Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic [W:1239:1469]

[Jack Hays]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

An oldie but a goodie.

He who controls the past controls the future! On the vanishing global warming hiatus

Two weeks ago a science magazine paper appeared claiming that once various systematic errors in the sea surface temperature are corrected for, the global warming “hiatus” is gone. Yep, vanished as if it was never there. According to the study, temperatures over the past 18 years or so have in fact continued rising as they did in the preceding decades. Here’s my two pennies worth opinion of it.
By shaviv 0 Comments Read more...

• Read more about He who controls the past controls the future! On the vanishing global warming hiatus

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Good evening Tim,
I think the stink about the term of Climate Projection vs prediction can be traced back to the
IPCC AR3 paper Baede et al, 2001.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

First, cite the exact page and paragraph that uses the word "prediction" in that reference, long.

I think the term "prediction" sounded too refined for the breath of the model outputs.

Second, I didn't think you had the honesty, talent or capacity for self-mockery. Well done! One problem, though. That's an admission that the word "prediction" was never used (other than maybe to identify it as a false scientific concept).

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

An oldie but a goodie.

He who controls the past controls the future! On the vanishing global warming hiatus

Two weeks ago a science magazine paper appeared claiming that once various systematic errors in the sea surface temperature are corrected for, the global warming “hiatus” is gone. Yep, vanished as if it was never there. According to the study, temperatures over the past 18 years or so have in fact continued rising as they did in the preceding decades. Here’s my two pennies worth opinion of it.
By shaviv 0 Comments Read more...

• Read more about He who controls the past controls the future! On the vanishing global warming hiatus

The last desperate stand of the denier claque. But this does show us that Shaviv likes the status of true prophet for the deniers. He's fraudulently masquerading as impartial on climate science while playing to the rubes. I'll lay odds that we never see any actual results of any test (assuming there will actually be a test) of his hypothesis about CRs and climate change. He's got an adoring and gullible audience now who will latch on to any port in a storm and he obviously loves the attention.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Here's some examples of outright lies for Shaviv's latest deposit of excrement on his blog:

However, this is counter to any predictions of greenhouse warming.

Also note that he uses the denier word "prediction" there rather than the scientific term "projection." But, either way it's a lie.

This implies that the effective layer from which radiation can escape back to infinity will reside higher in the atmosphere when more greenhouse gases are present,

No reputable scientist would ever use the word (or get away with it if he did) "implies" in a scientific paper. Implications are not recognized by science. He's basically admitting that he doesn't really know that this is true but he needs to make sure the suggestion gets embedded in the denier mind....again like misusing the word prediction and claiming climate scientists have been making all sorts of "predictions."

Even with the hiatus removed, the “larger” warming of about 0.1°C per decade is still much smaller than the range of predictions standard models make, implying that the models significantly overestimate climate sensitivity and therefore significantly overestimate future warming.

If this isn't an outright lie it's evidence that he's just denying the data. But that's a fine line. At some point, religious denialism like this is no different from a lie. But the most despicable thing he does is attack climate scientists for resolving discrepancies in previous measurements. This from a guy who's claimed the CRs have a big effect on climate without a speck of data to support it. You can damn well bet that if (and that's a big IF) he ever actually tries to conduct an experiement to test that hypothesis, he will be neck deep in discrepancies in his data that he'll have to "resolve." This guy's a circus act when it comes to climate science. It's like Ben Carson pretending he's an expert on immunizations when he's never given or even ordered one for a patient. This is a classic case of hubris.

PS: there's probably more false statements in that piece o crap but I'm already sick to my stomach with just the ones that jumped right off the page/

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

You make it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about with each none answer.

If you were to explain the difference (there is none, of any significantce in this context) you would win this point. You will not win it.

A projection uses assumptions to extrapolate a possible future observation.

A prediction implies that a certain claim is very likely to occur.

What do i get? An apology ?

 

[ksu_aviator]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

There are many ways to measure the world’s changing climate. You can chart rising global temperatures, rising sea levels and melting ice. What’s tougher, though, is to find a measurement that easily relates all of that to what people experience in their daily lives.

In a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, however, two Australian researchers do just this by examining a simple but telling meteorological metric — the ratio of new hot temperature records set in the country to new cold temperature records.

The study found that from 1910 to 1960, the ratio of hot to cold records was close to 1 to 1. From 1960 to 2014, however, that changed, as hot records started to happen much more frequently than cold records — and from 2000 to 2014, outnumbered them by more than 12 to 1.

The simple statistic that perfectly captures what climate change means - The Washington Post

No. That was total amateur hour.

First, the measurable and accurate statistics only date back to the early 1900's. That is like measuring the temperature of your body for 3 seconds and saying that anything over or under the variants in that 3 seconds is a record. The term "record" is not relevant scientific data.

Second, the fact (true or not) that the Earth is warming (if this actually proved that) does not prove that human activities are the cause. The earth has warmed and cooled on numerous occasions before humans even existed. The actual fact is that the Earth began warming 10,000 years before the invention of the first hydrocarbon emitting machine. To state that the last 100 years of warming trend are a result of human activity based solely on the average temperature data is insanely unscientific.

Third, other theories provide measurable and accurate predictions of long term climate trends. AGW has not produced those same results.

What I hate to see is smart men like Ted Cruz going on C-Span, claiming that 18 years of no climate increase is proof AGW is wrong. That is not proof. The climate changes on time scales of centuries, not decades. Even during warming trends, there will be decades of cooling. Milankovitch cycles, according to Berger and Loutre will create warming for the next 50,000 years, with or without man. The real trick is proving that man made hydrocarbons are producing an increased rate of warming. To do that, we would need comparable, measurable data from the last hot house age which can only be collected and analyzed based on assumptions of geological affects of global temperatures. Then, we rely on minimal evidence and theoretical understanding to create a data sample that can be used as the control. Obviously that kind of control data when compared to current data is going to have a very very very very (one more) very wide margin for error.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

No. That was total amateur hour.

First, the measurable and accurate statistics only date back to the early 1900's. That is like measuring the temperature of your body for 3 seconds and saying that anything over or under the variants in that 3 seconds is a record. The term "record" is not relevant scientific data.

Second, the fact (true or not) that the Earth is warming (if this actually proved that) does not prove that human activities are the cause. The earth has warmed and cooled on numerous occasions before humans even existed. The actual fact is that the Earth began warming 10,000 years before the invention of the first hydrocarbon emitting machine. To state that the last 100 years of warming trend are a result of human activity based solely on the average temperature data is insanely unscientific.

Third, other theories provide measurable and accurate predictions of long term climate trends. AGW has not produced those same results.

What I hate to see is smart men like Ted Cruz going on C-Span, claiming that 18 years of no climate increase is proof AGW is wrong. That is not proof. The climate changes on time scales of centuries, not decades. Even during warming trends, there will be decades of cooling. Milankovitch cycles, according to Berger and Loutre will create warming for the next 50,000 years, with or without man. The real trick is proving that man made hydrocarbons are producing an increased rate of warming. To do that, we would need comparable, measurable data from the last hot house age which can only be collected and analyzed based on assumptions of geological affects of global temperatures. Then, we rely on minimal evidence and theoretical understanding to create a data sample that can be used as the control. Obviously that kind of control data when compared to current data is going to have a very very very very (one more) very wide margin for error.

And here you assume that climate can only change on large scales because it has always done so before in the past. Unfortunately, AGW is climate change that characteristically different than natural climate change.

Ted Cruz... Smart man... Cunning, maybe, but this is rather tangent anyway.

Limitations on the accuracy and/or precision of climate projections is not a valid means to disprove AGW.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Ahh, this is where you go a-cherry-pickin' again. I'll give you this....you're indefatigable in your quest to muddy the waters no matter how ideologically foolish and slavish it makes you look.

And yet you are still unwilling or incapable of addressing how the observed warming cannot include
the amount of amplified feedback as required for CAGW.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Now you're in the position of posting the evidence of your own false claims. I don't have to do anything any more.

Still no data to support your argument.
Remember in order for the predictions to archive warming outside the "normal' range,
We must see many decades of warming greater than any in the instrument record.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

First, cite the exact page and paragraph that uses the word "prediction" in that reference, long.


Second, I didn't think you had the honesty, talent or capacity for self-mockery. Well done! One problem, though. That's an admission that the word "prediction" was never used (other than maybe to identify it as a false scientific concept).

Actually they used the word prediction often, which is why Baede made a statement about it.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

First, cite the exact page and paragraph that uses the word "prediction" in that reference, long.


Second, I didn't think you had the honesty, talent or capacity for self-mockery. Well done! One problem, though. That's an admission that the word "prediction" was never used (other than maybe to identify it as a false scientific concept).

Is seems IPCC AR5 did not get the memo, on "NEVER" using the term prediction.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

11.2.2 Climate Prediction on Decadal Time Scales
11.2.2.1
Initial Conditions
A dynamical prediction consists of an ensemble of forecasts produced
by integrating a climate model forward in time from a set of observation-based
initial conditions.

 

[MrT]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

No. That was total amateur hour.

First, the measurable and accurate statistics only date back to the early 1900's. That is like measuring the temperature of your body for 3 seconds and saying that anything over or under the variants in that 3 seconds is a record. The term "record" is not relevant scientific data.

Second, the fact (true or not) that the Earth is warming (if this actually proved that) does not prove that human activities are the cause. The earth has warmed and cooled on numerous occasions before humans even existed. The actual fact is that the Earth began warming 10,000 years before the invention of the first hydrocarbon emitting machine. To state that the last 100 years of warming trend are a result of human activity based solely on the average temperature data is insanely unscientific.

Third, other theories provide measurable and accurate predictions of long term climate trends. AGW has not produced those same results.

What I hate to see is smart men like Ted Cruz going on C-Span, claiming that 18 years of no climate increase is proof AGW is wrong. That is not proof. The climate changes on time scales of centuries, not decades. Even during warming trends, there will be decades of cooling. Milankovitch cycles, according to Berger and Loutre will create warming for the next 50,000 years, with or without man. The real trick is proving that man made hydrocarbons are producing an increased rate of warming. To do that, we would need comparable, measurable data from the last hot house age which can only be collected and analyzed based on assumptions of geological affects of global temperatures. Then, we rely on minimal evidence and theoretical understanding to create a data sample that can be used as the control. Obviously that kind of control data when compared to current data is going to have a very very very very (one more) very wide margin for error.

So basically you're trying to dismiss AGW because of limitations that are fully recognized and accounted for by the experts in this field. And then, you note a way to avoid those limitations which effectively calls for an unobtainable amount of information.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

And here you assume that climate can only change on large scales because it has always done so before in the past. Unfortunately, AGW is climate change that characteristically different than natural climate change.

No, that isn't the assumption. The reality is that the climate is in a natural warming trend, so to prove AGW, you have to prove that the warming that is occurring is greater than the current natural trend.

Ted Cruz... Smart man... Cunning, maybe, but this is rather tangent anyway.

Limitations on the accuracy and/or precision of climate projections is not a valid means to disprove AGW.

The sword cuts both ways. You can't prove AGW either. There in lies the rub. AGW is nothing more than a speculative hypothesis. It doesn't even rise to the level of a theory.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

So basically you're trying to dismiss AGW because of limitations that are fully recognized and accounted for by the experts in this field. And then, you note a way to avoid those limitations which effectively calls for an unobtainable amount of information.

No. I'm saying that without the unattainable amount of information, it is difficult to be certain of the reliability of the outcome.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

And yet you are still unwilling or incapable of addressing how the observed warming cannot include
the amount of amplified feedback as required for CAGW.

Pure gibberish. You're now just picking climate-related words at random and making a word salad out of them.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Still no data to support your argument.
Remember in order for the predictions to archive warming outside the "normal' range,
We must see many decades of warming greater than any in the instrument record.

Pure climate-denying falsehoods. At least you've stopped the silly random selection of tiny data points and are now just firing off short bursts of BS.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Actually they used the word prediction often, which is why Baede made a statement about it.

And you can't find one instance of it to show us. One thing about climate deniers (and the rightwing in general) is that none of them seem to mind demonstrating how dishonest they can get. It's a feature rather than a but of that particular ideology.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Pure gibberish. You're now just picking climate-related words at random and making a word salad out of them.

Pick any time period, a decade or greater, in any data set you wish, and demonstrate
an example amplified feedback, anywhere near the 2.5 X gain necessary to reach the mid range
of the IPCC prediction?

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Pure climate-denying falsehoods. At least you've stopped the silly random selection of tiny data points and are now just firing off short bursts of BS.

As I said you pick the time period, it does not matter.
The empirical data does not contain more than minor amount of amplified feedback.
If the direct response warming from CO2 defined by the IPCC is correct,
then the predicted amplified feedback is small, (likely less than a gain of 1X).

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

And you can't find one instance of it to show us. One thing about climate deniers (and the rightwing in general) is that none of them seem to mind demonstrating how dishonest they can get. It's a feature rather than a but of that particular ideology.

See Above post #1161

It seems IPCC AR5 did not get the memo, on "NEVER" using the term prediction.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...er11_FINAL.pdf

11.2.2 Climate Prediction on Decadal Time Scales
11.2.2.1
Initial Conditions
A dynamical prediction consists of an ensemble of forecasts produced
by integrating a climate model forward in time from a set of observation-based
initial conditions.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Is seems IPCC AR5 did not get the memo, on "NEVER" using the term prediction.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

You've just provided the proof that, once again, when backed up against the wall deniers will try to confuse weather for climate--even if they might understand the difference in the first place--to dirty up the discussion. That entire link is titled: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability. It's a discussion as to whether decadal predictions of weather will be (not are) possible over time. In short, it's about weather forecasting. It has nothing to do with the projections that climate scientists have made use past and current data to give a range of possible climate (mostly temperature) outcomes in the future. This chapter makes no predictions whatsoever. In fact, it's really just an introduction to the possibility that future weather forecasting may be possible based on decadal projections of climate change. Here's the "tell" for that reality:

Because the practice of decadal prediction is in its infancy,

Prediction has never been used by climate scientists in any of it's calculations. I'm again indebted to longview for supplying the source material that demonstrates his false statements even if he didn't realize what he'd done. It's the result that counts, not the intention.

And, of course, in true longview style he didn't provide evidence for the term "prediction" being in the Baede chapter as he said it would be found but trawled around everywhere to see if the word showed up at all in any climate related document. What a shameless spectacle he's made of this.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Pick any time period, a decade or greater, in any data set you wish, and demonstrate
an example amplified feedback, anywhere near the 2.5 X gain necessary to reach the mid range
of the IPCC prediction?

Repeating a gibberish of climate terms (that you obviously don't understand) does not stop it from being gibberish. Of course, if you realized that you wouldn't have posted 95% of your comments.

 

[MrT]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

No. I'm saying that without the unattainable amount of information, it is difficult to be certain of the reliability of the outcome.

Difficult, but not impossible. And as the research has built up over the years, we now have a confidence rating of 95% or higher.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Repeating a gibberish of climate terms (that you obviously don't understand) does not stop it from being gibberish. Of course, if you realized that you wouldn't have posted 95% of your comments.

If you cannot show any evidence as an example amplified feedback, perhaps it is because exists.
Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama, Testified before,
THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
back in June about the Socioeconomic cost of CO2 emissions.
https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId={B8A9CA73-77ED-4662-B87F-EE95E38C7429}&documentTitle=20156-111054-01
Much of his testimony, reflects what I have been saying about AGW.
The models have the sensitivity too high, and are therefore inaccurate.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Difficult, but not impossible. And as the research has built up over the years, we now have a confidence rating of 95% or higher.

Statistically speaking, a certainty of less than 99% is worthless.