Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[aleCcowaN]

And you sitting in the front row, doing nothing but enjoying -or taking bets-

 

[Wangler]

And you sitting in the front row, doing nothing but enjoying -or taking bets-

Just remember that I have more riding on this whole AGW debate than anyone else here in the forum ⁽¹⁾.

$10 more, to be exact.






⁽¹⁾ with the exception of TrueSkeptic

 

[aleCcowaN]

Just remember that I have more riding on this whole AGW debate than anyone else here in the forum ⁽¹⁾.

$10 more, to be exact.

Yes, I wonder if it is on the side of the saddle you would deserve.

The problem is your giving another push to the pedal any time the bicycle of conflict is about to fall. I mean conflict among others because you care to step aside and watch, just reappearing to poke the embers as unnoticed as you can get.

 

[Wangler]

....just reappearing to poke the embers as unnoticed as you can get.

Actually more like this:

 

[Wangler]

Yes, I wonder if it is on the side of the saddle you would deserve.

Alec, I think that this comes to the crux of a major difference between you and I:

I would never presume to assume what you would or would not "deserve", especially as all I know about you is reading posts on an Internet forum.

 

[mhaze]

This is not an acceptable answer. You are not explaining the error margin in temperatures regarding those figures. Both figures 1 and 6 use climatic normals. You simply find likable a high correlation between temperature and "spots" (though an indirect marker) but you find ugly other correlations with temperature and attack wildly such temperature records and techniques.....

This is not an acceptable understanding of the discussion. Of course perhaps you haven't read the paper in question. That is the indication from your several latest responses.

The Georgieva article uses the well known and understood A/K solar indices, and the Hadley Center temperature data. All instrumental measurements have certain precisions. These are of course known to some degree of accuracy, and they are either stated, or referenced. Based on these facts, scientists proceed to look for relationships and draw conclusions.

What part of that do you have a problem with?

Looks like we have an Alinsky vs Mercurius bout shaping up.

The 12 rules of leftists, or something, versus the denialists rules of discussion.

Let the fracas begin....

There is no fracas that will begin. Yes we can note the attempted use of Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals Rule 11 by Alec, "pin your opponent, and be sure to personalize the issue" as a political tactic in debate. It has no place in the discussion of a scientific paper.

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

As you have noted, it is an attempt to derail from an interesting relationship found by Georgieva, to a personalization of presumed motivations. But we have seen Warmers use this method of avoiding scientific issues for quite a while.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Tip: Asking for the link makes you look smart, and like a reasoned thinker!

Excellent!

Just kidding with you, Alec.

a few hours later

I've said it before about other data: r = 0.85 just is not an convincing correlation.

Is it possible that I am being to particular? I usually like having r>0.95 in my regressions.

r>0.95 and three minute eggs for the connaisseur ... vite!

Let's your posts speak for you:

Let the fracas begin....

Actually more like this:

Alec, I think that this comes to the crux of a major difference between you and I:

I would never presume to assume what you would or would not "deserve", especially as all I know about you is reading posts on an Internet forum.

Then, this is addressed to your persona, not you: Were green the three-minute eggs? Did he ate the ham in the end?

'Til next time you want to dynamite the bridge over trouble waters.

 

[BenBurch]

...

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

...

Exactly how you comport yourself.

Got anything other than loosely coupled resonance to explain why AK lags Delta-T?

 

[aleCcowaN]

(to mhaze) You forgot to say "nothing in my pockets, nothing up my sleeves" first

This is not an acceptable understanding of the discussion. Of course perhaps you haven't read the paper in question. That is the indication from your several latest responses.

The Georgieva article uses the well known and understood A/K solar indices, and the Hadley Center temperature data. All instrumental measurements have certain precisions. These are of course known to some degree of accuracy, and they are either stated, or referenced. Based on these facts, scientists proceed to look for relationships and draw conclusions.

What part of that do you have a problem with?

Blah, blah, blah but you forgot almost everybody here know that correlation implies two variables or more. One of both variables used in the figure you are so fond has been deeply criticized by yourself as inaccurate so you made the whole reasoning based on that correlation to fail, or worst, you consciously claim that temperature records are blurred or sharp as you need it to support your claims.

That was it before you wrote your latest post and continue to be it after you did. Anyway, I hope to hear a lot of you in the future, keep your posts coming, don't think I want you out of here, au contraire.

There is no fracas that will begin. Yes we can note the attempted use of Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals Rule 11 by Alec, "pin your opponent, and be sure to personalize the issue" as a political tactic in debate. It has no place in the discussion of a scientific paper.

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

As you have noted, it is an attempt to derail from an interesting relationship found by Georgieva, to a personalization of presumed motivations. But we have seen Warmers use this method of avoiding scientific issues for quite a while.

Look, Steve, next time try to cite your personal version of the rule in a post other than the one where you use it yourself. It shows ... it shows!!! You forgot you are writing here. I'm sure you have a deep and sharp voice, trained and inflected, proper to address the masses from the platform, but here you are only fixed letter and you can be read forwards and backwards, so your rhetorical twists are no so useful.

You may answer the question giving numbers about you saying that margin errors in historical temperatures are in the very same order of magnitude but here temperatures in 1820 or 1900 are highly correlated with freckles. If you insist in curling the curl and deviate to other topics I may ask which language was you Primsleur, Cantonese?

 

[mhaze]

Blah, blah, blah ....

Nonsense.

Go look up yourself the estimated precision of the Hansen database, and then that of Hadley Center. They are what they are. There is a significant difference. It doesn't just go away and cannot be attributed to a poster on an internet forum with whom you disagree. Attribution of the assertion of precision is to the respective scientists.

You argue the point between the Hadley Center numbers and the Hansen numbers, if you wish to get somewhere. But I take it you have now abandoned trying to defend the Hansen number set? That's smart. That is what even MacDoc recommended, as I recall.

Similarly, we discuss Georgieva 2005. It is based on publicly available data sets. They have to some degree of understanding, ranges of precision stated. Those are the premises on which the work is done. Not that the data sets are perfect, but that they are within the stated ranges. You can disagree with the premises, the method, the conclusions, etc.

GO!

 

[mhaze]

MHaze, even with your preferred diagram, delta T leads delta AK. If I were looking for a causal relationship, I would have to say that earth temperature controls the sun......

The effect of a forcing should show some scalar (linear) relationship between the forcing, and the atmospheric temperature on a decadal basis? And that presumed linear relationship should be so perfect that delta Ts should follow delta AK? These strawman presumptions are yours, not mine. They are not the assertions of the paper, either. Likely because in a system like the Earth, where you have several phases of matter continually absorbing, emitting and transferring energy, there will be no such simplistic relationship.

I give you credit though for changing from your earlier argument, that T led AK, to the current argument that delta T leads delta AK. (Not that your new goalposts are any better!, but the former argument was....well, based on ignorance).

Isn't it this style thinking that is problematic, as the last decade does not show the linear temperature increase with increased CO2 that is predicted by climate models?

Nonetheless, I note empirically the curious similarity between the PDO and the AK index. Noting it certainly doesn't mean that I can explain it to the level of your demand, certainly not when people who are expert in the field do not presume to have clear knowledge of the solar influences.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The effect of a forcing should show some scalar (linear) relationship between the forcing, and the atmospheric temperature on a decadal basis? And that presumed linear relationship should be so perfect that delta Ts should follow delta AK? These strawman presumptions are yours, not mine. They are not the assertions of the paper, either. Likely because in a system like the Earth, where you have several phases of matter continually absorbing, emitting and transferring energy, there will be no such simplistic relationship.

Only mhaze would claim that there is something strange about expecting a cause to happen before its effect. To the rest of us, this is obvious.

I give you credit though for changing from your earlier argument, that T led AK, to the current argument that delta T leads delta AK. (Not that your new goalposts are any better!, but the former argument was....well, based on ignorance).

I don't think that he changed his "goalpost", only his terminology.

Nonetheless, I note empirically the curious similarity between the PDO and the AK index. Noting it certainly doesn't mean that I can explain it to the level of your demand, certainly not when people who are expert in the field do not presume to have clear knowledge of the solar influences.

I note empirically the curious similarity between the number of sunspots and the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...chnological-forecasting-and-social-change.pdf

 

[macdoc]

He hasn't answered the "loosely coupled" nonsense has he...

lots of attempted diversion tho...

••

Next up....

where you have several phases of matter continually absorbing, emitting and transferring energy, there will be no such simplistic relationship.

another casual face plant.....

The sun emits energy that is significant, the planet does not ( aside from low level heat from internals ).....

re- radiation is NOT emitting energy....it is transferring the sun's emission/radiation back into space.

Oh Occam why hast tho forsaken him

See Myriad's "grey box" post...

 

[mhaze]

Only mhaze would claim that there is something strange about expecting a cause to happen before its effect. To the rest of us, this is obvious.....

I admit to seeing a curious religiosity to your worldview's theory of single causation.

....Got anything other than loosely coupled resonance to explain why AK lags Delta-T?....

Sure. For purposes of discussion only I'll propose the following. Consider this the null hypothesis. Let's be clear there is no discussion of PDO in the Gergieva paper, so we are just playing with the idea. And we're interested in seeing how and if Warmers can actually engage in a simple, everyday bit of scientific discourse.

1. PDO affects world temperature, R=0.85.
2. AK index is correlated with world temperature up to year 2000+, R=0.85 or higher.
3. There is a completely circumstantial fact that the AK index, the world temperature indices, and the PDO waveform for the 20th century are very similar. In other words, an increasing AK index does not cause an increasing PDO and a decreasing AK index does not cause a decreasing PDO.

One reasonable answer to your question as to random lag and lead of first derivatives is obvious. The additional superimposed effect of PDO on world temperature.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Nonsense.

Go look up yourself the estimated precision of the Hansen database, and then that of Hadley Center. They are what they are. There is a significant difference. It doesn't just go away and cannot be attributed to a poster on an internet forum with whom you disagree. Attribution of the assertion of precision is to the respective scientists.

You argue the point between the Hadley Center numbers and the Hansen numbers, if you wish to get somewhere. But I take it you have now abandoned trying to defend the Hansen number set? That's smart. That is what even MacDoc recommended, as I recall.

Similarly, we discuss Georgieva 2005. It is based on publicly available data sets. They have to some degree of understanding, ranges of precision stated. Those are the premises on which the work is done. Not that the data sets are perfect, but that they are within the stated ranges. You can disagree with the premises, the method, the conclusions, etc.

GO!

Yes? I will tell you what nonsense is. Here you have Georgieva's figure 6 and the same climate normals developed by Hansen & Co. all together

You might be impaired to see it, but everyone else will see the "high correlation" -your new favourite tag- between climatic normals in Giorgieva's figure (solid line) and the plotted data get from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt (in blue). Besides a slightly different base for 0° they correlate much better that ak index. It means nothing about how sound ak index may be or may be not to explain anything. It only means you take both temperature series and claim one of them is inaccurate, it proves nothing and yada-yada-yada, and the other one, essentially the same values, proves a fundamental relation between temperatures and any value from the crapsphere you may find pleasing to back your thoughts. The problem are not these people like Giorgieva et al but just you.

And look, Steve, it is not a matter of "hav[ing] now abandoned trying to defend the Hansen number set". Nobody asked about, I will continue on that -they have been more than generous sharing tons of information- and the problem there, if there really was one -two series gotten under different criteria, openly stated-, was not Hansen's but NOAA data. Try to be a little consistent.

 

[fsol]

[*]PDO affects world temperature, R=0.85.

Umm...no it doesn't. First of all the value you quote is for R^2. Secondly the value is not for the correlation between PDO and "world temperature." Thirdly it is not even correct for the correlation D'Aleo tried to make.

The strongest correlation D’Aleo computes — the one he calls the “jackpot” — is U.S. temperature with AMO and PDO. But AMO and PDO are actually temperature indices, for the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. And they’re not for the entire oceans, they’re for the north Atlantic and north Pacific oceans. So he’s effectively shown that U.S. temperature is correlated to temperature in its neighboring ocean basins. This amounts to showing that temperature here is correlated with temperature nearby, which isn’t any great revelation, it’s simply a demonstration of the well-known and well-established (by mainstream climate scientists) fact of teleconnection: that temperature changes in nearby areas are strongly correlated, out to far greater distances than most would suspect. And if the analysis is done correctly, without the moving-average step which so greatly inflates the correlation (which by the way uses two predictor variables while the others use only one) the impressive 0.85!!! becomes a not-so-many-exclamation-points 0.24. Of course, we already knew they’d be correlated by virtue of teleconnection.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/

Feel free to ignore this if you have another source for your "R=0.85."

 

[macdoc]

The denidiots finally discover PDO NAO and ENSO et al and get it all wrong....

A similar face plant just recently

The denialosphere is atwitter about a new paper by McLean, Freitas, and Carter (2009, J. Geophysical Res. 114, D14104). They seek to relate variations in tropospheric temperature to the southern oscillation index (SOI). The concluding sentence is:

Finally, this study has shown that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to variability and perhaps recent trends in global temperature, a relationship that is not included in current global climate models.

​

That ENSO is a major contributor to variability in global temperature, is ancient news. In fact I’ve shown it myself.


That ENSO is a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature, they have not shown — not even “perhaps.” In fact it’s downright impossible for their methodology to do so.

the dissection of the fraud continues...

http://tamino.wordpress.com/

•••

Meanwhile the rest of the planet gets on with dealing with it......

Earth 3.0 Special Edition - Population and Sustainability

http://www.scientificamerican.com/special-editions/

some surprises in this article

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=top-25-green-energy-leaders

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I admit to seeing a curious religiosity to your worldview's theory of single causation.

Neither I nor anyone else has claimed that there is no natural climate variability. That's been stated numerous times, and I think that everyone else understands it.

 

[macdoc]

Does that qualify as a tacit admission that C02 is a driver????

slippery slope that....

 

[mhaze]

Yes? I will tell you what nonsense is. ....see the "high correlation" -your new favourite tag- between climatic normals in Giorgieva's figure (solid line) and the plotted data get from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt ....

Answer directly please.

Do you have a problem with Hadley's stated bounds of precision or not? And, are Hansen's claims of much higher precision valid? Re NOAA, this thread has drifted considerably. Let's take that into account.

....And look, Steve,...

The naming is in error , if it was not, the following would apply:

JREF Rule 8:
You will not post a person's private information that is not otherwise publicly available or if it is not required for a discussion.