Global warming

[CapelDodger]

Can you refute the claim?

I've pointed out that the claim is meaningless. It refers to the IPCC projection as if it is a specific number, which it isn't. The projection is a range.

(I'll warn you again that you wont like the results if you investigate the matter)

That's a bit cryptic.

There is a methodology that extracts an average from a range.

This methodology is legacy earth science stuff that produces a meaningful value. Your partner in alarm, AUP, does not deny this. Infact he states this very thing in this very thread. The measurement of average global temperatures is founded on this very technique.

The IPCC projection is not the average of a range, it is the range itself.

Perhaps you are claiming that its only a meaningful value if you agree with the result?

I'm just trying to use plain English to convey a simple point. The IPCC projection is a range, not the average of a range.

The climate sciences assume that an average can be extracted from ranges.

Of course it can. The IPCC projection, of course, is not an average of a range, it is the range itself.

Are you stating that there are no other explanations that can be drawn from the field of statistics, that you have identified the only explanation?

It's an obvious inferrence, and the obvious is often the actuality. The upper bound has come down further, even in relative terms, than the lower bound has risen. That implies a greater initial uncertainty in the upper bound. It's not a cast-iron implication, but it's good enough to need a strong alternative explanation to raise reasonable doubt. Doubt should be reasonable - we're not Philosophers, after all. We're practical, scientific types.

Remember. I have looked at the data and you have not.

I've read the IPCC reports and looked at the projections. (AGW is a subject I'm quite engaged with, as it happens.) What other data is relevant?

Tread carefully. Yes, I am baiting you.

And making a dreadful hash of it. Please carry on.

I will again warn you to tread carefully but please do answer my questions honestly. I will accept an answer of "well I really havent thought about it at all and have just been making things up" as a valid termination of this offshoot.

Yeah, well, the thing is, you won't be getting that. So just you keep this thing going, it's doing the contrarian camp no end of good. With you and Diamond as poster-boys, how can the cause fail? Your names will go down in the roll-call of history. If I've got any say in the matter, anyway.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have a "wont"? What color is it?

As black as your heart, you cringing Goreist lackey, streaked with the Deepest Red of the Worker's Flag which you worship !

I enjoy your posts. Ain't nobody gonna accuse you of passive anything. Of course, you might say such things, and I might smile knowingly, but I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[rockoon]

The IPCC projection is not the average of a range, it is the range itself.

(high + low) / 2 does not give an average.

I suggest that you correct your reasoning before trying to refute the methodology. You so far have reasoned that (A) this technique produces an average and (B) that averages are not projections.

Since the technique does not produce an average we do not need to visit your claim (B) that averages are not projections.

(although we COULD visit that claim, and destroy it)

It's an obvious inferrence, and the obvious is often the actuality. The upper bound has come down further, even in relative terms, than the lower bound has risen. That implies a greater initial uncertainty in the upper bound. It's not a cast-iron implication, but it's good enough to need a strong alternative explanation to raise reasonable doubt. Doubt should be reasonable - we're not Philosophers, after all. We're practical, scientific types.

This is not how statistics works. You cannot infer information about the certainty of projections using several different techniques just because we applied those techniques in a specific order.

You are claiming that technique D has less uncertainty in the upper bound than technique C, which has less uncertainty than technique B, which has less uncertainty than technique A.

Exactly how do you justify that claim? Surely you arent suggesting that because (D) has a smaller range than (C), that we know something about the certainty of either?

Now, if you could verify that one technique is better than another by estimating their actual certainty .. through a scientific methodology .. then you might have something.

The fact is that we don't know the certainty of ANY of these projections. They are completely unverified.

 

[mhaze]

Here is a guy down in Australia doing some statistical analysis of Australian weather. He's figured out something that Jones et. al. didn't get - that you can't use (tmax-tmin)/2 to get the average daily temperature.

It's an historical way of giving an indication of the average temperature for a day, that was settled on over a hundred years ago as a way of getting a simple metric for temperature. It doesn't claim to be any more than it is, but it is a useful for what it does. Jones et all didn't create the idea, they were just using what is historically accepted, despite the technical issues people can raise. It measures something meaningful, and it has been used for a long time.

It comes from an old mechanical thermometer design that auto set a marker at min and max. So that is what data you get and that is all you have to work with. But using this mixed with T average data means all signal is lost in noise.

Invalidates the whole study on UHI by Jones....

 

[CapelDodger]

Easy there, Dodger, I wasn't saying there was significant flaming here in this thread, nor at JREF forums (I'm unfamiliar with this place), it was more of a general observation.

Which I used as a hook to hang an observation about this particular thread on. Big Al took the punch-line, you'll notice.

We're pretty civilised around here, except for Politics which does get rowdy.

I'm talking about how certain media outlets making this sound as frightening as possible, and of An Inconvenient Truth using fear as a tool (which I felt it did).

I don't get the "fear regime" vibe from this. FoxNews is certainly not included; over here we have the Daily Mail and Torygraph which are definitely not part of it, and there's still that "balance" in most of the broadcast media that flatters the contrarian cause.

An Inconvenient Truth is meant to be a warning, and how do you warn without introducing fear? Or at least concern? One person's "raising concern" is another's "fear-mongering". Or (buzz-word alert) "alarmism".

The AGW argument has had to swim through mud to get the recognition it has today in political and public opinion terms. It's a triumph of Science. Allied with everyday experience. All this religious BS that seems so critical today will be laughed at in a generation or two. Mark my words.

 

[CapelDodger]

Invalidates the whole study on UHI by Jones....

Well that'll make AGW go away. Strap me, we were that close to being screwed and at the last moment the critical study was repudiated.

I was sorta concerned for a while back there. But no more. Which doesn't mean I don't get to enjoy my early blackberry crop or the second raspberry crop that's promised. Absent an early frost, and how likely is that? A late frost is remarkable around here these days.

 

[CapelDodger]

(high + low) / 2 does not give an average.

That depends on what you're taking the average of. The IPCC prediction is not an average of anything. It's a range.

I suggest that you correct your reasoning before trying to refute the methodology. You so far have reasoned that (A) this technique produces an average and (B) that averages are not projections.

I've reasoned nothing of the sort. I've stuck with the fact that the IPCC projection is a range. Not any kind of average extracted from said range, but a range.

Since the technique does not produce an average we do not need to visit your claim (B) that averages are not projections.

Which is not my claim. Never was, nor anything like. My only claim is that the IPCC reports each predict a range. Those ranges constitute the predictions.

(although we COULD visit that claim, and destroy it)

Since you built it yourself, you can probably spot its weak-points.

This is not how statistics works. You cannot infer information about the certainty of projections using several different techniques just because we applied those techniques in a specific order.

Did I say that I could? I can't remember doing so, which implies I was drunk at the time; I'm impressed that I could still infer something so convoluted in such a state.

You are claiming that technique D has less uncertainty in the upper bound than technique C, which has less uncertainty than technique B, which has less uncertainty than technique A.

No, I'm not doing any of that. I've made my case. Answer it if you like, or keep making up cases for me and answering them instead.

 

[varwoche]

The upper bound has come down further, even in relative terms, than the lower bound has risen. That implies a greater initial uncertainty in the upper bound. It's not a cast-iron implication, but it's good enough to need a strong alternative explanation to raise reasonable doubt.

Hey, get with the program CD. How can these marxists scientists be trusted when they constantly revise the numbers? You know, like this evolution business that "skeptics" seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. First they say that neanderthals aren't human ancestors. And then they are. Ya sure.

 

[CapelDodger]

Actually, I feel it was overplayed. I respect and fear global warming, trust me, I do. However, the movie, while balanced, overdid it in some cases. For example, it stated that the Greenland ice was melting rapidly and that if it all melted away, sea levels would rise 20 (?) feet. However, I read elsewhere that the soonest this can happen is in 1000 years, and it seems Al Gore 'forgot' to mention this in his documentary.

The thousand years you read elsewhere didn't include the Greenland icecap, it simply projects the current 1-2mm per year by thermal expansion into the future. It takes no account of glacial melt at all. We've only starting to see that quite recently, but it's happening more quickly than was expected.

 

[rockoon]

I've reasoned nothing of the sort. I've stuck with the fact that the IPCC projection is a range. Not any kind of average extracted from said range, but a range.

You have not shown that the IPCC projections haven't gone down.

You "refuted" the claim that the projections went down by mumbling something about uncertainty, which are facts not on the table. The IPCC themselves state that the certainty of the ranges they give are not the certainty used in a statistical sense. (Note that your arguement relies on it being in the statistical sense, and still falls short)

I suggested a specific metric to you, which has precedence in the climate circles as being applied to ranges, since you yourself also failed to provide a metric that can be used to refute the claim.

You then argued that this metric is an average, and then argued that averages do not apply to ranges or projections.

Since this metric is not an average, you have not argued at all that this metric is not a valid metric for quantifying IPCC projections. We are left with your mumbling about uncertainty.

So the original claim still stands:

The IPCC projections have gone down.

If you wish to show otherwise, please do so.

Perhaps you have simply been unclear about your intent by mixing up words such as 'average' and 'centroid', or 'projections' and 'predictions.'

If you have knowledge of a precedented metric which shows that the projections have not gone down, then simply say what it is.

Which is not my claim. Never was, nor anything like. My only claim is that the IPCC reports each predict a range. Those ranges constitute the predictions.

You specifically argued that the projections have not gone down. You did this without any knowledge of the claimants metric. You still have no knowledge of his metric yet still argue about it.

You also argued that the certainty of the projections has increased. Can I ask what metric you used for this conclusion?

Did I say that I could? I can't remember doing so, which implies I was drunk at the time; I'm impressed that I could still infer something so convoluted in such a state.

You stated that it was an "obvious inference."

Surely you can show why this obvious inference is obvious? Because its not obvious to me since the IPCC doesnt apply satistical certainty to their projections.

The projections are based off running FORECAST MODELS and using the end result of those models as sample points used to derive a projection.

You cannot measure the certainty of the projection in this way, period.

Measuring the certainty of a projection requires objective measurements. What they are measuring and representing with a range is the certainty about where the models end up. They even state this. Did you not read it?

 

[articulett]

As black as your heart, you cringing Goreist lackey, streaked with the Deepest Red of the Worker's Flag which you worship !

I enjoy your posts. Ain't nobody gonna accuse you of passive anything. Of course, you might say such things, and I might smile knowingly, but I couldn't possibly comment.

I like JoeEllison too--

Sure, it's off topic... but do you notice how rockoon rhymes with buffoon?

 

[rockoon]

I like JoeEllison too--

Sure, it's off topic... but do you notice how rockoon rhymes with buffoon?

I wont make the claim that you are a sock puppet.

 

[JoeEllison]

Hey, get with the program CD. How can these marxists scientists be trusted when they constantly revise the numbers? You know, like this evolution business that "skeptics" seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. First they say that neanderthals aren't human ancestors. And then they are. Ya sure.

Yeah, and like those doctors too! Sure, yeah, our lifespans have increased steadily, but that's just an effing coincidence! You know, first they say it is demons, then they want to stick leeches on us, then they come up with vaccines that eliminated polio in developed nations... what's next, radiation to treat cancer? New, more powerful drugs?

How about those computer geeks? First the Commodore 64, then the Apple, now this Interwebworld whatever... why can't they just pick something and stick to it? All these changes PROVE that they are just lying to us!


I tell you, they can't be trusted!

 

[mhaze]

The thousand years you read elsewhere didn't include the Greenland icecap, it simply projects the current 1-2mm per year by thermal expansion into the future. It takes no account of glacial melt at all. We've only starting to see that quite recently, but it's happening more quickly than was expected.

No.

That is wrong. Glacial melt is of course part of the model.

 

[CapelDodger]

I tell you, they can't be trusted!

You can't trust fnord anybody . Except subliminal shot of kitten on a spit here me. Trust me on that.

A thing about me (look at how I'm pouring my heart out) is that I really like to be right about things. I hate to be wrong, but I'll still risk it given the prospect of the buzz from being right. AGW is a cash-in ticket that just keeps giving. It's a one-horse race however many goats are included.

 

[CapelDodger]

No.

That is wrong. Glacial melt is of course part of the model.

No, there isn't a model behind what Safe-keeper read somewhere, what's behind that is a simple projection of the thermal expansion experienced over the last few decades. No climate models accurately represent glacial retreat because they depend on ice-dynamics models that have been proved - by observation - to be seriously flawed.

 

[articulett]

The thousand years you read elsewhere didn't include the Greenland icecap, it simply projects the current 1-2mm per year by thermal expansion into the future. It takes no account of glacial melt at all. We've only starting to see that quite recently, but it's happening more quickly than was expected.

Moreover, it neglects feedback loops... and from that front it seems like there was some underestimation.

Everything big starts small... cancer starts as a copying error... and it's a single moment when it breaks off and enters the blood stream to plant itself elsewhere... the sooner you abort or mitigate the process, the better the results... but after a while you are just fighting a losing battle. There is a tendency not to understand exponential outputs amongst the AGW deniers...and the creationists...and those who think overpopulation isn't a problem....

Scientific ignorance has exponentially scary results.

 

[mhaze]

No, there isn't a model behind what Safe-keeper read somewhere, what's behind that is a simple projection of the thermal expansion experienced over the last few decades. No climate models accurately represent glacial retreat because they depend on ice-dynamics models that have been proved - by observation - to be seriously flawed.

Well, I am at a loss for words here. My simple mind which tells me that a 1mm rise per year for 1000 years is 1 meter rise, and a 2mm rise for 1000 years is 2 meters rise, is obviously inadequate.

I am humbled before the perfect knowledge of CP on the peer reviewed article entitled "What Safe-keeper read somewhere". I have no such knowledge, and only presumed that we were discussing 1000 year projections from authoritatitve although flawed sources such as the IPCC.

May I ask what this week's winning lottery numbers are?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It's only a Google search away, pal:

Greenland Melt May Swamp LA, Other Cities, Study Says
Greenland ice cap 'doomed to meltdown' - 07 April 2004 - New Scientist

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, I am at a loss for words here. My simple mind which tells me that a 1mm rise per year for 1000 years is 1 meter rise, and a 2mm rise for 1000 years is 2 meters rise, is obviously inadequate.

Hey, don't beat yourself up, it's perfectly adequate as a simple projection.

I am humbled before the perfect knowledge of CP on the peer reviewed article entitled "What Safe-keeper read somewhere".

I did leap wildly to a conclusion there .

I have no such knowledge, and only presumed that we were discussing 1000 year projections from authoritatitve although flawed sources such as the IPCC.

The IPCC does thousand year projections? Isn't that way outside their remit?

May I ask what this week's winning lottery numbers are?

Fish .