Atmospheric CO2 has gone up 20% since 1960

[Tumbleweed]

Yep, this shows exactly why I ignore climate threads now. I highlight an important scientific phenomenon and I get a political advocacy website quoted back at me that doesn't address the issue I raised at all. Thanks for reminding me macdoc.

One more chance macdoc, then you're going on ignore. Simple yes/no questions.

1. Do you understand that extreme flood events tend to cluster in a manner that classical or Markovian statistics fails to deal with, as outlined in HE Hurst's infamous paper? (yes)/(no)

2. Are the various stats you are quoting unusual after accounting for the Hurst phenomenon? (yes)/(no)

If answer 2. is (yes), please point me to where this correction is applied and how it is applied. If the answer 2. is (no) then this analysis cannot indicate climate change until the Hurst phenomenon is ruled out as a possible explanation, and it does not matter whether it is carried out by NOAA scientists or ClimateProgress political advocates.

If 100 year storms have been shown to cluster your logic is valid. But what does it really mean? That sunspots cluster? That events other than man cause climate change? How about evidence that shows what the weather was like in the past with a vastly shrunken arctic ice cap? Problem is, other than floods there is no geologic proof of amped up weather in the past. The wind damage from hurricanes for example disappears instantly on a geological time scale. And how do you surmise when the north pole was last ice free in summer?

 

[Tumbleweed]

On that Gaia hypothesis. I truly believe that the entire concept is a philosophy as far as the "consciousness" aspect of it goes. The ONLY scientific aspect would be a theory that what one organism does, metabolically, effects the entire biosphere in some way, not deliberately but automatically. For example there is no thought to soot or greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere. Nothing is "making" it happen. It is simply a result that will prompt a reaction. That the reaction will reduce our numbers is deliberate? -- well that's a philosophical stretch. But then again would it be a mere coincidence? Could it be said that our actions are causing evolutionary changes as well a climactical ones. Are we unconsciously affecting - in a positive way except for ourselves - evolution itself with our coal burning? That our change, though cruel to some like asteroids are, in the long run benefits many others. But my argument devolves into inaction when it comes to man caused climate . It devolves to it was meant to be so why interrupt it. Or I could go with "too late now!"

 

[Tumbleweed]

If it is said to be a given that sunspots effect the amount of solar radiation the Earth absorbs, hence effecting climate, why is it not a given that decreasing the surface covered by ice, hence allowing more solar radiation to be absorbed by the Earth, will effect climate as well

 

[Wangler]

If it is said to be a given that sunspots effect the amount of solar radiation the Earth absorbs, hence effecting climate, why is it not a given that decreasing the surface covered by ice, hence allowing more solar radiation to be absorbed by the Earth, will effect climate as well

Has anyone said that it won't?

It would certainly seem that changing the earth's albedo will have some effect.

 

[lomiller]

Coolsceptic, are you trying to tell us the people you mention proved this clustering has nothing to do with climatic effects like rainfall and freeze/thaw? Because if they haven’t it doesn’t sound at all relevant to the discussion.

 

[Tumbleweed]

The anti global warming argument seems to have two thrusts:
1. There are plenty of other reasons to blame climate change on. Well thats a given since the ice ages were not caused by man. If you are saying that climate change today most likely would still be from a cause other than man, what is it? What exactly is going on out there in the natural world that is causing the arctic ice to melt?
2. There is no climate change going on. Despite the obvious melt of the arctic ice?

 

[CoolSceptic]

If 100 year storms have been shown to cluster your logic is valid. But what does it really mean?

Good question! Unfortunately there is no quick and easy answer. It is a complex subject.

One of the best intros I've seen on the subject is here:

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/849/2/documents/2008EGU_HurstClimatePr.pdf

(Click on "presentation" at the html) This is a lecture given at the European Geosciences Union convention a year or so ago.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Coolsceptic, are you trying to tell us the people you mention proved this clustering has nothing to do with climatic effects like rainfall and freeze/thaw? Because if they haven’t it doesn’t sound at all relevant to the discussion.

Ermm... what? Of course it is linked to rainfall. But why would an understanding natural variability not be relevant to an understanding of climate?

 

[macdoc]

I think the relevant missing term is "change".

The Nile in particular given the size of the drainage basin over a couple of climate regimes is certainly a challenge.

The paper cited is dealing in much longer time frames than the couple of decades referred to in the midwest and of particular relevance now.....

The governor of one of the midwest states observed that one 100 year flood could occur anytime......3 in twelve years.....something else is going on.

Given the match with the known increased water vapour and model expectations PLUS the observed increase in intensity ( not anticipated in the models )

snip

the observed amplification of rainfall extremes was found to be substantially larger in the observations than what is predicted by current models. "Comparing observations with results from computer models improves understanding of how rainfall responds to a warming world" said Dr. Richard P. Allan, NERC advance fellow at the University of Reading's Environmental Systems Science Center. "Differences can relate to deficiencies in the measurements, or the models used to predict future climatic change"


_{Adapted from a University of Miami release.}
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/08/global-climate.html

.....the Gov has a point

 

[lomiller]

Coolsceptic, natural variability is, by definition, a random distribution (not necessarily normal distribution). If the distribution is well outside random that’s prima-facie proof of some climatic effect at play. The fact that climatic effects have occurred in the past, doesn’t in any way support your argument here.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I think the relevant missing term is "change".

The Nile in particular given the size of the drainage basin over a couple of climate regimes is certainly a challenge.

The paper cited is dealing in much longer time frames than the couple of decades referred to in the midwest and of particular relevance now.....

The governor of one of the midwest states observed that one 100 year flood could occur anytime......3 in twelve years.....something else is going on.

Given the match with the known increased water vapour and model expectations PLUS the observed increase in intensity ( not anticipated in the models )

snip

.....the Gov has a point

Quick check... I asked two simple questions... either of them answered? Nope, a simple rehash of the same rubbish spouted before. Congratulations, you have become the first person I have put on ignore!

the observed amplification of rainfall extremes was found to be substantially larger in the observations than what is predicted by current models.

Of course! Models do not exhibit the Hurst phenomenon, even though it is observed in many hydroclimatic time series, so one would not expect to see these events in models. See "On the credibility of climate predictions", Koutsoyiannis et al, Hydrological Sciences Journal Vol 53 No. 4 Aug 2008 pp. 671-684.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Coolsceptic, natural variability is, by definition, a random distribution (not necessarily normal distribution). If the distribution is well outside random that’s prima-facie proof of some climatic effect at play.

What on earth are you talking about? Who said it was well outside random? Not me. The Hurst phenomenon is descriptive of a stationary stochastic time series.

Don't you think - in the interests of science and all - it would be wise to actually find out what the Hurst phenomenon is before you start criticising it? That would be, well, the scientific thing to do.

I'm getting a real deja vu from last time I mentioned this on here. The pro-warmers immediately attacked something they obviously didn't understand (with the sole excepion of TellyKeanesus {sp?}, who actually did some research on the topic). I've never seen anything like it from people who claim to support the scientific method.

 

[lomiller]

So then you agree that there is untimely an underlying climatic cause for this clustering. Good we are getting someplace. How you get from there to is proving a particular climatic phenomenon isn’t responsible for the current cluster is still somewhat of a mystery

 

[CoolSceptic]

So then you agree that there is untimely an underlying climatic cause for this clustering. Good we are getting someplace.

No. We're really not getting someplace. We're not going anywhere at the moment, because you still don't understand the basics.

The clustering is a stationary stochastic phenomenon. There need not be any deterministic underlying cause.

How you get from there to is proving a particular climatic phenomenon isn’t responsible for the current cluster is still somewhat of a mystery

Why you are trying to argue against something you clearly do not understand is the mystery I'm struggling with here.

 

[lomiller]

The clustering is a stationary stochastic phenomenon.

You’ve gone off the rails there. Non-stationary systems are known and demonstrated to cause the hurst phenomenon. Furthermore the specific examples you give like Nile flooding are most certainly influenced by a non-stationary element called climate.


IOW your begging the question, you assume (falsely) there are no non-stationary influences in your example and then use them to prove similar non-stationary influences are not having similar effects now.

 

[CoolSceptic]

You’ve gone off the rails there. Non-stationary systems are known and demonstrated to cause the hurst phenomenon. Furthermore the specific examples you give like Nile flooding are most certainly influenced by a non-stationary element called climate.

IOW your begging the question, you assume (falsely) there are no non-stationary influences in your example and then use them to prove similar non-stationary influences are not having similar effects now.

Utter rubbish.

The Hurst phenomenon is a purely stochastic phenomenon, by definition. Please try to understand it. It is evidently clear that you do not.

It is not impossible that a deterministic series would look like a random series. But when that happens, the burden of proof lies on the person claiming determinism to demonstrate it. You have it exactly backwards - you are assuming there is an effect, and demanding that the null hypothesis (stochastic behaviour) is proven. There is a very good reason why hypothesis tests are NOT conducted in this way.

I am not assuming anything: I am merely pointing out that the series are consistent with both a deterministic and a stochastic explanation; IOW, the null hypothesis has not been rejected.

I don't expect you to get this. You are too wedded to your pet theory to follow basic scientific principles.

 

[DogB]

One of the best intros I've seen on the subject is here:

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/849/2/documents/2008EGU_HurstClimatePr.pdf

Thanks for this. Something to read over the weekend.

 

[lomiller]

It is not impossible that a deterministic series would look like a random series. But when that happens, the burden of proof lies on the person claiming determinism to demonstrate it.

This is hardly some remarkable unlikely event. Chaotic systems appear random but are actually a class of deterministic systems. The Earths climate is chaotic and behaves very much like a nonstationary stochastic process in most cases.

the nonstationary part of that is what you don't seem to understand.

 

[Wangler]

One of the best intros I've seen on the subject is here:

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/849/2/documents/2008EGU_HurstClimatePr.pdf

(Click on "presentation" at the html) This is a lecture given at the European Geosciences Union convention a year or so ago.

Interesting read. I'm not sure I understand what it all means.

My first thought is that Hurst phenomenon represents a non-random distribution....but don't we already know that river levels or climate are not random processes?

Any discussion to help my understanding would be appreciated.

 

[Wangler]

Seriously, what is the issue?

I am not manipulating the HadCRU data in any way, shape or form, I am only posting what their data shows.

What's the problem?

I assume that you agree with the statement that Tumbleweed posted, that ocean temps are the warmest ever?

I have at least one dataset, compiled by experts at HadCRU, that are at odds with that statement.

Do you wish to ignore that data?

Should I contact HadCRU and see if they agree with my conclusion, based upon them looking at the same data that I am looking at?

Give me a valid, scientific reason to discount the HadCRU compiled data, and I will.

Lomiller, any thoughts on answers to these questions?