CoolSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 689
How would you know if they were doing it "properly", or even whether your interpretation of their conclusions are actually the same as the conclusions they claimed? The whole point of the discussion Pixel42 triggered was to try and understand what the numbers were; I should give credit for Pixel42 at least trying to look at numbers (even if the analysis wasn't very meaningful), which is far more than you have presented, which is just assertion.
You seem to be missing the point of scepticism. Unless you actually understand to some degree what was done, you are in no position to judge whether something is right or wrong. I've given you guys some leeway here, acknowledging that because you don't really understand the statistics, you have little choice but to believe the IPCC (or at least what you understand the IPCC to be telling you, which is unfortunately often filtered through activists who care little for actual science).
Once again, your strange belief in 30 years as being some magic number at which things become significant is hopelessly misguided. The difference between 15 years, 30 years and 60 years is not all that great. I've demonstrated that with actual numbers, you've demonstrated it by (1) assertion - worthless to a sceptic - and (2) by appeal to authority of the IPCC, which could carry some validity if you could actually back it up by showing what analysis you are referring to and we can then put the IPCC position in place of your assertion, but you have provided nothing.
As I mentioned earlier, what I have presented is utterly uncontroversial amongst actual scientists, even to the point that it is rarely discussed (because it is so blindingly obvious). Yet you dispute it. Earlier today I stumbled across a good example of a climate scientist highlighting this bizarre attachment to 30 years in a blog post from a couple of months back:
Natural Variability and Chaos – Four – The Thirty Year Myth
I note it is typically environmental activists who have this strange attachment to 30-year trends, with limited understanding of science, rather than *actual climate scientists*, although scienceofdoom does highlight a rather unhelpful cartoon by the IPCC which does appear to rather perpetuate the myth.
Also, it is quite inappropriate to use model runs to determine the error margins discussed. The error margins are sensitive to the autocorrelation structure of natural variability, and it is well known that the autocorrelation structure of models does not match the real world well at all. Unfortunately the observational record is too short to get really good accurate estimates of the autocorrelation function as well, which is why in practice nobody has correctly determined the population error margins. (Hopefully you understand the distinction between population error margins - the "true" error margins - and the sample error margins which I presented earlier, which are meaningful, but biased)
Ah, you're trying to cover up for CapelDodger's mistake now. I was responding to CapelDodger who referred to the "long-term trend", not what the model runs show for 2000-2015. Goalpost moving noted, though.
