This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
The Hockey Stick graph, the foundation of global warming theory, has been refuted and shown to be scientifically invalid, perhaps even a fraud.
Answer:
The first order of business here is to correct the mischaracterization of this single paleoclimate study as the "foundation" of Global Warming theory. It is anything but! What is going on today is unique and is understood by study of today's data and the best scientific theories the experts can come up with. Reconstructions of past temperatures are, well, they're about the past. The study of the past can be very informative for scientists, but it is not explanatory of the present nor is it predictive of the future. The scientific basis for the dangers we face and their cause is about much more than a few tree-rings and the temperature during the Medieval Warm Period. Real Climate has an interesting article about what it would mean for today's climate theories if indeed the MWP had been warmer than today, you can read that here.
Now, about that pesky bit of sporting equipment...
The infamous "Hockey Stick" graph was featured prominently in the IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers. It was important in that it overturned the concept of a global Medieval Warm Period warmer than the 20th century and a global Little Ice Age, both long time (cautiously) accepted features of the last 1000 years of climate history. Apparently, these periods were regionally distinct and not globally synchronized, though the LIA seems to have been more widely experienced.
This caused quite an uproar in the sceptic community, not least because of its visual efficacy. Two Canadians, an economist and a petroleum geologist, took it upon themselves to verify this proxy reconstruction by getting the data and examining the methodology used for themselves. They found that there were errors in the description of data used, as it was published in Nature, that prevented them from duplicating the study. Mann et al., the Hockey Stick's creators, published a correction in Nature, noting where the description of the study did not match what had actually been done. The Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick, then proceeded to publish a paper that purported to uncover serious methodological flaws and some problems with data sets used.
Everything from this point on is hotly disputed and highly technical.
All the claims made by M&M have been rebutted in detail by many other climatologists and they insist that these folks are completely in error. This of course fits nicely with the expectations of both sides of the Global Warming issue, both the conspiracy theorists and the champions of peer review. All the rebuttals have been objected to and the objections denied and the denials rejected. The specific issues are highly technical and require considerable time and energy to truly understand. Steve McIntyre has a website devoted to his continued probe of this study and Michael Mann is a contributor to Real Climate which consumes considerable web space refuting his attacks. In short, M&M raise many specific and technical objections and the climate scientists seem pretty unified in denying the charges. To my knowledge, the worst indictment from the climate science community came from a study led by Hans Von Storch that concluded M&M was right about a particular criticism of methodology but correcting it did not in fact change the study results.
If you want to try to evaluate this issue for yourself, and do it fairly, you must read the copious material at the sites mentioned above. You must also be prepared to get into dendrochronology and statistical analysis.
Where does that leave the rest of us, you know the ones with real lives and all?
For myself, I will confess immediately that the technical issues are over my head, I don't know PCA from R^2 from a hole in the ground. But I think the most critical point to remember, if you are concerned about this for its impact on the validity of AGW theory, is that this row is about a single study that was published 8 years ago focusing on paleoclimate. This is starting to be ancient historical minutia. If you feel it may be tainted, then simply discard it.
The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98 (the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight), but they all support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR presented in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years.
Here is a nice superimposition of numerous global, hemispheric and regional reconstructions for the last 2000 years together with an average. References are all presented at the bottom of the page in that Global Warming Art link. Regional variations are of course greater than global, so don't be surprised by how wavy some of the lines are in there.
(Disclosure: one of the reconstructions used in that page is by the same team that did the infamous hockey stick, but it is not the same study. To the best of my knowledge, M&M have claimed no problems with that one, though they have expressed some concerns that span the entire field of dendrochronology).
Does the 20th century stand out?
Recently the National Academy of Science in the US did a report on the Hockey Stick study and found it "plausible" though more uncertain the farther back in time it went. But then, true to form for this debate, another report commissioned by another Senate committee came out right after and condemned it. Sigh.
I have read as much about this controversy as I ever intend to, and I have come to the firm conviction that I do not have the technical background and/or time required to make a scientific judgment on this issue one way or another. That is the best objective opinion I can offer you. I suspect 95% of the people you will come across arguing about this have chosen their position ideologically and will not really be able to explain the merits of the various arguments.
So while MBH, in my mind, are in no way guilty of fraud or incompetence (many of the accusations do go this far), the judgement of their research must be approached in reverse: given any reason to doubt, I will reject it until it is proven to me that the criticisms are invalid. Neither case can I decided for myself until I devote the required time to both the statistical background and the technical details of M&M vs MBH98. That isn't going to happen!
So where does that leave me and I suspect most of you?
Well, it leaves me with the dozens of other proxy reconstructions, some by the same team or involving some of its members, some by completely different people, some using tree rings, some using corals, some using stalagmites, some using borehole measurements, but all of which support the same general conclusion. And it is that general conclusion which is important to me, not whether or not one Bristlecone pine was or was not included correctly in a single 8 year old study.
"Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."
End of story. I would just like to conclude where I started: the study of the past can be very informative for scientists, but it is not explanatory of the present nor is it predictive of the future. The scientific basis for the dangers we face today and their causes today is rooted in what we know about today.
Now, can we all get off of the hockey rink and back into the lab?
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
"The Hockey Stick is Broken" was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.
Just one question.Why was there no "hockey stick" in IPCC 2007?
Check fig 6.10 on page 467 of IPCC AR4 WG1 CH6 [7.7MB PDF]
"Just one question.Why was there no "hockey stick" in IPCC 2007?"
THAT is a great question.
About "Michael Mann is a contributor to Real Climate..."
Actually, Mann created Real Climite, initially, for the sole purpose of defending his work against McIntyre, McKitrick, and Wegman (one of the best statisticians in the world) -- as cody says, Mann's whole study rests on statistical assumptions, models, and techniques. Wegman found serious flaws.
You can understand Mann's upset here -- Mann was a newly minted Ph.D when he first drew the hockey stick: it was probably a big part of his thesis. So here he is, brand new, just out on the market, and his first (and only, at that point) major work making a headline claim is called into serious question.
Something like that can kill one's career before it even starts. It should be no suprise that Mann's web site is largely devoted to attacking McIntyre and McKitrick, and who can blame him?
Anyway, cody wants to dismiss the hockey stick as "ancient historical minutia." Unfortunately, the hockey stike was a central feature for a Nobel Prize winner in an Academy Award winnning film:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1511
Climiate scientists may have pushed Mann's work to the sidelines, but the general public has not, it's at least partly responsible for fueling the demand to "do something" about climiate change, so -- it is anything but "ancient historical minutia."
"Check fig 6.10 on page 467 of IPCC AR4 WG1 CH6 [7.7MB PDF]"
The editors took no a small amount of heat about their review of that section of the report:
"Aside from the particularities of the HS dispute, the overwhelming impression though is that of the Review Editors simply rubber stamping the process. Other than a few editors of WG2 (and at this point we don't know whether even their comments had any effect), the recorded comments of Review Editors merely show rubber stamping."
See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2960
Seems to me confronted by SM's ongoing detailed analysis that is, on self report, beyond your knowledge and an absence of counter arguments from Mann et al, you declared victory. Hardly a compelling argument, is it?
Given the mountains of material written by both sides, replies to counter replies to counter counter replies, it seems to me that your assertion of an absence of argument is...what's the word? Denialism...?
I am talking of the 2008 paper and the hubris of someone pontificating about that which they say is beyond their ken. Your argument is made no more persuasive by recourse to sophomoric ad hominems.
More precisely, you say:
"For myself, I will confess immediately that the technical issues are over my head, I don't know PCA from R^2 from a hole in the ground. But I think the most critical point to remember, if you are concerned about this for its impact on the validity of AGW theory, is that this row is about a single study that was published 8 years ago focusing on paleoclimate."
Beyond the mischaracterization of the hockey stick debate as being about a single study, if the issue is dead, how come Mann's 2008 paper? The hockey stick as an icon remains broken.
Hockey Stick history:
http://cce.890m.com/temperature-reconstructions/
cce:
As your reference notes the North panel found:
"Strip bark bristlecone/foxtail pines (trees missing parts of their bark) should be avoided during analysis of the last 150 years, because their growth is exaggerated by the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere."
Mann 2008 includes - that's right - Bristlecone Pine Proxies! See for example http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4428
Bernie, have you read Mann's paper, or just Stevie Mac's summary of it? Tree rings are included in one analysis and left out in another -- and if they're left out, the conclusion remains unchanged (tree rings just extend it back from 1300 years to 1700).
It's because of rank lies like this that MacIntyre doesn't pass peer-review. If he had complaints about Mann that stood up to peer-review, Mann would address them.
As Brian points out, Mann 2008 does not require tree rings of any kind. In fact, including tree rings makes the so-called LIA colder. An upcoming future revision of this history will compare MBH99 directly to the NH EIV reconstruction with no tree rings under the heading "Strip-bark trees should be avoided."
Brian and cce:
I have read the paper - but that hardly settles the issue as to why Bristlecone proxies are still being used after the North panels condemnation of their use - or do you read North differently? As to the non-tree ring proxies - the speleothems and sendiments are beginning to look a bit flawed too.
I read the NRC Panel as it is written, "Strip bark trees should be avoided" which is hardly a condemnation. Since MBH99, Mann has attempted to correct for the problem, and now, 2 years after the NRC panel recommendations, it's clear that the result does not depend on tree rings. When those tree rings are included, it makes the LIA colder, which is the opposite of what the conspiracy theory would suggest. When CA deciphers EIV, I look forward to them substituting Ababneh for Graybill. I doubt if their suspicions will be vindicated.
Mann et al were and are data mining - it is that simple. There is no conspiracy per se - just what appears to be not very good methodology.
You think the speleothems are going to stand up to scrutiny? What about the Finish lake sediments?
As has been shown yet again, once the strip barked pines are removed and the one set of lake sediments which are known to be contaminated are removed.... well, gee so does Mann's Hockey Stick shape.
This does not even address the fact that there is a divergance between instremented and dentro proxies, which is stated in IPPC Report #4. If proxies do not track temperatures now, what makes you think they did in the past.
You just got a plug from George Monbiot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/03/climate…
keep up the great work.
"Two Canadians, an economist and a petroleum geologist". I guess that settles it then?
You guys are amazing and you wonder why folks are skeptics.
[coby: Tim, read the rest of the post, that is hardly the central point now, is it?]
Totally dismissed the rest of the post after reading that. You do not have a gift for engaging readers with that sort of rhetoric.
Sorry but every GW "documentary" out there uses the hockey stick graph as its centerpiece, most pointedly Gore's "AIT". Without that graph the whole movie makes little sense. And aside from the "two Canadians" We also have Edward Wegman, a world renowned statistician who pointed out that using the data correctly makes the hockey stick disappear. Further research shows that using Mann's Hockey stick method generates the same shape even with random numbers. This is not a missing pine cone from an 8 year old study, this is fraud.
... the late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years.
Rubbish. The slope of warming 1910-1940 and 1850-1880 were the same as 1975-2000, and if we're warmer than the Medieval Climate Optimum, where are the English vinyards? Why are cherry trees in Japan blooming later than they did a thousand years ago? And why do stalagmites in South Africa show warmer temperatures ca. 900 years ago than now? And why are Viking burial grounds in Greenland under permafrost?
Climate realist: "This, my good man, is a DEAD PARROT!"
Climate alarmist: "Naao, 'e's just pinin' for the fjords..."
They're in England ...
dhogaza
Why are cherry trees in Japan blooming later than they did a thousand years ago?
Hmmm... http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8417/kyotocherrys.png
Chris S. asks:
He then shows a graph which shows the exact opposite. In actual fact, the date of blooming has been getting earlier and earlier from about 1900 (day 198: aprox April 18) to 2000 (day 99; aprox April 9). Which shows an increase in average Spring temperature of 6.3C (1900) to 8.2C (1990)
The data are from this paper:
"Full-flowering Dates of Prunus jamasakura in Kyoto City"
Aono and Kazui, 2008; Int. J. Climatol., 28, 905-914)
The raw data can be found at:
http://www.envi.osakafu-u.ac.jp/atmenv/aono/KyoPhenoTemp4.html
Ian #24: I should have been clearer - I was quoting #20 but forgot the quote marks, my bad.
Quality standards and the wine market were different 2000 years ago than they are today.
Not to mention modern hybridization techniques, an affluent clientele, and the availability of gentleman farmer types who can withstand multiple years of low yields.
Note my reference specifically says that current grape production in England has little to do with climate change.
John M "Note my reference specifically says that current grape production in England has little to do with climate change"
More from your reference (the environmental change network) here: http://www.ecn.ac.uk/Education/climate_change.htm
Thanks, Chris.
Written at the perfect level for my 2nd grader.
I didn't catch anything about grapes and wine though.
Never mind vineyards, shouldn't we be talking about the continued, deep solar minimum. Isn't that the real story?
The real story is ... why isn't this causing notable cooling if "it's the sun, stupid"?
But it is, dhogaza, as you know perfectly well. Incidentally, you may want to check out What's Up With That and its report of the new UCLA idea on total solar energy. Fascinating stuff.
snowman said:
What world are you living in snowman? It is obviously not the one that sensible and intelligent people are living on. Just in case you haven't noticed, the average temperature for the past three months (June, July and August) have been the warmest since 1998, which was extremely warm due to a very large el Nino.
Why don't you deniers ever actually read what the scientists are saying instead of cutting and pasting the nonsense that oozes out of the stinking pond sludge such as wattswrongwithwatt and other dishonest sites?
Your intemperate remarks, Ian, are yet further evidence that you are aware the game is up. Climate alarmism, in the words of one recent commentator, has entered its death spiral.
A pity, I know, for someone like you who has invested so much emotional energy in this issue. Indeed, I sympathize. It must be very difficult to accept that you are simply wrong: wrong in theory, wrong in practice, wrong, wrong, wrong.
When future historians struggle to explain this bizarre cult (which one UK journalist recently and accurately compared to the Moonies) they will examine comments of the sort you regularly make on this and other websites. What rich material you are providing for future analysis.
But never mind that: try reading the article I referred to rather than offering your usual ritualistic attack. I think it is really quite exciting.
Snowman, you live in a world populated by right wing ignoramuses who are completely ignorant of science and whose honesty is to be deplored.
You should be ashamed of the "intemperate" and dishonest rubbish you continue to post on this blog.
Scientists and other scientifically literate people know how ignorant of the real world you are. However, please continue to live in your alternative world if it allows you to sleep at night.
It is an odd sort of 'science' Ian, that divides people by political beliefs, yet that is what your remark implies. It is as you are arguing that Republicans, say, endorse general relativity, while Democrats do not.
The explanation, of course, is that AGW is not science at all, but propaganda - religion, if you like. But you know all this.
Of course, you are not the only warmist whose comments are becoming increasingly intolerant. You remind me of a remark once made to me by a highly experienced trial lawyer, who said you could always measure someone's dishonesty by the extent of their indignation.
However, I do no assert that you are dishonest, merely deluded - honestly deluded perhaps, but deluded nonetheless. It is ever thus with religion, which is of course what your science is: true believers tolerate no dissent, and insist upon the burning of heretics.
Well, Ian, I content myself with the knowledge that you will not suffer from this dotty misapprehension for much longer. The entire house of cards is falling around you, as you secretly know, even though the knowledge appalls you.
When, in the near future, you look back upon your own folly, how will you react when you wonder how you could have been so wrong? Believe me when I say that I hope the enlightenment will not be too painful for you.
Politics does not divide science. Science is built on data, facts and proper logical reasoning. Politics is divided by mostly liars on the right and honest people on the left. This was not always the case but it has become more pronounced since 2000 when dishonest politicians and their supporters took over the running of the USA.
I'm afraid I am having trouble in following you, Ian. (Or maybe you are having difficulty in understanding me.)
I am asserting that politics does divide people on this issue: very broadly (and with many exceptions) those on the left buy into the global warming scenario, while those on the right do not.
I repeat that it must be strange sort of 'science' if your propensity to accept it depends upon your political posture.
The explanation, as we all know, lies in the fact that AGW is not science at all: it is a cult, and one which, thank goodness, is increasingly discredited.
But as I say, Ian, I understand that it is not pleasant for you to be on the losing side of this, and to see the ground crumbling beneath your feet, particularly when it concerns something you care about.
In this regard, you may have noticed that the Washington Post, hitherto the most intransigent of true has
Snowjob: "I repeat that it must be strange sort of 'science' if your propensity to accept it depends upon your political posture."
This is a classic correlation = causation error. The stated fact, that acceptance of science correlates with political affiliation, does not say anything about the science, rather about right wing ideologues who deny reality any time it is inconvenient for their world view. We see that in creationism, ozone depletion, acid rain in the seventies, DDT and malaria, tobacco smoke and cancer and of course climate change, the list is truly remarkable.
If I may say so, Coby, you are the one in error here by conflating a variety of unrelated issues. Matters such as creationism or DDT have nothing to do with AGW, save in one regard: by their very nature they are hypotheses, and as such can never be subject to unequivocal proof, in the way that the binomial theorem can be proved or the uncertainty principle.
In making this point I am simply stating a truism, and I offer no comment on the validity of the arguments for and against, for example, the classical Darwinian interpretation of evolution. (Although, as a Canadian, I am sure you are aware of the exciting work currently underway at McGill University on 'epigenetics' - literally, outside the genes - which appears to suggest ways in which acquired characteristics might be inherited, something that until very recently has been regarded as the gravest of heresies.)
But I am straying from my point, which is that when people insist that 'the science is in' or 'the debate is over' and when their motive in so asserting is as much a matter of political conviction as anything else (vide Mr Forrester above) then we are right to be suspicious. Indeed, we can be fairly confident that their words will come back to haunt them, just as they will haunt you, Coby.
Snowman is showing his ignorance of science and his political ideology with his continued ignorant rantings on this blog.
Did yo ever study science when you were young (assuming that you are not still in elementary school)?
Coby - how about opening up a thread on the elephant in the room? I refer, of course, to the continued, deep solar minimum.
It must be pretty obvious that the current greenhouse theory cannot survive another two or three years of global cooling. You even hinted as much, Coby, in a post some while ago in which you asked (rather wistfully, I thought) how much longer we must wait for new record high temperatures.
So, with the sun in a profound minimum and evidence that the energy level of sunspots is diminishing, this matter surely cannot be ignored. And Coby, please, I beseech you, don't give us the same hoary old guff about the changes in solar irradiation being inadequate to explain climate variation. I am sure you are aware of how quickly this field is progressing, with new ideas such as total solar energy jostling for attention.
Are you really going to tell us, Coby, hand on heart and scout's honour, that you genuinely believe the quiescent sun has played no part in the cooling of recent years?
Speaking as a non-climatologist, but as a physics PhD with a decent grasp of the fundamentals here, it seems *possible* that the deep solar minimum has slightly slowed the overall warming trend. However, if the sun was the main driver, it ought to be getting colder in a hurry. Indeed the sun hasn't been this quiet since the early 20th century, so if the sun is the primary driver of global temperature anomaly, we should be headed back to the temperatures of that era. There is utterly no sign of that happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
If the deep solar minimum were to persist *and* if the 5 yr average gisstemp anomaly were to drop from 0.48C to 0.2C, that would be evidence for a significant solar influence (i.e. a solar influence beyond mere TSI, such as the cosmic ray hypothesis). But so far there is utterly no support for for such a strong solar influence. Based on my understanding of cloud formation and the warming/cooling properties of clouds, I'm really not expecting evidence such as I described above to be found.
The observed temperature record is well described by the effects of known greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations (of both human and natural origin) over time, plus the ENSO. To claim a different driver is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.
Yes, indeed, that's the point.
Judge for yourself if snowman is living in the reality-based world, or one of his own making.
Dhogaza I am reminded of the famous remark by Keynes: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'
So forget your models. What are the facts? The fact is that the world is getting cooler. Compared with this simple, incontrovertible truth, nothing else really matters.
Of course, I don't expect to persuade you. But in another couple of years, three at the most, we will all look back in amazement that anyone ever took climate alarmism seriously.
Snowman: Care to point to statistically significant data showing the world is getting cooler? As we see from the gisstemp graph I posted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
downward wiggles happen (see 1982, 1992) but they don't last. At least they don't last since CO2 and warming aerosols (e.g. black carbon) began to dominate cooling aerosols (e.g. sulfates) around the mid '70s.
I've stated a condition that would cause me to say that we made a mistake or missed something very important in understanding climate drivers. If the gisstemp anomaly turns over and goes down to 0.2C, that would be enough for me.
So, what condition would convince you that the warming trend will continue?
Very simple, GFW. If temperatures exceed the 1998 level, that would pretty well do it.
Meanwhile, your statement that the 'wiggles' don't last remains conjecture. And I prefer facts.
My link has nothing to do with models, it is "the facts", and the plot I showed you makes clear that the last decade shows warming, not cooling.
The only way to show cooling is to cherry-pick exceptional years, drawing straightlines between cherry-picked points, etc.
"Very simple, GFW. If temperatures exceed the 1998 level, that would pretty well do it." - Snowman
Sorted then : http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Thank you for that, dappled water, but I am not sure why you think this graph proves your point.
And dhogaza, please don't give us this hoary old stuff about cherry picking.
The simple fact is that it was hotter in 1998 than it is now. In what sense is that cherry picking? I am afraid that this is the inconvenient truth that is holing your case below the water line, and which will - very shortly - destroy it.
As a number of observers have commented, the AGW theory cannot survive another two or three years of cooling. But that, dhogaza, is precisely what will happen.
"Thank you for that, dappled water, but I am not sure why you think this graph proves your point." - Snowman.
Simple. 2005. Gistemp has it as the warmest year on record. You can now cease and desist.
Snowman is using one of the lowest of the dishonest online debating tactics. When presented with a link, his response to it relies completely on no one watching following it.
Two recent examples:
dhogaza posts a link to refute Snowman's continued lie that the globe is cooling - http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend This is temperature data. Snowman replies "forget your models, what are the facts?" which is only remotly reasonable if one has not seen what the link is.
Dappled Water posts a link to answer Snowman saying he needs to see a year warmer than 1998 - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif This is NASA GISS temperature data and shows 2005 to be a warmer year globally than 1998. Snowman replies "thanks for that but I'm not sure how that proves your point" which is only remotely reasonable as a response if one has not actually followed this link.
His responses are meant only for onlookers who have not paid close attention.
It is this behaviour, among others, that clearly identifies Snowman as dishonest and trying only to deceive people.
I don't think snowman even bothers checking the links before responding ...
Oh, of course. The correct response to regurgitated wrongness is kisses. We all know that. If you actually had said something incorrect or stupid, the response would have been vastly different.
You're like the Pepe LePew of armchair pseudoscientists. Reality, she is just playing hard to get, no?
I knew that 2005 was warmer than 1998 in the gistemp data but didn't immediately respond. I was (and still am) allowing for Snowman to also know that. He's said that a future year (2009 forward) averaging warmer than 1998 will convince him that warming will continue. Presumably his current stance is that the significant run-up of temperature from say 1978 to 1998 was some semi-cyclical multi-decadal effect of the sun, ENSO, PDO, NAO etc., and that such an effect died out over 1998-2008, with 2005 being a fluke. He's now expecting significant cooling, so if we go past 1998 again (let alone 2005) he'll consider his current picture to be disproven.
I expect warming, and will hold Snowman to his word. I'm not expecting it to take very long. Odds are even that 2010 will exceed 1998, so a few more years gives near certainty.
Barring a major volcanic eruption that is. As we saw from Pinatubo, one of those can easily create a 2-3 year dip in temperatures.
Pough,
Pepe Lepew, now that was a good cartoon.
GFW is right. My remark clearly implied - or was certainly meant to - that if FUTURE temperatures exceeded the 1998 level and did so with some consistency, I would have to think again. That is why I couldn't quite see the relevance of dappled water's graph.
So, let's wait and see. And GFW, I will take up your implied challenge. If 2010 exceeds 1998, I will be the first to admit that the evidence has become more persuasive.
But, as a quid pro quo, will you concede the opposite? If the 2010 temperature does not behave as you expect (barring, as you say, an event such as a major eruption) will you concede that the AGW case has become a little less robust?
As a corollary, how many years of temperatures below 1998 must pass, do you think, before the AGW case is fatally damaged? I ask because I note your point that temperatures in excess of 1998 will become a near certainty within a few years.
Well, first note that I don't speak for the climatological community :-)
Second, the 2010 "prediction" is only a 50% even for someone who is reasonably confident in AGW. Of course it's a lot lower than that for someone such as yourself who is expecting temperatures to head back the their 1980s levels pretty soon.
Just going by the visual features of the gistemp data, when there's a peak followed by a downward slump, the the four longest times-to-exceed-previous-peak have been 6, 7, 7 and 7 years. So I would expect 2005 to be exceeded by 2013, with a reasonable degree (say 80%-90% confidence). I'd be more confident, but there are oceanic cycles that we don't fully understand (and we're mired in a deep solar minimum). The first year to exceed 2005 will likely also be the first since 2005 to exceed 1998. So, if 1998 is not exceeded by 2013, I'll concede there has been a significant pause, and that a full understanding of that pause may result in lowering the rate of future expected warming from the 0.17C/decade we've been experiencing. For me to totally scrap warming would require the stronger evidence I described several posts above.
(When I described the 4 longest "slumps", I should have qualified "since warming effects started dominating reflective aerosol effects at the end of the 70s". If there are any other statements that could be read as either
a) obviously wrong, or
b) perfectly fine with some reasonable qualifier
please give me the benefit of the doubt. )
Okay, GFW, we will talk again in 2013 (if the Lord spares us, as my mother used to say).
Shorter snowman: statistically significant long-term trends won't convince me, but one warm year will.
Even if he 'fesses up to AGW in the future, he'll be doing so for the wrong reason ...
I wondered if you might take me up on that point, dhogaza. And I was trying to be accommodating, too. It seems a guy just can't win here.
However, I felt fairly confident in saying that a single year might cause me to think again, because it isn't going to happen.
In this context, what do you make of recent solar studies, in particular the work published in the 28 August issue of Science (peer reviewed of course) by Gerald A. Meehl et all suggesting that even small solar variations have a much greater impact on climate than previously thought.
I confess I have read only the abstract and various summaries, as I am not a subscriber and am too mean to pay for online access. Nevertheless, you might want to have a look. Coby and others (I almost typed Coby et al) have consistently argued that 'it can't be the sun, stupid' because the measured variation in solar irradience is wholly inadequate to explain climate change.
If it turns out that this is not so, well........
Very entertaining reading everyone!
I truly LOVE that there are all these differences of opinion, and that they are expressed with excellent grammar!
Honestly, it's one of the reasons I continue to lurk on this blog.
Pough, I love your reference to that old cartoon. I can hear him saying that! I shall continue to Lurk. Thank you one and all. et al! (Bahahahaha!)
In other words, you're lying and will just move the goalposts if it does happen.
1. It's one paper, and it's entirely model-based. We'll see if observational data comes up to confirm it.
2. It's talking about a hypothesis that minor changes in solar output may be the mechanism underlying ENSO. So they're talking about impacts on climate through this semi-oscillation rather than an impact on climate trend. ENSO just redistributes energy in the system, so it's believable that small cyclical changes in solar energy reaching the earth might be a factor.
1. Doesn't affect our understanding of the sun's role in climate trends at all, or climate sensitivity to increases in CO2, nor do Meehl's comments to the press indicate he believes it does.
This is really emblematic of how denialists grasp at the thinnest of straws. A paper comes out which in no way claims to refute CO2's role in AGW or climate sensitivity to increased CO2 levels. However, it discusses a possible amplification effect on ENSO events linked to changes in solar output. "The paper mentions the sun, not CO2, so it disproves AGW, QED!!!!!"
I must say after reading all this i am a bit confused with the line of argument taken by ghogaza et al.
And heres why, AGW is not one theory but in fact two theories melded together.
The first which is basically not in dispute is that if you increase a GHG you will increase the temp, in this case the GHG is CO2. However CO2 cannot and will not warm the planet by any measurable amount so where do the doomsday stories come from?
Note: it is barely measurable because since 1750 (IPCC baseline year) CO2 was 275ppm which means CO2 has added less than 0.5C in 259 years (Stefan Boltzman (SP) law).
The source of the doomsday stories lies within the second (and hotly disputed) theory. That is that this barely measureable increase in temp from CO2 will cause a large increase in temp from water vapour.
So dgohaza we are all well aware of CO2's role so lets move on, snowman is suggesting that this second (and largely unproven) theory is incorrect and that the sun' role has been largely underrated.
This is an important subject and should be debated in isolation rather than constantly being referenced back to a misunderstanding of the theory of AGW.
Regards
Crakar
Thank you for that, crakar.
Dhogaza, I really find your constant indignation difficult to understand. I drew your attention to a recent, interesting article and asked what you thought of it. I made no inflated claims for it, and did not suggest that it proved or disproved anything. However, if the role of the sun may have been underestimated in certain ways, then surely that is worth discussing.
Why do you have to get yourself in such a lather over everything?
Yes, people like you, snowman, and a very large number of uneducated non-scientists continue to make this claim. Yet science marches on, ignoring all you modern-day Galileos, like lemmings. You know you're right because ignorance beats science every day of the week.
No, the sun's role has not been "largely underrated". What's "underrated" are straw-grasping hypotheses that unknown sky fairy physics account for observed warming rather than well-established physics.
Your motive is clear, snowman.
Because the future well-being of millions of people and a myriad of ecosystems is being put at risk due to ideologically-driven, immoral, unethical rejection of science by the likes of you and crakar.
Tell me, dhogaza, why Galileo? I don't understand why this is a term of reproach. Am I missing something?
And let me ask you this, dhogaza. Do you never, in the silent watches of the night, experience even the slightest twinge of doubt?
Do you not, as you contemplate the continued, deep, solar minimum, sometimes whisper to yourself: what if the deniers are right after all?
Do you not, as you consider the undeniable fact that the tide of public opinion is turning against you, wonder if you are, after all, on the losing side of this argument?
Only asking.
Now, now. No worries, GISTEMP will just keep adjusting the data.
I promised myself i would not indulge people like yourself anymore, but you (dogaza) produce such good material it is hard to pass up the chance.
You wrote;
Yes, people like you, snowman, and a very large number of uneducated non-scientists continue to make this claim. Yet science marches on, ignoring all you modern-day Galileos, like lemmings. You know you're right because ignorance beats science every day of the week.
The AGW theory is based on +ve feedbacks, therefore if CO2 increases so will the temp, that is why we are told the only way to stop GW in its tracks is to reduce CO2 levels. But we have a problem, CO2 levels are increasing but sat data shows atmospheric temps are not, CO2 levels are increasing but the ARGO bouys show the oceans are not. So where is the heat? It is nowhere to be found.
I guess your are right after all dogaza science does march on.
You wrote;
No, the sun's role has not been "largely underrated". What's "underrated" are straw-grasping hypotheses that unknown sky fairy physics account for observed warming rather than well-established physics.
This i rather like, the only factor that has been considered is the Total Solar Insolation (TSI) things that have not been considered are, changes is solar wind, changes in X-rays, changes in UV rays both A and B, changes in magnetic field strength, changes is cosmic rays, changes in frequency and strength of coronal mass ejections. Did i leave anything out?
But according to you this is a "straw-grasping hypotheses that unknown sky fairy physics account for observed warming rather than well-established physics."
"Well established physics", my god man have you lost your mind? Show me the well established physics that tells me the amount of +ve feed back from water vapour, show me the well established physics that shows the sensitivity of the climate, show me a computer model that can accurately model cloud structure and formation, show me a computer model that does not assume "clear skies" when it predicts the future. Sky fairies indeed.
Snowman;
I would be interested in discussing the solar influence in more detail, i suggest we ignore every post from dogsarzza from now on, what do you think?
Cheers
Crakar14
LOL This is better than daytime TV! The warmists versus the coolists... And if the facts don't fit, just ignore them!!
And let me ask you this, snowman. Do you never, in the silent watches of the night, experience even the slightest twinge of doubt? Classic!
I will take up your implied challenge. If 2010 exceeds 1998, I will be the first to admit that the evidence has become more persuasive. ROTFL!!!
I actually followed that link to the temperature data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif) and noticed that every year this century has been warmer than any year last century except for 1998. Hey, must be cooling then... Hilarious!
Crazy Bill: Your misunderstanding is understandable and - as you are evidently new to the subject - forgivable.
The pattern you note in the post 1998 years merely reflects the fact that temperatures are descending from a high point, an unavoidable consequence of the 1998 record. It could hardly be otherwise, unless, of course, temperatures were to drop like a stone in a single year, something that none of us suggests.
But we have a problem, CO2 levels are increasing but sat data shows atmospheric temps are not - Crakar
Not true, the climatic trend is one of warming, both RSS and UAH show long term warming.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatur…
A quick perusal of the Gistemp data mentioned in post #75, demonstrates periods of short term cooling in the 20th century record. Long term however, the Earth has continued to warm.
CO2 levels are increasing but the ARGO bouys show the oceans are not. So where is the heat? It is nowhere to be found. - Crakar
Yet July 2009 was the warmest month of (surface) oceanic global temperature ever recorded.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090814_julyglobalstats.html
No mystery where the heat is.
You seem to have overlooked the rest of that report, Dappled Water. It rather inconveniently adds that 'the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 ranked fifth-warmest since world-wide records began in 1880.'
FIFTH warmest, Dappled Water, not warmest. So, to repeat Crakar's question: where is the heat?
You seem to have overlooked the rest of that report, Dappled Water. It rather inconveniently adds that 'the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 ranked fifth-warmest since world-wide records began in 1880 - Snowman.
I haven't overlooked anything. Crakar made the false claim that the OCEANS were not warming (Argo buoys), The link indicates otherwise - July 2009 IS THE WARMEST oceanic temperature ever recorded.
So, to repeat Crakar's question: where is the heat? - Snowman
Answer = In the ocean, where the majority of global warming has occurred to date. Why do you think ENSO events have such a dramatic effect on global temperatures?
You guys ignore everything science has to say regarding climate, that's the foundation, roof, and walls of your particularly psychotic world.
Really, dhogaza, I wish you would cease and desist with these rants. I know it's difficult for someone in your position. Every day brings fresh news showing that you have lost the argument. I appreciate how frustrating it must be. But really, you are getting a bit tiresome.
Incidentally, many of us are delighted to note that, better late than never, the media are at last beginning to wake up to the fact that the world is getting colder.
This very morning the BBC - the BBC for heaven's sake! - carried a report in its main news broadcast to the effect that we are probably in for a decade or more of cooling. Of course, the reporter rather lamely tried to suggest that this was just a brief respite before warming resumed. But the presenter was having none of it. People are going to say that this is just an excuse to explain the fact that the scientists have got it wrong, he said.
Those who live outside the UK probably find it difficult to appreciate how important this is. For years the BBC has been obsessed with global warming. Today's report was nothing short of revolutionary.
It's a statement of fact, not a rant. You're just a fucking idiot.
Coby, you should just shut down this blog.
It's become an embarrassment.
It's no longer "how to talk to a denialist".
It's "how to cede the field to the denialists making Coby look like a damned coward"
Really, at this point, I think your blog does more harm than good.
You lend credibility to the idiots spouting the same old crap over and over and over again by letting them do so when obviously, you don't have the energy to "talk to the denialists".
Goodness, dhogaza, such language! I am sure your confrere Coby won't approve.
Every day brings fresh news showing that you have lost the argument. - Snowman.
Errrr, right. Like this news?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_globalstats.html
Thank you for drawing my attention to the article, Dappled Water. However, perhaps you would agree with me that we shouldn't attach too much significance to a single month.
Elsewhere in the article it is pointed out that 'For the year to date, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature of 58.3 degrees F tied with 2003 for the fifth-warmest January-August period on record'.
Surely the real news is that, despite steady increases in C02, this is only the FIFTH warmest period. Isn't that part of the reason why the AGW theory is increasing untenable?
Of course, you might reply that even the fifth-warmest year is still pretty warm, and so it is. But as 1998 was the warmest year, then for several years afterwards temperatures will still be relatively high as we descend from the peak. After all, it could hardly be otherwise, unless temperatures were suddenly to drop like a stone, and I don't believe anyone is suggesting that.
"Surely the real news is that, despite steady increases in C02, this is only the FIFTH warmest period. Isn't that part of the reason why the AGW theory is increasing untenable?"
Long Jump World record progression:
8.13m Jesse Owens 1935
8.21m Ralph Boston 1960
...broken a further 7 times between 1960 & 1967...
8.90m Bob Beamon 1968
8.95m Mike Powell 1991
I'm sure you are making some fiendishly clever point here, Chris, but I'm afraid you will have to explain it to me.
I, for one, am not surprised that Chris's point went right over your head (and yes, it is clever).
Dappled Water,
You realize that that story might mean something if the authors had not removed the satellite data because it did not show enough warming. Further, that all the other global temperature reports are not showing what a singe NOAA data set does.
Next we wait for GISTEMP to be adjusted to show even more warming?
This is entertaining watching the science being ignored in the support of a religion.
Snowman,
I find it interesting that the indoctrinated people of this world hold so tightly to their beliefs. For example they hold onto their beliefs no matter how much evidence is put to them. This evidence is ignored no matter how damning it is, however when they are told to listen to this evidence by the very same indoctrinators they suddenly realise that they are wrong or have been duped in some way. Most indoctrinated find this moment to be very embarrassing and they do tend to lash out at those around them and make outlandish statements.
Once this moment has passed they do tend to return to the indoctrinated state once again, however I do find that they are less likely to believe what they are told by the indoctrinators and are more likely to begin questioning what they are told. Of course there is always the exception. The mind works in mysterious ways snowman.
By the way I do believe Chrisâs fiendishly clever point is ârecords are made to be brokenâ of course I maybe wrong, in any event I like you snowman have no idea what the sport of long jump has to do with the topic we are discussing. Remember the mind works in mysterious ways snowman.
In regards to the ARGO data, the ARGO buoys where commissioned way back in 2003, the XBT data and other variants that were used before 2003 where horrendously inadequate so our picture of historical global ocean temps is made from only 6 years of data. The past 6 years of ARGO data show the oceans have cooled slightly, whilst 6 years is not long enough to show any meaningful trend they show cooling and not warming.
Someone mentioned GISS temps, my question is why would you measure the world temps by measuring only those bits that are not covered by water, unfortunately for Hansen science has left him behind and his vast array of inadequately sited or malfunctioning thermometers are no longer useful or accepted by anyone. Hansen and his thermometers have now been relegated to only being useful to support dodgy science and scary story telling.
The most effective way to measure the global temp is to measure the atmosphere and the sat data shows very little if any warming for quite some considerable time. So once again once you wipe away the bullshit, the verbal abuse and the dogmatic belief systems all you have is rising CO2 levels accompanied with non rising temps where ever you look.
So where is the heat?
Cheers
crakar
Thanks for that Crakar. I am sure you are right about the way indoctrinated people react when confronted with uncomfortable evidence.
Here in the UK we are at a tipping point in terms of press coverage. In the last two days the BBC has carried two separate items casting some doubt on the 'warming narrative' (as they called it) - something that I wouldn't have thought possible. Most journalists continue to toe the line but I am fairly confident that they will not do so much longer. I hope not, anyway. One of the most depressing aspects of this whole saga is the way the press has been so spineless and seems to have seen its role as cheerleaders for the warmist cult.
However, it is pretty obvious that we are winning this battle for sanity. There is a long way to go yet, but the eventual outcome is no longer in doubt.
All the best
Snowman
"By the way I do believe Chrisâs fiendishly clever point is ârecords are made to be brokenâ of course I maybe wrong"
Not quite crakar and it's not really fiendish at all. I'll give you a hint - it's about what snowman may have said about the world longjump record in 1979.
I find the first paragraph in your comment #91 to be a fine description of the WattsUp crowd by the way, I may use it elsewhere if that's OK?
Not guilty, Chris. Somebody may have said something about the world long jump record, but it wasn't me.
However, to return to your list of athletic records, I do, kidding aside, understand the point you are making - namely, that a record can chug along for years without being challenged then suddenly we get a rash of new ones.
Be that as it may, I am still struggling to see the relevance to our topic.
OK, I'll try to spell it out as you're still not quite getting it. It's relevance is as an analogy (like all analogies it is far from perfect) and it is to do with the concept of statistical outliers.
Jess Owens was, by all accounts, a freak of nature - he was so far ahead of the other athletes of his time, his record stood from 1935 until 1960. In between times the methodss of training athletes were incrementally improving as was the technique of the long jump itself until in 1960 Owens' record was matched, the record then reflected the continued improvement in technique & training methods until 1968 when Bob Beamon jumped much further than anyone had jumped before. After Beamon's famous jump techniques & methods continued to improve and (the USA excepted) national records continued to fall marking the fact that other athletes were continually jumping further, just not as far as El Beamon. To the extent that, through the 1970s & 1980s there were quite serious questions raised about whether the record would ever be broken. In the end Mike Powell came along and pushed it even further proving that it could be (although it should be noted that El Powell was also a much longer jumper than his contempories).
The point is Bob Beamon's 1968's long jump record was an outlier caused by a very strong athlete, to compare the general progress in the long jump against that mark is to ignore the general progress made in the sport. 1998's temperature record in also an outlier caused by a very strong El Nino, to compare the general progress in global temperature is, well I'm sure you get the idea.
Crakar, perhaps inadvertently, reinforces this point with his comment "the past 6 years of ARGO data show the oceans have cooled slightly". I'm sure you can deduce whether 2003 was an El Nino or La Nina year...
You realize that that story might mean something if the authors had not removed the satellite data because it did not show enough warming - Vernon.
What exactly are you on about?. Getting confused with UAH and RSS?
Further, that all the other global temperature reports are not showing what a singe NOAA data set does. - Vernon
You mean this warming in the satellite data?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatur…
Next we wait for GISTEMP to be adjusted to show even more warming? - Vernon
Translation? = Vernon doesn't want to believe the data because it conflicts with his political world view. Ergo, something must be wrong with the temperature record, not Vernon's brain. Whatever.
"I find it interesting that the indoctrinated people of this world hold so tightly to their beliefs........Most indoctrinated find this moment to be very embarrassing and they do tend to lash out at those around them and make outlandish statements" - Crakar
Agree totally witness the following:
"so our picture of historical global ocean temps is made from only 6 years of data." - Crakar.
An outlandish statement?. More like simple bullshit.
"XBT data and other variants that were used before 2003 where horrendously inadequate ......... past 6 years of ARGO data show the oceans have cooled slightly, whilst 6 years is not long enough to show any meaningful trend they show cooling and not warming." - Crakar
Thankfully scientists are a lot smarter than Crakar and do not simply consign older methods to the trash when the next new thing comes along. Witness the erroneous cooling shown in ARGO data, and extraneous warming in the XMB. Both methods were able pinpoint a problem with instrumentation and helped correct errors in the historical record.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
"Someone mentioned GISS temps, my question is why would you measure the world temps by measuring only those bits that are not covered by water" - Crakar
Like Vernon, Crakar no like data that shows too much warming. What was it he said earlier?.(For example they hold onto their beliefs no matter how much evidence is put to them - Crakar). Ahem.........
"Hansen science has left him behind and his vast array of inadequately sited or malfunctioning thermometers are no longer useful or accepted by anyone. Hansen and his thermometers have now been relegated to only being useful to support dodgy science and scary story telling." - Crakar
"Most indoctrinated find this moment to be very embarrassing and they do tend to lash out at those around them and make outlandish statements." - Crakar
Crakar proves his point yet again ........
"the sat data shows very little if any warming for quite some considerable time"- Crakar
Nope. Wrong.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatur…
But then........
"This evidence is ignored no matter how damning it is"- Crakar
"So where is the heat?" - Crakar
Answer (again) = in the ocean.
Meanwhile the real world doesn't give a rats arse, the Arctic, Antarctica, and glaciers worldwide continue to melt at an accelerating rate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8200680.stm
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_lo…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901143321.htm
Thank you for taking the trouble to elaborate, Chris, and I give you full marks for the ingeniousness of your analogy.
Perhaps it won't surprise you, however, when I say that I am not persuaded by it.
Global temperatures are declining, not gradually approaching the 1998 level. It would be as if athletes for many years after Owen not only failed to match him, but got steadily worse.
Actually more recent analysis of the ARGO data doesn't show cooling ...
Dappled Water,
If only you bothered to read past the press release. Namely:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/merged-product-v3.pdf
Sorry about that, hit the wrong button... anyway
Dappled Water,
As, I was saying, if you bothered to read past the press release. Namely:
What maded ERSST.v3 better that v2? It was the inclusion of satellite data shown here:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/SEA.temps08.pdf
The ERSST.v3 is improved by explicitly including bias-adjusted satellite infrared SST estimates. In ERSST.v2 and ERSST.v3, information from satellites is
indirectly included because the HF analyses are based on modes computed from the Reynolds et al. (2002) analysis, which includes the satellite data. In ERSST.v3 the Pathfinder infrared SST estimates are introduced in the analysis by combining those SST data with ship and buoy data. Satellite SSTs are bias adjusted relative to the ship and buoy data as previously discussed. The SST estimates from satellite, ships, and buoys are
merged using a weighted sum of the different inputs, with weights inversely proportional to the noise estimate for each type (see section 2d). The merged SSTs are used in the ERSST.v3 analysis.
However using the satellite data was not showing the required warming trend so as stated here:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/merged-product-v3.pdf
They removed the satellite data.
No other SST product from the other temperature reporting sources show this exceptional warming.
Dapple, your stupid in not reading was is already posted on this site. Namely that between 2005 and 2009 GISS adjusted the past temperature records, which is posted on this site. The adjustments resulted in a 9.2 percent increase in the warming trend. I guess your like many warmest here and do not see any problem with making changes to the past temperature record, including the baseline period, as long as it supports your faith.
Well, yes, because it's not reliable. It doesn't actually measure SSTs.
Oh, yes, the common denialist meme that errors must never be corrected ...
Pfft.
dhogaza,
I see you still have nothing of substance to add to any discussion.
The 08 study and Reynolds et al. (2002) shows that the satellite data is reliable. What the quoted paragraph says that using satellite data for those location where there are no in situ measurements, the answer that the customer was looking for was not found. Rather than accepting that warming was not happening at the rate that was desired, the data was manipulated by the removal of the satellite data to give the desired trend.
Of course, with in your religion any manipulation of the data to get a desired result is fine.
Ever though that if the satellite measurements are not good enough to measure SST, then what made them good enough to measure surface temperature in the Antarctic where there are even less coverage by surface stations?
Which is it good enough for Antarctica, not good enough for the rest of the world.
Dapple, your stupid in not reading was is already posted on this site - Vernon.
Hey, you're the dufus that doesn't understand this, from your own post! -
"Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. The residual bias led to a modest decrease in the global warming trend and modified global annual temperature rankings"
I guess your like many warmest here and do not see any problem with making changes to the past temperature record, including the baseline period, as long as it supports your faith. - Vernon.
What, no comment on the RSS, UAH, & HADCRUT3 data, which also show long term warming?. Your remark is rather ironic huh?.
Now what was it that Crakar stated? That's right -
"I find it interesting that the indoctrinated people of this world hold so tightly to their beliefs. For example they hold onto their beliefs no matter how much evidence is put to them" - Crakar.
Indeed. Crakar, Snowman and Vernon need to look in the mirror. Big time.
Dappled Water and dhogaza should remember the saying about statistics: If you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything.'
So now we have snowman rejecting statistics as being pertinent, as well as science.
Figures.
Here's another saying about statistics: those who believe you can torture to say anything are loved by casino owners in Vegas.
Is that what they say, Dhogaza? Perhaps they do. But you are confusing probability theory with statistics - two quite separate matters.
Dapple,
Yes, I totally ignored your red herring, completely out of context, misdirection that you tried to get me to buy into.
Rather, I backed up my statement that your bringing one data set that I showed was modified after the study it was based on because it did not give the results, i.e. warming trend, that was the desired product.
I also pointed out that none of the other data sets show SST to be exceptional as the single data set that you produced.
I also see that you keep trying to change the subject when it is pointed out that by reading the published work, you would understand why the v3 as published is not the v3 product from the study and that the basis for accepting the v3 product is no longer valid. That they modified it to increase the warming trend.
"Adjusting" the data to increase a warming trend. Where did we discuss that before. Oh yeah, it was here. It was shown that GISTEMP has been steadily adjusting temperatures and by comparing the 2005 to 2009 datasets, it is easy to see that the warming trend has been increased by 9.2 percent. This was accomplished by changing the past temperature data including the reference period.
I notice that you would rather change the subject than address the issues with the data product that you introduced.
Yes, I totally ignored your red herring, completely out of context, misdirection that you tried to get me to buy into.- Vernon
So the fact that all four temp data show long term warming is a red herring. Very funny. Do you still have fingers in both ears?
( "I find it interesting that the indoctrinated people of this world hold so tightly to their beliefs. For example they hold onto their beliefs no matter how much evidence is put to them" - Crakar.)
"Rather, I backed up my statement that your bringing one data set that I showed was modified after the study it was based on because it did not give the results, i.e. warming trend, that was the desired product." - Vernon
Wrong. Adjustments were made to correct bias, you know like what you have against the science of climate change.
"I also see that you keep trying to change the subject when it is pointed out that by reading the published work, you would understand why the v3 as published is not the v3 product from the study and that the basis for accepting the v3 product is no longer valid. That they modified it to increase the warming trend." - Vernon.
See above. Repeating wrong headed nonsense, doesn't make it less nonsense the next time around Vernon. It was modified because it was in error!.
A climate related example:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
Don't you find it odd, that any data that shows warming, you want to find fault with?. You want to infer fraud every time it doesn't agree with your politics?. I'd be interested if you could find one reputable global temp record that shows long term cooling in the last 30 years, just one.
Dappled,
You do not bother keeping track of what you say so let me help you out. You said in #77:
I pointed out in #90 that the satellite data was removed from that product to achieve a higher warming trend.
Then you started trying to change to subject and talk about what the UAH and RSS show, which has nothing to do with SST.
I quote from both the peer reviewed published study that should have been the source of the July 09 warmest ever claim and also linked you to where they said they removed the satellite data in order to show more warming.
So your pretty much an idiot, your "warmest July ever" is not based on peer reviewed science, they had to modify the data set to get the desired warming trend. Further, no other data set shows such warming for SST. If the satellite data was in error, then why was v3 still being used since the improvement from v2 to v3 was the inclusion of satellite data since 1985 and there were many studies listed that showed that the satellite data was not in error. The very study that was the basis for v3 said that the satellite data was not in error.
Since once again I am addressing your post 77 where you presented the v3 data set showing July was the hottest SST ever. You have failed to address the fact that what was presented as the v3 product was not based on the peer reviewed 2008 study. It was another product which no peer reviewed science was presented as a basis for.
You lose.
"You do not bother keeping track of what you say so let me help you out. You said in #77:
Yet July 2009 was the warmest month of (surface) oceanic global temperature ever recorded." - Vernon.
Yes, according to NOAA. You think I don't remember??
"I pointed out in #90 that the satellite data was removed from that product to achieve a higher warming trend." - Vernon.
In other words an accusation of fraud. Let me sum up your position - it's okay for the said information to include bias adjusted satellite data. Adjusted because of a cooling bias. But not okay for NOAA to remove the satellite data because it was causing a problem for users, and still inducing a cooling bias at higher latitudes. Isn't that contrary to your meme about adjusting errors in data in the first place?.
"Then you started trying to change to subject and talk about what the UAH and RSS show, which has nothing to do with SST." - Vernon
No but every thing to do with global warming. Notice you run away from even attempting to explain that one. It merely highlights the stupidity of your whole denialist viewpoint -as was it's intention.
"So your pretty much an idiot, your "warmest July ever" is not based on peer reviewed science, they had to modify the data set to get the desired warming trend." - Vernon.
Errr, no the idiot would be you!. NOAA made the claim. I have no beef with their methods, I leave that to actual experts. They removed the satellite data because it was still inducing a cooling bias at higher latitudes. You do have a beef, because you don't want to believe it, and invoke the fraud claim again. Lame.
"The very study that was the basis for v3 said that the satellite data was not in error." - Vernon.
You must try very hard to be this dumb. This excerpt is from the T.M Smith, et al 2008 paper (Improvements to NOAA's Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis)
"These data improve SST sampling, especially in the Southern Ocean, and they are incorporated into the improved ERSST.v3 analysis. However, before they may be used, the satellite SST's require bias adjustments, as discussed in Reynolds and Smith (1994). The satellite data biases are usually associated with aerosols and clouds, both of which cause a cool bias"
There you go Vernon, the dreaded adjustment thing again. You seem okay with it this time around. I wonder why?. That's right, according to the denier handbook, adjustments in temperature records are okay only if they are adjusted down, or indicate cooling.
"You have failed to address the fact that what was presented as the v3 product was not based on the peer reviewed 2008 study. It was another product which no peer reviewed science was presented as a basis for." - Vernon.
Maybe your complaint should be directed at the NOAA scientists. Their website clearly spells out their reasons for the use of ERSST.v3b. No doubt further "adjustments" will be made in the future to get a better product - if that okay with you?.
"You lose" - Vernon.
This from a denier. How cute.
Vernon's been trying, and succeeding, for years in various climate-related fora.
He's not learned a thing in all this time. It's really a waste of time trying to explain things to him.
Fora, dhogaza? Come on, give us a break.
American Heritage Dictionary:
fo·ra (fôr'É, fÅr'É)
n. A plural of forum.
Apparently science isn't the only subject you don't understand ...
Note that it says 'A' plural, not 'THE' plural. No one with any feeling for language would ever use such a pompous, pretentious term.
By long convention, latinized plurals are not used in the case of words which have become part of normal English speech when to do so would sound ridiculous and pedantic.
Ah, I see, *this* must be why I had such success selling non-fiction magazine and newspaper articles back in the 90s. No feel for language, that *must* be it.
Dapple thinks it is ok to post a data set as the v3 data set, even if they do not used the methodology described in the 2008 paper where the v3 data set originates from.
I noticed that the following studies which show why the hockey stick is truly broken, besides the fact that Mann et al would do better in the future to actually get a statistician on the team rather then making it up as he goes along.
Christiansen et al (2009)
web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/staff/boc/reconstr_reprint.pdf
von Storch (2004)The centennial variability of the NH temperature is underestimated by the regression-based methods applied here [Mann et al], suggesting that past variations may have been at least a factor of two larger than indicated by empirical reconstructions. Frank et al (2005) The ring-width-based reconstruction substantially underestimates temperatures during the most of the overlap period with early instrumental data, with substantially lower values during the late 1700s and maximal divergence during the temperature minima around 1815.
D'Arrigo et al (2007)on divergence. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures.
Datsenko et al (2008) It is found that the Mann et al. reconstruction drastically underestimates low-frequency temperature variations, whereas the Moberg et al. reconstruction reproduces them much better, although with a certain underestimation rather than overestimation, as Mann et al. have recently argued.
Von Storch et al (2009)
The methods are Composite plus Scaling, the inverse regression method of Mann et al. (Nature 392:779â787, 1998) and a direct principal-components regression method. ⦠All three methods underestimate the simulated variations of the Northern Hemisphere temperature, but the Composite plus Scaling method clearly displays a better performance and is robust against the different noise models and network size.
Riedwyl et al (2008)
This paper presents a comparison of principal component (PC) regression and regularized expectation maximization (RegEM) to reconstruct European summer and winter surface air temperature over the past millennium. ⦠For the specific predictor network given in this paper, both techniques underestimate the target temperature variations to an increasing extent as more noise is added to the signal, albeit RegEM less than with PC regression.
Grammar and spelling police are annoying enough when they're right.
They're far worse when they're wrong.
But don't worry, your annoying pedantic crap regarding perfectly legal english isn't nearly as bad as your annoying crap regarding perfectly legitimate climate science.
Another Vernon technique has long been to cut and paste snippets from papers that are either controversial at minimum, or don't support his position (i.e. he outright misunderstands them).
Vernon is best ignored.
It has nothing to do with grammar, dhogaza (the very fact that you believe it is shows how far you are from comprehending the point.)
It is a matter of style, of taste, of a feel for the English language. But let's forget it. I'm sure everyone is getting bored.
Is that ice age here, yet, snowman?
Oh, and BTW:
One is the foundation for the other. I'll let you figure out which is which.
That is a sound way to deal with peer reviewed science that you don't like. Ignore it.
What a pompous ass Snowman is. He said:
So you prefer the term datums rather than data? Or are you sufficiently ignorant of both Latin and English that you think "data" refers to a single piece of information?
Wow, this thread has attracted the three stooges of climate science, Vernon, Snowman and Cracker. No wonder other AGW deniers are refusing to jump in, they are too embarrassed by the rubbish posted by the three stooges.
Actually Ian i have posted very little of late, and i am somewhat embarassed and suprised that you rank my as high as snowman and Vernon, never the less i accept your gracious comments with humility.
To Chris,
In regards to athletic records being broken i do believe the integrity of world athletics has been thrown into disarray as one drug test after another comes back positive (not mention men competing against women, 800 meters) thus casting a shadow over all recent records and in some cases the medals awarded have been handed back. If GISS were awarded medals for thier efforts over the years i suspect most of them will need to be handed back in the near future as their temp results are somewhat tainted in a similar way, and yes feel free to use any of my quotes.
To DW re post #97 and all the little lap dogs dancing around your feet,
ARGO data
If my i only method of measuring SST (XBT) was to drag it behind my ship as i traversed the shipping lanes of the world would i be getting an accurate measurement of the oceans? No of course not that is one reason why ARGO are much better than XBT.
Also note that the ARGO bouys showed a very large temp drop when first used, this large temp drop did not actually exist it was a hangover from the erroneous XBT data, so the old XBT data was adjusted down to reflect the ARGO data. So yes DW (and dancing lap dogs) the XBT data was horrendously inaccurate and had a very small coverage. So only the ARGO can give us accurate ocean temp data, which only goes back to 2003. So far this data shows the oceans are cooling slightly.
GISS data
Giss use only land surface data so how much of the earth is covered by water? Lets not forget the large station drop outs through siberia and other eastern block countries that have not been replaced/repaired, Giss simply exstrapolate (guess) the data at those locations.
Even a hard line alarmist like yourself must surely concede that the best way to measure atmospheric heat is by sat.
Here is a tip DW, dont use wiki links to try to prove your point it only accelerates your crumbling credibility.
"Dapple thinks it is ok to post a data set as the v3 data set, even if they do not used the methodology described in the 2008 paper where the v3 data set originates from" - Vernon.
Vernon thinks he is being smart, but him not too bright. You get that when you source information from denier blogs, and don't bother to investigate their veracity. Or really understand the paper referenced.
Smith and Reynolds were part of the team of scientists who developed ERSST v.3. They found the satellite data cooling bias still remained (note to dopey deniers - cloud temperatures aren't indicative of SST), hence leaving out the satellite data in ERSSTv.3b.
Therefore translation in your mixed up little mind - the scientists are only right if their findings reflect your opinions i.e "there is no warming". If the same scientists methodology shows warming however, then they're wrong. Right, right I see now.
Clearly the scientists believe a match with reality is more important than you do.
Nice bit of obfuscation in your last post though Vernon.
Dappled Water, you are defending the indefensible.
There once was a time when this sort of thing - manipulating data to give the desired result - was considered the gravest type of intellectual dishonesty.
It is a measure of the malign and corrupting influence of the warming cult that you not only shrug it off, but abuse those who point it out.
"manipulating data to give the desired result" - Snowman
Yep, the old "it's a fraud" meme again. Obviously you don't understand that errors need to be corrected. Hope your day job doesn't involve designing anything where lives may be put at risk, if that's your view.
"It is a measure of the malign and corrupting influence of the warming cult that you not only shrug it off, but abuse those who point it out." - Snowman
Right, I accept the findings of the overwhelming majority of working climate scientists, supported by study after study after study, evidenced by accelerating ice loss all over the world, corroborated by four global temp data records, flora and fauna migrating away from the equator, a warming troposphere but cooling stratosphere, polar regions warming faster than lower latitudes, the Arctic warming faster than the Antarctic, night time temperatures increasing faster than day time, winter temperatures increasing faster than summer temperatures, etc, etc ,etc. - but I'm corrupted?. A regular comedian ain't ya?.
To Crakar: member of the 3 dumbegos.
"Also note that the ARGO bouys showed a very large temp drop when first used, this large temp drop did not actually exist it was a hangover from the erroneous XBT data, so the old XBT data was adjusted down to reflect the ARGO data." - Crakar.
Bullshit. This from the NASA link provided earlier on ARGO (emphasis added):
"The Gouretski paper hadnât rung any alarm bells right away, explains Willis, âbecause I knew from the earlier analysis that there was a BIG COOLING SIGNAL IN ARGO ALL BY ITSELF. IT WAS THERE EVEN IF I DIDN'T USE THE XBT DATA. Thatâs part of the reason that we thought it was real in the first place,â explains Willis"
Yes that would be the same Willis whose 2006 paper (with Lyman) the denialists were eager to lap up.
"If my i only method of measuring SST (XBT) was to drag it behind my ship as i traversed the shipping lanes of the world would i be getting an accurate measurement of the oceans? No of course not that is one reason why ARGO are much better than XBT" - Crakar.
Again this from NASA on Willis:
"He was looking at a map of global ocean temperatures measured by a flotilla of autonomous, underwater robots that patrol the worldâs oceans. The devicesâArgo floatsâsink to depths of up to 2,000 meters, drift with the currents, and then bob up to the surface, taking the temperature of the water as they ascend. When they reach the surface, they transmit observations to a satellite. According to the float data on his computer screen, almost the entire Atlantic Ocean had gone cold. Unless you believe The Day After Tomorrow, Willis jokes, impossibly cold."
Hmmmm, I can see why deniers, liked this idea. Not exactly "so much better than XBT" huh Crakar?. Of course, when all issues are resolved, the greater coverage will indeed be an improvement, however this will involve "adjustments" which are an absolute "no- no" to deniers. They won't like it. "Fraud!" they'll scream.
"So only the ARGO can give us accurate ocean temp data, which only goes back to 2003. So far this data shows the oceans are cooling slightly." - Crakar.
In addition to the above, more from NASA (quoting Catia Domingues from CSIRO -:
âIn this analysis, we focused on 1961-2003 because it is the time period highlighted as being an important, unresolved issue in the last IPCC report [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report],â said Domingues, âBUT ALSO BECAUSE THE PROBLEMS WITH THE NEWEST ARGO DATAâTHE PROBLEMS THAT JOSH WILLIS FOUND, AS WELL AS OTHER PROBLEMS WE HAVE IDENTIFIED - HAVEN'T BEEN TOTALLY SOLVED. FOR THE MOST RECENT YEARS [2003-2007], THE SEA LEVEL BUDGET ONCE AGAIN DOES NOT CLOSE. OUR TEAM IS STILL WORKING ON THAT PROBLEMâ
Yup, more "adjustments" on the way I'm afraid. A classic example of how science works to improve knowledge?.... or part on an evil warmist conspiracy?. And, no Crakar this doesn't absolve you of lying about only having a 6 year global ocean temperature record. That's still bullshit.
"GISS data" - Crakar.
Give it a rest. I've been over that a gazillion times with other denialist dirtbags.
"Even a hard line alarmist like yourself must surely concede that the best way to measure atmospheric heat is by sat." - Crakar.
No. The best scientific method would be to use data collected from various sources, to determine actual surface temperatures. The satellite record hasn't exactly been without it's problems, especially UAH.
I always find it laughable that deniers, hate computer modelling, but it's okay in the case of the satellite temp data. MSU satellites don't actually measure surface temperature, it's all "adjustments". I guess deniers don't know that. Regardless, they show long term warming anyway.
"Here is a tip DW, dont use wiki links to try to prove your point it only accelerates your crumbling credibility." - Crakar
Here are even better tips.
- Don't rely on denier blogs for your misinformation.
- Don't bullshit and make stuff up (It's easy to check)
- Read and understand the papers relevant to the topic.
- Don't misrepresent said papers (again - easy to check)
- Source information from reputable scientific organizations
- Don't bullshit and make stuff up (reinforcement here)
Heck, Wikipedia would be a huge step up for you (remember to check sources though, very important)
#98 snowman & #124 crakar.
crakar makes the mistake of attacking the analogy when in fact he strengthens it: "...the integrity of world athletics has been thrown into disarray as one drug test after another comes back positive (not mention men competing against women, 800 meters) thus casting a shadow over all recent records..." and yet Bob Beamon's record stood for all those years - steroids after all are, in effect, just another technique. (And Semenya didn't know she was a man - keep up).
snowman at least has the sense to see the analogy for what it is, in response I invite him to look at the winning Olympic jumps since 1968 - does the fact they are getting progressively shorter mean that no man will jump further than 9 metres?
To Chris,
Her/His own country tested Her/Him before they competed and they knew then that she was a he. You need to keep up Chris. Ultimately it was not the best analogy but it did entertain us for a while.
DW i am honoured to be accepted as a member of the 3 dumbegos. I think i actually heard you hammering away at the keyboard in response all the way over here in Australia.
You might also want to check your caps lock button it looks like it got stuck on there for a bit (that happens when you press too hard sometimes) but other than that another wonderfully well constructed post full of ramblings. Keep up the good work.
While i have your attention, i was wondering apart from busted computer models, dodgy GISS temp records and a king size chip on your shoulder what else can you offer up as evidence?
You poor old souls cannot even claim that AGW is melting the arctic during the summer but somehow not in the winter anymore, as i see the ice extent is all the way back up to 2005 levels looks like the recovery of ice is well under way, which suprises me somewhat as one would think that as CO2 goes up AGW would get worse but obviously not DW.
I also see that many AGW diehard scientists have admitted (through gritted teeth) that the planet will cool for the next 20 years. This will be caused by among other things a quiet sun and the PDO etc but fear not AGW will be back with a vengance sometime in the distant future.
This also comes as a suprise because i seem to recall the IPCC (the worlds leading authority apparently) said that the suns TSI and PDO etc amounted to 4 fifths of 5 eights of fuckall when it came to the climate.
So has the sun and PDO got fuckall (Coby i can swear because dogs arse seems to be able to) to do with climate but yet still able to overwhelm CO2 thus rendering CO2 to a bit part player which fuckall to dowith the climate?
Or has the sun and the PDO been massively underestimated by the IPCC and now has great power to overwhelm the all conquering CO2, of course if this is the case then the sun and the PDO must have played a very big role in the temperature increase of the 20th century.
So which is it DW?
You are absolutely right, Crakar. It really is very entertaining to watch the warmists conceding (through gritted teeth, as you say) that we may be in for two decades of cooling.
It is pretty clear that the AGW theory will not survive a couple of years of cooling, let alone twenty. I rejoice in the fact that we have got the warmists on the run, and that this whole bizarre AGW cult will soon be exposed as the fantasy we have always known it to be.
Quoting Crakar:
"I also see that many AGW diehard scientists have admitted (through gritted teeth) that the planet will cool for the next 20 years."
Catch me up. Who are these people?
Skip
He's lying, which will come as no surprise to you, I'm sure.
There has been *one* paper, thrilling the denialsphere, which claims that their statistical analysis of past cycles suggests that we might see another decade or so of flat-line temps, FOLLOWED BY RAPID WARMING DUE TO CO2 EMISSIONS.
1. it's one paper with questionable methodology
2. the results of the paper included the consensus long-term forcing due to CO2 increases, but postulates a more noisy natural variation on top of the trend, leading to longer-than-expected (by mainstream climate scientists) stretches of time where the underlying signal is hidden by this noise.
Here's an article by one of the paper's authors himself about their results, and misinterpretation being spun by the denialsphere.
dhogaza,
I see that once again the truth eludes you. We have had this discussion and while one author went to the RC advocacy site, Dr Tsonis had this to say:
"If the overall warming is due to anthropogenic sources (and not some unknown very low-frequency feature of our climate system), then a break will indicate that at this point the natural variability signal is stronger than the anthropogenic signal."
So yet another warmest lie disproved.
[edit]
For your perusal
h.t.t.p://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1982899
Here is an excerpt
"Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports, which have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.
Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."
[edit]
Somehow I knew crakar was talking about Latif - I know, it's not exactly a psychic gift, but...
How's about showing us the (complete) quote from Latif in context crakar? It is available through means other than the National Post.
(Note: I know what he said as, I suspect, did Skip. Does crakar?)
You poor old souls cannot even claim that AGW is melting the arctic during the summer but somehow not in the winter anymore, as i see the ice extent is all the way back up to 2005 levels - Crakar.
Still lying I see, Crakar. 2009 was the 3rd lowest Arctic Sea ice extent minima on record.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090917_Figure2.png
2008 lowest sea ice volume on record.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
"looks like the recovery of ice is well under way" - Crakar
Bzzzzt. Wrong again.
From NSIDC: - "While the ice extent this year is higher than the last two years, scientists do not consider this to be a recovery. Despite conditions less favorable to ice loss, the 2009 minimum extent is still 24% below the 1979-2000 average, and 20% below the thirty-year 1979-2008 average minimum. In addition, the Arctic is still dominated by younger, thinner ice, which is more vulnerable to seasonal melt. The long-term decline in summer extent is expected to continue in future years"
Don't you know anything about climate?. Don't need to answer Crakar.
"which suprises me somewhat as one would think that as CO2 goes up AGW would get worse but obviously not DW." - Crakar.
Don't worry Crakar, climate scientists don't have your ignorant expectations. I'm sure you are surprised.
"said that the suns TSI and PDO etc amounted to 4 fifths of 5 eights of fuckall when it came to the climate." - Crakar.
Hey, I'd like to see that study.
Dappled, it takes a special kind of talent to look at that graph and decide that the story is 'third lowest on record'.
Anyone who retains a trace of objectivity could conclude only one thing from it - namely, that the arctic ice is growing.
Crakar:
Are you standing by your statement? If you wish to qualify I want to give you that chance.
Skip
PS Snowman I appreciate your zeal but lets stay on track for the moment. I am genuinely trying learn here.
I understand that, Skip, but Crakar is based in Australia where it is still the middle of the night. You may have a bit of a wait.
You don't need the graph, just read the numbers.
It *was* the third lowest minimum on record, and it's *still* below the 1979-2000 decreasing trend, which means it's *still* accelerating the downward trend.
Two-year increases in minimum extent has happened two other times since 1979, it happens about once per decade. This is why scientists look at *trends* rather than individual years.
Okay, dhogaza, let me just make sure I've got this right. I wouldn't want to make my silly mistake again.
So, the fact that the arctic ice has been GROWING is a sure sign that the DOWNWARD trend is accelerating. Is that it?
Thank goodness we have people like you to keep us straight. Otherwise we might foolishly think that more means - well - more. But now we know that more actually means less.
Jesus Snowman.
That is obviously not what he's saying so why the sneering?
Skip in Reno
Hi skip. I'm not quite sure why you object to my comments. To quote dhogaza exactly, he said:
'It *was* the third lowest minimum on record, and it's *still* below the 1979-2000 decreasing trend, which means it's *STILL ACCELERATING THE DOWNWARD TREND' (My emphasis).
One other thing . . .
Most of us are probably full of shit about most things, but the recurring thing I see when I debate deniers is their failure to address direct questions.
One thing I share with the 3 amigos is a distaste for the conclusions of AGW. I don't *want* to believe it. I'm not a climate scientist (this is why I'm here reading this fray), but I am a researcher (a lowly artsy fartsy social scientist) and I understand the basic rules of intellectual engagement, peer review, and how to handle myself when the other guy makes a decent point: I admit it, modify my position where necessary, and move on.
dhogaza you have been wildly rude on a number of occasions but I know the frustration that drives this. after someone has made the same lame assertion again and again and again and then when caught just slides back into a tired narrative about AGW being "religion" it can become really frustrating.
I also notice the same pattern here as in my debates. the "warmists" respond line by line to every assertion. The deniers just lean back on their narratives and ignore. Again my experience and what I'm seeing here.
Crakar, its not personal. You Ozzies are great blokes and have always been there for us and I'm sure you're a fine mate to drink a Fosters and watch Rugby with. (Notice I'm not using terms like "sheep shagger" or "convict".) But its really clear that you don't carefully contemplate the other side when throwing out your assertions.
I made a deal with couple of denialist buddies: I would read any three books that they claimed debunked AGW fears and they only had to read one--Archer's. We all had to explain in writing how the others books either changed our minds or why they were wrong. My books assignments were *The Deniers* by Solomon (a joke), *Red Hot Lies* by Horner (a paranoid delusional tirade), and *Cool It* Lomborg, which ignores crucial issues and does not even deny the fundamental hypothesis.
I wrote 46 pages explaining why all three of these sources were horseshit. Both my disputants reneged on the deal and refused to read either my essay or the book. Again this is one guy's experience but I see this again and again, and its why I just can't put any stock in the denier case as I understand it.
My two cents,
Skip
Hi again Skip. I don't think I can accept your basic premise that the warmists deal in specifics while the deniers prefer generalities. If you had read, for example, the posts of Richard from New Zealand (sadly missed for the past week or two) I am sure you would take a different view. As for the battle between dhogaza and Crakar, I find it difficult to understand your thesis. It seems to me that Crakar does precisely the opposite: he quotes chapter and verse to show why he disagrees and why he believes his own position is justified.
Be that as it may, and speaking only for myself, I do find that many of the postings of the warmists fall into the unable-to-see-the-woods-for-the-trees category. They remind me of mediaeval debates about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin - seemingly meticulous but actually pointless detail about a fundamentally flawed premise. Accordingly, the responses of the deniers (like me) often are rather broad, because we try to focus the discussion on the things that actually matter.
I suppose I could sum up my own position quite simply: I have read nothing (and I have read a lot) that persuades me that the warming we saw throughout part of the 20th century was outside normal parameters, and see no reason to invoke human activity to explain it. More specifically, I have not encountered an adequate explanation for the fact that we have seen no warming and some cooling since 1998. Explanations such as 'it's only noise' or 'it's weather not climate' would carry more weight if the cooling had been predicted by any of the models of which warmists are so fond.
Well Skip, I don't for a moment expect to convince you, but as you took the trouble to explain your views in some detail I thought I would reciprocate.
Oh, and on the subject of failing to respond to specific questions, you still haven't told me why you think I misrepresented dhogaza in my earlier post.
Well, since the warmest do not seem to want to believe that GISTEMP is constantly rewriting the past.
http://www.changedetection.com/log/gov/nasa/giss/data/glb2_log.html
Just a little something that records when GISTEMP makes changes, which they do a lot every month, or sometimes more often.
Skip, I think your wrong. I basically use PRS (Peer Reviewed Science) for my facts to support my arguments.
Sorry Snow I didn't notice it before but its a great test case of the very thing I'm talking about. It broke down like this.
No. That is not what that means. Your silly caricature of his statement is a classic--classic--example of the how (sorry man but I just see this shit all the time) you guys in my experience will twist the meaning of something to feel you can pounce on an error.
the "it" does not refer to the "fact that the arctic ice has been growing". The "it" refers to the *data* in reference to the overall *trend*. Your sneer was a simultaneous twist of his meaning and a dodge of his point.
"Oh so you're saying more is less!" you gleefully jeered. Which again ignores the importance of what he's saying and substitutes sarcasm for meaningful discussion. Ridicule instead of reason. Derision instead of debate.
But you're no worse a man for being typical in this regard. I am sure if I met most of you wiseacres at a bar we'd get on fine but there just seems to be this mental block with fellas like you when it comes to AGW where you can so completely miss a point and still think you're spot on.
skip
Actually Skip, your just wrong as is dhogaza. The last two years have not "accelerated" the downward trend. I realize that you say your background is in the social sciences but it is a flat out lie to say that increases from a low point are going to accelerate the downward trend.
Further, any attempt to draw a meaningful trend from the Arctic Ice extent on 30 years worth of actual data is basically worthless.
Polyakov et al (2003) The composite temperature record shows that since 1875 the Arctic has warmed by 1.2°C, so that over the entire record the warming trend was 0.094°C decadeâ1, with stronger spring- and wintertime warming. The Arctic temperature trend for the twentieth century (0.05°C decadeâ1) was close to the Northern Hemispheric trend (0.06°C decadeâ1). The oscillatory behavior of Arctic trends results from incomplete sampling of the large-amplitude LFO. For example, the Arctic temperature was higher in the 1930sâ40s than in recent decades, and hence a trend calculated for the period 1920 to the present actually shows cooling. Enhancement of computed trends in recent decades can be partially attributed to the current positive LFO phase.
The Arctic is not the warmest it has been nor is there any evidence that ice extent is doing anything remarkable. Well, other than alarmist making claims with no data to back them up.
I see the fact that history in GISTEMP is constantly being rewritten is one of those facts that are being ignored. S
I am looking at the latest AMSRE data and by the looks of it if the years 2002 to 2008 are all about the same during the height of winter freeze but vary during the height of the summer melt then the winter of 07-08 saw more ice accumulation than the previous year as the 07 freeze was about the same as the previous 5/6 years.
The summer of 08 saw less ice melt during the summer of 07 and the winter of 08 was about the same as the previous 6 years, then once again the summer of 09 saw less ice melt than during the summer of 08.
Even blind man freddy can see from the graph that the ice is recovering from the 2007 low and surely if AGW was to blame the winter freeze since 2002 would be lower as well not just the summer melt? So no you cannot point to this as proof of AGW.
However i will concede the slow reduction in total ice since 1979 may suggest other forces are at play. I would be more than happy to entertain you on this topic but please raise it in the appropriate section
Crakar
Skip,
Post 145 you wrote among other things "One thing I share with the 3 amigos is a distaste for the conclusions of AGW. I don't *want* to believe it"
Not sure what you mean by this, but if i take this at face value then i fail to see what belief has to do with it.
For example you can either accept or reject a theory you do not believe or deny a theory.
Here is an analogy,
I have never seen little green men, i do not know if they exist but i believe in them.
I do not believe in cows, i know they exist for i have seen them.
When i die my beliefs will die with me but cows will live on.
You either accept or reject the AGW theory, do not disappoint me by stooping as low as dhogazza (thats for you Coby).
By the way just to get this back on topic here is a link that describes all the behing the scenes shenanigans that went on in regards to the hockey stick.
h.t.t.p://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/what_hockey_stick.html
Now i know that some here will lambast me for posting this link but i plead to you all, put your preconcieved ideas aside for a moment and read this article. It highlights the extraordinary efforts by the IPCC to maintain the validity of the hockey stick which in the end leads to a farcical situation which exposes the IPCC for what it is.
I will leave you with this
"As Lord Lawson of Blaby has long argued, the IPCC
should now be abolished. It cannot serve any useful purpose in future, because it has dishonestly lent
its support not merely to the falsification of scientific results but to the persistent maintenance of that
falsification. The IPCC is finished."
Happy reading.
By the way Skip no one in Australia drinks Fosters anymore, we used to drink it alot but then they got Greg Norman to do stupid ads in an attempt to sell it to Americans and at the same time the taste of the beer changed and no one liked it anymore.
Also i am originally from Geelong Victoria (now living in Adelaide South Australia). We dont play rugby in the southern states we play Australian rules football a much more skillful and tactical game than simply tucking the ball under ones arm and running flat out into a wall of muscle men.
In fact my team (Geelong) will play in the grand final this weekend against Saint Kilda fingers crossed we win.
Indeed if you ever find your way down here let me know and yes we will have that beer.
Crakar14
Skip I am still not with you and still don't understand why my remarks were a twist of dhogaza's meaning, even though I have read your answer carefully.
Whether the 'it ' in question refers to the longer term data or 'the fact that the arctic ice has been growing' is a hair-splitting irrelevance. Dhogaza still invites us to believe that two years of expanding ice is a sign of an accelerating downward trend - a manifest logical absurdity, no matter what sophistry is employed in justification.
Sorry to be blunt, Skip, but it is time to call a spade a spade.
Ahh, the 3 dumbegos ride again!.
"Dappled, it takes a special kind of talent to look at that graph and decide that the story is 'third lowest on record'. - Snowman.
That you think reading requires a special talent says it all.
"Anyone who retains a trace of objectivity could conclude only one thing from it - namely, that the arctic ice is growing" - Snowman.
(rolls on floor laughing). Snowman, I know what you've done. You been over to Denial Depot haven't you?. You've done gone and rotated the graph. Of course anyone with a trace of brain matter would be able to understand the written word, let alone a graphic.
"I suppose I could sum up my own position quite simply: I have read nothing......." - Snowman
Yep, that about sums it up.
"More specifically, I have not encountered an adequate explanation for the fact that we have seen no warming and some cooling since 1998." - Snowman.
Yet NASA Gistemp, Hadcrut3, RSS and UAH all show climatic warming. (wiki link just for Crakar).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatur…
Snowman is just a bullshitter too.
More analogy (not mine this time): http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-is-peyton-manning-like-global.html
crakar, you may have missed my post #136 any response?
(if it helps, Latif's presentation is available here: http://www.wmo.int/wcc3/sessionsdb/documents/PS3_Latif.ppt
with the audio available here: http://www.wmo.int/wcc3/rec_audios_en.html (Advancing Climate Prediction Science))
Really, Dappled, one despairs. No doubt in Bizarro Land two years of growing ice mean the downward trend is accelerating, but here on planet earth growing means growing.
You remind me of the celebrated company annual report a few years ago that spoke of sales enjoying a negative upward trend.
God, I'd love to spend a night playing poker with this idiot.
Regrettably, you will be denied that pleasure my dear Dhogaza and perhaps - all things considered and bearing in mind the health of your bank balance - it is just as well for you.
Look Snow:
The arctic-ice-might-not-be-melting argument is new to me so I'm just going to watch with interest. All I was saying was that dhogaza's argument was not the silly caricature that you're still trying to foist. You guys do these straw men all the time and I have to take that into account when evaluating your positions.
And Crakar: remember my initial question: Who are these people that are "gritting their teeth" running from AGW?
And Crakar please: I'm already a sad and dis-empowered man in enough ways (my wife won't even let me keep a checkbook.)
Don't deprive me of my hegemonic stereotypes you Fosters-swilling, sheep-shagging, rugby watching criminal.
Jesus . . . its only about my sixth post and I'm already chafing under the strain.
Yeah I'll drink (well, whatever you guys drink down there) and even slur Waltzing Matilda arm in arm at the pub with you but for our purposes here just answer the question. If you want to back off from that sweeping generalization then fine. I've had to do it plenty of times in my life.
Good luck to your Aussi Rulz team. I'd watch if I could but we rarely get coverage of it on this side.
Skip
Snowman and Vernon,
You need to learn some statistics if you're going to argue about the subject. Whether a year accelerates or decelerates the trend is not determined by whether it is above or below the last year but by whether it is above or below the trend. I suppose if you compute the trend over a time period too short to give you a statistically meaningful trend you might be able to claim the trend turned upward in the last two years, however dhogaza is correct to say that they have accelerated the long-term trend, because they have been below trend years. I would add the qualification that they do not represent a statistically significant downward change from the trend -- we'd need a few more below trend years to be able to say that.
You agree that Arctic Ice was dropping from 1979-2007, right? Because over 1979-2009, there were just as many years where ice cover grew from the previous summer as there were that it shrunk, and this is at least the 4th time in that time period when ice cover has grown two years in a row, and this is at least the 6th time that ice cover has been greater than it was either of the two preceding years. This is what we mean by noise. If you're just looking at how things have changed since last year, you're going to be wrong about the direction of long term change half the time, and you will basically never be right about the rate of change. Statistics provides many techniques to keep you from misleading yourself with noise, like least-squares linear trends and statistical significance tests. Learn to do some of them, or learn to trust those who do them over those who compare one year to another. If you're not going to learn more about statistics but still want to evaluate noisy data for yourself, try these tips: 1) If you're going to compare one year to another, make them reasonably far apart and pick years that are typical of their time rather than extreme ones. 2) Before you come to any conclusion, ask yourself, could someone pick one or two years to disappear from the data and make it difficult for me to argue for this conclusion? Alternately, could one easily pick years near the ones I picked and make the same argument but for the opposite conclusion? If so, that's a good sign that your conclusion isn't significant, and that more data is needed to make your case.
I haven't seen anyone run the numbers so can't answer yes or no to this statement. But I suspect you're right.
However, this supposed "recovery" of arctic ice still lies far outside two standard deviations of the 1979-2000 average. As did 2008 and 2007. There's increasing evidence that there's been a step-change, a definite flip into a new mode of freeze/melt where a significantly higher proportion of the arctic ice cap melts and refreezes each year. I'll let those who do statistics for a living figure out when we should conclude this with some level of statistical certainty.
This is where we stand today ...
This is actually very easy to do at the wood for trees site. You can see how looking at 1998-2009 trends vs. 1999-2009 vs. 2000-2009 etc causes the "trend" line to vary from "increasing" to "decreasing". Unfortunately the site doesn't compute error bars for the trends but as I tell people, the fact that moving an endpoint one year when doing a least-squares regression can change the sign of the slope of the resulting trend line is a sure sign that the period being analyzed is far too short.
If you look at a map, you'll see that the maximum winter extent is to a large degree bounded by eurasia and north america.
As long as winters remain cold enough to cause ice to form right up to land's edge along those two immense shores, that portion of the maximum extent will remain constant every year.
Once Hudson's Bay is full of ice, for instance, it's full. The freeze is over. The trend is that total freeze-up there is later every year, but it is still complete.
Same for the northern shores of the arctic sea bordering eurasia and north america.
The maximum extent is trending downwards, too, but more slowly than the minimum. This geographical throttling of much of the winter freeze is one reason why there's focus on the summer minimum.
If we get to the point where the winter freeze-up no longer reaches these areas then the trend will get *really* interesting. I don't expect to be alive then, though, that's quite a long time in the future.
Of course crackar and snowman and vernon won't understand this post, by I enjoyed typing it, anyway.
Thank you for your interesting essay on statistical theory, Eric.
However, while I do not doubt your expertise, it seems to many of us that the current situation is entirely different from the past few decades for the simple reason that the world is cooling.
Accordingly, I believe that it is not revealing to consider the matter in terms of a rather arcane statistical analysis, when we have before us compelling evidence of a cooling planet. If this were not so, then your point about trend lines and noise in the system would be more persuasive.
But in any case, we will know soon enough. Just out of interest, how many years of growing ice would we have to see before you considered it important?
Skip,
didnt take long did it, FYI sheep shaggers are from NZ so save that one for them OK
Answering your question in #158 i thought i already did
From post 134
For your perusal
h.t.t.p://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1982899
Here is an excerpt
"Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports, which have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.
Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."
You suffer from the same problem as your alarmist brethren, you need to read the f*&^%**&en post.
Unless of course you asked another question that i am not aware of then i take it all back.
By the way did anyone (Skip, dogaza, DW) bother to read the Monckton link about the IPCC disregard for science in a blatant fraudulent use of the peer review process? You seem strangely quiet on this, of course i expected nothing less. You gotta keep the faith dont you.
Eric,
With your great statistical expertise, please show how the trend in the Arctic is accelerating. That was dhogaza's claim and since you are so sure he is right, please produce the evidence.
You did happen to read the word in his post "accelerating downward trend"?
Just to make sure, trends for climate have to be 30 years long per international agreements, but 20 years worth of data is enough if it is ice.
Crakar:
Thanks for the link bro, but have you read the previous posts with rigor?
Again, thanks for the link, but . . .
Skip
PS I sincerely hope your boyz win. Aussie rulz is a great game. Have a great time watching.
"Further, any attempt to draw a meaningful trend from the Arctic Ice extent on 30 years worth of actual data is basically worthless." - Vernon.
"Just to make sure, trends for climate have to be 30 years long per international agreements, but 20 years worth of data is enough if it is ice." - Vernon
Dum, de, dum, dum, dum................
"By the way did anyone (Skip, dogaza, DW) bother to read the Monckton link about" - Crakar
Nope.
I had posted this earlier but it seems to have gotten lost in moderation - possibly three links in a post is too much so I'll put one here & follow up with a second bear with me:
@ Crakar you may have missed my post #136? I'll repeat it here for you: How's about showing us the (complete) quote from Latif in context? It is available through means other than the National Post.
And to help you out, here's the audio for the presentation in question ("Advancing Climate Prediction Science"): http://www.wmo.int/wcc3/rec_audios_en.html in the next post I'll link to the powerpoint presentation.
And the powerpoint: http://www.wmo.int/wcc3/sessionsdb/documents/PS3_Latif.ppt
"for the simple reason that the world is cooling."- Snowman.
Nope. Fact beats your fiction:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatur…
"I believe that it is not revealing to consider the matter in terms of a rather arcane statistical analysis, when we have before us compelling evidence of a cooling planet" - Snowman
Nope. Wrong again, plenty of compelling evidence already - for global warming! :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090923143331.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901143321.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910142348.htm
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_globalstats.html
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
Meanwhile: (at Snowman's igloo) - "I'm not listening, I'm not listening"
"for the simple reason that the world is cooling."- Snowman.
Nope. Fact beats your fiction:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatur…
Uh, Vernon, baby, that's exactly what Eric did in his long post above.
Eric's interesting comments on statistical theory still, I'm afraid, leave me a bit puzzled, for two reasons:
Eric seems to suggest (if I understand him correctly) that as long as a year is below the trendline this means the trend is still accelerating. But this is surely incorrect. It is accelerating only if it is moving AWAY from the long term trend line, not merely below it. I freely admit that I am not a statistical expert, but everything I have read on the topic seems to confirm that view.
Secondly, Eric points out that in the past there have been occasions where the trend seemed to reverse for two years, only for normal business to resume. This may be so, but doesn't it overlook that fact that statistics must employ a weighting method? The further in the past the result, the lower the weighting; the more recent the result, the greater the weighting.
If I am wrong on these points, no doubt Eric (not to mention dhogaza) will be quick to correct me. But if I am right, I wonder why they insist that the data show an accelerating trend.
Don't worry, it's obvious ...
Very obvious, actually ...
You may stop wondering, the answer's obvious.
Very witty, dhogaza.
I see you have ignored my main point so I will repeat it. A pattern can be said to be accelerating only if it is moving AWAY FROM the trend line, and is not merely BELLOW IT. For the last two years the pattern has been back towards to the trend line.
So, I repeat: in what sense is this acceleration?
Apologies for the typo on 'below'. Annoying, isn't it, that these things can't be corrected after you have posted?
Keep posting. I'm enjoying your exposing of your ignorance. It's great!
Dhogaza, as you persistently refuse to answer, people reading this will draw their own conclusions.
i can't find the link you guys are arguing about.
where is it again?
sorry,
skip
re: Monckton.
You're right guys, I did not read it.
Before I do, want to establish a couple of ground rules from Crakar and . . . . the other guy.
First, what exactly are you claiming that Lord Monckton has proven---that the IPCC rigged its findings? Or is there more to this? Its an honest request for clarification.
Second, to what extent are you hanging your hat at this guy's door? That is, if it could be shown that Monckton (and I don't really know yet; I only vaguely know who he si) is a dubious resource for formulating one's views on climate change or the politics and processes behind it, then does it suggest anything about your judgments that you're relying on him?
Now this is the part where you can back away if you wish. I'm not trying to trap you fellows, ok? (I for example, don't rely on Al Gore for my views on climate change.)
Skip
It has been explained once already. There's no evidence that two, three, or any number of repeat explanations will have any positive effect on you.
btw:
I found them.
skip
dhogaza,
You can claim that the trend is accelerating but nothing Eric said supports this claim. I expect that since you know that your wrong, you will keep being dismissive rather than actually own up to the fact that you made a claim that is not supported by the evidence.
Actually, that pretty much is your game plan, either ignore facts that are not supporting your world view, or just be abusive and dismissive.
Just like you could not answer the problems found with the statistical techniques used in climate reconstruction, so you poo poo'ed it as if that had been addressed in the past. The same thing you tried to do with the problems with the GCM's but since you could not actually address the peer reviewed science you attacked me.
Not sure why I bother to post here, it is not a science blog, the science is not addressed. Just another advocacy site.
I agree Vernon.
The abuse hurled by the shrillest of the Believers at we filthy Deniers comes thick and fast after any post by a Denier which has a number of points. The most common criticism of believers toward deniers is that the deniers "cherry pick" information to suit their own argument. Since I have been reading this blog, I have honestly been surprised at the "cherry picking" of shrill believers.
I have made numerous posts on here from the point of view, I hope, of a relatively non-scientific "fact hunter/gatherer".
I have read most of the links posted, both for and against.
I have read pro and con blog sites, and (perhaps worst of all to some) I have read "Heaven and Earth" by Prof. Ian Plimer.
I posted a rather detailed "review of a review" that was never responded to point-by-point, in which I tried to illustrate that when one has the actual book in front of them, it becomes clear that the "review" is cherry picking of the highest order. Points are made out of context and sometimes as gross mis-representations of the real text.
Some on this forum (which I highly value, by the way) blindly believe the reviews written by like-minded "believers" but won't read the actual book because they "know it's full of crap". How scientific is that?
I look forward to random cut 'n' paste quotes from my post accompanied by personal attacks.
"You can claim that the trend is accelerating but nothing Eric said supports this claim. I expect that since you know that your wrong, you will keep being dismissive rather than actually own up to the fact that you made a claim that is not supported by the evidence" - Vernon
So you're flummoxed by the simplest of explanations. I'm not surprised.
"Just like you could not answer the problems found with the statistical techniques used in climate reconstruction" - Vernon.
If you can't understand the simple notion above, how do you expect to comprehend the advanced statistics and analysis involved in paleoclimate studies?
Hey Crakar:
I know what you're doing right now because I am doing the same thing. They are actually airing the championship on ESPN Classic--much to my surprise and delight.
Skip
Dhogaza, it is now absolutely clear that you simply lack the ability to understand any of the statistical arguments relating to trend lines - either that or you do not have the integrity to admit you are wrong. Your continued refusal to answer the points made by me and others demonstrates that clearly.
It really is quite pathetic to take refuge in the 'I've answered this before' tactic. You have not answered it. There is no answer.
But let me try one last time: do you not a agree that the pattern of arctic ice loss can be said to be 'accelerating' only if it is moving AWAY FROM the trend line? If it is MOVING BACK TOWARD the trend line (although still below it) it is no longer accelerating.
Crakar:
Congrats on your Cats winning the premiership. Fine game I just finished watching.
Snow:
http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3.png
If I have this straight my guess is this is what dhogaza is being so cryptic about. The reason it technically still is "accelerating" the trend is that even though 08 and for now 09 are not as low as 07, their effect on the trend line will still be to "accelerate" it to a more more negative slope relative to the current overall trend if--and this is the key--you consider the overall trend from 79 on. See the point? If I'm wrong I welcome a rebuttal.
Now, if we're past the point where you're accusing dhogaza of claiming that more ice means less we can have a civil talk about this. The idea is not that the rise in the extent for the past two years *causes* an acceleration in the loss of ice, but that the rate of loss of ice *overall* from 79 on is accelerating *in spite* of these short term increases. Think of it this way: However 07, 08, and 09 relate to *each other*, their statistical impact on the long term trend is to "pull" the trend line more sharply to the lower right. 07 does it more so, to be sure, but 08 and 09 act the same way.
I am only defending dhogaza's statement--not his petulance. And although you and I are on opposite sides of the issue here I must admit could not find anything in his statements that put the matter the way I have (assuming for the moment that I have not missed the mark.)
Now of course the money question is what happens over the next few years. If these summer extents continue to rise than in the long run the overall trend will eventually not be accelerated and in fact zero out and eventually accelerate in the opposite direction. And of course I don't claim to know the future. My belief that we should act to counter AGW is a hedge against risk, not a "religious" commitment to the theory.
skip
Thank you for that, Skip. I am very glad that someone is attempting to imbue this whole issue with some rational discussion (not to mention courtesy).
I do indeed understand the point you are making, and it is interesting. However, these are deep waters. I suspect neither of us is a professional statistician (well, I know I am not) so we should always proceed with caution.
Nevertheless, I think we can attach too much mystique to this whole business of trend lines. A trend line, after all, is nothing more than a straight line that attaches two points. So, the slope of the line will always depend upon the (rather arbitrarily chosen) starting point. Measured from 1979, the current trend is certainly negative. However, if you had drawn such a line in 2007, say, it would be even more negative. That is why some of us are having difficulty in understanding the argument that the recent data accelerate the trend. They continue in negative territory, but that is a different matter.
There is, however, a further issue to consider. The trend line may be arithmetic or logarithmic (or semi-log, to be precise). The former is simply based on absolute values, while the semi-log line depends upon percentage change. Many people consider the latter to be more reliable. There is also the issue of weighting. Historical data (such as those from 1979) are given less weight than those from the current year or recent past.
What I would like is for someone who is genuinely a professional in statistics (I exclude good old Dhogaza from that category) to come along and put us all out of our misery. I daresay many of the contributors to this forum are getting a little bored with the debate.
To all of the above I should repeat the caveat that I have no professional background in this field. If I am talking absolute tosh (and dhogz, please don't leap in here) I would be glad to be shown the error of my ways.
Thank you Skip, and thank you Snowman.
This is exactly the type of scientific debate I've been looking for. It's intellectual, polite and reasoned.
I fully expect dhogaza, or Ian, to reply with a cherry-picked quotation, followed by a personal insult, and not a reasoned response like the last two posts.
Two sides of an issue should be able to disagree about something without resorting to insults and bullying.
Cheers boys!
Michael
"Now of course the money question is what happens over the next few years. If these summer extents continue to rise than in the long run the overall trend will eventually not be accelerated and in fact zero out and eventually accelerate in the opposite direction." - Skip.
Very unlikely given that this is not some abstract, but rather the Arctic ice responding to climate and weather influences. In addition to the long term warming in the Arctic, 2007 saw exceptional weather conditions conducive to ice melt (a high atmospheric pressure system situated over the Arctic and a large number of days with clear skies). Both climatic warming and unusual weather caused the 2007 record sea ice extent minima. Without this "perfect storm" 2008 and 2009 still managed to be 2nd and 3rd lowest extent on record. 2008 with the record low volume of sea ice.
The Arctic sea ice is now much thinner and therefore vulnerable to melt, having halved in thickness since 1980. With the moderate El Nino now taking shape, the global temperatures are likely to be warmer, and quite likely the Arctic too. It will take anomalous cooling for the sea ice to gain significant mass. Difficult to imagine given the scenario outlined. In fact, it is possible that the 2007 record may be broken next year, without unusual weather patterns. It will be interesting to see how it pans out, but overall the implications of Arctic Ice loss are bad,bad,bad.
The 3 dumbegos are simply applying the same denial techniques to Arctic Ice loss, that deniers use in the global temperature record (apart from the "it's a fraud" meme) i.e. if each year does not show monotonic warming, then that's evidence that there is no warming - natural variation be buggered..
UNEP has a report out if you're interested:
http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/
Dappled Water, I think your characterization of the discussion is unfair. We are not saying 'natural variation be buggered'. We were talking about the rather more technical issue of whether or not the recent data represents an ACCELERATON of ice loss (or not).
DW, I kick myself when I allow myself to be drawn into a mud-slinging and name-calling contest. It is so pointless, and rather depressing, too, for all parties.
Still, you don't always make it easy to stay calm and collected.
Have a good day.
Oh Dappled Water! You almost made it.
I read your post thinking "I've gotta read more about that", until I got to "dumbegos".
(If I could be included, could I be steve martin's character? I love how he turned his head and coughed.)
Why did you feel the need to finish with an insult?
All of a sudden, your points hold no water.
Skip also see:
http://assets.wwf.org.nz/downloads/wwf_arctic_feedbacks_report.pdf
I vote to move this discussion to "the climate is always changing".
This coming from someone who made this absolutely hilarious statement:
I'm still laughing over that one.
Anyway, if you actually have an interest in learning, here's a piece on linear regression:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
Quit telling people they're ignorant about statistics until you've learned enough to quit making stupid howl-worthing thigh-slappers like the statement I've quoted above.
This is one of the *most* hilariously stupid things ever seen on the intertubes.
Really, snowman, you're one of the blokes who's disproving the work of thousands of scientists and statisticians?
Next we'll hear that E=m^2/c and Einstein was an idiot and Hiroshima and Nagasaki a hoax filmed in a Hollywood studio!
Oh, I see how that hilarious misunderstanding on your part leads to your claim that recent data doesn't represent an acceleration of the long-term trend.
If trends were computed as you claim they are, you'd be right.
However, that's not how one computes a trend. Go read the linear regression article at Wikipedia for an explanation of the most basic way to compute a trend in statistics.
Non-linear systems are more complex. Never does one just connect two points in a dataset and call it a "trend".
I'm not a professional statistician, but my undergraduate degree is in mathematics and I understand the basics of probability theory and statistics quite well, thank you very much.
I vote for a new thread entitled "The Three Dumbegos".
If I am talking absolute tosh (and dhogz, please don't leap in here) I would be glad to be shown the error of my ways.
Snowman, after this comment "A trend line, after all, is nothing more than a straight line that attaches two points" you really need to read up on some basic statistics (I'm afraid that linear trends are, really, basic stats - you don't need a pro to tell you that).
Try here for a simple demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocGEhiLwDVc
Thanks for all your comments, guys (even yours, dhogz). I have to say, to be perfectly frank, that it is pretty easy to make scoffing remarks and throw in a bit of jargon such as linear regression to make it sound as if you have some idea of what you are talking about.
I haven't seen anyone demonstrate any real, rigorous academic understanding of the topic.
But we've probably had enough about this and I am sure we are all tired of it. Let's move on.
Linear regression is a subject taught in a first-term statistics course. See, for example, MIT's Applied Statistics for management majors curriculum. If a basic tool in first-year statistics is unfamiliar jargon, please, read a book.
Thank you for your observation, Blake, but I am afraid I can't have made myself very clear. I am not disputing the value of linear regression in statistical analysis. My point was that I saw nothing in the comments of the others to indicate that they had any serious understanding of the topic.
So after parading your ignorance about the subject for post after post, and after folks kindly point you to resources which will introduce you this most basic tool of statistics, your response?
"I'm not going bother learning. I'm going to continue to spew ignorance. And, oh, BTW, I don't think any of you guys know what linear regression is".
Not only are you *willfully* (and presumably proudly) ignorant, you're an asshole.
Is this what you did in math class in school? After flunking a test, tell the math teacher "I haven't seen any evidence that you know anything about math, so there!" ?
If you think your little game is leaving people with anything other than an impression of astonishing ignorance, you're sadly mistaken.
Dhogaza - I will say this once, and once only. Why do you have to be such an utter, incorrigible, absolute prick? There are some people who would have to work at being such a jerk. You, on the other hand, seem to have a natural talent for it.
Calling me names won't hide your absolute ignorance of science or statistics from anyone reading this thread who has even a first year university student's knowledge of either subject.
Nor will this ignorance of yours, so ably demonstrated by you in this thread, lead to the overturn the work of a very large number of extremely competent climate scientists and statisticians.
Sorry 'bout that.
And, for the record, snowman, I treat lying sacks of shit like you with more respect than you deserve.
Snowman,
Skip is basically right about what I was saying, and yeah, read the wikipedia page and try the computation for yourself in a spreadsheet if you don't belive me. But first, look at the chart skip linked to. Notice that the trendline doesn't come anywhere near 2007 (or 2008 or 2009). This is because if it did, it would fit the rest of the data poorly. A trend computed for 1979-2007 won't be much steeper than one computed for 1979-2006 even though there was an enormous drop from 2006 to 2007. This is a good thing -- you don't want to read too much into a single year, it could be just a fluke. But two more years with very low ice extents, even if the minimum is a little higher, they make 2007 look like less of a fluke. Each year added moves the trend line a little closer to that year, so a below trend year moves the trend down. If this seems impossible to you, remember the trendline never ran through 2007 in the first place.
Whether the year is closer or further from the trend line as compared to the previous year is a bad test, and it's not hard to see why. Like I said, half of the years from 1979-2009 the ice grew. There is no reason to believe accelerating a little would change that -- yet by your test half of the years would disprove that acceleration.
Dhogaza, I have not actually attempted to calculate the statistical significance of the acceleration, but I would note that the number of standard deviations below the mean isn't really relevant for this claim; the number you are looking for is the standard deviations below the trend.
Skip,
I suggest before you call everyone names in the future that you actually run the numbers. The only problem with dhogaza's claim that the trend is accelerating is the data. If you run the numbers the least squares trend has not increased in a statistically significant amount from 2008 to 2009. To be honest, the trend appears to have decreased from 2008 to 2009 but still, the difference is not statistically significant. That clearly indicates that the trend is not "accelerating."
If you do not want to run the numbers yourself, you can usw:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1979/to:2008/trend…
Oh, I don't disagree at all, but the fact that 2009 is at least two, and I suspect three, standard deviations below the mean means that any argument of "recovery" is total bullshit.
And that's the argument du jour in the denialsphere. "Arctic ice has 'recovered' and the trend has been 'reversed'".
I said, much earlier:
Vernon ripostes with this sharp bit of data:
Unlike Vernon, I know that 2000 is not 2008, nor even 2009.
Artic ice experts have been arguing that essentially starting a few years back, we have a in essence a new freeze/melt regime in place, which is leading to ice melting much more quickly than the 1979-2000 linear trend.
You can't refute such claims by saying "oh but 1979-2008 is different than 1979-2009!"
That's known as a strawman, the favorite tool of denialists.
So here is 1979-2000 vs. 1979-2009.
As you can see, the trend is steeper 1979-2009 than 1979-2000, using Vernon's favorite tool, with the proper comparison given my original post. The trend has, indeed, been accelerating.
dhogaza,
nice misdirection. I have never claimed that the Arctic ice has recovered. I disagreed with your unfounded accelerating trend statement. I also noticed that you ignored that you were proven wrong, but that is fairly standard.
I would like to point out that the loss of Arctic sea ice has little or nothing to do with warming.I will say that if the Arctic Dipole weather pattern does not go into +DA state, then the ice extent next year will be greater than this year.
Smedsurd et al (2008)
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Data%20sources/Smedsrud08%20ice…
Oceanic heat advection contributes to the ongoing reduction of the Arctic ice cover, but the increased ice-area export contributes more. Recent ocean profiles indicates no intensification in upward mixing of heat from the Atlantic layer (Figure 3). Advection of atmospheric heat has also decreased slightly during the last 20 years, and thus cannot account for the present ongoing dramatic changes (Figure 1a).
Wang et al (2009)
research.iarc.uaf.edu/~ejnabe/archive/GRL09.pdf
In terms of sea ice advection, the +DA-associated wind anomalies are the major driver to the record lows in Arctic summer sea-ice extent under the current thin ice preconditioning that has been present for the last several
decades, particularly during the early 1990s. In particular,
when the +DA pattern persists from winter-spring to summer,
the combined winter-spring mean and summer DA indices
can be used to project a record low in the Arctic September
sea ice extent (four out of six, including 2008). Nevertheless, the DA in the winter-spring alone cannot project more ice in the western Arctic, because the summer +DA can drastically advect more ice out of the Arctic, such as in 1999 and 2005, leading to the record lows.
Which all goes to say that it is wind that is causing the loss of Arctic sea ice by pushing it out into the North Atlantic to melt.
dhogaza,
you do like to play fast and loose with the truth. You said
I said the trend is not accelerating and proved it. There is statistically significant change in the least squares trend when comparing 1979-2008 and 1979-2009. Your comparing the 1979-2000 to 1979-2009 to show acceleration is what is known as lying. You make a claim about the current trend, find out that your wrong, so now you try and back-pedal and to make an absurd rather than simply admitting you did not check to see if your talking points were actually true.
I hate you cannot change typos, last paragraph should say:
I said the trend is not accelerating and proved it. There is no statistically significant change in the least squares trend when comparing 1979-2008 and 1979-2009. Your comparing the 1979-2000 to 1979-2009 to show acceleration is what is known as lying. You make a claim about the current trend, find out that your wrong, so now you try and back-pedal and to make an absurd rather than simply admitting you did not check to see if your talking points were actually true.
Some other quotes from Vernon's link in #215:
Smedsurd et al (2008)
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Data%20sources/Smedsrud08%20ice…
"The ongoing increase of greenhouse gases points to a realisation of radiative forcing comparable to a 2*CO2 scenario in 2050. Should the Fram Strait ice export and oceanic advection remain as high as in the âPresentâ simulation until 2050, the Arctic ice cover will be further reduced. The âSeasonalâ scenario includes the âPresentâ
forcing with the increased optical thickness caused by the 2*CO2 forcing. This removes almost all remaining ice in 10 years. Figure 2a show that there is 95% open water, and none of the 12 remaining thickness classes holds more than 0.3% of the area...As the globe slowly warms, the Arctic ice cover will slowly diminish too, but there are limits as to how fast this can take place."
Wang et al (2009)
research.iarc.uaf.edu/~ejnabe/archive/GRL09.pdf
"Did the DA alone drive the 2007 summer ice minimum? Certainly not. In the winter of 2006/07, there was a ââpreconditioningââ of thin ice in the western Arctic [Comiso et al., 2008]. The anomalously thin ice at the end of the winter is at least partly associated with a multidecadal downward trend in ice thickness (more than 1-m decrease from the 1950s to 1990s) [Yu et al., 2004; Rothrock and
Zhang, 2005; Nghiem et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2008] due to accumulated ocean heat storage by the increasing trend in the Arctic air temperature [Thompson and Wallace, 1998]"
Both extracts from papers Vernon uses to support his (or her) claim "that the loss of Arctic sea ice has little or nothing to do with warming." Hmmm...
Some other quotes from Vernon's link in #215:
Smedsurd et al (2008)
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Data%20sources/Smedsrud08%20ice…
"The ongoing increase of greenhouse gases points to a realisation of radiative forcing comparable to a 2*CO2 scenario in 2050. Should the Fram Strait ice export and oceanic advection remain as high as in the âPresentâ simulation until 2050, the Arctic ice cover will be further reduced. The âSeasonalâ scenario includes the âPresentâ
forcing with the increased optical thickness caused by the 2*CO2 forcing. This removes almost all remaining ice in 10 years. Figure 2a show that there is 95% open water, and none of the 12 remaining thickness classes holds more than 0.3% of the area...As the globe slowly warms, the Arctic ice cover will slowly diminish too, but there are limits as to how fast this can take place."
Wang et al (2009)
research.iarc.uaf.edu/~ejnabe/archive/GRL09.pdf
"Did the DA alone drive the 2007 summer ice minimum? Certainly not. In the winter of 2006/07, there was a ââpreconditioningââ of thin ice in the western Arctic [Comiso et al., 2008]. The anomalously thin ice at the end of the winter is at least partly associated with a multidecadal downward trend in ice thickness (more than 1-m decrease from the 1950s to 1990s) [Yu et al., 2004; Rothrock and
Zhang, 2005; Nghiem et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2008] due to accumulated ocean heat storage by the increasing trend in the Arctic air temperature [Thompson and Wallace, 1998]"
Both extracts from papers Vernon uses to support his (or her) claim "that the loss of Arctic sea ice has little or nothing to do with warming." Hmmm...
"I would like to point out that the loss of Arctic sea ice has little or nothing to do with warming" - Vernon.
"Which all goes to say that it is wind that is causing the loss of Arctic sea ice by pushing it out into the North Atlantic to melt." - Vernon.
Yep, that's right Vernon, it just keeps getting windier and windier in the Arctic, much windier than several decades ago. The warming arctic air and especially ocean has nothing to do with ice loss. How Arctic ice would actually thin due to this mechanism alone sure is a mystery. You sure have a lot of idiotic ideas. I see what Dhogaza means.
Some studies regarding the record 2007 ice loss and AGW as it affects Arctic Ice:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/MitchTaylor08-d/Stroeveetal08-ArcticI…
"recent loss in the central Arctic is due to old ice failing to survive westward transport north of the Alaskan and eastern Siberian coasts (e.g., through the Beaufort Gyre).
While this thinning set the stage for pronounced summer ice loss (2007), its effects were
compounded by a favorable pattern of atmospheric circulation. An anticyclonic
pattern over the central Arctic Ocean that formed in early June persisted for 3 months
and was coupled with low pressures over central and western Siberia. Satellite data
reveal that skies under the anticyclone were predominantly clear, fostering strong melt."
" Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) over the Chukchi and East Siberian seas have increased since the year 2000. During the summer of 2007, SSTs over parts of these seas reached more than 3.5ºC. Increased SSTs and attendant upper ocean warming are consistent with loss of sea ice, allowing for enhancing absorption of solar energy at the ocean surface [Steele et al., 2008]. Increased ocean warmth appears to be inhibiting autumn ice growth."
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/com/Logan/teaching/html/HPR319_fall_2007/pdf/…
_EOS2005.pdf
" At the present rate of change, a summer ice-free Arctic Ocean within a century is a real possibility, a state not witnessed for at least a million years. The change appears to be
driven largely by feedback-enhanced global climate warming, and there seem to be few, if
any, processes or feedbacks within the Arctic system that are capable of altering the trajec
tory toward this âsuper interglacialâ state."
" There is no paleoclimatic evidence for a seasonally ice free Arctic during the last 800 millennia"
" The changes appear to be driven by both natural variability and anthropogenic forcing. Present-day concentrations of greenhouse gases [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001] are well outside the interglacial bounds, and are continuing to rise. Physics dictate that the Arctic, and the globe as a whole, must ultimately respond to these increases in trace gases."
http://www.smithpa.demon.co.uk/GRL%20Arctic%20Ice.pdf -
"Although it is tempting to attribute these statistically significant (99% level) trends to GHG loading, the observed sea ice record has strong imprints of natural variability."
"To summarize, there is qualitative agreement between observations and models regarding an overall decline in September ice extent. This points to an imprint of GHG loading [Zhang and Walsh, 2006]. Since both observed and modeled September trends have become larger in more recent years, it appears that GHG imprints are growing. Simulations run with pre-industrial GHG concentrations do not produce the magnitude of September
trends just discussed."
In other words Vernon is bullshitting again. The atmospheric weather patterns Vernon points out unsurprisingly lead to greater ice loss, but they do not mean that increased warming has no effect. That is simply ridiculous.
Vernon's famous in a very small way for misunderstanding papers, linking to them, and then scoring own goals of this sort.
It's a bit odd. Watts does it too, much more publicly.
Uh, I compared to the 1979-2000 trend from my very first post, dude. I've been 100% consistent:
Also, the sea ice index is a monthly index. NSIDC hasn't computed the September index yet (obviously) so wood for trees must be using the August number. Your wood for trees plot isn't against the annual september minimum.
Note that I'm talking about the SUMMER MINIMUM, not the AUGUST AVERAGE EXTENT which you so kindly, yet misguidedly, plotted using wood for trees. Plotting against something I didn't say in order to "disprove" what I said is known as knocking down a strawman ...
We'll wait for the final NSIDC analysis to see if the trend's accelerated further from the 1979-2000 trend, or if it's "only" maintained the accelerated trend of the mid-2000s on, which if it continues, will lead to the arctic being ice-free in summer in a couple of decades. Which, apparently in your mind, is a "recovery". In snowman's mind, "evidence of a new ice age".
Chris,
Wang et al (2009)
research.iarc.uaf.edu/~ejnabe/archive/GRL09.pdf
You sort of left off the rest of sentence:
The anomalously thin ice at the end of the winter is at least partly associated with a multidecadal downward trend in ice thickness (more than 1-m decrease from the 1950s to 1990s) [Yu et al., 2004; Rothrock and Zhang, 2005; Nghiem et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2008] due to accumulated ocean heat storage by the increasing trend in the Arctic air temperature [Thompson and Wallace, 1998] and the so-called ice/ocean-albedo feedback process during the strong positive AO period in the 1990s [Ikeda et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2005].
I guess you did not want the association of warming to the Arctic Oscillation getting in the way of the point your trying to make?
Additionally, that paper went on to say that winds also moved warm waters from the Pacific into the Arctic.
Got to love the way you quote a few lines on of paragraph 26 and then tack on a line out of paragraph 29 to change what the authors actually said.
The paragraph 26 actually ended with:
An increased ice export makes the transfer quicker, but it is the advection of 40 TWof oceanic heat that removes the Arctic summer ice completely.
When the paper says that the advection is currently 5.5 TW and that is due to the AO and AD wind patterns and not CO2. The rest of the paragraph you pulled the last line of you quote from actually says:
As the globe slowly warms, the Arctic ice cover will slowly diminish too, but there are limits as to how fast this can take place. This depends on Arctic cloud cover as much as it does on greenhouse gas forcing. The increased Fram Strait ice export reported here forecasts a reduced ice cover also in 2008, but if the present high export is not maintained it is likely that we will see a partly recovery in the next few years. The low June 2008 export (Figure 1c) may have a significant effect on the September 2008 minimum.
The paper's not associating the long-term warming *trend* of Arctic air with a positive AO.
The two serve to reinforce each other. The warming *trend* of Arctic air is the AGW side of it. AO, cloud cover, etc are being in invoked as natural variability that may increase or decrease melt in any given year around the steady trend of diminishing ice due to AGW.
As to their suggestion that there *might* be a recovery in extent in the next few years ... we'll have to see.
And of course after this paper you cite we have a NASA paper saying that ice volume has been diminishing right through 2008 (even though 2008 showed a higher extent than 2007).
If you imagine anything your reading suggests that AGW is not real or is not the primary driver behind the steadily diminishing 30 year trend in ice extent and the even greater diminishing trend in volume, you're dreaming.
Regarding the association of the AO and record-setting melts:
And of course the last sentence makes clear they're trying to explain *variability*, not *trend*, the driver behind the long-term trend being global warming, of course.
This paper Vernon's citing is the one that points out that highs in the western arctic coupled with lows in the east lead to winds pushing artic ice out into the warmer atlantic.
Nothing at all controversial and nothing at all cited by the artic ice science community as refuting the AGW influence on the long-term trend.
We had the warm weather in the western arctic (high pressure systems and sunshine) this year, as in 2007, but without the dipole pattern which the paper Vernon cites is describing:
If that dipole pattern had set up, we would've very likely been right down to the 2007 minimum. We're still having warmer than normal weather here in the PNW and north, and while the minimum has been reached for 2009, the onset of rapid refreeze is considerably later than the average from 1979-2000, and last year, and appears to be as late if not later than 2007. (we don't know yet because the rapid refreeze hasn't started yet.)
And the conclusions of that paper are interesting, and probably not what Vernon wants to believe:
In other words, the steadily diminishing volume in the arctic ice cap leads to thinner ice which is more easily shoved around by the wind than the thicker, more rigid, more massive ice in decades past.
If you read the paper closely, in which they talk about minimum extent records set in various years, it becomes clear they're looking for the mechanism that causes these BELOW TREND events. They're not suggesting that wind patterns are the cause of the TREND.
"I guess you did not want the association of warming to the Arctic Oscillation getting in the way of the point your trying to make?"
In Vernon's rush to condemn me for selectively quoting the paper he misses the fact that the point I was trying to make was about selectively quoting papers. (To repeat: Both [are] extracts from papers Vernon uses to support his (or her) claim "that the loss of Arctic sea ice has little or nothing to do with warming.")
Oh, the irony. :)
Speaking of irony...
Snowman: "If I am talking absolute tosh I would be glad to be shown the error of my ways."
Posts 202 & 204 don't seem very glad to me, quite the opposite in many ways.
"But we've probably had enough about this and I am sure we are all tired of it. Let's move on."
Is this an admission that snowman is mistaken in what he says above? I'm not sure.
" I would like to point out that the loss of Arctic sea ice has little or nothing to do with warming" - Vernon
"Which all goes to say that it is wind that is causing the loss of Arctic sea ice by pushing it out into the North Atlantic to melt." - Vernon.
That's right Vernon, it keeps getting windier and windier in the Arctic over time. 2007 man that was a windy year. The warming arctic air and especially ocean has nothing at all to do with it. I do wonder how the sea ice thins though through this mechanism alone. Real mystery that one.
Of course Vernon, as pointed out above, totally misconstrues the papers he references. Warming air and ocean temperatures are causing the sea ice to thin and fracture. The papers explain how this process is accelerated over summer, specifically high ice loss years, by certain weather patterns.
Vernon, you dufus.
dhogaza,
So your conceding that the current trend is not accelerating. Big of you to finally step-up.
Chris,
While it is easy to insult you for missing the point, I am not going to do that. The point I am making and which is supported by these papers is that there is no indication from the data we have collected that anything out of the ordinary is happening in the Arctic. 30 years of satellite data, all of which was collected during a period where the PDO and AMO have been in a positive state does not tell us much. The point that these papers make along with the rest that I have posted is that there is no indication of warming being greater in the Arctic than in the rest of the world. what warming that is taking place due to the the Arctic Oscillation and Arctic Dipole.
If you can produce any studies that show that the AO and AD have changed due to CO2 warming, please provide them. If you cannot provide them, then what is the basis for you conclusion that current Arctic conditions are due to "CO2 Global warming?"
No, I didn't say that. Read more closely. We haven't seen a trend computed using the september minimum yet. Your dodge to using average august extent was either dishonest or ignorant. Considering the source, I suspect both, working in tandem.
Bullshit. That's not what the papers say.
The paper doesn't claim the AMO has been in a positive state since 1979, in fact the paper points out that the 2007 minimum was reached despite the AMO being in a NEGATIVE state.
Direct quote from the paper:
So three of the historical record lows occurred when the AMO was in a negative state, two in a positive state.
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PAPER. In the current regime, with thin ice, a particular (but not uncommom, as it happened in 5 of 13 years) wind pattern is able to blow this weaker ice out into the atlantic, where it melts.
And the paper's quite clear that they're discussing this in the context of an AGW-induced downward trend in sea ice (which is what's responsible for ice having thinned).
So, again, I suspect ignorance and dishonesty, in tandem, are at work here.
Vernon, maybe you should just give up reading documents with big words in them.
Here's what Eiji Watanabe, one of the authors on the paper Vernon loves so much, has to say:
Either Watanabe misunderstands the results of his own paper, or Vernon misunderstands.
You make the call ...
dhogaza,
First, AO and AMO are not the same thing.
Second, if you had bothered to follow the link you would know that that I used the entire NSIDC NH Sea Ice index. NSIDC data shows that to date, there is no acceleration in the trend between 2008 and 2009.
1. The index is a *monthly average*, therefore by definition it doesn't include the september minimum (it's only sept 27th).
2. My claim about trend was based on *minimum*, not the monthly index (sept or not).
Therefore your choice of data is not relevant to my claim.
Sorry I misunderstood your AMO reference. However, the paper still doesn't claim what you claim it claims. I gave you a direct quote from one of the authors.
Vernon, you've been playing this game for years. Claiming that a paper shows the opposite of what the researchers who've written the paper claim it shows.
It fools no one.
You remind me of those creationists who cite a paper saying "this skewers evolution!" even though the paper's explaining some detail of evolutionary biology.
Of course, the claim that the AMO index has been positive 1979-2009 is false, also.
Hello Skip,
Sorry for the delay as i was busy watching the mighty cats win the grand final. Its hard enough for me type sober let alone drunk. We have one 2 out of the last 3 grand finals (we should of one last year). Saint Kilda will be hard to beat next year.
In post 181 you asked with the admission of not actually reading the link
"First, what exactly are you claiming that Lord Monckton has proven---that the IPCC rigged its findings? Or is there more to this? Its an honest request for clarification."
The point of my post was to get the people (all people here) to read it and make their own conclusions, so i suggest you read what he has to say. Then if you like we can discuss that in more detail.
and
"Second, to what extent are you hanging your hat at this guy's door? That is, if it could be shown that Monckton (and I don't really know yet; I only vaguely know who he si) is a dubious resource for formulating one's views on climate change or the politics and processes behind it, then does it suggest anything about your judgments that you're relying on him?"
Monckton actively rejects the notion of AGW, this can be seen in the many papers he has written and his speeches made in the US congress etc.
The article takes you through the peer review process of the hockey stick and the subsequent supporting papers by the IPCC in chronological order of events. These events actually took place, therefore whether Monckton wrote this article or not these events still took place.
As i said you need to read the article before you start posing hypothetical questions dont you? It comes as no suprise that DW would not have read it, i dont blame him or people of his ilk, the science is in and nothing anyone says will change it. Not even when the IPCC acts with such scientific inpropriety.
Monckton has not written a single, peer-reviewed, scientific paper.
He's a joke.
I'm tempted to say he's even dumber than Crakar, but obviously he's fooled Craker, so that's not fair to either Crakar or Monckton.
I invited the people on this site to read the article Monckton wrote and reply with their opinions, if you have read the article and disagree then simple highlight which passages you find incorrect and we can discuss them. It would appear that we would rather discuss other issues in the hockey stick folder as opposed to the hockey stick.
In an effort to assertain just how stupid you are dogazza, let me try and understand post 240.
We have 3 people, one is called Monckton who you suspect is dumber than Crakar however it is obvious that Craker is dumber than Monckton (which makes Crakar the smartest of the 3?), but to say this is not fair on Crakar or Monckton?
Sorry you lost me with this last statement.
dhogaza:
You're a keen mind to be sure and I do learn from reading your posts but Jesus, man--any way we can take the edge off? With friends like these . . .
Crakar:
Again, happy for you about your Cats, mate. I wish I rooted for a pro team so successful (it sucks being from Seattle and being saddled to the Seahawks and Mariners . . .ugh). I must be honest and say the Geelong boys were certainly the uglier of the two teams, and if you'll forgive me their black and white unis made them look suspiciously like jailbirds . . . but enough of my hegemonic stereotyping.
Re: Monckton: I lied a little and confess I already did have some suspicions about his credibili-tah. But I have to admit it seems like a bait-and-switch. You and (Snow I think; if I'm wrong I apologize) were pushing this guy's claims like we all ought to be impressed but I don't want to be sent on a goose chase again where a denier says, "Oh, hey: check out what this guy says." I check it dutifully and respond, "Look, pal: Its bullshit for thus and so reasons . . . why you fucking with me and wasting my time?" The response has been, "Oh, hey. I wasn't saying this guy was right. I just wanted you to read it."
I'm not saying this is you Crakar but I've stung in the past so now I'm sensitive to the problem. Like I said, if you want to back away from Monckton now is the time. I won't think less of you for it. You're a shrewd bloke and I give you that.
Skip
Well good morning, Crakar!
I see that as I post before going to bed you're busy taking on all us warmists at the same time. (Time zones . . . what a thing.)
I have nothing to say at this late hour about AGW but let me ask you this: Why don't you Southern Hemisphere barbarians have instant replay? Geelong got a late second quarter goal that, based on my understanding of the rules, should not have counted because it grazed the goal post.You're team's victory is not tainted, is it?
Skip
Formalities first.
Geelongs jumper is dark blue not black with white stripes, maybe it is because we use PAL and you use NTSC (never the same color twice). Yes the ball did graze the post which means it should have been a point. If you do the math Geelong should have won by 7 points not 12 so the win was not tainted as such.
So you are a seahawks fan are you? I remember watching US football with Don Lane (do you know him?) was a big tall american over here, he became a very popular TV personality we kind of accepted him as one of our own, anyway i digress he used to do a US footy show in the wee hours. Being an avid sporting teenager i used to watch. I saw team play once and thought that will be the team i will support, so how are we looking this year Skip?
I remember watching them play a few years ago in the SB and man did we get shafted by the umpires cost us the game.
Back to the thrust and parry, i have two no three questions for you Skip 1, did you read the article by Monckton (Yes/No) 2,what areas (if any) did you disagree with? and 3, Do we have a chance of winning the super bowl this year?
In response to this
I'm not saying this is you Crakar but I've stung in the past so now I'm sensitive to the problem. Like I said, if you want to back away from Monckton now is the time. I won't think less of you for it. You're a shrewd bloke and I give you that.
Skip
I think we need to be able to differentiate between personal opinion and fact,
for example if it was my opinion that the seahawks are going to win the super bowl this year then you may think i have absolutely no idea what i am talking about ( but i can always live in hope), however if i said the seahawks did win the SB....... ummm bad example, if Geelong win the Grand Final then i am stating a fact.
Same as Monckton, he may write articles based on his opinion, and based on his opinion you can either accept what he says or not for that is your right.
On the other hand if he writes an article based on fact then it matters not what you think of the man, only the facts that he writes about.
So in reading the article which is a factual representation of what happened you can only question/debate the actions of the IPCC not wether Monckton is within his rights to print the facts.
The article highlights among other things the IPCC accepting a peer reviewed paper in order to be able to preserve the Hockey stick on the 07 report. Unfortunately for the IPCC in their urgent need to silence and discredit McIntyre they stubbed both their big toes and the blood trail of scientific fraud and minipulation was left for all to see.
"The beauty of this approach was that it allowed for retention of the original acceptance date for the
Climatic Change paper, and hence its inclusion in the IPCC process. It did leave Wahl, Ammann, and
the IPCC with the embarrassing problem that a paper that had allegedly been accepted in March 2006
relied upon another paper that even the journal itself said had only been received in August 2006, and,
in reality, was even later than that. Readers should note that this matters because unless the paper
had been accepted by the journal by the deadline for inclusion in the IPCCâs Fourth Assessment
Report, it should not have been referenced by the IPCC at all. But the IPCC desperately needed the
Climatic Change paper; and although the inconsistency was pointed out, the IPCC merely waved the
objections aside as irrelevant."
This is just the tip of the ice berg i dare any and all of you to read the article in its entirety and then tell me what is wrong with the article.
Almost forgot i am +930 of ZULU or UTC or GMT whatever you prefer i think you might be -700 GMT or there abouts is that right
Crakar, There's been a lot of posts under the bridge so you may have missed my question to you: See post 170
Cheers!
crakar14:
We know all about Monckton, a first class nutcase.
Vernon: "While it is easy to insult you for missing the point, I am not going to do that. The point I am making and which is supported by these papers is that there is no indication from the data we have collected that anything out of the ordinary is happening in the Arctic."
Easy perhaps, but misplaced. My point is that neither of the papers you quoted support your contention.
To recap: "As the globe slowly warms, the Arctic ice cover will slowly diminish too" (Smedsurd et al. (2008)). "The anomalously thin ice at the end of the winter is at least partly associated with a multidecadal downward trend in ice thickness" (Wang et al. (2009)).
My second, more subtle point is that it is easy to selectively quote from a paper to make it appear to support your point, as you did in post #215. The fact you jumped on my doing it highlights that you're aware of the whole text, yet you chose to selectively ignore the two sentences I give above. What does this say? Is Vernon a credible source? In the words of Wang et al. 2009 "Certainly not."
(Note Wang's quote at the end there is his answer to the question: "Did the DA alone drive the 2007 summer ice minimum?". Thus I can use Vernon's source to answer Vernon's question: "what is the basis for you conclusion that current Arctic conditions are due to "CO2 Global warming?"")
"Vernon, you've been playing this game for years. Claiming that a paper shows the opposite of what the researchers who've written the paper claim it shows. It fools no one. - Dhogaza
Except Snowman and Crakar.
This particular set of idiots have been polluting the blogosphere for years. Vernon's tiresome misrepresentation of papers he either 1) doesn't understand or 2) lies about is particularly annoying.
Note that when I first met Vernon (virtually, on other blogs), I wasn't nearly as rude or dismissive.
But how many years of absolute idiocy must one put up with?
He's not willfully, stubbornly ignorant, he puts it on display with an insulting level of self-assurance and claims of ignorance on the part of others.
He deserves every insult hurled his way.
As does snowman, who believes a trend is just connecting two dots in a series of data, then dismissively and arrogantly accuses those trying to educate him of being "ignorant of statistics".
Feh.
Oops :)
How are the seahawks looking this year?
Ugly.
Just IMHO.
Crakar scores on a typo! Impressive! All of science is clearly a fraud ...
ok Crakar now we're getting somewhere. so you're saying Monckton is giving us "facts."
with this in mind and established i will dutifully read and give my assessment.
re: the Hawks. we blow. we can't stop the run and our starting QB is out.
Sorry Chris S i did miss your question, i had a look at the PP and got this
"WMO website structure has changed
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed or is temporarily unavailable."
Will try again later OK. Apart from that i saw what he said but have since lost the link and only have snippets. I understand your line of questioning and agree we must ensure he is not taken out of context.
Chris O,
Now that we have established Moncktons state of mind how about commenting on the article he wrote?
Dogaza,
Thats a good one, really it was. They do look quite ugly (whats with the lime green shirts), i may have underestimated you a bit. Its nice to see your more humorous side keep it up.
Skip,
Monckton has given us facts by reiterating a sequence of factual events, you or i could have written the same thing and it would still be fact.
By the way the reason why i follow the seahawks is because at the time i got interested in US football i was working on the sikhorsky seahawk helicopters so it seeemed appropriate.
I nearly lived in Seattle once, there was a job going there with a company but at the last minute it fell through i ended up working in Saudi Arabia which at the time sounded ok (compared to Seattle) but once i got there i realised it was equivalent to winning the booby prize in the local chook raffle, SA can only be described as the worlds largest out door prison, but thats a story for another time.
By the way my US geography is a little rusty but i thought Reno was in Nevada? How come you follow the seahawks then?
Oh and one more thing we just watched the first episode of "what did you see" i suspect this show has aready aired in the US and probably Canada/Britain. Can anyone tell me if it is any good? I noted that it was produced by the same people that did LOST so is suspect it will drag on with little or no direction and very quickly get shifted to the 1030pm time slot. Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
Monckton has a history of claiming facts that aren't in existence, so, sorry, I really have no reason to expect this to be any different. The only references google gives me to the wahl amman paper and timing regarding the last ipcc report appear to be denialist sites all trumpeting the same stuff. Again, given the denialsphere's history of claiming facts that aren't in existence, there's no reason to trust such sources.
The NFL's came up with a brilliant scheme to sell team jerseys to fans: allow teams to have an "alternate" uniform along with the base one. Then they have two colors to sell.
They're also allowing older franchises to sell "throw-back" jerseys in color schemes from the 1960s, 50s, etc (many have changed uniforms drastically over the years).
Even more things to sell!
crakar14:
You may be able to while away your hours reading things by nutcases but I have better things to do with my life.
BTW, Monckton is also a liar. Courts give short shrift to liars and so do I.
Dogaza,
Ah yes of course the old lets change the jumper so we can sell more scam, they do the same thing over here. We have what is called a "clash jumper". The away team wears its alternative strip when it is believed their jumper will clash with the home teams jumper. Strangely the jumpers have not changed very much for over 100 hundred years and never clashed in the past but now they suddenly do. If you think the seahawks jumper looks bad you should see some of ours.
Back to Monckton, so i take it that no matter what he writes no one here will read it (or at least admit to reading it) because he is a liar and a nutjob.
But if you dont read it how do you know he is lying or suffering dellusions? Is it because you trust Tim Lambert and he told you so? Are you now trusting a computer scientist from Uni NSW to guide you through life? Do you know where uni NSW is? or indeed NSW?
Thats OK if you are, there is no shame in leaving difficult life decisions to someone else.
crakar14:
No, I have read some of what Monckton has to say. I don't need to take Tim Lambert's word for it. Why don't you read about some of Monkton's lies and misrepresentations? Aren't you skeptical?
That pretty much sums it up for me at least. Why do you want to read and reference liars and nutjobs?
There are so many quality sources of information out there that once one establishes a particular source as a lying nutjob there is little reason to ever revisit it. If you were to tell me that Monckton has fundamentally changed his positions or otherwise has something new to offer I might then go have a look. Absent such a change, why should anyone ever again expect some value or even some sense in what he writes?
I have yet to come accross an instance where Tim Lambert misrepresents material he quotes in any significant way, and yes I do frequently check. I always check if it is regarding someone I have never heard of before or about an interesting or complicated issue. However, regarding Monckton, I have read enough of his stuff first hand to know that liar and nutjob ar very reasonable descriptors.
crakar14:
No. If you actually read my link you might find out that it's not an assertion about Monckton by Tim Lambert. It is a list with references of Monkton's lies, misrepresentations and errors.
Good morning fellas:
Hey Crak I only read the first half so far of Monckton.
Its clear the guy either sincerely constructs the world as one in which a few noble skeptics like himself are nobly fighting the sniveling liars behind the AGW plot and its phony hockey stick or he's just a mercenary who knows what to say to the already convinced. Its like reading the transcript of a speech by Adolf Hitler. Maybe under his leadership the AGW legions will be crushed under a skeptical wave of blood and iron but for now I'll take my chances with an apparent scientific consensus.
Had some personal grief and my real work is suffering and I just can't invest the time and effort I initially promised based on my initial perceptions of this. Will have to get back to this later but man I would be really leery of pointing this fellow out as a credible source in the future.
Your understanding of American geography is sound but I grew up a Seattle kid (UW/WSU grad) so maintain my boyhood sports allegiances.
Skip
Just because I said I no longer read his shit doesn't mean I've not read his shit in the past.
Reading his stuff is how I learned that he's lying or suffering from delusions, or both.
Somewhat like Coby says above, if there's evidence that Monckton has re-entered the reality-based world, I may pay attention. Though beyond that he'd also have to learn some science. On the science front, there's nothing for me to learn from him, because he shows no sign of knowing even basic science.
I have no idea where New South Wales is, nor Australia, which is amazing since I've actually been there ...
Lambert's a straight shooter. He's right about Monckton. But he's not the reason I know Monckton's a lying sack of shit.
Krakar,
Have you read everything on the internet regarding global warming?
http://tiny.cc/Vwlg9
Obviously you haven't. So what strategy do you employ to decide what is worth reading on the subject?
In my case, eliminating demonstrable liars with no refereed publishing record or applicable education, still leaves far too much to read in the time I have available.
Coby,
Great Blog.
Small world - Holberg 9(4)? Hard to believe it's that long ago. Still have the chickens?
I have noticed that all the alarmist sites have been avoiding the issue but it appears that quite of bit of "peer reviewed" science is going to be re-examined now that Briffa(2000) data has been posted.
Without Briffa(2000) the Arctic does not have exceptional warming... and the rest of the studies that used Briffa's Yamal set, come to think of that it would be just about all of them.
Oh, and dhogaza, good catch not that you care - actually intended to say PDO only - IRT the warm water from the Pacific. So go ahead and say something demeaning.
I'm so relieved to learn that all the recent warming measured up there, the ecosystem changes being seen, and the steadily decreasing trend in the summer minimum and winter maximum arctic sea ice extent isn't real.
Of course even without Briffa, Mann 2008 shows a hockey stick. We have the recent Nature piece showing the same for the arctic alone, no tree data there. There's a brand-new paper on the east Pacific - no arctic tree ring data there.
There are more hockey sticks out there than there are in the NHL, and McIntyre's still going on about Briffa and Mann 98?
And then there's the interesting discovery that combining the data excluded by Briffa with the series used by Briffa also results in a hockey stick. McIntyre's rational for excluding those 12 trees used by Briffa seems lame, especially given that the original argument was that "by excluding the other data, Briffa cherry-picked trees that would result in the hockey stick". But um hmm using the full set results in a hockey stick.
And, of course, you're going to tell me that every paper published that shows exceptional, recent, warming has been refuted by blog scientists who don't need to publish their results because ummm .... well, they don't need to. You *know* they're right!
My guess is that the scientists involved are probably going to just ignore the bullshit and get on with their jobs.
Science is all about moving forward, not myopically focusing on an old paper.
Phew i am glad we have that all cleared up, i am however left with one lingering doubt.
If we dismiss what is said based on who said it then i feel we may not be getting all the information required to make an informed decision.
For one of many examples, in Moncktons article he states that Mann used tree rings as a proxy for measuring the temp even though the IPCC warned that this type of proxy can be inaccurate and should not be used as tree rings are effected by other environmental aspects.
Now if this is true then Manns results must be treated with a degree of scepticism, but we would not be aware of this because we have already closed our minds to what he has written.
I look at Gore and Hansen in the same light as you view Monckton but i do not ignore/not listen to what they say. The fact that none of thier doomsday predictions look like comming to fruition reinforces my views on thier knowledge of the subject or possibly thier agendas but i only know this because i take the time to listen to what they say.
As they say ignorance is bliss.
Special note to Lenny,
You raise a very good point how do you sort the wheat from the chaff, i suspect most people choose a side based on preconceived ideas/ideals or upbringings. They may be of an enviromental or political persuasion, they may feel threatened (fossil fuel industry) and the list goes on. In the end they will tend to ignore the truth in an effort to maintain thier beliefs. Galileo was locked up by the church for his views remember.
So in the end what we do here whilst at times can be fun we will not change anyones minds because our minds are made up regardless of who says what. AGW has gone way beyond mere science it is now a way of life "we must save the planet" is the new catch cry and by God it will be saved and common sense will be the first casualty.
Tim Flannery (2007 Australian of the year) who's expertise is in marine biology says we must lace the atmosphere with sulphur as it is our only hope. The fact that this will produce acid rain and kill most plant life etc does not seem to bother him "we must act now!!!"
Then we have iron fillings dumped into the oceans, crushed glass spread through the atmosphere, cloud making ships and lets not forget giant mirrors suspended in space to reflect sunlight.
The latest idea that defies any sense of logic is that some mad scientist somewhere has found a way to genetically engineer sheep to produce less GHG's (it would be cheaper to just sow up its arse)
The list goes on, the question that has not/cannot and will not be asked is "How can increasing CO2 by 110ppm over a 259 year period require such extravagant unrealistic stupendously stupid ideas like this to fix it" but a lot of people which i suspect have lost the ability of free thought believe this crap.
In other words they have lost the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff.
"Moncktons article he states that Mann used tree rings as a proxy for measuring the temp even though the IPCC warned that this type of proxy can be inaccurate and should not be used as tree rings are effected by other environmental aspects." - Crakar
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html
"Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years WHETHER OR NOT TREE-RING DATA ARE USED. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats"
New Hockey stick mentioned by Dhogaza:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n1/abs/ngeo390.html
Craker said:
What a load of rubbish. Sensible, intelligent and logical people read the scientific literature and make up their minds based on the science. AGW deniers read rubbish on denier websites and if the rubbish supports their political, ideological and economic mindset they "believe" it.
You are a typical denier with your insulting comments about competent scientists and your support for lying scumbags like Monckton, Plimer et al.
"You raise a very good point how do you sort the wheat from the chaff..."
No, it's not really not that hard. But then, as you go on to explain, you're not really interested in doing so.
And speaking of credibility, you said:
"Tim Flannery (2007 Australian of the year) who's expertise is in marine biology says we must lace the atmosphere with sulphur as it is our only hope. The fact that this will produce acid rain and kill most plant life etc does not seem to bother him "we must act now!!!"
I count three lies there. Are they all yours or did you credulously reproduce them from somewhere else?
Nice splash of color there by Ian, thanks mate. What 3 lies lenny? You should have saved time by simply stating them.
Let me guess Mc Intyre is a liar and a nutjob also.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/breaking-news-cherry-picking-of-histor…
Remember what i said about sorting the wheat from the chaff boys.
McIntyre is definitely a liar, not a nutjob like Monckton, which makes him worse in my book.
"Briffa - his specialty is in dendroclimatology which uses tree ring data to reconstruct past climate records."
Mann et al (2008)
"Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years WHETHER OR NOT TREE-RING DATA ARE USED. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats"
How sad, no tree-ring data and still a hockey stick. No doubt deniers like Crakar will not understand.
Thanks for that DW, i am just now adding Mc Intyre to the list of liars but not the nutjob list as you suggested.
I would like to ask two questions, firstly can you supply me with your list of liars and nutjobs, this will make debate easier in the future. Secondly if as you claim the hockey stick lives on regardless of what proxies are used, can you supply a link to where you most likely quoted out of context, cheers.
Now onto the "son of hockey stick", it would appear that after many years of refusing to supply any data, Briffa had up to 46 samples of data at his disposal and he only chose to use 12 which gave his graph the now infamous uptick.
But of course it turns out that if you use the remaining data the uptick infact turns into a down tick.
This can be clearly seen on the YAMAL RCS chronology graph in the link i posted previously.
Now lets look at this from an unbiased, logical POV. Lets assume that the unused data was/is rubbish and merely gives us a false result (down tick) the question that springs to mind is why was Briffa not forthcoming with this info?
Has he got something to hide? Why did he fight for so long to keep his data a secret? Is it possible that the unused data was in fact good but if included would reduce not reinforce the "there was no global MWP" mantra?
Do you know why he has behaved in this way DW? I think i need to add Briffa to my list of liars dont you?
On a final note i am going to copy and paste a quote from another blog because i think it sums up this entire farcical fraud better than anything i could type
"Can anyone imagine any reason that Briffa could have selected trees that had larger recent growth rings (other than the obvious). Could there be any possible reason for ruling out trees that coincidentally have grown more slowly lately? Briffa apparently is unwell at the moment, so he canât comment, and we hope he returns soon. I do want to hear what he has to say.
Letâs get creative, is there any situation where you could rule out 2/3rds of the data for a legitimate reason and therefore get a graph that was wildly different from what you would have otherwise got. Soil conditions? Rainfall. Altitude. Artificial fertilizing programs. Other trees were downwind of herbicide spray?
(But of course, if there was a legitimate reason⦠presumably you would note that in the paper eh?)"
Thanks goes to Joannenova.
crakar14:
on what they do, actually, e.g. lie,
Yes, courts make this mistake all the time and have the hide to call liars "unreliable witnesses". Of course crakar14, with his superior intelligence, knows when everyone is or is not telling the truth.
Well, he's certainly lied in the past and his manic obsession with Mann 98 is ... umm ... a bit unhealthy.
Regarding Mann and tree ring data, you're aware that the 98 paper was full of caveats, right? And that the IPCC didn't say "tree ring data shouldn't be used" as you suggest Monckton claims. The data is difficult to use and subject to problems, which is why so much work has been done the last decade to find MORE PROXIES.
The problem for you, Monckton, and McIntyre and the rest is that each proxy, when studied, is in agreement with the claim that recent warming is happening much faster than has been seen in the last one or two thousand years.
As I said above, there are more hockey sticks in climate science than in the entire NHL, and breaking Mann 98 (which has been superceded by many other studies including Mann's last year) means nothing (not that it's actually been broken).
Yes, of course. If they've grown more slowly while temps have been rising, then these particular trees are being limited by other resources. Ground nutrients would be a good guess, but I'm not familiar with those tree series.
Why would you use trees that show themselves not to be good temperature proxies?
Briffa is being accused of "cherry-picking" trees which match the available instrumental record, as though these are worse proxies than those that don't match the available instrumental record.
McIntyre insists on throwing out those trees that match the existing instrumental record, and by doing so, "breaks the hockey stick".
Why not use all the trees, then?
Could this be why McIntyre doesn't? Because using *all* the trees yield a hockey stick?
(and, yes, the original error in an earlier reconstruction, pointed out by JeffId, has been corrected)
That graphic would be more impressive if it actually showed what Tom P claimed it did. He reduced the smoothing to increase the noise, he did not end at 1990 so the end of his graph is comparing Briffa's picked trees to Briffa's picked trees which you should know if you actually read the thread where this was posted. When you stop the comparison at 1990 you get:
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_merged_recen…
Oh, and again your wrong. The trees picked by Briffa match the "global" record but unhappily, they do not match the local temperature record. So Briffa's picked trees teleconnect to global temperatures but not to local temperature.
Says who? Watts? McIntyre? An unrefereed poster at AGU?
When it comes to betting on clowns vs. scientists, I bet on scientists.
But you're a true-blue denialist who has a habit of claiming papers that support the AGW hypothesis do the opposite due to your inability to understand what they say, so I don't expect much critical thinking from you.
Love it ... "He reduced the smoothing to increase the noise" ... they bitched because of his previous smoothing, so he reduced the time period, now they're bitching because he reduced it.
Well, you could just look at the temperature readings for the stations at Yamal and then look at what the Briffa says those trees show in his 2000 paper. I suppose you do not consider that acceptable unless it is posted in a peer reviewed journal?
Please get your defense of the faulty chart right, he was told he was wrong for not ending the comparison in 1990, which in his second attempt, he still did not do. He did not even get slammed for the error the first time once it was determined what he did wrong. The second time he does not have that excuse. He produced a noisy chart and mis-represented what was being presented, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Well, you could just look at the temperature readings for the stations at Yamal and then look at what the McInthre says those trees show in his 2000 paper. I suppose you do not consider that acceptable unless it is posted in a peer reviewed journal?
Oh, wait, you do accept McI's reconstruction.
Why?
So you agree that the chart you linked to was wrong for the reason's I stated. Now that is out of the way...
First, Steve M did not do a reconstruction, he did a sensitivity test. Since he did not do a reconstruction, then your question is meaningless.
The sensitivity test showed that Briff's results could only be obtained by cherry picking the trees he used. That when all the Peer reviewed denro samples on file for Yamal were used, there was no up tic at the end. That would be the green line on the chart I linked to.
Do you actually know what the problem that Steve's sensitivity test presents for Briffa and the other papers that are based on his Yamal(2000) work.
#255 crakar
I get the same message, the ppt was there when I posted the link, a shame that it's no longer there. The audio however was all you needed though. Here's the all important exerpt from the transcript where Latif makes the "claim" you ascribe to him: (h/t to thingsbreak)
"It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two- you know- when the temperature cools- alright- relative to the present level- alright?
And then- you know- I know whatâs going to happen -you know? I will get- you know- millions of phone calls- you know:
âEh, whatâs going on? So, is global warming disappearing?â You know? âHave you lied on [sic] us?â
So- you know- and therefore this is the reason why we need to address this decadal prediction issue."
Note the first four words "It may well happen" - hardly "conced[ing] that we are LIKELY entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool" is it?
#287
WCC3 with Mojib Latif?
This will do.
http://www.wcc3.org/sessions.php?session_list=PS-3#doc
Of course he did. And Briffa's already pointing out where he erred. And TomP's back with a similar conclusion.
Go read some more, Vernon. McI's blowing smoke out his ass and y'all are falling for it once again.
Here's the Salehard station data, within a 100 miles of the Yamal area.
Umm, see, in reality the local station data shows a statistically significant rise ... Here's the Salehard station data, within a 100 miles of the Yamal area.
Briffa's responded, apparently McI totally misrepresents why these series were chosen in the first place. He makes the same point others have made, McI's exclusion of those series is totally arbitrary. McI's replacing a series which was picked because it included long-lived trees.
Briffa promises more analysis to come ... though I'm sure deep inside he's sighing "shit, there goes the next month of real research, now I have to waste my time proving ideological idiots wrong". But when you're being accused of scientific fraud, I guess you have no choice.
And the denialsphere marches on, deluded as always.
Coby, I have a longish post in moderation (probably due to links).
#288
Yup, that's the one. The audio file is linked at comment #170
As for the Yamal kerfuffle, Real Climate have a post up now.
Coby:
A proposal for your consideration . . .
I have concluded that I am out of my league with respect to the technical aspects of this forum. I haven't the endurance for the likes of Crakar (although I still say I could drink you under the table, mate) or the ability to contribute analysis beyond what Dhogaza and the other warmists already provide.
One thing that has struck me though, through reading as much of this as I can and in my own experiences arguing with deniers, is the importance of *narratives*. As a social scientist (although not much of one I should hasten to add) I am keen to how we interpret the world through stories and myths at least as much as through empirical data. We have a very easy time seeing "facts" and believing "information" that fits our narratives while often things that don't slip past us--no matter how obvious.
Part of the narratives/stories/myths we live by is our interpretation of *others'* narratives/stories/myths--what us artsy fartsies call "attribution." ("The reason they believe this is because they are [insert narrative interpretation here]."
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't really see a link on A Few Things Ill Considered that is specific to this issue. Maybe something like "The Global Warming Theory is Just a Pretext for More Taxes and Government by Crypto-Socialists Who Hate Freedom and Capitalism."
I fully confess I have my own narrative interpretations that attach to AGW, and I think our denier friends in their better moments would admit the same.
Its an issue that is dear to my heart and one I would feel more comfortable contributing to were it part of the forum, so it would gladden my heart if you would consider setting up a link for it.
Skip in Reno
Looked at the pdf (thanks ATHiker #288), from what i read decadal changes need to be considered a lot more and the models have large biases in them. If we have a better understanding of decadal changes then the large bias in the models will be removed (or words to that effect)is that how you read it Chris S? It may well happen (cooling that is) a bit like the models predict (insert your favorite disaster here) may well happen does not mean it actually will does it?
To Skip,
http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/comedy-festival/seeing…
Skip,
Sorry i screwed up the last bit
To Skip,
http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/comedy-festival/seeing…
Should have been followed by this,
You raise some very interesting points and whilst i agree with you this is not my area of expertise. The link i supplied is about a guy who can read other people and travels the world making money from his skill.
He was interviewed the other day (on TV) and he said some people like me call themselves psychics and profess to talk to spirits and what have you. He says he can just read people and he went on to say you can tell someone a lie and they will believe it as long as they want to believe it.
Which gets us back to your post, i have long thought that people "believe" in AGW because its what they want to believe. I know many people that simply believe even though they know next to nothing about the theory of AGW. The most common reason they simply believe is because they wish to save the planet, unfortunately for them reducing our CO2 emmissions will do virtually nothing (as shown in my deleted post in another thread).
When you explain how reducing CO2 emissions will do virtually nothing the words denier and skeptic start emerging (as you say they have thier own narrative interpretations that attach to AGW) but some take the time to listen.
By the way you said
"I fully confess I have my own narrative interpretations that attach to AGW, and I think our denier friends in their better moments would admit the same."
I dont need a better moment to admit mine, if you want it just ask me.
Cheers
Crakar
PS Agree you should have a link to discuss this.
Crakar,
I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing Skip was looking for, but narratives about how the other side works are, to me anyway, an interesting sort of narrative that plays a big part in shaping people's beliefs, and you started to touch on that here:
Which gets us back to your post, i have long thought that people "believe" in AGW because its what they want to believe. I know many people that simply believe even though they know next to nothing about the theory of AGW. The most common reason they simply believe is because they wish to save the planet.
I was hoping you could elaborate more, because I've really never understood denier views on motivations for believing in global warming. I sort of see what you're getting at here, but it doesn't seem to me that that many people actually work this way. For one thing, if you really do have a need to save the Planet, there are so many different problems to choose -- the oceans, endangered species, the rainforest, etc., you don't need any specific problem to exist to give yourself a planet-saving problem to work on. But the main reason I don't buy it is that these are precisely the sort of problems people are least motivated to solve. My day job involves solving problems that I can tackle largely by myself or with a few other people and point to my solutions as things I plainly accomplished, and this is rewarding. But Global Warming? I can switch to flourescent lights and get a hybrid and ride the bus, but ultimately I've made hardly any difference, and without collective action that spurs significant global emissions cuts, none of it will matter. So I guess I can be an activist to push for legislation, and that can be rewarding too, but once again, why not invest my energy in health care or education or civil rights or world peace or crime or any of lots of other issues? It's not like without global warming no one would be able to find a cause to get behind.
Hi Eric. Let me suggest a reason for a preference for AGW activism among people who are disposed to save the world. The other issues you raise - the rain forest, endangered species and the like - are doubtless important; but none has quite the end-of-time, apocalyptic, rapturous, Hollywood-disaster-movie appeal.
These other matters simply do not provide the same frisson, the same tingle of anticipation, that arises from the contemplation of armageddon. That is what is unique about the AGW scenario. It is a perfect storm in which guilt over western materialism and a slightly hippyish mother earthism combine with - dare I mention it? - a dash of political correctness to bring about this thrilling doomsday cult.
Here in the UK it is instructive to contemplate the people who are most prominent in the AGW ranks. By and large - not exclusively, but mainly - they are those who until recently poured their energies into socio-political activism, generally viewing the world from a leftish perpective. But the collapse of socialism and the triumph of capitalism - recent market turmoil notwithstanding - left them bereft of a cause. Then, like manna from heaven, along came AGW.
That, at any rate, is how it seems to me Eric. Perhaps you see things differently, and I will be interested in reading your further thought.
i'd have plenty to say but lets see if coby starts a thread.
skip
Comments closed, please see open thread here:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/10/hockeystick_open_thread.p…