election Gillard had said "There will be no tax on carbon etc"  a promise entirely devoid of positive policy on climate change.  With examples such as these  is it any wonder that Abbott is politically motivated also?  It would be more remarkable if he wasn't.  Many of those who think something must be done about climate change seem entirely oblivious to the fact that, despite protest marches and general angst in the chatteratti, a significant minority of Australians do not want action as it will, at least the perception is that it will, increase the cost of their power.  After all Abbott came to power with a thumping win on a policy that he would axe Gillard's ETS.   A policy  he has successfully implemented.  And outside Australia the problems with global actions on climate change are fairly well summed up in The Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/chinas-climate-change-paradox/)

33516. Trevor_S at 23:31 PM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       @Paul D  at 16 If you don't want government to be involved in CO2 emissions reduction, then you need to present alternatives that would produce the equivalent outcome of substantial CO2 emissions reduction.

       We have had Government doing something about emissions reductions for more than 20 years and emissions have not only increased, the rate of increase has accelerated.  I posit that it is now impossible for Governments to present effective solutions.

       As Kevin Anderson argues, we have 15 years, assuming 2c is still the political target. A higher target, which will inevietably have to be the "solution" offered by Governments, would be disasterous.

       The only substantive reductions that can be made in time are demand side via enforced penury.  No democratic Government will allow that as public policy, which is I suspect exactly what paul was really worried about.  Therefore the future is imposssible.

33517. DSL at 22:43 PM on 4 October 2014
       Climate sensitivity is low
       

       Well-quoted, Earthling.  I, too, am "skeptical" of John Christy's ability to know what the climate is doing and why.

33518. michael sweet at 21:53 PM on 4 October 2014
       CO2 is not a pollutant
       

       Earthling,

       CO2 is poisoness to animals and (especially) marine life at low concentrations.  Past mass extinctions have been caused by high CO2 levels.  Calling anything that causes mass extinctions a fertilizer is ludicrous.

33519. Earthling at 20:57 PM on 4 October 2014
       Climate sensitivity is low
       

       "There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why." Dr John R Christy

33520. Tom Curtis at 20:32 PM on 4 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       Ashton @1, the Bureau of Meteorology is under scrutiny because:

       1)  A purported scientist claimed one BOM adjustemt which eliminated a falling trend cannot have been correct because a nearby station had a similar trend half a decade later.  (I live in the area.  I can tell you it does not take five odd years for weather to move the less than 100 miles from the one station to the other.)

       2)  Another purported scientist claimed that a station move claimed to have occurred by BOM cannot have happened because he periodically visited the general location thirty years after the apparent site move and therefore knew that no such site move had occurred.  He mentioned that he worked there.  He did not mention the timing.  (In my opinion that makes him a deliberate liar on this matter.)

       3)  A purported journalist who is always quick of the bat with a pro "skeptic" story, but leaves coverage of mainstream science to other journalists in his paper, reported the above in breathless tones while failing (or not reporting) the salient facts about timing, and declining to report when the BOM published online the proof of the station move referred to in (2).

       4)  A political hack closely associated with the current Prime Minister who is a known climate change denier with no scientific qualifications (or understanding from what he writes).

       In other words, the scrutiny of the BOM is entirely politically motivated by people who do not like the possibility of positive policy on climate change.  Its purported basis has zero scientific merit.

33521. Paul D at 19:21 PM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       paul@18 "As for believing the "greenhouse effect" theory I cant really say I do or don't."

       Why do you use the word belief?
       In order to understand a subject you need to learn the subject, at that point it would be meaningless to use the word belief in relation to the subject.
       
       You also contradict a previous paragraph/comment because you suggested you had enough knowledge to change parameters in a climate model. How can you claim to be able to tweak software parameters in a climate model yet not understand the greenhouse effect?

       Basically paul there are a lot of holes in your writing. As an 'ex-Chistrian' I still believe honesty and facts are impotant, I would like to think the same is true for a practicing Christian.

33522. Paul D at 19:09 PM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       paul@18 "Politics using scare tactics to openly advance agendas that have everything to do with money and nothing to do with saving the planet have effectively ruined any and all good faith in the sciences. Many people like me simply do not believe the climate change agenda."

       Your writing is full of agenda paul. Yet you accuse others of having an agenda.

        

       paul@18 "It really irritates me to see blogs like this wanting to win the hearts and minds of Christians by telling them their religion is make believe."

       That statement is based on your personal opinion, not politics or religion. You have a personal belief which polarises your view about the subject. It has been clearly stated here that a large number of Christians disagree with your POV. How do you know that you are correct? What right do you have to assume that your God agrees with you when the same God also agrees with your opponents?

       The reality is that there is far more agreement about the science than there is agreement about political ideology or intepretations of biblical texts within the factions of Christianity.

       What you are doing is just expressing your interpretations of politics and religion and then superimposing them on science. It is you that is imposing an agenda on science.

33523. Paul D at 18:54 PM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       paul@18
       
       "Since Im not a scientist...
       ...DSL, some models have been proven faulty. Some models are tweaked by omitting some of the numbers. For example, I could show you a warming or cooling trend by cherry picking the years the planet warms or cools and Im not even a scientist."

       Actually based on that one comment it would seem that could not do that. So why claim that you could? On top of that you are challenging a group of people that could!
       
       Having been brought up as a Christian and having actually practiced it for many years, one of the fundemental aspects of it that I learnt was to be truthful. Hence to claim in one instance that you are no scientist and then later to state that you have enough knowledge of the models and subject to tweak a parameter, suggests you don't understand the religion you claim to defend.

33524. Kevin C at 18:18 PM on 4 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       Ashton: If you don't trust the BoM adjustments, Berkeley also produce a record for Australia, working independently from the raw data. Their results only run to Oct 2013, but the 12 month period to Oct 2013 was the hottest of any consecutive 12 month period on record.

       Raw data are available from GHCN, ISTI, Berkeley and BoM (Nick Stokes provides more convenient access to the BoM data here). Adjsted data are available from GHCN, Berkeley, BoM and CRU.

33525. Ashton at 15:37 PM on 4 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       My apologies.   The last line of my previous post should read "Whatever, the public perception of the BoM might be  less favourable than previously was the case".  

33526. Ashton at 15:28 PM on 4 October 2014
       Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
       

       The official measurements of temperatures in Australia are made by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) which is currently under scrutiny for some practices, which it stoutly defends, that are claimed to:

       Turn cooling trends into warming trends

       Disregard early temperature records that show 2013 may not have been the hottest year ever.  These claims have been made by Graham lloyd writing in the Australian.  Senator Simon Birmingham who has responsibility is to set up independent technical advisory group by end 2014.

       Whether the criticism of the BoM is justified has yet to be established, although i suspect it is ill founded.  That said however, it might, just might, be somewhat premature to make claims that 2013 was Australia's hottest year ever as data prior to 1910 may show this not to be the case.  Whatever, the public perception of the BoM is less favourable than previously was the case.

33527. grindupBaker at 14:14 PM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       @Russ R. #29 One thing I found amusing about Lord Monkton's RSS monthly satellite global temperature anomaly graph and his LSQ fit on WUWT showing 0 degrees/decade trend over the 217 months from just before the super El Nino (from August 1996 in order to include super El Nino and thus mask underlying warming trend, how subtle can a person get ? ) to September 2014 is that it clearly shows that the 186-month trend from March 1999 ending September 2014 must then be a +ve warming trend because it drops the huge +ve offset in 1998. Since a 186-month trend is more recent than a 217-month trend this proves conclusively that "global warming" increased from August 1996 to March 1999. Furthermore (here comes the fun bit, thanks Chris) since any number divided by zero yields infinity Chris has proved that "global warming" increased infinitely from August 1996 to March 1999. I wasn't alarmed before but Chris's thoughtful analysis has alarmed me in an alarmy way.

       (snip)

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Off-topic for this thread. Please feel free to repost on another more relevant thread.

33528. Tom Curtis at 10:30 AM on 4 October 2014
       Hockey stick is broken
       

       I have been playing around with the top 100 (cherry picked) Hockey Stick Index (HSI) that are all that are supplied by McIntyre and McKitrick in supplementary data for their 2005 paper in GRL.  In doing so, I noticed certain defects in the Hockey Stick index they used.  Of these, the most glaring is that for any straight line with a any slope other than zero (fat) or infinite (vertical), it indicates that the straight line is a hockey stick.  Even with white noise added, so long as the Signal to Noise ratio does not excede one, the line will probably (>50% chance) be given a HSI greater than 1, the conventional benchmark used by McIntyre to indicate something is a hockey stick.  

       Here is an example of a straight line "hockey stick":

       

       In this case, the HSI is less than that for MBH 98 or 99, but the mean is of the 132 realizations is greater.  That is, according to the M&M05 HSI, a straight line with white noise and a S/N ratio of 1.25 or more is more like a hockey stick than are MBH98 and 99.

       This fact does not depend in any way on the slope (provided it is neither flat nor vertical).  Negative slopes will yield negative HSI's, but M&M05 (correctly) regard negative HSI's as equivalent to positive values in that the MBH98 reconstruction method flips the sign on proxies if that yields a better fit to the temperature data (which is not an error).

       From this it follows that the HSI developed by M&M cannot consistently distinguish between a straight line and a hockey stick shape. I suspect there are other shapes that it cannot distinguish either, but for now we need only consider the straight line. That means that, from the M&M05 HSI, we are unable to determine whether or not half of the 10,000 pseudo proxies are distinguishable from a straight line. Nor, using that index, are we able to distinguish MBH98 from a straight line. That means that as a statistical test of the tendency of short centered PCA to generate shapes similar to that of MBH98, the test is totally without power. It tells you absolutely nothing.

       The total statistical power of the first part of M&M05, it turns out, comes from the visual comparison between MBH98 (fig 2) and the MBH first Principle Component of the North American Tree Ring Network (fig 3).  That's it.  And as everybody should no, eyeball Mark 1 has very little statistical power as well.

       Not being content with finding a flaw with M&M05 statistical test, I looked to see if they could have done better.  In the end I developed five variant Hockey Stick Indexes (vHSI) that were superior as a statistical test of a hockey stick shape (although not necessarilly under all circumstances).  These were,

       1. The ratio of the standard deviation of the calibration period relative to the calibration period (1902-1980) relative to the standard deviation of the non-calibration period.  This tests for flatness in the "handle" vs noisiness or a high relative slope in the "blade".  Like the M&M HSI, it will only work well when the "handle" is flat, but will work better in that circumstance. 
       2. The angle formed by the slope in the calibration period relative to the angle of the slope of the non-calibration period if the two are displaced to intersect at the first year of the calibration period.  This tests merely for the angle between "blade" and "shaft" and will work well regardless of orientation .  It will not tell you how flat the "handle" is, however, and so can be confused by "hockey sticks" with very crooked "handles".
       3. The closeness of the largest inflection point in the period 1850-1900 to the inflection start of the calibration period.  The inflection point is defined as the start year of the largest 50 year trend starting in that period.  The index is defined as the difference between the inflection point and 1850 divided by the square root of the difference beween the start of the calibration period and 1850.  (not shown)
       4. The angle formed by the slope to 1850 and the fifty year trend from the inflection point.  This again works best with a flat "handle".
       5. The inflection point angle weighted by the inflection point index.

       Here are the results, comparing MBH 98 and 99 to the cherry picked top 100 HSI pseudoproxies from M&M05:

       

       The twelve point mean is the average of the 12 pseudoproxies used by McInyre (and Wegman) in various illustrations M&M's results.  MBH98 PC1 is the first principle component of the reconstruction of 1450-1400 temperatures from MBH98.

       As can be seen, MBH98 and 99 are statistically distinguishable from even the cherry picked top 1% of pseudoproxies, with differences in index values never less than 2 standard deviations above the mean, and for one index nearly 10 standard deviations above the mean.  MBH98 PC1 does not perform as well, but still can be statistically distinguished from the cherry picked top 1%  in 3 out of the five tests.  (The Inflection point vHSI shows MBH98 PC1 to be just over two standard deviations above the mean.)

       This is still a work in progress.  I think I need to improve my vHSIs by making comparisons with the instrumental record rather than the calibration period, and a combination of angle based and standard deviation based vHSI would probably be superior.  Further, I should make comparisons with the first principle component of the North American Tree Ring data base.

       Never the less, even at this stage the results show that you can devise variant Hockey Stick Indexes that are better able to determine a hockey stick shape, and that if you use those vHSIs MBH98 and 99 stand out as easily statistically distinguishable from PC1s generated from red noise using short centered PCA.  Further, those vHSIs are demonstrably superior to that of M&M05 in that at least none of them will mistake a straight line for a hockey stick (except the pure inversion method, which is why it was not shown ;))  So not only did M&M05 use a test with no statistical power, without validating the test; but alternative tests exist which would have refuted their thesis.

       The take home is that the first part of M&M05 is simply scientific garbage.  It has no scientific merit whatsoever.

       When I get around to it, I am going to see if I can develop even better vHSIs, but probably will wait at least till I have a copy of the NOAMER PC1, and ideally until I (or a colaborator) can generate a full set of pseudoproxies without the cherry picks for statistical comparisons.  (Help with either would be appreciated.) 

33529. Synapsid at 08:55 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       For all,

       When someone like Paul posts and says "I'm not a scientist" why overlook two fine resources on the Home Page?  Refer the person to The Big Picture, and to the thermometer/most-used denier arguments, to start.  If the person asks you to show them the science, well there it is.

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] My favorite is The New Abridged Skeptical Science Quick Reference Guide.

33530. Ken in Oz at 07:24 AM on 4 October 2014
       How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
       

       Ed, when the sun is shining and wind is blowing and the wholesale electricity price is low as a consequence, why wouldn't the market buy those megawatts ahead of more expensive nuclear's? And if nuclear is sold at below cost during such periods, how can it not increase the prices they need to charge outside them? 

       We are passing a tipping point, where wind and solar are being installed because they are cheaper than alternatives, not because they are propped by subsidy and new installs globally now rival that of coal and exceed that of nuclear. They are not yet - but are nearing - scales where their intermittency is a serious issue, but that's an issue at least as much for obsolete plant that has to fall into the role of intermittent backup and lose profitability in the process as it is for wind and solar; in the transition to low emissions that shift of role needs to be recognised and accommodated as an interim step.

       It may seem to be a case of jumping blind, to  commit to low emissions when energy storage has a lot of development still to do and redundancy of low emissions supply is still inadequate - and known low emissions plant like nuclear is struggling to establish a major place in the mix - but we cannot afford a failure to commit to low emissions by insisting only perfect and whole solutions must be there first.

       The failures of policy - such as absence of carbon pricing - are principally failures of politics to achieve unanimity of purpose. More a failure of politics in my opinion than failures of technologies. I don't know to what extent political declarations of commitment to low emissions in the UK, Germany and elsewhere - where there is the outward appearance of such unanimity - continue to mask strong determination to doubt, deny obstruct and delay but I would be very surprised if that were not the case. Certainly such politicking, whether overt or covert, undermines the goal of low emissions by any means and continues to inhibit commitment to measures like adequate carbon pricing that are not specific to particular technologies

       Such opposition represent a double hit for nuclear, which already suffers from serious PR problems exacerbated by small but dedicated and vocal groups of anti-nuclear activists. Politics as well as public sentiment is against it and, unlike wind and solar that can and will keep growing incrementally even in the presence of political opposition, it's long lead times and high initial investments, and need to overcome popular resistance make that unanimity of commitment to low emissions an absolute prerequisite. That the political players that most want to obstruct or delay on low emissions tend to be those that profess willingness to use nuclear is particularly damaging as it diverts many of the most influential voices in favour of nuclear towards the wholly incompatible goal of undermining unanimity in order to do as little as possible. Where anti-nuclear activism represents strength of opposition and hits from the front, obstructionist politics represents weakness of support and hits from behind.

       I think that genuine unanimity of commitment is essential and will give a boost to nuclear but it can only add impetus to renewables as well - and they too have been held back from their full potential by failures of political will.

       (PS I hope this has not exceeded the bounds for political commentary)

33531. Russ R. at 07:21 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Nice charts Rob P.

       What happens when one looks at them with uncertainties included?

       UAH:

       

       HadCRUT4:

       

       GISTEMP:

       

       RSS:

       

       Are any of the above significantly different from zero?

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - Russ, the data show that we cannot exclude warming up to 0.297°C over the period in question (GISS). Please read and understand what KR wrote being commenting any further - as dogged repetition of flawed ideas is a form of sloganeering and will attract censure.

       [RH] Let's move any further discussion of this issue to this thread. And Russ, you're going to have to come up with something novel and interesting, that hasn't been debunked to death 1000 times before, to not get deleted as sloganeering. Forewarned.

33532. KR at 07:14 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Russ R. - What's your null hypothesis if you are (as you imply) asserting that the trend has been zero? And is that null hypothesis rejected by the data? Remember that testing for significance is a one-sided test, and you need a null hypothesis. 

       Hint: 0.091 ±0.115 °C/decade (2σ) fails to reject null hypotheses up to 0.206 °C/decade. And the observed trend since 1979 (averaging the various estimates), a reasonable null hypothesis, is roughly 0.14 °C/decade, well within 2σ bounds, hence clearly is not rejected. 

       I am so tired of these 'pause' assertions utterly lacking in statistical significance, inseparable from noise. 

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - KR, the usefulness of rebuttals is that one doesn't have to keep repeating one's self over and over again - just link to the rebuttal. It also demonstrates to lurkers that the myth being repeated has not only been debunked, but is also a zombie myth. AFAIK we don't have a specific rebuttal for this (hint, hint). 

33533. Stephen Baines at 06:49 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Russ's comments are equivalent to someone rolling a standard 6-sided die over and over, and then claiming all sides of the die are 6 because once in a while 12 comes up.   It's a patently ridiculous argument and I'm guessing Russ knows it.

33534. DSL at 06:31 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       I use GISS because it gives better coverage of near surface temperature. Why use RSS TLT?  After all, UAH and Had4 are also positive.  

33535. DSL at 06:26 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Actually, Rob, Russ is not wrong.  He's not making a claim.  That's seems to be his standard MO--insinuation.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Agreed. He's still going to have to contribute something or the drive-by posts are going to be treated the same as a "link only" post. We welcome RussR's contributions to a conversation, but it's not okay to post and run away from a conversation.

33536. Russ R. at 06:25 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       DSL,

       Here.  (217-month trend = +0.00C per decade).  Is that zero?

        

       RH.

       I thought it would be best if I stick to presenting unadorned facts, and leave the commentary and arguments to others.

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - What happens when one looks at the other global temperature data sets?

       1. UAH - the other surface temperature series, aside from RSS, derived from measurements of the 'brightness' of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere:

        

       2. Hadcrut4 surface temperature time series:

       

       3. GISS global surface temperature.

       

       4. And finally the RSS temperature time series, Russ R linked to:

        

       One of these things is not like the others, and one of these these just doesn't belong (based on observations such as the increased frequency & severity of heat waves over the last decade). Can readers guess which one?

33537. DSL at 06:04 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Russ R. - is it zero?  Can you use the uncertainty to claim "no surface warming in 217 months" using a simple linear trend?  No.  The uncertainty range includes zero.  It also includes 0.2C.  

33538. Russ R. at 05:58 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       DSL,

       "Paul, you say "no warming" over the last 217 months. Show me. Don't link to somebody playing with Excel. Show me here (217-month trend = +0.09C per decade)."

       With uncertainty that would be 0.091 ±0.115 °C/decade (2σ) which is not significantly different from zero.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Russ, this drive-by single comment posting has to stop. If you're going to put forth a position you're going to have to stick around to defend it or accept that you're wrong.

33539. DSL at 05:53 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Paul, no need to debate a flurry of replies.  One at a time would be just fine.  You can take it at a liesurely pace.  Keep in mind, though, that the next time you post, if it's not in response to the questions raised about your current posts, it might get deleted.  

33540. paul11176 at 05:44 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Ok gentleman,

         Im not ging to debate the flurry of relies.  I can see your "all in" that the science is settled and you will gamely advocate for your beliefs.  No problem there.  Not really any problem anywhere 'cept maybe one or two derogatory comments but since I've been trounced with plenty on other sites already Im not thin skinned anymore.

         At the top of the home page I appreciated the beginning disclosure.  Discovering a web site thats forthright is always a treat.  So a plus for the mod or web owner.  Since the topic on this thread invovled Christians I popped in  to get a feel for things.  Its not me but I know some very cracker jack Christians.  Learned men who are not convinced the science is settled.  Anyway, I'll stop in once or twice a week just to nose around.

       The Friday round up appeared to be more well rounded than when I check a few weeks ago.  Back  then I found some far left links like Thnk Progress etc... My 1st impression was more politics than science.  Time will tell and didnt mean to get anyone in a twist.

       All the best!

       paul

33541. Composer99 at 05:40 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       I don't believe paul appreciates the irony of admitting, essentially, to being incapable of fairly evaluating the science behind AGW ("Since I'm not a scientist") - and backing his claims up with references to WattsUpWithThat to boot! - while demanding that Skeptical Science present "real" science (to him, personally, no less) and "root out" such riff-raff as Al Gore - and all that despite having manifestly failed to show where SkS - or climate science generally -has fallen short in the "real" science department, or failed to show why Al Gore is "our" problem to "root out" (or, for that matter, what he has said about AGW that is actually incorrect).

       I, however, do.

       I also appreciate the irony that paul demands that SkS present "real" science, rather "than quoting Bible versus [sic]", even though the only reference to the Bible in the OP is contained in the quote from the Cornwall Alliance. (I make no claim about the version of this article up at The Guardian.)

       Rob P (inline mod response @19): Will that animation be added to the Skeptical Science gallery? It's fantastic.

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - It's from upcoming rebuttals of the so-called pause, which is otherwise known as in scientific circles as continued global warming. I may re-do it as that version is somewhat blurry.

33542. Stephen Baines at 04:51 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Paul, 

       I don't see how this post claims anything like what you say it does.  It does not say Christians are by definition wrong.  It says that some people who call themselves Christians are making factually wrong claims in the name of their religion.  

       Other people, who also call themselves Christian, believe their religion compells them to do otherwise with respect to climate change. Those people include the founder of this site, the prominent scientist quoted, and, frankly, a number of people I personally can claim as friends.  Are you claiming they aren't Christians simply because of the accept the scientific consensus?

       Other prominent scientists, like Alley and Emmanuel are republicans who would agree with your general concern about the size of government etc, but they also support the consensus on climate change.  There are ooptions that require substantially less government meddling than others, which they would probably prefer.  One can argue that wasting time dealing with the issue virtually guarantees that large scale government involvement will be required, so it isn't necessarily against conservative principles to accept climate change.

       All of the factual scientific claims you have made are dealt with in the various posts on this site in depth and many times at several levels of expertise.  None of them have anything to say about whether Christianity is "wrong" or "right."  If you are interested in informing yourself, read them.  If you are simply interested in maintaining the existence of some imagined batteline between science and religion, I would go elsewhere.

33543. DSL at 04:50 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Paul, one more thought:

       You admit to being unfamiliar with the science.  Thus, you have no basis for determining the quality of claims that allege to be science-based.  You are forced to trust someone else for your opinion.  Why Watts?  If not science, then what is the basis upon which you make a decision to trust this analysis or that analysis?

33544. DSL at 04:30 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Paul, you say "no warming" over the last 217 months.  Show me.  Don't link to somebody playing with Excel.  Show me here (217-month trend = +0.09C per decade).  And reply on the appropriate thread.

       A question for you: when energy arrives from the sun, where is most of it stored?  Answer on the appropriate thread.

       Last year's winter was cold?  Eh?  Yah, maybe in the US, which makes up all of 1.6% of the Earth surface.  Not cold globally.  Not even close. 

       You demand unpoliticized science.  You refuse to produce the science that forms the basis of your opinion.  You refuse to recognize science when presented to you.  This is clearly a case of hypocrisy.  

       As for Gore, I haven't seen or read An Inconvenient Truth.  I actually haven't read or seen any book or film on climate change, other than Chasing Ice.

33545. KR at 03:50 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       paul - Carl Mears from RSS states in the link you provide:

       Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is ‘no’. The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought. [...] Without convincing evidence of model physics flaws (and I haven’t seen any), I would say that the possible causes described below need to be investigated and ruled out before we can pin the blame on fundamental modelling errors.

       I don't think his article supports the doubt you seem to harbor, but simply to note that there are questions in measurement, in forcings, and internal variability (all part of recent science literature) which are entirely consistent with AGW.

33546. paul11176 at 03:21 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       You fellas here probably dont appreciate the WUWT link so heres a direct link.

        

       http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - Linking to the popular anti-science site WUWT in support of a claim inevitably undermines the point you're trying to make.

       93% of global warming goes into the ocean, 3% into warming the land, and 3% into melting ice. 99% of global warming has carried on without missing a beat. The animation below is based on a figure from the latest IPCC report.

        

       What about the remaining 1% that is heating the atmosphere? It has certainly slowed down a lot compared to the previous two decades, but is still warming.

       

       Thus the pause is nothing but an oft-repeated fantasy.  

33547. paul11176 at 03:18 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       @DSL,

       Since Im not a scientist heres a couple of links about the polar ice caps melting.

       http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/nature-proves-al-gore-wrong-again/http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/

       DSL, some models have been proven faulty. Some models are tweaked by omitting some of the numbers. For example, I could show you a warming or cooling trend by cherry picking the years the planet warms or cools and Im not even a scientist.

       no global warming for 18 years 1 month

       The Great Pause is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

       http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/

       Blogs like this one would establish credibility to openly disavow politicians like Al Gore. Politics using scare tactics to openly advance agendas that have everything to do with money and nothing to do with saving the planet have effectively ruined any and all good faith in the sciences. Many people like me simply do not believe the climate change agenda.

       It really irritates me to see blogs like this wanting to win the hearts and minds of Christians by telling them their religion is make believe.

       When your minds are already made up about Christians how can you present yourself in good faith?

       As for believing the "greenhouse effect" theory I cant really say I do or don't. What I know for sure is that the polar bears are doing just fine, the polar ice caps are doing just fine and last years winter was one of the coldest on record.

       I think you guys need to rethink your approach to climate change. Theres been to many glitches along the way and blogs, such as Skeptical Science, never seem to root out the riff raff, such as Al Gore, among the rank and file. It is jaw dropping that he showed his face at the climate change march.

       So, spare me the Psalm references and stick to science.

33548. ubrew12 at 03:10 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       paul@14: "Its been several years and predictions that the polar ice caps would be melted by now has not come true"    So is that where you set the bar?  If Arctic summer sea ice disappears you'll be convinced?  Why are you not satisfied with the dramatic reductions in that ice of the last 30 years?  I get it: you're suspicious.  Permit me the same skepticism: I rather think that when (not if) the Arctic summer sea ice disappears, you'll have another hurdle all set up before you can possibly drop your objection.

       paul@12 said "I am a Christian".  So is the founder of this web site.  A quote: "The second reason is my faith. I'm a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25. I believe in a God who has a heart for the poor and expects Christians to feel the same way... the poorest, most vulnerable countries will be... those hardest hit... Drought will devastate low-latitude countries. Rising sea levels will create havoc on low lying countries..."

33549. Paul D at 02:58 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       paul@14

       "The issue has been hijacked by politics to further government power and control"

       Surely that is a political or an ideological view?
       
       If you don't want government to be involved in CO2 emissions reduction, then you need to present alternatives that would produce the equivalent outcome of substantial CO2 emissions reduction.

       I personally think that the science is correct and all political parties (in whatever country) have to fit CO2 reduction into their ideology and policy making. I am not interested in religion or political ideology when it comes to CO2 reduction and environmental matters.

       The rest of your comment is either 'trolling' or misinformed.
       Assuming it is misinformed then you need to read material on this web site, which ironically is what your original comment is about. So why aren't you reading?

33550. DSL at 02:28 AM on 4 October 2014
       Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
       

       Paul: "Its been several years and predictions that the polar ice caps would be melted by now has not come true"

       Do you have a source for such an outrageous claim?  Model projections for Arctic sea ice loss have the current level of ice not occurring for another fifty years.  That's right: models have severely underestimated ice loss.  Land ice in Antarctica is in rapid decline.  Antarctic sea ice is complicated: stable temps and warming Southern Ocean, but ice growth. 

       Paul: "facts like the global temps have not been warming are coming home to roost."

       Pardon me?  Where has global temp not been warming?  The surface is certainly warming.  The oceans are certainly warming.  What temp measurement are you looking at?  Or are you simply repeating what others have told you?

       Paul: "Malighning peoples faith will get you nowhere fast."

       True enough.

       Paul: "Settled science as it turns out may not be so settled after all."

       Do you accept the theory of the greenhouse effect?  

       Paul: "Present to me the hard evidence and not some quack theory so researchers can obtain tax payer grants at will."

       Tell me what you want evidence for--precisely.

       Focusing directly on peoples faith is not the same as presenting facts.

Prev  663  664  665  666  667  668  669  670  671  672  673  674  675  676  677  678  Next