Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 Next
Comments 47851 to 47900:
-
Composer99 at 03:29 AM on 9 March 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Saw a story about this paper over at ScienceBlogs and I suspect it's on topic for this post.
From the abstract:
[1] Observations suggest that the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol layer between 20 and 30 km has increased 4–10% per year since 2000, which is significant for Earth's climate. Contributions to this increase both from moderate volcanic eruptions and from enhanced coal burning in Asia have been suggested. Current observations are insufficient to attribute the contribution of the different sources. Here we use a global climate model coupled to an aerosol microphysical model to partition the contribution of each. We employ model runs that include the increases in anthropogenic sulfur dioxide (SO2) over Asia and the moderate volcanic explosive injections of SO2 observed from 2000 to 2010. Comparison of the model results to observations reveals that moderate volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic influences, are the primary source of the observed increases in stratospheric aerosol.
-
desertphile at 02:48 AM on 9 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
I have been looking on the Internet for evidence that "The Australian" has explained their oddly deceptive behavior, or has in any way tried to justify their behaior, or if they have apologized. Either my Internet search skills are not up to the task, or "The Australian" has not bothered to do any of these things.
-
desertphile at 02:45 AM on 9 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
"Was Pachauri misrepresented by The Australian?"
Surely the evidence shows that he was--- the interviews in question are available on the Internet. Note that even if the interviews were not available, the belief that Dr. Pachauri would make the claim is an irrational belief. It is like asserting that Dr. Pachauri said Earth is hollow.
-
John Hartz at 01:43 AM on 9 March 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Doug:
I just flipped a switch and Curry's profile now appears in the gallery of Climate Misinformers. If you have any personal interest in helping us keep this database current, please let John Cook know.
-
willard at 01:41 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Tom Curtis,
Let's not forget that the Auditor has associated another name than "Wingman Naomi":
Update: As reader DGH observed in a comment below, Mann’s presentation at Rutgers also employed Mann’s AGU Trick to hide the divergence between Hansen Scenario B and observed temperature, not showing data after 2005. As noted above, not using up-to-date data in virtually identical circumstances was characterized by Pierrehumbert as “ugly” and “illegitimate”:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick
Our emphasis. Now, why would the Auditor mention Pierrehumbert if Mann alone was his sole target?
The notion of virtual identity deserves due diligence.
***
For memory’s sake, here was the Auditor’s line:
All in all, it’s a French farce with the Chevalier often acting more like Inspector Clouseau than Hercule Poirot.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/7731143731
***
Finally, please note that your interlocutor, which I call Chewbacca because of his fondness for the Chewbaccattack (think South Park), mentioned his pet theory over there:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/03/open-thread-weekend-10/#comment-299910
One can find an exchange I had with Chewbacca on the same page.
An exchange that ended with crickets.
Due diligence,
w
-
KR at 00:47 AM on 9 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
snafu - In reverse order: With regards to variations up and down over the last 160 years, see CO2 is not the only driver of climate; also the IPCC AR4 section 9 on attributions:
AR4, Fig. 9-5, simulations run with/without anthropogenic contributions to forcings.
Up until the last 50 years or so it might be plausibly argued that what we were seeing was simply natural forcing variations. That's no longer the case - the physics shows that recent changes are dominated by anthropogenic influences.
As to why start at 1970? Isn't that a sufficent extent of time to show (a) a real trend, and (b) the 'skeptic' cherry-pick of short-term negative trends due entirely to noise? Besides - I don't recall any of the 'skeptic' crowd claiming negative trends in the 1930-1940 time frame using the same tactics, do you?
-
Composer99 at 00:29 AM on 9 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
snafu:
I believe there is statistical & physics-based reasoning behind it, but I am not up to speed on that aspect so I will not comment on it (except for one point).
I can note that the Escalator graph isn't really meant to illustrate what is going on with global warming. It's a debunking tool, meant to show how easy it is to construct "pauses" or "cooling periods" in the data which are not statistically or physically significant.
If one were to extend the graph to, say, 1850, it would rather belabour the point. Plus, the period 1940-1970 (approximately) had (surface temperature) cooling that was both statistically and physically significant, so it would be inappropriate to use the Escalator graph to suggest that period was a cherry-pick.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:28 PM on 8 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon Shollenberger @34:
1) Shollenberger now claims,
"The reality is I'd happily discuss the paper ..." .
As it happens, however, he waited 9 days without commenting on the OP, but found he had to comment once he found a suitable distraction. Further, he has now made 7 posts (excluding the posts dealing solely with administrative matters) without getting around to discussing the OP. Indeed, his most recent post introduces, apropos of nothing, and entirely new topic without getting around to the original post.
In this case, actions clearly speak louder than words. He does not want to discuss the original post. He is not simly clarrifying easier points before embarking on the topic of the OP, because his simple issues are not logically required for discussion of the OP. He is simply throwing in red herrings to distract from the OP. In short, he is spreading FUD.
And Shollenberger, you may find that description of your acts offensive. I find, however, of necessity, the act itself must always be more offensive than the description. If you dislike it when your actions are described truly, the remedy is in your power - stop spreading FUD.
2) Shollenberger is distressed that I have mistaken him as saying something true. I apologize. I certainly did not want to misrepresent him, and am happy to acknowledge that he said something false when he wrote:
"Malice is only one part of such ideation"
I am not sure what he intends to claim, except that, apparently, malice is not an independent attribute of conspiratorial ideation. On the contrary, however, it is one of six independent elements of such ideation identified in the Lewandowski 2013:
"We derived six criteria from the existing literature to permit classi cation of hypotheses pertaining to LOG12 as potentially conspiracist (see Table 3). Our criteria were exclusively psychological and hence did not hinge on the validity of the various hypotheses. ...
First, the presumed intentions behind any conspiracy are invariably nefarious ...
A corollary of the fi rst criterion is the pervasive self-perception and self- presentation among conspiracy theorists as the victims of organized persecution. ...
Third, during its questioning of an official account, conspiracist ideation is characterized by an almost nihilistic degree of skepticism" (Keeley, 1999, p. 125); and the conspiracy theorist refuses to believe anything that does not fi t into the conspiracy theory. ...
Fourth, to the conspiracy theorist, nothing happens by accident (e.g., Barkun, 2003). ...
Fifth, the underlying lack of trust and exaggerated suspicion contribute to a cognitive pattern whereby speci c hypotheses may be abandoned when they become unsustainable, but those corrections do not impinge on the overall abstraction that `something must be wrong' and the `official' account must be based on deception (Wood et al., 2012). ...
Finally, contrary evidence is often interpreted as evidence for a conspiracy. This ideation relies on the notion that, the stronger the evidence against a conspiracy, the more the conspirators must want people to believe their version of events (Bale, 2007; Keeley, 1999; Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009). ..."
It should be noted that McIntyre's theory exhibits not just the attribution of malice, but also the refusal to allow for accidental developments. In this case, Mann's continued use of data from 2006 cannot be attributed to laziness (for example), but must be attributed to malice in McIntyre's account.
3) I do not see any need to add to my prior points about "Wingman Naomi". Shollenberger's interpretation is patently contrived, and only pursued (I suspect) to evade the embarassment of his claiming that only Mann was discussed when in fact McIntyre discussed two scientists in terms that strongly suggested collusion between them.
-
truthisbest at 23:01 PM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
KR - thank you for your responses @ #5 & #9.
-
snafu at 22:35 PM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Speaking of cherry picking, why does your Escalator graph start at 1970?
HADCRUT4 from 1850 to present; 0.046°C/decade with 2 distict warming and 2 (possibly 3) distinct cooling trends....each around 35-40 years. Please explain?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:51 PM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Here are some of Anthony's comments and a comment from one use:
"REPLY: It is a highlighter marker, used to call attention to the area, like I routinely do with text. If I wanted to make a plot trend line, I would have used a plot trend line. – Anthony"
"REPLY: and again, it isn’t statistically significant in the scheme of things, much like that 0.7C in the atmosphere isn’t statistically significant against daily diurnal variation or seasons. – Anthony" He sure doesn't seem to have his head around what Statistical Significance actually means does he?
"REPLY: and again as answered previously and made clear in the story, it isn’t a trend line (though you want it to be) it is simply a yellow highlight to draw attention to the section of interest, just like I use the same highlight tool on sections of text or tables I post. – Anthony"
But...
"Mark Buehner says:
“Anthony, what’s your evidence the warming has paused? The data you present show the warming continuing.”
It does? Whats the slope look like over the past 10 years (tip- look at the yellow line)."
Sure looks like he misled at least on person!
So, Anthony's use of the 'highlighter' was, in a communications sense, very, very ... sloppy. If your readers can misinterpret what you have written, you didn't do a very good job communicating with them.
An open question that each reader can decide for themselves. Is such sloppiness unintentional, in which case we simply say that that person shouldn't be writing anything because they aren't good enough at it?
Or is it intentional, carefully crafted sloppiness that has a desired effect and can then be immediately denied if you are called out on it?
Whats the term used in politics - plausible deniability?
-
Albatross at 17:29 PM on 8 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon @37,
The following assertion is simply false:
"Watts said Skeptical Science was hired to do a job, and their involvement was openly acknowledged. "
SkS's support was acknowledged; SkS were not hired to do anything, period. It is really that simple. Watts is embarking on a futile fishing expedition and smear campaign.
Watts is clearly trying to insinuate that there is something nefarious and secret going on behind the scenes between Gore, Al Jazeera and SkS. Goodness' knows what compelled Watts to dream up that ridiculous fantasy. You see Watts is engaging in conspiracy ideation because his question reveals that he thinks/believes that something is going on behind the scenes between Gore, Al Jazeera and SkS. One has to be incredibly naive (or biased) to think that Watts is not engaging in conspiracy ideation.
Watts and his ilk seem unaware of the irony here given that it was in fact Watts who approached an AGW denier group (the Heartland Institute) for $88K to develop a web site. I don't think that was public knowledge until the Gleick affair, but I could be wrong about that.
If Watts wants to continue to make a fool of himself then that is his decision. Likewise, people are free to make fools of themselves by trying to defend his inane and paranoid behaviour.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 15:41 PM on 8 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
In a related note, John Cook just posted this on Twitter:
Latest conspiracy theory from
@wattsupwiththat -@skepticscience getting paid by Al Gore with Al Jazeera oil money http://bit.ly/XWp5vjWhat is the supposed conspiracy here? Anthony Watts said "the SkS kidz are behind" a website, pondering how much Skeptical Science got paid for making the site. Right or wrong, nothing about that idea is a conspiracy. There is nothing untoward about hiring people to make a website for you. Besides, the point of a conspiracy is to be secretive. The entire basis for what Watts said was that the site was developed "through a collaboration with the website Skeptical Science."
Watts said Skeptical Science was hired to do a job, and their involvement was openly acknowledged. What about that idea involves a conspiracy?
-
Doug Hutcheson at 15:41 PM on 8 March 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Thanks, John. I found what I wanted at www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm. I was just curious why that page was not referenced along with the other usual suspects.
-
Ari Jokimäki at 15:32 PM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
That's a good one, jyyh. :)
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:35 PM on 8 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Kevin @79
From the abstract for the paper: "On 103- to 106-year timescales, global sea level is determined largely by the volume of ice stored on land, ....Here we use observations from five well-studied time slices covering the last 40 My"
They are looking at a much longer time scale that the ice age cycles. Milankovitch orbital changes are concerned with what happens within a single glacial cycle over time scales of 50,000 to 100,000 years. They are looking at a 40 million year span. At that timescale Milankovitch cycles just cancel each other out.
-
jyyh at 13:17 PM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
Genetics of a long-living individual specimens of various species, such as bristlecone pine.
-
Leto at 12:42 PM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin wrote: "Cherrypicking? Generally speaking, cherrypicking is used to show info in the best possible light, it also implies intentional misleading. To present a claim that a trend has stopped, or even alterred, you must use the data at the end of the series. Since they are making the claim that warming has stopped since X, how else should the data be presented other then showing a trend from X to the present?"
Moving the cherrypick into the claim does not stop it from being a cherrypick.
The main question is, has the value of X, in this case 1997, emerged from any theory? Or has it been chosen post hoc because starting from that point yields a preferred result? Is it actually noise-driven rather than theory-driven?
If I made a bet that I could hit a 1cm target on a tree with a high-powered rifle from 1km away, would you be at all bothered if I first fired into a forest and then drew the target - after I took the shot?
-
Roger D at 10:52 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Watts post is titled "Fact check for Andrew Glickson - Ocean heat has paused too".
The title idicates that facts will be presented. Some data was shown, but the only real fact turns out to be that when Watts looks at part of the available data, (while never alluding to the fact that it is only part) it looks to him like ocean heat has paused. What use is that to understanding the issue? None.
-
Smith at 10:04 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Tom Curtis@60 - Thank you for your response.
For that he is rightly criticized.
Fair enough. The label "Denial Fake Trend" just seems like odd language IMO.
-
Smith at 09:59 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Dana1981@34 - Thank you for your response.
I hope you're not holding me to a higher standard than you're holding Wattsy.
I guess the short answer is yes I am. Wouldn't you prefer it that way?
-
scaddenp at 09:34 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
'I am still under the impression that the above is not true." Correct. Kevin is wrong. He is effectively posulating that coductive heat transfer from atmosphere to warm the surface or ocean. This would be a violation of 2nd law. Instead, the GHG gases in the atmosphere increase the amount of LW radiation reaching the surface. (This is measurable). Kevin, I would strongly recommend looking at Science of Doom's excellent basics on this. Not getting this right is leading you into confusion.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:11 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
smith @19 and @29, there are several acceptable ways to highlight a data of special interest in a graph. Two common methods are to draw an ellipse around the data of particular interest, or to highlight a large rectangular region including all the data of special interest. A third way is to highlight the values on the x-axis that are of interest. The common feature of all these methods are that they cannot be mistaken for a trend line. Equally important, nor do they create an optical illusion suggesting that the trend in the data is flatter than it actually is.
Instead of these common conventions, Watts chose a method to "highlight" the data of interest which is easilly mistaken for a trend line, and which is likely to suggest the trend is flatter than it actually is.
More importantly, if you intend to show that there has been a pause in the trend, the minimum method is to show calculate the trend line for the data exhibiting the trend, and to calculate the trend and confidence interval of the trend for the period supposedly exhibiting a pause, shoing that the confidence interval of the trend does not include the long term trend. Further, you should show the supposed pause is not over a period so short that its trend does not fall withing the 3 sigma distribution range of trends of that period over the course of the long term trend.
Instead of that, Watts chose to ignore that necessary legwork; and to display a line that was both easilly mistaken for a trend and likely to distort visual estimates of the trend. For that he is rightly criticized.
-
KR at 07:26 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin - In addition, those empirically observed changes in TOA radiation would have to reverse in order to remove a greenhouse gas induced energy imbalance; and they have not.
What has happened over this cherry-picked interval is that 1998 was a 3-sigma extreme El Nino, followed by a number of La Ninas. If you correctly account for these short term variations (Rahmstorf et al 2012, also a simpler analysis by John Nielsen-Gammon), it is clear that the warming trend continues just as expected from the physics.
On the other hand, if you select extreme points in the noise such as 1997/1998 and claim trend changes, you are cherry-picking from statistically insignificant data. Which means that you are wrong to make those assertions.
-
KR at 07:15 AM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
helenavargas - There is work available on Earthshine under Goode et al 2001, Rodiguez et al 2005 (not a reviewed paper), you can check their methods and sources (ISCCP datasets, solar observatory readings, etc). I believe that uncertainties with this technique are thought to be fairly high, although I can't locate those discussions right now.
RE: IR to space, the Earth is a 'graybody' with a highly notched spectra, emissivity of ~0.612, although the spectra is compared to an integrated blackbody spectra for a blackbody equivalent temperature. The climate is anything but adiabatic - it is not thermally isolated, it is a system with a constant inflow and constant outflow of energy, somewhere near dynamic equilibrium. The current divergence from equilibrium, leading to global warming, is indicative of a long-term 0.8 W/m^2 imbalance (from ocean heat content changes). But equilibrium will not be reached until (a) forcing changes halt, and (b) enough time has passed for the thermal inertia of the Earth to catch up.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:03 AM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
hellenavargas... Not sure why it didn't work for you. Will put it by our resident expert.
-
Composer99 at 06:45 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin:
That - showing that the top-of-atmosphere radiative budget is in balance - is exactly what it would take to show that global warming has stalled.
The radiative energy imbalance at top-of-atmosphere is a phenomenon empirically measured by satellite. It's not "theory" that can be overruled by "data". Furthermore, it's the reason surface temperatures are increasing in the first place.
Several people have now very patiently explained the problems with your reasoning. I note that your response is to indirectly complain of "political correctness" and to re-assert your claim without any apparent attempt to correct your misconceptions of statistics or physics.
Moderator Response: [DB] All parties...and most especially Kevin, please take the discussion of "16 years" to that most-appropriately-named thread. If it is deemed to have already been covered there, it will be adjudged as sloganeering and be moderated accordingly. Thanks in advance for everyone's compliance and understanding in this matter. -
helenavargas at 06:37 AM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
Apologies for the HTML not working in my post #6. Hope its intent can still be read.
If 'source' input isn't seen as source, what have I missed??
tx --bc/hv
Moderator Response: [RH] Voila! -
helenavargas at 06:33 AM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
Folks -- Where can one find a 24-h-averaged, (α,β)moon-averaged visible spectrum of sunlight reflected by the earth incident on the moon? By now, someone will have calculated model-dependent predictions of such spectra, so your statements about temperature changes on the lunar surface -- which endures month-long 'days', of course -- might have data against which to be checked. Would like to be able to visualize what a warmed earth would look like from space, other than cloudier. Having spent decades in the JHKL part of the NIR spectrum, I'd like to see a 'bluer' = visible representation of future reality.
KR (#5): Technical question: isn't the change in equilibrium sufficiently small (δT/T over time) more or less adiabatic, preserving the blackbody nature of the earth's climate? Naively, it would seem tough to do the physics otherwise.
-
DSL at 06:26 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
And Kevin, you still don't get it: the theory of anthropogenic global warming is not based on the surface temp trend. It could be plummeting, and CO2 would still be doing its thing. What you need to focus on is not "global warming" but "model projections." You are not going to falsify the greenhouse effect, and, yes, I'll put money on it.
You continue to look for a simplistic sound bite: "global warming has stopped." What we're really talking about here is "global surface temp has flattened in recent years; there are several factors that could be driving this, and there are scientists focused on these factors." No one is investigating whether or not CO2 has stopped working.
-
scaddenp at 06:21 AM on 8 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
And just a further point on CO2 and glacials. While Milankovitch forcing pace the glacial cycles, there wouldnt be any glacial cycle if CO2 concentration was higher. The milankovitch forcings were still there before the Quaternary. Its just that CO2 was too high before that for them to significantly affect planetary albedo.
-
DSL at 06:20 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
16 years, Kevin -- very intentionally.
If you find me evidence for your last assertion, I just might believe you. As far as I know, very few sensitivity studies are based on the recent surface temp trend, and none of those conclude high sensitivity.
-
Roger D at 06:11 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin, I was questioning whether this statement of yours is true:
As I stated before, AGW (removed the C) states that the warming originates in the atmosphere. If it slows, halts, increases, stops, starts, whatever, here, it will then and only then, continue on to the oceans, starting with the upper layer first. Regardless of whether there is an energy imbalance or not, it the temp increase stalls in the atmosphere, that will dictate a stall in global warming.
I'm still under the impression that the above is not true. At your comment #54 you say that global warming can have said to have stopped if there were to be 30 years of no warming trend (in the surface temperature trend I assume) even if there was evidence of a continuing energy imbalence. From what I think I understand, with a continued enegy imbalance, as expected from the relativley steady rise in GHG, the surface temperature trend is expected to do what it has done in recent decades and get back on a significantly upward trend. So OK, I get your point that if this doesn't happen then there is something amiss with the theory of AGW. But it seems unlikely to me that as you put it, this hypothetical "scintific method -data overruling theory type of thing" will be realized. I'll leave it to others that are more knowledgable and articulate on this topic than myself to say more if they are inclined.
-
KR at 06:10 AM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
Changing greenhouse gas concentrations causes an energy imbalance between incoming/outgoing energy.
- More GHGs reduce total outgoing IR at all temperatures (reducing outgoing energy)...
- That difference between incoming and outgoing accumulates, warming the climate...
- Until, at a higher climate temperature, the Earth is once again radiating as much as it is receiving.
There are indeed frequencies in IR that have increased with current warming. But if you integrate energy over the entire IR spectrum, the sum of outgoing energy is presently lower than incoming. The final at-equilibrium IR spectra of the Earth, under increased GHGs, will show warmer peaks but a more jagged outline, integrating to the incoming 240 W/m^2 from the sun.
-
truthisbest at 05:50 AM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
This statement doesn't quite accord with my layman's understanding:
"...before climate equilibrium is reached, the outgoing radiation from Earth would be reduced..."
I understood [or thought I understood] that a warming planet will omit more Long Wave radition into space except at those wavelengths trapped by the GHGs and that this can [perversely] mean that even as more Long Wave radiation to outer space is inhibited by GHGs the overall level of non-inhibited radiation can increase the total OLWR.
I shall be grateful if a better Scientist than I can confirm or deny my understanding or [gently] point me in the right direction.
-
Kevin8233 at 05:41 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Roger D,
Please re-read what I wrote. You are not paraphrasing it correctly.
(-snip-).
(-snip-). That is the extent of that particular point.
DSL,
How long of time frame was the 2007 rate calculated on? Was it 16 years? 27 years?
And yes, some scientist did believe it would persist, or we wouldn't have heard of the 2 - 6 C increase predictions.
Moderator Response: [DB] Sloganeering snipped. -
DSL at 05:30 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin, you say: "At the current rate, after an additional 100 years, the temp will rise an additional 0.4 - 0.8 C. That does not seem that significant, and in fact will achieve the outcome of keeping the temp increase to less than 2 C."
Yes. At the current linear trend. Do you expect that trend to persist? In 2007, did you expect the .284C per decade trend to persist? You must have, or you're being inconsistent. Again, do you think scientists thought it would persist?
By the way, the current rate of warming is still 9x that of PETM event warming. There's significance and then there's significance.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:25 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Those figures again.... I dropped the 2-sigma range and typed one of the figures wrong...
GISS since 1995 = 0.113 ±0.112 °C/decade (2σ)
GISS since 1973 = 0.166 ±0.037 °C/decade (2σ)
-
KR at 05:24 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Composer99 - Actually, surface temperatures are more than adequate to judge warming.
But that's true if, and only if, you examine enough data for statistical significance, say 30 years worth or more. The "no warming since 1997" claimants such as Kevin fail in that regard.
-
Roger D at 05:23 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Although it's been pointed out that total energy accumulation in the "system" is continuously growing, Kevin seems to be saying that an essentially steady global warming cannot be considered to be occuring because there are changes in trends that approach zero for he surface and tropsopheric temperature record.The response given by Composer99@ 37 addresses this.
Is there any physics-based reason to think that the oceans cannot continue to gain heat energy without the surface temps mirroring them? It seems like their shouldn't be, as longs as thre is water, ice, air, land to allow heat energy flow
(sorry if this question is in the too-basic catoagory)
-
Dikran Marsupial at 05:11 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin, you appear not to understand statistical hypothesis testing. If you want to make a claim (such as "the temp increase has slowed") on the basis of a set of observations, you need to show that the Null hypothesis, i.e. the opposite of what you want to claim (in this case "the temp increase has not slowed") and show that the observations are not consistent with that null hypothesis.
Hypothsesis tests are not symmetric, the lack of a statistically significant trend does not mean that there has been no warming, just that you can't rule out the possibility that it hasn't warmed.
The "margin of error" as you call it, also include the long term trend, so the observations don't rule out the possibility that warming has stopped, but they don't rule out the possibility that warming has continued at the same rate either. Hence you cannot draw the conclusion that you did on statistical grounds.
You would benefit from dropping the hubris a bit, and just consider the possibility that you don't understand the issue quite as well as you think you do.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:10 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin... You can't compare a trend that is not statistically significant with one that is and expect that you're revealing anything.
GISS since 1973 = 0.166/decade
GISS since 1995 = 0.116/decade
Both statistically significant. Both well within model projections.
-
HK at 05:07 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Does it really matter if the surface or upper ocean warming has slowed down in recent years?
Figure 2 clearly shows that the ocean warming down to 2000 meters has continued unabated after 1997, 1998 or whatever year the denialists prefer to start from.
From 1997 to 2010 the oceans accumulated about 10 x 1022 J of energy, which is sufficient to heat the entire atmosphere by 20oC.The rate of warming was about 0.45 x 1022 J per year from 1966 to 1997 and 0.77 x 1022 J per year from 1997 to 2010, so the warming has in fact accelerated, not slowed down!
And the reason?
Definitely not the sun, since the present solar cycle seems to peak at the lowest level since the 1880s.
Maybe it's time to start listening to the scientists who predicted this warming many decades ago?
-
Kevin8233 at 05:02 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Dikran, (41)
What has the warming rate been for the past 16 years?
Compared to the warming rate of the past 30 years, which is greater? By what ratio?
Do we really need to be this explicit?
Moderator Response: [DB] All parties...and most especially Kevin, please take the discussion of "16 years" to that most-appropriately-named thread. If it is deemed to have already been covered there, it will be adjudged as sloganeering and be moderated accordingly. Thanks in advance for everyone's compliance and understanding in this matter. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:02 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin @ 42... Wrong. That is a completely inaccurate statement.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 05:01 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin, please don't play games. What does the lack of a statistically significant trend actually mean in terms of what we can conclude about global climate from that set of observations?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:00 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin @ 38... If the trend is not statistically significant that merely means that that you have a noisy data set. It means you can't rule out a zero trend, but you also can't rule out a higher trend either, all at the 95% confidence level.
A trend that is not statistically significant means that you need more data. Once you go back far enough to get a statistically significant trend, what do you have?
-
Kevin8233 at 04:59 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Dikran Marsupial,
It means that the statement "There has been no significant warming for the past 16 years" is accurate.
Moderator Response: [DB] All parties...and most especially Kevin, please take the discussion of "16 years" to that most-appropriately-named thread. If it is deemed to have already been covered there, it will be adjudged as sloganeering and be moderated accordingly. Thanks in advance for everyone's compliance and understanding in this matter. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:58 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin wrote: "What is important is, the temp increase has slowed"
The observations do not support that statement (at least not from a statistical perspecive). To assert that this is the case, you need to show that there has been a statistically significant change in the rate of warming, which you have not done.
-
Kevin8233 at 04:55 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Composer99,
It would help if you respond to what other people atually write rather than resorting to quote-mining. Such behaviour is extremely disingenuous and frankly reflects poorly on you.
What/where are you referring to? (-snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] Sloganeering and excessive html snipped.
Prev 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 Next
