Atmospheric CO2 has gone up 20% since 1960

[lomiller]

Any discussion to help my understanding would be appreciated.

Try the latter part of this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/how-red-are-my-proxies/

and this

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/hypothesis-testing-and-long-term-memory/

 

[lomiller]

Lomiller, any thoughts on answers to these questions?

No one is asking you to discount the HadCRU, what we are saying is that you should understand that you have no particular expertise in interpreting it. You are not pitting your expertise in interpreting this data against another poster here, you are claiming it refutes what real experts at NOAA have to say.

your response would have been perfectly fine, though somewhat marginal if it were a response to another poster here. (marginal because it's not uncommon for there to be a little variability between these sets arising from different processing techniques) You were not, ultimately responding to another poster, you were trying to refute a statement by a highly respected scientific body.

 

[Wangler]

No one is asking you to discount the HadCRU, what we are saying is that you should understand that you have no particular expertise in interpreting it. You are not pitting your expertise in interpreting this data against another poster here, you are claiming it refutes what real experts at NOAA have to say.

your response would have been perfectly fine, though somewhat marginal if it were a response to another poster here. (marginal because it's not uncommon for there to be a little variability between these sets arising from different processing techniques) You were not, ultimately responding to another poster, you were trying to refute a statement by a highly respected scientific body.

Can you explain why or how my interpretation of the HadSSTv2 is flawed?

There is absolutely no way I could take any climate data and somehow work out a global average temperature anomaly.

Thank goodness that I not what I had to do here.

I just needed to look at the HadSSTv2 global average, as calculated by the folks who own the data, and compare two or three data points.

Fine, but somewhat marginal, you say? Why?

Again, I'm just looking at the compiled global sea surface temperature anomaly.

No magic, no handwaving.

I am genuinely puzzled as to why this is a problem. If I had tried to compute a global average myself, I think that the results would be uncertain, and probably something that no-one would want to put stock in.

But again, that is not what was done here.

Why should we discount the compiled HadSSTv2 data?

 

[Wangler]

Try the latter part of this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/how-red-are-my-proxies/

and this

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/hypothesis-testing-and-long-term-memory/

Thanks for the links. After a brief once over, it is clear I am going to have to read a couple of times..this is beginning to strain my brain.

This Hurst stuff could almost be another thread.

p.s. too bad you didn't reference something besides a blog.............

 

[lomiller]

I don’t have any objection to blog entries from people who are legitimate experts in the field under discussion.

The only exception I can think of is Roy Spencer. I’ll read his published work but I don’t really trust the unpublished work of someone who promotes Intelligent Design and says (to paraphrase him) his background as a scientist tells him evolution must be wrong.

 

[mhaze]

Thanks for the links. After a brief once over, it is clear I am going to have to read a couple of times..this is beginning to strain my brain.

It's that pseudorealclimate.com circuitous chatter.

That'll confuse anyone.

Course it's that Fenton Comm. connection, Soros funding, Center for Democratic Progress, John Podesta.... that's the bunch with realclimate.com.

 

[Wangler]

Why should we discount the compiled HadSSTv2 data?

Bueller? Bueller?

 

[mhaze]

because the dog ate the global warming data?

 

[Wangler]

because the dog ate the global warming data?

Meh. That sounds like a lot of hearsay, with a sprinkling of sour grapes.

 

[mhaze]

Meh. That sounds like a lot of hearsay, with a sprinkling of sour grapes.

No. You had not before heard they say they lost the data? I posted on that from the original source awhile back.

 

[DogB]

Honestly mhaze, if NRO told me the sky was blue, I'd just nip outside and check.

 

[CoolSceptic]

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.

Indeed chaotic systems are deterministic, and it is possible that weather / climate is chaotic and the Hurst phenomenon is an emergent property of this system. This does not make them deterministically predictable, nor does it make it possible to associate causality which, due to the shadowing lemma, becomes meaningless beyond a certain timescale.

Note my words "it is possible"... we don't just assume it without evidence. You are quick to assume these things, without supporting evidence. I am merely outlining the possibilities. And there are many possibilities other than the "it must be man made climate change" option.

However, such emergent behaviour is uaually sensitive to initial conditions and is therefore not deterministically predictable.

Look, I understand this stuff (you are struggling with it). But I don't lay claim to being a great teacher. Other people do that better. Please read the lecture I linked earlier - Prof Koutsoyiannis explains this stuff better than I do.
The Hurst phenomenon and climate
The sections that explain the mistake you are making (don't worry, it is a common error) is on pp 9-12 (procrusteanism as a solution and the problems with procrusteanism). Probably best to read pages 1-8 as an intro as well.

For a demonstration of the Hurst phenomenon as an emergent property of a chaotic system, see this paper:
A toy model of climatic variability with scaling behaviour

 

[lomiller]

Read it. Wasn’t impressed. More importantly, however the ideas presented have been broadly rejected by both the climate and statistical communities.

While he seems quite genuine and far more civil then you, Koutsoyiannis is clearly out of his element here and doesn’t have the experience with climate systems to know what needs to be treated as stochastic and what needs to be treated as deterministic. The result is that he is, like you, begging the question and concluding the very things he assuming to reach those conclusions.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Imagine that. Two guys in an ice fishing shack stuck all of a sudden on a shrinking ice floe, arguing about the statistics that caused their predicament as they slowly drift off to sea. I guess it helps to wile away the time! Kind of like playing chess.
Or better yet there's a raging brush fire approaching LA but the bureaucrats have to figure out if it is arson or an act of God before spending any money to stop it
And so goes the global warming argument

 

[Tumbleweed]

Any statistics around showing north pole temps in the winter post 2000 vs pre 2000? Since a lot more water refreezes in the winter now than when the arctic ice cap was "normal" would that cause atmospheric temps to drop in winter? Then warmer in summer due to more open water. A sort of pendulum enhancement that supports my amped up weather theory as opposed to everything just warming up?

 

[macdoc]

would that cause atmospheric temps to drop in winter

Freezing ice releases latent heat - melting ice absorbs it.

http://www.sei.ie/Schools/Secondary_Schools/Subjects/Physics/Unit_5_-_Heat_Quantity/Latent_Heat/

The more freezing area the more the latent heat is released to air and ocean.

Last year might have been indicative of a changing weather regime...

The dense high pressure was over both continents - very cold - set some records while the pole itself was relatively warm between the two continental highs.

Was enough of an anomaly to be noted in the Arctic reports for further analysis..

Albedo is changing as well - ocean and land - very complex

 

[mhaze]

Honestly mhaze, if NRO told me the sky was blue, I'd just nip outside and check.

Ignore NRO,then. But the data is lost. Met says.

 

[macdoc]

One more wrinkle to deal with

Global Warming May Dent El Niño's Protective Shield From Atlantic Hurricanes, Increase Droughts

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090923143337.htm

snip

Over the past 20 years, according to the data, the frequency of an El Niño event in the central Pacific has increased from one out of every five to half of all El Niño occurrences. "The results described in this paper indicate that the global impacts of El Niño may significantly change as the climate warms," said Yeh.
Though the centers of the central and eastern areas are roughly 4,100 miles apart, El Niños historically have not simultaneously occurred in both places. An increase in central Pacific El Niño events may reduce the hurricane-shielding effects of the eastern Pacific event.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Read it. Wasn’t impressed.

What the... BWAHAHAHA



ROFLMAO, I read this yesterday and it took me AGES to clean the coffee from my monitor. I've only just stopped laughing enough to type in a straight line.

Yes lomiller. That's exactly how science works. We don't find errors or faults, we don't test against observational evidence, we look at something and decide whether we're impressed or not. I can see it now, the panel of scientists assessing works...

Scientist A: Yes, this paper of yours, ... ermm ... yes, Einstein, isn't it. Well, we couldn't come up with any specific criticisms...
Scientist B: That's right, and your theories seem to tie with observational evidence.
Scientist C: Yes, but, well... it's just that none of us were terribly impressed.
Scientist A: No, not impressed at all.
Scientist B: Hmm, could be more impressive.
Scientist A: So we're throwing this relativity stuff out. You could probably go back to the patent office job though, couldn't you
Scientist C: And don't let this put you off. By all means submit more papers to us.

* For the hard of thinking: I'm obviously not trying to compare Koutsoyiannis' work to Einstein's. I'm highlighting the idiotic idea of judging scientific papers with hand-waving commentary like how impressed someone is with it.

More importantly, however the ideas presented have been broadly rejected by both the climate and statistical communities.

BWAHAHAHA. ROFLMAO. Oh please, stop it. No specific criticism has been levelled at it, but it's been "broadly rejected". The work is so "broadly rejected" that he was awarded the European Geosciences Union 2009 Henry Darcy medal of honour explicitly for his work on stochastic modelling. Yes, that's what scientists do when work is "broadly rejected". LOL. I suppose "broadly" is a useful term when you have no substantive criticisms to make?

While he seems quite genuine and far more civil then you,

Sure. Like Dawkins is more civil than Myers. So I'm blunt and don't suffer fools gladly. What has that got to do with the degree of correctness? Anyway, Koutsoyiannis was delivering a lecture to a room of intelligent people, rather than a room of people who can't find fault with it yet dismiss it as being terribly unimpressive. LOL.

Koutsoyiannis is clearly out of his element here

ROFLMAO. Again. Just a small hint: perhaps, as you say, Prof. K is out of his element. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, it is YOU who are out of YOUR element and you are the one who doesn't understand it. I guess that never crossed your mind.

Just a thought.

Nevertheless, Prof K's work has not yet been falsified in the peer-reviewed literature. So here's your opportunity. If you can find fault with it, publish. Nobody else has managed it yet. I've even started the abstract for you:

On the impressiveness of Stochastics and Determinism
by lomiller
Submitted to Geophysical Research Letters, 26th September 2009

Abstract
I read this paper once. And I really, really wasn't impressed.

The End.​

Let me know when it gets published, won't you?

 

[Wangler]

No specific criticism has been levelled at it, but it's been "broadly rejected".

Coolsceptic, did you look at the links that lomiller posted:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...re-my-proxies/

and this

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...g-term-memory/

I would be intested in your opinion of these criticisms.