How the GW myth is perpetuated

[darkbeaver]

← Dr. Michael Clarage: Earth’s Electric Environment | EU2014



Ben Davidson: The Variable Sun and Its Effects on Earth | EU2014

Posted on April 7, 2014 by sschirott
The message has been loud and clear for many years—a community of scientists insisting that human activity is warming our planet, taking humanity to the edge of a precipice. But now, as science begins to understand earth’s place in the electric solar system, the meaning of the present warming plateau becomes clearer. The Earth-Sun connection, together with the Sun’s galactic environment, can help to explain climate extremes of every kind. Today, new voices and new perspectives are bridging the theoretical gaps, and independent investigations have reached some startling conclusions. No one can know the future, but some of the electrical changes in our solar system could point to catastrophic change on the horizon.

 

[Locutus]

Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddard

Climate experts predict you will flee to the -120 degree temperatures of Antarctica
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3353247/Climate-change-study-predicts-refugees-fleeing-into-Antarctica.html …

:lol:

 

[petros]

That's not sustainable.

 

[waldo]

The geniuses at @NOAANCDC report record temperatures of 0.01 degrees, despite having no coverage of 50% of the land

Locutus! More Goddard... more? Yeesh! Now he's back to one of his past favs... coverage! Here's a representation of the actual GHCN station coverage:

as I interpret, that graphic Goddard is flogging is distorted through the resolution process. Now certainly, there are areas of the earth that are not well represented... mostly areas where the most warming is occurring (like the Arctic). As I mentioned in a post a short while back, some new methodology has come forward in the recent few years to better "interpolate" for missing stations (a related article describing the initial study)... as I'm aware, that study (and subsequent like study's) have not been successfully formally challenged.

re: the so-called "pause" in surface temperature warming... Measurement Biases Exaggerated the Discrepancy --- One important paper published late last year by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way found that the discrepancy wasn’t nearly as large as believed. Climate scientists have known that the surface temperature record is incomplete because of gaps between instrument stations, especially in the Arctic. The Arctic happens to be the fastest-warming region on Earth, and so if it’s excluded from the surface temperature record, the record will have a cool bias. Cowtan & Way took two separate clever approaches to address this issue, using statistics and satellite measurements to fill in the gaps. Both methods yielded similar results, showing that the Met Office estimates were accurate up to 1998, but underestimated the warming since 1998 by more than half, due in large part to the particularly rapid warming in the Arctic during that time.

​

but here Locutus... try this one... more complete too! :smile:

 

[petros]

We have too much O2 and O3 heating the atmosphere. It's getting out of hand.

 

[Zipperfish]

Well the opinion writers better get all the mileage they can out of the pause, because 2014 is on track to be a top three year, perhaps even the warmest, driven by record ocean temperatures (as well as rising land temperatures). That'll be pretty much it for the pause.

 

[waldo]

You can calculate the trends for yourself easily with the app on a University of York webpage here:
Chemistry, The University of York

thanks! I hadn't realized Dr. Cowtan had put this forward: as for that so-called "pause" this denial crew around here so pumps up:

​

if you're not aware, another option via Moyhu... (hasn't yet incorporated Cowtan/Way methodology)... as for more fun with facts; a background profile on PhD candidate, Robert Way, from the University of Ottawa:

 

[Tonington]

That'll be pretty much it for the pause.

I don't think it will, so long as people continue to have a poor understanding of the statistical methods. The signal, is somewhere between 0.1 and 0.2 °C per decade. The variability in the system will always be there, and the variability is sufficient at short time scales to make pauses occur all the time. The team at SkepticalScience made that great escalator animation that shows all the so-called pauses.

I mean to people who understand a bit of statistics, you can make patterned data and show that the pause is not the actual trend, but an artifact of the signal to noise ratio in the data. Make patterned data that is autocorrelated, with a defined trend. Completely artificial data, but we know the trend is not paused because we made it that way. Now apply the same tests that those who claim there is a pause use. As the starting point changes in your time series, and gets closer to the current time, you'll find confidence intervals that include zero. But we know the trend isn't zero, because we made the data with a trend.

All that is saying is that with short enough times, you don't have statistical power to pass the test of significance. Since we know what the trend is, the failure to reject the null hypothesis that there is no trend, is an example of a type II error. We fail to reject the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis isn't true, and that's because we lack statistical power.

The type of null hypothesis chose matters too. The null hypothesis is an alternative hypothesis to that you're testing. So if you think that the trend has changed to some other value, then your null should be that the trend has not changed. In which case, when fail to reject the null hypothesis, you're saying there is no evidence that the trend has changed.

Even if this year makes a new record, that won't stop people from exploiting this fact. That's why I posted those graphs from Tamino a few weeks ago. There's no evidence the trend has changed, and further to the point I raised at the time, there's no physical mechanism that is consistent to guide any hypothesis for the change. That much is obvious when the date the so-called skeptics uses changes. Is it 1998? 2005? 2001? Why the changing dates, besides being cherry picked to the data we can already see?

If they want to show a change, you can't do it when you're making a type II error. That's not valid at all. If they want to show that the trend has changed, then they need to apply change point analysis.

 

[EagleSmack]

 

[waldo]

oh look... member Tonington just put together a somewhat lengthy and insightful post... and some dumbass came along and threw down yet another Al Gore pic!

 

[petros]

It was interesting. A little narrow but interesting.

 

[darkbeaver]

With all this evidence of global warming you'd think there would hardly be anyone questioning such obvious facts. What could possibly be the matter?

statistics are not science there just damn statistics

 

[Tonington]

oh look... member Tonington just put together a somewhat lengthy and insightful post... and some dumbass came along and threw down yet another Al Gore pic!

It's a free internet

For an example of the type of work I'm talking about, read Ross McKitrick's paper from earlier this year.

Here's the type of analysis I was talking about:

He takes the records for UAH and RSS, and each of those dots represent the trend calculated if you start the time series at that year. The black lines are the 95% confidence interval limits of the estimated trend when beginning at that time. You can essentially see the same thing with that app I linked the other day by changing the start time. This is what passes these days for serious skeptics. It's bunk. All it is showing you is the decreasing statistical power with less data, not even newsworthy. At those low powers, you don't even know if the sign you've measured is correct, much less if it's even accurate. That last dot could be anywhere within a span of almost 1°C! The previous trend was between 0.1 and 0.2 °C per decade, so between 0.01 and 0.02 °C per year. That last point is a trend of five years, so the global warming signal would be between 0.05 and 0.1°C of warming, which is 1/20 to 1/10 of the variability as evidenced by that confidence interval! That's insane.

This analysis doesn't actually have any evidence that the pause is in fact a real phenomenon. And as I will say continuously so long as it remains true, the satellites are still measuring more energy coming into the planet than leaving it. We know a priori that this means the globe should be accumulating heat. Of course, that doesn't mean the temperature should shoot off in a perfectly linear line, that's just idiotic. We also know that intrinsic noise in the system, from features like ENSO, and other oceanic cycles can influence the variability for surface temperature far in excess of the actual global warming signal in a single year.

Another fun bit is the difference between the RSS and UAH satellite data.

 

[petros]

Can't count out the Gleissberg Cycle.

 

[Walter]

Well the opinion writers better get all the mileage they can out of the pause, because 2014 is on track to be a top three year, perhaps even the warmest, driven by record ocean temperatures (as well as rising land temperatures). That'll be pretty much it for the pause.

Holy crap, you're daft.

 

[Tonington]

statistics are not science there just damn statistics

That's sort of like saying data are not science. Of course they aren't. That doesn't mean they aren't related in a meaningful way.

 

[petros]

 

[Zipperfish]

Holy crap, you're daft.

There's your stanbdard denier response right htere. Angry and personal adn devoid of any tehcnical content. :lol:

Reddie me if you love Justin, Walter!!!!

 

[petros]

It's a big leap to claim the pause is over.

 

[Zipperfish]

It's a big leap to claim the pause is over.

Well, I don't have time to do the stats now. Actually, I between, work, coaching and Christmas, I hardly have any time at all. It will be interesting to see. For scope, it's worth keeping in mind that the warmest years in the instrumental record, according to NOAA, are:

2010, 2005, 1998, 2013, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012.

Other agencies keeping track of these things may not have exactly the same list, but tell pretty much the same story.

It makes sense that for every year warmer than 1998, the idea that global warming stopped in 1998 becomes less defensible.