Global warming discussion III

[Haig]

The NOAA global temperature figures for April aren't out yet. This is their report for March, and the first quarter of 2015:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201503

You don't see how even more statistically insignificant this "surpassing the previous record of 2010 by 0.05°C (0.09°F)" actually is ????

An "increase" of 5/100ths of a degree above normal ?

It's effectively The Pause and the "manufactured" increases by adjustments is corrupt ! Lower for the distant past and higher for recent times gives the desired result for the CAGW gang but Nature is pulling the wheels off that bandwagon

 

[Pixel42]

An "increase" of 5/100ths of a degree above normal ?

No, an increase of 5/100th of a degree above the previous record high.

March was 85/100th of a degree above 'normal', i.e. the 20th century average.

This trying to hide behind the error bars is the most pathetically desperate attempted trick yet, incidentally.

ETA: By how much do you expect each new record high to exceed the previous one? If it was, say, half a degree each time (or whatever ludicrous figure you consider statistically significant) the upward trend would be a couple of degrees per decade and we'd be completely **********. It's the underlying trend over periods of at least 20 years that is expected to be statistically significant, not each individual new record high.

 

[Haig]

No, an increase of 5/100th of a degree above the previous record high.

March was 85/100th of a degree above 'normal', i.e. the 20th century average.

This trying to hide behind the error bars is the most pathetically desperate attempted trick yet, incidentally.

Don't you understand what ERROR BARS are for ? and

The meaning of statistically insignificant ?

According to the Alarmist past claims disaster should have happened by now - most pathetically desperate indeed

 

[bit_pattern]

Don't you understand what ERROR BARS are for ? and

I get the distinct feeling from your response that you don't.

 

[Pixel42]

Don't you understand what ERROR BARS are for ? and

The meaning of statistically insignificant ?

Yes I do. My degree is in Mathematics, so I understand such things very well. You, clearly, do not.

According to the Alarmist past claims disaster should have happened by now

Utter nonsense. The most pessimistic projections don't predict anything approaching 'disaster' on a global scale for decades.

I repeat, in case you missed my edit to my previous post: By how much would you expect each record high to exceed the previous one? Remember the predicted upward trend is of the order of a 0.15 - 0.2 C per decade.

 

[Haig]

I get the distinct feeling from your response that you don't.

Care to explain it then, for the numpties like me ?

Yes I do. My degree is in Mathematics, so I understand such things very well. You, clearly, do not.

Explain it then, show how relevant or otherwise it is. If you can ?

Utter nonsense. The most pessimistic projections don't predict anything approaching 'disaster' on a global scale for decades.

So, you admit, the past (lapsed) catastrophic predictions were wrong ?

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

Arctic Ice

Perhaps nowhere have the alarmists’ predictions been proven as wrong as at the Earth’s poles. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the “climate cult,” publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”

Why should anyone believe the current crop of CAGW predictions ?

Co2 climbing up through the roof and Global Warming on the simmer by The
Pause

Although the ongoing increase is trouble, a slower rate is preferable. The question is: Why did the slowdown occur—and how long will it last?

Wonder when the penny will drop? It's not us causing this climate change, it's our variable star, the Sun

I repeat, in case you missed my edit to my previous post: By how much would you expect each record high to exceed the previous one? Remember the predicted upward trend is of the order of a 0.15 - 0.2 C per decade.

We've had this dance before ... remember ?

It's the very essence of the The Pause that it was totally unpredicted by any warmist believer, who first deny it's happening then, after 18 years 5 months we now have an ad hoc list of "Fifty odd shades of Warming" to "explain" it

 

[DarthFishy]

Let's try and use another example to explain to show the problems with your argument Haig.

Let's say I'm practicing for the 100m sprint at the olympics. I compete in one sanctioned event a year where my time is officially recorded.

Let's also assume for simplicity's sake that the current world record is 9.5s and that my current best time is 11s.

If I improve my time by 1% of my initial time each year (0.11s), which I'm sure you'll agree is a statistically insignificant amount, I will have by passed the world record (an amazing achievement) within 13.6 years.

While each increase was statistically insignificant (and probably close to being within the error bars of the measurement), the final result within a small number of years is incredible.

The exact same thing is happening within global warming, just on a longer scale.

 

[Haig]

Let's try and use another example to explain to show the problems with your argument Haig.

Let's say I'm practicing for the 100m sprint at the olympics. I compete in one sanctioned event a year where my time is officially recorded.

Let's also assume for simplicity's sake that the current world record is 9.5s and that my current best time is 11s.

If I improve my time by 1% of my initial time each year (0.11s), which I'm sure you'll agree is a statistically insignificant amount, I will have by passed the world record (an amazing achievement) within 13.6 years.

While each increase was statistically insignificant (and probably close to being within the error bars of the measurement), the final result within a small number of years is incredible.

The exact same thing is happening within global warming, just on a longer scale.

Thanks for this example DarthFishy

You have not included the "adjustment practice" that justifies the increasing the times of long past sprinters and reducing the times of recent sprinters

The future prospect of your example with the ever increasing Pause is the times of future sprinters increasing because of Nature

 

[Pixel42]

Explain it then, show how relevant or otherwise it is. If you can ?

No-one who understands statistics would expect each individual new record high to be a statistically significant amount higher than the previous one. It's underlying trends over sufficiently long periods (in this case at least 20-25 years) which are expected to be statistically significant.

So, you admit, the past (lapsed) catastrophic predictions were wrong ?

I have no idea how you got that from my post. There are no past (lapsed) catastrophic predictions, the only predictions for anything approaching catastrophe in the scientific literature are for decades hence.

Why should anyone believe the current crop of CAGW predictions ?

Because the past ones, even though made with much cruder models than those now available, have proved reasonably accurate.

We've had this dance before ... remember ?

No, I don't remember you ever answering this question. How much higher would each new record high need to be than the previous one to convince you the world was warming? A quarter of a degree? Half a degree? Do you understand how big the underlying warming trend would need to be for that to happen? Do you even understand that your original statement (that the increase you quoted was how much the new record high was above 'normal' rather than above the previous record high) was a huge mistake for someone supposedly informed on this subject to make?

It's the very essence of the The Pause that was totally unpredicted by any warmist believer, who first deniy it's happening then after 18 years 5 months we have an ad hoc list of "Fifty odd shades of Warming" to "explain" it

The fact that a small underlying trend will be drowned out by noise for short periods is not a surprise to anyone who understands anything at all about statistically significant trends. It's perfectly reasonable to look for, and find, the sources of the noise which briefly did so in this particular case.

Once again: If you ask a climatologist to predict the temperature trend between January and July for the northern hemisphere they will show you a graph of a smooth upward trend. If February 5th happened to be unusually warm for the time of year and February 20th unusually cold would you go back to him on February 20th and say "it's no warmer today than it was 15 days ago, you didn't predict that did you Mr Clever Dick Climatologist! Clearly the warming has stopped, and your assumption that the earth is tilted on its axis must be wrong!"?

Please at least try to understand the basic facts that so many people have so patiently tried to explain to you.

 

[bit_pattern]

Care to explain it then, for the numpties like me ?

Nope. I'm not the one making a claim here. I don't pretend to know what error bars are or how they're used in statistics. But I guess having that humility is why I'm not the one promoting conspiracy theories on a sceptics forum. I'm not the one flailing out of my depths shouting "ERROR BARS LOOK OVER THERE" at people who clearly do know how they are used when the bunkum is called out for what it is. I'm quite confident though that I don't need to know how error bars are used in statistical analyses to know that the plainly-spoken debunking of your regurgitation of the latest anti-science woo from Anthony Watts' blog is perfectly sound. And I am also quite confident that you shouting "ERROR BARS LOOK OVER THERE!!" is a diversion and that you obviously lack the technical skills to refute the plainly-spoken and easily understood debunking from Pixel42. I am perfectly content laughing at your pathetically desperate attempts at promoting your pet woo theories without feeling the need to be acquainted with statistics

 

[bit_pattern]

No-one who understands statistics would expect each individual new record high to be a statistically significant amount higher than the previous one.

Even those among us who DON'T understand statistics can grok that blindingly obvious conclusion!

 

[bit_pattern]

Thanks for this example DarthFishy

You have not included the "adjustment practice" that justifies the increasing the times of long past sprinters and reducing the times of recent sprinters

The future prospect of your example with the ever increasing Pause is the times of future sprinters increasing because of Nature

Yeah, DarthFishy, if only you accepted the conspiracy then the maths would add up. You know it makes sense!

 

[Mikemcc]

Thanks for this example DarthFishy

You have not included the "adjustment practice" that justifies the increasing the times of long past sprinters and reducing the times of recent sprinters

The future prospect of your example with the ever increasing Pause is the times of future sprinters increasing because of Nature

Yet, when examined by BEST and other groups it's found that the homogenisation process REDUCES the trend.

Damn those sneaky climate conspirators, using data the reduces the measured impact...

 

[Haig]

Yet, when examined by BEST and other groups it's found that the homogenisation process REDUCES the trend.

Damn those sneaky climate conspirators, using data the reduces the measured impact...

So, if that was all true, what's ALL the panic about ?

A less Alarmist view ...

Anthropogenic Global Warming and Its Causes

In summary, there is much still unknown about weather and climate, and many of the things we are aware of are poorly characterized. There is disagreement about the sensitivity of temperature increases in the atmosphere resulting from increased CO2; that is the essence of my remarks above. There is disagreement about whether the water vapor feedback-loop is positive or negative! We know even less about what is called space weather. Even the fundamental Carbon Cycle has issues about accuracy and completeness. How much CO2 do the hidden, and largely unexplored, oceanic spreading centers — more than 80,000 Km in length — contribute to the dissolved CO2 in the oceans?31 How do we know that we are adequately accounting for diffuse volcanic CO2 emanating from the ground as is happening at Long Valley Caldera (Calif.)? Recent research strongly suggests that volcanism on land contributes much more CO2 than was formerly believed.32 If there is any sort of scientific consensus, it can only be a result of shared ignorance. There is an old joke that for the handyman who only owns a hammer, the solution to all problems looks like a nail. As long as there are still significant unanswered questions about what things influence weather and climate, and precisely how they interact with other influences, then we are at risk of treating screws as though they were nails. We need to be looking beyond CO2 if we want to have confidence we really understand the problem!

 

[Haig]

Mmmm could this be the cause of the Pause ?

Date: 30 Apr 2015
On the Verge of a Grand Solar Minimum: A Second Maunder Minimum?

Abstract
We analyze the yearly mean sunspot-number data covering the period 1700 to 2012. We show that the yearly sunspot number is a low-dimensional deterministic chaotic system. We perform future predictions trying to forecast the solar activity during the next five years (2013 – 2017). We provide evidence that the yearly sunspot-number data can be used for long-term predictions. To test and prove that our model is able to predict the Maunder Minimum period (1645 – 1715), we perform long-term post-facto predictions comparing them with the observed sunspot-number values. We also perform long-term future predictions trying to forecast the solar activity up to 2102. Our predictions indicate that the present Cycle 24 is expected to be a low-peak cycle. We conclude that the level of solar activity is likely to be reduced significantly during the next 90 years, somewhat resembling the Maunder Minimum period.

 

[bit_pattern]

Mmmm could this be the cause of the Pause ?

Could future conditions be the cause of past effects? Is that really what you're asking?

 

[Mikemcc]

Mmmm could this be the cause of the Pause ?

Date: 30 Apr 2015
On the Verge of a Grand Solar Minimum: A Second Maunder Minimum?

More like is there really a pause...

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/

Tamino does a pretty telling analysis that shows no statistical basis to the pause, slowdown, hiatus or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Haig]

Could future conditions be the cause of past effects? Is that really what you're asking?

Nope, it's happening now and will continue for most of the 21 century

Weakest Solar Cycle In More Than A Century

Overview
The sun is almost completely blank. The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. The sun’s X-ray output has flatlined in recent days and NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 1% chance of strong flares in the next 24 hours. Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and the current nearly blank sun may signal the end of the solar maximum phase. Solar cycle 24 began after an unusually deep solar minimum that lasted from 2007 to 2009 which included more spotless days on the sun compared to any minimum in almost a century.

 

[CapelDodger]

According to the Alarmist past claims disaster should have happened by now

Do tell. One example would be good. More would be better, of course, but one to be getting on with would be fine for now.

 

[bit_pattern]

Nope, it's happening now and will continue for most of the 21 century

Weakest Solar Cycle In More Than A Century

Yet the heat budget imbalance continues to rise - even surface temperatures, if we are to accept the premise of the "pause", have not actually declined despite the historic inactivity of "the great ball of fire which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system" (that's the scienciness definition for what lay persons call "the sun"). Clearly something else is in play. I wonder what that could be?