Click the Pic
These lions can't figure out why you haven't donated yet.
Please Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 11/08/2011 10:44:54 AM PST by QT3.14
15 years ago I could usually keep my green pepper plants alive thru the winter, now I am lucky if they make it to Christmas. (Galveston Bay Area)
A GOOGLE for "p value add statistical significance" will return many explanations, including how significance is affected by sample size.
The time frame remains. A trend taking place over 100 years may not be any more consistent than a trend taking place over 30 years.
And it is silly to think we know the earth’s average temperature in 1865...
Changing the model to fit the facts is much preferable to changing the facts to fit the model.
Actually, the situation is a but more complicated than as presented, over the last thirty years some models have predicted a more active ENSO, some others have not - this is a tough part of the system to model.
If you are curious about the current (circa 2006) state of ENSO modeling there is a brief account here:
http://www.knmi.nl/research/global_climate/enso/global_warming/
Unfortunately, common sense is often not a good guide to understanding how to assess "probability" and "confidence levels".
____________
There are a number of very good books on the inherent limitations of "common sense" reasoning, one of my favorites is "Inevitable Illusions" - I re-read random chapter from time to time to remind me of "what I think I know that I don't".
I see that used copies are available on Amazon for $4, including shipping:
http://www.amazon.com/Inevitable-Illusions-Mistakes-Reason-Minds/dp/047115962X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320857757&sr=1-1>
Actually the home team players (not Mueller) were not happy with the way the filters were applied. The BEST definition of rural was 10 miles or so from a major city. So that explains why their data showed very little difference. If they applied correct filters, they have to show a significant difference from previous studies. Otherwise the urban heat island effect, which the entire civilized world recognizes, does not exist.
And that’s where you’re wrong. Even Curry is not a skeptic and she took What’s-his-face to task.
Okay. Now you’re doubling down on wrong.
The “thing” with the last ten years is not that it has stayed constant. A few internet posters might make that claim but they misunderstand. Refuting a misunderstanding of the original point is not proving the original point.
The thing is that it has stayed constant DESPITE all the corrections to explain constant periods in the past. Either the warmists have to come up with a new correction for the past ten years or they have to admit that their models are fundamentally incorrect.
Get a plot of the divergence of the model predictions from the Berkley data and and you’ll see that the models have not predicted the temperature trends. If they don’t have the right physics to predict the trends over the past ten years then they cannot predict the trend for the next ten years.
Whatever. Warming has stopped or we are now cooling for at least 10 years. You cannot hide that fact with long term trends. That is what is interesting. Why has the cooling in the warming trend occurred when CO2 levels have increased ? That blows the whole CO2 is gonna kill us meme to shreds.
(Of course, if things change radically - if the snow on the ground in Chicago does not melt in June three years in a row,....
That is what you will need to recognize that recent cooling has occurred ? By the time snow does not melt in June in Chicago, millions will have died from cold weather all across the planet. You wont need to look at Chicago. Just watch how many animals die in Mongolia this winter. Assuming of course that they still have a significant number left after the previous 3 winters.
...how can we proceed?
Stop wasting billions on cooling a planet that may already be cooling. What they are doing may end up being counter productive.
1) We know that over the last hundred years or so, average global temperatures have been rising.
And according to BEST we have risen 2.5 C in the past ~ 200 years, yet we are all still doing fine. So why would another 2 C kill many of us ?
2) Based on our understanding of atmospheric physics and chemistry, we can provide a reasonable explanation of how human activity could have caused much or all of this longer term trend.
According to BEST we rose about 1.5 C from about 1813 to about 1875. So what human activity caused that ? Steam locomotives ?
(3) This activity is continuing (in fact, its accelerating).
False. It cannot be considered to be accelerating when BEST says it has stopped for 10 years. And we experienced a 1.5 C rise from 1813 to 1875 while we only rose 1.5 C from 1875 to 2010. Note - Dates are approximate.
(4) Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude (though we cannot demonstrate it on the basis of shorter-term data) that the longer-term warming trend is continuing.
False. It is reasonable to conclude that the long term trend has been temporarily halted. The real question is why and all the dancing about the long term trends gives no possible answer. In fact, it just obfuscates the science, which is the only tool the AGW acolytes possess right now.
Statistically, no one can do any better, you cannot discern anything meaningful about changes in the long-term trend from the shorter term data, and it's a complete waste of time to argue over what the short-term demonstrates about the longer term trends, because it does not demonstrate anything.
Actually, the short term data is extremely important if we have moved into a cooling cycle. Only the short term data will give you a clue. As a scientist, you must explain the short term trend. And please, blame the apes last, not first.
...blah, blah, blah... ignore that part of the argument, it's just "noise".
It is not noise. It is going to kill people and animals this winter in the NH. Especially those idiots that still think we are warming.
Instead, concentrate on the debates about underlying causes of the longer term trend, that's were the action is.
No. Absolutely not. You need to explain the now verified short term trend change. That is what we call science.
The earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and there have been temperature fluctuations throughout. If 30 years is more statistically significant than 10-15 years, how about 100 years, or 1000 years?
It seems that people tend to draw the envelope in a way that supports their argument.
Okay now you’re just talking down to people.
My favorite reference is Hogg and Craig for probability theory and statistics. For periodic analysis, any electrical engineering text does a good job. For non-linear fractal type analysis I don’t have a good reference as I learned it from the literature and private discussions before even Strang published his piss poor book. I imagine most of that stuff has been published in hardback by now so Amazon is your best bet. Just don’t buy Strang’s book.
Those that truly believe in AGW should be as serious about solving the problem and personally assume room temperature as soon as possible. Otherwise you’re just talking the talk and not walking the walk. You would do it for the kids if you really cared.
BEST shows flat lining from the late 1950's to late 1970's. That is false. Wrong. Everyone living during that time frame will tell you the late 60's through most of the 70's was cooler then the late 40's and most of the 50's. That is a fact. Any temperature record that does not show a significant cooling during the 70's is false data.
Think of it as the difference between "cooler” and "cooling" (or “warmer” and “warming”).
You cannot get cooler without some cooling. Where is the significant cooling during the 1970's in the BEST temperature record ?
In the last week there have been several days here in Chicago that are considerably warmer than is “normal” for the first week in November – the weather has been ”warmer” than expected on the basis of historical records.
What matters are all time records being broken, since our records only go back at most about 150 years. And many ski resorts have their earliest openings ever this winter.
And again with the warmer summer/fall weather in the central plains and in the east again. We know that has been occurring. It is in the article this thread is about. Why is the Western mountains setting cold records during the summer and snow pack records during the winter if the overall trend is still accelerating warming ?
Back to back La Nina’s (cold eastern Pacific) means cooling in the atmosphere. No other possibility exists.
Already been explained. During periods of global warming, you will tend to get stronger and more frequent El Nino's. During periods of Global Cooling you will tend to get stronger and more frequent La Nina's. That is just a tendency. There is no causation between El Nino and La Nina to Global Warming or Cooling, simply because global implies oceans and atmosphere. And the AGW acolytes have no idea what happens to the deep oceans during the La Nina and El Nino. Now there is causation between La Nina/ El Nino and atmospheric cooling and warming. But Global implies atmosphere plus oceans. The correct way to word the situation is that El Nino causes Global Atmospheric warming. And if you know anything about physics, you know that the deep oceans must cool if the atmosphere warms assuming that solar energy is a constant. Conservation of Energy, my friend.
Thanks Explorer89.
For the rebuttal to the latest ridiculous AGW claim, see the following.
Dr. Jeff Masters gets caught up in the full on media stupidity
You also need to assume that the earth is retaining a constant proportion of the energy received.
Greenhouse gases are postulated to be causing an increase in the amount of energy retained.
The El Nino and La Nina cycles have been occurring for quite awhile. Long before modern CO2 levels became an issue. What you are hinting at I think is the new AGW theory that recent cooling in the warming trend is actually caused by heat being stored deep down in the oceans. So therefore the warming is still accelerating according to that theory, just hiding where it is currently impossible for us to detect. Well I do applaud the AGW acolytes for finally looking at the deep oceans, but as typical the only reason they had to go there was because their theories had failed [ie - The warming trend cooled even with higher CO2 levels].
Since we currently do not know what the energy state of the deep oceans are and can only theorize, we should perhaps concentrate on what is happening in the atmosphere, since that is where the CO2 captured long wave radiation is being emitted from. So if more CO2 trapped energy was present in the atmosphere and heating the oceans, we should see that heat or energy in the atmosphere. Unfortunately we do not. The atmosphere in 2011 is cooler then 2010 (as measured by satellite). Image below is AQUA Channel 5 14,000 feet/600 mb. Orange line is 2010. Pink line is current year. Starts at Jan 1st ends Dec 31st. Note - The NH seasonal temperatures define the general curve of these lines.
Now you could claim that this is simply La Nina Atmospheric Cooling. And if you look at the graph below, 2010 started with an El Nino and ended with a La Nina. 2011 started with a La Nina and came back to neutral with a recent cooling dive. The sat temperatures above for 2010 and 2011 do correlate well with that swing in La Nina and El Nino. You can see that by looking at the separation distance between the graphed lines.
Now my original comment assumed a constant solar output. That is only correct for visible light. We know many other solar physical factors vary significantly over the cycle and between cycles. Those were ignored to simplify the scenario. You however do not want to assume a constant CO2 Long Wave emission. It would be nice if we could actually measure that increased energy flow, but it is not showing up anywhere. Granted it could be masked by the La Nina, but it does not seem very wise to bet billions on a theory that was pulled out of someones hat with no supporting measurable evidence. We are now identifying and quantifying the changing solar effects. Would be nice if you could do the same for the supposed increase in trapped heat going back into the oceans.
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.