|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2013 21:58:24 GMT
Thank you Steve for recognizing another poor piece of work from SkS.
Too bad they can't emulate wattsupwiththat. While Anthony's site is not perfect and has some funny threads, at least there is both sides presented.
SkS, by banning posters, has become a site of very little credibility.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 5, 2013 18:52:14 GMT
I didn't see this post when I last posted, but I was surprised by the uniform but cryptic reaction to the escalator. I didn't realise that WUWT had provided an easily digestible meme for sceptics. The escalator is a nice illustration of why using a short term trend to pretend that global warming is stopped is an unwise thing to do. The fact that step 4 is slightly wonky is neither here nor there. I'm disappointed to see that people here have fallen for this bit of WUWT/Tisdale nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 5, 2013 18:58:35 GMT
Steve: Most people here have enough of an understanding of Stats to know that the SS escalator is junk.
The whole point is.....it is junk.
I don't like junk from anyone, and I don't think most folks do either.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 5, 2013 19:01:49 GMT
It is like trying to change the metrics of dry bulb warming.
We have NOT warmed for 16 years on dry bulb readings.
That is the statistical fact.
Then someone gets their pants in a bunch and says we have continued to warm....
Well, the parameter of dry bulb temps and time.....NO we have NOT warmed.
So, that statement that we have NOT warmed is 100% correct.
Change the time frame.....and the results will be different. But to argue that difference you are comparing potatoes to carrots. Both root veggies, but totally different parameters.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 5, 2013 21:19:19 GMT
sigurdur,
We are agreeing with each other on this:
That is the only message in the Escalator. Don't draw conclusions from short periods. As I have said, it's a message that can work both ways.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Mar 5, 2013 21:25:09 GMT
I didn't see this post when I last posted, but I was surprised by the uniform but cryptic reaction to the escalator. I didn't realise that WUWT had provided an easily digestible meme for sceptics. The escalator is a nice illustration of why using a short term trend to pretend that global warming is stopped is an unwise thing to do. The fact that step 4 is slightly wonky is neither here nor there. I'm disappointed to see that people here have fallen for this bit of WUWT/Tisdale nonsense. Steve, Could you be a little more specific about EXACTLY what the nonsense in Tisdale's article is? I mean besides the fact that it invalidates your religious viewpoint. In this case the alarmists have created an "Escalator" graph using cherry picked dates to scream foul that "Skeptics" (Their word not mine) are cherry picking dates. Tisdale also notes that the alarmists are forced to fudge their cherry picked graph to support their "Escalator" propaganda. I fail to see the nonsense, could you please point it out for me? You seem to be missing the point that the entire "Escalator" graph was created in a desperate attempt to show that short term pauses in warming don't mean that warming has significantly paused in the long term. The problem of course is that the alarmist camp is on record stating that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the warming to pause more then 15 years. Which it has. The graph attempts to show that the last two "steps" on the escalator are in fact two SEPARATE pauses in warming, but if you draw the steps correctly without resorting to chartsmanship, the two steps become one and it is 17 years long. This is for posterity, so please, be specific.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 6, 2013 20:08:21 GMT
dontgetoutmuch My viewpoint is that sceptics often present short term recent trends which seems to allow people to believe that they are the harbinger of a longer term trend. Eg. wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/08/global-ocean-heat-content-is-still-flat/www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.htmlThe Escalator is an illustration of why such implications are often misleading. Of course they are cherry-picked dates. They are picked to create an impact. The graph is propaganda to counter sceptic propaganda. If the "alarmist camp" is on record stating that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the warming to pause for more than 15 years you will be able to find many quotes from members of your defined "alarmist camp" stating that such a thing is impossible. I don't think you will be able to find such statements unless you are prepared to misinterpret people. Add this statement then: global warming has *not* paused for 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Mar 6, 2013 21:57:08 GMT
Steve: "My viewpoint is that sceptics often present short term recent trends which seems to allow people to believe that they are the harbinger of a longer term trend."
What is interesting here is that poor Steve is reduced to claiming that you can't use his own arguments against him because his arguments are nonsense. Which is my point exactly. Steve seems to think this is unfair.
Steve: "Global warming has *not* paused for 15 years."
Steve is sort of right here... lets check the numbers...
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years… For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years… For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years… For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years… For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years...
Steve, how's that denial working out for you?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 6, 2013 23:22:36 GMT
Assuming your figures are correct, what I suspect you really mean is that (e.g.) for HadCRUT4 the likelihood that temperatures over 18 years have risen is around 19 out of 20. And that the likelihood that temperatures have fallen is one out of 20. If you don't agree, please provide evidence for your statements. Alternatively: Do you agree that a where a probability of something happening is 19 out of 20 it probably means that it happened? Suppose you measured a trend of something over a period of 20 years. Then 15 years later you measure the trend over the full 35 years. If you got a higher answer over 35 years than for 20 years does it mean that what ever caused the trend over the first 20 years has stopped, or does it mean it has continued? www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1967/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1967/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1967/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1967/trend
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 7, 2013 0:38:33 GMT
The whole CAGW hypothesis lives on the continuous growth in CO2 as the driver thus you expect to see a temperature growth as continuous function. The camp where many on this board come from offers the possibility that climate is driven by multiple drivers some coming and going some reversing.
Your view is that it has grown over the full interval, most would agree, but the the discontinuity in the data around 1997 offers the possibility of a change to the temperature function.
If you are in denial of that then there is little to discuss, finished.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Mar 7, 2013 0:42:54 GMT
Assuming your figures are correct, what I suspect you really mean is that (e.g.) for HadCRUT4 the likelihood that temperatures over 18 years have risen is around 19 out of 20. And that the likelihood that temperatures have fallen is one out of 20. If you don't agree, please provide evidence for your statements. Alternatively: Do you agree that a where a probability of something happening is 19 out of 20 it probably means that it happened? Suppose you measured a trend of something over a period of 20 years. Then 15 years later you measure the trend over the full 35 years. If you got a higher answer over 35 years than for 20 years does it mean that what ever caused the trend over the first 20 years has stopped, or does it mean it has continued? www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1967/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1967/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1967/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1967/trendSteve: Suppose you measured a trend of something over a period of 20 years. Then 15 years later you measure the trend over the full 35 years. If you got a higher answer over 35 years than for 20 years does it mean that what ever caused the trend over the first 20 years has stopped, or does it mean it has continued? Wow! That is a nice bunch of cherries you got yourself there Steve. Ummm weren't you against cherry picking a minute ago? Anyway. You are doing what you always do when you lose an argument. You are trying to change the goal posts. Let's review. 1. Alarmists claim that CO2 is causing catastrophic warming and we are all going to die. 2. Billions of dollars find their way into grants funding the alarmists ravings. 3. The warming halts, possibly temporarily. Alarmists are alarmed. They look stupid, worse, the gravy train might dry up. 4. Alarmists admit warming has temporarily halted, but promise it will get warmer very soon. 5. Halt in warming goes on for years. Alarmists do look stupid, especially the true believer hacks that cannot accept that we might not all die. 6. To keep the money rolling in, and their useful idiots happy, alarmists promise that the temporary halt in warming cannot possibly go on for more then some number of years that is comfortably in the future, in this case 15 years, assuming that at least some warming will happen, or they can cool the past some more, when no one is looking, like they have done in the past. 7. Fifteen years comes and goes. No warming. 8. Alarmists and their minions (This is where you come in, Steve) are panicking, warming has stopped, they look guilty has hell. All sorts of dodgy stuff goes on which leads us to "Escalator" cherry picking... Ok Steve, now that we are caught up, we are not talking about how much it has warmed since the last ice age. We are talking about AGW. AGW supporters are on the record stating that if the warming trend were to halt for 15 years, their theory would be absolutely debunked. It has been 18 years since there has been any statistical warming on the data that YOU selected. The fact that temps warmed from 1967 to 1998 is not the argument here. Quit moving the pea. Your position is indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 7, 2013 12:57:15 GMT
I'm using the same dates cherry-picked by sceptics to demonstrate why their analysis is flawed.
You can repeat the analysis with many other choices of dates and you will get the same result - that's when you will find that my analysis is *not* based on cherry-picking.
Ignoring your opinions about climate scientists, here are some answers to your points:
3. Scientists always ask questions about the data. Some think the "hiatus" is evidence for less warming, some think it is due to a combination of "natural variation" which says nothing about the long term trend, some think it is mostly a figment of imagination. Evidence that the long term trend has increased since the late 1990s is evidence for the last point. Evidence that the temperatures are trending a little below the central projections of the models is evidence for the first two points. None of the points of view have strong scientific evidence backing them.
7. The plot shows that warming has continued. The fact that some statistical analysis can show you that in isolation the trend is 95% chance of being positive and 5% chance of being negative is not evidence of no warming.
AGW are "not on the record" for saying that "if the warming trend were to halt for 15 years, their theory would be absolutely debunked", or anything that could be paraphrased as such. I've already asked you to prove that, and you ignored the question and repeated the claim - because you know it's made up.
So answer the questions related to the original discussion that you initiated, and stop the waffle about alarmists.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 7, 2013 15:09:37 GMT
Steve are you still analysing that escalator?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 7, 2013 16:40:29 GMT
Steve admits the escalator is junk stats.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 7, 2013 18:28:10 GMT
|
|