Posted on 01/10/2009 5:13:45 PM PST by saganite
Scientists at the GKSS Research Centre of Geesthacht and the University of Bern have investigated the frequency of warmer than average years between 1880 and 2006 for the first time. The result: the observed increase of warm years after 1990 is not a statistical accident.
Between 1880 and 2006 the average global annual temperature was about 15°C. However, in the years after 1990 the frequency of years when this average value was exceeded increased.
The GKSS Research Centre asks: is it an accident that the warmest 13 years were observed after 1990, or does this increased frequency indicate an external influence?
Calculating the likelihood
With the help of the so called "Monte-Carlo-Simulation“ the coastal researchers Dr. Eduardo Zorita and Professor Hans von Storch at the GKSS-Research Centre together with Professor Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern estimated that it is extremely unlikely that the frequency of warm record years after 1990 could be an accident and concluded that it is rather influenced by a external driver.
The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 could have occurred by accident after 1990 corresponds to a likelihood of no more than 1:10,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
As the old saying goes: “There are lies, damnable lies and statistics.” You can make statistics say whatever you want them to say and that is precisely what these “scientists” have done here.
It's even more blatant than that!
If these scam artists are "scientists,' I am Lady Godiva...
"Scientists Refute Skeptics," says it all. No bias there.
The loony scientists number around 3000 (and most are not practicioners in the hard sciences).
The "skeptics" number in the tens of thousands, and have thousands of scholarly, peer-reviewed climate-related articles to their credit. And they don't subsist on academic welfare...
My point was that you somehow missed the sentence directly preceding it.
You wrote:
Re: "economists, legal experts, and other climate specialists".
Didn’t know economists and lawyers were climate experts. A very poorly worded press release!
And I responded with the following, more complete quote...
"More than 70 of the world’s elite scientists specializing in climate issues will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10, 2009. ...
They will be joined by economists, legal experts, and other climate specialists..."
I know, I know. I took a sentence out of context because it made me laugh. I understand the article in it’s full context. Oops! There went my chance to ever be a reporter.
According to the graph in ETL's post 23, the earth has been a lot hotter over the past 500 million years, and a lot cooler.
Using a reference of daily climate records that go back a piddling few hundred years to take a reading on the earth's "normal" setting, is the equivalent of arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
120,000 years is a gnat's blink in time, relatively speaking, on a planet where ice caps have frozen and thawed countless times over the past hundreds of millions of years. In that past 120,000 years alone -- a gnat's blink -- Florida has been twice as big, and twice as small, as it is now because of varying sea levels. Someday, Tampa and Miami will be underwater again, for about the zillionth time, and there's not a damned thing we can do about it.
Likewise, someday the English Channel will be walkable again, and there's not a damned thing we can do to stop it. WE CAN ONLY ADAPT TO IT.
That wager would be a sure bet.
I haven't seen it, but I'm sure someone has compiled the weather reporting stations world-wide say, every 10 years from 1650 to 1880 (yes, that is a joke).
Reliable world-wide temperature records date only to the second half of the 20th century.
Inferred temperature and CO2 hard numbers from the fossil record are notoriously unreliable and ambiguous.
Hardly the method to determine absolute accuracy on which to claim absolute cause and effect, or to formulate the "we're doomed" scenarios.
Gee, you think that clown is just a kid? or is selective comprehension a sign of a deeper problem?
About 2/3 of the planet’s weather reporting stations went away around 1990 with the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Many of these were in Siberia.
This article is meaningless in and of itself. The gathering, “adjusting”, and reporting of the temperatures themselves are suspect. Most “deniers” don’t deny that the temperature went up a little anyway. What is suspect is the cause, which is, as most sane people know, the sun.
“There is just as much correlation with my age.’
Not only is CO2 causing global warming; it’s also causing us to age faster.
It took me a few minutes to track this down but you’ll find this link interesting. It contains articles and links to more articles regarding global cooling. There’s hours of informative reading here.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Global_Cooling
I would say, there are liars, damned liars and then there is statistics.
Great comment thanks, I was alluding to Lysenkoism in another thread and didn’t know it.
Regarding the Monte Carlo approach described here, what is the effect of including data from only 1880 onward? Only 140 data points....
Oh, the global warming cheerleader is here! Lets stand up everybody, he knows it all!
He like arguing about how many angels dance on the heads of pins. Environmentalism is his religion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2159347/posts
Doh!...we have a climate change every 3 Month or so, they're called "Seasons" like Winter, Summer, Spring and Fall. Do we need a conference to figure that out?!
A strong reason for saying this can be based on many factors which are often overlooked. One is that the last ice age ended about 10-12,000 years ago. Since then the temperature trend has been upward from that low point. This is common sense because prior to that it was cold enough to cause glaciers to cover the northern parts of the continents. In actual fact the Earth's temperature has been on a downward trend since the Cretaceous (roughly 60 million years ago when reptiles roamed over the Earth's surface). Incidentally as you read this the cause(s) for these continental glaciations is/are unknown.
Next the amount of incident solar radiation which the Earth receives at the top of the atmosphere has varied dramatically depending how active the Sun was based on the number of solar sunspots. One only needs to note the Maunder Minimum.
If you look at the temperature variations for recent times (before that mankind had as much influence on the Earth as a rabbit running through a wheat field) you bump into the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) when the Earth cooled down (and incidentally the number of sunspots was very small - perhaps just like today?). This was not caused by anthropogenic factors but factors most likely outside of the Earth,i.e., A reasonable hypothesis is that Mr Sun reducing its output.
. Don't overlook the fact that the Earth's mean temperatures has recently been decreasing (as the number of sunspots decreased). As I write this we are expecting near record low temperatures. Current climatologists and meteorologists (all generalities are false) appear not to take into account the influence of factors external to the Earth (variation in the Earth's precession and orbit as a function of time, interstellar dust, cosmic rays, etc.). This was just dashed off, but I would like to leave the reader with a few thoughts. One: You cannot PROVE anything with a computer model. Two: Mankind is not the center of the Universe. Bacteria will decompose the body of the last person left on the Earth. Three: Over geological time, H. Sapiens will not be very influential in the history of the Earth (perhaps we will leave a few layers of fused silicon at various places). Four: There are lies, damm lies, and statistics. You can prove just about anything with statistics. IMHO
After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
It's at that point that folks began neglecting the maintenance of the thousands of old-fashioned weather stations throughout the United States and the World.
Temperatures began increasing at a rate coincident with the normal wear rate of the gypsum white-wash on the roofs of the stations leading many to believe that the stations had begun measuring the temperature of Sun-heated devices rather than the air flowing through them.
You can go back a couple of years and find some choice threads about the neglect those weather stations were subjected to. One group undertook to document the damage ~ it was incredible.
On a world scale the damage was sufficient to convince Hansen (at NASA) to simply drop temperature readings in Africa and South America from the United Nations climate models.
In the 10 years since we've had satellite observation covering the whole planet, warming has stopped.
The true believers among the Global Warming crowd will tell you that is merely a coincidence and that the world is still toking up even if it's demonstrable that it's not.
Doh!...we have a climate change every 3 Month or so, they're called "Seasons" like Winter, Summer, Spring and Fall. Do we need a conference to figure that out?!
The conference is about *confronting* the man-made global warming BS, not promoting it. However, they do seem to be conceding that some of it is true. I don't believe that any of it is. Temps have been on a cooling trend over the past decade or so. Furthermore, there is zero evidence to support the notion that CO2 at such low concentrations as the present can have any effect on climate.
"Welcome to the press room for the second International Conference on Climate Change, March 8-10, 2009 in New York. The theme of the conference is: 'Global warming: was it ever really a crisis?'"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.