How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

It could be all of that and still not "statistically significant" in CoolSpeak.

Alas, but then shall we retort-

Much Ado About Nothing.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I did. You're wrong....

Asserting it doesn't make it so. Capeldodger clearly said that he expected to see the ice age cycle on a daily basis. Obviously, we aren't going to see the UK under 3km of ice one day and then clear on the next. So you aren't going to get the ice age cycle on a daily basis. What you get is a tiny scaled equivalent - you might get 0.1% of the UK under 3mm ice on a day to day basis.

It would be wrong if it would be what he said... It wasn't.

It's quite clearly what he said, in the text above.

Why are you explaining this when it's obvious that I know it?

Why were you invoking it when it was obvious that I already know it?

I can provide a quote that shows that you either didn't know what self-similarity entails, or have a huge problem with explaining yourself:

Nope, I've explained self-similarity quite clearly, and provided links with graphs that confirm the behaviour is consistent. But rather than hand-waving and subjective opinion as you and Capeldodger are providing, why not try using some mathematics?

I've already linked on this site a paper which demonstrates the self-similarity of the global temperature series by looking at different scales of temperature change, by comparing the Hurst exponent of monthly, yearly and palaeo climate reconstructions, and find they exhibit strong self-similar behaviour. Of course the Hurst exponent is linked to the relationship between noise power and frequency (noise spectrum proportional to f^-a, where a=2H-1, H being the Hurst exponent). Of course, as I'm sure you know very well but for the benefits of others, long-term persistence (a form of self-similar signal) is seen for Hurst exponents in the range 0.5 < H < 1. You can read the value of a straight off the log/log plot of frequency vs. noise power, figure 2 from Carl Wunsch's paper.

Don't confuse self-similarity for pure scale invariance, which occurs for H=1 (also referred to as "exact self-similarity"). This is, of course, a pathological case which I'm not invoking; I'm talking about a more generalised self-similar behaviour.

By definition, you are wrong.

Asserting it doesn't make it so. Let's see some analysis which shows your point, rather than hand-waving.

 

[CoolSceptic]

And I didn't say it. What I said was that the shape of the graph remains the same at any scale, in a self-similar system. This is clearly not the case for the hydrological cycle (which includes ice).

Subjective hand-waving. Do the maths. Self-similarity is observed.

Your "stochastic" model does not sit well with the observed regularity of ice-ages.

My stochastic model fits very well indeed, as explained in detail by Wunsch.

You've previously claimed that these can't be explained by Milankovich cycles and feedback models without them becoming wildly erratic, but that is simply not so.

I thought the GCMs failure to hindcast the interglacials was well known. Hmm, apparently not.

The feedbacks involved - albedo and greenhouse gases - are physically limited. You can't go less than no ice-cover, and there's only so much CO2 in the system, so the models cannot run out of control.

No, that's not the point. It isn't that they run out of control - they lock into one state and then cannot leave it. That is, you can set the model up to force one transition, but after that, it locks in to that position and nothing will shift it out again, due to the positive feedback. The only way to make this happen is to initialise the models in an unstable region - which could never have happened in the first place, if the model was right...

The albedo feedback in itself is not sufficient, although it was a fine insight. Add in the CO2 exchange between ocean and atmosphere (and the water-vapour feedback in the atmosphere) and Milankovich is justified. So much for ice-ages - the major field of climate science until very recently

The albedo feedback and CO2 feedback - even at 3x positive feedback - are inadequate. You need something like 6x, at which point the climate no longer swings around, but locks into one position (hot or cold).

What started as a niggling question fifty years ago has turned into a reality. Try as you might to believe that this is all normal.

"Has turned into a reality" - LMAO - but seriously, if it was all sorted fifty years ago, why did Carl Wunsch write a paper just four years ago pointing out that a stochastic explanation works just as well?

 

[CoolSceptic]

It could be all of that and still not "statistically significant" in CoolSpeak.

Statistical significance is important to scientists and people that use numbers.

It isn't important to the hand-wavers, which is all I've seen so far from you; perhaps that is why you don't get it?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Nope. The age of a scientific theory does not affect its veracity. My point is not a misdirection, it was reductio ad absurdum. I've noticed consistently that you don't "get" reductio ad absurdum answers, and keep complaining about them. Maybe I should find a smiley to help indicate them to you?

Rubbish. I know perfectly well what reductio ad absurdum means and this wasn't an example. You attempted to compare a particular science you won't accept with religion.

I've noticed consistently that you describe something others say as being different from what was really said. It could be that you actually don't realise it but don't worry: it will be pointed out to you each time.

No, it is a garbage answer, because it is a hasty generalisation from a handful of sceptics who make weak arguments to all sceptics. As noted, many pro-AGW people make weak arguments as well. It would be equally wrong to claim this means all pro-AGW arguments are wrong.

False. The 'satellite' item, whether serious or parody, was intended to be amusing and no more. I have seen this theory nowhere else. The OP is about conflicting claims commonly made by GWSceptics, not isolated examples. Another of your straw men.

I can't believe you're struggling to understand the fallacy of hasty generalisation.

I can't believe that you continue to attack straw men, and in your arrogant insulting way, too!

Wow, quite an admission. Now, what is the spectrum of the noise characteristic? What is the distribution? You could learn something here.

An admission? Of what? How does this differ from the views of mainstream climate science? Where have I or any other AGW accepter claimed otherwise?

Yes, obviously. If one person claims sea level will rise by 20 feet in the next 100 years, and the next claims 20 inches in the next 100 years, those are two very different predictions. One is right, one is wrong. That is how science works.

These are ranges. No one can know what will happen with certainty. What is your guess?

I just said amongst people who take sides in the debate, not just scientists. Since Capeldodger offered mhaze (an anonymous poster on the internet), I think my example fits in the spirit of the discussion. This seems to be a caveat you've added now to suit your case. I note you do not apply that standard yourself, for example, your last example of a sceptic was to this site: http://globalmicrowave.orgfree.com/. In what way does that meet your definition of "people involved in the science"?

See above. Isolated example for comedic purposes only.

You've yet to make that one stick.

I care not whether you admit it. You continue to do it regardless.

Ah, the mud-slinging continues. Standard JREF stuff. Let me know when you've got a definition for the noise spectrum of weather for us to discuss.

Wow. I wonder who posted these? Perhaps your mud is a different colour?

Of course, it goes without saying that only someone with a woefully closed mind (or perhaps some kind of political slant?) would try to generalise this lunacy to all sceptics or to all warmers...

Having said that, your post is a good illustration of the closed mind comment in my previous post. Thanks for that.

Again, don't worry that you might not notice that you are doing this. We will point it out to you.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The usual garbage answer. Different sceptics make different claims. This doesn't mean individual sceptics are wrong or inconsistent.

Science is all about the detail. Differ in the detail and somebody must be wrong.

You appear to have a problem with basic concepts, don't you?

 

[mhaze]

Quote from Coolskeptic:
If one person claims sea level will rise by 20 feet in the next 100 years, and the next claims 20 inches in the next 100 years, those are two very different predictions. One is right, one is wrong. That is how science works.
​

These are ranges. No one can know what will happen with certainty. What is your guess?

Lightning will not strike me tomorrow, and 20 feet of sea level rise will not occur, but instead, six to eight inches of sea level rise will occur, just as it has in the past.

Wait....But I don't KNOW WITH CERTAINTY....Lightning could strike me tomorrow...maybe I should worry...time is short...

Wait....lightning could strike SOMEONE tomorrow, if not me. Time is short, I must tell them all to get inside...What if they don't listen? What if they laugh at me?

Warmlogy!

 

[TrueSceptic]

Fundamentally wrong. It means it scales consistently, i.e. the Y-axis scales with the X-axis, i.e. large scale fluctuations happen at large time scales and small scale fluctuations at small time scales.

If ice ages were of the same magnitude as daily swings, the result would be spectrally white, not self-similar (although technically this is a form of self-similarity, a special case where the Y axis scales at zero times the X axis scales, conventionally this is not considered to be self-similar).

Wrong. Either you cannot read or are seriously deluded. CD's definition is correct. Where did he say what you claim? You really love your straw men, don't you?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Ah, smear-by-association. Thanks for that contribution.

So, do you consider yourself smeared by association? Or do you not associate your views with theirs?

 

[TrueSceptic]

You clearly don't understand the difference between reductio ad absurdum and the ad hominem attack produced by a unique person. Quite obviously different.

You don't understand them either, but never mind.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I've put my marker down already : less Arctic sea-ice than summer 2005. Where that leaves your cruise on the SS 60-80 Year Cycle is for you to judge. Did you check out the lifeboats before you got aboard?

I said at the same time that it would be close. 2008 is now on course to be less than 2007.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I didn't realize that mhaze and David Rodale were still at this stuff. I'd have thought they'd have given up and gone away by now.

I'm not naive - I know they're woo incarnate and immune to rational argument and the social signals that would lead others to creep away in shame, but...

Sigh. Perseverance in delusion in the face of reality isn't a pretty thing.

They will never stop. An old ally, Diamond, is back once more, and Coolie looks like a stayer too.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Aww the nasty people are asking nasty questions. Its a crying shame.

Nasty? You should know, being a proven and unrepentant liar.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Fortunately, they have provided quotes from Wunsch himself, and references, so you don't have to rely on Wikipedia at all. What it shows is how science is misunderstood and misrepresented, yet again. Wunsch states quite clearly what he thinks, despite coolskeptics misrepresentation of what the paper means.

What a display of desperate demented delusional denialism that was! Anything but admit that Wunsch might not support their case.

So a paper he writes can be trusted (true, because he's an honest, able scientist), but anything else, including his complaints about TGGWS, cannot? The contortions of the GWSceptic mind continue to amaze.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Oh FFS read the thread.

In a self-similar system, the two axes scale together at some fixed rate. This does not mean the amplitudes are the same at all scales, but that they vary consistently. Capeldodger argued it was a necessary condition of self-similarity that one axis would be fixed as the other scaled, i.e. that you would see the same amplitude of variation day-to-day as you would millenium-to-millenium. This is fundamentally wrong.

No, he didn't. Can't you read?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Asserting it doesn't make it so. Capeldodger clearly said that he expected to see the ice age cycle on a daily basis. Obviously, we aren't going to see the UK under 3km of ice one day and then clear on the next. So you aren't going to get the ice age cycle on a daily basis. What you get is a tiny scaled equivalent - you might get 0.1% of the UK under 3mm ice on a day to day basis.

Either you can't read or you are a liar. Anyone can go back and read what was said.

It's quite clearly what he said, in the text above.

See above.

Why were you invoking it when it was obvious that I already know it?


Nope, I've explained self-similarity quite clearly, and provided links with graphs that confirm the behaviour is consistent. But rather than hand-waving and subjective opinion as you and Capeldodger are providing, why not try using some mathematics?

I've already linked on this site a paper which demonstrates the self-similarity of the global temperature series by looking at different scales of temperature change, by comparing the Hurst exponent of monthly, yearly and palaeo climate reconstructions, and find they exhibit strong self-similar behaviour. Of course the Hurst exponent is linked to the relationship between noise power and frequency (noise spectrum proportional to f^-a, where a=2H-1, H being the Hurst exponent). Of course, as I'm sure you know very well but for the benefits of others, long-term persistence (a form of self-similar signal) is seen for Hurst exponents in the range 0.5 < H < 1. You can read the value of a straight off the log/log plot of frequency vs. noise power, figure 2 from Carl Wunsch's paper.

Don't confuse self-similarity for pure scale invariance, which occurs for H=1 (also referred to as "exact self-similarity"). This is, of course, a pathological case which I'm not invoking; I'm talking about a more generalised self-similar behaviour.


Asserting it doesn't make it so. Let's see some analysis which shows your point, rather than hand-waving.

Pointless and arrogant attempt to blind with science after repeatedly lying about other contributions.

 

[Megalodon]

Asserting it doesn't make it so.

I didn't just assert it, I explained it.

Capeldodger clearly said that he expected to see the ice age cycle on a daily basis.

And yet you don't provide us with a quote.

Obviously, we aren't going to see the UK under 3km of ice one day and then clear on the next. So you aren't going to get the ice age cycle on a daily basis. What you get is a tiny scaled equivalent - you might get 0.1% of the UK under 3mm ice on a day to day basis.

You think so? Care to show some evidence for your tiny scaled equivalent?

It's quite clearly what he said, in the text above.

Considering the text above is yours, it's not clear at all. If I say that you said that you lost the argument and ran crying to momma, it doesn't make it so.

Why were you invoking it when it was obvious that I already know it?

You said that a correct definition of self-similarity was false. It is then not obvious that you know it.

But rather than hand-waving and subjective opinion as you and Capeldodger are providing, why not try using some mathematics?

What subjective opinion did I provide? I corrected you on a nonsensical statement, left you a door open to admit that you wrote an incorrect statement and move on, and you had a hissy-fit.

Asserting it doesn't make it so. Let's see some analysis which shows your point, rather than hand-waving.

You don't get it, do you?

 

[TrueSceptic]

I didn't just assert it, I explained it.

And yet you don't provide us with a quote.

You think so? Care to show some evidence for your tiny scaled equivalent?

Considering the text above is yours, it's not clear at all. If I say that you said that you lost the argument and ran crying to momma, it doesn't make it so.

You said that a correct definition of self-similarity was false. It is then not obvious that you know it.

What subjective opinion did I provide? I corrected you on a nonsensical statement, left you a door open to admit that you wrote an incorrect statement and move on, and you had a hissy-fit.

You don't get it, do you?

Weird, isn't it? CS came here looking as if he might have some respectable science-based arguments, and he's now looking more like mhaze every day.

 

[a_unique_person]

Another example of the unscientific, sloppy thinking on AGW from a supposedly "critical thinking" web forum.

I don't care what you (and a handful of wiki authors) think that Carl Wunsch believes.

It might be half interesting to hear what Carl Wunsch thinks Carl Wunsch believes. But belief remains neither evidence nor science.

What is really interesting is the analysis carried out by Carl Wunsch, like the piece I linked to, not opinions, beliefs or political propaganda pieces. You remember, actually doing the maths and all that stuff? And working out what that analysis tells us? Rather than waving around beliefs and wiki pages?

The analysis Carl Wunsch carried out illustrates that Capeldodger's claim that the glacial/interglacial cycles are too periodic to be explained by natural variability is a false claim. A stochastic explanation for the vast majority of these cycles is quite consistent with the data. And this is backed up with analysis and reasoning, not belief.

My problem with you is that you seem to have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. I know my limitations, but you don't seem to.

 

[TrueSceptic]

My problem with you is that you seem to have just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

Only to himself.

I know my limitations, but you don't seem to.

Correct (this rational assessment seems to be out of reach to GWSceptics).