Simple Question About AGW

[Tokenconservative]

I am not a scientist.

I don't even play one on TV.

So my views tend rather away from the picayune and pedantic, into which most conversations on this issue quickly devolve. I don't have links. I will not shuffle through endless reams of esoteric "studies" of ice core bubbles and seafloor samples.

Who knows, maybe this stuff says what the alarmist AGWists say it does. But for a lay person like me, with no particular access to the inside intricacies of those paid to arrive at the "right" conclusions, I can only rely upon how all this plays itself out on the public stage.

I take you back to 2005. This is noted as the "worst" 'cane season in "recorded" history. What does that mean? Well, it means "since we started giving hurricane's names." In 1933, there were 15 named hurricanes, in 1969, 12.

But okay, let's say 2005 was the "worst." What does that have to do with Global War...oops! I mean "Climate Change"?

We were assured during and of course after that "worst in recorded history" hurricane season (7 'canes, 5 making US landfall) that this was a harbinger of things to come. Indeed, the very next season, we all waited with bated breath to see 8, 10, 15 major hurricanes, and another 5 or 6 making landfall in the US, taking out Houston, NOLA again, Biloxi, Pensacola, the Florida Keys, Miami, Jacksonville, Savanah...marching all the way north to NYCity!

Score:

2005: 7 canes, 5 major, 5 hit the US, "responsible for" over 2000 deaths (please note that most of these were not directly attributable to weather and included people who died in auto accidents leaving the area, people who died 40 miles away of heart attacks, people who died of gunshot wounds during looting, etc.)

2006: 5 'canes, two major, none hit the US, 11 fatalities.

2007:6 'canes, 2 major, one made landfall in the US, 415 fatalities.

Now, we were assured that the 2005 season was the begining. This was shrieked at us from every "news" report and from every AGWist in the land.

Hurricanes would be getting bigger, worser, more frequent.

Has that happened?

If you answer is no, then that leads a rational thinker to the next question:

AGWists claim that the "models" show them what the climate (and thereby weather) will be like 10, 20, even 100 years from now.

We can assume that they were working from these same models to determine that the post-2005 'cane seasons would produce larger, stronger and more stroms, can we not?

If they were so very, very wrong this close in (2 years) how are we to take their predictions for climate (and weather) 10, 20 or even 100 years hence, seriously?

And yet, many do.

Why?

Tokie

[Fordama]

Now, we were assured that the 2005 season was the begining. This was shrieked at us from every "news" report and from every AGWist in the land.

"Every" is definitely not true. In fact, I would be interested to see if there were any scientific reports of this. It appears to me that you confuse what is reported in the mass media as scientific predictions.

Could you please point out some actual scientific studies whose findings linked the hurricanes that year directly to global warming?

Fordama

[Phaedrus74]

I am not a scientist.

I don't even play one on TV.

So my views tend rather away from the picayune and pedantic, into which most conversations on this issue quickly devolve. I don't have links. I will not shuffle through endless reams of esoteric "studies" of ice core bubbles and seafloor samples.

Who knows, maybe this stuff says what the alarmist AGWists say it does. But for a lay person like me, with no particular access to the inside intricacies of those paid to arrive at the "right" conclusions, I can only rely upon how all this plays itself out on the public stage.

I take you back to 2005. This is noted as the "worst" 'cane season in "recorded" history. What does that mean? Well, it means "since we started giving hurricane's names." In 1933, there were 15 named hurricanes, in 1969, 12.

But okay, let's say 2005 was the "worst." What does that have to do with Global War...oops! I mean "Climate Change"?

We were assured during and of course after that "worst in recorded history" hurricane season (7 'canes, 5 making US landfall) that this was a harbinger of things to come. Indeed, the very next season, we all waited with bated breath to see 8, 10, 15 major hurricanes, and another 5 or 6 making landfall in the US, taking out Houston, NOLA again, Biloxi, Pensacola, the Florida Keys, Miami, Jacksonville, Savanah...marching all the way north to NYCity!

Score:

2005: 7 canes, 5 major, 5 hit the US, "responsible for" over 2000 deaths (please note that most of these were not directly attributable to weather and included people who died in auto accidents leaving the area, people who died 40 miles away of heart attacks, people who died of gunshot wounds during looting, etc.)

2006: 5 'canes, two major, none hit the US, 11 fatalities.

2007:6 'canes, 2 major, one made landfall in the US, 415 fatalities.

Now, we were assured that the 2005 season was the begining. This was shrieked at us from every "news" report and from every AGWist in the land.

Hurricanes would be getting bigger, worser, more frequent.

Has that happened?

If you answer is no, then that leads a rational thinker to the next question:

AGWists claim that the "models" show them what the climate (and thereby weather) will be like 10, 20, even 100 years from now.

We can assume that they were working from these same models to determine that the post-2005 'cane seasons would produce larger, stronger and more stroms, can we not?

If they were so very, very wrong this close in (2 years) how are we to take their predictions for climate (and weather) 10, 20 or even 100 years hence, seriously?

And yet, many do.

Why?

Tokie

Can't argue for everybody, and I do get the increasing feeling that AGW is turning into something of a cult, but...

I live in the Netherlands, and if the prediction regarding sea-level rise and increased precipitation are even a little bit on the mark and we do nothing about our levees significant parts of my country run the risk of serious (meaning: worse than Katrina) type flooding.

So yeah, I'd like the people responsible for our coastal defences to take the possibility seriously lest we get a repeat of the 1953 flood.

Less hysteria would be nice, though...

[mhaze]

Can't argue for everybody, and I do get the increasing feeling that AGW is turning into something of a cult, but...

I live in the Netherlands, and if the prediction regarding sea-level rise and increased precipitation are even a little bit on the mark and we do nothing about our levees significant parts of my country run the risk of serious (meaning: worse than Katrina) type flooding.

So yeah, I'd like the people responsible for our coastal defences to take the possibility seriously lest we get a repeat of the 1953 flood.

Less hysteria would be nice, though...

Your dikes and the gate systems (not sure that's the right phrase) are quite interesting. Do not compare your system with the one that was in place in New Orleans. Well, you probably know that.

[Phaedrus74]

Your dikes and the gate systems (not sure that's the right phrase) are quite interesting. Do not compare your system with the one that was in place in New Orleans. Well, you probably know that.

The funny thing is that, after the 1953 flood, Dutch engineers specifically visited New Orleans because of the levee-system in place there!

You can imagine that the Katrina storm, and it's aftermath were followed closely over here. It still makes me sad thinking about it....

[kallsop]

I have seen "expert" predictions that (A)GW will cause fewer and less severe hurricanes.

With some predicting more, and some less, either will be evidence of (A)GW. QED.

[Loss Leader]

I will not shuffle through endless reams of esoteric "studies" of ice core bubbles and seafloor samples.


Then you will never know what you're talking about.

[mhaze]

The funny thing is that, after the 1953 flood, Dutch engineers specifically visited New Orleans because of the levee-system in place there!

You can imagine that the Katrina storm, and it's aftermath were followed closely over here. It still makes me sad thinking about it....

From a local perspective, I have to say that the last hundred years in New Orleans and that area is quite colorful. Current events such as the flood are only a tiny part of the story. I was often told by New Orleans residents that if a hurricane hit them, their city was a goner. They laughed about this, and it was integral part of the "don't worry about tomorrow, drink, eat and be merry today" atmosphere that made the city quite unique.

Go back some decades, you'll find troubling things. Purposeful flooding of thousands of farmers land by the state government to divert water from the New Orleans area. They were promised they would be paid in full and never got a dollar. Seems to me this was 1920s. Numerous government corruption issues. Reference Huey Long, governer, very interesting character (had a photographic memory). Current levee construction, improper materials used and not corrected, not structurally sound. The list is endless.

Very impressive system in Holland, shows in a way, that AGW if it did occur at some future time, is not a problem. Industrious people can deal with such a challenge.

[mhaze]

"Every" is definitely not true. In fact, I would be interested to see if there were any scientific reports of this. It appears to me that you confuse what is reported in the mass media as scientific predictions.

Could you please point out some actual scientific studies whose findings linked the hurricanes that year directly to global warming?

Fordama

In your view the fact that Gore's movie parades Katrina as related to man made global warming is okay, then? Before answering consider the following:

1. Nasa Climate chief Dr. Hansen was Gore's science advisor.
2. The documentary won an Oscar.
3. Hansen is a well known and respected climate scientist (at least in many circles.)

You want to focus on the contradictions in the scientific studies, the areas of known uncertainty? Sure we can do that. And your point is....?

[Phaedrus74]

From a local perspective, I have to say that the last hundred years in New Orleans and that area is quite colorful. Current events such as the flood are only a tiny part of the story. I was often told by New Orleans residents that if a hurricane hit them, their city was a goner. They laughed about this, and it was integral part of the "don't worry about tomorrow, drink, eat and be merry today" atmosphere that made the city quite unique.

Go back some decades, you'll find troubling things. Purposeful flooding of thousands of farmers land by the state government to divert water from the New Orleans area. They were promised they would be paid in full and never got a dollar. Seems to me this was 1920s. Numerous government corruption issues. Reference Huey Long, governer, very interesting character (had a photographic memory). Current levee construction, improper materials used and not corrected, not structurally sound. The list is endless.

Very impressive system in Holland, shows in a way, that AGW if it did occur at some future time, is not a problem. Industrious people can deal with such a challenge.

I do hope they get the city rebuilt, it appeared to be a truly unique place, one I would hope to visit in the future.

The Dutch systems are someting we are very proud of it makes the average dutchman/dutchwoman grow 2 inches just talking about it. But they are nothing compared to the crazy plans they have lying around, artificial reefs in the North sea, widening the "Afsluitdijk" to include extensive nature preserves. Great stuff, hope they get around to building it.

Maybe my own fate doesn't worry me overly, the dykes and locks are being looked at. But consider a country like Bangladesh... I really hope we can help those people sort out their challenges...

[Dr Adequate]

I am not a scientist.

I don't even play one on TV.

So my views tend rather away from the picayune and pedantic, into which most conversations on this issue quickly devolve. I don't have links. I will not shuffle through endless reams of esoteric "studies" of ice core bubbles and seafloor samples.

Who knows, maybe this stuff says what the alarmist AGWists say it does. But for a lay person like me, with no particular access to the inside intricacies of those paid to arrive at the "right" conclusions, I can only rely upon how all this plays itself out on the public stage.

I take you back to 2005. This is noted as the "worst" 'cane season in "recorded" history. What does that mean? Well, it means "since we started giving hurricane's names." In 1933, there were 15 named hurricanes, in 1969, 12.

But okay, let's say 2005 was the "worst." What does that have to do with Global War...oops! I mean "Climate Change"?

We were assured during and of course after that "worst in recorded history" hurricane season (7 'canes, 5 making US landfall) that this was a harbinger of things to come. Indeed, the very next season, we all waited with bated breath to see 8, 10, 15 major hurricanes, and another 5 or 6 making landfall in the US, taking out Houston, NOLA again, Biloxi, Pensacola, the Florida Keys, Miami, Jacksonville, Savanah...marching all the way north to NYCity!

Score:

2005: 7 canes, 5 major, 5 hit the US, "responsible for" over 2000 deaths (please note that most of these were not directly attributable to weather and included people who died in auto accidents leaving the area, people who died 40 miles away of heart attacks, people who died of gunshot wounds during looting, etc.)

2006: 5 'canes, two major, none hit the US, 11 fatalities.

2007:6 'canes, 2 major, one made landfall in the US, 415 fatalities.

Now, we were assured that the 2005 season was the begining. This was shrieked at us from every "news" report and from every AGWist in the land.

Hurricanes would be getting bigger, worser, more frequent.

Has that happened?

If you answer is no, then that leads a rational thinker to the next question:

AGWists claim that the "models" show them what the climate (and thereby weather) will be like 10, 20, even 100 years from now.

We can assume that they were working from these same models to determine that the post-2005 'cane seasons would produce larger, stronger and more stroms, can we not?

If they were so very, very wrong this close in (2 years) how are we to take their predictions for climate (and weather) 10, 20 or even 100 years hence, seriously?

And yet, many do.

Why?

Tokie So, have I got this right?

Your argument really seems to be that there were worse hurricanes in America in 2005 than there were in 2006 and 2007 --- therefore AGW is a crock.

There seems to be a bit missing between your premise and your conclusion.

[BenBurch]

Nobody said that the 2005 hurricane season was caused by GW. Many said that it MIGHT have been caused by GW, but that anomalous intense seasons are part of the noise in the system. What we DID say that it was a warning of what might be.

So, Tokie, your question is a bit of a;

http://www.gallica.co.uk.nyud.net/celts/wickerman/wickerman.jpg

[bobdroege7]

Also keep in mind that 2007 was one of 4 hurricane seasons in the Atlantic basin that had two cat 5 hurricanes make landfall.

Also had one of the fasted developing storms on record.

Mild and record setting.

[rockoon]

Mild and record setting.

Do you think its hard to find a record setting event? You can do that every year. Its called Cherry Picking.

[bobdroege7]

Do you think its hard to find a record setting event? You can do that every year. Its called Cherry Picking.

then show me records of multiple cat 5 hurricanes making landfall every year.

thanks for playing

[rockoon]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2484.htm


This confluence of optimal ocean and atmosphere conditions has been known to produce increased tropical storm activity in multi-decadal (approximately 20-30 year) cycles. Because of this, NOAA expects a continuation of above-normal seasons for another decade or perhaps longer. NOAA's research shows that this reoccurring cycle is the dominant climate factor that controls Atlantic hurricane activity. Any potentially weak signal associated with longer-term climate change appears to be a minor factor.


...


An average Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 through November 30, produces 10 named storms in which six become hurricanes, including two major hurricanes with winds of at least 111 mph. The most active hurricane season was in 1933 with 21 storms, followed by 1995 with 19 storms. The most hurricanes in a season was 12 in 1969, and the highest number of major hurricanes was eight in 1950.


..2007 was average.. even predictably so.

[rockoon]

then show me records of multiple cat 5 hurricanes making landfall every year.

thanks for playing

..the game is finding ANY record being set, and then trumpeting it as if it was significant.

You do appear to be playing that game.

[a_unique_person]

Very impressive system in Holland, shows in a way, that AGW if it did occur at some future time, is not a problem. Industrious people can deal with such a challenge.

We can't prevent any problems, we have more than enough ability to cope with them. (if we are 'industrious'.)

[sol invictus]

I think the OP's question wasn't totally illegitimate, and it's worth responding to. In my opinion, science is simply not capable of making solid, specific predictions about climate change. There are too many mysteries, too many confounding factors, and too many examples of past predictions gone awry to believe otherwise. Scientists know that, but the public doesn't - hence this kind of question.

Scientists do know quite a lot about climate. They know what most of the important factors are that affect it. They have computer models which, while still primitive, capture a large part of the complexities.

So, while they can't say, "2008 will be the worse hurricane season on record", they can say, "the climate is changing in a way that will enhance the number and severity of storms in an average season, by roughly X".

[sol invictus]

Very impressive system in Holland, shows in a way, that AGW if it did occur at some future time, is not a problem. Industrious people can deal with such a challenge.

Sure.

Tell that to all the people in Bangladesh that have no resources to build dikes with and will die if there's significant flooding.

[Fordama]

In your view the fact that Gore's movie parades Katrina as related to man made global warming is okay, then? Before answering consider the following:

1. Nasa Climate chief Dr. Hansen was Gore's science advisor.
2. The documentary won an Oscar.
3. Hansen is a well known and respected climate scientist (at least in many circles.)

You want to focus on the contradictions in the scientific studies, the areas of known uncertainty? Sure we can do that. And your point is....?I asked questions. Then you attached your opinion to mine as though that is what I was inferring. I mentioned nothing about Al Gore. If you want to criticize Gore, have at it. He's a sausage in a suit--I could care less about him. His documentary won an Oscar because it was a well made movie, not because it was a beacon of sharp scientific research.

Fordama

[Phaedrus74]

Sure.

Tell that to all the people in Bangladesh that have no resources to build dikes with and will die if there's significant flooding.

I wholeheartedly agree, fortunately we have our engineers down there trying to help out...

[Dumb All Over]

...His documentary won an Oscar because it was a well made movie, not because it was a beacon of sharp scientific research.

Fordama
Did he win a Nobel Peace Prize for making a well made movie?

[BobK]

Below is a comparison of 1950 and 2005. A few comments before your eyes glaze over looking at the figures. The significant figures are ACE, Mode, Median, and Mean. There are major discrepancies between the two seasons in those values. 2005 was touted due to setting a record high value for ACE and storm count. When you look at the breakdown you see how having satellite coverage aided in achieving that record. The big change is in the ST and TS categories. They simply detected everything in sight. Back in 1950 this wasn't possible.

1950 still holds the record for the most major(cat3-cat5) storms. Looking at the actual data makes me think 1950 was by far the rougher of the two seasons. All it's data was accumulated in less than 2.5 months. 2005 took 7 months to accumulate it's data.

ACE is accumulated cyclone energy. It gives a rough gauge of severity.
ST is subtropical. Less than 34 knots.
TS is tropical storm. 34 to 63 knots.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Section 1: Full season all data.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Year 1950 to 1950 Total ACE 242.92
____________________
Track dates 8/12/1950 to 10/21/1950
____________________
Storm Peak Wind:
Mode Median Mean S. Dev.
105 105 100 26
SS TS Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Total
0 2 1 2 5 2 1 13
____________________
Track Wind:
Mode Median Mean S.Dev.
35 65 68 30
ST TS Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Total
36 187 94 74 34 30 10 465
***********************************************
Year 2005 to 2005 Total ACE 247.98
____________________
Track dates 6/8/2005 to 1/7/2006
____________________
Storm Peak Wind:
Mode Median Mean S. Dev.
45 65 77 37
SS TS Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Total
1 12 7 1 2 1 4 28
____________________
Track Wind:
Mode Median Mean S.Dev.
30 45 51 27
ST TS Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Total
247 400 109 25 27 32 11 851
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Section 2: Full season hurricane force data.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Years 1950 to 1950 Total ACE 211.06
Wind 64 to 180
____________________
Track dates 8/13/1950 to 10/21/1950
____________________
Storm Peak Wind:
Mode Median Mean S. Dev.
105 105 109 20
SS TS Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Total
0 0 1 2 5 2 1 11
____________________
Track Wind:
Mode Median Mean S.Dev.
85 85 91 21
ST TS Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Total
0 0 94 74 34 30 10 242
***********************************************
____________________
**Track filters.**
Years 2005 to 2005 Total ACE 175.04
Wind 64 to 180
____________________
Track dates 7/6/2005 to 12/7/2005
____________________
Storm Peak Wind:
Mode Median Mean S. Dev.
100 90 102 34
SS TS Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Total
0 0 7 1 2 1 4 15
____________________
Track Wind:
Mode Median Mean S.Dev.
65 80 90 25
ST TS Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Total
0 0 109 25 27 32 11 204

One additional note. There were three cat5 storms that struck land at that force prior to 2007. Those years were 1928, 1947, and 1967. A prior poster indicated that 2007 was the 4th season with two. It was the first season with two. Still no big deal unless you happened to be there. Between the five storms they account for less than 5% of the total cat5 tracks that have ever been recorded anywhere in the basin.

[BenBurch]

Sure.

Tell that to all the people in Bangladesh that have no resources to build dikes with and will die if there's significant flooding.

Or to the former citizens of the tiny island nation of Tuvalu...

In fact I know of one Major American City where, in spite of glad-handing promises to the contrary, the sea walls keeping out the sea at all times and storm surge during hurricanes are not one inch taller or at all stronger than the ones that failed so catastrophically. --- And the excuse is we have no money for it.

[Ziggurat]

So, while they can't say, "2008 will be the worse hurricane season on record", they can say, "the climate is changing in a way that will enhance the number and severity of storms in an average season, by roughly X".

Well, they can say that, but the models really aren't good enough for any such prediction to be considered reliable. Hurricanes are weather. Weather isn't the same thing as climate. We cannot predict the weather more than a few days in advance. While predicting average number of hurricanes is easier than predicting specific numbers, it's still an amazingly complex and highly nonlinear system. And there's no track record of successful predictions to judge whether or not the models being used have any predictive capability. The 2005 season did not indicate the severity or cause of global warming, and the 2006 season didn't falsify anything either.

[mhaze]

Or to the former citizens of the tiny island nation of Tuvalu...


Myth and legend.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
In your view the fact that Gore's movie parades Katrina as related to man made global warming is okay, then? Before answering consider the following:

1. Nasa Climate chief Dr. Hansen was Gore's science advisor.
2. The documentary won an Oscar.
3. Hansen is a well known and respected climate scientist (at least in many circles.)

You want to focus on the contradictions in the scientific studies, the areas of known uncertainty? Sure we can do that. And your point is....?



Fordama

I asked questions.

Then you attached your opinion to mine as though that is what I was inferring. I mentioned nothing about Al Gore. If you want to criticize Gore, have at it. He's a sausage in a suit--I could care less about him. His documentary won an Oscar because it was a well made movie, not because it was a beacon of sharp scientific research.


No intent to annoy you, sorry. I was just trying to show where the hype about hurricanes may have come from. Hansen, by way of Gore.

[Ladewig]

The short answer is: we don't put faith in their specific predictions, but just because those particular forecasters got that part wrong, doesn't mean that we will not face very large changes over the next several decades.

While there is argument between sides that say global warming is occurring and is caused by humans and global warming is occurring and is not caused by humans, there is very little argument over whether or not the temperature is going up.

It would be a gross mistake to say that because it got very cold in Bagdad or because recent hurricane seasons were poorly forecasted, there should be no concern over global climate change.

[athon]

Sure.

Tell that to all the people in Bangladesh that have no resources to build dikes with and will die if there's significant flooding.

This reflects my own opinion somewhat.

Environmental issues are building into big money, of which nearly all of it is spent on dealing with education and technology aiming to prevent or reduce dramatic climate change. This is all well and good...but climate change happens. Whether anthropogenic or not, it happens. And the evidence is mounting that it is happening relatively quickly. I feel that more needs to be done on creating systems and structures which will deal with the changes as they progress, in association with technology which aims to reduce the impact.

I know it sounds more pessimistic, but I'd prefer to be pessimistic while Australia has a decent water-management plan, Bangladesh has a way to cope with rising coastal waters, Pacific Island populations have somewhere to move to, Nations X, Y and Z have the means to adapt to new industries when fisheries close or tourism flounders in the face of dead coral reefs...

Athon

[Fordama]

Did he win a Nobel Peace Prize for making a well made movie?No, but it was a part of the reason. He shared the Peace Prize (not a Nobel prize in science) because of his overall effort to push the issue of global climate change.

Fordama

[bobdroege7]

One additional note. There were three cat5 storms that struck land at that force prior to 2007. Those years were 1928, 1947, and 1967. A prior poster indicated that 2007 was the 4th season with two. It was the first season with two. Still no big deal unless you happened to be there. Between the five storms they account for less than 5% of the total cat5 tracks that have ever been recorded anywhere in the basin.




http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-10-06-winter-elnino_x.htm

From here, 2007 was an El Niño year at least through the begining of hurricane season.

from this site

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/OceanSci_p007.shtml



Atlantic Ocean: It is believed that El Niño conditions suppress the development of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic; and that La Niña (cold conditions in the equatorial Pacific) favor hurricane formation.


I think the prediction of an active year was off and didn't take this into account.

Still 2 cat 5 hurricanes during an El Niño year is still unprecedented.

Also, my statement that there were only 4 years with 2 cat 5 storms making landfall was incomplete.

Donna and Ethel in 1960, Carla and Hattie in 1961, and Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005 all were cat 5 and all made landfall, though none were cat 5 at landfall.

And as you pointed out Dean and Felix were both cat 5 on landfall.

My point being, taking 2007 and saying it was a mild season therefore there is no increase in hurricane intensity is premature to be kind.

28 cat 5 hurricanes since 1928, and 6 in three years. Do the math and come to your own concusions.

Of course other statistical analyses may lead to different conclusions.

[Phaedrus74]

Or to the former citizens of the tiny island nation of Tuvalu...

In fact I know of one Major American City where, in spite of glad-handing promises to the contrary, the sea walls keeping out the sea at all times and storm surge during hurricanes are not one inch taller or at all stronger than the ones that failed so catastrophically. --- And the excuse is we have no money for it.

My first response was:
You're kidding, right? Something like that happens and they don't take care of it?

My second (more cynical) response is:
Great cost-benefit analysis, geez, I'm speechless....

[BobK]

Snip ...

Still 2 cat 5 hurricanes during an El Niño year is still unprecedented.
I hate the use of the word unprecedented. It only means hasn't happened before. Doesn't even mean unusual. It seems a lot of people make use of it to snow-job the target of their words. My first child was also unprecedented. Never happened before in my family. No big deal to humanity though.

Calling a storm land-falling is somewhat fuzzy. The definition of landfall that I used was strict. The NHC database must have recorded the grid coordinates of the eye over land. I then used the wind speed for that record to determine if it was land-falling cat5 or not.

Most storms have eyes larger than 60 nm(nautical miles) across. Some may use a more relaxed definition of land-falling. They may call a storm land-falling at 30-60 nm or more.

If I used 30 nm as leeway for the definition, I would have come up with 18 qualified storms prior to 2007. All in individual years. Using that standard, would you still think it unusual that one particular season had two of them? I certainly wouldn't.

30 nm amounts to almost nothing in storm travel. But it can make a big difference in sample size when nearing land. Winds tend to drop as parts of the storm start crossing land. If the storm eye diameter is small the center of the eye has more of a chance to plotted over land before breaking down. Large eyed storms are less like to be plotted right over land without winds starting to break down prior to center eye landfall.

Also, my statement that there were only 4 years with 2 cat 5 storms making landfall was incomplete.

Donna and Ethel in 1960, Carla and Hattie in 1961, and Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005 all were cat 5 and all made landfall, though none were cat 5 at landfall.
Doesn't really apply then.

And as you pointed out Dean and Felix were both cat 5 on landfall.
The NHC hasn't put out the 2007 database with the post season analysis yet. I don't have the official 2007 records yet. I just accepted your word on those storms.
My point being, taking 2007 and saying it was a mild season therefore there is no increase in hurricane intensity is premature to be kind.
Not really. Hypothesizing publicly in the media about an increase in intensity without demonstrable proof is premature to be kind. Why worry the public until you can demonstrate an actual need for them to worry?

28 cat 5 hurricanes since 1928, and 6 in three years. Do the math and come to your own concusions.

Of course other statistical analyses may lead to different conclusions.
Don't know where you got the 28 from. Actually the total is now 29+2 including 2007.
I did. I see only normal variability.

All this hype is due to cherry-picking of parameters. I have 19 adjustable parameters to mix and match when looking at the NHC database. Literally trillions of relationships can be culled through looking for something to make a big deal about. Probably millions would turn out to be unprecedented.(ugh)

One more thing. Prior to satellite era the equipment had to be in the storm to determine peak wind speed. Did you ever wonder how often equipment was destroyed before the strong storms actually hit peak wind and therefore couldn't record it? No cat5's to be found in the database in the 70 years prior to 1928. I think that says something about pre-satellite equipment along with the observation location.

[mhaze]

One more thing. Prior to satellite era the equipment had to be in the storm to determine peak wind speed. Did you ever wonder how often equipment was destroyed before the strong storms actually hit peak wind and therefore couldn't record it? No cat5's to be found in the database in the 70 years prior to 1928. I think that says something about pre-satellite equipment along with the observation location.

Googling at www.climateaudit.org on "tiny tims" is quite enlightening.

[rockoon]

Googling at www.climateaudit.org on "tiny tims" is quite enlightening.

You will notice that BobK posts information and graphs on those threads.

To my knowledge he was the first person ever to do detailed landfall comparisons.

[BobK]

Since rockoon mentioned it, I'll post a couple links to some charts.

This one has two charts by time frame and distance from land. One for ACE values and another for track counts by wind speed category. Link (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2114#comment-144535)

This one has charts for wind speed at both discovery and end of storm. Link (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1122#comment-107023)

Between them all they demonstrate significant change in coverage over the length of the record.

They now detect everything in sight. Then make claims as if there was equal observational ability in all time frames. When they aren't doing that, they're using the few years of the satellite era, with a time frame too short to come to any meaningful conclusion.

The most accurate thing that can be said regarding hurricanes is. Nothing to date can be shown to fall outside the realm of natural variation.

[BenBurch]

I will point out a similar quandary over whether cigarette smoking caused cancer.

Lung cancer happens at times in individuals who never smoked. So, for many years the defense of the Tobacco Industry was that you could not look at ANY specific death as a result of lung cancer and say definitively that it was caused by smoking. And then they would draw the conclusion that therefore no harm had ever been proven because you could not point to a single provable case.

Reality has a noisy signal, and when we try to find a trend we must make a rational assessment of probabilities.

-Ben

[athon]

I will point out a similar quandary over whether cigarette smoking caused cancer.

Lung cancer happens at times in individuals who never smoked. So, for many years the defense of the Tobacco Industry was that you could not look at ANY specific death as a result of lung cancer and say definitively that it was caused by smoking. And then they would draw the conclusion that therefore no harm had ever been proven because you could not point to a single provable case.

Reality has a noisy signal, and when we try to find a trend we must make a rational assessment of probabilities.

-Ben

Nicely put, Ben. I like the way you phrased that.

Athon

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by sol invictus
Tell that to all the people in Bangladesh that have no resources to build dikes with and will die if there's significant flooding.


....Bangladesh has a way to cope with rising coastal waters, Pacific Island populations have somewhere to move to....

Athon

This is somehow fantastically predicted by you guys? Or some probability of such events is predicted?

Sea level rise is somewhere between 1.3 and 3.0 mm per year, depending on which studies you reference.

Please reconcile the reality of miniscule sea level change (undisputed) with your comments. If possible provide a reference to changes in heat content of oceans and show dynamics of ice melting to support this wild theory.

SIDE NOTE: Southern hemisphere ice (NDISC) is at a record high since recording began in 1979.

[mhaze]

Sea level rise is somewhere between 1.3 and 3.0 mm per year, depending on which studies you reference.

Please reconcile the reality of miniscule sea level change (undisputed) with your comments.

Further Note:

The burden of proof for fantastic claims is on the party making fantastic claims, most would agree.

[Tokenconservative]

"Every" is definitely not true. In fact, I would be interested to see if there were any scientific reports of this. It appears to me that you confuse what is reported in the mass media as scientific predictions.

Could you please point out some actual scientific studies whose findings linked the hurricanes that year directly to global warming?

Fordama

Jeez....I forgot all about this.

No, I can't and I don't need to.

Perception IS reality...it does not matter that some pointyhead someplace did NOT say that, what matters is that they permit this to become the public perception and that is that global temps have anything at all to do with hurricanes and that now that runaway global warming is upon us, we can expect more "record" hurricane seasons like 2005...like the one in 2006. And again in 2007.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Can't argue for everybody, and I do get the increasing feeling that AGW is turning into something of a cult, but...

I live in the Netherlands, and if the prediction regarding sea-level rise and increased precipitation are even a little bit on the mark and we do nothing about our levees significant parts of my country run the risk of serious (meaning: worse than Katrina) type flooding.

So yeah, I'd like the people responsible for our coastal defences to take the possibility seriously lest we get a repeat of the 1953 flood.

Less hysteria would be nice, though...

And you believe that the ONLY possible reason for either sea level rise or subsidence can be...global warming? And you believe as well that because you live in Netherlands it's my job as an American to make sure your country is not flooded by naturally occuring sea level rise due to naturally occuring climate warming?

Why?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Your dikes and the gate systems (not sure that's the right phrase) are quite interesting. Do not compare your system with the one that was in place in New Orleans. Well, you probably know that.

Indeed. If billions of Euros or gilder or whatever were earmarked to improve the dykes there, and instead went into crooked politicos pockets and the first storm that came along swampe half their country, I am sure those politicos would not then be re-elected to office at the very next election.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

So, have I got this right?

Your argument really seems to be that there were worse hurricanes in America in 2005 than there were in 2006 and 2007 --- therefore AGW is a crock.

There seems to be a bit missing between your premise and your conclusion.

Yes, there is...it's you reading comprehensively.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I have seen "expert" predictions that (A)GW will cause fewer and less severe hurricanes.

With some predicting more, and some less, either will be evidence of (A)GW. QED.

That's the wonderful thing about AGW!

ANY "unusual" or even non-unusual weather event, local, regional, even global is caused by AGW!

Lots of hurricanes? AGW
No hurricanes? AGW.
Heavy rains? AGW
Drough? AGW
Cold? AGW
Hot? AGW.

There were tornadoes in Wisconsin a week or two ago. Tornadoes are rare in Wisconsin, especially this time of year. The cause: AGW!

There was a heatwave and drought in England and France a few years ago: AGW.

There was snow in Baghdad for the first time in "living memory" a few weeks ago: AGW.

Now, if we don't see another tornado in WI for 50 years...that TOO will be because of AGW.

If England and France have very wet cool years for the next few years (that NEVER happens right after a drought!)...AGW!

If it doesn't snow in Baghdad again for a century? AGW!

AGW is the leftists dream: ANYthing and EVERYthing can be blamed on it, and that in turn means more "evidence" for shutting down the US economy! It's a win-win for everyone!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

...and the rest of this thread is virtually a laboratory on my "Irrational Thinking: a Winner" thread.

Tokie

[BenBurch]

Tokie,

The fact still remains that nobody who knows anything is trying to use the hurricanes as anything like proof of AGW. There is plenty of other proof, though.

-Ben

[Safe-Keeper]

And you believe that the ONLY possible reason for either sea level rise or subsidence can be...global warming? And you believe as well that because you live in Netherlands it's my job as an American to make sure your country is not flooded by naturally occuring sea level rise due to naturally occuring climate warming?

That's the wonderful thing about AGW!

ANY "unusual" or even non-unusual weather event, local, regional, even global is caused by AGW!

AGW is the leftists dream: ANYthing and EVERYthing can be blamed on it, and that in turn means more "evidence" for shutting down the US economy! It's a win-win for everyone! Strawmen galore. Are your serious, or are you just trolling for a response, or hoping for a spot on my ignore list with mhaze's one-liners, fallacies and juvenlie comments such as the commonly spouted 'Duuuuh!?'s?

See, this is why I hate debating AGW. You can't have a single thread without a bunch of deniers coming in not even taking the discussion halfway seriously, effectively lowering the discussion into a pointless spitting contest and parroting of clichés they know to be illogical. I swear, if I see one more 'stop worrying about GW, it's a natural cycle' (implying that humans can't have anything to do with it), I'll go eat a kitten.

...and the rest of this thread is virtually a laboratory on my "Irrational Thinking: a Winner" thread.http://baysideproducts.com/store/images/victoria_cheval_mirror.jpg

You couldn't have concluded your tirade in a more hilarious way if you tried.

[zooterkin]

So, have I got this right?

Your argument really seems to be that there were worse hurricanes in America in 2005 than there were in 2006 and 2007 --- therefore AGW is a crock.

There seems to be a bit missing between your premise and your conclusion.

Yes, there is...it's you reading comprehensively.

Tokie

:popcorn1

[mhaze]

Strawmen galore........pointless spitting contest and parroting of clichés they know to be illogical. I swear, if I see one more 'stop worrying about GW, it's a natural cycle' (implying that humans can't have anything to do with it), I'll go eat a kitten.


Stop worrying about GW, it's a natural cycle, for which humans have nothing to do with it.

Couldn't resist. Now we find what stuff you are made of.

[BenBurch]

:popcorn1

Exactly.

Tokie is using the same noisy data set that we would never dare use as evidence of AGW as evidence AGAINST AGW. Somehow, the noise in the data utterly disappears when he uses it!
:D

[Olowkow]

I swear, if I see one more 'stop worrying about GW, it's a natural cycle' (implying that humans can't have anything to do with it), I'll go eat a kitten.

Here kitty, kitty, kitty....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2087847939a7bbd0e3.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10305)

[Tokenconservative]

Tokie,

The fact still remains that nobody who knows anything is trying to use the hurricanes as anything like proof of AGW. There is plenty of other proof, though.

-Ben

I know, plenty of evidence:

Drought.

Floods.

Snowstorms.

Rain.

Wind.

Lack of wind.

Normal conditions.

All of these are evidence of climate.


Change.

I know that.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Strawmen galore. Are your serious, or are you just trolling for a response, or hoping for a spot on my ignore list with mhaze's one-liners, fallacies and juvenlie comments such as the commonly spouted 'Duuuuh!?'s?

See, this is why I hate debating AGW. You can't have a single thread without a bunch of deniers coming in not even taking the discussion halfway seriously, effectively lowering the discussion into a pointless spitting contest and parroting of clichés they know to be illogical. I swear, if I see one more 'stop worrying about GW, it's a natural cycle' (implying that humans can't have anything to do with it), I'll go eat a kitten.

http://baysideproducts.com/store/images/victoria_cheval_mirror.jpg

You couldn't have concluded your tirade in a more hilarious way if you tried.

Well, Haze and I are competing to see who can get on more hysterical monstershouting fearmonger's ignore lists.

So if you've already added him to yours, no sense in adding me.

But if you just want to stop posting in response to my stuff, that would work for me.

I'd prefer to read something that's not a bunch of hysterical fearmongering, anyway.

I take it from this nonsensical rant and the childish posting of that pic of a mirror that you don't have anything of value to add to the conversation anyway. No sense in your wasting scarce 'net space, huh?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Exactly.

Tokie is using the same noisy data set that we would never dare use as evidence of AGW as evidence AGAINST AGW. Somehow, the noise in the data utterly disappears when he uses it!
:D

Hmm...possibly, but I wonder...what would it look like if you AGWists WERE doing this?

As to your question, I really don't care if anyone "who matters" is/has said that AGW will/is increasing hurricane numbers and intensity, the popular belief now (hmm...where'd THAT come from!?) is that this is what AGW will do. Along with killing polar bears and walruses and frogs and dolphins, and sea ice melting causing rising sea level (quick! Rant about how dumb I am to not know that floating ice melting does not raise sea level and demonstrate even more clearly how you read what you WANT me to write rather than what I actually DO write...), etc., etc., etc., and oh yeah, by the way, it's all the fault of the US.

And if that's NOT how things are, could you please tell me how they would look if this were the case?
Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Stop worrying about GW, it's a natural cycle, for which humans have nothing to do with it.

Couldn't resist. Now we find what stuff you are made of.

He said he had you on ignore...


Hey, Safe!! I want to be on your ignore list!!!!

Gonna beat ya Haze!!!

Neener, neener!!

[BenBurch]

Tokie,

Hurricane data would look just about like it always does and only with many years of data would we discern the difference. Noisy data is like that. There can be trends, but you have to average a LOT of samples before a signal like that shows them to you.

-Ben

[CapelDodger]

Tokie,

The fact still remains that nobody who knows anything is trying to use the hurricanes as anything like proof of AGW. There is plenty of other proof, though.

-Ben

Plenty of convincing evidence.

The thing about hurricanes is that they happen to 'Murrica, and therefore must be crucially important to everybody. So even though there's no evidence that anyone's presenting them as proof of AGW, they must be. Because they're crucially important. Since they happen to 'Murrica.

(That's an attempt at channeling Tokie and his ilk.)

Didn't Mexico get hit by some unimportant hurricanes last year? Unimportant because they didn't hit 'Murrica. So who gives a toss?

[mhaze]

Heeeeeeeeeeeelloooooo!!!

A quick check of google shows 207,000 hits for "global warming" and Hurricanes.

Lots and lots of assertions (wrong, but sensational) that GW causes fiercer hurricanes. Lots of other opinions, also.

Tokie is correct about the misrepresentation in the pop media, the misrepresentation in the media releases, pamphlets and so forth by the radical environmental groups. Also the issue is misrepresented in Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" (standard school kid propaganda).

[CapelDodger]

Well, Haze and I are competing to see who can get on more hysterical monstershouting fearmonger's ignore lists.

Are you on anybody's ignore list yet? What rational being with any sense of humour would do that?

Great post. Keep 'em coming.

[CapelDodger]

Heeeeeeeeeeeelloooooo!!!

A quick check of google shows 207,000 hits for "global warming" and Hurricanes.

Lots and lots of assertions (wrong, but sensational) that GW causes fiercer hurricanes. Lots of other opinions, also.

Do you have a breakdown? As in, how many of the 207,000 hits for GW increasing cyclonic energy, and how many for each of the other opinions?

[mhaze]

Do you have a breakdown? As in, how many of the 207,000 hits for GW increasing cyclonic energy, and how many for each of the other opinions?

I have no interest in doing any work to satisfy your curiosity about Google statistics. All these opinions are well represented therein.

[Wavicle]

That's the wonderful thing about AGW!

ANY "unusual" or even non-unusual weather event, local, regional, even global is caused by AGW!

Lots of hurricanes? AGW
No hurricanes? AGW.
Heavy rains? AGW
Drough? AGW
Cold? AGW
Hot? AGW.


Sadly I am going to have to give this one some credit. One can find global warming scientists (and non-scientists) essentially blaming any non-usual weather event on global warming. Although I think it is daft to deny that there isn't a temporally local anomalous rise in average global temperature right now, my BS alarm went off when I started hearing both that there would be more storms and less storms in response to global warming.

The conclusion I, in my non-climate trained home, reached was: we just don't have reliable models to predict what will happen.

There was a lot of talk in early 2006 that it would be much the same as 2005. When it wasn't, suddenly there was a lot of talk about dust from Africa or something like that to explain why 2006 was so mild.

I felt pretty validated in my armchair science laboratory. Nobody knows what climate change will bring. But the alarmists are going to use every oddball weather event to point the finger at global warming.

[Phaedrus74]

And you believe that the ONLY possible reason for either sea level rise or subsidence can be...global warming? And you believe as well that because you live in Netherlands it's my job as an American to make sure your country is not flooded by naturally occuring sea level rise due to naturally occuring climate warming?

Why?

Tokie

I suggest you learn to read.
You draw conclusions from my post that do not follow.

[Kotatsu]

So my views tend rather away from the picayune and pedantic, into which most conversations on this issue quickly devolve. I don't have links. I will not shuffle through endless reams of esoteric "studies" of ice core bubbles and seafloor samples.

In summary, you are unqualified to say anything one way or another, and uninterested in becoming qualified? What does that make you?

If you answer is no, then that leads a rational thinker to the next question:

AGWists claim that the "models" show them what the climate (and thereby weather) will be like 10, 20, even 100 years from now.

We can assume that they were working from these same models to determine that the post-2005 'cane seasons would produce larger, stronger and more stroms, can we not?

If they were so very, very wrong this close in (2 years) how are we to take their predictions for climate (and weather) 10, 20 or even 100 years hence, seriously?

Were their predictions of the "things will get worse" sort, i.e. a general prediction, or of the "there will be 16 hurricanes" sort, i.e. a specific prediction?

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, there is...it's you reading comprehensively. I can only read your posts, not your mind: and if there is some connection between your premise and your conclusion, it is certainly not contained in your posts.

I prefer not to speculate on the contents of your mind.

[mhaze]

Were their predictions of the "things will get worse" sort, i.e. a general prediction, or of the "there will be 16 hurricanes" sort, i.e. a specific prediction?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,484987,00.html

[Kotatsu]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,484987,00.html

A general "things will get worse" prediction, then?

[Cuddles]

As warned here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3345398#post3345398). Since most people seem incapable of discussing this issue civily, you are now restricted to this thread only (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102773) for discussing global warming. Do not start any new threads and do not attempt to discuss the issue anywhere else.

[Tokenconservative]

Are you on anybody's ignore list yet? What rational being with any sense of humour would do that?

Great post. Keep 'em coming.

Fiona's for sure (she only talks about feminist issues)...I think from my first post in response to here.

The guy who's SN starts with an S and sounds Germanic...can't remember it and I don't want to get any warnings for misspelling it...but he's a big time AGW monstershouter. But that's just recent.

I'm almost sure there are some others.

Maybe you could repost this and ask all who have me on ignore to ID themselves, and chastise them for missing some great comedy?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I can only read your posts, not your mind: and if there is some connection between your premise and your conclusion, it is certainly not contained in your posts.

I prefer not to speculate on the contents of your mind.

Well, it is hard to read a blank page....

I prefer not to speculate on the contents of my mind, either...so can't really blame you there!

Best wishes,
Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Areas of China that virtually never see snow have been socked-in for a week now, stranding, knocking down power lines all over the place and stranding millions of factory workers traveling for a holiday.

Now, a few years ago, hot weather in Franch and England was blamed on AGW and a rather mundane hurricane season on this side of the pond were blamed on AGW...the winter after the summer in which the terrible, AGW-caused heat wave in France killed some 14,000 people (actually, France's miserable socialized medical system is what killed them) and was front page, above the fold news for weeks, record cold weather and heavy snow across the northern hemisphere that killed hundreds was backpage, ho-hum stuff.

So too, the record snowfall in China is backpage stuff.

Now AGWists will tell you that actually, "Global Warming" is a misnomer...it's "Climate Change." And what this means is that ANY unusual weather--hot, cold, wet, dry-- can be attributed to "Climate Change" (duh) and better, "normal" weather can be, as well!

So why is record and unusual cold and snow relegated to the back pages?

Well, because despite it new and improved name, Climate Change is still all about warming and those in the ACC (anthropogenic climate change) business know that public perception is reality...snow storms and freezing temps aren't good advertising for melting ice caps and rising seas, and besides, according to everything ACCists have been telling us, human activity is making things warmer, so if things actually look like they are getting colder, what's in it for them? They can't make money off of telling folks "go out and drive your SUV around the block to help ward off the next Ice Age...HURRY!"

Tokie

[mhaze]

Areas of China that virtually never see snow have been socked-in for a week now, stranding, knocking down power lines all over the place and stranding millions of factory workers traveling for a holiday.
Tokie

Yep.... that's people stranded who work in China but live in Hong Kong or other places outside the borders.

Didn't I hear something about a cool solar cycle?
Something else about no significant warming in the last decade?
And what's up about a foot of snow in Saudi Arabia?

[fsol]

Yep.... that's people stranded who work in China but live in Hong Kong or other places outside the borders.

Didn't I hear something about a cool solar cycle?
Something else about no significant warming in the last decade?
And what's up about a foot of snow in Saudi Arabia?

No significant warming in the last decade?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

[Megalodon]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147a4a0f240c34.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10545)

These are the monthly temperature anomalies, since 1978.

To say that it's not warmed in the last decade is... well, depressing. The graph was made with the database that David Rodale was using to make his argument, so if someone has problems with it, talk to him, please.

I apologize for my scattered posting, but I've been too busy IRL.

Cheers

[mhaze]

No significant warming in the last decade?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

For some reason, Tamino's blog comes across as downright entertaining, can't figure out why. He censors comments, so does RC, but RC seems to grind along in a ponderous word spinning and convoluted circuituous mode of prosletizing.

Maybe it's just the comments that Tamino gets, in response to his thinly veiled undercurrent of anger and impatienace. As an example -

From "FRED" -
With some irritation, let me also point out that trying to find out what would confirm or falsify a theory is not being a ‘denialist’ in relation to it. It is being interested in its truth or falsity. The idea that we should stop trying to find what are the observations which would confirm or deny this particular theory, or any scientific theory, is anti-scientific and anti-rational. I am not going to be stopped from doing this by being called silly names, and doubt Pielke is either.
Several people wrote in and said that with the hundreds or thousands of headlines they'd seen in 1998 and thereafter claiming that 1998 was "a tipping point" because it was so hot, eg., 1998 was used as evidence of global warming by the pro-AGW crowd, what was wrong with the "Anti-AGW" crowd using 1998 also?

Well, well, well now. What is your opinion of that?

Two wrongs don't make a right?:)

[varwoche]

For some reason, Tamino's blog comes across as downright entertaining, can't figure out why. He censors comments, so does RC, but RC seems to grind along in a ponderous word spinning and convoluted circuituous mode of prosletizing.

Maybe it's just the comments that Tamino gets, in response to his thinly veiled undercurrent of anger and impatienace. Notwithstanding this goofy non-seq, the site aptly demonstrates what anyone who is remotely familiar with the facts already knows: that your claim is pure, methane-emitting BS.

Incidentally, I haven't noticed if the numbers on 2007 have been posted. One year isn't all that significant, however David Rodale was making a big deal about 2007 (before the year was up) as a notable temp downturn...

According to NASA (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/): The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005 ... The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

[fsol]

For some reason, Tamino's blog comes across as downright entertaining, can't figure out why. He censors comments, so does RC, but RC seems to grind along in a ponderous word spinning and convoluted circuituous mode of prosletizing.

Maybe it's just the comments that Tamino gets, in response to his thinly veiled undercurrent of anger and impatienace. As an example -

From "FRED" -With some irritation, let me also point out that trying to find out what would confirm or falsify a theory is not being a ‘denialist’ in relation to it. It is being interested in its truth or falsity. The idea that we should stop trying to find what are the observations which would confirm or deny this particular theory, or any scientific theory, is anti-scientific and anti-rational. I am not going to be stopped from doing this by being called silly names, and doubt Pielke is either.
Several people wrote in and said that with the hundreds or thousands of headlines they'd seen in 1998 and thereafter claiming that 1998 was "a tipping point" because it was so hot, eg., 1998 was used as evidence of global warming by the pro-AGW crowd, what was wrong with the "Anti-AGW" crowd using 1998 also?

Well, well, well now. What is your opinion of that?

Two wrongs don't make a right?:)

So you can't argue against the data and analysis so instead you attempt to change the subject. Well I suppose you can do that, no one is stopping you. It's just not very sporting.

This thread is 'entertaining' also.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

[mhaze]

So you can't argue against the data and analysis so instead you attempt to change the subject. Well I suppose you can do that, no one is stopping you. It's just not very sporting.

This thread is 'entertaining' also.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

Oh, you took his "statistical analysis" seriously. Okay, then. I'm just a bit dense today. Well, let's see - his presumption is that current events have noise plus a 0.18C GW signal overlaid on top of noise at least through the year 2035. He is making an argument that basically all climate is noise except for the 0.18C GW signal and that if you pick an arbitrary outlier and equate it to 1998, you can still see a rising trend.

we know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the signal is still increasing, at a rate of exactly 0.018 deg.C/yr. It’s the noise that shows cooling — and for such a short time span, the cooling in the noise overwhelms the warming in the signal.

Well....DUHHHHH!!!

So here's your requested "argument against the data and analysis"

1. No, there is no reason to consider all natural causes of climate change as random noise and less reason to consider it equal to 0.1C per decade.
2. No, there is no reason to consider a steady increase in temperature due to AGW thru 2035 of 0.18C per decade.

Gee, that was easy.

Now, I note that you called sidestep when I asked this question (or maybe it was sidestep at Fred's comment), but in either case what is your answer to this. Several people wrote in and said that with the hundreds or thousands of headlines they'd seen in 1998 and thereafter claiming that 1998 was "a tipping point" because it was so hot, eg., 1998 was used as evidence of global warming by the pro-AGW crowd, what was wrong with the "Anti-AGW" crowd using 1998 also?
Well, well, well now. What is your opinion of that?
Well, what is your opinion of that?

Now, the "You Bet" thread. Yes, it is 'entertaining' also. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

I'd like to make a point. If Tamino is so sure about his analysis of climate as being comprised of a "0.18C per decade upward trend plus random noise" as depicted in the former discussion, then he should have no problem with carrying that out to a 2 sigma or 3 sigma certainty level and making a bet. But he says - I’ll also emphasize that I’m not interested in betting money on it.
Either he doesn't believe in betting at better than house odds, or he isn't quite so sure of the premises behind his "statistical analysis".

But we knew those premises were quite weak, didn't we?

[a_unique_person]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147a4a0f240c34.jpg

These are the monthly temperature anomalies, since 1978.

To say that it's not warmed in the last decade is... well, depressing. The graph was made with the database that David Rodale was using to make his argument, so if someone has problems with it, talk to him, please.



Thanks for the excellent graph. :)


I apologize for my scattered posting, but I've been too busy IRL.

Cheers

I'll pretend I didn't hear you say that. :mad:

[fsol]

Oh, you took his "statistical analysis" seriously. Okay, then. I'm just a bit dense today. Well, let's see - his presumption is that current events have noise plus a 0.18C GW signal overlaid on top of noise at least through the year 2035. He is making an argument that basically all climate is noise except for the 0.18C GW signal and that if you pick an arbitrary outlier and equate it to 1998, you can still see a rising trend.

we know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the signal is still increasing, at a rate of exactly 0.018 deg.C/yr. It’s the noise that shows cooling — and for such a short time span, the cooling in the noise overwhelms the warming in the signal.

Well....DUHHHHH!!!

So here's your requested "argument against the data and analysis"

1. No, there is no reason to consider all natural causes of climate change as random noise and less reason to consider it equal to 0.1C per decade.
2. No, there is no reason to consider a steady increase in temperature due to AGW thru 2035 of 0.18C per decade.

Gee, that was easy.

Now, I note that you called sidestep when I asked this question (or maybe it was sidestep at Fred's comment), but in either case what is your answer to this.Several people wrote in and said that with the hundreds or thousands of headlines they'd seen in 1998 and thereafter claiming that 1998 was "a tipping point" because it was so hot, eg., 1998 was used as evidence of global warming by the pro-AGW crowd, what was wrong with the "Anti-AGW" crowd using 1998 also?
Well, well, well now. What is your opinion of that?
Well, what is your opinion of that?

Now, the "You Bet" thread. Yes, it is 'entertaining' also. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

I'd like to make a point. If Tamino is so sure about his analysis of climate as being comprised of a "0.18C per decade upward trend plus random noise" as depicted in the former discussion, then he should have no problem with carrying that out to a 2 sigma or 3 sigma certainty level and making a bet. But he says - I’ll also emphasize that I’m not interested in betting money on it.
Either he doesn't believe in betting at better than house odds, or he isn't quite so sure of the premises behind his "statistical analysis".

But we knew those premises were quite weak, didn't we?

What you should do is go back and read the post again. You might cotton onto his point next time.

[CapelDodger]

Oh, you took his "statistical analysis" seriously. Okay, then. I'm just a bit dense today.

Why break a habit? Tamino is a statistical analyst, as I understand it. It seems reasonable to take his work seriously. But carry on.

Well, let's see - his presumption is that current events have noise plus a 0.18C GW signal overlaid on top of noise at least through the year 2035.

No it isn't. The 0.018C trend is the GISS trend since 1975. The point of the challenge (not really a bet, more a sort of forfeit) is to project that into the future while also projecting the "global-warming has stopped" zero-trend into the future. He also projects lines two standard deviations above and below the trends. You'll have noticed that all the previous annual temperatures fall within this band.

He is making an argument that basically all climate is noise except for the 0.18C GW signal and that if you pick an arbitrary outlier and equate it to 1998, you can still see a rising trend.

No he isn't. Not that I understand any of that, but he's definitely not arguing it. His post is very clear. I like that about the esteemed Tamino.

we know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the signal is still increasing, at a rate of exactly 0.018 deg.C/yr. It’s the noise that shows cooling — and for such a short time span, the cooling in the noise overwhelms the warming in the signal.

What :confused:?

The signal remains the same - 0.018C per annum. The temperature goes up (in fits and starts).

So here's your requested "argument against the data and analysis"

I couldn't be more agog.

1. No, there is no reason to consider all natural causes of climate change as random noise and less reason to consider it equal to 0.1C per decade.

You don't get noise "per decade". You get noise. There it is. So your point 1 is unclear.

2. No, there is no reason to consider a steady increase in temperature due to AGW thru 2035 of 0.18C per decade.

For the purpose of the challenge, that's what is assumed. Call it the AGW thesis. And let's call the "global warming stopped in 2001" the anti-AGW thesis. *

And so to the challenge. When two annual temperatures (not necessarily consecutive) in the future fall more than two standard deviations below the 0.018C trend-line, the AGW thesis goes hands-up. On the opposite hand, if two temperatures fall above the two standard deviation line of the anti-AGW thesis, the anti-AGW thesis does the same.

As we can see from the graphs, it's quite likely we'll get a result by 2015, and certainly by 2035.



Now, I note that you called sidestep when I asked this question (or maybe it was sidestep at Fred's comment), but in either case what is your answer to this.Several people wrote in and said that with the hundreds or thousands of headlines they'd seen in 1998 and thereafter claiming that 1998 was "a tipping point" because it was so hot, eg., 1998 was used as evidence of global warming by the pro-AGW crowd, what was wrong with the "Anti-AGW" crowd using 1998 also?Well, well, well now. What is your opinion of that? Well, what is your opinion of that?

How many people see hundreds of thousands of headlines in a year, let alone on one subject? (Rhetorical)

1998 saw a very strong El Nino, and those of us who know something about climate know that leads to a very warm year. There may well have been some know-nothings out there calling it a tipping-point, but what do we care about them?

There are know-nothings who claim that 1998 was the turning-point of a natural cycle, but again, what do we care about them?




I'd like to make a point. If Tamino is so sure about his analysis of climate as being comprised of a "0.18C per decade upward trend plus random noise" as depicted in the former discussion, then he should have no problem with carrying that out to a 2 sigma or 3 sigma certainty level and making a bet. But he says -I’ll also emphasize that I’m not interested in betting money on it.Either he doesn't believe in betting at better than house odds, or he isn't quite so sure of the premises behind his "statistical analysis".

It's an intellectual challenge. Not everything's about money, you know. Adam Smith made that point repeatedly.

But we knew those premises were quite weak, didn't we?

I'm happy to sign up with Tamino and go hands-up on the same conditions. 2015 is only seven years on, so there's some boldness in that. On the other hand, you can't buck physics, nor the next sustained El Nino which will put one data-point above the anti-AGW thesis straight off. And there's bound to be one in the next seven years.

As I recall, Dr Dick (he of the 60-80 year Arctic ice-cycle) said that if the ice doesn't come back in the next two-to-seven years something serious is going on. 2015 just keeps coming into the frame. Some outliers have predicted a complete loss of summer Arctic ice by 2015. They've been called "alarmist", and we'll know by then if that was justified. The "Weak Solar Cycle" people will be well into interim-report time, which promises to be amusing. 2015 looks like crunch-time to me.

* ("AGW thesis" and "anti-AGW thesis" defined specifically for this post, not as some semantic diversion.)

[CapelDodger]

What you should do is go back and read the post again. You might cotton onto his point next time.

That's a pithier way of putting it :).

How do you feel about the challenge, and maybe lining up behind Tamino? He's agreed to the forfeit, and it's a painful one.

I've decided to do the "I am Spartacus!" thing, but I am by nature a competitive thinker. And awash with beer and testosterone because Wales beat England at Twickenham. Mighty shall be the rogering in the Valleys tonight, beer notwithstanding :).

[CapelDodger]

I'll pretend I didn't hear you say that. :mad:

Did you hear about Wales beating England at Twickenham?. World-Cup Finalists my arse ...

:D:D:D

[fsol]

That's a pithier way of putting it :).

How do you feel about the challenge, and maybe lining up behind Tamino? He's agreed to the forfeit, and it's a painful one

I've decided to do the "I am Spartacus!" thing, but I am by nature a competitive thinker. And awash with beer and testosterone because Wales beat England at Twickenham. Mighty shall be the rogering in the Valleys tonight, beer notwithstanding :).

It seems fairly reasonable to me if you like that sort of thing.

I try to steer clear of predicting the future. As an Englishman in Wales yesterday afternoon I wouldn't have forecast how the second half turned out. Well I did, but I was painfully wrong. :(

I like the "bet" post because it clearly shows that the "no warming for the last decade" claim is undefendable at this time.

I think that if the trend goes off to follow the blue lines then a chunk of humble pie might be in order (a bit like yesterday evening...). As a non climatologist, all I can do is go where the data and the science takes me. If it starts cooling then the science and data will reflect that in the interim I'd have thought. What fascinates me is peoples absolute certainty that it is cooling now or that AGW isn't happening in the face of all the evidence. If it turns out that AGW does not have the effect that the evidence to date suggests then I am happy to say I was wrong. I think I'd be wrong in good faith though. I don't think you could say the same about some of the people on the otherside of the argument.

I think it is most likely to keep following the red lines, though I would prefer if it followed the blue.

[mhaze]

And so to the challenge. When two annual temperatures (not necessarily consecutive) in the future fall more than two standard deviations below the 0.018C trend-line, the AGW thesis goes hands-up. On the opposite hand, if two temperatures fall above the two standard deviation line of the anti-AGW thesis, the anti-AGW thesis does the same.

As we can see from the graphs, it's quite likely we'll get a result by 2015, and certainly by 2035.

How many people see hundreds of thousands of headlines in a year, let alone on one subject? (Rhetorical)

I'm happy to sign up with Tamino and go hands-up on the same conditions. 2015 is only seven years on, so there's some boldness in that. On the other hand, you can't buck physics, nor the next sustained El Nino which will put one data-point above the anti-AGW thesis straight off. And there's bound to be one in the next seven years.

As I recall, Dr Dick (he of the 60-80 year Arctic ice-cycle) said that if the ice doesn't come back in the next two-to-seven years something serious is going on. 2015 just keeps coming into the frame. Some outliers have predicted a complete loss of summer Arctic ice by 2015. They've been called "alarmist", and we'll know by then if that was justified. The "Weak Solar Cycle" people will be well into interim-report time, which promises to be amusing. 2015 looks like crunch-time to me.

* ("AGW thesis" and "anti-AGW thesis" defined specifically for this post, not as some semantic diversion.)

For the first part of your reply, if you don't understand what I was saying or what Tamino was saying, we can just leave that aside. Reread it, or not, doesn't really matter.

Tamino's bet is really a remake of Hansen 1988, where a simple standard deviation measure was used to attempt to find the "smoking gun" of AGW. Hansen had SD=0.13C, and suggested 3 sigma deviation. Tamino using SD=0.1C, and suggests 2 SD.

One would think, that something as basic as the variation of global temperature over time, could be agreed upon by various parties. If not, that is a serious problem in getting useful results. In saying this, I'm not interesting in the response "oh, X used the period 1951-1980, and y used the period 1975-2000", yada-yada-yada. That's nonsense, really. If anyone wants to talk about significant global temperature change, they really need to have a firm grasp on what the natural variability is, not a measure that changes with the choice of an arbitrary measuring period (or for the purposes of an argument).

Second, Tamino seems to want to ignore actual physical phenomena, such as the PDO, in favor of the statistical dispersion. Reduce the matter to just a string of numbers and ignore all causes, ignore all autocorrelative events and periodicity.

So going with that (unscientific, but Vegas) point of view for the moment.....

Looking at the decadal time scales of the relevant physical phenomena that can influence climate, I'm inclined to think anyone throwing darts at Tamino's bet would likely lose if betting for AGW continued temperature increases.

By the way. You translated "hundreds or thousands" into "hundreds of thousands".:)

[mhaze]

Further notes.

If the study below is correct, perhaps Tamino has lost his bet before he started.(Pielke and Matsui 2005 (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf) and Lin et al. 2007 (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-333.pdf)), a conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21 C per decade (with the nightime T(min) contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14 degrees C per decade, still a warming, but not as large as indicated by the IPCC.

Some discussion at www.icecap.us ”Difficulties With the Use of Observed Nocturnal Warming Trends as a Measure of Climate Trends (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf). How does one incorporate this and other published, peer reviewed studies which affect the temperature data sets into "the bet"?

Or is Tamino's bet implicitly in denial of such work?

Alternately, one is inclined to suggest using RSS data (I'd go for mid tropospheric equatorial RSS data only) but Tamino indicated in the discussion a strong preference for GISS or that averaged with other land based series, if I recall correctly.

[Megalodon]

Thanks for the excellent graph. :)

Thanks. I wonder if the usual complaints will still arise (yeah, right...). But I think it illustrates well the point

I'll pretend I didn't hear you say that. :mad:

Sorry... Have 2 articles out, but if I don't finish this 3rd, can't defend the PhD. And since the discussion has become more and more surreal, I decided to not waste too much time with it.

[CapelDodger]

For the first part of your reply, if you don't understand what I was saying or what Tamino was saying, we can just leave that aside. Reread it, or not, doesn't really matter.

I understand what Tamino is saying. I'm not convinced that you do.

Tamino's bet is really a remake of Hansen 1988, where a simple standard deviation measure was used to attempt to find the "smoking gun" of AGW. Hansen had SD=0.13C, and suggested 3 sigma deviation. Tamino using SD=0.1C, and suggests 2 SD.

So he does, and you'll have noticed that all the annual temperatures since 1975 lie with that 2 SD span (even 1998). It's a reasonable inference that noise is less than that 2SD, and that any measurement outside that span is anomolous. Tamino stipulates that at least two such measurements will be indicative of divergence from the trend.

He then takes two trends, firstly the measured trend since 1975 to present, then the "no more warming" zero trend, and projects them into the future. Two or more measurements more than 2 SD from the trend will be taken as disproving the trend. Tamino reckons the "no more warming" trend will be disproved (and I agree).

It's not difficult to understand.

One would think, that something as basic as the variation of global temperature over time, could be agreed upon by various parties.

The annual measurements since 1975 are on Tamino's graphs. So is the trend line. What else do you want?

If not, that is a serious problem in getting useful results. In saying this, I'm not interesting in the response "oh, X used the period 1951-1980, and y used the period 1975-2000", yada-yada-yada. That's nonsense, really. If anyone wants to talk about significant global temperature change, they really need to have a firm grasp on what the natural variability is, not a measure that changes with the choice of an arbitrary measuring period (or for the purposes of an argument).

The base-line period simply establishes the base-line, it doesn't change the shape of the graph or the incline of the trend.

Second, Tamino seems to want to ignore actual physical phenomena, such as the PDO, in favor of the statistical dispersion. Reduce the matter to just a string of numbers and ignore all causes, ignore all autocorrelative events and periodicity.

In this case, yes, he does. He takes the observed temperatures since 1975 and projects the trend into the future. Actual physical phaenomena have influenced the temperatures, but so what? This is not about the physics of climate, it is in fact about a string of observed temperatures and projecting the trend into the future.

So going with that (unscientific, but Vegas) point of view for the moment.....

Tamino has put forward his challenge, plain and simple. He's not there to dance to your tune. It's an interesting challenge, but if you'd rather waffle around it that's your choice.

Looking at the decadal time scales of the relevant physical phenomena that can influence climate ...

You'll notice that such "decadal" processes have remained within 2 SD of the trend-line since 1975 - that's three decades - so they don't seem to be a problem.

... I'm inclined to think anyone throwing darts at Tamino's bet would likely lose if betting for AGW continued temperature increases.

Will you bet the other way? I've put a chunk of my reputation on the line. Care to do the same?

(Obviously you should be quite sure of what the challenge is before you accept it.)

[CapelDodger]

Sorry... Have 2 articles out, but if I don't finish this 3rd, can't defend the PhD. And since the discussion has become more and more surreal, I decided to not waste too much time with it.

"Surreal" is the word. Something as simple as Tamino's challenge becomes a Dali-esque nightmare just like that in some hands.

Your input is much appreciated. I'm retired, so I've got more than enough time on my hands :). Good luck with the PhD.

[CapelDodger]

Further notes.


If the study below is correct, perhaps Tamino has lost his bet before he started.

That's impossible, since it involves at least two future observations. As in, not yet happened.


(Pielke and Matsui 2005 (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf) and Lin et al. 2007 (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-333.pdf)), a conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21 C per decade (with the nightime T(min) contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14 degrees C per decade, still a warming, but not as large as indicated by the IPCC.

Some discussion at www.icecap.us (http://www.icecap.us) ”Difficulties With the Use of Observed Nocturnal Warming Trends as a Measure of Climate Trends (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf). [quote]How does one incorporate this and other published, peer reviewed studies which affect the temperature data sets into "the bet"?

One doesn't. Tamino's challenge is what it is. If this bias exists, it has existed since 1975 and will presumably continue to exist. Since the challenge concerns projections from the past (or from zero) into the future the bias has no effect. Like will continue to be compared with like.

(I haven't ploughed through the papers myself, so I've not found out yet why the bias is supposed to increase year by year. It's going to be pretty enormous by the end of the century - there'll be night-time measurements well in excess of daytime measurements by then. Seems kinda weird on the face of it, don't you think?)

Or is Tamino's bet implicitly in denial of such work?

It is what it is. Tamino explains it very clearly.

Alternately, one is inclined to suggest using RSS data (I'd go for mid tropospheric equatorial RSS data only) but Tamino indicated in the discussion a strong preference for GISS or that averaged with other land based series, if I recall correctly.

Do your own with RSS data. You'll still lose, because AGW is real and global warming hasn't stopped.

[CapelDodger]

I try to steer clear of predicting the future. As an Englishman in Wales yesterday afternoon I wouldn't have forecast how the second half turned out. Well I did, but I was painfully wrong. :(

Oh dear. I don't envy you that. People take it very seriously around here, don't they? And this is a once-every-twenty years event, which makes it pretty damn' special.

I like the "bet" post because it clearly shows that the "no warming for the last decade" claim is undefendable at this time.

I doubt anyone's going to nail their colours to it. I expect it'll just fade away. The next thing will probably be "yes it's warming, because of the solar cycle". There'll always be something, whatever happens.

I think that if the trend goes off to follow the blue lines then a chunk of humble pie might be in order (a bit like yesterday evening...). As a non climatologist, all I can do is go where the data and the science takes me. If it starts cooling then the science and data will reflect that in the interim I'd have thought.

That's my position. And as a gardener I've watched climate change by its effects, and the change haven't slowed during this century. No matter how often I'm told that's down to measurement errors, I'm not going to buy it. My jasmine has just started flowering, and it's not a winter jasmine. I've had to cut back my avocado tree because it was in danger of blowing over. Welcome to the new normal.

What fascinates me is peoples absolute certainty that it is cooling now or that AGW isn't happening in the face of all the evidence. If it turns out that AGW does not have the effect that the evidence to date suggests then I am happy to say I was wrong. I think I'd be wrong in good faith though. I don't think you could say the same about some of the people on the otherside of the argument.

Some are dishonest, but I think many are living in denial, either because of ideological objections or because they've latched onto that side of the argument and won't eat humble pie (as you put it).

I think it is most likely to keep following the red lines, though I would prefer if it followed the blue.

None of us wants this, but it's what we've got. You can't buck physics.

[mhaze]

That's impossible, since it involves at least two future observations. As in, not yet happened.

Well, you got me there. So after correcting the past 30 years of cumulated anomalies, we then have practically any result for the next two years well into the blue. That is because the accumulated corrected error is almost equal to two of Tamino's choice of "standard deviation."

The skeptics win in two years. Or should we correct the SD, also?

Oops, then there is no drastic warming upon which Warmologists can fret.


(I haven't ploughed through the papers myself, so I've not found out yet why the bias is supposed to increase year by year. It's going to be pretty enormous by the end of the century - there'll be night-time measurements well in excess of daytime measurements by then. Seems kinda weird on the face of it, don't you think?)
It is what it is. Tamino explains it very clearly.

Do your own with RSS data. You'll still lose, because AGW is real and global warming hasn't stopped.
Actually you've said you preferred species migration as a metric, so do I. Tell that to Tamino, he might listen. He's the one that thinks GISS will prove his point. By the way, what temperature anomaly is inferred from the extent of changes in species migration, plant blooming, and the like?

(Pielke and Matsui 2005 (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf) and Lin et al. 2007 (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-333.pdf)), a conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21 C per decade (with the nightime T(min) contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14 degrees C per decade, still a warming, but not as large as indicated by the IPCC.Some discussion at www.icecap.us (http://www.icecap.us/) ”Difficulties With the Use of Observed Nocturnal Warming Trends as a Measure of Climate Trends (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf). Quote:
How does one incorporate this and other published, peer reviewed studies which affect the temperature data sets into "the bet"?


One doesn't. Tamino's challenge is what it is. If this bias exists, it has existed since 1975 and will presumably continue to exist. Since the challenge concerns projections from the past (or from zero) into the future the bias has no effect. Like will continue to be compared with like.
So you'd ignore all new scientific research that proves there is no AGW (or it has much lower effect) to win a bet that there was AGW based on continuing to use a proven incorrect data series.

It's clear why Warmologists don't want to put their money up on this.

[fsol]

Proven incorrect data series?

[mhaze]

Proven incorrect data series?

A slight exaggeration there.;)

[CapelDodger]

Well, you got me there. So after correcting the past 30 years of cumulated anomalies, we then have practically any result for the next two years well into the blue.

Gibberish.

Nothing's been corrected, the GISS series and trend has been projected into the future, the zero-trend has been projected into the future, take your pick. Or not, whatever.

That is because the accumulated corrected error is almost equal to two of Tamino's choice of "standard deviation."

What accumulated corrected error? The data points are GISS annual returns dating back to 1975. What happens next will be the result of natural processes, one of which will be AGW. The future data points to be taken into account are the GISS annual returns on global temperature. That's it. Put up or shut up. Or not, whatever.

The skeptics win in two years. Or should we correct the SD, also?

The projection is exactly what it is. That's what the challenge is based on. It's Tamino's challenge, so he gets to define it. All the lines remain straight, from now. No adjustments. No corrections. GISS global returns will be plotted into the future. There's a proviso regarding a major eruption or asteroid-strike, but I'm sure you wouldn't argue with that. That's some serious noise, but it damps out within a few years.

Oops, then there is no drastic warming upon which Warmologists can fret.

Do you think you've won the challenge already, without even signing-up in the first place? Are you claiming psychic powers? Nobody pays up on that claim. Let's see how the next two years actually turn out. If you're that confident, sign-up now. Or not, whatever.


Actually you've said you preferred species migration as a metric, so do I. Tell that to Tamino, he might listen. He's the one that thinks GISS will prove his point. By the way, what temperature anomaly is inferred from the extent of changes in species migration, plant blooming, and the like?

There isn't any. Climate change isn't important because of the figures, it's important beause of the effects. If it's converted from effect into figures you'll only demand that it be converted back into effects. Exact effects. Everywhere.

So you'd ignore all new scientific research that proves there is no AGW (or it has much lower effect) to win a bet that there was AGW based on continuing to use a proven incorrect data series.

You're very free with the "So ...", but we all know it reflects your thinking, not mine.

On that subject, does this scientific research prove both that there is no AGW, and that there is but nothing discomforting? Scientific proof you say. If you're right, science and logic fall apart. Who'd have thought something as simple and mindless as the weather could bring down such an edifice.

It's clear why Warmologists don't want to put their money up on this.

I've put my intellectual reputation on the Tamino challenge. Heck, I've been staking my reputation on the reality of AGW for decades. Not all of it, of course; some can always be salvaged by going hands-up to error. And there's always the irreducible foundation of it being an honest, argued, and disinterested error, not down to stupidity or ideological imperatives. I'm really not susceptible to propaganda.

Win my money and you win trash. Win my good name and I really feel it.

So, do you want to put your own good name on the line? The Tamino Challenge is clear and succint. We won't blather about "decadal climate influences" or try shifting the terms, there it is. Take it or waffle on. We can all draw our own conclusions.

[mhaze]

Gibberish....Nothing's been corrected....What accumulated corrected error? ....No adjustments. ...No corrections.....We won't blather about "decadal climate influences" or try shifting the terms

I've put my intellectual reputation on the Tamino challenge....Heck, I've been staking my reputation on the reality of AGW for decades....So, do you want to put your own good name on the line?

I think but am not sure, 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.

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224479a3db13b041.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10381)
Incidentally, it looks like D'Aleo is having a lively discussion with Tamino over this very subject.

[David Rodale]

Thanks. I wonder if the usual complaints will still arise (yeah, right...). But I think it illustrates well the point



Sorry... Have 2 articles out, but if I don't finish this 3rd, can't defend the PhD. And since the discussion has become more and more surreal, I decided to not waste too much time with it.

Megalodon,

I don't know how much plainer it can be, but since you've spent so much time making another pretty graph and I don't care to argue the point anymore hence forth, maybe this from Dr. Roy Spencer can make it a bit clearer for you:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347a7b863b1f34.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10591)


It is not hard to show both a warming and cooling trend depending which start points you choose. However, it is clear after 1998 there has been no additional warming despite numerous prophecies that 2007 would be the "warmest year on record". If you are going to include the 1998 El Nino into your graph (which you did) and will still insist there has been additional warming, go ahead, use January 1998 through January 2008 and see what happens. Here is RSS latest tlt data set:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_an d_ocean_v03_1.txt
Now it gets interesting doesn't it?


UAH temperature should be out within the week. Do you think it will go up?

I have no idea what it is you're trying to prove, but it is pointless. It is obvious after the recovery from 1998 El Nino (the peak) which released a lot of heat, temperatures settled and has remained flat. Yet, you insist on creating meaningless graphs that nobody can analyze but only comment how beautiful they are.

Let's try again. Please in your own words, analyze the following graph which took all of maybe 2 minutes to create. It's really not difficult, honest:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347a7c1b1ee7f6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10594)



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?

[mhaze]

It is obvious after the recovery from 1998 El Nino (the peak) which released a lot of heat, temperatures settled and has remained flat. Yet, you insist on creating meaningless graphs that nobody can analyze but only comment how beautiful they are.


Looks like I'll have to dredge up the Russian fisheries reports to see what they are predicting. Cold water increases fish harvests, they go where the cold water is.

Some people actually do bet on climate cycles. They know very well what it costs to run a large commercial fishing boat for just a day.

They bet to win (have to, now that they don't have all that electronic eavesdropping gear down in the hold):)

[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/Images/CO2_temperature_rt.gif

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.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224479a3db13b041.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10381)
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:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814715d04911d68.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8819)



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.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147a4a0f240c34.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10545)

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?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_281472eeca0ead83.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9081)

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147274d0303994.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8990)

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?:D 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?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224479a3db13b041.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10381)

[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?:D

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:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814715d04911d68.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8819)


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://forums.randi.org/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://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147a4a0f240c34.jpg



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_281472eeca0ead83.jpg

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

http://forums.randi.org/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?

Megaladon,
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.


I believe this was my original graphs posted showing the change in trends based on Sep to Sep years.
It was nothing spectacular, but you acquired OCD some reason and cannot seem to let it go.


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.


My three charts:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716be0c414dd.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8829)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfaacc782.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8831)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfd375ab8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8832)





I'd say Spencer is somewhat qualified to comment on temperatures wouldn't you agree?
Here it is again, flat:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347a7b863b1f34.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10591)



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? (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/rss-msu-2007-2008-delta.png)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347a931383a5aa.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10610)



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.

[David Rodale]

Arctic warming unprecedented?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/?p=2aebfff0ca6540fab5f10146ad4e84b7&pi=5
This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

[a_unique_person]

tree-ring width



I thought Mr Climate Audit had said trees were no good.

[David Rodale]

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


Natural cycles? Didn't they go out the window with the sun? We can dig up the failed predictions of 2007 again if you'd like. Or maybe you'd like to? Only until late summer when it was quite apparent there would not be "record" temperatures did the AGW prophets give utterance.

How can there be cooling at all when CO2 is supposed to be trapping all that heat in the lower troposphere, which then supposedly re-emits IR (a fallacy) into the ocean? Let's ask some solar physicists why this isn't possible shall we? Can you provide experimental examples of IR in the 10-20 micron range that can heat water? I didn't think so. Of course you will find unsubstantiated (and unphysical) claims of ocean waves carrying the heat below the surface.

We now know the LT is not warming as AGW "science" says it should. We also know UAH data is the more accurate data set. AUP, why isn't the LT warming as AGW hypothesis says it should?


2002:
Met Office "new" weather prediction model.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/nwp/numerical/unified_model/new_dynamics.html

Science Daily May 2003:
"New" climate model.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030521092312.htm

January 4, 2007
2007 - forecast to be the warmest year yet
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html

News release
11 April 2007
Met Office forecast for Summer 2007
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070411.html

The Met Office forecast of global mean temperature for 2007, issued on 4 January 2007 in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, stated that 2007 is likely to be the warmest ever year on record going back to 1850, beating the current record set in 1998.


August 2007:
We really mean it this time!
Another ‘new and improved’ climate model, but now it's accurate!
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5839/796?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=hadley+centre+climate+model&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

[David Rodale]

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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



That'll come back to haunt you.

Nameless, faceless anonymities appear to by your go-to sources now I see. How do you know anything at all about him? Who is Tamino? By his own definition he is illegitimate :
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16612221&postID=6202254865857420070&isPopup=true
The real litmus test for whether or not a scientist should be considered a legitimate member of the "climate" variety is whether or not they've published research in the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. If you look at the list of Hansen's or Mann's peer-reviewed publications then there's no doubt they fall into this category.



You fail to mention how many times Tamino has had his handed to him at CA. Then there's Eli Rabbet who leaves his stinky droppings around the web and routinely gets his ears pinned back.


So that's it Capeldodger? Anonymous bloggers, news articles and hopes of a future return to warming is your “refuge” (to coin your phrase)?


Ever since I've been in this forum the mantra has been: it's going to continue to warm, the ice is melting, it's unprecedented, AGW has overcome natural variability, and on and on and on. Now that it's not working out, all you have left is hope, but after all AGW is a faith based religious exercise.


It's pretty clear observations are not following AGW dogma wouldn't you agree? You still haven't given a reason why the lower troposphere is not warming. Well, why is it not warming? It should be. So should the oceans.


Why aren't the oceans warming? If CO2 is trapping all this heat, where is it going, in the missing sink with the CO2?


It's hard to admit the AGW house of cards are falling all around you isn't it?


What global climate model(s) predicted the current events?

[a_unique_person]

AUP wrote:


Natural cycles? Didn't they go out the window with the sun? We can dig up the failed predictions of 2007 again if you'd like. Or maybe you'd like to? Only until late summer when it was quite apparent there would not be "record" temperatures did the AGW prophets give utterance.



Natural cycles are a feature of climate. "Failed predictions"? The predictions are always given with a qualification, IIRC we still can't predict the El Nino and La Nina cycles. The La Nina this year was a cooling event.

[CapelDodger]

Nameless, faceless anonymities appear to by your go-to sources now I see. How do you know anything at all about him? Who is Tamino? By his own definition he is illegitimate :
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16612221&postID=6202254865857420070&isPopup=true



I've lined up behind Taminos's challenge, and I don't do that lightly. Do you want to line up behind the "warming has stopped" option that you seem so convinced of? You've got charts and stuff, presented with more than a hint of fury. But have you got the cojones?

You fail to mention how many times Tamino has had his handed to him at CA. Then there's Eli Rabbet who leaves his stinky droppings around the web and routinely gets his ears pinned back.

Nobody gives a toss about CA. And what's with the weird font? I expect it from Rocifale, but it's new for you.

[CapelDodger]

Natural cycles are a feature of climate. "Failed predictions"? The predictions are always given with a qualification, IIRC we still can't predict the El Nino and La Nina cycles. The La Nina this year was a cooling event.

Not so much because any heat is lost, more because the heat is accumulated in the Western Pacific, to be released in the next El Nino. And there will be a next El Nino, almost certainly by 2015.

[varwoche]

The Met Office forecast of global mean temperature for 2007, issued on 4 January 2007 in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, stated that 2007 is likely to be the warmest ever year on record going back to 1850, beating the current record set in 1998. It turns out that 2007 was the second hottest (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/).

Which means the prediction was pretty darn accurate.

This goes to show how reasonable you are, sharing with readers how accurate the Met Office was despite that you've been critical of them. Right? :)

[fsol]

Megaladon,
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. Go read Tamino's "bet." You, on the other hand seem to find solace in the weather.

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.


I believe this was my original graphs posted showing the change in trends based on Sep to Sep years.
It was nothing spectacular, but you acquired OCD some reason and cannot seem to let it go.


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.


My three charts:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716be0c414dd.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfaacc782.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfd375ab8.jpg

Yup, each of those graphs still shows a rising trend.



I'd say Spencer is somewhat qualified to comment on temperatures wouldn't you agree?
Here it is again, flat:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347a7b863b1f34.jpg

What is the justification for those plotting those trends, other than it agrees with what he wishes were true?


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? (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/rss-msu-2007-2008-delta.png)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347a931383a5aa.jpg

That says nothing about climate. Weather is a different thing.

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.

[Megalodon]

Dear mhaze:

All my graphs where made using the database provided by David. It's been like this since September. All the graphs I present are my own, unless I state otherwise. Of course, you knew this already, since it was stated a number of times, but you decided to accuse me of what you and David do in a routine basis. That's called projection.


Dear David Rodale:

You seem to have a problem with reality. The simple fact that you imagine that my graphs would take hours to make tells me that you have a problem with data analysis also.
The graphs speak for themselves... The temperature baseline in the 21st century is over 0.2ºC above the climatology. To try to spin that into "it's not warming since 2001" is ridiculous. I don't care who is the new guy saying that the sky isn't blue, the fact is that it is. Likewise, I don't care who's saying that is not warming this season, because it's obvious that it is, for anyone that's looking at the data.

Now, the question is, will it cool down in the near future? If I remember correctly, you were betting that 2007 would be much cooler that 2006 and would start a cooling trend. You were wrong on the first one, I don't see you getting it right in the second. After all, you got every one of your claims wrong in our latest discussion, with the data. So forgive me, Nostradamus, but I'll take a rain check on your predictions.

[Pipirr]

Megalodon, that is a beautiful graph. Tufte-esque.
Made with Surfer?

[Megalodon]

Megalodon, that is a beautiful graph.

Oh, thank you :blush:

Made with Surfer?

Yes, labored hours upon hours on it... or minutes, one of the two :D Surfer is a hell of a program... brilliant, really.

Actually it took longer to turn the graph into an acceptable sized jpg than to make the graph itself.

[mhaze]

I've lined up behind Taminos's challenge, and I don't do that lightly. Do you want to line up behind the "warming has stopped" option that you seem so convinced of? You've got charts and stuff, presented with more than a hint of fury. But have you got the cojones?

Nobody gives a toss about CA. And what's with the weird font? I expect it from Rocifale, but it's new for you.

By all means line up and march behind the anonymous internet blogger you have found who agrees with you, CD. That is, behind someone who as far as we can tell, has published no peer reviewed papers and whom is not a climatologist. My, my. Even "oil company businessmen" (smear phrase, of course, referring to McIntyre) are published.

Regarding Tamino's criticism of D'Aleo there are a couple of points worth making.

Tamino does not seem to like the 11 year smoothing of data. I didn't see him complaining (or you) when Lockwood and Frolich used 11 year smoothing of solar data (Lockwood and Frolich, 2007). Hmm....
Tamino runs a moderated blog and is quite open about snipping "denier" comments. Where is D'Aleo's reply to Tamino's criticsm of his work? It can't exist. You don't have a conversation there. You have a bunch of cuts and snips (by Tamino) to make Tamino look good.But I'm glad you've found a new leader, in any case. RC and Gristmill were getting rather old. Skeptics were easily beating down all the various arguments over there.

Exploring the merits of "you bet", it is quite interesting. Warmologists can ascribe to "you bet" and thus continue to believe in warming for an indeterminate number of years. That allows disregarding all the contrary scientific articles published during the next few years, doesn't it?

Well, is there any need for you to discuss the science anymore?

[Megalodon]

You are wasting your time.

Only in the sense that you won't learn. But others might.


It was nothing spectacular, but you acquired OCD some reason and cannot seem to let it go.

Actually, you are selling yourself short. It was the most spectacular collection of easily disprovable claims I've seen in a long time.

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.

You failed to understand the paper then, and persist in doing so. I would only lose if I wasted my time trying to educate you again.


I'd say Spencer is somewhat qualified to comment on temperatures wouldn't you agree?

You're mistaking me for someone who cares.

Here it is again, flat:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347a7b863b1f34.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10591)

Yes, flat... 0.5ºC above climatology!

BTW, your qualified friend can't label the axis of a graph. The yy is not a warming, but a temperature anomaly. The data behaves exactly like the database you linked to, but the range is different. Not impressive, at least in a positive sense

...but like I said, I'm lazy:

You're a loony!

[fsol]

By all means line up and march behind the anonymous internet blogger you have found who agrees with you, CD. That is, behind someone who as far as we can tell, has published no peer reviewed papers and whom is not a climatologist. My, my. Even "oil company businessmen" (smear phrase, of course, referring to McIntyre) are published.

Regarding Tamino's criticism of D'Aleo there are a couple of points worth making.
Tamino does not seem to like the 11 year smoothing of data. I didn't see him complaining (or you) when Lockwood and Frolich used 11 year smoothing of solar data (Lockwood and Frolich, 2007). Hmm....
Tamino runs a moderated blog and is quite open about snipping "denier" comments. Where is D'Aleo's reply to Tamino's criticsm of his work? It can't exist. You don't have a conversation there. You have a bunch of cuts and snips (by Tamino) to make Tamino look good.

That'd be here then

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/#comment-12705

Compare the tone of the two of them. Who is being more reasonable?


But I'm glad you've found a new leader, in any case. RC and Gristmill were getting rather old. Skeptics were easily beating down all the various arguments over there.

You actually believe that? Wow.

Exploring the merits of "you bet", it is quite interesting. Warmologists can ascribe to "you bet" and thus continue to believe in warming for an indeterminate number of years. That allows disregarding all the contrary scientific articles published during the next few years, doesn't it?

Well, is there any need for you to discuss the science anymore?

Read the post, an indeterminate number of years doesn't really tally with what the bet actually suggests.

By the end of 2015, it is in fact likely but by no means certain that one or the other side will have won. Eventually, the two regions get far enough apart that it’s certain to happen. In fact, by 2028 we’re sure to have two years outside the limits of one or the other side, so the bet can’t take longer than 2028 to be decided. But this test isn’t based on a particular future year; it’s possible (but highly unlikely) that either side could win if 2008 and 2009 both fall into its winning region.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

Of course having read the post and understood it you must already have known that, right? Perhaps this is another of your 'slight exaggerations?' But what could possibly be the reason behind such exaggerations if you are trying to have an honest discussion?

[mhaze]

That'd be here then

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/#comment-12705

Compare the tone of the two of them. Who is being more reasonable?


Good question. Here is an excerpt.

And finally Joseph D’Aleo is my real name. Why do you and Eli hide behind pseudonyms? [edit] [Response: I was hoping you’d respond. I was also hoping your response wouldn’t be quite so pathetic.]

In another place Tamino says -

Try to be polite, try to be relevant, try to be logical, try to be honest. Reprehensible posts will be deleted, and that includes personal attacks on Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, etc. Criticize the work, not the man, and that goes for advocates too — if you want to discuss S. Fred Singer or Patrick Michaels or Bob Carter, talk about the work not the man.


Yet elsewheres he shows a lot of anger, even at one point accusing D'Aleo of being a liar.

So who is being more reasonable? Or is it just plain inconsistency?

[Pipirr]

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/#comment-12705

Compare the tone of the two of them. Who is being more reasonable?

That whole conversation might have been avoided in the first place if D'Aleo had put his 'paper' through peer review. Like a real scientist would.

Its jolly nice, really, for Tamino to to take the time to review it for him.

[David Rodale]

I've lined up behind Taminos's challenge, and I don't do that lightly. Do you want to line up behind the "warming has stopped" option that you seem so convinced of? You've got charts and stuff, presented with more than a hint of fury. But have you got the cojones?



Nobody gives a toss about CA. And what's with the weird font? I expect it from Rocifale, but it's new for you.

I guess we'll just have to continue monitoring the coming months to see what happens won't we?


Nobody cares about CA, yet that's where actual real scientists go, both friend and foe. Compare that to the barstools that hang out at RC.

Hmm, nobody cares about CA:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2697
I’m going to Georgia Tech for a couple of days at the kind invitation of JEG (Julien Emile-Geay), Judith Curry and Kim Cobb. I’ll be presenting at their Friday afternoon EAS seminar series (www.eas.gatech.edu/school/seminars/ (http://www.eas.gatech.edu/school/seminars/)) (3:30 to 4:30), which is geared towards a broad scientific audience. JEG says - “think grad students who don’t necessarily major in the nitty gritty details of statistical climatology”. In addition, I’ll be spending time with each of the protagonists, plus the students of the Hockey Stick class, plus two dinners out. So it should be fun.
I’ve given invited presentations to a National Academy of Sciences panel, a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an AGU Union session, but I’ve never given a presentation to a university seminar before. So this will be my first university seminar presentation.


Maybe Tamino and Eli Rabbet should attend and straighten him out. I'd imagine attire is important, but they could still go incognito:
Rule 4 breach removed.

[fsol]

Good question. Here is an excerpt.

And finally Joseph D’Aleo is my real name. Why do you and Eli hide behind pseudonyms? [edit] [Response: I was hoping you’d respond. I was also hoping your response wouldn’t be quite so pathetic.]

In another place Tamino says -

Try to be polite, try to be relevant, try to be logical, try to be honest. Reprehensible posts will be deleted, and that includes personal attacks on Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, etc. Criticize the work, not the man, and that goes for advocates too — if you want to discuss S. Fred Singer or Patrick Michaels or Bob Carter, talk about the work not the man.


Yet elsewheres he shows a lot of anger, even at one point accusing D'Aleo of being a liar.

So who is being more reasonable? Or is it just plain inconsistency?

Tamino criticised the work and then D'aleo comes back with "Maybe you never had a real job and had to work with real data to make real forecasts that had to satisfy real clients to make real money...."


So just who was attacking who?

It is nice to see that you apparently have no answer to the rest of my post though. I wonder what to make of that...

[CapelDodger]

By all means line up and march behind the anonymous internet blogger you have found who agrees with you, CD. That is, behind someone who as far as we can tell, has published no peer reviewed papers and whom is not a climatologist. My, my. Even "oil company businessmen" (smear phrase, of course, referring to McIntyre) are published.

Are you refusing to read Tamino's blog posts because you don't regard him as an authority? That would explain some things - such as your evidence ignorance of what Tamino's challenge is.

Regarding Tamino's criticism of D'Aleo there are a couple of points worth making.

Tamino does not seem to like the 11 year smoothing of data. I didn't see him complaining (or you) when Lockwood and Frolich used 11 year smoothing of solar data (Lockwood and Frolich, 2007). Hmm....
Tamino runs a moderated blog and is quite open about snipping "denier" comments. Where is D'Aleo's reply to Tamino's criticsm of his work? It can't exist. You don't have a conversation there. You have a bunch of cuts and snips (by Tamino) to make Tamino look good.

And it would also explain those things. Tamino explains why 11-year smoothing in correlation analysis is problematic because it introduces large-scale auto-correlation.

D'Aleo's responses can be seen on the thread, linked to by fsol. Your characterisation of Tamino is clearly invalid, but unsurprising. After all, he say sthings you don't want to hear and supports them with sound statistical analysis. That's harsh.

But I'm glad you've found a new leader, in any case. RC and Gristmill were getting rather old. Skeptics were easily beating down all the various arguments over there.

At least you're admitting that sceptical posts can be made at RC, which seems to be a shift in your belief system.

Exploring the merits of "you bet", it is quite interesting. Warmologists can ascribe to "you bet" and thus continue to believe in warming for an indeterminate number of years. That allows disregarding all the contrary scientific articles published during the next few years, doesn't it?

It's entirely separate from what Pielke and Baliunas publish in the next few years. The challenge is really to those who believe global warming has stopped, we've reached the peak of a natural cycle, and there's been no warming in the 21stCE. I take it that's not part of your belief system, since you don't want to commit yourself.

Well, is there any need for you to discuss the science anymore?

I have to do something while I'm waiting for annual temperatures to get above 2005's. The next two-to-seven years should see that. Apart from anything else, I'm interested in what new mantra will replace "global warming has stopped". I'm thinking it'll be something arcane about Solar Cycles, but I'm not going to bet on it. Nor on the long-shot that AGW will become acceptable when it can be blamed on China.

[mhaze]

Are you refusing to read Tamino's blog posts because you don't regard him as an authority? That would explain some things - such as your evidence ignorance of what Tamino's challenge is.

And it would also explain those things. Tamino explains why 11-year smoothing in correlation analysis is problematic because it introduces large-scale auto-correlation.

My my, now. It was me who said I did like Tamino's blog and his technique, or have you forgotten?

D'Aleo's responses can be seen on the thread, linked to by fsol. Your characterisation of Tamino is clearly invalid, but unsurprising. After all, he say sthings you don't want to hear and supports them with sound statistical analysis. That's harsh.
Suit yourself. Like I said, I'm glad you have a new handler there. Well, but just an earnest amateur, unlike Gavin Schmidt, who is a published professional "climatologist".


At least you're admitting that sceptical posts can be made at RC, which seems to be a shift in your belief system. Both Tamino and RC are moderated blogs in which many posts are not allowed. I was discussing the rather routine debunking of circuituous RC logic here on JREF.

[Pipirr]

Suit yourself. Like I said, I'm glad you have a new handler there. Well, but just an earnest amateur, unlike Gavin Schmidt, who is a published professional "climatologist".


A 'new handler'.

What the hell? :boggled:

[mhaze]

Tamino criticised the work and then D'aleo comes back with "Maybe you never had a real job and had to work with real data to make real forecasts that had to satisfy real clients to make real money...."

So just who was attacking who?

What's your point? The discussion between those two is in several other places other than the thread referenced here, and goes back a ways, as I recall. Sometimes people are angry and sometimes there not, etc. Which was why I said "just inconsistency" and tried to bring a few quotes to show that.


It is nice to see that you apparently have no answer to the rest of my post though. I wonder what to make of that...

I wonder what happens to unanswered things in posts I make also....

Well, let's see. Sometimes sidetracks are not taken because they are sidetracks. Sometimes questions do not look interesting. Etc. Anyone is welcome to restate or repeat something if they think it is important, of course.

[CapelDodger]

Tamino criticised the work and then D'aleo comes back with "Maybe you never had a real job and had to work with real data to make real forecasts that had to satisfy real clients to make real money...."

Unforgettably frickin' sad. And mhaze is cheering for D'Aleo because he's a proper scientist. Make of that what you will.

[CapelDodger]

A 'new handler'.

What the hell? :boggled:

Well, quite, and this from a McIntyre groupie. Makes you think, if you haven't thought it long ago.

So is this "handler" as in agent of Conspiracy, or "handler" as in animal-trainer? The first says "loonie", the second is reprehensible. Maybe mhaze can waffle out something he would sadly regard as a third option. I hope so.

[CapelDodger]

My my, now. It was me who said I did like Tamino's blog and his technique, or have you forgotten?

That's not the same as reading him. For all I know you like the pictures and the layout.

And you say you liked it when you knew that D'Aleo wouldn't be allowed to respond. "It can't exist." Remember?

Both Tamino and RC are moderated blogs in which many posts are not allowed. I was discussing the rather routine debunking of circuituous RC logic here on JREF.

You weren't discussing you were claiming victory for the likes of you. No doubt you think you're kicking ass, but you're sadly mistaken.

When your posts are moderated you find that you've really got nothing to say. I can see why you'd resent that. It must be very discomfiting for someone as driven as you are to keep saying something, even if it's gibberish. What the hey, you never stand and defend anything, so why not gibber? You move on and claim victory in retrospect, when your painful memories have faded.

You could earn yourself a real claim to victory by signing-up to the "global warming has stopped" end of Tamino's challenge. Not now, nor in the past, but in the unknown future. I will very publicly cede victory to you, and only ever say nice things about you afterwards.

Is that not a tempting prize? Considering the risk (which is surely minimal, given that AGW is so miasmic in your opinion)? Or do you feel like disparaging me more?

If money's all that counts to you, that's your loss. Treasure yadda trash; good name yadda blood-bath.

[CapelDodger]

What's your point? The discussion between those two is in several other places other than the thread referenced here, and goes back a ways, as I recall. Sometimes people are angry and sometimes there not, etc.

Of course people become angered, but it's how they act that's the mark of them.

'"Maybe you never had a real job and had to work with real data to make real forecasts that had to satisfy real clients to make real money....".

That's D'Aleo. And there's the point. Sarcastic and puerile. More than a hint of fury. And really bad tactically. There's a lot to be said for the Delete key.

Tamino's demolition of D'Aleo is clear, concise and devastating. In one recent blog post. If the exchange has been going on a while, why is D'Aleo still so angry? Tamino isn't. Tamino's in his comfort-zone - he knows he's right, because he knows why. You're not in your comfort-zone which is why you've clung to D'Aleo's qualifications, not his argument. You've attacked Tamino - D'Aleo's responses "can't exist", remember? - not the argument. Perhaps you can't follow the argument, or are too scared to find out what it is.

Which was why I said "just inconsistency" and tried to bring a few quotes to show that.

You avoided science, statistics, anything to do with the subject, and clung to blog policies. Are you quite sure you wouldn't be more comfortable in the Politics or Conspiracy Forums? Philosophy, even?

I wonder what happens to unanswered things in posts I make also....

Such as? I respond to many things you post (it amuses me) and you mostly ignore me, moving on. You seem to have this illusion that you dictate the course of the conversation, and you really don't.

Well, let's see. Sometimes sidetracks are not taken because they are sidetracks.

Sometimes they're pointed out. Like when in Arctic summer you want to talk about the Antarctic, and when the subject turns to the Antarctic you want to talk about last summer in the Arctic. Or the Medieval Warm Period, whatever.

You must be simply jonesing to post a picture of Al Gore. Go ahead and indulge yourself, you've more than proved that particular point.

Sometimes questions do not look interesting. Etc. Anyone is welcome to restate or repeat something if they think it is important, of course.

fsol responded to what you thought worth saying in the first place. You ignore his response. Why? Maybe it wasn't interesting in the first place. Or maybe you've realised you have no response. I favour the latter, unsurprsingly.

Your wriggling has become a subject of interest in itself. So at least you've made that much of a mark on the world.

[mhaze]

Arctic warming unprecedented?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/?p=2aebfff0ca6540fab5f10146ad4e84b7&pi=5The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

Scientific results that do not change, irregardless of the outcome of a bet by an anonymous Internet Blogger, Tamino.

[fsol]

Scientific results that do not change, irregardless of the outcome of a bet by an anonymous Internet Blogger, Tamino.

You're right. It says nothing about the current rate of warming.

[zooterkin]

Scientific results that do not change, irregardless of the outcome of a bet by an anonymous Internet Blogger, Tamino.

Did you mean 'irrespective" or "regardless"?

[Pixel42]

You're right. It says nothing about the current rate of warming.
It also says nothing about global temperature trends of the past.

[mhaze]

It also says nothing about global temperature trends of the past.

Global extents?

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/description.jspThe project's reason for being begins with the claim of many scientists - and essentially all of the world's radical environmentalists - that earth's near-surface air temperature over the last two decades of the 20th century (and continuing to the present) was higher than it has been during any similar period of the past millennium or more. This claim is of utmost importance to these climate alarmists; for it allows them to further claim there is something unnatural about recent and possibly ongoing warming, which allows them to claim that the warming has its origins in anthropogenic CO2 emissions

[mhaze]

You're right. It says nothing about the current rate of warming.

What might we know or infer about comparative rates of warming?

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2641

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447ac647eb08fb.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10652)


Or this?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244739ac8177fa7.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9183)


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/142244740de7844279.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9293)

Pipirr's suggested reference (IPCC chp. 6, pp. 467). -

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447ac7c0da5403.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10654)



Please provide evidence to support your choice.

[Pipirr]

Scientific results that do not change, irregardless of the outcome of a bet by an anonymous Internet Blogger, Tamino.



Figure 6.10, Records of NH temperature variation during the last 1.3 kyr.
IPCC AR4, WG1. Chapter 6, page 467. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf


Scientific results that do not change, irregardless of the outcome of one minor publication and a website run by Internet Blogger, Steve M.


:D

[fsol]

It also says nothing about global temperature trends of the past.

Especially as the paper actually says that other "MWPs" occur at different times depending where they are.

Although the paleoclimatic records show a high degree
of similarity in North Fennoscandian and, possibly, North
Atlantic trends over the last millennia, it is important to
also note that there are large regional differences in the
timing and the magnitude of climatic periods such as the
‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ (Hughes and Diaz 1994;
Crowley and Lowery 2000) and the ‘‘Little Ice Age’’
(Bradley 1992; Jones and Briffa 2001). Hence, although the
climate of northern Fennoscandia seems to have been
significantly warmer during medieval times as compared to
the late-twentieth century, the published composite records
of northern hemisphere climate (Moberg et al. 2005) do not
show a conspicuously warm period around AD 1000.

[Alric]

Please provide evidence to support your choice.

Publication in a peer reviewed journal.

[fsol]

What might we know or infer about comparative rates of warming?

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2641

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447ac647eb08fb.png


Or this?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244739ac8177fa7.png


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/142244740de7844279.png

Pipirr's suggested reference (IPCC chp. 6, pp. 467). -

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447ac7c0da5403.png



Please provide evidence to support your choice.

None of this has any bearing on Taminos bet. It is what it is. It doesn't depend on paleoclimate reconstructions, just the surface temp record. If you don't want to stick your neck out and take the bet that's fine. Just stop trying to make it into something it isn't.

[David Rodale]

delete

[David Rodale]

delete

[David Rodale]

It turns out that 2007 was the second hottest (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/).

Which means the prediction was pretty darn accurate.

This goes to show how reasonable you are, sharing with readers how accurate the Met Office was despite that you've been critical of them. Right? :)

Oh yes Varoche, you must always choose that which best supports your view rather than the most accurate. It is also interesting that Hansen is now the outlier :)

Shall we dig up all the studies showing the warm bias in the surface station network?

So Varoche, please explain how the surface, based on AGW hypothesis, can warm more and faster than the lower troposphere. That is diametrically opposed to AGW, I'm sure you know that. You do understand what the hypotheses say?

Megalodon, please link to the post where I said 2007 would be much cooler than 2006. Thank you.

[mhaze]

Publication in a peer reviewed journal.

Well, then we would have to cut and chop Pipirr's suggestion, the IPCC reference. It isn't from a peer reviewed journal.

Shall we?

[a_unique_person]

Oh yes Varoche, you must always choose that which best supports your view rather than the most accurate. It is also interesting that Hansen is now the outlier :)

Shall we dig up all the studies showing the warm bias in the surface station network?

So Varoche, please explain how the surface, based on AGW hypothesis, can warm more and faster than the lower troposphere. That is diametrically opposed to AGW, I'm sure you know that. You do understand what the hypotheses say?

Megalodon, please link to the post where I said 2007 would be much cooler than 2006. Thank you.

The errors in the ground stations are taken into account already.

[mhaze]

The errors in the ground stations are taken into account already.

Except for the errors not accounted for, of course.

We wouldn't want to forget about those.(Pielke and Matsui 2005 (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf) and Lin et al. 2007 (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-333.pdf)), a conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21 C per decade (with the nightime T(min) contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14 degrees C per decade, still a warming, but not as large as indicated by the IPCC.
Some discussion at www.icecap.us (http://www.icecap.us/) ”Difficulties With the Use of Observed Nocturnal Warming Trends as a Measure of Climate Trends (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf).

Also Piekle.

A Serious Problem With The Use Of A Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly To Diagnose Global Warming - Part I (http://climatesci.org/2008/01/24/a-serious-problem-with-the-use-of-a-global-average-surface-temperature-anomaly-to-diagnose-global-warming-part-i/)“The definition of the global average surface temperature used by the IPCC and others can be expressed as dH/dt = f -T’/λ
where H is the heat content of the land-ocean-atmosphere system, f is the radiative forcing (i.e. the radiative imbalance), T’ is the change global average surface temperature in response to the change in H, and λ is called the “climate feedback” parameter which defines the rate at which the climate system returns forcing to space as infrared radiation and/or as changes in reflected solar radiation (such as from changes in clouds, sea ice, snow, vegetation, etc).”

One of our conclusions is
“In constructing a global average of T’, its spatial distribution matters since T’ in regions with a baseline colder temperature have a significantly smaller effect on the return of heat energy to space (through infrared emission) than regions with a warmer baseline temperature.”

[varwoche]

Oh yes Varoche, you must always choose that which best supports your view rather than the most accurate. It is also interesting that Hansen is now the outlier :)

Outlier? Not that I'm aware of. Here, according to NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html) 2007 was the 5th hottest year on record.

Shall we dig up all the studies showing the warm bias in the surface station network?

So Varoche, please explain how the surface, based on AGW hypothesis, can warm more and faster than the lower troposphere. That is diametrically opposed to AGW, I'm sure you know that. You do understand what the hypotheses say? You can wave your arms until you achieve flight but it won't change the fact that you were wrong about 2007.

[mhaze]

So Varoche, please explain how the surface, based on AGW hypothesis, can warm more and faster than the lower troposphere. That is diametrically opposed to AGW, I'm sure you know that. You do understand what the hypotheses say?
You can wave your arms until you achieve flight but it won't change the fact that you were wrong about 2007.

So that part of the AGW hypothesis cannot be correct, and Varoche does not want to talk about it?

[David Rodale]

Outlier? Not that I'm aware of. Here, according to NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html) 2007 was the 5th hottest year on record.

You can wave your arms until you achieve flight but it won't change the fact that you were wrong about 2007.

Higher temperatures are always the accurate data isn't it Varoche?

What did I say about 2007 again? Please quote me, it would be interesting knowing what I said. Did I say it was going to be cooler than any previous year? I do recall making comments last Fall based on the information at the time that temperatures were likely going down. Have they gone down?

Just so this is on the record, are you saying GISS (Hansen) has the more accurate temperature data set? Are you saying GISS is not diverging from other products?

And also for the record, are you saying there are no significant issues with the surface station network?

Are satellite measurements of the lower troposphere accurate and precise? Is UAH or RSS the more reliable product? Why are surface temperatures rising at a higher trend trend than LT?

Varoche, there are many articles pertaining to issues with the surface station network. Would you please answer the above questions so we have an understanding of what your position is?

Thanks.

[zooterkin]

So that part of the AGW hypothesis cannot be correct, and Varoche does not want to talk about it?

Higher temperatures are always the accurate data isn't it Varoche?

It's varwoche, guys.

[fsol]

Except for the errors not accounted for, of course.

We wouldn't want to forget about those.(Pielke and Matsui 2005 (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf) and Lin et al. 2007 (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-333.pdf)), a conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21 C per decade (with the nightime T(min) contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14 degrees C per decade, still a warming, but not as large as indicated by the IPCC.
Some discussion at www.icecap.us (http://www.icecap.us/) ”Difficulties With the Use of Observed Nocturnal Warming Trends as a Measure of Climate Trends (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf).

Also Piekle.

A Serious Problem With The Use Of A Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly To Diagnose Global Warming - Part I (http://climatesci.org/2008/01/24/a-serious-problem-with-the-use-of-a-global-average-surface-temperature-anomaly-to-diagnose-global-warming-part-i/)“The definition of the global average surface temperature used by the IPCC and others can be expressed as dH/dt = f -T’/λ
where H is the heat content of the land-ocean-atmosphere system, f is the radiative forcing (i.e. the radiative imbalance), T’ is the change global average surface temperature in response to the change in H, and λ is called the “climate feedback” parameter which defines the rate at which the climate system returns forcing to space as infrared radiation and/or as changes in reflected solar radiation (such as from changes in clouds, sea ice, snow, vegetation, etc).”

One of our conclusions is
“In constructing a global average of T’, its spatial distribution matters since T’ in regions with a baseline colder temperature have a significantly smaller effect on the return of heat energy to space (through infrared emission) than regions with a warmer baseline temperature.”


You should go read Rabett on this second one.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-functions-belong-to-firm-of-mclaren.html

raypierre and lucia's comments might also be worth looking at.

[varwoche]

Higher temperatures are always the accurate data isn't it Varoche? Higher than what? I've cited data from NASA and NOAA that indicates that 2007 was the 2nd or 5th hottest year (respectively). If there is another source you'd like me to consider, by all means cite it.

What did I say about 2007 again? Please quote me, it would be interesting knowing what I said. Do you recall which thread it was?

And also for the record, are you saying there are no significant issues with the surface station network? Are satellite measurements of the lower troposphere accurate and precise? Is UAH or RSS the more reliable product? Why are surface temperatures rising at a higher trend trend than LT? Varoche, there are many articles pertaining to issues with the surface station network. Would you please answer the above questions so we have an understanding of what your position is? News flash: Even if you are a circus master (of Cirque De Bacon?), I'm not a trained bear. So how about sticking to the topic of our discussion, namely the temperature in 2007.

So again, if there is another source you'd like me to consider, by all means cite it. (Or not. I don't think one year is all that significant. You're the one who was going on about 2007.) Thanks.

[mhaze]

You should go read Rabett on this second one.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-functions-belong-to-firm-of-mclaren.html

raypierre and lucia's comments might also be worth looking at.

I most certainly will read these non peer reviewed discussions of the above mentioned peer reviewed article. Thanks for the reference!

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by fsol
You should go read Rabett on this second one.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/a...f-mclaren.html (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-functions-belong-to-firm-of-mclaren.html)
raypierre and lucia's comments might also be worth looking at.
I most certainly will read these non peer reviewed discussions of the above mentioned peer reviewed article. Thanks for the reference!

Okay, I've now ploughed through a couple of pages of that, and I'm quitting at this comment -raypierre (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/realclimate.org) said... It's good that somebody corrected the algebra error in Eli's exposition
No offense, but it looks like...well, how shall I put it....amateurs. It'd be nice if people really, really checked their math before posting it. These guys are batting back and forth basic algebra and can't get it right.

How about some peer reviewed criticisms?

Maybe Piekle's hypothesis is correct and surface temperatures are overstated. Let's see....instead of jumping to criticize "the denier, Piekle" let's just see where his line of inquiry may lead. Back to the interchange between Varwoche and Davide Rodale -David Rodale: So Varoche, please explain how the surface, based on AGW hypothesis, can warm more and faster than the lower troposphere. That is diametrically opposed to AGW, I'm sure you know that. You do understand what the hypotheses say?
Varwoche: You can wave your arms until you achieve flight but it won't change the fact that you were wrong about 2007.
Mhaze: So that part of the AGW hypothesis cannot be correct, and Varoche does not want to talk about it?

Is Piekle's hypothesis a possible answer to the riddle posted by David Rodale?

Easy enough to check that, as it only requires lining up the surface temperatures after the proposed corrections with the MSU lower troposphere temperatures. Of course this line of thought has other implications.... <double click to enlarge any graphic>

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224476190301dd1a.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9710)

[a_unique_person]

It seems to me to be 99% curve fitting by the deniers these days. No physical basis for their claims, but an incredible industry is being applied to finding a correlation to anything, anywhere, even the CIA fact book.

If Pielke is correct about his land use affecting climate, (and land use does affect climate and is already incorporated into the science), why did it cool between the '50s and '70s?

[CapelDodger]

It seems to me to be 99% curve fitting by the deniers these days. No physical basis for their claims, but an incredible industry is being applied to finding a correlation to anything, anywhere, even the CIA fact book.

It's almost a mirror-image of the scientific approach. Science predicted, and denialists denied. To the extent that denial was a prediction it was a prediction that what has happened wasn't likely. yet there it is. Do they go hands up? Do they heck as like, they start data-mining for correlations.

(I'll lump the CIA fact book in with the Bible Code. Seek, and ye shall find. Predict, and you may be found out.)

If Pielke is correct about his land use affecting climate, (and land use does affect climate and is already incorporated into the science), why did it cool between the '50s and '70s?

Stalinists. It's obvious. Power slipped from their grasp into the hands of the next-generation nomenklatura during the 70's. Operation "General Winter" (General Winter saved Stalin's ass in 1941/42, after all) was closed down and climate got back onto its natural track. Stands to reason.

[CapelDodger]

Do you recall which thread it was?

That's a challenge. They do spring up like poppies on an Afghan field, don't they?

[DanishDynamite]

I recently read this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml) article. It recounts how there seems to be an alternative explanation for GW, published in peer reviewed articles no less.

Anyone here have any view on these results?

[CapelDodger]

I recently read this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml) article. It recounts how there seems to be an alternative explanation for GW, published in peer reviewed articles no less.

Anyone here have any view on these results?

"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted.""

(my empahsis)

Notice the "may be" and the following "is"?

May be followed by might I could live with. Not "is".

And where's the evidence that AGW is happening slower than predicted?

There's no evidence that the atmosphere isn't already saturated with nucleation particles, nor of any cloud effect kicking-in, nor of any trend in cosmic rays (positive or negative, a non-AGW hypothesis hs been dreamt up for each) during the current warming period.

Move along, folks. Nothing to be seen here. The cosmic ray thing is a broken reed.

[CapelDodger]

It's varwoche, guys.

They're trying to reduce varwoche's Google rating. It's a conspiracy, so it is :mad:.

[DanishDynamite]

(my empahsis)

Notice the "may be" and the following "is"?

May be followed by might I could live with. Not "is".

And where's the evidence that AGW is happening slower than predicted?

There's no evidence that the atmosphere isn't already saturated with nucleation particles, nor of any cloud effect kicking-in, nor of any trend in cosmic rays (positive or negative, a non-AGW hypothesis hs been dreamt up for each) during the current warming period.

Move along, folks. Nothing to be seen here. The cosmic ray thing is a broken reed.
In short, you have no refutation to offer.

Anyone else?

[fsol]

Okay, I've now ploughed through a couple of pages of that, and I'm quitting at this comment -raypierre (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/realclimate.org) said... It's good that somebody corrected the algebra error in Eli's exposition
No offense, but it looks like...well, how shall I put it....amateurs. It'd be nice if people really, really checked their math before posting it. These guys are batting back and forth basic algebra and can't get it right.

A bit like Mcintyre then really isn't it. He can't even seem to read the paper he is supposedly auditing. The difference being of course that Eli leaves an edit trail so people can see what's going on.



How about some peer reviewed criticisms?

How about you actually take on board the large amount of peer reviewed science that doesn't gel with your worldview, instead of cherrypicking your way through the orchard and then exaggerating the conclusions of even that.


Maybe Piekle's hypothesis is correct and surface temperatures are overstated. Let's see....instead of jumping to criticize "the denier, Piekle" let's just see where his line of inquiry may lead. Back to the interchange between Varwoche and Davide Rodale -David Rodale: So Varoche, please explain how the surface, based on AGW hypothesis, can warm more and faster than the lower troposphere. That is diametrically opposed to AGW, I'm sure you know that. You do understand what the hypotheses say?
Varwoche: You can wave your arms until you achieve flight but it won't change the fact that you were wrong about 2007.
Mhaze: So that part of the AGW hypothesis cannot be correct, and Varoche does not want to talk about it?

Is Piekle's hypothesis a possible answer to the riddle posted by David Rodale?

Easy enough to check that, as it only requires lining up the surface temperatures after the proposed corrections with the MSU lower troposphere temperatures. Of course this line of thought has other implications.... <double click to enlarge any graphic>

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224476190301dd1a.png

There was me thinking that the troposphere was warming as predicted. Every so often someone comes round and says it isn''t and then when people go and look, hey presto it is. I'm pretty sure that's how this particular story goes anyway. It has been a while since the last time afterall.

[jsfisher]

I recently read this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml) article. It recounts how there seems to be an alternative explanation for GW, published in peer reviewed articles no less.

Anyone here have any view on these results?

This part fascinates me:

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

It should be interesting to hear more on the results of the such experiments and what consequences the results suggest. (The "will prove" I assume is a journalist's interpretation.)

[mhaze]

I recently read this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml) article. It recounts how there seems to be an alternative explanation for GW, published in peer reviewed articles no less.

Anyone here have any view on these results?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

[mhaze]

There was me thinking that the troposphere was warming as predicted. Every so often someone comes round and says it isn''t and then when people go and look, hey presto it is. I'm pretty sure that's how this particular story goes anyway. It has been a while since the last time afterall.

Guess you were and are wrong on that.

[mhaze]

In short, you have no refutation to offer.

Anyone else?

Some would ridicule a theory under test by scientists.

Or those who mention it.

[a_unique_person]

In short, you have no refutation to offer.

Anyone else?

How can you refute supposition and hypothesis? It's not at the stage to be called evidence. That you can try to refute. The CO2 basis for AGW, on the other hand, has been scientifically studied and researched for over a century now.

[Slimething]

How can you refute supposition and hypothesis? It's not at the stage to be called evidence. That you can try to refute. The CO2 basis for AGW, on the other hand, has been scientifically studied and researched for over a century now.

That's a very incisive question, AUP. You'll find that, although CO2 has been studies, no falsifiable test has yet been devised. Hypothesis are not evidence. What evidence do you bring that CO2 is indeed warming the planet?

If the shoe fits...

[a_unique_person]

That's a very incisive question, AUP. You'll find that, although CO2 has been studies, no falsifiable test has yet been devised. Hypothesis are not evidence. What evidence do you bring that CO2 is indeed warming the planet?

If the shoe fits...

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

[fsol]

Guess you were and are wrong on that.

Please try again.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/msu/

If you have evidence that the data is incorrect...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf

[David Rodale]

Higher than what? I've cited data from NASA and NOAA that indicates that 2007 was the 2nd or 5th hottest year (respectively). If there is another source you'd like me to consider, by all means cite it.

Do you recall which thread it was?

News flash: Even if you are a circus master (of Cirque De Bacon?), I'm not a trained bear. So how about sticking to the topic of our discussion, namely the temperature in 2007.

So again, if there is another source you'd like me to consider, by all means cite it. (Or not. I don't think one year is all that significant. You're the one who was going on about 2007.) Thanks.

What do you think the likelihood (statistically) of 2007 not being in the top 10 for the last ten years is? What do you think the likelihood of 2008 not being in the top ten for the last ten years? If I were a bettin' man, I'd say not very good. A two standard deviation jump would be highly unusual.

Now, since you wish to stick with 2007 temperatures, let us look at first at the rankings. You cannot find where I said 2007 would be cooler than 2006 or any other year for that matter, so let's get that out of the way. My contention has always been based on analyzing data and current observations last Fall, that temperatures would continue to trend downward. So, let's see if that was the case no matter which data set is used, even Reverend Hansen's outliers :)

1998 is the the target baseline.


Let's start with UAH
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347aed8cbbf30b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10716)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347aed8e1da141.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10717)


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347aeda307739a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10718)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347aeda45cc91d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10719)



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347aef39975cde.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10728)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347aeda7e31b2d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10721)

See next post for GISS data.

[David Rodale]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347aedf0aaf847.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10723)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347aee02f42a81.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10724)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347aee165eba48.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10725)

Reverend Hansen is not the outlier?

Varwoche, was I wrong about 2007?

[a_unique_person]

For some reason, temperature trends only started in 1998. Am I the only person who was alive before then?

[Pixel42]

For some reason, temperature trends only started in 1998. Am I the only person who was alive before then?
Surely no-one who deliberately chooses the freak El Nino year of 1998 as their baseline can expect to be taken seriously.

[David Rodale]

Please try again.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/msu/

If you have evidence that the data is incorrect...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf

Who is Tamino? If he has something monumental to contribute, he should publish it through the proper channels. Note the replies are largely ad hom; very intelligent group of followers he has :)

AGW warmologists seem to always argue the data that agrees with their POV is the most accurate. For quite some time RSS was their gold standard and UAH was somehow unreliable. Yet, compare the data......both are in agreement now. Your Tamino link doesn't touch on that. It is the surface data that's way out of whack.

Tamino said this:

I’m reading the paper by Randall & Herman now, and processing some of the data so I can better follow their argument. It’s a fair amount of work, but that’s what I do.
I’ll post my own opinion on their work after I’ve formed one, probably in 2 or 3 days.


It's been over a month, has he posted his opinion?

The article in question:


http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/jd/2007JD008864-pip.pdf


And another:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2005JD006881.shtml

If you have evidence that the data is incorrect...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf

We have addressed this over and over. Maybe Mhaze would like to spend the time to link the many articles on issues with the surface station network. Or better yet, how about you take a little time and do a bit of research on the issue? Wow, that would be a novel idea now wouldn't it?

How about this: you provide evidence that GISS/NOAA is the the more accurate data set over HadCRU. Better still, provide a peer reviewed study that supports your view that GISS is in fact accurate. Or, why is GISS so much different than HadCRU?

This is quite amusing. Are you folks blind or something? Record cold, snow and ice throughout the NH? Why aren't you posting news articles about that?

[David Rodale]

For some reason, temperature trends only started in 1998. Am I the only person who was alive before then?

It was Varwoche and Megalodon's insistence on 2007 that brought it about.

Is there something wrong with the data? Did 2007 temps continue downward or not? That was my contention last Fall.

What you folks must do now is explain the huge disagreement between different surface data from satellite. Now that RSS and UAH are in agreement, and GISS and HadCRU are not by a large number, there is a problem wouldn't you agree? We're talking .2-.4 deg divergence.

[David Rodale]

Surely no-one who deliberately chooses the freak El Nino year of 1998 as their baseline can expect to be taken seriously.


Are you saying 1998 should be removed from the trend? What about the rest of the El Nino events? You do realize what that would do don't you?

So the question is then, what what was it about 1998 that made it a "freak"?

It's there whether you like it or not, and after temperatures recovered, the trend has been statistically zero. Look at the bar charts.

Hansen is the oddball in all this. Give him time and the 1930's will become the last ice age.

[a_unique_person]

It was Varwoche and Megalodon's insistence on 2007 that brought it about.

Is there something wrong with the data? Did 2007 temps continue downward or not? That was my contention last Fall.

What you folks must do now is explain the huge disagreement between different surface data from satellite. Now that RSS and UAH are in agreement, and GISS and HadCRU are not by a large number, there is a problem wouldn't you agree? We're talking .2-.4 deg divergence.


They were discussing 2007, OK. Then you put the context as being how does 2007 rate in the temperature record since 1998.

[Pixel42]

Are you saying 1998 should be removed from the trend?
No I'm saying it is foolish in the extreme to use it as your baseline and conclude that - just because no year since has been as hot - warming has stopped, let alone that the temperature trend is now downwards. It needs far more than 10 years' worth of data to discern climate trends.

[Megalodon]

David, you are hilarious. You couldn't be funnier if you meant it...

as for 1998...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814715d04911d68.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8819)

It doesn't make sense to use yearly averages if you can use the monthly ones, when you're looking for a trend. Otherwise you're losing information. But you've already been told that, and refuse to learn...

One day, you'll learn how to analyse data, and make graphs... Then, maybe reality will not be so hard for you. What possessed you to put 2008 in a graph of yearly averages?

BTW, could you link to the databases you used for your graphs?

[Megalodon]

No I'm saying it is foolish in the extreme to use it as your baseline and conclude that - just because no year since has been as hot - warming has stopped, let alone that the temperature trend is now downwards. It needs far more than 10 years' worth of data to discern climate trends.

Well, you can get some info, if you know what you're doing...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147779cb23493e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9977)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147a4a0f240c34.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10545)

but I reeeaaally liked the plot of the last few months! It was so.... pathetic :)

[TrueSceptic]

Okay, I've now ploughed through a couple of pages of that, and I'm quitting at this comment -raypierre (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/realclimate.org) said... It's good that somebody corrected the algebra error in Eli's exposition
No offense, but it looks like...well, how shall I put it....amateurs. It'd be nice if people really, really checked their math before posting it. These guys are batting back and forth basic algebra and can't get it right.

So you know of people that never make mistakes? Did you spot the error? Note how readily the mistake is admitted, and also note the rest of the quote, which you snipped to give a misleading impression.
It's good that somebody corrected the algebra error in Eli's exposition, but please don't lose sight of the fact that Eli's main point is correct. Over the range of Earth's surface temperature, little error is made by linearizing Stefan-Boltzman. Energy balance models do this all the time. Actually, the situation is even better than Eli represents, since the energy budget isn't actually determined by straight S-B, but by the OLR taking into account the vertical temperature profile, water vapor, and CO2. The water vapor feedback actually cancels out some of the curvature over this temperature range, making the linear fit even better.

But there's even a stronger reason that Pielke's claim is ridiculous. He says that because (as he claims) the OLR changes are proportional to the fourth power of temperature, using a linear temperature average "overestimates global warming." What the heck is that supposed to mean? That confuses the metric used to summarize global climate change (an average temperature) with the kind of model used to interpret that change.

And if you're talking about modeling, you need to remember that GCM's do not linearize Stefan Boltzmann. When they calculate the radiative transfer, they use the full form of the Planck function.

So, I'd say that even if Pielke Sr. were right about linearization errors (which he isn't), his claim about the average of T "overestimating" global warming is incoherent.

[TrueSceptic]

In short, you have no refutation to offer.

Anyone else?
So something is assumed to be true until it is refuted? How strange.

[TrueSceptic]

How about this: you provide evidence that GISS/NOAA is the the more accurate data set over HadCRU. Better still, provide a peer reviewed study that supports your view that GISS is in fact accurate. Or, why is GISS so much different than HadCRU?

I assume this is rhetorical. Are the differences that great, and are the reasons not well known anyway?


This is quite amusing. Are you folks blind or something? Record cold, snow and ice throughout the NH? Why aren't you posting news articles about that?
It's amusing that you use this classic fallacy. Weather is not climate and one unusually cold (or mild) winter proves nothing. If it proves to be the start of a trend, then we will have something.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Okay, I've now ploughed through a couple of pages of that, and I'm quitting at this comment -raypierre (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/realclimate.org) said... It's good that somebody corrected the algebra error in Eli's exposition
No offense, but it looks like...well, how shall I put it....amateurs. It'd be nice if people really, really checked their math before posting it. These guys are batting back and forth basic algebra and can't get it right.



So you know of people that never make mistakes? Did you spot the error? Note how readily the mistake is admitted, and also note the rest of the quote, which you snipped to give a misleading impression.



Well, yes I did spot the error Tamino made. Note the general thrust of my comment please. I simply found reading more to likely be a waste of time. So how can that be a misleading impression?

Oh, by the way - Tamino projects a misleading impression of the paper in question. I suppose you didn't notice that since you read predigested Tamino pap, not the actual peer reviewed scientific article.

[fsol]

How about this: you provide evidence that GISS/NOAA is the the more accurate data set over HadCRU. Better still, provide a peer reviewed study that supports your view that GISS is in fact accurate. Or, why is GISS so much different than HadCRU?

This is quite amusing. Are you folks blind or something? Record cold, snow and ice throughout the NH? Why aren't you posting news articles about that?

The amusing thing to anyone who goes and looks at the data is that the HadCRU warming trend is greater than the GISS one. And yet still people come out with accusations of fraud aginst GISS. It's laughable and just shows that you are not paying attention.

[fsol]

Well, yes I did spot the error Tamino made. Note the general thrust of my comment please. I simply found reading more to likely be a waste of time. So how can that be a misleading impression?

Oh, by the way - Tamino projects a misleading impression of the paper in question. I suppose you didn't notice that since you read predigested Tamino pap, not the actual peer reviewed scientific article.

You mean Rabett surely? Oh my gosh you made a mistake!11!1eleventyone!!11

[mhaze]

You mean Rabett surely? Oh my gosh you made a mistake!11!1eleventyone!!11

Yep, hard to tell those anonymous Internet bloggers apart.

[TrueSceptic]

Well, yes I did spot the error Tamino made.
Note the general thrust of my comment please. I simply found reading more to likely be a waste of time. So how can that be a misleading impression?

IOW you stop reading when you get to something that you don't like? Your snipped quote was clearly intended to suggest a false impression of the author's position.


Oh, by the way - Tamino projects a misleading impression of the paper in question. I suppose you didn't notice that since you read predigested Tamino pap, not the actual peer reviewed scientific article.
I read "predigested Tamino pap"? You have no idea what I read. With that sort of charm you are bound to win me over, aren't you? ;)

[TrueSceptic]

The amusing thing to anyone who goes and looks at the data is that the HadCRU warming trend is greater than the GISS one. And yet still people come out with accusations of fraud aginst GISS. It's laughable and just shows that you are not paying attention.
"Not paying attention" is far too kind.

[TrueSceptic]

Yep, hard to tell those anonymous Internet bloggers apart.
They're all part of the AGW conspiracy so it doesn't matter which one we attack!

[mhaze]

IOW you stop reading when you get to something that you don't like?

Yes, if its page after page of uncertainty about high school level pre calculus.

Yes, a way to win people over was to suggest that they read the actual scientific articles instead of "predigested pap", in this case, by Tamino. But I'll say the same for other subjects or views.

Your other comment, about "they're all part of the AGW conspiracy so it doesn't matter which one we attack" is nonsense. Sometimes the technical articles are hard to understand and it is good to have bloggers who interpret them in simpler language. Tamino does this, so does D'Aleo at www.icecap.us. Many others. When may it be called "pre digested pap"?

Well, therein you have my interpretation of the analysis by Tamino of the article in question.

[TrueSceptic]

Yes, if its page after page of uncertainty about high school level pre calculus.

Yes, a way to win people over was to suggest that they read the actual scientific articles instead of "predigested pap", in this case, by Tamino. But I'll say the same for other subjects or views.

Your other comment, about "they're all part of the AGW conspiracy so it doesn't matter which one we attack" is nonsense.

Of course. It was meant to be.


Sometimes the technical articles are hard to understand and it is good to have bloggers who interpret them in simpler language. Tamino does this, so does D'Aleo at www.icecap.us. Many others. When may it be called "pre digested pap"?

You tell me. It's your choice of words.


Well, therein you have my interpretation of the analysis by Tamino of the article in question.
Was is Rabett or Tamino?

[mhaze]

Was is Rabett or Tamino?

Both, in this case. You could say they've done better.

[varwoche]

1998 is the the target baseline.
Odin help me, this is the least subtle, most inane cherry-pick I've ever seen.

[David Rodale]

Odin help me, this is the least subtle, most inane cherry-pick I've ever seen.

Time to think Varwoche. There are no trend lines, no R2 statistics. It is your side that beats the drum of "record" temps, so with 1998 being the "record" temp, it only stands to reason to view as the baseline for the current discussion.

It was Met O and others who predicted 2007 was the beginning of "record" temps exceeding 1998. I am simply showing it is going in the opposite sign.

It is Megaladon going off the deep end about trying to prove every last .01 deg of warming trend with the idiotic graphs.

Megaladon claimed I said 2007 was going to be much cooler than 2006, yet cannot provide the post where I said it. That's because I never said it. Shall I now call Megaladon a liar? Isn't that the MO?

What is it you cannot see? 2006/2007 was El Nino and it was supposedly going to rival 1998. AGW was going to kick in finally and provide ever upward temperatures. It didn't happen and is 180 from what the "experts" predicted.

It's the same with the hurricane predictions. I've already cataloged the numerous NewdScientist hyped articles about that. It's there for all to see.

Now the unlicensed software engineers have scrambled to come up with 'new and improved' climate models they promise will be correct in the next few years. The gullible warmers buy into this malarkey; it's quite interesting to watch.

We have posted links on numerous occasions concerning issues with UHI and warming bias in the surface station network, yet were ignored. Now fsol suddenly finds it necessary to request it? Go look it up yourselves.

You need to answer the following question: why is GISS diverged so far from HadCRU and others?

[David Rodale]

Please try again.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/msu/

If you have evidence that the data is incorrect...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf


http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2703#more-2703

And Tamino thinks all is well with GISS.

[TrueSceptic]

Odin help me, this is the least subtle, most inane cherry-pick I've ever seen.
But typical of the tricks used by those who try to mislead.

[fsol]

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2703#more-2703

And Tamino thinks all is well with GISS.

Use HadCRU if you want but it shows a greater rate of temperature rise than GISS does.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/

From Climateaudit

Yes, I am estimating the amount of estimation. It was either that or scrape the data off GISS, and frankly I don’t have the patience for that.

What a great job of auditing he has done there. So on a quick skim of his post, he is estimating the amount of estimation that takes place and then saying that too much estimation takes place.

[mhaze]

:
Steve McIntyre: Yes, I am estimating the amount of estimation. It was either that or scrape the data off GISS, and frankly I don’t have the patience for that.

FSOL: What a great job of auditing he has done there. So on a quick skim of his post, he is estimating the amount of estimation that takes place and then saying that too much estimation takes place.Cynicism noted.

That event may have occurred after one of the times that GISS banned his IP from their servers.

[CapelDodger]

In short, you have no refutation to offer.

I don't know that I can refute a Torygraph article to your satisfaction, but I'll give it a shot.

"Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing. "


Cosmic rays are directly measured, and have been since the 50's. There's no observed decrease (or increase) in cosmic rays. In light of that, Svensmark's staetment is a little surprising.

"
Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change."


As I recall, this was something along the lines of how to use a cloud-chamber. It's hard to see how he could have performed an experiment on any larger scale - in the real atmosphere, for instance - so its relevance remains questionable in the real world.

"
A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs."

The words and wisdom of a Torygraph science corresponent. The scientists involved are not "hoping" to "prove" anything. They're going to conduct another lab-experiment and see what comes up.


Svensmark's argument seems (from what I've seen) to be about cosmic rays creating nucleation sites, not about whether those nucleation sites actually lead to more clouds. That's only going to happen if the atmosphere isn't already saturated with nucleation sites, taking into consideration temperature and relative humidity. Which is to say, it will only influence near-saturated air.

' Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.
Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small." '

A small relationship, and no mention of a trend in that quote. "Variablility" works both ways, and doesn't necessarily involve a trend.


Svensmark's hypothesis involves several assumptions. That there's been a reduction in cosmic rays - which there hasn't during the current warming period. That there's been a decrease in global cloud-cover - which I've yet to see any evidence for.

AAnd a third assumption is that cloud-cover has an overall cooling effect, but opinion's still divided on that. It has a cooling effect by increasing albedo, but that only operates during day-time; it has a warming effect day and night. The cosmic rays are coming in day and night as well, of course.

Night-time (and winter) warming has been more rapid than day-time and summer warming, which would be an odd result were increased insolation behind the warming.

As an alternative explanation for the current warming period Svensmark's hypothesis is shaky at best.

[CapelDodger]

It was Met O and others who predicted 2007 was the beginning of "record" temps exceeding 1998. I am simply showing it is going in the opposite sign.

Incorrect.

The Met Office predicted that 2007 would be warmer than 1998 if the El Nino conditions of January 2007 continued (they didn't, and we ended the year with La Nina conditions). That would not imply that later years - without an El Nino - would be warmer than 1998. The warming anomoly during El Nino's is well known (consider 1998, for instance). The next extended El Nino will, of course, result in a warmer year (or years) than 1998 because the El Nino effect is starting from a higher base.

Some guys at the Hadley Centre have used a model to predict stable temperatures up to 2009, then a more rapid warming afterward, with one-in-two years being warmer than 1998.

It's a bold prediction. We'll see whether they're right over the next two-to-seven years.

[CapelDodger]

Time to think Varwoche. There are no trend lines, no R2 statistics. It is your side that beats the drum of "record" temps, so with 1998 being the "record" temp, it only stands to reason to view as the baseline for the current discussion.

[snip]

It is Megaladon going off the deep end about trying to prove every last .01 deg of warming trend with the idiotic graphs.

Do you want trend lines or not?

Megaladon claimed I said 2007 was going to be much cooler than 2006, yet cannot provide the post where I said it. That's because I never said it. Shall I now call Megaladon a liar? Isn't that the MO?

More to the point, did you say it or not?

Now the unlicensed software engineers have scrambled to come up with 'new and improved' climate models they promise will be correct in the next few years. The gullible warmers buy into this malarkey; it's quite interesting to watch.

It is. Let's see if they're right over the next two-to-seven years. It'll be a bit hard to put it down to luck if they are.

We have posted links on numerous occasions concerning issues with UHI and warming bias in the surface station network, yet were ignored. Now fsol suddenly finds it necessary to request it? Go look it up yourselves.

Do you have anything on why the biased trend has gone away during this recent period of non-warming of which you speak? Urbanisation goes on apace since 1998, after all, and land-use change generally has been extensive over that period.

You need to answer the following question: why is GISS diverged so far from HadCRU and others?

It isn't.

[TrueSceptic]

Do you have anything on why the biased trend has gone away during this recent period of non-warming of which you speak? Urbanisation goes on apace since 1998, after all, and land-use change generally has been extensive over that period.

I wondered that too.


It isn't.
Indeed (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/)

I'd say the match is pretty good.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger
Do you have anything on why the biased trend has gone away during this recent period of non-warming of which you speak? Urbanisation goes on apace since 1998, after all, and land-use change generally has been extensive over that period.

I wondered that too.


I have the feeling that this question, a reasonable one based on not having read the article(s) in question, is a non starter. Good question, though.

If in fact there is a question, care to be more explicit and base it on the work in question?

[mhaze]

I don't know that I can refute a Torygraph article to your satisfaction, but I'll give it a shot...... As an alternative explanation for the current warming period Svensmark's hypothesis is shaky at best.

Well, I'm glad that you've done your best to refute the work of this team of scientists, before we know the results. Let's see....experts in their fields apply for and get funding for an experiment into the possible effects of cosmic rays on clouds, and Capeldodger would like to discredit it before the results are in.

This is nonsense, except from the point of view of one who has already made his mind up, whom does not want anything getting in and fracturing those nice little mental belief constructs, and whom would like to enlighten others as to those beliefs.

Capeldodger has scoffed at and belittled perhaps 90% of the scientific peer reviewed articles in climate science that have been discussed on JREF.

Why?

Because those articles did support his views, of course.

[mhaze]

Because those articles did support his views, of course.

Correction!

Because those articles did not support his views, of course.

[a_unique_person]

Well, I'm glad that you've done your best to refute the work of this team of scientists, before we know the results. Let's see....experts in their fields apply for and get funding for an experiment into the possible effects of cosmic rays on clouds, and Capeldodger would like to discredit it before the results are in.

This is nonsense, except from the point of view of one who has already made his mind up, whom does not want anything getting in and fracturing those nice little mental belief constructs, and whom would like to enlighten others as to those beliefs.

Capeldodger has scoffed at and belittled perhaps 90% of the scientific peer reviewed articles in climate science that have been discussed on JREF.

Why?

Because those articles did support his views, of course.

Because there is nothing more than hypothesis at the moment, based on which is dodgy at best correlation.

[Slimething]

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

I'm afraid you've mistaken a hypothetical construct for evidence. Evidence, please.

[Slimething]

Because there is nothing more than hypothesis at the moment, based on which is dodgy at best correlation.

Pot, meet kettle.

[a_unique_person]

I'm afraid you've mistaken a hypothetical construct for evidence. Evidence, please.

There has been plenty of evidence presented already. CO2 as gas in the atmosphere slows down the radiation of heat into space. It's pretty simple. Add more CO2, slow down that rate of radiation, warm the earth.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/Cli...limateVol1.pdf (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Ertp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

There is nothing theoretical about it. The effect was first observed in a lab over 100 years ago.

[Slimething]

There has been plenty of evidence presented already. CO2 as gas in the atmosphere slows down the radiation of heat into space. It's pretty simple. Add more CO2, slow down that rate of radiation, warm the earth.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/Cli...limateVol1.pdf (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Ertp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

There is nothing theoretical about it. The effect was first observed in a lab over 100 years ago.

Bolding mine. You haven't presented evidence. You have presented hypothesis and extrapolation. Again, evidence please.

Real science is not easy. Sorry.

[fsol]

Cynicism noted.

That event may have occurred after one of the times that GISS banned his IP from their servers.

Oh, look another mistake! Steve McIntyre didn't write that blog post! OMG!!!!

[a_unique_person]

Bolding mine. You haven't presented evidence. You have presented hypothesis and extrapolation. Again, evidence please.

Real science is not easy. Sorry.

You just sit back, and say no, not good enough. You are the scientist, that should give you a good head start on me in knowing how to look up whatever it is that you think is proof. All the stuff I've found so far seems good enough to me. CO2 absorbs radiation, and re-emits it in random directions, with much of it hitting the earth. That effectively causes the temperature to rise.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Is there anything that would constitute what you would call proof?

[a_unique_person]

I wonder if you want us to present you with paper that was published 100 years ago, or the Air Force papers from the '50s? There is the MODTRAN database, but that isn't what you want either, apparently.

[fsol]

You just sit back, and say no, not good enough. You are the scientist, that should give you a good head start on me in knowing how to look up whatever it is that you think is proof. All the stuff I've found so far seems good enough to me. CO2 absorbs radiation, and re-emits it in random directions, with much of it hitting the earth. That effectively causes the temperature to rise.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Is there anything that would constitute what you would call proof?

If I was uncharitable I might think he was arguing from a god of the gaps standpoint. I don't actually think he is, but what he is asking for probably is going to be unavailable to us. What we have is multiple lines of evidence all pointing to the same thing. AGW.

[jimbob]

Htis is a slight cross-post from another thread: nbut, here also seems to be a good place for it:

Does this look like a warming trend that has stopped?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1449447af6df244038.png

<originating post>

running a cusum (discussed in originating post) you can see that the temperature started unambiguously rising about the 1920's

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1449447af6bdf2c579.png


Now tried with a higher "running temperature" for the cusum target:
Target 0.225°C above LTA (Long Term Average {mean}):
this was appropriate for the 1980's but it is now warmer than that, and although there isn't yet enough evidence to be certain, the gradient seems to be getting steeper, which would indicate an increase in the rate of temperature change.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1449447af6bdf7ce49.png

I like using cusums, as they are pretty robust, and they account for historic data.

An upwards slope means the parameter is running above "target", a downwards one lower, and a level one at target.

[mhaze]

You just sit back, and say no, not good enough. You are the scientist, that should give you a good head start on me in knowing how to look up whatever it is that you think is proof. All the stuff I've found so far seems good enough to me. CO2 absorbs radiation, and re-emits it in random directions, with much of it hitting the earth. That effectively causes the temperature to rise.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Is there anything that would constitute what you would call proof?

Various studies that (mostly) do not correlate historical CO2 and temp.

From www.co2science.org (http://www.co2)

CO2, Methane and Temperature: More Insights from the Dome Concordia and Vostok Ice Cores (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N49/EDIT.jsp)
New Antarctic Ice Core CO2 and Proxy Temperature Data (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N48/EDIT.jsp)
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations: AD 800-2000 (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N17/C1.jsp)
A New Ice Core from North Greenland (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V7/N41/C1.jsp)
Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.jsp)
Half a Billion Years of CO2 and Climate (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V5/N19/C2.jsp)
400,000 Years of Atmospheric CO2, Methane and Temperature Data: What Can They Tell Us? (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V5/N19/EDIT.jsp)
Reconstructing Past Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations from Stomatal Density Measurements of Leaf Macrofossils (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V5/N18/C1.jsp)
The Art of Swallowing Camels Just Got a Whole Lot Harder (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V4/N29/EDIT.jsp)
The Climate of Central Alaska During the Last Interglacial (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V4/N21/C1.jsp)
Variations in Atmospheric CO2, Temperature and Global Ice Volume Derived from the Vostok Ice Core (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V4/N14/C1.jsp)
The Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature Records of Dome Concordia, Antarctica (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V4/N8/C1.jsp)
CO2 and Temperature: Who Leads the Dance of the Geophysical Parameters? (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V3/N37/C1.jsp)
The Pathetic Relationship Between Atmospheric CO2 and Earth's Temperature Over the Past Sixty Million Years (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V3/N23/C1.jsp)
CO2 and Sea Level: Who Leads Who? (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V3/N22/C1.jsp)
The "Unprecedented" Surface Air Temperature of the Past Decade (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V3/N17/EDIT.jsp)
CO2 and Temperature: What Drives What? (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V3/N7/C1.jsp)
Climate Intrigue at the Mid-Holocene (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V3/N3/C1.jsp)
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations in the Middle Eocene (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V2/N14/C1.jsp)
Miocene Climate and CO2 (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V2/N12/C2.jsp)
Nearly Half a Million Years of Climate and CO2 (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V2/N12/C1.jsp)
Temperatures of the Last Millennium (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V2/N8/C5.jsp)
CO2 and Temperature: Ice Core Correlations (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V2/N8/C3.jsp)
CO2 and Temperature: The Great Geophysical Waltz (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V2/N7/EDIT.jsp)
Warmer Temperatures at Lower CO2 Concentrations (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V2/N2/C4.jsp)
Persistent Millennial-Scale Climate Oscillations of the Past Million-Plus Years (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V2/N1/C2.jsp)
Probing the Climatic Secrets of the Great Barrier Reef (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V1/N6/C4.jsp)
Comparisons of Climate and Atmospheric CO2 Changes During the Last Glacial Period (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V1/N6/C3.jsp)

[TrueSceptic]

Htis is a slight cross-post from another thread: nbut, here also seems to be a good place for it:

Does this look like a warming trend that has stopped?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1449447af6df244038.png

Of course it has! Those last 3 diamonds prove it.;)

[mhaze]

Htis is a slight cross-post from another thread: nbut, here also seems to be a good place for it:

Does this look like a warming trend that has stopped?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1449447af6df244038.png


running a cusum (discussed in originating post) you can see that the temperature started unambiguously rising about the 1920's

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1449447af6bdf2c579.png


Now tried with a higher "running temperature" for the cusum target:
Target 0.225°C above LTA (Long Term Average {mean}):
this was appropriate for the 1980's but it is now warmer than that, and although there isn't yet enough evidence to be certain, the gradient seems to be getting steeper, which would indicate an increase in the rate of temperature change.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1449447af6bdf7ce49.png

I like using cusums, as they are pretty robust, and they account for historic data.

An upwards slope means the parameter is running above "target", a downwards one lower, and a level one at target.

Why would using the cumulative sum be valid with highly autocorrelated data?

[varwoche]

From www.co2science.org (http://www.co2) Of course, it has already been shown (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2874323#post2874323) (to you, repeatedly) that CO2 Science is ready, willing and able to twist the facts beyond recognition, taking studies and spinning the results 180 degrees.

[TrueSceptic]

Of course, it has already been shown (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2874323#post2874323) (to you, repeatedly) that CO2 Science is ready, willing and able to twist the facts beyond recognition, taking studies and spinning the results 180 degrees.
Surely not? They are sceptics and represent only mainstream climate science, not the distorted lefty/enviro propaganda that has fooled most governments and national scientific bodies since the 1980s. Those people are clever: they've even fooled Bush into believing that global warming is happening and that the USA needs to do something. ;)

[DanishDynamite]

I don't know that I can refute a Torygraph article to your satisfaction, but I'll give it a shot.
Thanks.
Cosmic rays are directly measured, and have been since the 50's. There's no observed decrease (or increase) in cosmic rays. In light of that, Svensmark's staetment is a little surprising.
You are misinformed. Cosmic rays have been measured since 1935 and it is a well known phenomena that cosmic rays decrease with heightened solar activity. Look up Forbush decrease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbush_decrease) for your enlightenment.
As I recall, this was something along the lines of how to use a cloud-chamber. It's hard to see how he could have performed an experiment on any larger scale - in the real atmosphere, for instance - so its relevance remains questionable in the real world.
Have a look at the article before criticizing.
The words and wisdom of a Torygraph science corresponent. The scientists involved are not "hoping" to "prove" anything. They're going to conduct another lab-experiment and see what comes up.
Yep, all 60 of them. At CERN. Wonder how these 60 crackpots managed to get time allocated at the premier particle accelerator facility of the world.
Svensmark's argument seems (from what I've seen) to be about cosmic rays creating nucleation sites, not about whether those nucleation sites actually lead to more clouds. That's only going to happen if the atmosphere isn't already saturated with nucleation sites, taking into consideration temperature and relative humidity. Which is to say, it will only influence near-saturated air.
Why do you think this work at CERN is being done? Svensmark admits that although a clear correlation can be shown between changes in cosmic ray intensity and changes in global cloud cover, the manner of this correlation is not perfectly clear. Hence the experiment.
A small relationship, and no mention of a trend in that quote. "Variablility" works both ways, and doesn't necessarily involve a trend.Oh, the relationship is very clear. Have a look at figur 4 of this (http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/html_Carls_solartikel.htm) article (sorry, in Danish). Shows the correlation between cloud cover and cosmic radiation during the 11 year solar cycle given.
Svensmark's hypothesis involves several assumptions. That there's been a reduction in cosmic rays - which there hasn't during the current warming period. That there's been a decrease in global cloud-cover - which I've yet to see any evidence for.
Again, you are misinformed.
AAnd a third assumption is that cloud-cover has an overall cooling effect, but opinion's still divided on that. It has a cooling effect by increasing albedo, but that only operates during day-time; it has a warming effect day and night. The cosmic rays are coming in day and night as well, of course.
I'm sure that relationship is down pat by now.
Night-time (and winter) warming has been more rapid than day-time and summer warming, which would be an odd result were increased insolation behind the warming.

As an alternative explanation for the current warming period Svensmark's hypothesis is shaky at best.
I don't see why. Neither does CERN.

[CapelDodger]

They're all part of the AGW conspiracy so it doesn't matter which one we attack!

This thing about anonymity is fairly new in the "sceptic" lexicon. Another was of playing the man, not the ball - which isn't at all new. It's not actionably an ad hominem argument, but skates very close to it.

[DanishDynamite]

How can you refute supposition and hypothesis? It's not at the stage to be called evidence. That you can try to refute. The CO2 basis for AGW, on the other hand, has been scientifically studied and researched for over a century now.
Have a look at the following articles:

H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen, Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage - a missing link in solar-climate relationships, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys., 59, 1225-1232 (1997);

H. Svensmark, Influence of cosmic rays on Earth's climate, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 5027 (1998).

Then tell me what you think.

[DanishDynamite]

So something is assumed to be true until it is refuted? How strange.
Yes, that is the usual interpretation of "refute". CapelDodger attempted to refute (I assume) the cosmic ray interpretation. He did not succeed, even a little bit. Hence, it was not refuted. You have a problem with this?

[TrueSceptic]

Yes, that is the usual interpretation of "refute". CapelDodger attempted to refute (I assume) the cosmic ray interpretation. He did not succeed, even a little bit. Hence, it was not refuted. You have a problem with this?
With respect to the Svensmark hypothesis, I consider it as yet unproven, and therefore still possible, nothing more.

You do understand how this works, though?

I assert that global temperatures (and anything else you like) are dictated by undetectable Space Pixies. Prove me wrong.

I assert that the whole of Creation is the work of God/The Invisible Pink Unicorn/The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove me wrong.

[Slimething]

If I was uncharitable I might think he was arguing from a god of the gaps standpoint. I don't actually think he is, but what he is asking for probably is going to be unavailable to us. What we have is multiple lines of evidence all pointing to the same thing. AGW.

You must be a mind-reader. I'm pointing out that there is no hard evidence for AGW apart from the planet warming and that cannot be presently distinguished from normal warming. I just couln't let AUP get away with a statement that the "other side" has no evidence, inferring that the AGW side does. About all either side has is theory at the moment.

How to differentiate AGW from GW promises to be a monumental task. I have no idea how I would do it. Right now, I'd settle for a decent model, AGW or no.

[DanishDynamite]

With respect to the Svensmark hypothesis, I consider it as yet unproven, and therefore still possible, nothing more.

You do understand how this works, though?
I understand how this works, but you appear not to. Let me help you.

No hypothesis or theory is ever proven. In fact, hypothesis and theories can only be refuted. Those theories which explain as much or more than others, and cannot be refuted, are the winners. They are the ones you see in textbooks.
I assert that global temperatures (and anything else you like) are dictated by undetectable Space Pixies. Prove me wrong.

I assert that the whole of Creation is the work of God/The Invisible Pink Unicorn/The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove me wrong.
Those would be great theories if only they explained anything or predicted anything. They don't.

[CapelDodger]

You are misinformed. Cosmic rays have been measured since 1935 and it is a well known phenomena that cosmic rays decrease with heightened solar activity. Look up Forbush decrease for your enlightenment.

Undoubtedly, but that says nothing about any downward trend in cosmic rays. Across solar cycles, that is. The observed variation since the 50's - half a century is pretty good, five solar cycles or so - is within cycles, not across them.

Have a look at the article before criticizing.

I read it all before I embarked on the enterprise, and planned out how I'd go about it. If that's the best response you've got, you'd have done yourself a favour by keeping it to yourself, frankly.

Yep, all 60 of them. At CERN. Wonder how these 60 crackpots managed to get time allocated at the premier particle accelerator facility of the world.

What makes you think they're crackpots? And just how much of their - or CERN's - time do you think will be allocated to this particular project? How much of it is ancillary to more important experiments, and how much will be dedicated time?

You've read the article, so you know it says squat about that. 60 is a big number, though.

Why do you think this work at CERN is being done? Svensmark admits that although a clear correlation can be shown between changes in cosmic ray intensity and changes in global cloud cover, the manner of this correlation is not perfectly clear. Hence the experiment.

The physics behind the correlation can only be determined by investigating the real atmosphere. It's hard to see that being done at CERN. But what the hey, let me know how it works out.

Oh, the relationship is very clear. Have a look at figur 4 of this article (sorry, in Danish). Shows the correlation between cloud cover and cosmic radiation during the 11 year solar cycle given.

One solar cycle of Danish cloud-cover is hardly definitive. And if I'm reading it right, the cloud varies by 2% over the entire cycle. That's what I'd call small, wouldn't you? And of course it still says nothing about the trend across solar cycles over the last 50 years.

Again, you are misinformed.

That's it? Again, if that's what you've got, I'd have counselled against saying anything at all.

I'm sure that relationship is down pat by now.

Setting up the punch-line :

I don't see why. Neither does CERN.

You can't see it, so you argue from authority. Without being quite sure of the authority - you've read the article, where CERN is mentioned, but detail is lacking.

[Slimething]

You just sit back, and say no, not good enough. You are the scientist, that should give you a good head start on me in knowing how to look up whatever it is that you think is proof. All the stuff I've found so far seems good enough to me. CO2 absorbs radiation, and re-emits it in random directions, with much of it hitting the earth. That effectively causes the temperature to rise.

No, AUP, I have no magic way of finding proof or evidence. You're way ahead of me on being up on the literature. What I'm pointing out to you is that, at the moment, there is no evidence that one can find that confirms or debunks the AGW hypothesis. What you've found that is good enough for you is basically statements of known physics or phenomena which have been cobbled together to form a hypothesis. There is no evidence. Sorry.

Is there anything that would constitute what you would call proof?

Anything that would falsify either side of the debate.

I wonder if you want us to present you with paper that was published 100 years ago, or the Air Force papers from the '50s? There is the MODTRAN database, but that isn't what you want either, apparently.

As you should well realize by now, none of that is evidence. Papers published regarding warming observations cannot distinguish between AGW and GW. Absorbance data do not establish warming. Restating the hypothesis ad nauseam doesn't qualify either.

I'm 53 year old. Per the hypothesis, the warming has been occuring over my entire life and then some. Have I noticed anything? No. If the planet keeps warming at current rates, will I notice it? No. If the planet begins to cool, will that disprove AGW? No.

I am a scientist. I respect the work of other scientists who specialize differently. I'll let them do their work and judge it thereby. So, far, it's fairly interesting stuff.

[DanishDynamite]

Undoubtedly, but that says nothing about any downward trend in cosmic rays. Across solar cycles, that is. The observed variation since the 50's - half a century is pretty good, five solar cycles or so - is within cycles, not across them.
Again, you are misinformed. Solar activity in fact varies across the centuries and not just in accordance with the 11 year solar cycle. And although cosmic rays have only been measured since 1935, it is possible to determine solar activity many centuries back in time. This is due to the variation in the amount of Carbon 14 produced as solar activity changes. And the variation of Carbon 14 can be measured via tree rings and by other methods. And once all the data is assembled, the direct correlation between solar activity and temperature is shown.

I wish I could find the Danish article I linked earlier in English as it is very informative.
I read it all before I embarked on the enterprise, and planned out how I'd go about it. If that's the best response you've got, you'd have done yourself a favour by keeping it to yourself, frankly.
I was referring to the article referenced here: "Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences." Did you read this article?
What makes you think they're crackpots? And just how much of their - or CERN's - time do you think will be allocated to this particular project? How much of it is ancillary to more important experiments, and how much will be dedicated time?

You've read the article, so you know it says squat about that. 60 is a big number, though.
I don't think they are crackpots. You seemed to be implying they were.

Glad to see we are in agreement that they are not crackpots.
The physics behind the correlation can only be determined by investigating the real atmosphere. It's hard to see that being done at CERN. But what the hey, let me know how it works out.
It's also hard to take this kind of "refutation" seriously.
One solar cycle of Danish cloud-cover is hardly definitive. And if I'm reading it right, the cloud varies by 2% over the entire cycle. That's what I'd call small, wouldn't you? And of course it still says nothing about the trend across solar cycles over the last 50 years.
It is not a solar cycle of "Danish" cloud-cover, but of global cloud cover. And yes, the graph concerns +/- 2% of cloud cover. Which is pretty significant. Imagine if the global temperature changed 2% as a consequence! (Temperature in Kelvin, naturally).
That's it? Again, if that's what you've got, I'd have counselled against saying anything at all.
You had nothing further to respond to. If you disagree, please tell me what it was.
Setting up the punch-line :

You can't see it, so you argue from authority. Without being quite sure of the authority - you've read the article, where CERN is mentioned, but detail is lacking.
Sorry, I can't see what? I just said that I can't see you claiming the hypothesis is weak as you have shown no reason for me to think so. You still haven't.

[CapelDodger]

Yes, that is the usual interpretation of "refute". CapelDodger attempted to refute (I assume) the cosmic ray interpretation. He did not succeed, even a little bit. Hence, it was not refuted. You have a problem with this?

I set out explicitly to refute the article, a quixotic enterprise but it doesn't cost anything. Nobody's going to refute Svensgard's hypothesis. Plenty of us can point out its inherent difficulties, though. Lack of any downward trend in cosmic rays, for instance, or the miniscule observed variation in cloud-cover during an entire solar cycle.

As presented in the article, a downward trend and signifcant cloud-response are givens. Which they aren't. Svensgard needs to be out there photographing cosmic-ray measuring stations to give some substance to his downward trend before he bothers the good folk at CERN.