mnealtx 0
Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
QuoteTrenberth's comment was not about lack of warming, but about a lack of instrument networks to observe the warming
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
"can't account" != "can't detect"
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuoteQuotedue to the amount of noise in the data, 10 years is far to short to evaluate a temperature trend. The difference in trend for the last 10 years and the last 30 years is not statistically significant.
Amazing how 10 years of flat temps isn't statistically significant, but 10 years of ice data is incontrovertible proof of warming.
We currently have about 30 years of sea ice extent data from satellites. As a general point, if the noise in the sea ice extent data were low enough, you could establish a statistically significant trend over 10 years.
billvon 2,384
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Or it could just be the normal recovery from a cooling event....nah, that couldn't be
>it... no money or Nobels in *that*!!
?? You were the one who said you understood that we were retaining more heat and that there might be a mechanism that overrules that effect. Are you retracting that?
>Maybe because I don't agree with your mechanism.
That's fine; propose your own.
>Which also means that increased CO2 can't be responsible for the increased warming.
No, that means that CO2 can only be responsible for a few degrees of warming, since the increase is only a few watts (instead of 120.)
>it... no money or Nobels in *that*!!
?? You were the one who said you understood that we were retaining more heat and that there might be a mechanism that overrules that effect. Are you retracting that?
>Maybe because I don't agree with your mechanism.
That's fine; propose your own.
>Which also means that increased CO2 can't be responsible for the increased warming.
No, that means that CO2 can only be responsible for a few degrees of warming, since the increase is only a few watts (instead of 120.)
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotedue to the amount of noise in the data, 10 years is far to short to evaluate a temperature trend. The difference in trend for the last 10 years and the last 30 years is not statistically significant.
Amazing how 10 years of flat temps isn't statistically significant, but 10 years of ice data is incontrovertible proof of warming.
We currently have about 30 years of sea ice extent data from satellites. As a general point, if the noise in the sea ice extent data were low enough, you could establish a statistically significant trend over 10 years.
So it's too noisy, too...yet still used as proof of warming. Just like that 10 years of temp data that's too noisy to use to show the temps flattening but sufficiently accurate to be used as proof of warming.
Nice racket.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
Quote>Or it could just be the normal recovery from a cooling event....nah, that couldn't be
>it... no money or Nobels in *that*!!
?? You were the one who said you understood that we were retaining more heat and that there might be a mechanism that overrules that effect. Are you retracting that?
Nope. What I *said* and you're (as usual) trying to spin is that *IF* CO2 is a main driver, then evidently other processes are overriding it.
Quote>Maybe because I don't agree with your mechanism.
That's fine; propose your own.
Already did - natural recovery from the LIA.
Quote>Which also means that increased CO2 can't be responsible for the increased warming.
No, that means that CO2 can only be responsible for a few degrees of warming, since the increase is only a few watts (instead of 120.)
Which also disproves CO2 being a prime driver that has to be severely curtailed to prevent climate catastrophy.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
So it's too noisy, too...yet still used as proof of warming. Just like that 10 years of temp data that's too noisy to use to show the temps flattening but sufficiently accurate to be used as proof of warming.
Nice racket.
No. Climate scientists have done the math, and they have established how many years are necessary to define a trend (30) and they use this value for trend calculations.
Again, three different organizations have taken the climate data, adjusted it to remove instrumental bias, and generated a trend (the raw data used by each groups differs, but there is some overlap). You can claim "institutional bias" but the code used by at least two of these groups is available, and the process is sufficiently simple that a couple of bloggers have been able to replicate the results using their own code. A fourth group composed of climate skeptics has also been able to replicate the results, and that paper is in peer review.
In addition to the analysis of temperature data described above, there are two sets of satellite data that also cover the time period in question.
The final result is that all five analyses give a 30 year temperature trend that is consistent within the limits of experimental error.
In a recent paper, Foster & Rhamsdorf did a multivariate regression on the 30 year data to remove the contributions from the solar cycle, volcanic eruptions, and the el nino/ la nina cycle. The result reveals a steady upward trend (figures 4 & 5 in the link). Interestingly, when you remove the contributions from internal variability, the warming trend for the past 10 years is statistically significant (barely).
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
brenthutch 383
QuoteQuote>Doesn't that call into question the causal relationship between CO2 and Temp?
No, because it's not a year to year direct correlation; it's only long term. Year to year things like el nino, la nina (the ENSO in other words) has a bigger effect.
Take a look at graphs of temperature from 1850 to today. 1880 was a very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for almost 60 years. 1945 was another very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for 15 years. 1998 was a very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for 7 years.
But on average temperatures have gone up.
53 degrees in N. Illinois today. Won't be another day this warm until tomorrow. (Normal high for this date is 31 degrees).
Well there it is folks. Game over for us skeptics. The professor using the redoubtable science of a local weather forecast; has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Man is causing the planet to roast. Using his unassailable logic it would seem certain that N. Illinois will be broiling in 115 degree temps this summer. Well I have to apologize to every one on this forum. I just wished I had listened before it was too late. If only I had paid $50 for a gallon of gas we would still be alive this coming summer. Again my deepest apologies for destroying the planet.
kallend 1,621
QuoteQuoteQuote>Doesn't that call into question the causal relationship between CO2 and Temp?
No, because it's not a year to year direct correlation; it's only long term. Year to year things like el nino, la nina (the ENSO in other words) has a bigger effect.
Take a look at graphs of temperature from 1850 to today. 1880 was a very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for almost 60 years. 1945 was another very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for 15 years. 1998 was a very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for 7 years.
But on average temperatures have gone up.
53 degrees in N. Illinois today. Won't be another day this warm until tomorrow. (Normal high for this date is 31 degrees).
Well there it is folks. Game over for us skeptics. The professor using the redoubtable science of a local weather forecast; has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Man is causing the planet to roast. Using his unassailable logic it would seem certain that N. Illinois will be broiling in 115 degree temps this summer. Well I have to apologize to every one on this forum. I just wished I had listened before it was too late. If only I had paid $50 for a gallon of gas we would still be alive this coming summer. Again my deepest apologies for destroying the planet.
Sorry, I forgot the [sarcasm] tag for those too obtuse to figure it out for themselves.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
So it's too noisy, too...yet still used as proof of warming. Just like that 10 years of temp data that's too noisy to use to show the temps flattening but sufficiently accurate to be used as proof of warming.
Nice racket.
No. Climate scientists have done the math, and they have established how many years are necessary to define a trend (30) and they use this value for trend calculations.
Again, three different organizations have taken the climate data, adjusted it to remove instrumental bias, and generated a trend (the raw data used by each groups differs, but there is some overlap). You can claim "institutional bias" but the code used by at least two of these groups is available, and the process is sufficiently simple that a couple of bloggers have been able to replicate the results using their own code. A fourth group composed of climate skeptics has also been able to replicate the results, and that paper is in peer review.
When the raw data has been 'value-added' so often, I'm unsurprised.
Garbage in, garbage out
QuoteIn addition to the analysis of temperature data described above, there are two sets of satellite data that also cover the time period in question.
The final result is that all five analyses give a 30 year temperature trend that is consistent within the limits of experimental error.
Why is it that warmists keep going back to the fact that there's been warming, which isn't in dispute, rather than the *cause* of the warming which is the point of the discussion?
QuoteIn a recent paper, Foster & Rhamsdorf did a multivariate regression on the 30 year data to remove the contributions from the solar cycle, volcanic eruptions, and the el nino/ la nina cycle. The result reveals a steady upward trend (figures 4 & 5 in the link). Interestingly, when you remove the contributions from internal variability, the warming trend for the past 10 years is statistically significant (barely).
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
And *STILL* doesn't prove it was CO2 that caused it.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
brenthutch 383
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Doesn't that call into question the causal relationship between CO2 and Temp?
No, because it's not a year to year direct correlation; it's only long term. Year to year things like el nino, la nina (the ENSO in other words) has a bigger effect.
Take a look at graphs of temperature from 1850 to today. 1880 was a very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for almost 60 years. 1945 was another very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for 15 years. 1998 was a very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for 7 years.
But on average temperatures have gone up.
53 degrees in N. Illinois today. Won't be another day this warm until tomorrow. (Normal high for this date is 31 degrees).
Well there it is folks. Game over for us skeptics. The professor using the redoubtable science of a local weather forecast; has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Man is causing the planet to roast. Using his unassailable logic it would seem certain that N. Illinois will be broiling in 115 degree temps this summer. Well I have to apologize to every one on this forum. I just wished I had listened before it was too late. If only I had paid $50 for a gallon of gas we would still be alive this coming summer. Again my deepest apologies for destroying the planet.
Sorry, I forgot the [sarcasm] tag for those too obtuse to figure it out for themselves.
You cant just softball it in there like that,,,, You know I am going to dog it!
Or it could just be the normal recovery from a cooling event....nah, that couldn't be it... no money or Nobels in *that*!!
Maybe because I don't agree with your mechanism.
Which also means that increased CO2 can't be responsible for the increased warming. QED.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites