Simple Question About AGW

[Alric]

My graphs are better than yours. You have to include near pre-industrial times to get an idea of the anthropogenic contribution. Note that your graphs start in the 1990s.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/

Or even better, thousands of years for the complete picture.

So yes. You may have to inconvenience yourself a bit to save the world.

A general note about this thread. Stop looking for minute discrepancies, misunderstandings or plain misdirections to "debunk" climate. The coarse picture is concrete: Climate is happening and is very likely of anthropogenic origin. Its granularity, like all interesting topics in science will have points to be researched and discussed, but don't loose sight of the big picture.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think but am not sure ...

Guess what I'm not sure about, that notwithstanding?

... that you have just said that you will stake your intellectual reputation on some future data sets, irregardless of whether the historical data sets which those are based on are shown by current peer reviewed science to be inaccurate, biased or wrong.

Yup. Done it. Right here. Given the peer-reviewed inaccuracy, bias, and wrongness that you've been shown, will you stake what passes for your intellectual reputation on the opposite? It could use a big win.

This falls into the "Not even wrong" category, in my opinion.

It falls into the "not yet wrong" category unlike the "no warming" pundits of yesteryear, They just keep being wrong and inventing excuses for it. Will you line up behind them and their current excuses? How dependable do you really find them?

Any intelligent process of betting first is based on some understanding of the mechanisms or lack of in the phenomena. Hence I submit just one brief table for your consideration (from the D'Aleo paper I recently linked to). Double click to enlarge.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14224479a3db13b041.png[/URL]
Incidentally, it looks like D'Aleo is having a lively discussion with Tamino over this very subject.

Tamino's challenge is very simple. Naturally Tamino (and I) base our positions on intelligent analysis. I've slapped my cock on the block; will you? Or carry on waffling, whatever.

D'Aleo is getting his ass handed to him on principle (and why not?), not on this subject. Different threads, doncha know.

This is the thread you want for D'Aleo http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/

The You Bet thread is here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

The Tamino Challenge is very clearly laid out. D'Aleo has nothing to do with it - any more than you do. Take it or leave it. Or wimp out, waffle on, whatever works for you.

 

[a_unique_person]

Now if you'd like to spend some time making graphs, look up the latest SST data and report back. Can there be global warming if the oceans are not?

[/quote]

the oceans are going through a la nina. That's a natural cycle of cooling.

 

[fsol]

A slight exaggeration there.

How very scientific of you.

 

[Megalodon]

Megalodon,

It is not hard to show both a warming and cooling trend depending which start points you choose.

There we go, full circle... That's the claim you made before, and i proved you wrong then with these:

Yet, you insist on creating meaningless graphs that nobody can analyze but only comment how beautiful they are.

There you go again, projecting your inadequacies on others... I'll explain it to you: cold colors mean that there is a negative temperature anomaly, warm colors mean a positive one, white means 0 anomaly. You have the whole year plotted, so that you can see the changes in anomaly within one year. It shows you, for instance, that in the 21st century only a handful of months had a negative or 0 temperature anomaly.

Now if you'd like to spend some time making graphs, look up the latest SST data and report back. Can there be global warming if the oceans are not?

Not warming? So that shift in the temperature anomalies is make believe?



Not warming? That's why only one year in the 21st century had less than an average 0.2 ºC temperature anomaly?

 

[mhaze]

Quote:
... that you have just said that you will stake your intellectual reputation on some future data sets, irregardless of whether the historical data sets which those are based on are shown by current peer reviewed science to be inaccurate, biased or wrong.
​

Yup. Done it. Right here. Given the peer-reviewed inaccuracy, bias, and wrongness that you've been shown, will you stake what passes for your intellectual reputation on the opposite? It could use a big win.

CD: Have fun with that little exercise. Warmologists staking their last shred of hope for GW on a vain gamble. Is this because the last two years of peer reviewed research has not favored the AGW hypothesis?

By the way, where are Tamino's peer reviewed articles? Or is he/she just "an earnest amateur?" debating D'Aleo, a professional scientist? I'm not saying Tamino doesn't have any, just asking what or where they may be. Certainly he's quick to discount peer reviewed research by those whom he thinks are "deniers", including McIntyre, Piekle, Linzen, Christy, Spencer and many others.

So I assume Tamino (your latest Authority) is a esteemed and respected scientist? Right? Just asking for a clarification here.

Meg: Your charts and graphs really should be accompanied by notes which indicate data source and what span of time the averages were taken from. Otherwise, the complaint that no one can make heads or tails of them seems valid.

Alric: I did show the correlations for the data series that you graphed. You assert that one should look at a longer time period. But oftentimes we need to look at a far shorter time period to get it right. As an example, volcanos have a 2-3 year cooling effect. El Nino and La Nina have a 1-2 year effect. PDO has a decadal effect. As to looking at a longer time series to isolate the effect of CO2, well, you see that gives you a Pearson Coefficient of 0.66 and R squared of 0.43. Note how these compare with other metrics in the chart below. Comments?

 

[Alric]

But oftentimes we need to look at a far shorter time period to get it right. Note how these compare with other metrics in the chart below. Comments?

Too short..hence, too little.

 

[mhaze]

Too short..hence, too little.

Three of the four rows are for more than a century, and your charts are roughly 1880 to the present....

 

[Alric]

Three of the four rows are for more than a century, and your charts are roughly 1880 to the present....

That's what I meant. You have to include C02 numbers from the same dates, otherwise its an invalid comparison.

 

[fsol]

CD: Have fun with that little exercise. Warmologists staking their last shred of hope for GW on a vain gamble. Is this because the last two years of peer reviewed research has not favored the AGW hypothesis?

Evidence?

 

[mhaze]

That's what I meant. You have to include C02 numbers from the same dates, otherwise its an invalid comparison.

I did. Maybe we are miscommunicating?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
CD: Have fun with that little exercise. Warmologists staking their last shred of hope for GW on a vain gamble. Is this because the last two years of peer reviewed research has not favored the AGW hypothesis?

​

Evidence?

IPCC 2007 shutoff was mid 2006, so all of that is 20 months old - most 24 months old.

What would evidence be? Lists of articles in different subject areas? Such lists have been presented here numerous times.

What would contrary evidence be? Recent articles that favor the AGW hypothesis?

Evidence?

 

[Alric]

I did. Maybe we are miscommunicating?

Ah! I see there are two rows for CO2. Where are these numbers from again?

 

[fsol]

IPCC 2007 shutoff was mid 2006, so all of that is 20 months old - most 24 months old.

What would evidence be? Lists of articles in different subject areas? Such lists have been presented here numerous times.

What would contrary evidence be? Recent articles that favor the AGW hypothesis?

Evidence?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that as you had made the claim, you would be able to back it up. Sorry about that, my mistake. I'll try not to let it happen again.

 

[CapelDodger]

CD: Have fun with that little exercise. Warmologists staking their last shred of hope for GW on a vain gamble.

I understand your reluctance to participate. Hope springs eternal in an open-ended trial.

Remember Dr Dick and the 60-80 Arctic sea-ice cycle you found so appealing? Well, Dr Dick said (in effect) that if the sea-ice doesn't come back in the next two-to-seven years (actually five-to-ten, but that was in 2005) something serious is definitely going on. Seven years is 2015, which is about when Tamino's challenge is likely to be determined. Do you want to drop Dr Dick yet? You seemed so keen on him only last summer.

Is this because the last two years of peer reviewed research has not favored the AGW hypothesis?

What hypothesis do you imagine it has favoured? What hypothesis do you think events have favoured?

By the way, where are Tamino's peer reviewed articles?

Tamino does time series analysis, previously in astrophysics and now in the private sector. Whether he has any published papers I don't know. He does understand time series analysis, though.

Or is he/she just "an earnest amateur?" debating D'Aleo, a professional scientist?

And handing him his ass (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/). Tamino apparently knows more about time series analysis than D'Aleo. D'Aleo's reactions to having his work picked apart have fallen a little short of professional.

I'm not saying Tamino doesn't have any, just asking what or where they may be. Certainly he's quick to discount peer reviewed research by those whom he thinks are "deniers", including McIntyre, Piekle, Linzen, Christy, Spencer and many others.

You missed Singer and Gray. Are there many others? The Fortune 400 list wasn't exactly stuffed with published scientists in a relevant field, and some that were in there took exception.

So I assume Tamino (your latest Authority) is a esteemed and respected scientist? Right? Just asking for a clarification here.

He's a professional time-series analyst (at least in part). He understands statistics. Better than D'Aleo does - unless D'Aleo was playing fast-and-loose in the hope that no-one would notice, which is a far-fetched notion.

Meg: Your charts and graphs really should be accompanied by notes which indicate data source and what span of time the averages were taken from. Otherwise, the complaint that no one can make heads or tails of them seems valid.

That'll come back to haunt you.

 

[CapelDodger]

IPCC 2007 shutoff was mid 2006, so all of that is 20 months old - most 24 months old.

It certainly missed last summer's Arctic conditions.

What would evidence be? Lists of articles in different subject areas? Such lists have been presented here numerous times.

A simpler question then : where did you get the idea from? Is it perhaps the ClimateAudit zeitgeist? Lucifage Rocifale's sad demolished efforts? Fox TV?

What would contrary evidence be? Recent articles that favor the AGW hypothesis?

Evidence?

Unusual weather events. Last summer's Arctic sea-ice. Continuing glacial retreat.

These papers (articles?) would also be working on old data, wouldn't they? First you gather it, then you analyse it, then you write it up and submit it, then it goes to peer review, there's some back-and-foring, then it gets scheduled for press. (Printing-press, I mean.) It takes months at best.

Events are up-to-date.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that as you had made the claim, you would be able to back it up. Sorry about that, my mistake. I'll try not to let it happen again.

mhaze didn't actually make a claim. Look at again :

"Is this because the last two years of peer reviewed research has not favored the AGW hypothesis?"

Phrased as a question, not a claim. Aversion therapy is gradually bearing fruit . You can get burned by a claim, but you can back off from a question. "Just seeking clarification", that sort of thing.

My money's on the ClimateAudit zeitgeist being behind mhaze's impression, but he's not so confident of it as he used to be. mhaze is persistent, though, you have to give him that. Puts himself out there day-in, day-out, left flapping in the wind by the likes of Rodale and Rocifale who seldom venture from the comfort and safety of the burrow, only to flee at the first hint of danger. Just when they think the Megalodon has gone it pounces .

 

[CapelDodger]

There we go, full circle... That's the claim you made before, and i proved you wrong then with these:

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2814715d04911d68.jpg[/URL]

The damn' fool thought he was safe.

There you go again, projecting your inadequacies on others...

Please, don't ever change .

 

[fsol]

mhaze didn't actually make a claim. Look at again :



Phrased as a question, not a claim. Aversion therapy is gradually bearing fruit . You can get burned by a claim, but you can back off from a question. "Just seeking clarification", that sort of thing.

My money's on the ClimateAudit zeitgeist being behind mhaze's impression, but he's not so confident of it as he used to be. mhaze is persistent, though, you have to give him that. Puts himself out there day-in, day-out, left flapping in the wind by the likes of Rodale and Rocifale who seldom venture from the comfort and safety of the burrow, only to flee at the first hint of danger. Just when they think the Megalodon has gone it pounces .

Ah, it's like McIntyre *not* accusing Mann or Hansen of fraud. I get ya

 

[David Rodale]

There we go, full circle... That's the claim you made before, and i proved you wrong then with these:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2814715d04911d68.jpg




There you go again, projecting your inadequacies on others... I'll explain it to you: cold colors mean that there is a negative temperature anomaly, warm colors mean a positive one, white means 0 anomaly. You have the whole year plotted, so that you can see the changes in anomaly within one year. It shows you, for instance, that in the 21st century only a handful of months had a negative or 0 temperature anomaly.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_28147a4a0f240c34.jpg



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_281472eeca0ead83.jpg

Not warming? So that shift in the temperature anomalies is make believe?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_28147274d0303994.jpg

Not warming? That's why only one year in the 21st century had less than an average 0.2 ºC temperature anomaly?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Megaladon,[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You seem to have a mental block. Below is what I was demonstrating in very simple terms, that being the trend was changing and is now flat. It is quite obvious that even with the data staring you straight in the face you can't see it. Spencer's graph is essentially saying the same thing! The only thing you've done thus far is show you have no affinity to analyze data. By your logic, temperatures could drop for the next 20 years and you could technically claim it's still warming because the “trend” would still show a positive sign. No offense, but your long hours spent creating impressive looking graphs and charts do not change the fact there is no warming. You are wasting your time.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I believe this was my original graphs posted showing the change in trends based on Sep to Sep years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It was nothing spectacular, but you acquired OCD some reason and cannot seem to let it go.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Lyman et al have already shown in their corrected paper the oceans did not warm between 2003 and early 2006. At that time you criticized me for that at which time I stated while you were busy learning how to create graphs, I was patiently waiting for Lyman's correction. The oceans are not accumulating heat, got it? No additional heating of oceans, no global warming.You lose.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]My three charts:[/FONT]










I'd say Spencer is somewhat qualified to comment on temperatures wouldn't you agree?
Here it is again, flat:




I'm not a micro-manager, tend to be a bit lazy and prefer to delegate work to others, so will use the following to further illustrate your apparent lack of attention to detail. If you still can't see what's going on, maybe a linear regression bar chart would help, but like I said, I'm lazy:
It's warming?




Would you care to pull up the latest SST data from HadCRU please? Oh, and get me a cup of coffee too. And while you're at it, dig up the ice extent data as well. Ok, you may as well locate the snow extent too. See, I am lazy.