The Nation continues to suffer under global warming's icy grip

[brenthutch 383]

Agreed, however when the observations fall outside of the 95% confidence range the model is invalidated.
To use your example, a climate scientist could say that with 95% confidence that global temps
would rise between 2 and 3 dregrees c. and that FAILS to happen one could say that the climate scientist was WRONG.

[jcd11235 0]

brenthutch

Agreed, however when the observations fall outside of the 95% confidence range the model is invalidated.

That is incorrect. Even with an accurate model, we expect some observations to fall outside of our prediction interval. Those observations do not invalidate the model.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skiskyrock 0]

brenthutch

Agreed, however when the observations fall outside of the 95% confidence range the model is invalidated.
To use your example, a climate scientist could say that with 95% confidence that global temps
would rise between 2 and 3 dregrees c. and that FAILS to happen one could say that the climate scientist was WRONG.

Can you provide a link or reference to what you are referring to?

[billvon 2,396]

Your one warning. Enough with the childish shit.

[brenthutch 383]

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/afig6.jpg

[livendive 8]

lawrocket

[Reply]. When all of the IPCC models predict the same observable trend, and no critics offer a better alternative theory, the logical thing to do is look for revisions to the models that will accomodate observations,

For example, considering that climate sensitivity to CO2 might, just might, be less that 2 C? The IPCC figures of 3 C have been lowered to 2 C. Might the sesitivty be even lower? It would explaint a lot.

The data/model disconnect is meaning that the estimation of forcings is wrong. Which is easy enough to do, considering the myriad relationships that must be estimated. So volcanic aerosols might be underestimated. Sulfur forcings from anthropohenic forcings might be underestimated.

And CO2 forcings may be overestimated. What about a value of, say, 1.6 or 1.7? It would seem to better match the data. Problem is, that takes down a whole bunch of the predictions to have CO2 forcing at roughly half the IPCC value. It's the difference between "you're eating an extra 300 calories per day" to "you're eating an extra 160 calories per day.". That's the difference between gaining 30 pounds in a year and gaining 16 pounds in a year. The implications of that difference are huge.

[livendive 8]

We only get one week off between this quarter and summer...you should come over for dinner one night the week following June 10th! Or....maybe one afternoon next weekend? Be warned though, I'll put you to work. Replacing one of the engines in the boat and hoping to assemble the new engine on Friday and maybe get a tow-truck here to do the lifting during the long weekend. With any luck, I can get the rest of the pieces bolted on during the week off from school and finally get her back in the water.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

jcd11235

***Agreed, however when the observations fall outside of the 95% confidence range the model is invalidated.

That is incorrect. Even with an accurate model, we expect some observations to fall outside of our prediction interval. Those observations do not invalidate the model.

Not only will some observations fall outside a 95% confidence interval, the true value will lie outside of it 5% of the time.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Rather, it claims that the stratospheric sulphate from volcanos are definitively the cause and that the effects from Asia are trivial by comparison.

Problem is that interruptions in trends can be seen with volcanic events. And not even all volcanoes are equal. Sulfate's effects are well known. But volcanic activity hasn't been higher lately than other times in the past 40 years.

There are others out there trying to pin the high levels of black carbon aerosols and their effects on climate. Those black carbon particles from those same sulfur emissions.

Quote

I haven't seen anything to suggest that the forcing attributed to CO2 is off by anything close to double the true value.

Neither have I. Nor have I seen it addressed or ruled out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

www.nanowerk.com/news2/green/newsid=30573.php

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

www.nanowerk.com/news2/green/newsid=30573.php

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,396]

From the article you posted:

"Long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly."

"When it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C. This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C."

"Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real? 'None. No comfort whatsoever,' he said."

Good to see you coming around.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

From the article you posted:

"Long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly."

"When it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C. This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C."

"Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real? 'None. No comfort whatsoever,' he said."

Good to see you coming around.

I read it
The back and forth (it is called CYA mode) was funny to behold

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

My favorite part was, "But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C."

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

***From the article you posted:

"Long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly."

"When it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C. This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C."

"Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real? 'None. No comfort whatsoever,' he said."

Good to see you coming around.

I read it
The back and forth (it is called CYA mode) was funny to behold

So you've now missed this bit twice. I'll put it in bold for you:

"Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real? 'None. No comfort whatsoever,' he said."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

livendive

My favorite part was, "But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C."

Blues,
Dave

My favorite part

Quote

Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.

Which is quickly followed by

Quote

But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.

And even though it is still "unexplained" they can still make "solid predictions"


Cool huh

ah

Warm huh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

kallend

******From the article you posted:

"Long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly."

"When it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C. This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C."

"Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real? 'None. No comfort whatsoever,' he said."

Good to see you coming around.

I read it
The back and forth (it is called CYA mode) was funny to behold

So you've now missed this bit twice. I'll put it in bold for you:

"Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real? 'None. No comfort whatsoever,' he said."

Yep
One of two who commented on the topic in the article

But put last and highlighted to fullfill the authors notions I think

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

*********From the article you posted:

"Long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly."

"When it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C. This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C."

"Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real? 'None. No comfort whatsoever,' he said."

Good to see you coming around.

I read it
The back and forth (it is called CYA mode) was funny to behold

So you've now missed this bit twice. I'll put it in bold for you:

"Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real? 'None. No comfort whatsoever,' he said."

Yep
One of two who commented on the topic in the article

But put last and highlighted to fullfill the authors notions I think

Not even remotely clever spin. You're off your form today.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

You do know the definition the word "unexplained", correct?

You are correct on one point. There is spin.

But it is not mine

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,396]

>And even though it is still "unexplained" they can still make "solid predictions"

Long term, yes. Short term, no.

In 1943 warming stopped for 30 years. The trend overall is still accurate.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

www.nanowerk.com/news2/green/newsid=30573.php

[Facepalm]

An entire article devoted to attack on people. Not one scintilla of substantive science. Rather, climate science rhetoric consists of new science showing that only a small number of qualified people disagree, and we need to study why people would have the audacity to question it.

I posted a couple of weeks ago about how to identify intellectual honesty. Here's my take:

1. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance. - here is a person who says that there can be no debate.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. - nope. No debate. There's either 95% or 97% agreement here. Those who are not part or that and ask questions are unreasonable.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases - there's none of that in this. 

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. - the whole argument is about bandwagoning. It's a weak argument to begin with. The weakness is portrayed as the strength. Zero substance in it.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. - the tough thing is there is nothing to be wrong about in this.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards - this guy has a standard of proof - 95%-97% agreement. He's consistent, I guess.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions. - BINGO. The whole argument rests on two points: (1) not debateable; and (2) look at who disagrees. The whole article is an attack on those who question. (These are now called threats to national security, by the way).

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. - yep. Token acknowledgment of the debate on long-term effect and mitigation. Which is what it's really about. Is climate changing? Yes. Do we have anything to do with it? I think so. Should we eliminate the use of all fossil fuels and pump $50 trillion of the world's dollars into remediation and mitigation of 30 foot sea level rise that may happen by 2100? Hold on, here. What's the effect, youy say?

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. - here's another one: This author actually says that gravity is not debateable. Hey, author - take a look at all the debate going on (and has been going on) with gravity over the last 300 years. Over the last 5 years. Some in science are questioning a lot about gravity. And if you want to compare gravity to climate change, here are two questions: "how is gravity generated and by what process is gravity propogated?"

How about some critical thinking? Even basic fundamental physics is debateable. And since climate science uses a lot of physics and physics is debateable then climate science is debateable. The guy couldn't have chosen a better thing that "gravity" - something that is so misunderstood and lacks such foundational understanding.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. - he DID say that there is some debate on the future. I'll habd that to him. But then he moved on to other things - that even though the effect is debateable climate change is not debateable. Well no shit. Climate is always changing.

The author seemed to actually champion that more and better PR is needed to convince the masses. Aka, "this is politics and not science."

Fundamentally, it is to counter Eisenhower's warning that "we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific technological elite." My thoughts? The author is arguing that full captivity is necessary.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

lawrocket

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions. - BINGO. The whole argument rests on two points: (1) not debateable; and (2) look at who disagrees. The whole article is an attack on those who question. (These are now called threats to national security, by the way).

these are scientists

it would different if they were just posting in Speaker's Corner - then the tactic is normal

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

You do know the definition the word "unexplained", correct?

You are correct on one point. There is spin.

But it is not mine

Unexplained? Like quantum mechanics, the most precise theory in the history of science, whose predictions you depend on every day of your life.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DanG 1]

Are you willing to admit that both sides in the AGW debate practice the intellectual dishonest that you describe?

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>And even though it is still "unexplained" they can still make "solid predictions"

Long term, yes. Short term, no.

In 1943 warming stopped for 3 years. The trend overall is still accurate.

Bill:

This pause in warming is nothing new. The discussion is nothing new. The discussion on HERE is nothing new. I've been talking about it since 2009. Four years ago, you explained your thought that decreased solar output due to the solar cycle was the biggest potential culprit. We're approaching solar max and, nope, still where we were 15 years ago.

All the reasons for the pause are being restated. The heat is supposed to be there. Measurements are showing that it isn't. Where did the heat go?

Now are coming other ideas. First and foremost, "in the ocean." Problem - surface measurements aren't showing where all the heat is. So next idea: "heat is being mixed at a greater depth." Okay. I can see how that would happen. So where's the data? "Our computer models show that it can happen. Because we can't find it anywhere else, it must be there." Um - what about raw data? "We don't have the raw data. And what raw data we do have doesn't match with the computer models, so we can't trust the raw data."

Five years ago, "it wasn't a trend." Now it's been 15 years - which now makes the "no trend" argument much more doubtful. I'm disappointed that you are comparing a 3 year measurement with a 15 year measurement. You're better than that. In fact, we've now matched the 15 year period of 1900-1915. And we've pul a helluva lot more GHGs into the atmosphere.

Point: we don't know what the hell is going on. There are lots of suggested culprits: volcanoes, anthropogenic sulfur and other aerosols, solar cycle, ozone depletion, etc. As I've ALWAYS stated, "what is the validity of the underlying assumptions in the climate models?" We've got some pretty straightforward inferences regarding GCM assumptions (and for assumptions on assumptions, this is alssuming" that the post hoc suggestions prove correct):
(1) That the assumptions regarding volcanic effects were understated
(2) That the assumptions regarding sulfur aerosols were understated;
(3) That the assumptions regarding ozone depletion were understated;
(4) That the assumptions regarding solar flux were wrong;
(5) That the assumptions regarding CO2 forcing with relation to the aforementioned were inaccurate;
(6) Etc.

Here's something I'd like to hear to restore some trust: "we don't know what's going on. Either the noise drowns out the signal or the signal isn't there. We don't know. Obviously, if we cannot explain this, then confidence in our predictions for the future takes a hit. We're working on it, though. This is what science is all about: answers revealing more questions. Sometimes science progresses best when our theories are proven wrong. I'm not saying we are wrong on this, but we have to be open to the possibility that other stuff has greater impact than we imagined."

There. How's that? Would that be a bad statement? Would that destroy climate science? Would that affect the credibility of climate scientists? Would that mean that they cannot be trusted? History says, "no." Take a look at an early edition of "A Brief History of Time." Check out how much of the knowledge then has been superseded. Does it mean that Hawking is shamed? Nope.

Neil Degrasse Tyson said it best: Scientists don't go back to the drawing board. They're always at the drawing board. It's the public who demands conclusive explanations.

Climate scientists are hardcore enablers of the public quest for certainty that just ain't there.

My wife is hotter than your wife.