Nations walk out on Canada

[wyly]

The chance of a 10 degC rise by 2200 is basically zero since this would mean the earth's temperature would reach levels that have never been seen in 4 billion years.

which is the greatest fear, and you know the chances of that zero how? because you're denier sites tell you so?

[wyly]

I gave you the contents of the paper. If you really believe that the blog misrepresented the contents of the paper then why don't you go find the original paper and make the case. Until then you have nothing. In any case the ocean driven model of climate is well established and others successfully predicted the recent cooling as well.

there large numbers of peer reviewed papas on AGW you have nothing but denier blogs, the onus is on you to defend your claims not me...you using a deniers blog and his/her limited understanding and spin as evidence is not of any value...

[Moonbox]

which is the greatest fear, and you know the chances of that zero how? because you're denier sites tell you so?

Haha 10 degree rise in world temperature? Let's see someone make that case wyly. LOL. 200 year forward projections from computer models can do it right?????

[Riverwind]

Haha 10 degree rise in world temperature? Let's see someone make that case wyly.

The discussion about CO2 and what to do about it has been poisoned by people like wyly who cannot distinguish between likely, plausible and highly implausible outcomes.

Here is an estimate of global temperatures over the last 4 billion years: http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/Geological_Timescale_op_927x695.jpg

Even if we burned all of the fossil fuel available to us it would not be enough to increase CO2 concentrations over 1000pm.

Based on the geological history a 10degC temperature rise is so implausible it would rank well below "alien invasion" as a risk to worry about.

Yet that does not stop people like wyly from demanding that others pay trillions prevent the impossible from happening.

[wyly]

Haha 10 degree rise in world temperature? Let's see someone make that case wyly. LOL. 200 year forward projections from computer models can do it right?????

I like LOLing....previous CO2 limits equaled todaysand temps were considerably higher....and the rise in CO2 levels are for from complete...leading one climatologist to claim it's too late we've passed the tipping point...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I like LOLing....previous CO2 limits equaled todaysand temps were considerably higher....and the rise in CO2 levels are for from complete...leading one climatologist to claim it's too late we've passed the tipping point...

Good! Then we can quite whining about it and I can hope for no more 40 below winters.

[Riverwind]

previous CO2 limits equaled todays and temps were considerably higher....and the rise in CO2 levels are for from complete

Of course that assumes that CO2 was the reason for the high temperatures in the past - an assumption that is quite implausible given the number of things that can affect climate.

leading one climatologist to claim it's too late we've passed the tipping point.

Great. That means we can forget about energy rationing and carbon control and focus all of efforts on adapting to whatever change comes. Change that will likely be a net benefit for Canada.

[Riverwind]

The fact is these were independently selected statisticians.

Sure. "independently" selected by a journalist with a bias towards promoting alarmism. If you believe he did not search for someone who would confirm his view then I have a bridge to sell you....

Here is a excellent resource for people trying to decipher the competing claims:

http://www.masterresource.org/2009/10/a-cherry-pickers-guide-to-temperature-trends/

A Cherry-Picker's Guide to Temperature Trends (down, flat–even up)

Accusations of cherry-picking—that is, carefully choosing data to support a particular point—are constantly being hurled around by all sides of the climate change debate. Most recently, accusations of cherry-picking have been levied at analyses describing the recent behavior of global average temperature. Primarily, because claims about what the temperature record says run the gamut from accelerating warming to rapid cooling and everything in between—depending on who you ask and what point they are trying to make.

I am often asked as to what is the “right” answer is. What I can say for certain, is that the recent behavior of global temperatures demonstrates that global warming is occurring at a much slower rate than that projected by the ensemble of climate models, and that global warming is most definitely not accelerating.

But that’s it? You’re offering a refute to the veracity of the AR4 model projections… by providing a skeptic bloggers link (that includes literally a short few paragraphs offering) and suggesting peer review submission is ongoing. That’s it… that’s what you’re going with… to refute the AR4 model projections?

Obviously you will have to go back to the previous postings on the topic to fully understand the methods and assumptions used - it is a blog after all.

The fact that the paper has been submitted for peer reveiw means nothing to you because you will ignore any analysis that does not confirm your pre-determined opinions even when it appears in a journal. Find the Santer et. al. 2008 if you want to understand the methods being used by the blogger. The only difference is the blogger is using the surface data up to the present instead using the tropopheric data until 1998 like Santer et. al. did.

In any case, many alarmist scientists are starting to accept the reality of the recent cooling and are looking for explanations. People insisting that the "cooling is a myth" or that "warming is accelerating" are a shrill and shrinking minority.

[waldo]

Nonsense – you would think the denialsphere would have flushed out real proof of any as you say, “shopping around”, for predetermined statisticians. The fact is these were independently selected statisticians… you just don’t like the results of their analysis. Feel free to show proof that the statisticians selected were, as you say, “shopped”.

Those independently selected statisticians looked for trends… across 2 sets of data provided to them: data from, “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.” The independently selected statisticians observed the presence of a, “distinct decades-long upward numbers trend”… while at the same time advising they, “could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set.”

Sure. "independently" selected by a journalist with a bias towards promoting alarmism. If you believe he did not search for someone who would confirm his view then I have a bridge to sell you....

You're casting doubt/suspicion on more than the journalist... you're extending it to the Associated Press itself. Face it... it's described as a "blind test" - you do know what that means in testing terminology, right? The independently selected statisticians weren't told anything about the test/process and were simply given data... numbers... without providing any understanding that the data was related to temperature. Again, you simply don't care for the findings and would rather deflect doubt back to the journalist and the testing process/statisticians.

But that’s it? You’re offering a refute to the veracity of the AR4 model projections… by providing a skeptic bloggers link (that includes literally a short few paragraphs offering) and suggesting peer review submission is ongoing. That’s it… that’s what you’re going with… to refute the AR4 model projections? That’s the “proper statistical analysis” you referred to… that I asked your citation for (twice). That’s it? By the way… when does “proper statistical analysis” meet “climate science” in your skeptics world... or does it?

Obviously you will have to go back to the previous postings on the topic to fully understand the methods and assumptions used - it is a blog after all.

The fact that the paper has been submitted for peer reveiw means nothing to you because you will ignore any analysis that does not confirm your pre-determined opinions even when it appears in a journal. Find the Santer et. al. 2008 if you want to understand the methods being used by the blogger. The only difference is the blogger is using the surface data up to the present instead using the tropopheric data until 1998 like Santer et. al. did.

If it's important to you... in making a point... you should have linked to the specifics of the so-called "submitted" paper. I'm not inclined to do your monkey work for you. As it stands, you've provided a link reference to a denier's blog where a few short paragraphs are included. Until actually accepted, said paper is simply going through review - it may not be accepted. So, again... your much trumpeted "proper statistical analysis"... in presuming to refute the veracity of IPCC AR4 model comparisons... is to link to a "suggestion" of possible peer review acceptance. That's it.

[Riverwind]

The independently selected statisticians weren't told anything about the test/process and were simply given data... numbers... without providing any understanding that the data was related to temperature.

Statistics applied without any understanding of the underlying processes is meaningless. For example, temperature data is highly autocorrelated and that has to be taken into account when calculating trends and confidence intervals. You cannot take into account autocorrelation without knowing what the data is.

Again, you simply don't care for the findings and would rather deflect doubt back to the journalist and the testing process/statisticians.

I have looked at this issue. I have gone through the math and know the caveats/assumptions that go with such claims. I know enough to know that this journalist's claims are bogus. The only question is the exact method the journalist use to come up with the bogus claims.

Now I gave you a link to a source that took a neutral stance on the issue. I take it you are unable to address any of the points made there.

If it's important to you... in making a point... you should have linked to the specifics of the so-called "submitted" paper.

The information is available. People with minds that are actually open to new information can look at the blog and see the arguments. If they understand statistics they will realize they have considerable merit and whether they get published or not does not change the merit of the argument.

[wyly]

Of course that assumes that CO2 was the reason for the high temperatures in the past - an assumption that is quite implausible given the number of things that can affect climate.

no less plausible than any other cause...PT extinction the largest of all extinctions may have killed 90-95% of all life is associated with high levels of CO2 and Methane...mass extinctions

Edited November 7, 2009 by wyly

[Riverwind]

no less plausible than any other cause...PT extinction the largest of all extinctions may have killed 90-95% of all life is associated with high levels of CO2 and Methane

The most likely explanation for the extinction is a giant meteor.

[Moonbox]

The most likely explanation for the extinction is a giant meteor.

Not alien invasion? :angry:

[Riverwind]

Not alien invasion?

I suppose aliens can't be ruled out given the lack of data from the period.

[waldo]

Statistics applied without any understanding of the underlying processes is meaningless. For example, temperature data is highly autocorrelated and that has to be taken into account when calculating trends and confidence intervals. You cannot take into account autocorrelation without knowing what the data is.

I have looked at this issue. I have gone through the math and know the caveats/assumptions that go with such claims. I know enough to know that this journalist's claims are bogus. The only question is the exact method the journalist use to come up with the bogus claims.

Now I gave you a link to a source that took a neutral stance on the issue. I take it you are unable to address any of the points made there.

I've not offered the AP article as any authority on temperature trending... nor would I. If you recall, I purposely attached a context caveat to it... simply a pointed rub to your continued reference to the "statistical prowess" of your go-to bag of skeptic bloggers - in your blind arrogance, you infer climate scientists are rubes that don't know anything about statistics. By the by... I read a recent blog exchange where your vaunted skeptic blogger "Lucia" was soundly schooled by a most knowledgeable proponent of AGW - so much for one of your go-to skeptic statisticians. Frankly, given the mainstream hype that AP article got... warranted, or not, it was refreshing to see its effect if only to counter the purposeful skeptics intent to push "the cooling trend" in the recent months run-up to the Copenhagen meetings.

You play a lot of buzzword bingo... dropping LTP here, autocorrelation there... along with blindly dropping links. In this specific example (re. cooling trend), put forward a (legitimate) basis to support your interpretations that a cooling trend can be shown. You should not interpret a proponents position as being "closed minded"... I've not made any such claim toward skeptics. Show the supporting material/studies to support your interpretations - and expect to be challenged by others with countering supporting material/studies. If no challenges come forward you've likely made a point... if challenges come forward and you can't/won't accept them (for whatever reasons), it results in nothing more than an 'agree to disagree' exchange - whatever.

As an aside, in regards the most recent link you've dropped and your statement, "I take it you are unable to address any of the points made there"... your continued habit is to blindly drop a link and expect others to weed on through looking for "something". If you really want/expect a follow-up, clearly quote what you're referring to within your dropped link... the likelihood of a reply just might increase if it can be understood what you're actually referencing.

If it's important to you... in making a point... you should have linked to the specifics of the so-called "submitted" paper. I'm not inclined to do your monkey work for you. As it stands, you've provided a link reference to a denier's blog where a few short paragraphs are included. Until actually accepted, said paper is simply going through review - it may not be accepted. So, again... your much trumpeted "proper statistical analysis"... in presuming to refute the veracity of IPCC AR4 model comparisons... is to link to a "suggestion" of possible peer review acceptance. That's it.

The information is available. People with minds that are actually open to new information can look at the blog and see the arguments. If they understand statistics they will realize they have considerable merit and whether they get published or not does not change the merit of the argument.

People with minds that are actually open to possible criticism... or challenge... aren't afraid to be explicit. Again, you can't expect to be taken seriously with your continued tendency to blindly drop links without any supporting detail... what inferences you're making, what interpretations you're offering. In this specific example you dropped a link and offered suggestion it was related to an ongoing peer review submission... you further offered challenge by simply stating "techniques used" were "the same techniques" as used within a proponents "Santer et al" paper... that if you "disagree with the techniques", by inference, you're disagreeing with the proponent position paper. How explicit of you! On a personal note, I have limited time to throw at any discussion board and certainly won't be going on a hunt and peck search attempting to decipher your intent and look for related support references you fail to provide. You can label that how ever you'd like.

If "something" submitted for peer review doesn't gain acceptance... typically, either the "something" lacked merit or it may not have added anything of substance (anything new). In the case of an offering coming from an unpublished skeptic blogger, one who does no actual science, I'm inclined to suggest a lack of merit likelihood. Go figure.

[Riverwind]

You play a lot of buzzword bingo... dropping LTP here, autocorrelation there... along with blindly dropping links.

I have taken the time in the past to explain in my own words what the significance of the references I provide, however, it is pretty clear at this point that you are unwilling or unable to understand the arguments presented and invariably resort to ad hom attacks on the sources so I no longer bother.

In this specific example (re. cooling trend), put forward a (legitimate) basis to support your interpretations that a cooling trend can be shown.

The cooling trend exists. I have provided links that provide more than enough information to support it. The only problem is your rediculous position that only official "climate scientists" are capable of having an informed opinion. It is a position that only ensures that you will remain ignorant long after the rest of the world has moved on.

"I take it you are unable to address any of the points made there"

I pasted the introductory text that provided the context. You ignored it and most likely did not even look at it because you have made up your mind and the facts are not that important to you.

People with minds that are actually open to possible criticism.

So read the link the cherry pickers guide to temperature records and demonstrate that you are able to understand the arguments presented and that you have a mind open enough to accept facts that do not conform you want you desperately what to believe. BTW, the cooling trend does not mean that the IPCC is necessarily wrong and there are people who accept the cooling fact and then try to make counter arguments based on that fact. The people who refuse to even accept the cooling fact are the real "deniers".

Note that RC complained about the statistical methodology used in the cherry pickers guide. Here is a follow up that shows that RC's minor nitpick is wrong:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/adding-apples-and-oranges-to-cherry-picking/

For those who lost track, the summary is:

1.It looks like Chip’s article did models big favor by suggesting a cherry pickier could compare trend starting near the eruption of Pinatubo to “about 0.2 C/decade” and then decides models might underpredict warming. In fact, models predict more than “about 2 C/decade” warming from those start times. The observed warming from those start dates is less than indicated by the multi-model mean from models driven by the SRES A1B.

2.It appears that Chip did account for lag-1 autocorrelation when estimating his uncertainty intervals. So, his uncertainty intervals don’t suffer from that particular flaw. (Whether the simple method in Santer 2008 is adequate could be debated, but it does appear to have been applied.)

3.It does look like both RC and Lindzen are doing some cherry picking of different sorts as suggested by Chip in his article.

4.Trends computed based on observations are lower than the multi-model mean trend based on the A1B scenarios for all start years as far back as 1960. So, if we compare observations to the multi-model mean trend warming is “slower than expected”. No amount of cherry picking can make it “faster than expected.”

Edited November 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Here is an excellent post that illustrates how purely random events can produce long term climate variations in a system as complex as the climate:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/predicting-exact-monthly-uah-anomalies.html

The model used in the exercise assumed climate is a Markov process (a memoryless system) and estimated the process parameters from the satellite data collected over the last 30 years.

This model produced the following probability distribution for the temperature 100 years from now:

* 0.01% that it will exceed 3.46 °C

* 1% that it will exceed 2.53 °C

* 10% that it will exceed 1.83 °C

* 25% that it will exceed 1.42 °C

* 50% that it will exceed 0.97 °C

* 75% that it will exceed 0.52 °C

* 90% that it will exceed 0.11 °C

* 99% that it will exceed -0.59 °C

* 99.99% that it will exceed -1.52 °C

These results are interesting because they make it clear that the temperature rise in the last 100 years could be nothing but a random event that does not require an explanation.

[waldo]

I have taken the time in the past to explain in my own words what the significance of the references I provide, however, it is pretty clear at this point that you are unwilling or unable to understand the arguments presented and invariably resort to ad hom attacks on the sources so I no longer bother.

Respectively... you may think you have... in the past; however, as far as I can recall, your tendency has been to blindly drop a link with no context, inference or interpretation added... or... quote within your linked to reference but offer nothing of your own context, inference or interpretation. One is left looking at the quote and a linked reference and asking exactly what you're attempting to infer - what's your exact point. But thanks for acknowledging you don't bother to (at least "now") explain in your own words the links you blindly offer.

The cooling trend exists. I have provided links that provide more than enough information to support it. The only problem is your rediculous position that only official "climate scientists" are capable of having an informed opinion. It is a position that only ensures that you will remain ignorant long after the rest of the world has moved on.

We've been down this point before... I highlighted problematic aspects of attempting to trend within short time span periods. What was the time period you're referencing again? To be clear could you indulge me and provide one of those links you refer to - thanks in advance. As for your continued personalizing... frankly, I can't recall anything you've ever posted that accepts any position taken/offered by proponents of the impacts of AGW. Your repeated use of the term "alarmists" certainly speaks to your own, as you state, "ridiculous position" that only select "skeptic" statisticians (your go-to bunch) are capable of having an informed opinion.

I pasted the introductory text that provided the context. You ignored it and most likely did not even look at it because you have made up your mind and the facts are not that important to you.

This is a good example... you offer a short quote, drop the link and state... "this is an excellent resource". That's it.

So read the link the cherry pickers guide to temperature records and demonstrate that you are able to understand the arguments presented and that you have a mind open enough to accept facts that do not conform you want you desperately what to believe. BTW, the cooling trend does not mean that the IPCC is necessarily wrong and there are people who accept the cooling fact and then try to make counter arguments based on that fact. The people who refuse to even accept the cooling fact are the real "deniers".

Note that RC complained about the statistical methodology used in the cherry pickers guide. Here is a follow up that shows that RC's minor nitpick is wrong:

Cherry picking is a most apropos term for the linked blogger's post on "cherry picking"... what might one call drawing a conclusion about the state of the earth's climate when using data over a short time span? Is that a form of "cherry picking" in itself?

Cooling trend? What cooling trend? It's clear you're aware of the countering active RC thread... showing warming continuing over a 25 year trend, the two most recent 10 year trends... and your "contentious' so-called "cherry picked" 11-year period. But that's from proponents, right? That's from the group you've labeled/inferred as zealots, fraudsters, dishonest, crooks, etc. Right?

(for what it's worth - for the significance it may or may not hold to your linked to bloggers offering... given your pointed reference to the RC comment about the statistical methodology used... if you're referring to autocorrelation, your linked to blogger has acknowledged through the running commentary on his blog that he did not account for it)

[noahbody]

Cooling trend? What cooling trend? It's clear you're aware of the countering active RC thread... showing warming continuing over a 25 year trend, the two most recent 10 year trends... and your "contentious' so-called "cherry picked" 11-year period. But that's from proponents, right? That's from the group you've labeled/inferred as zealots, fraudsters, dishonest, crooks, etc. Right?

You must have missed this:

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.

http://www.calgaryhe...0571/story.html

Edited November 8, 2009 by noahbody

[jbg]

You must have missed this:

http://www.calgaryhe...0571/story.html

Try to copy that link out in "longhand" or use "tinyurl.com". It doesn't work and I want to read the article.

[Riverwind]

Try to copy that link out in "longhand" or use "tinyurl.com". It doesn't work and I want to read the article.

Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.

"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/09/climate-forecasts-out-of-kilter.html

[waldo]

Try to copy that link out in "longhand" or use "tinyurl.com". It doesn't work and I want to read the article.

the actual link to another of that POS Lorne Gunter's continuing falsifications...

and... surprise, surprise... Riverwind throws in one for good measure:

while you're digesting that Gunter "interpretation" of what Latif actually said,

beauty - the closing comment on a truism of human nature is most appropriate!

[Riverwind]

Cherry picking is a most apropos term for the linked blogger's post on "cherry picking"... what might one call drawing a conclusion about the state of the earth's climate when using data over a short time span? Is that a form of "cherry picking" in itself?

None of the authors I linked to on this topic claim that 10 years is enough to draw definitive conclusions about the state of the climate. All they state is that the planet is not warming/cooling and the trend has gone on long enough to question whether the climate models are estimating the effect of CO2 correctly.

Other pro-AGW scientists have acknowledged the cooling but explain it away saying that individual model runs can have a 10 year non-warming trend but also state that a 15 year non-warming trend cannot occur. That tells me that we should wait another 5 years and see what happens. If warming picks up we can talk about climate treaties. Until then any action is premature since there is a good chance that the climate models are wrong.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

why not take the time to actually listen to his own words

Latif actually said:

"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

Why would he say "we have to ask the nasty questions" if he did not intend to point out that the climate is not behaving as the models predicted? He, unlike the denialists at real climate, acknowledges the facts and is seeking to use ocean currents as a explanation for the mismatch between the models and the real data. On the surface such an explanation sounds compelling but it also implies that a significant portion of the warming from 1980 to 1998 was also caused by ocean currents. If it was then the IPCC claim that the majority of warming was caused by CO2 cannot be supported by the data.

[wyly]

The most likely explanation for the extinction is a giant meteor.

"an assumption that is quite implausible given the number of things that can affect climate."...no the most likely accepted cause of the PT is the Siberian Traps, long term mega-volcanic activity over a million years...there is no evidence an iridium trail from a meteor strike, such as that which confirmed the dino's extinction... Edited November 9, 2009 by wyly