|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 3, 2013 19:15:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 4, 2013 0:52:03 GMT
Steve: Please......you are TOO smart to post that escalator. From a statistical point of view it is worthless. Can you explain what you mean "from a statistical point of view"? What I take from the picture is that it is unwise to draw conclusions about trends from the past few years. Exactly the same should apply to short term rapid warming trends as well, I should add.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2013 1:36:25 GMT
Steve: Please......you are TOO smart to post that escalator. From a statistical point of view it is worthless. Can you explain what you mean "from a statistical point of view"? What I take from the picture is that it is unwise to draw conclusions about trends from the past few years. Exactly the same should apply to short term rapid warming trends as well, I should add. Steve: The escalator is trying to show step changes. However, being the length of each step is different, the error bars become so huge that it shows nothing........period. As far as a short term changes to a long term trend. Remember in stats when folks were talking about trend indicators? How it was difficult to detect changes in trends? And that a lot of the time by the time it became obvious on a long term trend it would be too late to sell grain etc? What we have observed since 1998 is no increase in dry bulb temperatures. And since 2003, ARGO, is showing a flat trend as well. This is a supporting factor in that the dry bulb temps have plateaued, and we are probably witnessing the epoch of the current warming period. The most recent period with temps similar to present was the MWP. Taking into account the increased CO2, (And I don't care about the source), orbital perturbations etc, one would expect temps not to increase by more than another 0.1 to 0.2C. That may not occur till after 2055 or so, if it occurs at all. I have read several papers concerning MIS-11 now. Most agree that the temps were approx 0.8 to 1.0C through approximately 10,000 years during its "mid term". Of course, the resolution of the proxies from that period does not allow short fluctuations to be observed with any degree of confidence. All in all, it looks like the current levels of CO2 have added approx 0.15C to the present warming. Rough guess of course.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 4, 2013 4:15:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2013 4:28:42 GMT
magellan: Notice how Mosher took him to the woodshed?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 4, 2013 7:51:32 GMT
sigurdur
I think you've misinterpreted the escalator.
The escalator is, I believe, demonstrating that sceptics will always be able to comfort themselves because a period of flattish temperatures, sea level rises, etc. comes along.
Remember, AGW (putting it simply) does not accept any causes for *regular* cycles in the climate (except for relatively regular solar cycle variations), so there is no expectations that the steps are regular. It's just that you can *find* relatively regular steps in the recent record.
But as I say, this is relevant to other data too. Remember Monckton's silly plot of a few years ago saying "ocean levels constant for 4 years" and an arrow aiming to imply the levels would stay constant.
So I would say stop trying to see cycles in the escalator. See it as evidence that if a big El Nino happens in the next few years (say 2016) some sceptics will start to say in 2020-onwards "temperatures stopped rising in 2016"
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 4, 2013 8:25:34 GMT
sigurdur I think you've misinterpreted the escalator. The escalator is, I believe, demonstrating that sceptics will always be able to comfort themselves because a period of flattish temperatures, sea level rises, etc. comes along. Remember, AGW (putting it simply) does not accept any causes for *regular* cycles in the climate (except for relatively regular solar cycle variations), so there is no expectations that the steps are regular. It's just that you can *find* relatively regular steps in the recent record. But as I say, this is relevant to other data too. Remember Monckton's silly plot of a few years ago saying "ocean levels constant for 4 years" and an arrow aiming to imply the levels would stay constant. So I would say stop trying to see cycles in the escalator. See it as evidence that if a big El Nino happens in the next few years (say 2016) some sceptics will start to say in 2020-onwards "temperatures stopped rising in 2016" sigurdur I think you've misinterpreted the escalator. The escalator is, I believe, demonstrating that sceptics will always be able to comfort themselves because a period of flattish temperatures, sea level rises, etc. comes along. Remember, AGW (putting it simply) does not accept any causes for *regular* cycles in the climate (except for relatively regular solar cycle variations), so there is no expectations that the steps are regular. It's just that you can *find* relatively regular steps in the recent record. But as I say, this is relevant to other data too. Remember Monckton's silly plot of a few years ago saying "ocean levels constant for 4 years" and an arrow aiming to imply the levels would stay constant. So I would say stop trying to see cycles in the escalator. See it as evidence that if a big El Nino happens in the next few years (say 2016) some sceptics will start to say in 2020-onwards "temperatures stopped rising in 2016" But you are cherry picking the data to show an escalator starting from only 1970. The whole point of 'it is not warming' claim is that it is the same temperature today as it was in the recent past. You know that is the viewpoint and yet you deliberately misrepresent it to further your cause And further back recent data has been proven to have been massaged to fit your bias where you are convinced it does not matter if the data is massaged because you are right anyway. And as i pointed out it has been proven that the impact of a warming planet has been exagerated because the liars admitted to it on the BBC, when it was pointed out there was no possibility of all the Arctic ice melting in the next few decades and yet Greenlandic icebergs are a metaphor for dangerous warming, rather than what happens on Earth. When are you going to show you disagree with people distorting reality? I dont see you ever have so far. Instead when i mentioned it, you cherry picked my text and answered the bit that fitted your answer. You know what you are doing and apparently you all do it because, the cause justifies it and you 'know you are right' or 'you might be right and it is better to do something just in case'.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 4, 2013 9:10:34 GMT
Radiant, You accused me of "cherry picking" my answer to this post. Here is a full answer to every sentence. Steve The day you acknowledge all the lying and cheating that has been going on to promote the idea humans are definately responsible for alarming climate change will be the day i take you seriously again This is a silly and insulting point. I argue for what I argue for. I don't argue for what I don't argue for. I don't have any responsibility to apologise for any "lying and cheating" done by unmentioned people. If you have a specific topic in mind, bring it up and we'll discuss it. That's one of many subjects. I don't ever recall arguing in any particular way. The Greenland glaciers are receding. It's probably due to warming. Noone really knows what will happen next. I don't have much to add, but you demanded a response. Saying nothing is not support. I say stuff about stuff I'm interested in. If I've not said anything it's because I'm not interested. If you're interested in my views then start a Radiant interviews Steve thread. I expect you to be disappointed. [/quote] Instead we know these people lied to further an environmental agenda because they told us on TV that they lied to promote an environmental agenda. [/quote] Which people? What lies? I don't know what you are referring to so I cannot respond. It feels weird to be the centre of your attention. I'm not the spokesperson for AGW. I'm "steve".
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 4, 2013 9:11:36 GMT
Radiant, you are overanalysing the Escalator.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 4, 2013 9:44:00 GMT
Radiant, you are overanalysing the Escalator. You were the one analysing it to create meaning where you know that none exists unless you can prove it is warmer today than in the recent past
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2013 13:16:47 GMT
Steve: My point is that Scientific Malfeasance from either Alarmists or Non Alarmists is not acceptable.
And if you are ok with how shoddy the stats are in the Escalator, then so be it I guess.
That shoddy is one of the reasons there is so much debate......ya know?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2013 13:58:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 4, 2013 18:15:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 4, 2013 18:17:54 GMT
sigurdur,
I am not ok with the "shoddy" stats in the Escalator. That's the point! With shoddy stats you can pretend that the globe has stopped warming again and again and again by down-playing the up-steps as "climate shifts", "strong el ninos" and up-playing the "pauses" that inevitably follow by saying "well it still isn't as warm as it was a few years ago".
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Mar 4, 2013 21:03:01 GMT
sigurdur, I am not ok with the "shoddy" stats in the Escalator. That's the point! With shoddy stats you can pretend that the globe has stopped warming again and again and again by down-playing the up-steps as "climate shifts", "strong el ninos" and up-playing the "pauses" that inevitably follow by saying "well it still isn't as warm as it was a few years ago". Does anyone think that Steve notices where he admits that he is bothered by the shoddy stats in the escalator, but misses the point that the shoddy stats in question were inserted into the escalator by alarmists, to allow them to make the very argument that Steve proceeds to make using the shoddy stats that he is bothered by? Steve also rails against using the "pauses" because they down play the up-steps. But seems to think that using the up-steps to downplay the pauses is OK. Steve, you are Cognitive Dissonance in action, with a side of projection.
|
|