| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/22 |
| 2008/1/9-12 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:48919 Activity:low |
1/9 Here's a nice pile of responses to the "global warming ended in 1998"
drivel:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/the_significance_of_5_year_tre.php#
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/a_picture_is_worth_a_thousand_2.php
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever
\_ Bad troll! Go to your room!
\_ Why is this a troll? Does every bit of scientific evidence
you don't agree with qualify as a "troll" in your book? |
| 11/22 |
|
| scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/the_significance_of_5_year_tre.php# com I've been using Google Reader recently, following the lamented death of Planet Fleck, and I suppose I have to admit its better. Here are some "shared items" if, for some reason, you want to read what I read. Subscribe via Email Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest. Compute 5, 10 and 15 year trends running along the data since 1970 and get (black lines data, thicker black same but smoothed, thin straight lines non-sig trends; png From which you can see (I hope) that the series is definitely going up; that 15 year trends are pretty well all sig and all about the same; From which the motto is: 5 year trends are not useful with this level of natural variability. May 17, 2007 9:39 PM It perturbs me when supposedly respected scientists make statistically unsound claims like Pielke did about these 5 years series when they really should know better. The "It has been cooling since '98" meme is another example propagated by Lindzen & Bob Carter among others. You don't even need stats to see the claims are unsound - its pretty obvious just from eyeballing the relevant graphs. Have they really forgotten all they learned in Stats 101 or are they playing fast and loose with data to push an agenda or preserve their ego? It surprises me because it can only damage the credibility as scientists - but perhaps scientists aren't the peer group they are trying to impress. May 17, 2007 11:24 PM Post a Comment (Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. |
| scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/a_picture_is_worth_a_thousand_2.php what they signed: there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling. technorati icon View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry Comments #1 He got Louis Hissink and Zbigniew Jaworowski, too. Larry, Curly and Moe Howard were unavailable for comment. December 13, 2007 4:09 PM #6 Here is the truth about Global Warming. I guess by "here" you are referring either to Deltoid in particular or Scienceblogs in general. December 13, 2007 4:32 PM #7 "WEGMAN: Carbon dioxide is heavier than air. " Perhaps the blue on the graph above is supposed to represent CO2 settling into the valleys. December 13, 2007 6:48 PM #9 Disappointing to see Don Aitkin as a signatory to something like this. I know Lindzen has given passing support to "global warming stopped in 1988" before, but this letter, with its absurd reference to a "plateau" is a much stronger version of the claim. If you go to Mike's YouTube link for the videos on "Global Warming Fraud," you get a screen full of video thumbnails, all of them purportedly taking on the notion of human-caused climate change. The only video on the page with a multiple-star rating is one by comedian George Carlin, who delivers a rant about the hypocritical self-absorbed yuppies who want to "save the planet," mocking the impact of tiny humanity on an earth billions of years old. Then, partway through his rant, after saying several times that we can't harm the earth, he sticks in the knife by noting that, "The earth isn't going anywhere, although we are." There's a pause in the laughter, which probably indicates that the people who were most enjoying Carlin's diatribe just figured out he is talking about the planet's survival, not the survival of its ecosystem. Sure, humanity will go extinct, the environment will go into upheaval, and some completely new equilibrium point will eventually be reached. Then I think the people who were probably grim-faced and tight-lipped during the first part of Carlin's piece take over the laughter and the anti-eco crowd who assumed Carlin was a climate-change denialist must grimace as they realize he isn't actually: He's just saying it's no big deal if we foul our nest and die. NOAA: 2007 a Top Ten Warm Year for US and Globe Here's a gem from the press release: "This currently establishes 2007 as the eighth warmest on record. Only February and April were cooler-than-average, while March and August were second warmest in the 113-year record." December 13, 2007 9:39 PM #15 There is no "since 1998" trend that has meaning in a climatological context. A few years of variability means nothing, one way or the other. Even the most recent year of arctic melting does not constitute a "new trend". I thought you 'Anti Global Warming" folks were all top-notch statisticians? December 13, 2007 9:47 PM #16 There is no "since 1998" trend that has meaning in a climatological context. In order to do so, he should use data and trendlines "since 1998". December 13, 2007 10:47 PM #17 nannygovtsucks said: "Tim is trying to discredit the "since 1998" claim. In order to do so, he should use data and trendlines "since 1998". Tamino put to rest the nonsense about global warming stopping in 1998 I notice nanny also posted in the comments there, so he is certainly aware that the trend shows warming since 1998 (even if one includes 1998, the peak year of El Nino) Nanny seems to go from blog to blog recycling his "skepticism". December 13, 2007 11:10 PM #18 Hmm, I thought you all were scientists? The only doubt I have whether it is anthropogenic or not. There are several competing hypotheses as to what is causing our current warming trend. To strip out the BS, here are several of the current debates: 1) There is an UNPROVEN hypothesis that human activity has increased the atmospheric concentrations of some trace chemicals. Most of the comments I see here are mistaking correlation with causation, just as the post regarding the NOAA record is. Science is not a popularity contest: The number of authorities who subscribe to a given hypothesis has no relationship to its empirical accuracy or validity. They do not require a democratic vote of the authorities. If the opinion of a majority of the authorities was all that was required, we would still think the earth was flat. If there is an increase in the current warming trends due to manmade increases in CO2 levels, then we might want to do something about it. But what if it is caused by sunspot activity, as some very reputable researchers believe? Do we want to take drastic measures which will kill a lot of people as are currently in vogue? Think back (if you were alive then) to the Global Cooling predictions of 1975. The proposed solutions were also drastic: things like spreading coal dust across the Arctic and Antarctic. Do we have the knowledge--when we cannot even model the effects of clouds in our computer simulations which are the foundation of current IPCC theory--to accurately manage the global climate? but I do not believe--or disbelieve--in the currently ascribed causes. I will wait for the empirical evidence before making a decision. And based on that, I think we can come to a general consensus on effective means of dealing with it. December 13, 2007 11:13 PM #19 Nags, I know you visit 'Open Mind'. I know you saw Tamino's presentation of the trends over the past years. Not bad, considering the data was cherrypicked to give the opposite impression. But even though I know all this, I just don't know why you insist on foisting your own illusions on those of us in the reality-based community. As missionaries for capitalism go, you're making a lot of converts: for anything but. However, we can tell Bob C that the facts go against his nonsense, carefully handpicked though it was. December 13, 2007 11:25 PM #20 SteveB 'If there is an increase in the current warming trends due to manmade increases in CO2 levels, then we might want to do something about it. But what if it is caused by sunspot activity, as some very reputable researchers believe?" Might I suggest you educate yourself a little on the basics before you assume everyone else is "mistaking correlation with causation"? In order to do so, he should use data and trendlines "since 1998". That would be a stupid thing for Tim to be trying to do, and it is certainly not how I interpret his post. The issue is not whether or not the trend since 1998 is up or down. The issue is that it is statistically invalid to cherry-pick a particular year when the temperature is particularly high and insist upon calculating the "trend" from that particular year. Basically, when you have a noisy signal, you can create the appearance of "trend" in whatever direction you choose if you are allowed to choose as your starting point a time when the value is particularly high or particularly low (why start at 1998? The statistical rule is that you must either use the entire data set, or make the decision as to what intervals to examine trends over before you look at the data. December 14, 2007 1:06 AM #22 Steve: you say you do not believe in the currently ascribed causes for climate change, presumably referring to increases in atmospheric CO2, methane and other greenhouse gasses. I am curious as to what your views are so perhaps you could say where you disagree with the following. It was established about 150 years ago that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. About 100 years ago the effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 on Earth's temperature was calculated. Since then, the estimate has been refined but it turns out that the original estimate was not far wrong. There has been a documented rise in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 50 years. Evidence from several sources indicates this is a result of human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels. Given the basic physics, a rise in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to result in an increase in global temperatures, provided there is no massive feedback mechanism or other proces... |
| gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329 cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU's graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black. Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed. Now, this is an excusable mistake for average folks who do not need the rigors of statistical analysis in their day jobs. But any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you cannot extract meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. It's hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe they speak with integrity in this debate -- seems more like an abuse of the trust placed in them as scientists. Since then it has echoed far and wide and been used by Richard Lindzen as well as a host of skeptic websites. Interestingly, Bob Carter seems to know what he is doing. He tries to pre-empt objections in his article by insinuating that any choice of starting point (say, 1978) will just be a cherry pick with the opposite motive! But cherry picking is about choosing data for the sole purpose of supporting a pre-conceived conclusion. It puts today about 1 degree C above the first three centuries of that record. In that kind of analysis, today's record will be hidden from view for many decades. conclusion is: 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. That about covers any period of time relevant to today's society. "It has stopped warming" is only supported by selecting a single year out of context and using a seven-year window to look at multi-decadal trends in climate. I was channel surfing between breaks in football Sunday and caught a few minutes of a Global Warming scare flick (I mean, PBS documentary). First the narrator says that the ice of some lake was frozen "year round". But then the guide for the explorers says it was free "a few months a year". Well, never mind, because now it's ice free almost all year round. and yet, everyone of the Aleuts seems to be liking the warm weather and open water! He says how its getting warmer and warmer there every year. We're poor and warm weather means we'll spend less on fuel". See, this was the first time I ever had sympathy with a tunda person, because he reacted and spoke like every other person that I know -- he likes warm weather and he likes to save money. He didn't go into some epileptic fit about "Shamanadoda" and start decrying the spirit of the Polar Bear. Well, how come you can ignore a hockey stick in 1998 and a downtrend in 2005 and say, you have to wait to see what's happening a few years in the future and yet, Al Gore gets to project his chart up through the ceiling? It's just that when you consider the style of conversation and obvious lack of understanding of the issue, jabailo's posts are nearly equal to a yahoo discussion: you fag libs you stupid cons morons... It appears the heavy black line is considered to represent the global average temperature, and all data is plotted as difference from a datum point labeled "zero." The trend seems to clearly show the medieval warming period and the little ice age that the skeptics claim are ignored in the hockey stick model. And while the graph definitely shows an ongoing upward trend, with the exception of the the last 600 years the most recent temperature is still lower than almost every value for the last 7500 years. What's the basis for statements that we're breaking records? This website is not manned by sneering environmentalists for you to hate. While your story may be true, you could at least link to it or something. Climate change skeptics gloat over and massage anything that contradicts climate change theories, its effects, or its possible negative repercussions. All of it is presented as evidence of a conspiracy pushing climate change, communism, anti-Americanism, um ... Well, if the preponderance of evidence indicates that climate change is occurring and that it will negatively affect the world in X and Y ways, then I guess it could look like a conspiracy to someone who simply refuses to look at the evidence and, instead, attacks the messengers. Former Science Mag Editor Speaks Out Against Global Warming Hysteria The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999. That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. ADVERTISING POLICY The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. |
| tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever -> tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/ pdf I responded thus: Response: I hope you can contribute something other than just a link to a rather amateurish bit of denialist garbage. This paper actually tries to claim that global warming stopped in 1998! This is not a blog to advertize (rather trashy) denialist propoganda. This led to the following: This paper actually tries to claim that global warming stopped in 1998! actually no, the paper I cited gives a very balanced view of both PMOD and ACRIM solar cycle analysis you on the other hand link to yourself temps since 1998 have decreased, if solar cycles 24-25 continue the weakening trend then cooler temps are in our future CO2 forcing is on the way out as a major factor I responded by quoting directly from the paper: OH YES, ONE MORE THING, THE EARTH STOPPED WARMING As David Whitehouse noted in a response to the Lockwood/Frolich paper, that the temperatures of the world have leveled off the last decade after peaking in 1997/98. The implication, or outright statement, that global warming stopped (or reversed itself) after 1998, is one of the all-time favorites of denialists. I've often (and consistently) said that the "modern global warming era" starts in 1975. jpg I've plotted the two data sets using different y-axes, because they're on a different scale. That's because NASA GISS computes anomalies compared to the 1951-1980 baseline while HadCRU uses the 1961-1990 baseline. We can also see some some sizeable ups and downs, like the cooling for a few years around 1992 caused by the Mt Pinatubo explosion, and the strong warming in 1998 caused by el Nino. So we can tell, pretty much by looking, that a few years aren't going to give us a reliable trend (we can tell by running the numbers as well). That's why "climate normals" are generally defined using a 30-year timescale, and climate trends are best delineated in that way too. For the GISTEMP data, 1998 isn't the hottest year, 2005 is -- but for the HadCRU data 1998 is the hottest year on record. jpg It turns out that even if we start at the 1998 peak, the trend is still warming. This is true for both GISTEMP and HadCRU data, and both results are statistically significant. There's no getting around it: the planet has continued warming overall, since the 1998 el Nino event. The fact that one of two data sets indicates we haven't broken the 1998 record, doesn't alter the fact that the trend is still hotter. jpg Despite the brevity of the time span, there's still a statistically significant warming trend in both data sets. Note that the time span is so short that these results are far less precise than the 30-year trend; The brief time span of the most recent data, and the strong autocorrelation of temperature time series, combine to make the error range considerable. But even for the brief period since 2000, the trend is still positive, and the estimate is larger than the error range: it's significant. A note of caution for those who want to post links to further garbage. This is NOT a holding place for links to denialist propoganda. If you want to link to something that's relevant to the topic of discussion, that's great! If you just want to pepper this blog with links to junk, it'll be treated like spam. Yes, the claim that "global warming stopped in 1998'' is garbage. Even after the 1998 record is broken in the HadCRU data, this garbage won't disappear; I'm sure that ten years from now, in 2017, somebody somewhere will be declaring that global warming isn't real -- it stopped in 2014! August 31, 2007 at 4:24 pm "I'm sure that ten years from now, in 2017, somebody somewhere will be declaring that global warming isn't real -- it stopped in 2014!" Last time I said something similar, I got tagged as a "religious alarmist"* *I think that means someone who worships fire alarms, but I could be wrong. org to see why" Too bad your evidence in science is collected from absolute junkyard. Tamino's graphs can be replicated using _any_ dataset by _any_ meteorological office in the world, actually even with the datasets of the Dorks in CA. If you don't understand the explanations of others, try it yourself! August 31, 2007 at 8:01 pm It's too bad Hansen/Mann etc refused to open source their "science" the post 2000 correction was just the tip of the iceberg. The "jesters" will soon expose the "adjustors" CO2 probably has a minimal effect on our climate, I think the solar cycle theorists will soon be proved correct. August 31, 2007 at 8:05 pm Tamino's graphs can be replicated using _any_ dataset by _any_ meteorological office in the world I guess you haven't read the last 7-8 posts at CA FYI, the "junjyard" as you call it found a fairly substantial error in the US temp record that was missed by all the experts for the last 6-7 years. August 31, 2007 at 9:32 pm > a fairly substantial error Can you state the amount? Do you know how many zeros, and on which side of the decimal point, and if it's Fahrenheit or Centigrade? August 31, 2007 at 10:30 pm The first time I remember hearing that "Global Warming stopped in 1998'' was back in early 2005. I'm not in the same class as Tamino, but plotting (annual, global) temperatures from 1998 to 2004 still shows a positive trend. To get a cooling trend I have to restrict the time series to 1998 - 2001. There are three plausibe explanations that I can think of: 1) My knowledge of statistics is even worse than I thought. The paper that started Tamino off on this topic concludes with the statement: "This year despite the predictions by Jones Hadley Center) as early as January that the year would end up warmest on record, looks to be cooler than 2006, with the record cold Southern Hemisphere winter and a cooling Pacific, and continuing that trend." Whether this year is cooler or warmer than last year is, I think, irrelevant in terms of trends. Having said that, even though the Hadley Centre may have been a bit premature with their January forecast I'm fairly certain that 2007 will be in the top three, and certainly warmer than 2006. August 31, 2007 at 11:06 pm Tamino, you'd probably be well advised to hold off on some of this global surface temp trend stuff until the truth on these adjustments at the detail level are revealed. Hopefully the source code will be available soon so that we can find out what is really going on. August 31, 2007 at 11:38 pm Tamino, you'd probably be well advised to hold off on some of this global surface temp trend stuff until the truth on these adjustments at the detail level are revealed. NSG, perhaps we should just use the satellite data instead? You know, the satellite data that correlates very well with the surface temp record? September 1, 2007 at 12:56 am problem with satellite data is it's less than 30 years it does show a cooling trend since 1998 :) Response: False. Despite the fact that satellite measurements (lower troposphere) exclude the arctic (the fastest-warming region of earth), and responded to the 1998 el Nino *much* more strongly than surface air temperature, from 1998 to present the satellite data show no trend. September 1, 2007 at 12:56 am dhogaza, what do you mean by "correlates very well"? I think the trend since 1998 for the satellite record is quite a bit smaller than the surface temp trend. Response: See the graphs linked to in the response to "Heretic." September 1, 2007 at 1:35 am I think the biggest part of the disagreement is a semantic one. If no year since has been as hot as 1998, then a lot of people would say from that that warming has stopped. Others, probably with more knowledge of statistics, draw a trend line from 1998 to the present, and because 1999 and 2000 were a lot colder, this line trends upward, even though the temperatures at the left of the line (1998) are slightly higher than those at the right of the line. But as noted, the denialists, whether versed in statistics or not, likely believe that intermediate temperatures are irrelevant to a judgment as to whether we are warmer now than in 1998, as they see the debate. It is silly for either side to say the other is wrong if the debate is about whether "global warming stopped in 1998." Going beyond the purely semantic, I think most sm... |