waldo Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 If I want a second opinion on the statistics used by climatogists then I will ask as a statistician - not a climatogist. If I want a second opinion on the the value of the climate models used by climatologists then I will find the opinion of a physicist who specializes in modelling chaotic systems of fluids. If I want a second opinion on how the climatogists analyze the paleogeologic data I will ask a geologist. And all of these second opinions are telling me that the climatogists don't necessarily know what they are talking about. ah yes... your vaunted statisticians! wait, what's this - oh my... what's wrong with these prominent independently selected statisticians Statisticians reject global cooling An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming.The analysis was conducted at the request of The Associated Press to investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years. In short, it is not true, according to the statisticians who contributed to the AP analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) ah yes... your vaunted statisticians! wait, what's this - oh my... what's wrong with these prominent independently selected statisticians Statisticians reject global cooling The majority of people who you call sceptics have never said that there was a big drop in temperature. They have said that Global Warming has stopped over the past 9 or 10 years and in fact, there seems to be a small decrease in temperature. Many "sceptics" tie Climate Change to 30 year cycles that ended around the end of the last decade. And what does your article say: Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880. That to me says that they DID find a drop, but it wasn't significant - and that's all the "sceptics" ever claimed. Edited November 4, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Weather is what we are really talking about here folks. There have been numerous cycles of ice ages and warming periods in the history of this planet. You can all it climate or just weather, but you need to keep in mind that it changes from day to day and season to season. All of this talk of global warming or climate change is rather fancy talk for weather, nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't have to be anyones fault unless you are talking about money. I will suggest that folks consider that, because from what I understand there is a lot of money at stake here and loads of tax dollars to be extracted from citizens as a wealth transfer from public to private interests. I live in norther Alberta and the mere thought of never seeing minus forty degree winter temperatures has me hoping its true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 wait, what's this - oh my... what's wrong with these prominent independently selected statisticians Statisticians reject global cooling Independently selected? You got to be kidding.http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/26/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-global-cooling/ Hmm. Why go to all the bother? This analysis has already been done numerous times. A recent example that clearly lays out the ups and downs of current temperature trends was posted about two weeks ago at the blog MasterResources.org. The figure below is taken from that post. It shows the current temperature trends from 5 to 15 years in length from all available global temperature datasets. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/cherry-pick_fig2.JPGBorenstein quoted John Christy who pretty well summed up the situation:“It pretty much depends on when you start,” wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote While you would think this would be headline news—”Global Warming Is Not Proceeding According To Plan”—instead, Borenstein opts to run a story primarily focused on various people struggling to explain why the decline in the earth’s temperature over the past 8 years really isn’t global cooling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Weather is what we are really talking about here folks. There have been numerous cycles of ice ages and warming periods in the history of this planet. You can all it climate or just weather, but you need to keep in mind that it changes from day to day and season to season. All of this talk of global warming or climate change is rather fancy talk for weather, nothing more and nothing less. that you don't know the difference between climate and weather negates any opinion you may have on the matter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 that you don't know the difference between climate and weather negates any opinion you may have on the matter... I make no claim to being an expert; You can call it what you want. The weather changes, always has and always will. The term climate is indeed a little more specific and complicated, but when you get to the number crunching the all the science in the world still can't make an accurate projection of weather more than a few days in advance, let alone what will happen in the decades to come. By the way, since you are such an expert yourself, please provide us with the details to your professional experience and while you are at it let us know what degrees you have attained from which university relevant to the subject of climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) that you don't know the difference between climate and weather negates any opinion you may have on the matter...I would be very interested in any evidence for the claim that weather is not predictable but climate is. So far all I have seen is assumptions that would only be valid if the earth system eventually reached an equilibrium state. The trouble is the earth never reaches an equilibrium state because something is always changing. That is why some climate scientists argue that climate is the sum of weather and if weather is unpredicatable then so is climate. Edited November 4, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 I would be very interested in any evidence for the claim that weather is not predictable but climate is. So far all I have seen is assumptions that would only be valid if the earth system eventually reached an equilibrium state. The trouble is the earth never reaches an equilibrium state because something is always changing. It seems to me that climate is the sum of weather and if weather is unpredicatable then so is climate. I better put a mark on the wall because you and I so seldom agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 ah yes... your vaunted statisticians! wait, what's this - oh my... what's wrong with these prominent independently selected statisticians Statisticians reject global cooling Independently selected? You got to be kidding. if you're going to emphasize a doubt towards the independence of the selection of those statisticians... you had best show where the selection... was not. Yes - those were independently selected statisticians. You purposely negate the thrust of what's been front and center across a big part of the denialsphere in recent months/weeks... claims that global warming has been "debunked" because of, apparently, skeptic statistician's claims that temperature cooling trends have been observed in satellite temperature data. Of course you won't listen to NASA or NOAA representatives who recently reworked all their data in response to this latest denialsphere cooling trend BS... finding that no such cooling trend can be found/exists... so... fresh off another of your continuing hyped references to skeptic statisticians I thought it considerate of me to allow you to digest the review of a group of independently selected statisticians... a refreshing change for you... wouldn't you think? The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880. Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers. by the by: I note you didn't answer my citation request for your declared, "proper statistical analysis"... waiting. I note you didn't provide any of your own example(s) of models that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without factoring CO2... waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) if you're going to emphasize a doubt towards the independence of the selection of those statisticians... you had best show where the selection... was not. Yes - those were independently selected statisticians.The author is a well known AGW propoganda generator. He would have shopped around until he found somebody to support his predetermined position. I provided a link to a source that illustrates how sensitive such claims are to the choice of start date and why picking 1990 as a start date is just as much a cherry pick as picking 1998. The analyses I look at start in 2001 because that is when the climate model runs used in the IPCC report start predicting the future. That makes it the only appropriate date to use when comparing model predictions to reality.finding that no such cooling trend can be found/exists.The cooling trend exists depending on where you start. Anyone who says that it has not been cooling over the last 10 years is lying or incompetent.I note you didn't answer my citation request for your declared, "proper statistical analysis"... waiting.It is in a paper currently going through peer review, however, the techniques used are identical to the techniques used in a recent Santer et al. paper that tried to claim that the data was consistent with the models but they choose to omit data after 1998. When these same techniques are applied to data up to the present the data is not consistent with the models. If you disagree with the techniques then you are disagreeing with the Santer et al paper that used them to support the alarmists position. The analysis that is used in this submitted paper can be found here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/hadcrut-ncdc-and-giss-trends-through-august/ 1.Since 2001 the least squares trends are -0.10 C/century, -0.90 C/century and -0.37 C/century for GISS, Hadley and NOAA respectively. The multimodel mean trends for AR4 runs forced with the A1B scenarios were +2.7 C/century and 2.4 C/century for models forced with and without volcanic aerosols respectively. These fall well outside the redcorrected ±95% confidence interval for the mean trend associated with the earths weather noise. I note you didn't provide any of your own example(s) of models that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without factoring CO2... waiting.The planet warmed from 1910 to 1940. This warming was natural. The rate and magnitude of warming is identical to the warming from 1978 to 1998. This means there is no need for anyone to show that the warming from 1978 to 1998 was natural - that is the default assumption. The onus is on the AGW types to demonstrate that it was not natural and they cannot do that with climate models that have been tuned to match the historical record. Edited November 4, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 because those models have been run backwards and forwards, they confirm past climate and have confirmed projected climate changes, if anything the model projections have proven to be too conservative...you simple don't believe them to be true because you can't comprehend the science.... I don't think you're grasping my problem with the models. It doesn't matter if you run them a hundred thousand times backwards and forwards. We barely understand the data we're putting in to them and the assumptions that are being made and thus the predictions they provide are little more than giant guesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) Independently selected? You got to be kidding. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/26/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-global-cooling/ http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/cherry-pick_fig2.JPG lol nice worldclimate report funded by....Western Fuels Association,COAL!!!lol...ya and I'm sure Patrick Michaels the blogger is going to write anything that will please the people who fund him...and on Michaels himself-"Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science".-Dr John Holden OSTP (Presidential Science advisor)...Micheals is a professional Agnotologist... Edited November 4, 2009 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 I don't think you're grasping my problem with the models. It doesn't matter if you run them a hundred thousand times backwards and forwards. We barely understand the data we're putting in to them and the assumptions that are being made and thus the predictions they provide are little more than giant guesses. as a control the data is put in for past climates and they come out correct...put in the same data for future climate and the projections have come out on the conservative side... temps have risen more than projected, sea levels higher than projected, arctic sea ice dissappearing faster than projected ...critisizing models as inaccurate when the projections made by those models are on the low side of observed data is not supporting your argument... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 I would be very interested in any evidence for the claim that weather is not predictable but climate is. So far all I have seen is assumptions that would only be valid if the earth system eventually reached an equilibrium state. The trouble is the earth never reaches an equilibrium state because something is always changing. That is why some climate scientists argue that climate is the sum of weather and if weather is unpredicatable then so is climate. the Sahara was desert a thousand years ago and will be a desert a thousand years from now, that's climate...it may rain in BC tomorrow or it may not, that's weather...climate is very stable and long term, weather is unstable and short term... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 lol nice worldclimate report funded by..So did you actually read the article first or did you immediately do a google search to see whether the priests of global warming have given you permission to ignore it? Posts like yours simply demonstrate that AGW is nothing but a religion to you and science is quite irrelevant. I think it is time that you stop trying to force your religion down other people's throats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 (edited) the Sahara was desert a thousand years ago and will be a desert a thousand years from now, that's climate...it may rain in BC tomorrow or it may not, that's weather...climate is very stable and long term, weather is unstable and short term...And 1000 years ago Greenland was warm enough to support Viking settlements. 10000 years ago the Sahara was green and fertile. Climate is not a constant. And the change we have observed to date is well within the normal range of variability for the last 10000 years. The ice core records should many other periods when the temperatures jumped for no particular reason. Here is a graph that illustrates the point: http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htmOf course you will probably ignore the data by claiming that the people who collected the ice cores were funded by the evil oil companies. Edited November 5, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 And 1000 years ago Greenland was warm enough to support Viking settlements. 10000 years ago the Sahara was green and fertile. Climate is not a constant. And the change we have observed to date is well within the normal range of variability for the last 10000 years. The ice core records should many other periods when the temperatures jumped for no particular reason. Here is a graph that illustrates the point: http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm Of course you will probably ignore the data by claiming that the people who collected the ice cores were funded by the evil oil companies. Which is why I refer to it as weather. Given that I live in northern Alberta and the climate change/global warming folks predict a much warmer climate for me I have begun to like the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 the Sahara was desert a thousand years ago and will be a desert a thousand years from now, that's climate...it may rain in BC tomorrow or it may not, that's weather...climate is very stable and long term, weather is unstable and short term... So was Ice Age glaciation in the New York City area climate or weather? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 So was Ice Age glaciation in the New York City area climate or weather? long term, climate...if it snowed or had sunny skies on any particular day that would be weather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 And 1000 years ago Greenland was warm enough to support Viking settlements. 10000 years ago the Sahara was green and fertile. Climate is not a constant. And the change we have observed to date is well within the normal range of variability for the last 10000 years. http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm Of course you will probably ignore the data by claiming that the people who collected the ice cores were funded by the evil oil companies. wow now you're using the personal blog of a computer consultant as an authority on CC...any temp increase in Greenland was regional it wasn't global... Greenland is warm enough today to support 57,000 people probably 56,000+ more than in the day of the vikings and guess what? while it's so much colder today than 1000yrs ago they still grow CROPS IN GREENLAND!! say it ain't so!! ...farming in Greenlandhow can this be The ice core records should many other periods when the temperatures jumped for no particular reason. Here is a graph that illustrates the point:only in the minds of a deniers do temperatures go up and down for no particular reason...and I read the rest of your computer consultants blog he's without a clue... he has no idea that CO2 even is a GHG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 wow now you're using the personal blog of a computer consultant as an authority on CC...any temp increase in Greenland was regional it wasn't global...The data is the data. It does not make a difference what you think of the guy who downloaded the data and put it into graph form. But keep up with the brain dead ad homs. All they do is prove you are clueless and unable to discuss the facts.As for temperatures in Greenland not being global - well I have bad news for you: the current warming period is NOT global either. The southern hemisphere has not warmed at all in the last 40 years: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=831 Then you also have the awkward problem of all of the CO2 sensitivity calcualtions from the paleo records are based entirely on the assumption that ice cores represent global temperature changes. only in the minds of a deniers do temperatures go up and down for no particular reasonWhy don't you learn about LTP before you embarrass yourself further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 As for temperatures in Greenland not being global - well I have bad news for you: the current warming period is NOT global either. The southern hemisphere has not warmed at all in the last 40 years: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=831 Then you also have the awkward problem of all of the CO2 sensitivity calcualtions from the paleo records are based entirely on the assumption that ice cores represent global temperature changes. Why don't you learn about LTP before you embarrass yourself further. Haha burned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 as a control the data is put in for past climates and they come out correct...put in the same data for future climate and the projections have come out on the conservative side... temps have risen more than projected, sea levels higher than projected, arctic sea ice dissappearing faster than projected ...critisizing models as inaccurate when the projections made by those models are on the low side of observed data is not supporting your argument... Wyly think about what you're saying. The models were obviously wrong. They were unable to project how much temperatures have risen. They therefore clearly weren't a reliable measure. Any bad climate model is going to either guess low or guess high. The fact that a bad model guessed high (it had a 50% chance of doing so) is hardly proof for global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 The data is the data. It does not make a difference what you think of the guy who downloaded the data and put it into graph form. But keep up with the brain dead ad homs. All they do is prove you are clueless and unable to discuss the facts. As for temperatures in Greenland not being global - well I have bad news for you: the current warming period is NOT global either. The southern hemisphere has not warmed at all in the last 40 years: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=831 Then you also have the awkward problem of all of the CO2 sensitivity calcualtions from the paleo records are based entirely on the assumption that ice cores represent global temperature changes. Why don't you learn about LTP before you embarrass yourself further. why are you abandoning you greenland claims??? lol why is it there is farming right now when it is so much colder than when the Vikings were there? how can that be??? your 40 yr graph? lets see the graph is dated 2006 and it started 1979 that would be 27yrs? huh got a graph that actually goes back 40yrs nice lie on your part, try again... let's look at a long term graph starting in 1850, notice the the warming trend starting in 1950 for the Southern Hemisphere southern hemispher typical of deniers cherry picking start dates... basic rule of science, nothing happens for no reason...action and reaction...cause and effect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Wyly think about what you're saying. The models were obviously wrong. They were unable to project how much temperatures have risen. They therefore clearly weren't a reliable measure. Any bad climate model is going to either guess low or guess high. The fact that a bad model guessed high (it had a 50% chance of doing so) is hardly proof for global warming. think about what you're saying ...the models projected lower increases than observed data...the models were too conservative!...do you undertsand now?...as well as models with only natural forcings did not match observed data, not until anthropogenic forcings were added did observed data and models match... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.