|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 8, 2013 20:58:57 GMT
Camburnclimate is my twitter handle.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Mar 9, 2013 1:01:22 GMT
dontgetoutmuch You've repeated the claim three times without any attempt to back it up. magellan points out that I am right. Being magellan, rather than say I have correctly identified and rebutted your wrong information he says that I am playing semantic games. Let's be clear about what magellan's citation says: 1. Temperature trends were obtained from a 15 year old climate model which is known not to display anything like natural variability. 2. The proportion of periods of no warming in that model was counted and used to estimate the 15 year number. 3. The 15 year number applies to temperature data only after it has been adjusted/massaged/fudged to account for El Nino. Normally, an analysis like this would make magellan's blood boil. To make magellan's blood boil even more, let's cite Tamino's application of Step 3. (I should say that I would not have faith in Taminio's analysis either, and would only consider it once the planet has gone through a few more ENSO periods.) Analysing data in this way can be useful because it raises questions like "what is natural variability?", but I don't think you can claim that the climate science community has embraced this viewpoint. Steve, Just to clear things up, from your last post. Your position is: 1. You believe that Phil Jones is not on record with "Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried." 2. You believe that even if there has been no statistically significant warming at the 95% level, for over 15 years that if you can pick any two points and show warming that this invalidates that fact. 3. You believe that Magellan pointed out that you are correct in this belief. 4. You believe that Foster's (Tamino) graph shows something other then chartsmanship, and that it supports your position. Just checking.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 9, 2013 2:46:16 GMT
dontgetoutmuch You've repeated the claim three times without any attempt to back it up. magellan points out that I am right. Being magellan, rather than say I have correctly identified and rebutted your wrong information he says that I am playing semantic games. Let's be clear about what magellan's citation says: 1. Temperature trends were obtained from a 15 year old climate model which is known not to display anything like natural variability. 2. The proportion of periods of no warming in that model was counted and used to estimate the 15 year number. 3. The 15 year number applies to temperature data only after it has been adjusted/massaged/fudged to account for El Nino. Normally, an analysis like this would make magellan's blood boil. To make magellan's blood boil even more, let's cite Tamino's application of Step 3. (I should say that I would not have faith in Tamino's analysis either, and would only consider it once the planet has gone through a few more ENSO periods.) Analysing data in this way can be useful because it raises questions like "what is natural variability?", but I don't think you can claim that the climate science community has embraced this viewpoint. Well steve, my blood isn't boiling because anyone can look up the data that has already gone through "adjustments", and guess what, they don't look anything like Tamino's "adjustments". BTW, Tamino's facade has already been ripped to shreds, but you probably already know that.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 9, 2013 10:30:48 GMT
You don't have to be convinced of Tamino's point of view to be instructed by his regular demonstrations of how statistics are often misleading.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 9, 2013 12:00:32 GMT
You don't have to be convinced of Tamino's point of view to be instructed by his regular demonstrations of how statistics are often misleading. The whole premise of AGW alarmism is based on misuse of statistics Nobody knows if it is the same temperature as the recent past, but for sure there is no shortage of people willing to provide massive amounts of statistics to justify their employment.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Mar 9, 2013 17:53:01 GMT
You don't have to be convinced of Tamino's point of view to be instructed by his regular demonstrations of how statistics are often misleading. The whole premise of AGW alarmism is based on misuse of statistics Nobody knows if it is the same temperature as the recent past, but for sure there is no shortage of people willing to provide massive amounts of statistics to justify their employment. So Steve's position is: Alarmists have misused statistics, therefore everyone misuses statistics. His proof of this is when anyone uses Alarmists own statistics as proof of their malfeasance, they have engaged in fraud as well.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 9, 2013 18:26:48 GMT
So dontgetoutmuch's position is that you should misinterpret what people say to pretend you have an edge on the debate.
Tamino regularly demonstrates how *other people* misuse statistics.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 9, 2013 18:44:42 GMT
Grant Foster aka Tamino does lots of sleigh of hand via stats.
Most of the time he tries to argue a point from his view, which is a good thing.
A lot of the time his "point of view" is somewhat lacking in substance.
But the main thing is....it promotes thought.
And that is ALWAYS good.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 9, 2013 18:48:49 GMT
The bad thing is that Tamino uses a heavy hand in regards to posting on his site.
When someone can prove him wrong, the post never sees the light of day.
So, what in effect is just like Skeptical Science, continuous pats on the back from those who agree with you. But an actual productive discussion is never had.
This type of activity is Skeptical Science Syndrome at it's best.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 10, 2013 3:13:58 GMT
So dontgetoutmuch's position is that you should misinterpret what people say to pretend you have an edge on the debate. Tamino regularly demonstrates how *other people* misuse statistics. Steve You just came up with the escalator. The escalator is a tool to ridicule people who say it is no longer warming. The majority of the people who say it is no longer warming are not looking at data that begins in 1970.You know that. So why spend so much time justifying your use of the escalator? Why are you even bothering to get into all of this pointless he said you said baloney??? The data should be able to speak for itself. The data says that no unusual statistically significant warming has occured that is any different since the last warming period 1000 years ago, unless you can prove this warming has some other unusual qualities like for example the idea it is getting warmer quicker - which you are claiming. So on a number of levels if there is no recent warming you are on the back foot. It seems plain you are on the back foot the way you are behaving here. For days you have been demonstrating you have a need to score cheap points about a minority of people who might think that the last 30 years of data has some special importance when you know full well it has no special significance and is more or less noise. I was however somewhat impressed that you agreed the escalator was cherry picked data only being used for propaganda purposes.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 10, 2013 17:21:46 GMT
Radiant,
You are bringing up two things here, and I think you are also interested in a 3rd.
1. Is there warming happening now that can be related to changes in radiative forcings? 2. Is the warming unusual in its rate or the level of temperatures? 3. Does it tell us about the likely impacts of rapid or unusual warming? i.e. did it happen before without a big negative impact on humanity.
I think that most people aren't bothered about 2 and 3. They want to know whether recent warming is a harbinger of the future, and that is why "it's stopped warming" propaganda is regular on WUWT. The Escalator is a simple demonstration that such statements are unwise.
I think that 2 and 3 are interesting but not central since if there were previous warmer or quicker changing episodes they happened at a time when life was very different. Mass migrations were part and parcel of human existence a thousand or more years ago for many reasons including possibly climate change. Currently, society is not really set up in this way - most people have put down roots.
I'm going to disabuse you then. The graph is not propaganda because it uses cherry-picked data. The use of prior cherry-picked periods to show analogies between past and present is reasonable. The reason why I would agree that it is propaganda is because it is not truly making a scientific point and because it obviously implies that there will be a next step up. Not all propaganda is bad propaganda though.
I mentioned the Escalator in passing. I didn't think it would at all controversial. The reaction I got surprised me - until I realised it had been primed by a WUWT post. But you get to know people by discussion contentious issues - that's what forums like this is all about isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 10, 2013 18:21:35 GMT
Steve: I don't know about the WUWT post, I just know it is crappy stats.
Points to ponder in all of this:
1. To claim that our current warm period is "unprecedented" within the last 1,000 years is probably not correct. The reason I state this is that fine tuned measurements, from instruments is recent. 2. When you see papers like the one last week gaining attention with headlines to op-ed pieces proclaiming that the study shows this huge increase in warming, yet the resolution of the study is 400 years....it is going to be delegated to the trash bin of rubbish. 3. Folks pick up on this, and feel deceived.
Poor use of stats seems rife within the AGW community. This creates the idea of outright lying.
People are just not as dumb as some would have them think. This is the largest failure in the presentation of AGW.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 14, 2013 0:02:02 GMT
sigurdur, I'm not sure you can blame what is in op ed pieces, especially when the impression you have appears to derive from Mann's interpretation of the paper. If you watch the video here, the second author on the paper agrees that a warm blip followed by a cooling blip over a century may not show up: dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/He actually says [paraphrased] "we cannot exclude a rapid blip of 0.8C" if it lasted only a century or so. The point he emphasises is that as we know the cause of the current blip is mostly CO2 (because we know nothing much else is going on in the climate that could explain much of the warming), and as we know the CO2 is still rising quickly, we can reasonably conclude that the current blip will likely exceed anything that could possibly be hidden in the reconstruction by 2100 because of its height and time-extent.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 14, 2013 1:13:05 GMT
steve: I listened to Andy's video interview and thought it was excellent. As far as the cause of the rise from the LIA......I am sure co2 has helped. But I am also just as sure that the response has been potentially approx .17C of the total. ""Right now, estimation of the amount of energy entering the Earth's thermosphere is not very precise and can be underestimated by 100 percent. We know even less about how that energy is distributed," Deng said. "This information is critical because if you put the same amount of energy at 400 kilometers the impact can be 100 times larger than if you put it at 100 kilometers." Deng received a $408,000, three-year award from NASA's heliophysics division in January. She is co-developer of a new 3-D Global Ionosphere-Thermosphere Read more at: phys.org/news/2013-03-space-weather-energy.html#jCpI look forward to the results of this research and think it is money well spent.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 14, 2013 1:15:03 GMT
I think there is a lot more to climate than CO2 drivers.
There have been too many events that just happen.......such as DO....Bond.....that no one knows why.
And Bond events are now confirmed to be worldwide, as evidence of them shows up in the Antarctic Ice cores.
I could be wrong, but I could be correct too. One of those things that no one knows.
|
|