Nov 8, 2008 at 10:04 pm #1458207
or an increase followed by a decrease, as my modified post shows. But you are right that the overall 30 year trend is up, even though by a small amount of less than one degree fahrenheit.Nov 8, 2008 at 10:20 pm #1458210Ashley BrownMember
> or an increase followed by a decrease, as my modified post shows
Indeed, you can get all sorts of different trends depending on what model you choose to fit, and your start and end points. So it pays to be wary of graphs, and statistics in general.
I'm never too interested in these climate discussions because I never know who to believe about the credibility of the data. Sure, someone can show me a graph and say that it correlates with global temperature, but unless you really understand how the data was gathered and summarised and a lot of the theory behind it, it is very easy to be led astray.
I therefore have to defer to the majority scientific opinion as without hundreds of hours of research I'm not really in a position to make an informed judgement. If the majority opinion is wrong (quite possible I suppose) then I trust that the scientific process will eventually show it beyond doubt. There have been countless examples in science where the majority opinion was eventually overturned (but many more where it was proved right!).Nov 8, 2008 at 10:29 pm #1458212
> you can get all sorts of different trends depending on what model you choose to fit, and your start and end points.
True, but checking the trends from the start point to the exteme and from the extreme to the end point seems a reasonable approach to me.
> If the majority opinion is wrong (quite possible I suppose) then I trust that the scientific process will eventually show it beyond doubt.
That's the problem. We are no longer involved in a scientific process. "The debate is over".
Many years ago I studied a degree in the history and philosophy of science at Leeds University here in the UK. What I currently see happening in the field of climate science fills me with sadness at the subversion of the scientific process. See the William Gray article above.Nov 8, 2008 at 10:43 pm #1458213
> I'm definitely confused by all off the money going into such a large and vague realm as carbon reductions.
Maybe this snippet of information will help clarify it for you.
Al Gore is a non executive director of investment company Kleiner Perkins. They are currently investing heavily in 'clean tech startups', including carbon sequestration projects.Nov 9, 2008 at 9:32 am #1458230
> I understand that you'd like to change the subject again, as is your technique, but lets stick with ice for a while, eh?
Good idea, here's the latest ice area graph from NORSEX
So the recovery is continuing, ice area is back to the thirty year average (about to soar over it I suspect), and there's currently a million square km more of the stuff than there was same time last year. The global warming alarmists who predicted an ice free arctic this year seem to have gone to ground…
As for your prediction that the new ice would be thin and likely to melt off quicker next year; well, there's another La Nina developing down south as we speak so I'm not surprised you balked out of backing your prediction with a bet. ;-)
The latest RSS satellite temperature data is down too, so brace for another cold N.H. winter, followed next year by…. another cold N.H. winter.
There is an interesting new blog which throws some light on the southern oscillation index and the causes behind El Nino and La Nina here:
I've been coming across Erl Happ's work more and more recently, the guy has a depth of understanding and insight which impresses me.
Edited to update graph.Nov 9, 2008 at 4:04 pm #1458273Ashley BrownMember
> That's the problem. We are no longer involved in a scientific process. "The debate is over".
I am familiar with the argument that climate researchers are only able to get funding for "pro-warming" research and that anti-warming researchers have been frozen out. This may be the case — to some extent. However, I certainly don't buy into the idea that thousands of scientists around the world know that global warming is a hoax and are just making things up to get funding.
Even if there were no funding available for the minority of climate researchers who do not believe in global warming, the scientific process would not stop. The great thing about science is that you do not always get the results you are expecting or seeking. A compelling set of experimental results which ultimately undermine the global warming hypothesis could very well arise from "pro-warming" research and will not be withheld simply because it upsets the status quo. If global warming does not exist, then sooner or later evidence will accumulate to the contrary. I don't believe in conspiracy theories.
Anyway, these kinds of discussions ultimately lead nowhere so I think I'll sign out of the discussion at this stage and bend my mind towards more productive uses! Before I go though, I thought I'd share an article which I found to be interesting, as it pits some of the main arguments and scientists (including Prof Gray) in the debate against each other.Nov 11, 2008 at 2:29 am #1458474
A couple of days ago, Jim Hansen over at NASA/GISS announced that October 2008 was "The hottest October ever".
Dream on Jim. It turns out that for some as yet unexplained reason, they have re-used the sept 2008 data from many Russian stations as the values for october, which are actually typically about 15C lower!
The scoop is on climate audit here:
Update: It seems the error originates with the NOAA/NCDC.
Still makes you wonder about GISS quality control, and the state of the code they are using which fails to spot an anomalous anomaly though. No doubt if the error had been in the other direction, it would have been corrected before publication. After all, this is why GISS holds back until the 10th of the month before issuing data.
I wonder when Big Jim will publicly acknowledge the error….
In other news of things having gone awry in the warmista camp, it turns out that Dr. Tom Karl” – now the lead author of the U.S. government’s Climate Change Science Program assessment being prepared to support EPA regulation of carbon dioxide – never earned an academic Ph.D in a climate related study field. According to the NOAA he styles himself "Dr" on the basis of a 2002 honourary doctorate in 'humane letters'. Whatever that means.
It turns out that this isn't the full story however… Looks like serious academic and financial fraud to me.Nov 24, 2008 at 3:48 am #1460425
> I understand that you'd like to change the subject again, as is your technique, but lets stick with ice for a while, eh?
Good idea, here's a snippet from the Sydney Morning Herald.
"It's unlikely the animals are going to survive the winter, so the hunters have been given authorisation to cull them."
"A couple of weeks ago, when the ice was still moving, there were quite a few narwhal seen out there in the open water," Jayko Allooloo, chairman of the Pond Inlet hunters and trappers organisation, told public broadcaster CBC.
"About a week later, they're stuck."
Lets hope the eskimo hunters leave some behind for the poor starving polar bears.Dec 4, 2008 at 3:31 am #1462024Dean F.BPL Member
@acrosomeLocale: Back in the Front Range
Ashley, PLEASE don't feed the troll. I've long since stopped. Rog has proven over and over again that he does not want to discuss climate- he wants to rant about weather by passing it off as climate to the uninitiated. He is, indeed, a formidable statistician but he is obviously not a scientist. Witness his unfounded conclusions based on meaningless data, and his continued presentation of thoroughly biased or misleading data, such as his CONTINUED practice of the posting of graphs starting in 1998- a methodology debunked in general on the website he recently championed, http://www.woodfortrees.org.
(Incidentally, it looks like a decent website from what I've read so far. But I certainly understand skots's initial skepticism regarding ANYTHING that Rog posts, though. He has proven that he will try to sneak useless biased crap past you if you don't check his sources.)
Arguing with Rog is pointless. I wholeheartedly agree that he will be the last man standing in this thread, because all the rational people are tiring of discussing this issue with him. Some of his arguments are so flawed that it actually HURTS to read them, so I've stopped. I plan to dig this forum up in 2020 and contact him then to collect my $money. That's right, I am confident enough that I will take Rog's version of our bet on HIS terms, and I'll win. The majority of GISS, HadCrut, UAH, and RSS regressions for 2005 to 2020 (i.e. only HALF of a climate cycle) will have a positive slope. You're on. Pick any figure that strikes your fancy, up to $1000. The "judge" will be this forum, if it is still in existance in 2020 (no disrespect meant, BPL folks…). Pray for a large volcano, Rog. Or are you going to reject the bet?
I'll take you at Texas Hold 'Em, too! And don't try to pull some wierd European game on me, like baccarat or whist, neither! :-)
Until then I'll see you in other posts, and I apologize in advance for the negativity of this one, but there really isn't a truly "nice" way to shine the light on Rog's activities.
PS- Sorry I was away so long, Rog. Big hug! Work and family things dominated my world for a while. Still want to do the Tour du Mont Blanc? Also, I'm going skiing in Garmisch from the 17th to the 20th, if you care to drop by. I've had friends find Ryan Air tickets for 1 Euro, though with the taxes you actually end up spending about 25 Euro, but nonetheles you might be able to find a very cheap flight. If not, see you around!Dec 7, 2008 at 3:46 am #1462678
> The majority of GISS, HadCrut, UAH, and RSS regressions for 2005 to 2020 (i.e. only HALF of a climate cycle) will have a positive slope. You're on. Pick any figure that strikes your fancy, up to $1000. The "judge" will be this forum
Great, I'll see you for the full $1000.
I was mightily amused to see yesterday the BBC's main news anchor, John Sissons, take on the head of the UK Green Party and give her a hard time. Up until now, the BBC has been very much pro AGW, and I think she expected an easy propaganda platform. She certainly got pretty flustered when John Sissons pointed out that the temperature has been dropping since 1998, and tried to get around it by saying that she preferred to talk about 'climate change' rather than 'global warming. John countered this by saying that the science around things like hurricanes and typhoons was certainly not 'settled' and the last two hurricane seasons had been unusually quiet.
She then accused John Sissons of being 'irresponsible' and that the 'debate is over', much like the abuse Dean heaps on me when he can't actually support his arguments. John pointed out that as a journalist, it's his job to find the truth, and that her attempt to stifle the debate is not scientific at all, and that a large number of scientists don't go along with the so called 'consensus'.
She then got into repeating herself, much like the pro AGW camp do. As if by repeating nonsense often enough and loudly enough, it might be accepted as truth.
Post us some more artistic impressions from wikipedia Dean, I do enjoy a good laugh.Dec 7, 2008 at 10:52 am #1462739
Arnie will be pleased to know…Dec 9, 2008 at 11:21 am #1463173Rick DreherBPL Member
@halfturboLocale: Northernish California
GIGO. Yet again.Dec 11, 2008 at 2:00 pm #1463735Steve OMember
@hechoendetroitLocale: South Kak
GIGO. Yet again."
PWNEDDec 13, 2008 at 5:23 am #1464056
According to the link provided, Rick prefers a version of the graph which has been 'adjusted' for the air pressure and the seasons.
Which is odd, given that the air pressure is always between 970 and 1020 millibars at sea level, a +/- 2.5% variation on the standard 14 or so psi we breathe. And considering it's acting on an incompressible fluid (seawater)you'd think that if te pressure was up in one place, pushing the water level downwards, it would be squeezing up somewhere else. Taken over the globe as a whole. It's hard to see how it's going to make much difference to the global average sea level. Perhaps Rick can explain.
And 'seasonally adjusted' is a bit odd too. The earth as a whole is constantly seasonally adjusted by the fact that when it's winter in the northern hemisphere, it's summer in the south.
I think that until we get a claerer picture of the methodology, quantities and reasons for the 'adjustments', I'll stick tot he raw data which shows the actual average level at a given time, rather than the imaginary level, adjusted for who knows what.
>GIGO, Yet again.
Tossing the alphabet salad is fun, but Garbage in – Garbage out applies more to the models made by computer science graduates who select a limited set of parameters and preset initial conditions for climate models which are proving to be wide of the mark, rather than the satellite data observations which provide us with accurate data of the *actual sea level in the real world*.Dec 13, 2008 at 8:27 am #1464077
>I plan to dig this forum up in 2020 and contact him then to collect my $money. That's right, I am confident enough that I will take Rog's version of our bet on HIS terms, and I'll win. The majority of GISS, HadCrut, UAH, and RSS regressions for 2005 to 2020 (i.e. only HALF of a climate cycle) will have a positive slope. You're on. Pick any figure that strikes your fancy, up to $1000. The "judge" will be this forum, if it is still in existance in 2020 (no disrespect meant, BPL folks…). Pray for a large volcano, Rog. Or are you going to reject the bet?
Just for fun, I thought I'd plot a graph to see how the $1000 bet between Dean and I is going.
The plot below shows the four indices chosen plus a linear trend of the average of all of them.
Down over two and a half decades worth of global warming in under 4 years! At this rate of temperature decline, I'm not going to need a volcano to win this bet, but I will be needing a fur lined parka!
Start saving Dean, $1000 will probably be enough to buy us a rice beer together in 2020. ;-)Dec 13, 2008 at 10:16 am #1464099Steve OMember
@hechoendetroitLocale: South Kak
"Tossing the alphabet salad is fun, but Garbage in – Garbage out applies more to the models made by computer science graduates…."
The point was that you tried to look at the graph as say that sea levels are falling, by using a linear model. If you use a linear model, at least use the theory that goes along with it.
You don't need to look at the model that incorporates air pressure or seasons to know that you can't conclude that sea levels are falling with that data.
Also, you cant look at a few years of data to determine a trend (of any meaning) with data that are this noisy. You need long periods of data, preferably MUCH longer than the whole 35 years in the graph you posted (not to mention your use of the final 3 years to draw a conclusion).
For example, if you were to look at 1996-1998, you might say that the sea level would increase at a much higher rate, compared to previous years. WRONG
You can twist data to say anything you want with too short of a snapshot.
=KIBODec 14, 2008 at 9:06 am #1464260
Steve, I take your points… But:
If you look at the title of the post, it doesn't say sea levels are trending downwards, or that any long term conclusions can be drawn. It says, sea levels are *currently* falling, which they are.
It would indeed be nice to have more than 35 years of data, but that's how long the satellite tech has been available, so that's all we have to go on.
As for your comment on the data 1996-98 not being indicative of an accelerating trend, well, indeed! Go tell it to the climate alarmists. Dean chastises me for showing a graph starting in 1998. Fair enough (although it was alonside a graph stating in 1979), but equally, the same criticism should be levelled at wikipedia graphs and thinking which *stops* in 1998. It cuts both ways.
1997: IPCC report indicates possible sea level rise of 50 feet by 2050.
1998: The GIGO modellers tell us the sea will rise "tens of meters within decades".
2007: IPCC downgrades it's prediction to 50 *inches* by 2050
2008: Al Gore buys a sea front condo.
That's a more telling trend. The tide is turning.Dec 15, 2008 at 4:40 pm #1464562George MatthewsBPL Member
The tide is turning.
IndeedDec 18, 2008 at 3:24 am #1465106
I came across this article today:
Which got me thinking again about trying to isolate the influence of the sunspot cycles in the temperature record. I filtered out the effects of the oceanic oscillations and whatever else may be causing multidecadal rises and falls by applying a simple trend adjustment and averaging the data over 1/3 the length of the sunspot cycle of around 11 years, and came up with these graphs. I hope you'll find them interesting.
The green lines are the averaged sunspot numbers and the red line is the Hadley temperature record. the scale is fairly irrelevant. this is just an exercise in wiggle matching.
Up until now, it has been thought that variations in the suns output of radiation over the sunspot cycle were too small to have much effect on temperatures. Given the new discoveries by NASA in terms of the magnetic flux between sun and earth reconnecting every eight minutes, I think we may be on the brink of new understanding about the connection between the suns output, the interplanetary magnetic flux and earth's short term climatic fluctuations.
Northern Hemisphere 1980-2008
The extra wide temp band around the last cycle may be an effect of the '98 El Nino.
Southern hemisphere 1950-2008
The relatively small temperature drop between solar cycles 21 and 22 in the early '80's may be linked to the big '83 El Nino.
Of additional related interest is this graph produced by NASA's Ching Cheh Hung. It shows the correlation between the strength of suspot cycles and the frequency and distribution of planetary alignments involving Venus Earth and Jupiter. Up until now it's been thought that the planets influence on the sun is negligibly small, because only gravity, and not magnetism has been considered.
Jupiter's magnetosphere is the largest object in the solar system, including the sun. If you want to demonstrate to yourself how much stronger magnetism is than gravity, just place a pin between an itty bitty magnet and the huge bulk of the earth. ;-)
In the periods during which large numbers of alignments of the three planets get 'out of phase' with the suns ~11 year cycle, the numbers of sunspots appearing diminishes. This may be due to a 'beat resonance' effect which amplifies or diminishes the amount of 'stirring' of the very hot and very fluid matter the sun is thought to be composed of. This may in turn affect sunspot production.
Less sunspots, less vigorous transfer of energy in magnetic reconnection events, slower solar wind, more incoming galactic rays, more cloud formation – Cooler climate.
We are currently in a prolonged solar minimum between cycle 23 and cycle 24. The planetary alignment cycle is out of phase with the solar cycle. This will probably mean lower sunspot activity during cycle 24 (when/if it finally gets going). I predict an Rmax for monthly sunspot numbers of 65 or less. This compares with Rmax's of well over 100 for several recent cycles, one of the most energetic periods of solar activity for 8000 years.Dec 20, 2008 at 2:14 am #1465545
POZNAN, Poland, December 18, 2008 – The UN global warming conference which concluded Friday in Poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. A newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report was released last week featuring the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN.
The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.Dec 20, 2008 at 1:16 pm #1465589Rick DreherBPL Member
@halfturboLocale: Northernish California
Clown shoes fitting little tight today, Rog?
I won't belabor the definition of consensus, only note that it can and will never be achieved and thus, presents no milestone in setting policy and action.
As to your magical 650, you can be forgiven for knowing nothing about the machinations and players of the U.S. Senate, but probably should have restrained yourself from gleaning any value from the emissions of senator Inhofe, noted crackpot from one of the nation's most conservative and oily states. I do understand that in buttressing your indefensible position, any old table scrap is welcome.
As to the 650, do some homework, son.
There's not much there, there.
The good news is the incoming administration signals that adults will again be in charge, with actual scientists in charge of science and energy. I fully expect us to move forward from the heads-in-the-sand phase to the problem-solving phase within the next few months.Dec 20, 2008 at 1:47 pm #1465593
Heh, my clumsy boots(tm) are comfy and warm, in this cold winter weather thanks Rick. I'll have a read of your links and come back.
I note there is an objection to the way the blogger is spinning this:
The greenfyre link had me yawning pretty quickly. I'm less interested in the political spin than I am in the actual scientific content of these 650 scientists objections to global alarmism.
It's much easier to find alarmist sites which try to debate by smear and fear than to find ones which answer basic questions such as:
How come the changes in the level of co2 in the atmosphere lag 9 months behind changes in temperature if they are supposed to be causing the temperature change?
How come the temperature has been falling for ten years while levels of man made co2 emmission have risen 15% over the same period?
Is this because they desperately want the debate to be over because the real world is showing their model predictions to be wide of the mark?
> The good news is the incoming administration signals that adults will again be in charge, with actual scientists in charge of science and energy.
Unfortunately not. One of the head honchos Will be John Holdren. In an interview;
"He added that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea level rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher than previous forecasts."
Referring to the graph you took exception to my interpreation of the other day, sea level rose a whole *two inches* over the 12 years of the fastest warming from 1994 to 2006 before temperatures started falling again and the sea level dropped 5mm or so over the last 3 years.
It's pretty scary that the incoming president is going to be 'advised' by people such as this, and people with vested financial interests such as Gore. I'm glad to see the back of Bush, I hope Obama has the sense to get himself a balanced view from a range of sources before he acts though.
On a more encouraging note, the new government in New Zealand is considering a fundamental review of the 'science' underpinning global warming theory. You can imagine the howls of protest from those who don't want it examined too closely…Dec 20, 2008 at 2:07 pm #1465596t.darrahBPL Member
@thomdarrahLocale: Southern Oregon
I wish Al Gore would stop by and shovel my driveway.Dec 20, 2008 at 2:19 pm #1465597Charles MaguireMember
CNN (never accused of being conservative or pro-business/growth) had their second meterologist blow smoke in man-made global warming "myth". The first somewhat recanted over pressure, but when one of media's biggest spinning machine can't keep thier folks on the reservation then obviously things must be bad for anti-US anti-growth crowd.
ChuckDec 20, 2008 at 3:44 pm #1465608George MatthewsBPL Member
Bur-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r, it's cold outside.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.