ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags agw , climate change , global warming , global warming denial

Closed Thread
Old 5th February 2015, 11:17 PM   #2121
bit_pattern
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,406
Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
Ask Miami about accelerating in rate of change
Or NYC even, the sea level there is around a foot higher than 100 years ago - look at the result when it gets hit with a decent storm surge.
bit_pattern is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 04:21 AM   #2122
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,775
Originally Posted by researcherTony View Post
Question:

Point # 1 - With all this ice melting. 2015 Sept all Arctic ice may be all gone for the first time (summer time).

Point #2 - Most of the carbon goes into the ocean and the heat goes there too.

So why is the ocean rate of rise still growing so slowly, like in millimeters.
Because it's so ***** big. Even that rate of change is already causing problems in florida.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 08:53 AM   #2123
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,041
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
15 years is actually from Jan 2000 to Jan 2015 during which warming has been above the long-term trend. You and I know that 15 years doesn't tell us much but on the other hand we didn't choose to make a big issue of such a short period back in 2013. Those who did can hardly start arguing that it's not a big issue any more, can they?
I was responding to a number given in the WSJ op-ed piece. It’s actually non-specific about exactly what time period the “no warming in the last 15 years” Depending on when the piece was written it could easily refer to a starting point anywhere in the 1998 – 2000 range. Regardless of which one it is, however the basic point i was making doesn’t change. No matter which of these 3 years you choose as a starting point for drawing a trend line, that trend line starts ABOVE the established, statistically significant trend from 1970 – 2014.
Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
I just ran the numbers for HadCRUT4.
Both well within margin of error and far smaller than the 0.02 deg C per year central prediction of the IPCC (and supposed long-term trend).
The fact that even a cherry picked starting point still produces a positive trend strengthens my point. And runs counter to the “no warming in the last 15 years” meme floating around. Regardless I was not addressing the actual trend over this period because it’s not statistically significant.

Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
Both well within margin of error and far smaller than the 0.02 deg C per year central prediction of the IPCC (and supposed long-term trend).
1) The long term average is not an appropriate comparison because most scenarios show acceleration in the trend. If you draw a linear trend line over an accelerating warming it will fall above both observed data and model projections.

2) You are using the wrong error margin. On short time scales realization to realization differences are the dominant source of error. This can only be evaluate by looking at the range in the IPCC scenarios, and finding out if the observed temperature fall in this range. It does.

3) You are still missing the basic point that cherry picking the starting point allows you to pick one ABOVE the IPCC scenario. If you extrapolate a liner trend from this point you insert a systematic error in the resulting “projection”.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 11:19 AM   #2124
CoolSceptic
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by bit_pattern View Post
If it's such a howler then why doesn't McIntyre or Lewis write up a rebuttal and have it published rather than blogging about it?
I suspect Nic Lewis probably will, but given the paper was only published a week ago, I think expecting him to have a publication out today is unreasonable.

However, given the astonishing (and unthinking) plaudits the paper has received in the press, a highlight of the fundamental problems in the paper is entirely appropriate. Had the paper received no press coverage, it would have been reasonable to respond directly in the scientific press first.

The same was true for the Monckton / Soon / Briggs paper. The fact that the responses appeared in blogs first does not undermine the criticisms of the paper. Such criticisms should stand on their merit, not where they appear.
CoolSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 11:27 AM   #2125
CoolSceptic
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
1) The long term average is not an appropriate comparison because most scenarios show acceleration in the trend.
You should take it up with the IPCC, not me, since they are the ones providing the numbers.

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
If you draw a linear trend line over an accelerating warming it will fall above both observed data and model projections.
The second derivative can be used for falsification here too, and I'm afraid to say the observations show the warming ain't accelerating at the moment.

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
2) You are using the wrong error margin.
Actually, nobody knows what the "right" error margin to use is, and every climate scientist I've chatted to about this (including 2 IPCC lead authors) has ultimately agreed with me on this point. But I was giving an indication of relative error margins, which at least gives some understanding of the issues at hand, and the reality is that the difference in error margin between 15 yrs and 30 yrs ain't all that much. Root two, best guess.
CoolSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 12:35 PM   #2126
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,041
Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
You should take it up with the IPCC
Why? The IPCC did it properly, and because they did it properly they reached the correct conclusions.



Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
The second derivative can be used for falsification here too, and I'm afraid to say the observations show the warming ain't accelerating at the moment.
Again you would need to apply that to the model runs not the observations. Doing this would tell you how long a period you would need to look at to observe statistically significant acceleration. This time period is longer than the 20-30 years needed for the first derivative.

Regardless, the trend line you are trying to call "trend from IPCC model results" doesn't match what the model runs show for the period 2000 - 2015. You choose a slope larger than the model results presented in the IPCC reports for that time period and added to the Y intercept from what is actually in the IPCC reports. In the presence of such serious systematic errors the statistical error margins become irrelevant.

Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post

Actually, nobody knows what the "right" error margin to use is,
? This makes no sense. You analyse the data properly and that gives you the error margins. This is completely different than inserting a discontinuity into the trend line and hiding the fact by only using the slop to calculate error margin.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 04:06 PM   #2127
Fair Witness
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
Emily
Elf Grinder and many others do not understand the difference between forcing and feedback.
...
This is SUCH a fundamental point you would think anyone pretending to be knowledgeable about climate would know the difference between a feedback and a forcing.....rather than face planting in a science forum
What I would like someone to provide an explanation for is...

1) Over most periods of time, the paleoclimate graph being referred to previously shows that CO2 lags temperature change. If CO2 has such a strong forcing capability, how is that historical temperatures ever fall once they've risen above a certain temperature and CO2 levels consequently rise? Why doesn't CO2 act as a forcing mechanism to drive them back up? I've read it many times in this forum that current CO2 levels are at the point now where we've reached the point of no return. Yet, CO2 levels in the past have been at this point or higher and CO2 has not acted as a forcing agent to keep temperatures from falling, or to drive them back up, or to compound warming rates as temperatures were climbing. How is it that today CO2 has this much forcing capability?

2) When considering the paleoclimate record, ocean temperature is not included. We are told that the difference between previous warming cycles and the current warming rate is that the rate of warming has never been as high. Yet, the current slowdown (or pause depending on one's perspective) is explained as being hidden in ocean heat. If so, how can we compare the global warming rates of today that factor in ocean heat with historical warming cycles that do not? Is there something about the heat absorbing capabilities of past oceans that makes their heat content not be a significant factor when considering warming rates?

3) I'm also puzzled how one can conclude that the warming rate in the last 30 years exceeds historical levels when the paleoclimate records do not appear to have that level of granularity. Where does that certainty come from?
Fair Witness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 04:21 PM   #2128
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 13,209
Originally Posted by researcherTony View Post
Question:

Point # 1 - With all this ice melting. 2015 Sept all Arctic ice may be all gone for the first time (summer time).

Point #2 - Most of the carbon goes into the ocean and the heat goes there too.

So why is the ocean rate of rise still growing so slowly, like in millimeters.
The ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to The ocean.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 05:04 PM   #2129
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,870
Originally by lomiller

Quote:
I was responding to a number given in the WSJ op-ed piece. It’s actually non-specific about exactly what time period the “no warming in the last 15 years” Depending on when the piece was written it could easily refer to a starting point anywhere in the 1998 – 2000 range. Regardless of which one it is, however the basic point i was making doesn’t change. No matter which of these 3 years you choose as a starting point for drawing a trend line, that trend line starts ABOVE the established, statistically significant trend from 1970 – 2014.
No problem with that, the problem is with "the last x years", which is no way to define a period. Some people will get "no warming for 15 years" into their heads and they'll be repeating it forever. The passage of time escapes them.

AGW deniers have, as we know all to well, made a big thing of a 15 year period. I'm being lenient with that; in 2005 I first heard "no warming for ..." and that was 7 years. That particular victim doesn't post here any more (we've lost a few over the years, haven't we?) but the 15 year thing sticks to all of the extant AGW denialati. I know it's bollocks, you know it's bollocks, but they'll find it hard to argue it's bollocks when the 15 year thing turns against them. There lies the danger in short-term expedients.

Pat Michaels actually warned them against this some years ago at a Heartland bash; "the Pause will come back to bite you" was his message, but they clung to it all the same.

Since then we've seen the retreat from a surface temperature Pause to a UAH lower troposphere Pause to an RSS Pause - which is almost poetic, since the satellite RSS derives from is performing a predictable death-spiral.

Now we have people who used to draw a straight line from 1998 to whenever and declaring an enormously consequential Pause getting into statistics and showing that the Pause was just a slowdown but there's a climate scientist who called it a "Pause" so they'll call a slowdown a Pause as well. Even though we all know it's just a slowdown. And at no point has it even been a statistically significant slowdown.

The 15 year thing is turning against them and I intend to exploit that. The day of the Surge is coming.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 05:41 PM   #2130
bit_pattern
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,406
Originally Posted by Fair Witness View Post
What I would like someone to provide an explanation for is...

1) Over most periods of time, the paleoclimate graph being referred to previously shows that CO2 lags temperature change. If CO2 has such a strong forcing capability, how is that historical temperatures ever fall once they've risen above a certain temperature and CO2 levels consequently rise? Why doesn't CO2 act as a forcing mechanism to drive them back up? I've read it many times in this forum that current CO2 levels are at the point now where we've reached the point of no return. Yet, CO2 levels in the past have been at this point or higher and CO2 has not acted as a forcing agent to keep temperatures from falling, or to drive them back up, or to compound warming rates as temperatures were climbing. How is it that today CO2 has this much forcing capability?
Because there is also an orbital forcing at play. Changes in solar radiation impact the temperature of the oceans which in turn impacts their ability to store/release carbon dioxide.

Also, I would note that while - yes - CO2 has been this high before, but that was 15 million years ago when there were no ice caps, the continents were in a different configuration and the planet was in a hothouse state. Arguably, the end of the Miocene climatic optimum came about because Antarctica became isolated from the rest of the continent and the circumpolar circulation formed, reducing the mixing of warm tropical water with cold polar waters, allowing the latter to build up and begin the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet.

Quote:
2) When considering the paleoclimate record, ocean temperature is not included. We are told that the difference between previous warming cycles and the current warming rate is that the rate of warming has never been as high. Yet, the current slowdown (or pause depending on one's perspective) is explained as being hidden in ocean heat. If so, how can we compare the global warming rates of today that factor in ocean heat with historical warming cycles that do not? Is there something about the heat absorbing capabilities of past oceans that makes their heat content not be a significant factor when considering warming rates?
That's not actually correct.

Corals for example make excellent ocean temperature proxies due to their temperature sensitivity.

And a quick glance at Google Scholar will turn up lots of results such as this:

Pliocene three-dimensional global ocean temperature reconstruction

Quote:
3) I'm also puzzled how one can conclude that the warming rate in the last 30 years exceeds historical levels when the paleoclimate records do not appear to have that level of granularity. Where does that certainty come from?
That might be the case with reconstructions going back hundred of thousands of years, but on the thousands of years time scale there are quite high resolution - corals, tree-rings, bore-holes etc. And on that scale the current warming is unprecedented.

But what's more important is the rapid rise in carbon levels, which are undeniably unprecedented. Looking back to see how that planet has responded to change in the past is instructive, but the theory doesn't rely on the recent warming being unprecedented. It is certainly useful to put it into historical context but there is a very sound physical model upon which the theory rests - it is beyond doubt that a rapid increase in carbon will result in a rapid warming, looking back merely gives an indication of the implication of such rapid changes.
bit_pattern is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 05:43 PM   #2131
bit_pattern
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,406
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
The ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to The ocean.
Hitchhikers Guide to the Climate
bit_pattern is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 05:46 PM   #2132
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,870
Originally Posted by Fair Witness View Post
3) I'm also puzzled how one can conclude that the warming rate in the last 30 years exceeds historical levels when the paleoclimate records do not appear to have that level of granularity. Where does that certainty come from?
It comes from the fact that a global warming such as we've seen in the last 30 years would have been documented if it was a common occurence. We aren't in the process of a glacial/inter-glacial transition, which is what palaeoclimatology is about, we're in the coasting zone of an interglacial, past the peak and heading very gradually down to the point when I'd need to worry about polar bears.

Anthropogenic global warming is not an explanation conjured up after the event to explain the current warming. AGW predicted the current warming from physical principles; the warming is merely confirmation since there's no other identified explanation for it, and great efforts have been made to find one.

Palaeoclimatology concerns finding an explanation for such things as glacial/inter-glacial transitions and the climate dinosaurs thrived in. It involves processes which take at least tens of thousands of years to have a measurable impact at the time, let alone now.

Stuff is happening, it's happening for a reason, and we're it. You will not find a global industrialised civilisation anywhere in the past because this is the first.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

Last edited by CapelDodger; 6th February 2015 at 05:50 PM. Reason: beer
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 05:49 PM   #2133
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,870
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
The ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to The ocean.
You sit on the beach, or even more so in a boat, and look out on the sea and you think it's big, like really big. And then you realise that's just the top.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 06:06 PM   #2134
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,870
Originally Posted by bit_pattern View Post
Also, I would note that while - yes - CO2 has been this high before, but that was 15 million years ago when there were no ice caps, the continents were in a different configuration and the planet was in a hothouse state.
A golden age in many ways. Shame we weren't about to enjoy it.
Quote:
Arguably, the end of the Miocene climatic optimum came about because Antarctica became isolated from the rest of the continent and the circumpolar circulation formed, reducing the mixing of warm tropical water with cold polar waters, allowing the latter to build up and begin the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet.
We warned them, but did they listen? No, they just let nature take its course.

As for allowing the Panama Ridge to become the Panama Isthmus and cut off the Pacific from the Atlantic, that's when idiocy became criminal idiocy in my book.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 06:18 PM   #2135
bit_pattern
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,406
Very droll
bit_pattern is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 07:40 PM   #2136
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,965
Quote:
But what's more important is the rapid rise in carbon levels, which are undeniably unprecedented.
Not quite unprecedented....the Deccan traps where the end result was the Permian extinction also saw fossil carbon injected in the atmosphere on a massive scale but the scary part is we are actually increasing it faster than that particular disaster.

http://eapsweb.mit.edu/news/2014/extinction-blink-eye

That took many thousands of years and simply provides evidence to support what occurs when carbon becomes a forcing instead of a feedback.

FW - you need to be careful in your language with forcing and feedback.

An orbital forcing is magnified ( in both cooling and warming ) by the effect of C02. ( and other GHG ...some persistent some not )
The CO2 is not a forcing in that case but rather a feedback.

Examples of a forcing are volcanos or the anthro release of SO2 ( manufacturing ) which dims the planet ( less sunlight reaching the ocean. A volcano is a primary forcing for that reason as it releases aerosols into the stratosphere which can circulate for a couple of years and the cooling is seen in the climate record. Pinatubo notably.
Humans can and do cool the planet by releasing SO2 in manufacturing in which case cooling oceans would absorb more CO2 furthering the cooling...a feedback.

Part of the variability in warming rates over short periods is the offsetting effect of aerosols whose effects are mixed ( carbon black for instance ). Both are anthro..one cooling - the other warming.

Another feedback rarely talked about is water vapor but actually the most powerful which enhances CO2 ( 1.6x I think ) - so we have a warmer and moister atmosphere with knock on consequences for weather.

Fortunately, unlike CO2 ( forever in human terms ) and even methane ( a couple of decades ).....water vapour drops out of the atmosphere quickly.

This is a reasonable visual of the various processes


Last edited by macdoc; 6th February 2015 at 07:44 PM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2015, 09:42 PM   #2137
bit_pattern
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,406
^^ Thanks for the clarification, MD

Came across this before, seems I missed it when it came out but it adds some more texture to the lead/lag issue

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skak...-temp-lag.html

Quote:
What's Going On?
What appears to have happened, based on global climate model simulations run by Shakun et al., is not all that different from our previous explanation of the supposed CO2 lag - just a bit more nuanced.
  • As we already knew, the Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected at the highest latitudes (i.e. Greenland and the Arctic - see "Onset of seesaw" in Figure 4).
  • This Arctic warming melted large quantities of ice, causing fresh water to flood into the oceans.
  • This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.
  • The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.
  • In short, the initial warming was indeed triggered by the Milankovitch cycles, and that small amount of orbital cycle-caused warming eventually triggered the CO2 release, which caused most of the glacial-interglacial warming. So while CO2 did lag behind a small initial temperature change (which mostly occurred in the Southern Hemisphere), it led and was the primary driver behind most of the glacial-interglacial warming.
According to the Shakun et al. data, approximately 7% of the overall glacial-interglacial global temperature increase occurred before the CO2 rise, whereas 93% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.
bit_pattern is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2015, 09:43 AM   #2138
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 6,049
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
The ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to The ocean.


Mass of the Earth's oceans is 1.4 x 1021 kg.
Mass of the Earth's atmosphere is 5.1 x 1018 kg.

Given this, it is not suppressing that we have screwed up the atmosphere more than the oceans.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2015, 05:23 PM   #2139
bit_pattern
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,406
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ar-says-report

Quote:
Australia’s hottest year on record would not have happened without climate change, according to a new report.

The country experienced its hottest day, month, season and calendar year in 2013, registering a mean temperature 1.2C above the 1961-90 average.

The Climate Council says recent studies show those heat events would have occurred only once every 12,300 years without greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
bit_pattern is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2015, 05:52 PM   #2140
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post


Mass of the Earth's oceans is 1.4 x 1021 kg.
Mass of the Earth's atmosphere is 5.1 x 1018 kg.

Given this, it is not suppressing that we have screwed up the atmosphere more than the oceans.

You overstate the "we" bit ... it's nature not us as the "climate change" main driver The "we" you refer too are just "statistically insignificant bit players" as this alarmist source admits
Quote:
add to that the fact that water vapour is a far more potent GHG than Co2 over which we have NO control just confirms it's nature not us driving the climate ... DEAL WITH IT !

Inconvenient study: Seafloor volcano pulses may alter climate – models may be wrong

Tides, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes

Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications PDF

Satellites: Warming pause continues & 2014 not the hottest

Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2015, 06:31 PM   #2141
CoolSceptic
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Why? The IPCC did it properly, and because they did it properly they reached the correct conclusions.
How would you know if they were doing it "properly", or even whether your interpretation of their conclusions are actually the same as the conclusions they claimed? The whole point of the discussion Pixel42 triggered was to try and understand what the numbers were; I should give credit for Pixel42 at least trying to look at numbers (even if the analysis wasn't very meaningful), which is far more than you have presented, which is just assertion.

You seem to be missing the point of scepticism. Unless you actually understand to some degree what was done, you are in no position to judge whether something is right or wrong. I've given you guys some leeway here, acknowledging that because you don't really understand the statistics, you have little choice but to believe the IPCC (or at least what you understand the IPCC to be telling you, which is unfortunately often filtered through activists who care little for actual science).

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Again you would need to apply that to the model runs not the observations. Doing this would tell you how long a period you would need to look at to observe statistically significant acceleration. This time period is longer than the 20-30 years needed for the first derivative.
Once again, your strange belief in 30 years as being some magic number at which things become significant is hopelessly misguided. The difference between 15 years, 30 years and 60 years is not all that great. I've demonstrated that with actual numbers, you've demonstrated it by (1) assertion - worthless to a sceptic - and (2) by appeal to authority of the IPCC, which could carry some validity if you could actually back it up by showing what analysis you are referring to and we can then put the IPCC position in place of your assertion, but you have provided nothing.

As I mentioned earlier, what I have presented is utterly uncontroversial amongst actual scientists, even to the point that it is rarely discussed (because it is so blindingly obvious). Yet you dispute it. Earlier today I stumbled across a good example of a climate scientist highlighting this bizarre attachment to 30 years in a blog post from a couple of months back:

Natural Variability and Chaos – Four – The Thirty Year Myth

I note it is typically environmental activists who have this strange attachment to 30-year trends, with limited understanding of science, rather than *actual climate scientists*, although scienceofdoom does highlight a rather unhelpful cartoon by the IPCC which does appear to rather perpetuate the myth.

Also, it is quite inappropriate to use model runs to determine the error margins discussed. The error margins are sensitive to the autocorrelation structure of natural variability, and it is well known that the autocorrelation structure of models does not match the real world well at all. Unfortunately the observational record is too short to get really good accurate estimates of the autocorrelation function as well, which is why in practice nobody has correctly determined the population error margins. (Hopefully you understand the distinction between population error margins - the "true" error margins - and the sample error margins which I presented earlier, which are meaningful, but biased)

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Regardless, the trend line you are trying to call "trend from IPCC model results" doesn't match what the model runs show for the period 2000 - 2015.
Ah, you're trying to cover up for CapelDodger's mistake now. I was responding to CapelDodger who referred to the "long-term trend", not what the model runs show for 2000-2015. Goalpost moving noted, though.
CoolSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2015, 06:36 PM   #2142
bit_pattern
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,406
Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
Natural Variability and Chaos – Four – The Thirty Year Myth

I note it is typically environmental activists who have this strange attachment to 30-year trends, with limited understanding of science, rather than *actual climate scientists*, although scienceofdoom does highlight a rather unhelpful cartoon by the IPCC which does appear to rather perpetuate the myth.
Deeply ironic that you would preface this statement with a link to a denier blog
bit_pattern is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2015, 06:41 PM   #2143
CoolSceptic
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by bit_pattern View Post
Deeply ironic that you would preface this statement with a link to a denier blog
"ScienceOfDoom" is classed as a "denier" blog by activists now is it?

Wow, that smacks of desperation.

Let me know what you think is being "denied" here, e.g.

Atmospheric radiation and the greenhouse effect
CoolSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2015, 07:27 PM   #2144
bit_pattern
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,406
Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
"ScienceOfDoom" is classed as a "denier" blog by activists now is it?
Yup.

*Actual climate scientists* publish *actual climate science* in *actual climate science journals* - if your argument had the slightest shred of credibility you'd be able to point to an *actual published climate science paper* which says that 30 year trends aren't relevant.
bit_pattern is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2015, 11:30 PM   #2145
Warmer1
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 462
From "The Science of Doom"
http://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/...nce-and-proof/

"So when we need to demonstrate that the greenhouse effect is real, and that it increases with more GHGs we need some equations."

[snip]

"And equally obviously, anyone questioning the validity of the equation, or the results from the equation, is doing so from evil motives."

Sounds like a real scientist

Last edited by Warmer1; 7th February 2015 at 11:34 PM.
Warmer1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 12:29 AM   #2146
bit_pattern
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,406
I don't know about anyone else but when it comes to climate I've always used the term denial in the Kübler-Ross sense of the word... But in all seriousness, the whole Holocaust thing is really just rank equivocation that is typical of the victimisation that pervades all forms of denial and conspiracy theorising. When people resort to such histrionics, it is usually a very good indicator that you are dealing with a denier, no matter how convincingly sciency they come across.
bit_pattern is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 12:59 AM   #2147
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,674
Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
The whole point of the discussion Pixel42 triggered was to try and understand what the numbers were; I should give credit for Pixel42 at least trying to look at numbers (even if the analysis wasn't very meaningful), which is far more than you have presented, which is just assertion.
I did no analysis, I simply demonstrated that the range of values you get for the underlying trend if you look back 15 years over a five year period is far greater than the range of values you get if you look back 30 years from the same five year period.

The period over which an underlying trend can be reliably detected and measured depends on the size of the trend and the amplitude of the noise. In this case the expected trend is an average of 0.15 - 0.2C per decade, natural variations can cause as much as 0.2C difference from one year to the next, and the period over which some of the sources of those variations tend to cancel out is of the order of one or two decades. You don't need to be a mathematician to understand why 15 year trends are not going to be very informative, especially if you cherry pick start and/or end points for the 15 year period at peaks or troughs.

Quote:
I've given you guys some leeway here, acknowledging that because you don't really understand the statistics, you have little choice but to believe the IPCC (or at least what you understand the IPCC to be telling you, which is unfortunately often filtered through activists who care little for actual science).
It may be nearly 40 years since I obtained my degree in Mathematics but I retain enough to recognise "arrogant cluelessness" when I see it. The amount in this thread has reduced since posters like mhaze, Poptech and r-j got themselves banned, but we still have Haig and a few other drivebys regularly depositing fresh samples. I do not see it in the posts of the majority of posters who take the time to read and understand what the IPCC, and the climatologists whose work it summarises, are actually saying.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 06:14 AM   #2148
CoolSceptic
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Warmer1 View Post
From "The Science of Doom"
http://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/...nce-and-proof/

"So when we need to demonstrate that the greenhouse effect is real, and that it increases with more GHGs we need some equations."

[snip]

"And equally obviously, anyone questioning the validity of the equation, or the results from the equation, is doing so from evil motives."

Sounds like a real scientist
Right. So in a blog where almost all of the posts are technical, including a complete mathematical description of the greenhouse effect (and why it is real) that you will not find on any other blog, you pick a post which is not technical, but discussing the tone of the climate debate, and you selectively quote a piece which is dripping with sarcasm.

OK, I will admit that writing a piece about the tone of the debate and laying on heavy sarcasm perhaps is a little counter-productive. You can see from the comments several people misunderstood the sarcastic sections.

But I asked a simple question. What exactly does scienceofdoom deny? Please point to a technical post to illustrate, rather than a post discussing civility in the climate debate.

Things to bear in mind. One, the blog is run by Dr Steve Carson, who used to work at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in NOAA (but as far as I can tell left that job to become a science teacher - something I suspect he does very well judging from his technical blog posts). Also, he received an award via John Cook of SkepticalScience for his blogging:

Woody Guthrie award to Science of Doom

I've not seen any technical posts on the global warming threads of this forum that come anywhere close to his work. And I still don't even know what you lot thinks he denies.

Alternatively, you guys can stop scoring ridiculous own goals by poisoning the well before you know the first thing about the blogs in question. Just a thought.
CoolSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 06:18 AM   #2149
CoolSceptic
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by bit_pattern View Post
Yup.

*Actual climate scientists* publish *actual climate science* in *actual climate science journals* - if your argument had the slightest shred of credibility you'd be able to point to an *actual published climate science paper* which says that 30 year trends aren't relevant.
Actual climate scientists publishing in actual climate science journals... like this one:

Midlatitude westerlies, atmospheric CO2, and climate change during the ice ages
Hmm, wonder who that "SR Carson" dude is.

Incidentally, I would post an actual science paper showing that 30 year trends "aren't relevant" if I had made that argument. Since I didn't actually make that argument, I won't be any time soon.

Any other straw men you want to get off your chest before we move on?
CoolSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 06:36 AM   #2150
CoolSceptic
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I did no analysis
Yes, you did. You went and got some numbers and divided the max by the min and made some inferences. I know in the bigger scheme of things, it is pretty simplistic, but it still forms an analysis. And I explained why you should not have taken a ratio, and why you should use more than 5 samples when estimating spreads of values (a sample standard deviation calculated from just five samples, when used as an estimate of the population standard deviation, carries a VERY fat-tailed student's T distribution with five degrees of freedom)

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The period over which an underlying trend can be reliably detected and measured depends on the size of the trend and the amplitude of the noise.
Hey look, this is good! This is EXACTLY the point I made earlier on. See, we have some points of agreement!

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
In this case the expected trend is an average of 0.15 - 0.2C per decade
OK, and this is similar to what I said, I had the 0.2 deg C per decade from IPCC, and CapelDodger (reasonably) added the 0.16 deg C per decade short term trend, so we're generally in agreement here too.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
natural variations can cause as much as 0.2C difference from one year to the next
OK, I haven't checked this, but it doesn't sound unreasonable

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
and the period over which some of the sources of those variations tend to cancel out is of the order of one or two decades.
Ah, right. This is where we disagree. Whether variations "cancel out" or not is entirely dependent on the shape of the autocorrelation function of natural variability, which we do not know.

Furthermore, even with no assessment of the autocorrelation function, the variance on 15 year trends is only slightly greater than those of 30 year trends, which I demonstrated; a factor of about root 2. As detection is about magnitude of forcing over variability (something we agree on), this means that to be detected by thirty year trends, but not 15 year trends, you are tacitly admitting that you are right on the margins of detectability, due to this small difference.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
You don't need to be a mathematician to understand why 15 year trends are not going to be very informative, especially if you cherry pick start and/or end points for the 15 year period at peaks or troughs.
A lot of assumptions here, many of which we agree on, but a couple of points we sharply disagree on. But progress of a sort...

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
It may be nearly 40 years since I obtained my degree in Mathematics but I retain enough to recognise "arrogant cluelessness" when I see it.
Well, I'm not the one dividing max and min of bipolar random variables. But then, maybe you missed that lecture, or have since forgotten it.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The amount in this thread has reduced since posters like mhaze, Poptech and r-j got themselves banned, but we still have Haig and a few other drivebys regularly depositing fresh samples. I do not see it in the posts of the majority of posters who take the time to read and understand what the IPCC, and the climatologists whose work it summarises, are actually saying.
Oh I don't disagree that many here parrot uncritically an activist-interpreted and filtered version of the IPCC output, which is always entertaining to see. I just doubt many understand what they are discussing (at either end of the debate spectrum), and when I see either a complete lack of analysis, or someone dividing the max and min of a bipolar RV, alarms go off.

Don't get me wrong - there are some great scientific minds on this forum. Notably I don't recall one of them venturing into this thread.
CoolSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 07:08 AM   #2151
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,147
Dunning-Kruger is strong right now.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 07:24 AM   #2152
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,674
Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
Yes, you did.
No I did not. I pointed out that the largest 15 year trend was greater than the smallest by a factor of three in order to emphasise how much wider the spread of values was compared to that for 30 year trends.

15 year trends: 0.04 to 0.12C per decade, a spread of 0.08C
30 year trends: 0.15 to 0.17C per decade, a spread of 0.02C

Quote:
Whether variations "cancel out" or not is entirely dependent on the shape of the autocorrelation function of natural variability, which we do not know.
Solar activity varies over an approximate 11 year cycle (or 22 years if you're pedantic). The ENSO cycle is less predictable but on average produces an El Nino (of varying severity) about once every five years. Volcanic activity is not predictable. These sources of noise are more likely to cancel themselves out over periods of 30 years than over periods of 15 years.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 08:14 AM   #2153
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,965
CS
Quote:
Don't get me wrong - there are some great scientific minds on this forum. Notably I don't recall one of them venturing into this thread.
Yourself excepted of course...

What a load of bollocks...hiding "we don't know enough" agenda behind word salad lice chasing. I dare say you might even get paid by the word. If not...then the price is appropriate to the intrinsic value of the content. At least there is chew toy value if naught else. Denier chew toys getting rare these days.

Last edited by macdoc; 8th February 2015 at 09:38 AM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 11:14 AM   #2154
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 12:14 PM   #2155
Mikemcc
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by logger View Post
That is written by Christopher Booker and published in the Torygraph should ring alarm bells for a start.

There is are plenty of sources that explain the need for homogenisation of temperature data. Recent good ones are:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/02/wh...data.html#more
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/02/ho...ifference.html
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...omogenisation/
Mikemcc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 02:32 PM   #2156
Elf Grinder 3000
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,608
It looks like the climate scientists altered the temperature readings by 35%

Global warming is a scam now?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...-we-can-trust/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html
Elf Grinder 3000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 03:44 PM   #2157
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
Originally Posted by researcherTony View Post
Question:

Point # 1 - With all this ice melting. 2015 Sept all Arctic ice may be all gone for the first time (summer time).

Point #2 - Most of the carbon goes into the ocean and the heat goes there too.

So why is the ocean rate of rise still growing so slowly, like in millimeters.

Because Arctic ice is almost entirely sea ice. When sea ice melts, it doesn't affect sea level (much, if at all), because it's already displacing an equivalent volume of water.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 8th February 2015 at 04:14 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 03:47 PM   #2158
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by Elf Grinder 3000 View Post
It looks like the climate scientists altered the temperature readings by 35%
Quote:
breitbart
Seems legit.

And then there's no linking to anything inside the articles. It's just empty claims.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 04:48 PM   #2159
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,775
Originally Posted by Elf Grinder 3000 View Post
It looks like the climate scientists altered the temperature readings by 35%

Global warming is a scam now?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...-we-can-trust/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html
Lavish funding, lol.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2015, 05:29 PM   #2160
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,965
Quote:
Global warming is a scam now?
are you really that gullible?? tsk tsk...in a science forum too.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.