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]