PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2013, 08:38 AM
Offshore power all at sea on price (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/offshore-power-all-at-sea-on-price/story-fnb64oi6-1226739821781#)
MATT RIDLEY THE TIMES 15 OCTOBER 2013

Offshore wind farms are the elephant in the energy debate. Today, the British Energy Department estimates that electricity prices are 17 per cent higher as the result of green policies and that this will rise to 33 per cent by 2020 or 44 per cent if gas prices fall, as many expect. Offshore wind is the single-biggest contributor to that rise.

Rincewind
14-11-2013, 09:03 AM
Continuing high temperatures globally and many climate extremes worldwide (http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_981_EN.html)

...
January-September 2013 was warmer than the same period in both 2011 and 2012, when La Niña had a cooling influence. Neither La Niña nor El Niño conditions were present during the first nine months of 2013 and are not expected to emerge by the end of the year. El Niño/La Niña is a major driver of our climate and the hottest years on record, 2010 and 1998, both had El Niño events.

In contrast with 2012, when the United States, in particular, observed record high annual temperatures, the warmth in 2013 was most extreme in Australia.
...

Arctic Sea Ice

Arctic sea ice recovered slightly after the dramatic and unprecedented melt in 2012, but 2013 still saw one of the lowest levels on record. Since the beginning of satellite measurements in 1979, the decade 2001−2010 has seen the greatest average annual melting of Arctic sea ice on record and all seven of the lowest Arctic sea ice extents have occurred since 2007.
...

Regional Temperatures

During the first nine months of 2013, most of the world’s land areas had above-average temperatures, most notably in Australia northern North America, northeastern South America, northern Africa, and much of Eurasia. Cooler-than-average temperatures were observed across a concentrated region of North America, central South America and the eastern Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of Ecuador, a small region of northern Russia, and parts of northeastern Asia.

The Arctic Oscillation was a major driver of weather patterns during early 2013 across the Northern Hemisphere, bringing cooler-than-average spring temperatures to much of Europe, the south-east United States, north-west Russia, and parts of Japan. The Arctic region in contrast was considerably warmer than average. This so-called warm Arctic-cold continents pattern is characteristic of the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, which causes cold Arctic air to flow to lower latitudes.

Temperatures across North America were above average during 2013, but more moderate than 2012. In South America, temperatures were near to above average. This includes Argentina, which had record warmth in 2012.

In the South-west Pacific, Australia reported its hottest month ever observed in January 2013, leading to the hottest summer (December−February) on record. On 7 January a new national area-averaged daily maximum temperature of 40.3°C was set, and Moomba in South Australia, reached 49.6°C. Warmer-than-average temperatures continued through the year and the country recorded its all-time warmest 12-month period from November 2012−October 2013.

In Asia, Japan had its hottest summer on record. China recorded its warmest August on record (tied with 2006). South Korea observed its 4th warmest July and warmest August, contributing to a record-high summer temperature.
...

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2013, 02:30 PM
AUSTRALIA TO UN: NO MORE 'SOCIALISM MASQUERADING AS ENVIRONMENTALISM' (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/11/11/Australia-to-UN-on-Climate-Change-No-More-Socialism-Masquerading-as-Environmentalism)
by TONY LEE 11 Nov 2013

According to The Australian, the document that was agreed upon declares that Australia "will not sign up to any new agreement that involves spending money or levying taxes" on climate change matters. It "rules out Australia playing any role in a wealth transfer from rich countries to developing nations to pay them to decrease their carbon emissions."
Australia also plans to repeal its carbon tax as it toughens its stance against the climate change agenda.

Rincewind
14-11-2013, 02:40 PM
Australia also plans to repeal its carbon tax as it toughens its stance against the climate change agenda.

They will need to introduce a ETS or wait a while though.

Patrick Byrom
15-11-2013, 02:15 AM
According to The Australian, the document that was agreed upon declares that Australia "will not sign up to any new agreement that involves spending money or levying taxes" on climate change matters. It "rules out Australia playing any role in a wealth transfer from rich countries to developing nations to pay them to decrease their carbon emissions."
That sounds like typical Coalition behaviour: They could pay a small amount of money now to help avoid the problem, but they prefer to do nothing, which means that we will all have to pay a huge amount of money later to fix the mess they've created.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2013, 05:41 AM
That sounds like typical Coalition behaviour: They could pay a small amount of money now to help avoid the problem, but they prefer to do nothing, which means that we will all have to pay a huge amount of money later to fix the mess they've created.
What problems? Is this more alarmist predictions that have previously been falsified? Rather, they are avoiding other health hazards: the poverty, unemployment, and higher costs that result from mad taxation schemes and persecuting the fossil fuel industry.

Rincewind
15-11-2013, 10:26 AM
That sounds like typical Coalition behaviour: They could pay a small amount of money now to help avoid the problem, but they prefer to do nothing, which means that we will all have to pay a huge amount of money later to fix the mess they've created.

Indeed in fact the quote "Australia also plans to repeal its carbon tax as it toughens its stance against the climate change agenda." Sounds more like that the Coalition plans to take a tougher stance against reality.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2013, 01:24 PM
Statement by Parliamentary Secretary Paul Calandra on Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's Introduction of Legislation to Repeal the Carbon Tax (http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/-1851474.htm)

"Canada applauds the decision by Prime Minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia's carbon tax. The Australian Prime Minister's decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message.
"Our government knows that carbon taxes raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries, and electricity. Prime Minister Abbott has said that, in Australia, the repeal of the carbon tax will reduce the average household's cost of living by (in Australian dollars) $550 a year, take $200 off household power bills and $70 off gas bills.
"Our government has reduced greenhouse gas emissions while protecting and creating Canadians jobs—greenhouse gas emissions are down since 2006, and we've created 1 million net new jobs since the recession—and we have done this without penalising Canadian families with a carbon tax."

Patrick Byrom
15-11-2013, 01:41 PM
What problems? Is this more alarmist predictions that have previously been falsified? Rather, they are avoiding other health hazards: the poverty, unemployment, and higher costs that result from mad taxation schemes and persecuting the fossil fuel industry.
You may not accept the scientific evidence for AGW, but Tony Abbott does (unless he is lying to the Australian people). He has already committed to spending billions of dollars to combat AGW in Australia, so why not spend some of that overseas, where it might be more effective? He obviously believes AGW has consequences (otherwise why spend the money?), so he must realise that we will have to spend money dealing with those consequences.

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2013, 02:22 AM
You may not accept the scientific evidence for AGW, but Tony Abbott does (unless he is lying to the Australian people).
As a few of us have pointed out, AGW is not the only issue. Other issues are whether it would cause any more harm than the Medieval Warm Period, and whether the money spent on trying to combat it would make a detectable difference to world temp, and whether the consequences of the taxes and regulations are worse than the disease.

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2013, 02:23 AM
SOLAR PANELS FRYING BIRDS ALONG MAJOR MIGRATION PATH (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/12/Oops-Solar-Energy-Plants-are-Killing-Rare-birds)
WARNER TODD HUSTON 13 Nov 2013

Some animal rights activists are wondering just how many birds green energy may unintentionally kill as more and more birds turn up dead at solar energy facilities throughout California.
A recent article by Vice author Lex Berko notes that dead birds are being found with "singed wings" around several California solar energy facilities.
It happens that many of California's solar plants are, the article claims, in the path of "the four major north-to-south trajectories for migratory birds" called "the Pacific Flyway."

There are also thousands of birds killed by wind turbine farms (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/11/Study--Wind-farms-killed-67-eagles-in-5-years) throughout the country. This means that untold numbers of birds, some of them protected species, are being killed by green energy.

Desmond
23-11-2013, 06:50 AM
As a few of us have pointed out, AGW is not the only issue. Other issues are whether it would cause any more harm than the Medieval Warm Period, and whether the money spent on trying to combat it would make a detectable difference to world temp, and whether the consequences of the taxes and regulations are worse than the disease.
In other words, even if it were proved that smoking causes cancer, that doesn't mean the benefits of smoking are outweighed.

Rincewind
23-11-2013, 10:35 AM
There are also thousands of birds killed by wind turbine farms (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/11/Study--Wind-farms-killed-67-eagles-in-5-years) throughout the country. This means that untold numbers of birds, some of them protected species, are being killed by green energy.

That article is pretty funny and makes one wonder how someone could be so stupid as to voluntarily read anything at breitbart.com when they are so laughably incompetent.

Regarding the eagle study the numbers are likely underestimated because the authors didn't actually do any fieldwork. They surveyed publicly available sources for well-documented cases of eagle deaths at wind farms where blade strike was very likely the cause of death. They may have been some cases reported as blade strike death which were something else. But by and large they seem to be conservative enough to ensure their numbers are not exaggerated. (Unlike the earlier study you cited which did wildly extrapolate the numbers).

That being said, there are two comments worth noting. Firstly the article implies that the deaths are increasing because ~80% of the fatalities occur in the last 33% of the study timeframe. However this is not necessarily either significant nor is it it necessarily related to wind farm growth. One would expect more wind farms would lead to an linear increase in fatalities (all other factor remaining equal) and the study does not control for report bias in that deaths may be more frequently reported in more recent years. So no evidence of an alarming increase is presented and report bias is the most likely explanation of the increase number of recorded deaths in recent times.

All that being said the number reported is on average in the range of 5-15 deaths per year which is minuscule compared to other dangers to eagle populations cause by human activity including gun shots, lead poisoning (usually from consuming shotgun pellets in food) electrocution and pesticide poisoning.

A gun ban in the US would save many more eagles lives than those threatened by wind farms.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2013, 02:14 AM
In other words, even if it were proved that smoking causes cancer, that doesn't mean the benefits of smoking are outweighed.
Globull warm-mongering fanatics love making irrelevant comparisons. For one thing, tobacco-related lung-cancer deaths have already happened.

Desmond
26-11-2013, 06:46 AM
Globull warm-mongering fanatics love making irrelevant comparisons. For one thing, tobacco-related lung-cancer deaths have already happened.I have linked to harmful effects a few times before and you just ignore them.

Here's but one, against the "plant-food" claim you like to make:


While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes – Siberia, for example – may become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail – in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for example.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2013, 02:28 AM
I have linked to harmful effects a few times before and you just ignore them.
Of course, because they must ignore the historical and geographical realities of more productivity in warmer climates. What we can certainly know from the present is that causing electricity prices to skyrocket has resulted in people being unable to heat their homes adequately during the harsh northern winters, or air-condition adequately during the most scorching Queensland summer days.

Your link also mentions wildfires, but they have long been part of Australia. In the US, they are made worse by the ecofascists banning removal of dried scrub.

Desmond
28-11-2013, 05:45 AM
Of course, because they must ignore the historical and geographical realities of more productivity in warmer climates. Not at all. It is about weighing up the positives and negatives. You are the one wishing to focus only on one side. And when both sides are brought up you once again have nothing to say.

Damodevo
28-11-2013, 02:56 PM
Cooling deadlier (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/763fcb26-5681-11e3-ab12-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F763fcb26-5681-11e3-ab12-00144feabdc0.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.news.com.au%2Fherald sun%2Fandrewbolt%2Findex.php%2Fheraldsun%2FP15%2F# axzz2ln9EE2O0) than waming


The Office for National Statistics estimates that there were 31,000 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2012/13, a rise of 29 per cent on the previous year.

Last March was the coldest since 1962, with an average temperature of 2.2°C, and the second coldest since 1910. The majority of the excess deaths (25,000) occurred among those aged 75 or above.

Desmond
28-11-2013, 03:45 PM
Cooling deadlier (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/763fcb26-5681-11e3-ab12-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F763fcb26-5681-11e3-ab12-00144feabdc0.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.news.com.au%2Fherald sun%2Fandrewbolt%2Findex.php%2Fheraldsun%2FP15%2F# axzz2ln9EE2O0) than waming

Are you trolling? This was addressed in the link posted 3 posts ago.

Rincewind
28-11-2013, 04:37 PM
Are you trolling? This was addressed in the link posted 3 posts ago.

It is interesting insofar as it shows the evolution of the denialists position. Chronologically it goes something like this...

1. There is no warming.
2. Ok there is some warning but it is solar forcing.
3. Ok so it is not solar forcing but it is not human emissions.
4. Ok so it is human emissions but it there are bigger problems lets fix them and let the next generation worry about climate change.
5. Ok so this problem will not wait that long but warming is good, so let's embrace a warming world.

Rincewind
28-11-2013, 08:53 PM
Here is an insightful piece from belgian blogger Jules...

Libertarism, climate change and the tobacco lobby (http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/libertarism-climate-change-and-tobacco.html)


...
Prof Naomi Oreskes in her presentation The American denial of Global Warming seeks where the root of this denialism lays : her conclusion (which I agree with) is that the scientific denialism actually is a consequence of the libertarian hatred against the ‘state’ and where science gets attacked because of the eventual political consequences it might have. When in conflict with the libertarian political-religious dogmatic framework, the scientific information in conflict with the dogma simply has to be wrong…
...
...
Global Warming skeptics basically copied the strategy developed by the tobacco industry in the 60’ies which have proven to work back then. And, given the high dose of confusion amongst the public on the field of climate change, there's no doubt the tactics still work.
...
...
Global warming skepticism cannot be understood without understanding the background of the skeptics, that much is sure. The skepticism in my opinion results from a dogmatic, quasi-religious, belief in the libertarian dogma of free market capitalism without any interference. The fallacies used in climate change discussions remind me to the fallacies made by creationists. Anything is possible, except the dogma to be wrong. If it requires attacking science to save the dogma, science gets attacked ...

Does this guy have an account here? :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2013, 09:30 AM
The Poor Need Cheap Fossil Fuels (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/the-poor-need-cheap-fossil-fuels.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1&)
By BJORN LOMBORG
New York Times, December 3, 2013

THERE’S a lot of hand-wringing about our warming planet, but billions of people face a more immediate problem: They are desperately poor, and many cook and heat their homes using open fires or leaky stoves that burn dirty fuels like wood, dung, crop waste and coal.

About 3.5 million of them die prematurely each year as a result of breathing the polluted air inside their homes — about 200,000 more than the number who die prematurely each year from breathing polluted air outside, according to a study by the World Health Organization.

Even more people — an estimated three billion — still cook and heat their homes using open fires and leaky stoves, according to the energy agency. More efficient stoves could help. And solar panels could provide LED lights and power to charge cellphones.

But let’s face it. What those living in energy poverty need are reliable, low-cost fossil fuels, at least until we can make a global transition to a greener energy future. This is not just about powering stoves and refrigerators to improve billions of lives but about powering agriculture and industry that will improve lives.

At the same time, wealthy Western nations must step up investments into research and development in green energy technologies to ensure that cleaner energy eventually becomes so cheap that everyone will want it.

But until then they should not stand in the way of poorer nations as they turn to coal and other fossil fuels. This approach will get our priorities right. And perhaps then, people will be able to cook in their own homes without slowly killing themselves.

Patrick Byrom
06-12-2013, 12:35 PM
The Poor Need Cheap Fossil Fuels By BJORN LOMBORG New York Times, December 3, 2013…
At the same time, wealthy Western nations must step up investments into research and development in green energy technologies to ensure that cleaner energy eventually becomes so cheap that everyone will want it.
But until then they should not stand in the way of poorer nations as they turn to coal and other fossil fuels.
This is exactly what Australia's carbon tax is designed to do - fund the development of green energy technologies and allow poorer nations to use fossil fuels. The Coalition's 'direct action' plan will do neither of these.

So you now support a carbon tax?

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2013, 05:26 AM
This is exactly what Australia's carbon tax is designed to do - fund the development of green energy technologies and allow poorer nations to use fossil fuels. The Coalition's 'direct action' plan will do neither of these.

So you now support a carbon tax?
No, I go further than Lomborg, and think that it's more likely that the green technologies will be delivered by the free market than by a government trying to pick winners aka fund cronies, such as Solyndra. The government couldn't organize fornication in a brothel, so why trust them with more taxpayer money? Already the market has delivered greater efficiency using Rankine cycle steam engines, and more efficiency by definition means less fuel burned for a given electrical power output.

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2013, 05:29 AM
Climate change expert sentenced to 32 months for fraud, says lying was a 'rush' (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/18/21943533-climate-change-expert-sentenced-to-32-months-for-fraud-says-lying-was-a-rush)
John Beale, a former top EPA official, is expected to be sentenced in federal court Wednesday, accused of defrauding taxpayers of nearly $900,000 after claiming he was an undercover CIA agent. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports.

Rincewind
19-12-2013, 08:58 AM
He was lying about being a CIA agent and doing no work. What does this have to do with Climate Change?

Patrick Byrom
19-12-2013, 03:57 PM
No, I go further than Lomborg, and think that it's more likely that the green technologies will be delivered by the free market than by a government trying to pick winners aka fund cronies, such as Solyndra. The government couldn't organize fornication in a brothel, so why trust them with more taxpayer money? Already the market has delivered greater efficiency using Rankine cycle steam engines, and more efficiency by definition means less fuel burned for a given electrical power output.
Your position would only make sense if the government didn't also provide massive subsidies to fossil fuels. I assume that you're in favour of abolishing every single one of these - but until that actually happens government programs to support green technologies are simply providing a level playing field.

And basic research into new technologies needs to be government funded, otherwise it will never happen (because there are no existing companies to fund it). The basic research behind nuclear power is a good example.

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2013, 06:43 AM
Your position would only make sense if the government didn't also provide massive subsidies to fossil fuels.
Does it really? It also taxes them to death.


I assume that you're in favour of abolishing every single one of these
You assume correctly. I also support abolishing subsidies to ethanol, farming, art.


And basic research into new technologies needs to be government funded, otherwise it will never happen (because there are no existing companies to fund it).
Come off it. Most of the research we benefit from came from the private sector. As Milton Friedman said:

The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A


The basic research behind nuclear power is a good example.
How do you mean? Wartime is different.

Patrick Byrom
21-12-2013, 11:16 AM
Does it really? It also taxes them to death.Solar power companies also presumably pay taxes.


Come off it. Most of the research we benefit from came from the private sector. As Milton Friedman said:

The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

Henry Ford carried out basic scientific research? And Einstein was supported by the government while doing his research.


How do you mean? Wartime is different.
I mean the basic research on nuclear power, such as that carried out by Otto Hahn (and others) before the war.

antichrist
21-12-2013, 02:39 PM
Byrom from above
I mean the basic research on nuclear power, such as that carried out by Otto Hahn (and others) before the war.

AC
in todays herald they report how a nuke mishap in India could be whallopped with penalty of $9 - whacko, what a detterent

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2013, 07:23 AM
Solar power companies also presumably pay taxes.
Do they really? Only on ordinary profits, unlike the oil companies that are gouged by taxes. Of course, corporate taxes are a legal fiction because ultimately people pay taxes. When it comes to petrol at the pump, the customers are paying the taxes ultimately. And the greedy government gouges about 10 times as much in texes than the ‘greedy’ oil companies make in profit.


Henry Ford carried out basic scientific research?
He carried out research that greatly improved the lives of billions.


And Einstein was supported by the government while doing his research.
In his best year of 1905? Unless you mean the patent office.


I mean the basic research on nuclear power, such as that carried out by Otto Hahn (and others) before the war.
At universities.

antichrist
22-12-2013, 09:45 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
Henry Ford carried out basic scientific research?
Jono:
He carried out research that greatly improved the lives of billions.

AC
improved the lives of billions but only for a certain time and place. In the long term his cars helped create climate change which damages the lives of mainly 3rd world countries. That is those whom can least afford and who received the smallest benefit by such invention.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-01-2014, 10:27 AM
The trapped warmists is surely the funniest story of the year (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/12/trapped-warmists-surely-funniest-story-year/)
Global Warming Expedition to Prove Antarctic Ice is Melting Trapped by Ice (http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/global-warming-expedition-to-prove-antarctic-ice-is-melting-trapped-by-ice/)
According to BBC, they are to be rescued by a helicopter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25553200)

The irony isn't lost on anyone, with the exception of most ardent cult fanatics.

Patrick Byrom
01-01-2014, 02:03 PM
The trapped warmists is surely the funniest story of the year (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/12/trapped-warmists-surely-funniest-story-year/)
Global Warming Expedition to Prove Antarctic Ice is Melting Trapped by Ice (http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/global-warming-expedition-to-prove-antarctic-ice-is-melting-trapped-by-ice/)
According to BBC, they are to be rescued by a helicopter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25553200)

The irony isn't lost on anyone, with the exception of most ardent cult fanatics.
The irony in your post is that they were trapped because of melting ice (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/31/antarctic-rescue-helicopter-to-evacuate-passengers-from-trapped-ship):


Turney also responded to speculation from climate sceptics who have taken to social media sites in recent days to attack the scientific consensus on climate change, pointing out the apparent incongruity of there being so much sea ice around the Shokalskiy in the middle of the Antarctic summer.

“There's a misconception here – we are not trapped in new ice that's been created because its cold,” said Turney. “This is very old, thick ice that's been re-mobilised. It was attached to another part of the continent and has broken out and, with the south-easterly winds we've had, has pushed it up against the coast … and pinned us in.”

The event is likely to be a result of long-term climate change that is happening in this part of the world. When the 120km-long iceberg, B09B, came through the area a few years ago it knocked the tongue off the nearby Mertz glacier, which itself is 120km long. The iceberg grounded on the sea bed in Commonwealth Bay causing the sea around it to lock up with ice attached to the continent.

Desmond
01-01-2014, 06:46 PM
Wrong end of the stick again Igor? Oh dear.

antichrist
01-01-2014, 09:14 PM
Three quarters of the atmospheric mass resides within the troposphere, and the depth of this layer varies between 17 km at the equator and 7 km at the poles. The ozone layer, which absorbs ultraviolet energy from the Sun, is located primarily in the stratosphere, at altitudes of 15 to 35 km. The Kármán line, located within the thermosphere at an altitude of 100 km, is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space. However, the exosphere can extend from 500 up to 1,000 km above the surface, where it interacts with the planet's magnetosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere

Hobbes, the densest part of our atmosphere is only about 17km at the Equator and 7km at the Poles. In my simple non scientific mind, with about a billion cars on the planet spewing out their pollution, plus industry etc - it is very easy for me to imagine that our very limited atmosphere could heat up. what else is there to know or consider?

Desmond
01-01-2014, 09:29 PM
what else is there to know or consider?Conspiracy theories reminiscent of tobacco companies railing against admitting links with cancer.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-01-2014, 07:09 AM
The irony in your post is that they were trapped because of melting ice (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/31/antarctic-rescue-helicopter-to-evacuate-passengers-from-trapped-ship):
That's one of the lamest excuse I've ever seen. What else do you expect from cult fanatics cornered by the reality defying their faith?

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2014, 07:34 AM
A short and factual little video about 'cooling towers'. Many people think that it is smoke and air pollution coming out of them, but it's only water vapour. These cooling towers are not only used in nuclear power stations, but in other applications as well, including coal power stations.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbxHk7go7UU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2014, 07:35 AM
That's one of the lamest excuse I've ever seen. What else do you expect from cult fanatics cornered by the reality defying their faith?

Indeed, more "heads I win, tails you lose" from the warm-mongers. They must preserve their taxpayer-funded gravy train and justify their lust for power over people's lives.

ER
02-01-2014, 02:53 PM
Indeed, more "heads I win, tails you lose" from the warm-mongers. They must preserve their taxpayer-funded gravy train and justify their lust for power over people's lives.

they could have safely walked half way to Hobart by now! :P

Patrick Byrom
02-01-2014, 03:04 PM
Indeed, more "heads I win, tails you lose" from the warm-mongers. They must preserve their taxpayer-funded gravy train and justify their lust for power over people's lives.


That's one of the lamest excuse I've ever seen. What else do you expect from cult fanatics cornered by the reality defying their faith?

More irony: A 'warmist' provides a simple factual explanation, to which the 'rejectors' respond with fact-free rhetoric. They then claim that the 'warmist' is the one ignoring the facts :hmm:

Igor_Goldenberg
02-01-2014, 06:09 PM
More irony: A 'warmist' provides a simple factual explanation, to which the 'rejectors' respond with fact-free rhetoric. They then claim that the 'warmist' is the one ignoring the facts :hmm:

You didn't provide any facts. You only provide unverified claims by the head of the warmist pack trying to save their collective face. The claim looks so lame and stupid that it requires a lot of justification to be taken seriously.
Did he use to work at Minitrue?
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, 2+2=5, freezing caused by global warming, more ice because of ice melting, etc.

Desmond
02-01-2014, 06:46 PM
How someone could get


more ice because of ice melting

from

not ... new ice that's been created because its cold,... very old, thick ice that's been re-mobilised.

is a mystery to me.

Patrick Byrom
02-01-2014, 06:51 PM
You didn't provide any facts. You only provide unverified claims by the head of the warmist pack trying to save their collective face. The claim looks so lame and stupid that it requires a lot of justification to be taken seriously.
Did he use to work at Minitrue?
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, 2+2=5, freezing caused by global warming, more ice because of ice melting, etc.
This is part of what I quoted:

“There's a misconception here – we are not trapped in new ice that's been created because its cold,” said Turney. “This is very old, thick ice that's been re-mobilised. It was attached to another part of the continent and has broken out and, with the south-easterly winds we've had, has pushed it up against the coast … and pinned us in.”

If you want to convince me that this is incorrect, you need to provide refuting evidence. Simply stating that something is "lame and stupid" is not a refutation. The statements are not logically invalid (like a claim that "2+2=5" would be, as you pointed out), so they need a factual refutation.

Turney is not claiming that melting ice leads to more ice overall. He is claiming that melting ice resulted in an 'iceberg' detaching itself from one part of Antarctica and moving to another part where the ship is - that seems perfectly reasonable to me (after all, it's almost exactly what happened to the Titanic).

Damodevo
02-01-2014, 09:33 PM
The irony in your post is that they were trapped because of melting ice (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/31/antarctic-rescue-helicopter-to-evacuate-passengers-from-trapped-ship):

Yeah the ice in Antarctica is almost gone!!!

2457

antichrist
02-01-2014, 11:15 PM
Indeed, more "heads I win, tails you lose" from the warm-mongers. They must preserve their taxpayer-funded gravy train and justify their lust for power over people's lives.

that is very unfair Jono. When stupid abbott cut funding for the climate change body, outsides stepped in to finance it, also some scientists decided to work without pay as they considered it such an important job. so you should not deride them as being selfish. It is the polluters that are being selfish by refusing to consider future generations

Desmond
03-01-2014, 07:22 AM
Yeah the ice in Antarctica is almost gone!!!

2457
So what? It doesn't mean that the ice wasn't old ice. That would be like saying someone drowning in a backyard pool means there isn't a drought.

antichrist
03-01-2014, 09:13 AM
from Nine news
Last year was the hottest ever recorded in Australia, with temperatures well above average roasting most of the country since September 2012, the Bureau of Meteorology says.

The national average temperature in 2013 was 1.2°C above the long-term average of 21.8°C, with longer periods of warmer-than-average days last year and "a distinct lack of cold weather", the bureau said in its annual climate statement released today.
Numerous heat records were broken during the year, including the warmest summer and spring, the warmest January and September, the hottest summer day (January 7) and the warmest winter day (August 31).
January also marked the hottest week and hottest month since records began in 1910, the ABC said.
A new record was set for the number of consecutive days the national average temperature exceeded 39°C - seven days between January 2 and 8, which almost doubled the previous record of four days set in 1973.
Heat turned up on regional Australia
All states and territories recorded above average temperatures in 2013, with Western Australia, Northern Territory and South Australia all breaking annual average temperature records, AAP reported.
It was the second-hottest year on record for New South Wales and Queensland, third for Victoria and fourth for Tasmania.
The highest temperature for the year was 49.6°C recorded in Moomba, South Australia, on January 12, the highest for the state since 1960 and the sixth highest ever officially recorded in Australia.
The same January heatwave set record hottest days in Hobart (41.8°C) and Sydney (45.8°C).
There were 10 tropical cyclones for the year, slightly below the long-term average.
The bureau says Australia has experienced just one cooler-than-average year in the past decade: 2011.
Nationally averaged rainfall was slightly below average for the year, with 428mm.
Globally, 2013 was the sixth warmest year on record, the bureau said.

AC
as this site gets changed daily have posted most of article. Frankly I don't fully believe that our climate change sceptics here actually believe what they profess. They are all intelligent people only it does not suit their political personal to agree with the greenies and left of centre bods, not even to agree with moderate conservationists. They also have vested interests to keep their arses being ferried around in cars, to keep their air cons on etc etc. On many political issues change can only occur when the antagonist party gives way - partially at least. We have reached the breaking point so follow your brains sceptics and be constructive and let the progressives win.

Desmond
03-01-2014, 05:43 PM
from Nine news
Last year was the hottest ever recorded in Australia, with temperatures well above average roasting most of the country since September 2012, ...
AC please refrain from bringing up facts, they really have no place in persuading the denialists. Plus they are devastating tor their argument.

Capablanca-Fan
04-01-2014, 02:46 AM
AC please refrain from bringing up facts, they really have no place in persuading the denialists. Plus they are devastating tor their argument.
Facts like the -7° here in Atlanta? But facts don't matter to the warm-mongers; alGore and Flummery need the alarmism so they can make their big bucks, and leftist politicians need it to justify expansion of power.

Desmond
04-01-2014, 05:36 AM
Facts like the -7° here in Atlanta? Are you that stupid?

Rincewind
04-01-2014, 09:53 AM
Are you that stupid?

Either stupid or dishonest... Or both.

ER
04-01-2014, 12:09 PM
Facts like the -7° here in Atlanta? But facts don't matter to the warm-mongers; alGore and Flummery need the alarmism so they can make their big bucks, and leftist politicians need it to justify expansion of power.

Dear Jono

Belated congratulations for your parents' wonderful 50th (golden) wedding anniversary! I posted same in FaceBook but chances are that you might have missed it in the plethora of congratulatory notes by your many friends there! I haven't checked anyway due to the fact that I am still on holiday! :) Cheers and good luck! E.R.

Patrick Byrom
04-01-2014, 05:57 PM
Facts like the -7° here in Atlanta?
It was 39o today in Brisbane (43o in Ipswich!). Want to swap?

Igor_Goldenberg
06-01-2014, 12:08 AM
This is part of what I quoted:

“There's a misconception here – we are not trapped in new ice that's been created because its cold,” said Turney. “This is very old, thick ice that's been re-mobilised. It was attached to another part of the continent and has broken out and, with the south-easterly winds we've had, has pushed it up against the coast … and pinned us in.”

If you want to convince me that this is incorrect, you need to provide refuting evidence. Simply stating that something is "lame and stupid" is not a refutation. The statements are not logically invalid (like a claim that "2+2=5" would be, as you pointed out), so they need a factual refutation.

Global warmists (including Turney) credibility is so low that I am not in a hurry to take their claims at face value. There are a lot of reports in the media about rescue, but for some reason they don't even mention that the expedition was to prove global warming/ice melting. After the party abandoned the ship, nobody seem to care about Russian sailors left on "Akademik Shokalsiy".

I suspect if global warming continues at current alarming rate, the whole Southern Ocean will be closed for navigation :hmm::hmm:

Igor_Goldenberg
06-01-2014, 12:11 AM
I am not a fan of "downfall" spoofs, but this one is real good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03SWGkxt72A

antichrist
06-01-2014, 02:25 AM
Global warmists (including Turney) credibility is so low that I am not in a hurry to take their claims at face value. There are a lot of reports in the media about rescue, but for some reason they don't even mention that the expedition was to prove global warming/ice melting. After the party abandoned the ship, nobody seem to care about Russian sailors left on "Akademik Shokalsiy".

I suspect if global warming continues at current alarming rate, the whole Southern Ocean will be closed for navigation :hmm::hmm:

And what about the northern passage (is it called) where the ice is melting so that now ships can travel through when they could not previously? There was a rational answer for what occurred down south and it does support global warming. Just as a highway may double back to get around a mountain does not mean that it is not going forward.

Desmond
06-01-2014, 06:15 AM
Global warmists (including Turney) credibility is so low that I am not in a hurry to take their claims at face value. It must be nice to not have to take any facts into account. A real time saver, I would imagine.

Rincewind
06-01-2014, 09:07 AM
It must be nice to not have to take any facts into account. A real time saver, I would imagine.

Indeed if you you include the savings Iggy makes by not thinking he has one of the most efficient worldviews there is.

Patrick Byrom
06-01-2014, 05:53 PM
Global warmists (including Turney) credibility is so low that I am not in a hurry to take their claims at face value. There are a lot of reports in the media about rescue, but for some reason they don't even mention that the expedition was to prove global warming/ice melting. After the party abandoned the ship, nobody seem to care about Russian sailors left on "Akademik Shokalsiy".
I suspect if global warming continues at current alarming rate, the whole Southern Ocean will be closed for navigation :hmm::hmm:
There have been numerous media reports about the stranded Russian sailors (although obviously they haven't received as much Australian media coverage as the actual Australians on board). Most of your other comments are also not entirely correct, and I recommend that you do some research on them. Normally I would help you out, but after Brisbane's recent extreme heatwave (including the highest temperature ever recorded at Archerfield), I don't have the energy.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-01-2014, 07:09 PM
It must be nice to not have to take any facts into account. A real time saver, I would imagine.

Facts? Was also "Himalayas ice melting by 2035" a fact? You seem to confuse claims by warmists lobby with facts.

Desmond
06-01-2014, 07:20 PM
Facts? Was also "Himalayas ice melting by 2035" a fact? Use a dictionary.

ER
06-01-2014, 09:17 PM
Dear GGW please visit Springvale, Vic ASAP. Otherwise we'll end up with frostbitten Queenslanders over here! :P

antichrist
06-01-2014, 10:54 PM
if the Himalayas don't melt by 2035 but by 2085 instead is it any material difference in long term. We are extremely irresponsible for continue to spread unnecessary pollution. We are earth criminals who should be held to account

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2014, 05:01 PM
Hitler Gets Trapped in Sea Ice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8A5al0Smf8

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2014, 02:08 PM
Global warming's glorious ship of fools (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9112201/ship-of-fools-2/)
Has there ever been a better story? It's like a version of Titanic where first class cheers for the iceberg
Mark Steyn 11 January 2014

Yes, yes, just to get the obligatory ‘of courses’ out of the way up front: of course ‘weather’ is not the same as ‘climate’; and of course the thickest iciest ice on record could well be evidence of ‘global warming’, just as 40-and-sunny and a 35-below blizzard and 12 degrees and partly cloudy with occasional showers are all apparently manifestations of ‘climate change’; and of course the global warm-mongers are entirely sincere in their belief that the massive carbon footprint of their rescue operation can be offset by the planting of wall-to-wall trees the length and breadth of Australia, Britain, America and continental Europe.

But still: you’d have to have a heart as cold and unmovable as Commonwealth Bay ice not to be howling with laughter at the exquisite symbolic perfection of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition ‘stuck in our own experiment’, as they put it.

The AAE is right: the warm-mongers are indeed ‘stuck in our own experiment’. Frozen to their doomsday narrative like Jeff Daniels with his tongue stuck to the ski lift in Dumb and Dumber, the Big Climate enforcers will still not brook anyone rocking their boat. In December 2008 Al Gore predicted the ‘entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years’. That would be December last year. Oh, sure, it’s still here, but he got the general trend-line correct, didn’t he? Arctic sea ice, December 2008: 12.5 million square kilometres; Arctic sea ice, December 2013: 12.5 million square kilometres.

Big Climate is slowly being crushed by a hard, icy reality: if you’re heading off to university this year, there has been no global warming since before you were in kindergarten. That’s to say, the story of the early 21st century is that the climate declined to follow the climate ‘models’.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2014, 02:16 PM
Posts moved

Discussion about possibly renaming this thread was moved to the Help and Feedback section:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15166-Proposed-Renaming-of-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-thread

Patrick Byrom
11-01-2014, 03:08 PM
Global warming's glorious ship of fools (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9112201/ship-of-fools-2/)
Has there ever been a better story? It's like a version of Titanic where first class cheers for the iceberg
Mark Steyn 11 January 2014

Yes, yes, just to get the obligatory ‘of courses’ out of the way up front: of course ‘weather’ is not the same as ‘climate’; and of course the thickest iciest ice on record could well be evidence of ‘global warming’, just as 40-and-sunny and a 35-below blizzard and 12 degrees and partly cloudy with occasional showers are all apparently manifestations of ‘climate change’; and of course the global warm-mongers are entirely sincere in their belief that the massive carbon footprint of their rescue operation can be offset by the planting of wall-to-wall trees the length and breadth of Australia, Britain, America and continental Europe.

But still: you’d have to have a heart as cold and unmovable as Commonwealth Bay ice not to be howling with laughter at the exquisite symbolic perfection of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition ‘stuck in our own experiment’, as they put it.

The AAE is right: the warm-mongers are indeed ‘stuck in our own experiment’. Frozen to their doomsday narrative like Jeff Daniels with his tongue stuck to the ski lift in Dumb and Dumber, the Big Climate enforcers will still not brook anyone rocking their boat. In December 2008 Al Gore predicted the ‘entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years’. That would be December last year. Oh, sure, it’s still here, but he got the general trend-line correct, didn’t he? Arctic sea ice, December 2008: 12.5 million square kilometres; Arctic sea ice, December 2013: 12.5 million square kilometres.

Big Climate is slowly being crushed by a hard, icy reality: if you’re heading off to university this year, there has been no global warming since before you were in kindergarten. That’s to say, the story of the early 21st century is that the climate declined to follow the climate ‘models’.

This article is a good illustration of why 'rejectors' are not being taken seriously: Almost everything in it is wrong. There has been significant global warming in the 21st century, the trend in Arctic sea ice is definitely downwards (only a 'rejector' with no scientific training would be stupid enough to use only two points to define a trend-line), and Al Gore never made that prediction (he may have quoted a scientific paper which did make such a prediction, but Steyn's quote is still misleading at best). Some of the other statements are so vague, it's impossible to say if they're correct or not.

Desmond
11-01-2014, 05:15 PM
Global warming's glorious ship of fools (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9112201/ship-of-fools-2/)
Has there ever been a better story? It's like a version of Titanic where first class cheers for the iceberg
‘weather’ is not the same as ‘climate’;
…That must have come as quite the revelation for Professor It's-Winter-In-Atlanta-Therefore-there-is-no-Global-Warming

Desmond
12-01-2014, 12:25 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1013235_740814975929483_1377695774_n.jpg

Rincewind
16-01-2014, 04:32 PM
The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publ ish_actual_papers.html)
By Phil Plait


To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely on talk shows, grossly error-laden op-eds, and hugely out-of-date claims (that were never right to start with).
...
Powell recently finished another such investigation (http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming), this time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!

One. Yes, one. Here’s what that looks like as a pie chart:

2472

Denial is a thin wedge indeed.

Desmond
18-01-2014, 07:36 AM
World Health Organization: Priority environment and health risks (http://www.who.int/heli/risks/en/)
...Some key areas of risk include the following:


Unsafe water, poor sanitation and hygiene kill an estimated 1.7 million people annually, particularly as a result of diarrhoeal disease.
Indoor smoke from solid fuels kills an estimated 1.6 million people annually due to respiratory diseases.
Malaria kills over 1.2 million people annually, mostly African children under the age of five. Poorly designed irrigation and water systems, inadequate housing, poor waste disposal and water storage, deforestation and loss of biodiversity, all may be contributing factors to the most common vector-borne diseases including malaria, dengue and leishmaniasis.
Urban air pollution generated by vehicles, industries and energy production kills approximately 800 000 people annually.
Unintentional acute poisonings kill 355 000 people globally each year. In developing countries, where two-thirds of these deaths occur, such poisonings are associated strongly with excessive exposure to, and inappropriate use of, toxic chemicals and pesticides present in occupational and/or domestic environments.
Climate change impacts including more extreme weather events, changed patterns of disease and effects on agricultural production, are estimated to cause over 150 000 deaths annually.

...

Igor_Goldenberg
18-01-2014, 09:43 PM
How do you call people that uncritically believe such estimates?
Blessed are those who believe...

Tony Dowden
18-01-2014, 09:57 PM
A question for Jono, who started the thread: Why the misleading title?





[explanatory note: this post refers to the former title "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - mod]

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2014, 10:13 PM
A question for Jono, who started the thread: Why the misleading title?

Actually the thread was not started by Jono. Rather, a discussion on another thread became sidetracked into a discussion of a specific sceptical film called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and Jono's post was at the head of a bunch of posts about that that were moved. The title was created by the mods to describe the content of the posts that were moved to a new thread. Over time the thread has drifted away from the film to become a general discussion of climate-change issues.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2014, 10:17 PM
Thread title changed

As the feedback thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15166-Proposed-Renaming-of-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-thread) voting (which has closed) and comments combined amount to a consensus (!) in favour of renaming this thread, it has been renamed. The old title will remain in brackets after the title for a short period and then be removed.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-01-2014, 12:26 AM
I guess I noticed this thread too late, not that it would change much.
There is a much bigger question then whether global warming existed, still exist or whether it's a man made. The bigger issue is a dishonest con-job (which already cost billions, if not trillions) put forth by warming alarmist.

Desmond
19-01-2014, 09:33 AM
How do you call people that uncritically believe such estimates?
Blessed are those who believe...
Blessed are the people who read the article that explains the estimate.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2014, 09:51 AM
World Health Organization: Priority environment and health risks (http://www.who.int/heli/risks/en/)
...Some key areas of risk include the following:


Unsafe water, poor sanitation and hygiene kill an estimated 1.7 million people annually, particularly as a result of diarrhoeal disease.
Indoor smoke from solid fuels kills an estimated 1.6 million people annually due to respiratory diseases.
Malaria kills over 1.2 million people annually, mostly African children under the age of five. Poorly designed irrigation and water systems, inadequate housing, poor waste disposal and water storage, deforestation and loss of biodiversity, all may be contributing factors to the most common vector-borne diseases including malaria, dengue and leishmaniasis.
Urban air pollution generated by vehicles, industries and energy production kills approximately 800 000 people annually.
Unintentional acute poisonings kill 355 000 people globally each year. In developing countries, where two-thirds of these deaths occur, such poisonings are associated strongly with excessive exposure to, and inappropriate use of, toxic chemicals and pesticides present in occupational and/or domestic environments.
Climate change impacts including more extreme weather events, changed patterns of disease and effects on agricultural production, are estimated to cause over 150 000 deaths annually.

...
OK, even if you are right, climate change should be less of a priority than many of the other problems. Also, the last seems to presuppose that any harsh weather patterns are the result of "climate change" although they are not the harshest even in the last 100 years.

Also, many measures to cope with "climate change" could worsen some of the other problems. If the cost of coal power stations skyrockets, then more people will need to use wood fires to heat their homes: a cure worse than the disease by your own estimates.

No question about the benefits of improved sanitation and water supplies. Bjørn Lomborg doesn't deny climate change, but argues that these should be much higher priorities. As for malaria, blame the econazis who banned DDT that destroyed the mozzies that carried malaria (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring).

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2014, 09:52 AM
World Health Organization: Priority environment and health risks (http://www.who.int/heli/risks/en/)
...Some key areas of risk include the following:


Unsafe water, poor sanitation and hygiene kill an estimated 1.7 million people annually, particularly as a result of diarrhoeal disease.
Indoor smoke from solid fuels kills an estimated 1.6 million people annually due to respiratory diseases.
Malaria kills over 1.2 million people annually, mostly African children under the age of five. Poorly designed irrigation and water systems, inadequate housing, poor waste disposal and water storage, deforestation and loss of biodiversity, all may be contributing factors to the most common vector-borne diseases including malaria, dengue and leishmaniasis.
Urban air pollution generated by vehicles, industries and energy production kills approximately 800 000 people annually.
Unintentional acute poisonings kill 355 000 people globally each year. In developing countries, where two-thirds of these deaths occur, such poisonings are associated strongly with excessive exposure to, and inappropriate use of, toxic chemicals and pesticides present in occupational and/or domestic environments.
Climate change impacts including more extreme weather events, changed patterns of disease and effects on agricultural production, are estimated to cause over 150 000 deaths annually.

...
OK, even if you are right, climate change should be less of a priority than many of the other problems. Also, the last seems to presuppose that any harsh weather patterns are the result of "climate change" although they are not the harshest even in the last 100 years.

Also, many measures to cope with "climate change" could worsen some of the other problems. If the cost of coal power stations skyrockets, then more people will need to use wood fires to heat their homes: a cure worse than the disease by your own estimates.

No question about the benefits of improved sanitation and water supplies. Bjørn Lomborg doesn't deny climate change, but argues that these should be much higher priorities. As for malaria, blame the econazis who banned DDT that destroyed the mozzies that carried malaria (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring).

Desmond
19-01-2014, 10:18 AM
OK, even if you are right, climate change should be less of a priority than many of the other problems. These things can all be addressed, it is not a case of picking some and not others.


Also, the last seems to presuppose that any harsh weather patterns are the result of "climate change"No it doesn't.

although they are not the harshest even in the last 100 years.ipse dixit.


Also, many measures to cope with "climate change" could worsen some of the other problems. If the cost of coal power stations skyrockets, then more people will need to use wood fires to heat their homes: a cure worse than the disease by your own estimates.Ipse dixit again. Got any scientific article showing the magnitude of one outweighing the other?


No question about the benefits of improved sanitation and water supplies. Bjørn Lomborg doesn't deny climate change, but argues that these should be much higher priorities. As for malaria, blame the econazis who banned DDT that destroyed the mozzies that carried malaria (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring).Warmer climates will probably make insect-borne diseases such as malaria worse.

Epstein 1998 - Biological and Physical Signs of Climate Change: Focus on Mosquito-borne Diseases (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281998%29079%3C0409%3ABAPSOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2)

Rincewind
19-01-2014, 10:55 AM
The real question is how stupid/dishonest are th4e deniers and why are almost all of them conservative nutjobs like ignore.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-01-2014, 12:35 PM
OK, even if you are right ...

It's a very big if. Warmists were exposed for so many wild claims, it makes it very hard to take them seriously. They might still valid statements and claims, but the credibility of the entire warmists community is extremely low. Any claim has to be seriously substantiated. Most of the predictions and models turned out to be completely wrong.
The "estimate of 150,000 death due to climate change impact" is one of those.
On top of usual credibility issues with warmists prediction, there must also be a reduction of death due to cold weather.



Epstein 1998 - Biological and Physical Signs of Climate Change: Focus on Mosquito-borne Diseases (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281998%29079%3C0409%3ABAPSOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2)


That's an estimate from 15 years ago. Do you have any actual data for the last 15 years?

Rincewind
19-01-2014, 02:25 PM
Now I see why Jono and his happy friends confuse climate and weather. They actually believe the crap that passes for comment on Fox.

Mild language warning. Most expletives are edited out.
pTdjNt2LWiU

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2014, 02:40 PM
I can see why gloBull warm-mongers like RW and rr still bitterly cling to their alarmism--they rely on leftard comedians for their "science".

Rincewind
19-01-2014, 02:49 PM
I can see why gloBull warm-mongers like RW and rr still bitterly cling to their alarmism--they rely on leftard comedians for their "science".

Jon Stewart is a very funny man, there is no denying that. However the idiots of Fox that he exposes with great hilarity were being serious. That is the problem and especially it is a problem when lots of stupid right wing nutjobs seem happy to reproduce their rubbish on internet forums like this one.

The irony of Jono's complaint is that when he tried to use comedy to make his point it was via some lame Downfall parody with no factual content to speak of. What Jon Stewart does is both funny AND exposes the rubbish being sprouted on Fox in a factual way.

Patrick Byrom
19-01-2014, 08:05 PM
The irony of Jono's complaint is that when he tried to use comedy to make his point it was via some lame Downfall parody with no factual content to speak of. What Jon Stewart does is both funny AND exposes the rubbish being sprouted on Fox in a factual way.
Speaking of Downfall, Tony Abbott's adviser Maurice Newman was forced into a slightly embarrassing back-down (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/17/csiro-scientists-say-warmer-world-wager-with-maurice-newman-a-safe-bet) recently:

Newman’s article, published in the Australian, quoted contrarian US physicist Richard Lindzen who said he would be willing to take bets that the average global temperature would be lower than today in 20 years’ time. Newman added “Any takers?”
The challenge has already been taken up by Nobel prize-winning physicist Brian Schmidt, who said he would be willing to bet $10,000 that average temperatures would be higher in 20 years’ time, consistent with the predictions of mainstream science.

So far, Newman has been unwilling to accept (Lindzen wasn't willing (http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/betting.html) to do so either).

If they think climate models are so badly wrong, maybe Jono or Igor will take up Schmidt's offer (smaller bets are also available)? :hmm:

Desmond
19-01-2014, 09:32 PM
That's an estimate from 15 years ago. Do you have any actual data for the last 15 years?Why, do you need more links to articles you won't read?

Desmond
19-01-2014, 10:02 PM
I can see why gloBull warm-mongers like RW and rr still bitterly cling to their alarmism--they rely on leftard comedians for their "science".We could rely on the science articles you posted, if you ever did.

Rincewind
20-01-2014, 12:45 AM
If they think climate models are so badly wrong, maybe Jono or Igor will take up Schmidt's offer (smaller bets are also available)? :hmm:

The hypocritical denialists like Joanne Nova claim that Brian Schmidt must be a denialist since he is just betting on warming above zero. But seems to be looking down the wrong end of the microscope. The bet was proposed by Morrison not Schmidt and the basis was for cooling vs warming, hence the zero baseline. Also given the small fluctuations it is possible the year average for global temperature in 2033 might be cooler than 2013. The IPCC prediction is something like 0.4 C over 20 years so cooling is certainly not impossible just unlikely. Multi-year averages would make it an even safer bet.

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2014, 06:09 AM
rr cites that moronic Luckovich cartoon, as if skeptic of warm-mongering can't tell the difference between weather and climate, whereas it's the warm-mongers who cherry-pick weather disasters to support their alarmist nonsense. Anyway, John Stossel writes in Chill Out (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/22871) (22 Jan 2014):


What exactly is “global warming” anyway? That's really four questions:

Is the globe warming? Probably. Global temperatures have risen. Climate changes. Always has. Always will.
Is the warming caused by man? Maybe. There's decent evidence that at least some of it is.
But is global warming a crisis? Far from it. It's possible that it will become a crisis. Some computer models suggest big problems, but the models aren't very accurate. Some turned out to be utterly wrong. Clueless scaremongers like Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Cal., seize on weather disasters to blame man's carbon output. After Oklahoma's tragic tornadoes last year, Boxer stood on the floor of the Senate and shrieked, “Carbon could cost us the planet!” But there were actually fewer tornadoes last summer.
If the globe is warming, can America do anything about it? No. What we do now is pointless. I feel righteous riding my bike to work. That's just shallow. Even if all Americans replaced cars with bicycles, switched to fluorescent light bulbs, got solar water heaters, etc., it would have no discernible effect on the climate. China builds a new coal-fueled power plant almost every week; each one obliterates any carbon reduction from all our windmills and solar panels.

Weirdly, the only thing that's reduced America's carbon output has been our increased use of natural gas (it releases less greenhouse gas than oil and coal). But many environmentalists fight the fracking that produces it.

Someday, we'll probably invent technology that could reduce man's greenhouse gas creation, but we're nowhere close to it now. Rather than punish poor people with higher taxes on carbon and award ludicrous subsidies to Al Gore's “green” investments, we should wait for the science to advance.

Desmond
23-01-2014, 06:37 AM
rr cites that moronic Luckovich cartoon, as if skeptic of warm-mongering can't tell the difference between weather and climate, Only a few days ago you gave us a weather report in the Global Warming thread by citing a single context-free temperature in a single place. One needs not create a caricature of you.


whereas it's the warm-mongers who cherry-pick weather disasters to support their alarmist nonsense. Gotta love your consistency Jono. You just take whatever failings your position on anything has an hypocritically accuse your opponents of same. In any case the article you're about to cite appears to contradict you.
Anyway, John Stossel writes in Chill Out (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/22871) (22 Jan 2014):


[INDENT]What exactly is “global warming” anyway? That's really four questions:
[list=1]
Is the globe warming? Probably. To >95% certainty.

Is the warming caused by man? Maybe. To >95% certainty.

But is global warming a crisis? Far from it. It's possible that it will become a crisis.#2764 - #2767.


Some computer models suggest big problems, but the models aren't very accurate. Wrong.

If the globe is warming, can America do anything about it? Of course.

No. What we do now is pointless. I feel righteous riding my bike to work. That's just shallow. Even if all Americans replaced cars with bicycles, switched to fluorescent light bulbs, got solar water heaters, etc., it would have no discernible effect on the climate. China builds a new coal-fueled power plant almost every week; each one obliterates any carbon reduction from all our windmills and solar panels.Oh really? How many windmills and solar panels are there in the US and what is their output? And what is the output of 1 plant?

Patrick Byrom
23-01-2014, 10:32 PM
Anyway, John Stossel writes in Chill Out (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/22871) (22 Jan 2014):

...
If the globe is warming, can America do anything about it? No. What we do now is pointless. I feel righteous riding my bike to work. That's just shallow. Even if all Americans replaced cars with bicycles, switched to fluorescent light bulbs, got solar water heaters, etc., it would have no discernible effect on the climate. China builds a new coal-fueled power plant almost every week; each one obliterates any carbon reduction from all our windmills and solar panels.
Weirdly, the only thing that's reduced America's carbon output has been our increased use of natural gas (it releases less greenhouse gas than oil and coal). But many environmentalists fight the fracking that produces it.
Someday, we'll probably invent technology that could reduce man's greenhouse gas creation, but we're nowhere close to it now. Rather than punish poor people with higher taxes on carbon and award ludicrous subsidies to Al Gore's “green” investments, we should wait for the science to advance.
Stossel seems to be unaware that China is restricting its output of greenhouse gases (http://www.nature.com/news/china-gets-tough-on-carbon-1.13175).

He also seems unaware that the US emits about twice as much carbon dioxide per capita as countries with a similar standard of living (eg, the UK or Germany), which suggests that the US could reduce its emissions significantly without damaging its economy. This is already happening, with renewables making a major contribution (I don't know where Stossel got the idea that it's all due to natural gas).

Even a 10% drop in emissions made only by the US could reduce global temperatures by at about 0.2o by 2100. And obviously the US is not the only country reducing emissions (as Stossel implies).

Damodevo
24-01-2014, 12:18 AM
Stossel seems to be unaware that China is restricting its output of greenhouse gases (http://www.nature.com/news/china-gets-tough-on-carbon-1.13175).

I don't know what you mean by "restricting" but according to the Asia Development Bank (http://www.adb.org/publications/energy-outlook-asia-and-pacific-2013) Asia's total CO2 output is growing rapidly. Which highlights what a complete waste it is for western countries to indulge in useless carbon abatement measures.


CO2 emissions in Asia and the Pacific as a whole will increase from 13,404.0 million tons of CO2 in 2010 to 22,112.6 million tons of CO2 in 2035 at a growth rate of 2.0% per year, slightly slower than the projected growth in energy demand of 2.1% per year


This is already happening, with renewables making a major contribution (I don't know where Stossel got the idea that it's all due to natural gas).

Complete rubbish. Renewables have done very little. E.g. the 2012 drop in CO2 output can be mostly explained (http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/10/29/climate-change-and-natural-gas-combine-to-reduce-u-s-carbon-dioxide-emissions/) by NG;


Indeed, it looks like pretty much a one-for-one swap: compared to 2011, coal produced 215 billion fewer kilowatt-hours and natural gas, some 212 billion more.

Even the EIA report says NG explains nearly 60% of the drop and that nuclear energy picks up most of the rest;


The shift from coal to natural gas is responsible for nearly 60 percent of the reductions, the report said. The remainder is due to increases in renewable and nuclear power generation, it said.

Damodevo
24-01-2014, 01:38 AM
Breezes That Will Never Beat The Heat


The maximum (http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/01/breezes-will-never-beat-heat/) demand for 10.8 Gw in SA and Vic combined came at 4 pm Jan 13; 12.7 Gw on the 14th; and 12.8 Gw on the 15th. Demand during January is normally about 6 Gw. (1 Gw is a trillion watts — one million typical household radiators turned on at the same time, to use one readily comprehensible measure.)

The rated capacity of the wind farms, two-thirds of which are in SA, is 2.1Gw, which happens when the wind is blowing at the optimum speed, neither too fast or too slow. On Jan 13, wind output was 150Mw (6% of rated capacity); on Jan 14 it was 670Mw (32%); and on Jan 16 it was 170Mw (8%). The wind turbines are essentially useless since they cannot guarantee power output when it is most needed and their most reliable output takes place at night.

Desmond
24-01-2014, 06:45 AM
NOAA: World in 2013 was 4th hottest on record (http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/NOAA-World-in-2013-was-4th-hottest-on-record-5162377.php)

Pretty amazing for a no El Nino year.

Patrick Byrom
24-01-2014, 04:09 PM
I don't know what you mean by "restricting" but according to the Asia Development Bank (http://www.adb.org/publications/energy-outlook-asia-and-pacific-2013) Asia's total CO2 output is growing rapidly. Which highlights what a complete waste it is for western countries to indulge in useless carbon abatement measures.
That argument doesn't make any sense (assuming you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, of course). Every extra tonne of carbon dioxide adds to greenhouse warming, so reducing our contribution will still reduce world temperatures. Of course, predictions of CO2 output for 2035 are not too reliable anyway, especially given China's decision to reduce pollution (shown in the article I linked too).


Complete rubbish. Renewables have done very little. E.g. the 2012 drop in CO2 output can be mostly explained (http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/10/29/climate-change-and-natural-gas-combine-to-reduce-u-s-carbon-dioxide-emissions/) by NG; Even the EIA report says NG explains nearly 60% of the drop and that nuclear energy picks up most of the rest;
Stossel said: "Weirdly, the only thing that's reduced America's carbon output has been our increased use of natural gas (it releases less greenhouse gas than oil and coal)." I've emphasised his use of the word "only", to show that Stossel claims that the use of renewables have had no (or almost no) effect at all.

This contradicts both the EIA's conclusion: "The remainder (116 MMTCO2) is largely the result of a 9-percent increase in non-carbon generation (renewable and nuclear)"; and the conclusion in another major report (http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf), which finds that renewables made a significant contribution over the period 2005 to 2012.

Damodevo
25-01-2014, 02:24 PM
NASA and NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues



In a joint press conference (http://www.thegwpf.org/nasa-noaa-confirm-global-temperature-standstill-continues/) NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the ‘pause’ in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues.

Statistically speaking there has been no significant trend in global temperatures over this period. All these years fall within the error bars of 0.1 deg C. The trend is less than this and is statistically insignificant. There is no statistical case for representing the post-1997 data as anything other than a constant line. The graphs presented at the press conference omitted those error bars.

When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun and natural variability. In other words, they don’t know.

NASA has a temperature anomaly of 0.61 deg C above the average of 14.0 (1951 – 80) making it the 7th warmest year. Note that it is identical to 2003 and only 0.01 above 2009 and 2006. Taking into account the errors there has been no change since last year.

NOAA also has 2013 as the 4th warmest year, at 0.62 deg C above the global 20th century average of 13.9 deg C. Note that only 0.09 deg C separates their top ten warmest years. Each year has an associated error of 0.1 deg.

Given that the IPCC estimates that the average decadal increase in global surface temperature is 0.2 deg C, the world is now 0.3 deg C cooler than it should have been.

Damodevo
25-01-2014, 02:27 PM
This contradicts both the EIA's conclusion: "The remainder (116 MMTCO2) is largely the result of a 9-percent increase in non-carbon generation (renewable and nuclear)"; and the conclusion in another major report (http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf), which finds that renewables made a significant contribution over the period 2005 to 2012.

How is that even remotely plausible when renewables only contribute around 2% to total world energy?

Damodevo
25-01-2014, 02:31 PM
Europe, Facing Economic Pain, May Ease Climate Rules



High energy (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/business/international/european-union-lowers-ambitions-on-renewable-energy.html?hp&_r=0) costs, declining industrial competitiveness and a recognition that the economy is unlikely to rebound strongly any time soon are leading policy makers to begin easing up in their drive for more aggressive climate regulation.

On Wednesday, the European Union proposed an end to binding national targets for renewable energy production after 2020. Instead, it substituted an overall European goal that is likely to be much harder to enforce.

Rincewind
25-01-2014, 02:59 PM
How is that even remotely plausible when renewables only contribute around 2% to total world energy?

Where did you get 2% from?

Desmond
25-01-2014, 03:28 PM
NASA and NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues
global surface temperature != global temperature

Patrick Byrom
25-01-2014, 04:22 PM
Where did you get 2% from?
That's a good question, especially as both my references were to the US (not global) use of renewables.

Patrick Byrom
25-01-2014, 04:41 PM
NASA and NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues

It's a shame you didn't quote from the original press conference, instead of the GWPF's interpretation of it. We might have been spared a statistical howler like the sentence I've italicised:

Statistically speaking there has been no significant trend in global temperatures over this period. All these years fall within the error bars of 0.1 deg C. The trend is less than this and is statistically insignificant. There is no statistical case for representing the post-1997 data as anything other than a constant line. The graphs presented at the press conference omitted those error bars.

A non-zero trend which is statistically insignificant is not the same thing as no trend at all! :wall::wall:

The difference is in the range of possible values: eg, if x = 0.5+-1.0, it is much more likely that x=1.5 than if x = 0.0+-1.0.

Rincewind
25-01-2014, 05:06 PM
That's a good question, especially as both my references were to the US (not global) use of renewables.

I'd like to see the 2% substantiated even worldwide. I suspect at a minimum you would have to count traditional biomass combustion for heating/cooking as not renewable. But to get under 2% you would probably have to excise hydro from the list of renewables as well.

Damodevo
25-01-2014, 10:26 PM
Where did you get 2% from?

Solar and wind. Off the top of my head. But its in that ball park.

Rincewind
25-01-2014, 10:42 PM
Solar and wind. Off the top of my head. But its in that ball park.

That's a bit restrictive. Aren't managed biomass and hydro both "renewable"?

Damodevo
26-01-2014, 01:28 PM
U.S braces itself for coldest month of the century with yet another Arctic blast as fears grow for Super Bowl Sunday


America is set (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545153/U-S-braces-coldest-month-century.html#ixzz2rSU9Fg2u)for the coldest month of the century as weather forecasters predict yet another freezing blast of Arctic air - putting Super Bowl Sunday in jeopardy.

Rincewind
26-01-2014, 05:51 PM
U.S braces itself for coldest month of the century with yet another Arctic blast as fears grow for Super Bowl Sunday

See One cold snap does not invalidate AGW hypotesis (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?6637-Does-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Exist-(was-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle)&p=373757&viewfull=1#post373757)

Desmond
26-01-2014, 09:34 PM
U.S braces itself for coldest month of the century with yet another Arctic blast as fears grow for Super Bowl Sunday
Would you like to make a bet on this being the coldest year for a century globally?

ER
26-01-2014, 10:02 PM
as long as it (either way) doesn't interfere with major sporting events like the Super Bowl, I don't really care! ;)

Damodevo
27-01-2014, 12:01 AM
Dude, Where's My Global Warming?


Kevin "it's a travesty!" Trenberth has (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/trenberth-debunks-himself-oceans-didnt.html) published a new paper today in the Journal of Climate, which shows that the rate of change of global ocean heat content has decreased since ~2001, contradicting his prior claim that the 'pause' of global warming can be explained by an increase in the rate of ocean 'missing heat' uptake.

From the paper (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Energy_Imbalance_OHC_v6_ss.pdf);


While some of the previously "missing energy" is accounted for, substantial discrepancies between OHC and CERES at interannual time scales persist, and are especially prominent during 2008-9

Patrick Byrom
27-01-2014, 01:18 AM
Trenberth's paper doesn't incorporate the recent work of Cowtan and Way (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html), which eliminated the 'pause' by extending the surface temperature set to cover the entire globe. His concern about a small amount of 'missing heat' will probably disappear completely once this is done.

Desmond
27-01-2014, 07:17 AM
Would you like to make a bet on this being the coldest year for a century globally?

No?

Tell you what. Doesn't have to be the coldest, I'll pay top 10 coldest.

pax
27-01-2014, 12:51 PM
No?

Tell you what. Doesn't have to be the coldest, I'll pay top 10 coldest.

I'd pay top eighty coldest.

pax
27-01-2014, 12:54 PM
2487

Damodevo
28-01-2014, 09:55 AM
So much for settled science

Climate Effects of Aerosol-Cloud Interactions (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/settled-science-new-paper-finds-effect.html)


Aerosols counteract part of the warming effects of greenhouse gases, mostly by increasing the amount of sunlight reflected back to space. However, the ways in which aerosols affect climate through their interaction with clouds are complex and incompletely captured by climate models. As a result, the radiative forcing (that is, the perturbation to Earth's energy budget) caused by human activities is highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the extent of global warming (1, 2). Recent advances have led to a more detailed understanding of aerosol-cloud interactions and their effects on climate, but further progress is hampered by limited observational capabilities and coarse-resolution climate models.

Desmond
28-01-2014, 12:46 PM
So much for settled science

Climate Effects of Aerosol-Cloud Interactions (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/settled-science-new-paper-finds-effect.html)


Looks like they've got the wrong end of the hockeyschtick again, oh dear. Some perspective here:

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/australia-working-with-hebrew-university-on-climate-change/40049

ER
28-01-2014, 01:42 PM
so do I keep or throw away my insect repellent thingy?

Desmond
28-01-2014, 02:07 PM
so do I keep or throw away my insect repellent thingy?Get suncream that also repels the little buggers. ;)

Rincewind
28-01-2014, 04:33 PM
What is this paper (Rosenfeld et al) saying that invalidates the CO2 -> AGW link?

Note too that this paper was printed in the Perspectives section of Science Mag which is usually solicited opinion rather than scientific research. Perspectived with four authors though are rare according to Science Mag's own editorial policies.

ER
28-01-2014, 04:53 PM
Get suncream that also repels the little buggers. ;)

done thanks! :)

Capablanca-Fan
29-01-2014, 01:46 AM
See One cold snap does not invalidate AGW hypotesis (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?6637-Does-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Exist-(was-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle)&p=373757&viewfull=1#post373757)

I would agree, but it didn't stop the alarmists from claiming that one heat wave / one hurricane validated it.

Capablanca-Fan
29-01-2014, 03:08 AM
Dear Jono

Belated congratulations for your parents' wonderful 50th (golden) wedding anniversary! I posted same in FaceBook but chances are that you might have missed it in the plethora of congratulatory notes by your many friends there! I haven't checked anyway due to the fact that I am still on holiday! :) Cheers and good luck! E.R.
Belated thanks, JaK; just saw this note.

Rincewind
29-01-2014, 08:20 AM
I would agree, but it didn't stop the alarmists from claiming that one heat wave / one hurricane validated it.

AGW is a scientific hypothesis. Was there one scientific paper claiming that the Sandy was proof of global warming or even that Sandy made denial more untenable?

There was comment that AGW predicts more frequent extreme weather events which is statistically validated and of which single events heat wave or cold snap contributes to the statistical analysis but by themselves are not significant.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-01-2014, 09:38 PM
Why, do you need more links to articles you won't read?
Is estimate from 15 years ago the best you can do?


NOAA: World in 2013 was 4th hottest on record (http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/NOAA-World-in-2013-was-4th-hottest-on-record-5162377.php)

Pretty amazing for a no El Nino year.
Do you cite it as global warming proof?

Igor_Goldenberg
30-01-2014, 09:56 PM
If they think climate models are so badly wrong, maybe Jono or Igor will take up Schmidt's offer (smaller bets are also available)? :hmm:
Patrick, you seem to miss the point I've being repeating many times:
The climate models were so spectacularly wrong because they complete failed to predict the climate. In terms of forecast they are completely useless.

Let's assume that the only information we have is weather records. According to those records, there was a positive trend between 1972-1997, then it reverted to zero. I assume the change was statistically significant. otherwise AGW advocates would claim it's not. In this case the most prudent assumption for the forecast is that zero trend continues, which means the average in 20 years could be either lower or higher. Being sceptic, I don't see evidences to support assumption that it will go up or down.
I am not into useless gambling, unless odds are severely in my favour. If you insist, I am happy to make 1:2 bet on any outcome:). After all, if you believe AGW models are correct, why wouldn't you bet $20 against my $10.

On a serious note, if bookies took bets, I'd put my money on the outcome with higher payout.

Patrick Byrom
30-01-2014, 11:05 PM
Let's assume that the only information we have is weather records. According to those records, there was a positive trend between 1972-1997, then it reverted to zero. I assume the change was statistically significant. otherwise AGW advocates would claim it's not. In this case the most prudent assumption for the forecast is that zero trend continues, which means the average in 20 years could be either lower or higher. Being sceptic, I don't see evidences to support assumption that it will go up or down.
I am not into useless gambling, unless odds are severely in my favour. If you insist, I am happy to make 1:2 bet on any outcome:). After all, if you believe AGW models are correct, why wouldn't you bet $20 against my $10.
On a serious note, if bookies took bets, I'd put my money on the outcome with higher payout.
You're not interested in taking the bets already offered by Pax or Road Runner?

Before accepting, you might want to think about the fact that every year since 1997 has been above a zero trend (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/). In other words, the trend since 1997 is definitely positive, although it is not (yet) statistically significant in every data set. Note that a trend that is not significantly different from zero is not the same as a zero trend!

Rincewind
31-01-2014, 12:43 AM
Being sceptic, I don't see evidences to support assumption that it will go up or down.

By "sceptic" do you mean blind or stupid? It is difficult to determine which you mean from the context of that sentence.

Desmond
31-01-2014, 06:47 AM
I am not into useless gambling, unless odds are severely in my favour. If you insist, I am happy to make 1:2 bet on any outcome:). After all, if you believe AGW models are correct, why wouldn't you bet $20 against my $10.

On a serious note, if bookies took bets, I'd put my money on the outcome with higher payout.I accept 2:1 in principle and offer:

I bet that 2014 will be in the hottest 50 of the last 100 years. If it is I will choose an avatar for you for the next 6 months; if I lose you get to choose an avatar me for the next 12 months.

Terms
Avatar to be within chesschat forum policies. All posts by the user must show the avatar.
2014 being 1 Jan 2014-31 Dec 2014.
Hottest being determined by the global temperature data from recognized source, Eg NOAA or HADCRUT. The source to be indicated upon acceptance of the bet.
Bet valid for 14 days, i.e. until February 14.

Vlad
31-01-2014, 12:20 PM
By "sceptic" do you mean blind or stupid? It is difficult to determine which you mean from the context of that sentence.

I think in the case of goldy-the-house-of-soviets the question is rather rhetoric...:lol:

Vlad
31-01-2014, 12:23 PM
I accept 2:1 in principle and offer.

Do not bet with goldy-the-house-of-soviets, he is a master of excuses. Even if you win - he will never admit it.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2014, 12:24 PM
The real question is how stupid/dishonest are th4e deniers and why are almost all of them conservative nutjobs like ignore.

It's not surprising that most warm-mongers are leftatheopaths. As former Czech president Vaclav Klaus pointed out, environmental alarmism is the latest weapon of communists to justify massive expansion of government reach, even across national borders.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2014, 12:26 PM
The warm-mongers love to use government force to bet against taxpayers' money.

Rincewind
31-01-2014, 12:57 PM
The warm-mongers love to use government force to bet against taxpayers' money.

Funny though that the deniers are so confident they are correct they are only willing to bet at favourable odds. If Ignore takes up RRs bet at odds of only two-to-one he is being much braver than Lindzen who requested odds of fifty-to-one.

Rincewind
31-01-2014, 01:03 PM
It's not surprising that most warm-mongers are leftatheopaths. As former Czech president Vaclav Klaus pointed out, environmental alarmism is the latest weapon of communists to justify massive expansion of government reach, even across national borders.

In Jono's world the conclusion is often decided on before the evidence is considered. The fact there are decades of climate research showing global warming, showing the link to CO2 emission, decades of measurement of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, etc. We know CO2 causes warming and we know fossil fuel consumption is causing the CO2 spike. However despite the compelling science, deniers continue to deny based on ideological grounds.

Although to be fair Jono has a substantial track record of denying scientific truths on ideological grounds.

Desmond
31-01-2014, 02:54 PM
Do not bet with goldy-the-house-of-soviets, he is a master of excuses. Even if you win - he will never admit it.We could ask an admin to enforce it (whoever wins).

ER
31-01-2014, 02:56 PM
Igor careful before you agree to any bets.

In matters of climate change etc I like the AGU's Blogosphere website. Not that I absolutely trust them, a bit too radical for my liking, but they undoubtedly provide interesting reading material!

http://blogs.agu.org/

Here's some material they published quoting the NASA website


2012 Was 9th Warmest Year on Record. The 9 Warmest Years Have All Occurred Since 1998.

Also I think RR is trying to put a con job on you with his last 50 years offer! :P

Look at this graph

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee481/jak_jak1/NASA2012-FINAL_zpsd77b8731.png (http://s1230.photobucket.com/user/jak_jak1/media/NASA2012-FINAL_zpsd77b8731.png.html)

also here:

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee481/jak_jak1/Screen-Shot-2013-01-16-at-12_28_17-AM_zps0255a855.png (http://s1230.photobucket.com/user/jak_jak1/media/Screen-Shot-2013-01-16-at-12_28_17-AM_zps0255a855.png.html)

So unless you are able to trick them using the method you applied on me re Julia vs Tony, I don't like your chances of surviving against them sharks! :P

Desmond
31-01-2014, 03:43 PM
Also I think RR is trying to put a con job on you with his last 50 years offer! :P I don't see why.

If you believe the globe is not warming then you should believe there is ~50% chance that this year be in bottom half of the range from the last 100 years.

Add to that you have 2:1 odds.

Add to that if you believe that the cold snap in USA is worth mentioning on a thread about global climate, then that should put you ahead of the game.

By 14 Feb you will have opportunity to examine ~12% of the year's data. Not that examining data is exactly Igor's forte, but hey the opportunity is there.

How many more advantages do you want?

Igor_Goldenberg
31-01-2014, 06:26 PM
You're not interested in taking the bets already offered by Pax or Road Runner?
Not really. I explained why.


Before accepting, you might want to think about the fact that every year since 1997 has been above a zero trend (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/). In other words, the trend since 1997 is definitely positive, although it is not (yet) statistically significant in every data set. Note that a trend that is not significantly different from zero is not the same as a zero trend!
You are right about the difference. However, this difference is not important if we assume normal distribution. When you forecast, your model should use both trend estimate and trend SE. As a result you might get slightly higher mean forecast, but the uncertainty level will make it close to a zero trend forecast. To be more precise, forecast based on zero trend will be well within the much wider band that you'd get using non-zero trend plus standard error of trend estimate.

If it sound too technical, I'll be happy to elaborate (no sarcasm or irony intended).

Igor_Goldenberg
31-01-2014, 06:52 PM
I accept 2:1 in principle and offer:

I bet that 2014 will be in the hottest 50 of the last 100 years. If it is I will choose an avatar for you for the next 6 months; if I lose you get to choose an avatar me for the next 12 months.

Terms
Avatar to be within chesschat forum policies. All posts by the user must show the avatar.
2014 being 1 Jan 2014-31 Dec 2014.
Hottest being determined by the global temperature data from recognized source, Eg NOAA or HADCRUT. The source to be indicated upon acceptance of the bet.
Bet valid for 14 days, i.e. until February 14.

You either don't understand simple maths or expect readers of the forum to be easily misled. JaK spotted it immediately!
I assume readers understand the difference between a trend and a level.
Specifically to RR: trend measures the average year on year difference, level measures average value.

Positive trend for 25 years, followed by zero trend for next 15 years will yield higher then average value for those last fifteen years.
Looks like I have to explain it in a simple terms for RR and couple of his followers (who are supposed to have at least rudimentary knowledge of maths due to their occupation):
The average height for a man between 20 and 30 years old is usually higher then his average height between birth and 20 years of age. According to RR and his friends this man must still be growing.

Back to the temperature: 25 years of warming followed by 15 years of no warming put last 15 years into top 50. It is obvious 2014 is likely to be around that level .
As JaK correctly noted, RR is trying to put a con job, and way too obvious.

But again, RR did not reply to criticism (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?6637-Does-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Exist-(was-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle)&p=374332&viewfull=1#post374332) of his post 2847 and cites any hot year as AGW proof.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-01-2014, 06:59 PM
So unless you are able to trick them using the method you applied on me re Julia vs Tony, I don't like your chances of surviving against them sharks! :P
Lamb shanks were delicious:D

Desmond
31-01-2014, 07:04 PM
But again, RR did not reply to criticism (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?6637-Does-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Exist-(was-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle)&p=374332&viewfull=1#post374332) of his post 2847 I was thinking of asking if you read the article, but decided not to because 1) I already know the answer, and 2) you will not give the answer.


You either don't understand simple maths or expect readers of the forum to be easily misled. JaK spotted it immediately!
I assume readers understand the difference between a trend and a level.
Specifically to RR: trend measures the average year on year difference, level measures average value.

Positive trend for 25 years, followed by zero trend for next 15 years will yield higher then average value for those last fifteen years.
Looks like I have to explain it in a simple terms for RR and couple of his followers (who are supposed to have at least rudimentary knowledge of maths due to their occupation):
The average height for a man between 20 and 30 years old is usually higher then his average height between birth and 20 years of age. According to RR and his friends this man must still be growing.

Back to the temperature: 25 years of warming followed by 15 years of no warming put last 15 years into top 50. It is obvious 2014 is likely to be around that level .
As JaK correctly noted, RR is trying to put a con job, and way too obvious.Warming that is not statistically significant is not the same as no warming. I believe Patrick has already explained this to you more than once, and yes he does know something about mathematics. Perhaps he didn't phrase it sufficiently dumbed-down for you. Might be worth him trying using coloured blocks and a story involving Miffy.

Perhaps you'd like to make an amendment to my offer?

Vlad
31-01-2014, 08:03 PM
I am sure goldy-the-house-of-soviets wants to amend your offer. He is illiterate (you should have pointed that out less obviously, he might be upset with you now:)) but very-very scroogy. He wants to get everything but happy to give you nothing. What about infinity:1 odds?:lol:

ER
31-01-2014, 09:54 PM
Lamb shanks were delicious:D

I enjoyed them too! :)

Patrick Byrom
31-01-2014, 09:56 PM
Not really. I explained why.

You are right about the difference. However, this difference is not important if we assume normal distribution. When you forecast, your model should use both trend estimate and trend SE. As a result you might get slightly higher mean forecast, but the uncertainty level will make it close to a zero trend forecast. To be more precise, forecast based on zero trend will be well within the much wider band that you'd get using non-zero trend plus standard error of trend estimate.

If it sound too technical, I'll be happy to elaborate (no sarcasm or irony intended).
I am assuming a normal distribution, but you're forgetting that a normal distribution is symmetric about the mean. If the trend is zero, then it is equally likely that temperatures in the years from 1998 to the present will be above and below the zero trend - which is the mean of the distribution. However, every year has a temperature above the mean. Even if these temperatures lie within the standard error for the zero trend (I don't think they all do), this is still a problem - your mean is no longer meaningful (pun intended).

To use a chess analogy, if you play 15 games against an unknown player and he wins every one, you should assume that he is much stronger than you. It is possible that he is about the same strength and you're just unlucky, but that seems very unlikely. If there are 15 data points above the zero trend, and none below it, then it is logical to assume that the trend isn't zero.

ER
31-01-2014, 10:35 PM
I don't see why.

If you believe the globe is not warming

I don't believe anything, I was just looking at the tendency trends on the graph! I mean that mean (either the annual or the 5 year running) must take a huge dive to leave 2014 out of the top fifty charts :)

To be honest I was more nostalgically concerned about the El Niño effects (note the linear graph under the main Global Land - Ocean temps). El Niño effects were the in - thing amongst trendy hanger - onner environmentalists in the late '80s early '90s. Not sure why I lost interest!



How many more advantages do you want?

hmm maybe forget about the top 50 offer and let's make it b/n 2013 and 2014? I will take the 2013 being hotter than 2014 option! If you give me the 2-1 odds, I 'll give you a 0.05 C° anomaly rate.

Rincewind
31-01-2014, 10:58 PM
hmm maybe forget about the top 50 offer and let's make it b/n 2013 and 2014? I will take the 2013 being hotter than 2014 option! If you give me the 2-1 odds, I 'll give you a 0.05° C anomaly rate.

You want two-to-one odds betting against 2013 which was the equal 4th hottest year on record (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/)? You must be really confident. :lol:

ER
31-01-2014, 11:16 PM
You want two-to-one odds betting against 2013 which was the equal 4th hottest year on record (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/)? You must be really confident. :lol:

well you never know, 2014 might be even hotter, I gave him an advantage of 0.05 C° anomaly rate too! Ain't I generous? :)

Rincewind
31-01-2014, 11:44 PM
well you never know, 2014 might be even hotter, I gave him an advantage of 0.05 C° anomaly rate too! Ain't I generous? :)

Not really. The point of the bet is for denialist to back up their position with something worth losing. Even if global temperatures stepped by a fixed amount every year and went up twice as often as going down there would still be a strong warming signal so it looks more like you are betting on AGW being proven true. :P

Looking at the last 25 years say and with scratch temperature comparison the number of years when the global annual temp has gone down from the previous year is 11 out of the 25 years. So all other things being equal, the odds are 14-to-11, which is pretty close to a even money proposition. With the spread of 0.05 in favour of the warming side the number goes down to only 6 years of the last 25 or odds of roughly 3-to-1.

However you will have the January 2014 data to base an assessment on so the 0.05 spread in the anomaly might not be as useful as seeing the first 12th of the data for 2014.

And the other issue is that you know 2013 was equal fourth hottest on record. The three years warmer than 2013 were 2010, 2005 and 1998. In each case the year following these three years was at least 0.05 degrees cooler. (In the case of 2005-2006 the difference was exactly 0.05, in the other cases is was more than this). So I'd say two-to-one odds are generous.

ER
01-02-2014, 06:37 AM
Not really. The point of the bet is for denialist to back up their position with something worth losing...

But I am not a denialist. Not even aware of the finest points of this argument! I just enjoy reading stories about the topic and I find the discussions here quite amusing; that's why I butted in! After all I am sure RR would find a funny avatar for me if I lose the bet! If I win it is another story! :P j/k ...


However you will have the January 2014 data to base an assessment on so the 0.05 spread in the anomaly might not be as useful as seeing the first 12th of the data for 2014.

That can be tricky. The Northern European, American and Asian winters could be working for my averages. But the southern hemisphere + equator heat waves could equalise the position easily or even mate me!


And the other issue is that you know 2013 was equal fourth hottest on record. The three years warmer than 2013 were 2010, 2005 and 1998. In each case the year following these three years was at least 0.05 degrees cooler. (In the case of 2005-2006 the difference was exactly 0.05, in the other cases is was more than this). So I'd say two-to-one odds are generous.

I was looking at this too. I wish I could implement some kind of a Fibonaccian approach, it works with flower petals after all doesn't it? Well I will negotiate with RR for some kind of +/- values re anomaly rates! :)

Desmond
01-02-2014, 07:32 AM
I don't believe anything, I didn't mean you specifically. I meant you in the grammatically sloppy sense of "If you believe..." as in "If one believes...".


I was just looking at the tendency trends on the graph! I mean that mean (either the annual or the 5 year running) must take a huge dive to leave 2014 out of the top fifty charts :)Yeah no argument from me.

Yet you still get the moron brigade here posting things like, "Is the globe warming? Probably". Probably?
Posting things like they don't believe the data or the experts' interpretations of it. Hyuk, If I take ma rular an draww a lyne frum 1998 ta 2012, it int goin anypl'ce upw'rds.
They post things like a single out of context temperature in a single place on a single day.
They go on about a cold month in one country as though it invalidates multi-decadal GW trends and heralds a oncoming ice age.
Well guess what, if they do think it's going to be cold, they should put their money where their mouth is and pony up for the bet! I am open to counter offers on it.


To be honest I was more nostalgically concerned about the El Niño effects (note the linear graph under the main Global Land - Ocean temps). El Niño effects were the in - thing amongst trendy hanger - onner environmentalists in the late '80s early '90s. Not sure why I lost interest!As I pointed out before, 2013 was one of the hottest years on record in spite of not being an El Nino.


hmm maybe forget about the top 50 offer and let's make it b/n 2013 and 2014? I will take the 2013 being hotter than 2014 option! If you give me the 2-1 odds, I 'll give you a 0.05 C° anomaly rate.
I'm interested in something longer term than a single year to year.

Rincewind
01-02-2014, 08:30 AM
I was looking at this too. I wish I could implement some kind of a Fibonaccian approach, it works with flower petals after all doesn't it? Well I will negotiate with RR for some kind of +/- values re anomaly rates! :)

I think you will find that global climate processes are somewhat more stochastic than the growth of a flower, at least in terms of the number of petals as compared with ocean and surface temperatures.

ER
02-02-2014, 07:35 AM
... I'm interested in something longer term than a single year to year.

No disagreement from me either!

I presume the whole affair must very interesting for the expert and fascinating for the layman (that's me)! I will follow this discussion with interest as I am sure it will lead to some very useful conclusions, particularly if both sides agree in regards to the source of data when results are published!

On the other hand I am thinking very seriously of enrolling into a VCE Maths Course so I can a) refresh my memory b) do a more advanced course ie geophysics related at some later stage.

Just checked at the Victoria Distance Education Centre. Some very interesting material!

ER
02-02-2014, 07:41 AM
I think you will find that global climate processes are somewhat more stochastic than the growth of a flower, at least in terms of the number of petals as compared with ocean and surface temperatures.

Sure. That's why I said "I wish I could". Arts inclined characters often fantasise about a magic formula which could automatically allow them to play "A Well Tempered Clavier" faultlessly or paint like Hieronymus Bosch!

Desmond
02-02-2014, 12:35 PM
The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph (http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharply-in-2013-We-are-Going-to-Need-a-Bigger-Graph.html)

...
Long-term the oceans have been gaining heat at a rate equivalent to about 2 Hiroshima bombs per second, although this has increased over the last 16 or so years to around 4 per second. In 2013 ocean warming rapidly escalated, rising to a rate in excess of 12 Hiroshima bombs per second - over three times the recent trend. This doesn't necessarily mean we are entering a period of greatly accelerated ocean warming, as there is substantial year-to-year variation in heat uptake by the oceans. It does, however, once again dispel the persistent myth of a pause in global warming, because the Earth has actually continued to warm faster in the last 16 years than it did in the preceding 16 years.
...

http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/oceanheat-NODC-endof2013.jpg

Igor_Goldenberg
02-02-2014, 01:33 PM
Warming that is not statistically significant is not the same as no warming. I believe Patrick has already explained this to you more than once, and yes he does know something about mathematics. Perhaps he didn't phrase it sufficiently dumbed-down for you. Might be worth him trying using coloured blocks and a story involving Miffy.
Patrick is generally on your side and put his arguments in quite simple terms. Turns out it was still not simple one for you to comprehend.
Warming that is not statistically significant is not different from no warming, at least statistically.



Perhaps you'd like to make an amendment to my offer?

If you insist that warming continues, why don't you bet that 2014 is going to be warmer then 1998, sixteen years ago? Sixteen years of warming should be enough to make the difference between 2014 and 1998 statistically significant, shouldn't it?
I am waiting for your offer.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-02-2014, 01:43 PM
I am assuming a normal distribution, but you're forgetting that a normal distribution is symmetric about the mean. If the trend is zero, then it is equally likely that temperatures in the years from 1998 to the present will be above and below the zero trend - which is the mean of the distribution. However, every year has a temperature above the mean. Even if these temperatures lie within the standard error for the zero trend (I don't think they all do), this is still a problem - your mean is no longer meaningful (pun intended).
If temperatures lie within the standard error, then it's just a noise. that's why we use T-ratio and other criteria.
It is precisely because normal distribution is symmetric about the mean, using zero trend yield the same forecast as using statistically insignificant mean.


To use a chess analogy, if you play 15 games against an unknown player and he wins every one, you should assume that he is much stronger than you. It is possible that he is about the same strength and you're just unlucky, but that seems very unlikely.
Wrong analogy. 15 lost games is sufficient to judge the difference in strength. Better analogy would be achieving some advantage in each game, but failing to win, with match finishing in a draw.


If there are 15 data points above the zero trend, and none below it, then it is logical to assume that the trend isn't zero.
It is indeed logical to assume, but that's what statistical analysis is about - to test the assumption. And the test shows that assumptions are not supported by the data.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-02-2014, 01:46 PM
I don't believe anything

My point exactly. Unfortunately, we have a lot of blind believers (including this forum). There are also a lot of con artists (AL Gore being the most prominent) making very good money from global warming hysteria.

Desmond
02-02-2014, 03:52 PM
I have to admit, after I posted my redneck caricature in #2903, I wondered if I had perhaps gone to far:


Hyuk, If I take ma rular an draww a lyne frum 1998 ta 2012, it int goin anypl'ce upw'rds.


After all, this is just a far-fetched caricature isn't it? There isn't anyone actually doing that is there?

Enter Igor Goldenberg.


If you insist that warming continues, why don't you bet that 2014 is going to be warmer then 1998, sixteen years ago?
What I find interesting about this is that if we are to run this test using the last dozen years and compare them against their counterparts 16 years previous, it would indicate warming. i.e. according to Professor Goldenberg's own test!

So why does the Professor choose 16 years you ask? Why not 15 or 17 or 11 or 30 or any other number? Obviously because he wants to cherry-pick an outstandingly hot year to compare with the coming one. Well, it was outstandingly hot at the time, it has already been eclipsed a number of times since then.


Sixteen years of warming should be enough to make the difference between 2014 and 1998 statistically significant, shouldn't it?I find this sentence quite bizarre.

What does statistical significance have to do with comparing which out of A and B is bigger? If Australia wins a cricket series 4-1 does anyone stop to work out if this is statistically significant? The question is meaningless. 4 beats 1. End of story.

I can only conclude that either the professor is using some rat cunning to lay the groundwork for a potential reneging on a potential bet, or he don't no wot the wurds meen.

Rincewind
02-02-2014, 07:21 PM
Ignor is absolutely clueless when it comes to the application of statistics to any field where he feels he has a a priori position. Do demonstrate see the following gem one week out of the US presidential election of 2012...


Interesting bit of stats:
Since 1832 no US president was re-elected with smaller majority, neither popular nor EC (with one small exception due to four way contest distorting EC vote). It was either increased majority or loss.
As no one predicts increased majority for Obama, he'll be the first in 180 years if he manages to sneak in.
That (and Rasmussen polls in swinging states) makes me think Romney is more likely to have a narrow win.

:lol:

Desmond
02-02-2014, 08:31 PM
Ignor is absolutely clueless when it comes to the application of statistics to any field where he feels he has a a priori position. Do demonstrate see the following gem one week out of the US presidential election of 2012...
:lol:If it sound too technical, he be happy to elaborate.

Damodevo
03-02-2014, 12:13 AM
Don Easterbrook has (http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783) been the most accurate in making predictions compared to the 1° F projections of the IPCC and predicts a couple more decades of non-warming;



The significance of the correlation between the GDO, PDO, and global temperature is that once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future. Using the pattern established for the past several hundred years, in 1998 I projected the temperature curve for the past century into the next century and came up with curve ‘A’ in Figure 5 as an approximation of what might be in store for the world if the pattern of past climate changes continued. Ironically, that prediction was made in the warmest year of the past three decades and at the acme of the 1977-1998 warm period. At that time, the projected curved indicated global cooling beginning about 2005 ± 3-5 years until about 2030, then renewed warming from about 2030 to about 2060 (unrelated to CO2—just continuation of the natural cycle), then another cool period from about 2060 to about 2090. This was admittedly an approximation, but it was radically different from the 1° F per decade warming called for by the IPCC. Because the prediction was so different from the IPCC prediction, time would obviously show which projection was ultimately correct.

Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1° F as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. In 2008, NASA satellite imagery (Figure 6) confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.

2495

Desmond
03-02-2014, 06:54 AM
Don Easterbrook has (http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783) been the most accurate in making predictions compared to the 1° F projections of the IPCC and predicts a couple more decades of non-warming;
Are you serious?

This 2008 article predicted 2000-2020 would be cooler. Last I checked the intervening years 2008-13 have all been hot ones.

ER
03-02-2014, 07:44 AM
No disagreement from me either!
... I will follow this discussion with interest as I am sure it will lead to some very useful conclusions, particularly if both sides agree in regards to the source of data when results are published!

If opposing sides could at least agree on reliability of one or more sources I believe that the discussion will be more conclusive!

Rincewind
03-02-2014, 09:15 AM
Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality (https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html)
Posted on 7 June 2012 by dana1981

...
As Skeptical Science readers are undoubtedly aware, and as we will show in greater detail below, this assertion is an outright falsehood. Distortions of the IPCC projections aside, was Easterbrook correct in his claim that his temperature predictions were more accurate than those in the TAR? As Figure 1 shows, the simple answer is no.
...

2496

Damodevo
03-02-2014, 11:24 AM
Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality (https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html)
Posted on 7 June 2012 by dana1981

...
As Skeptical Science readers are undoubtedly aware, and as we will show in greater detail below, this assertion is an outright falsehood. Distortions of the IPCC projections aside, was Easterbrook correct in his claim that his temperature predictions were more accurate than those in the TAR? As Figure 1 shows, the simple answer is no.
...

2496

So IPCC predicted 0.2 degree increase between 2000 and 2010? So what does that average out as for 2100? 2.0 degree?

Rincewind
03-02-2014, 02:10 PM
So IPCC predicted 0.2 degree increase between 2000 and 2010? So what does that average out as for 2100? 2.0 degree?

You seem to have the wrong concept as to what constitutes an average. An average is when you get a number of values and reduce it to a single number. The fact the prediction for the first two decades was close to 0.2 degrees does not mean the average temperature increase per decade for all decades of the 21st century was 0.2 degrees. When you take a single number from one instance and apply that to other (future) instances that is called extrapolation. Yes extrapolating the 0.2 prediction from the 2000-2010 period would lead to a 2 degree of warming for 2000-2100. However this is not what the IPCC TAR did.

The total mean prediction for 2100 (A2 scenario) was 3.6 degrees of warming on top of the 2000 temperature anomaly. While this averages out to 0.36 degrees per decade, this was not the prediction for the first few decades of the 21st century which was closer to 0.2 degrees of warming. Later in the century the trend is closer to 0.5 degrees per decade.

You could have got this information yourself by looking at Fig 9.13 (b) from the IPCC TAR WG1 (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/fig9-13.htm).

Desmond
03-02-2014, 06:39 PM
If opposing sides could at least agree on reliability of one or more sources I believe that the discussion will be more conclusive!Why should denialists need sources?

They can just check their local weather report or temperature gauge. This works best in winter.

When it's not winter where they live, they can check Weatherman Watts' website - it's usually cold somewhere, and he's all over it.

And if even he can't find any coldness going on, well that's obviously evidence of the conspiracy.

Patrick Byrom
03-02-2014, 10:33 PM
If temperatures lie within the standard error, then it's just a noise. that's why we use T-ratio and other criteria.
It is precisely because normal distribution is symmetric about the mean, using zero trend yield the same forecast as using statistically insignificant mean.
But the differences between the data and the zero trend can't be due to noise, as noise is random, and so would be symmetrical about the mean. These data points are not symmetrical about the mean.

It's very simple. Have a look at the link (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/) I gave. On the graphs there are two lines: a red line, which is a continuation of the previous warming trend, and a blue line which is the zero trend. In each graph, which line is a better fit to the data (it's the same answer in every case)?

In the Cowtan and Way graph, most of the data points are even outside the two standard deviation error margins (the dotted lines on the graph) of the zero trend, which would be incredibly unlikely if the trend was actually zero.

Rincewind
04-02-2014, 09:19 AM
It's very simple. Have a look at the link (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/) I gave. On the graphs there are two lines: a red line, which is a continuation of the previous warming trend, and a blue line which is the zero trend. In each graph, which line is a better fit to the data (it's the same answer in every case)?

I'm afraid that you're wasting your time with Ignor. He will never entertain the possibility of being wrong no matter how ludicrously untenable his position becomes. Oh and he never answers a direct question except with another question.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-02-2014, 09:59 AM
But the differences between the data and the zero trend can't be due to noise, as noise is random, and so would be symmetrical about the mean. These data points are not symmetrical about the mean.

It's very simple. Have a look at the link (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/) I gave. On the graphs there are two lines: a red line, which is a continuation of the previous warming trend, and a blue line which is the zero trend. In each graph, which line is a better fit to the data (it's the same answer in every case)?

In the Cowtan and Way graph, most of the data points are even outside the two standard deviation error margins (the dotted lines on the graph) of the zero trend, which would be incredibly unlikely if the trend was actually zero.

The graphs in the link only show the mean, they don't display the band to show the error. Absence of standard error indicator makes those graph much harder to interpret.
I suspect the SE is so large it would obscure the changes in the mean. I'll be happy to reconsider if you find the plot that includes means and SE for each year.
Symmetry around the line are not important by themselves without taking standard error in consideration.

Rincewind
09-02-2014, 10:13 AM
The graphs in the link only show the mean

Rubbish. The dashed line on the graphs show two standard deviations above and below the mean line.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-02-2014, 10:34 AM
I have to admit, after I posted my redneck caricature in #2903, I wondered if I had perhaps gone to far:


Hyuk, If I take ma rular an draww a lyne frum 1998 ta 2012, it int goin anypl'ce upw'rds.


After all, this is just a far-fetched caricature isn't it? There isn't anyone actually doing that is there?

If you looked in the mirror, maybe it wasn't far fetched. After all, you insistence that last decade being the hottest is the proof that global warming is continuing shows your level of understanding.




What I find interesting about this is that if we are to run this test using the last dozen years and compare them against their counterparts 16 years previous, it would indicate warming. i.e. according to Professor Goldenberg's own test!

Here we go again. That fallacy was exposed many times before, yet Road Runner (or whatever name he chooses to uses) keeps repeating it. Are you still growing?





If you insist that warming continues, why don't you bet that 2014 is going to be warmer then 1998, sixteen years ago?


So why does the Professor choose 16 years you ask? Why not 15 or 17 or 11 or 30 or any other number? Obviously because he wants to cherry-pick an outstandingly hot year to compare with the coming one. Well, it was outstandingly hot at the time, it has already been eclipsed a number of times since then.

If it was eclipsed a number of times since then, it means either:
a. It was not that outstandingly hot.
b. the global warning is continuing at such a rate that is doesn't matter any more.

So what are you scared of? After all, it's you who is insisting that we have enough evidence global warming is continuing. You even wanted to bet on it. I merely give you an opportunity to put your money (or whatever) where your mouth is.



I find this sentence quite bizarre.


Sixteen years of warming should be enough to make the difference between 2014 and 1998 statistically significant, shouldn't it?

What does statistical significance have to do with comparing which out of A and B is bigger? If Australia wins a cricket series 4-1 does anyone stop to work out if this is statistically significant? The question is meaningless. 4 beats 1. End of story.

Statistical significance means that the difference between mean temperature in 2014 and 1998 is outside the margin of error. At least it should be if global warming has been continuing last 16 years at alarming rate.



I can only conclude that either the professor is using some rat cunning to lay the groundwork for a potential reneging on a potential bet, or he don't no wot the wurds meen.
So far, the rat cunning is from road runner.
He wanted to bet on something that is very likely to happen, but proves absolutely nothing, yet afraid to bet on something that would be likely if his ranting about global warming was supported by the facts.
I like his whining about "reneging on a potential bet" (and he is a native English speaker, unlike his opponent!). So, who "don't no wot the wurds meen."?

Igor_Goldenberg
09-02-2014, 11:06 AM
Given how some posters on the forum like to misinterpret their opponents, I'd like to reiterate my views on AGW.
At the end it boils down to certain groups and individuals (like Al Gore) wanting to part the rest of us with our money. There are three questions to be answered:

1. Is global warming happening at alarming rate?
2. Is burning of fossil fuel the main reason of that?
3. Would measures offered by green lobby (like carbon tax or ETS) have net benefit? For those who "don't no wot the wurds meen": net benefit means the benefit of those measures outweigh the cost.

It is obvious that for validity of level 3 claim correctness of level 2 claim is necessary, and for validity of level 2 claim correctness of level 1 claim is necessary. Those who "don't no wot the wurds meen" might want to read about necessary and sufficient conditions.

Now my views:
1. Is global warming happening at alarming rate?
Between 1972 and 1997 we had a statistically significant evidence that the globe was warming. We also have statistically significant evidences that the trend changed around 1997-98 and is indistinguishable from zero since then.
That's why I expect that the difference between 1998 and 2014 is going to be within two sigma and will be surprised if 2014 is significantly warmer or colder then 1998. In fact I am even willing to bet on 2014 and 1998 temperatures to be within margin of error.
I am not going to make any assumptions on whether temperature will trend up, down or stay the same. Insisting on any scenarios would be a typical blind faith in the absence of evidence.
My answer to number 1 is "I don't know".

2. Is burning of fossil fuel the main reason of that?
Given the increase of CO2 accompanied the by lack meaningful warming, it seems unlikely.
My answer is no.

3. Would measures offered by green lobby (like carbon tax or ETS) have net benefit?
Billions (or trillions if implemented on world scale) dollars that might lead to 0.0001C (or something similar) reduction in temperature?
My answer is
You must be kidding!

So far we get one unclear, and two no (one of them resounding!) instead of three yes.
Anybody still supports ALP and Shorten's carbon tax?

Igor_Goldenberg
09-02-2014, 11:12 AM
My signature used to say that "certain idiots like Rincewind are permanently ignored". I removed it because it what objectively rude (not that RW didn't deserve it). I also thought he got the hint, but obviously he didn't (which means my definition was probably correct).
Anyway, if someone finds something worthwhile in the pile of rubbish he dumps on forum, feel free to bring it my attention.
Poster "Vlad" (used to be "drug", guess addiction was successfully cured) is not an admin, so he has comfortably been on my "ignore" list for few years.

Desmond
09-02-2014, 12:44 PM
What I find interesting about this is that if we are to run this test using the last dozen years and compare them against their counterparts 16 years previous, it would indicate warming. i.e. according to Professor Goldenberg's own test!
Here we go again. That fallacy was exposed many times before, yet Road Runner (or whatever name he chooses to uses) keeps repeating it. Are you still growing?Little "r"s in road runner. Attention to detail doesn't appear to be your thing.

A fallacy is it? OK dipshit, let's do your comparison, shall we?

Annual means from GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)
1997 46 2013 61 - Hotter
1996 33 2012 58 - Hotter
1995 43 2011 55 - Hotter
1994 29 2010 67 - Hotter
1994 29 2009 60 - Hotter
1993 29 2008 60 - Hotter
1992 19 2007 63 - Hotter
1991 38 2006 60 - Hotter
1990 39 2005 66 - Hotter
1989 24 2004 52 - Hotter
1988 35 2003 61 - Hotter
1987 29 2002 62 - Hotter

want me to go on?


If it was eclipsed a number of times since then, it means either:
a. It was not that outstandingly hot.
b. the global warning is continuing at such a rate that is doesn't matter any more.
It was a record at the time, it isn't anymore.


So what are you scared of? After all, it's you who is insisting that we have enough evidence global warming is continuing. You even wanted to bet on it. I merely give you an opportunity to put your money (or whatever) where your mouth is.It is continuing. Global warming is a trend of average temperatures increasing over multiple decades. Not cherry picking a hot year and taking your ruler and drawing a line to an isolated point after it. If one could disprove trends doing that then your admitted warming prior to and during the 1990s could be contradicted by comparing say 1980 and 1985 and concluding that there was no warming trend at that time since 1980 was hotter than 1985. It can't.

Your 1998 v 2014 comparison would be insufficient for the same reason. It could be that 2014 will be hotter than 1998, it could be that it won't. In either case it will not prove or disprove a warming trend. If the last dozen years all are warmer than their counterpart 16 years previous that might indicate something. If it does happen to occur that 1998 v 2014 isn't, that would make 12 out of 13. Still might indicate something.


I like his whining about "reneging on a potential bet" (and he is a native English speaker, unlike his opponent!). So, who "don't no wot the wurds meen."?I said "lay the groundwork for a potential reneging on a potential bet". i.e. what your saying now could be to seed an excuse if you take up a bet and lose it. To answer your question, "you".

In any case, since you do accept that there was warming up to 1998 and think the warming stopped then, my questions are:

1. Up until when did you believe that it had been warming and where have you stated this?
2. When did you suspect the warming had supposedly paused, why, and where have you stated this?
3. When did you become fairly sure that the warming has supposedly paused, why, and where have you stated this?

Igor_Goldenberg
09-02-2014, 02:35 PM
Little "r"s in road runner. Attention to detail doesn't appear to be your thing.

A fallacy is it? OK dipshit, let's do your comparison, shall we?

Annual means from GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)
1997 46 2013 61 - Hotter
1996 33 2012 58 - Hotter
1995 43 2011 55 - Hotter
1994 29 2010 67 - Hotter
1994 29 2009 60 - Hotter
1993 29 2008 60 - Hotter
1992 19 2007 63 - Hotter
1991 38 2006 60 - Hotter
1990 39 2005 66 - Hotter
1989 24 2004 52 - Hotter
1988 35 2003 61 - Hotter
1987 29 2002 62 - Hotter

want me to go on?

Ignoring your rant and personal attack, what hypothesis is this suppose to prove?


It was a record at the time, it isn't anymore.


Then stop complaining about cherry picking.


It is continuing. Global warming is a trend of average temperatures increasing over multiple decades. Not cherry picking a hot year and taking your ruler and drawing a line to an isolated point after it. If one could disprove trends doing that then your admitted warming prior to and during the 1990s could be contradicted by comparing say 1980 and 1985 and concluding that there was no warming trend at that time since 1980 was hotter than 1985. It can't.


If you were right than the trend change (difference between two parameters in regression model) at 1998 would've been statistically insignificant. It could be the case, but I'd like to see some claims and counter-claims first. An estimate of trend difference and SE of trend difference estimate would be a good start (and a conclusion if proved correct). At least it's a prerequisite to any claim of cherry picking.
Also, forecasting in time series analysis is reliable when based on recent stable trend.
Patrick linked to an article that claimed it was expedient to forecast global warming in 1998 based on previous records. Indeed it was. But not expedient when new observation arrived.
The last stable trend now is zero. Therefore the most prudent forecast assumes no change (from now, not from 1972!).



Your 1998 v 2014 comparison would be insufficient for the same reason. It could be that 2014 will be hotter than 1998, it could be that it won't. In either case it will not prove or disprove a warming trend. If the last dozen years all are warmer than their counterpart 16 years previous that might indicate something. If it does happen to occur that 1998 v 2014 isn't, that would make 12 out of 13. Still might indicate something.

Once again you confuse necessary and sufficient condition and misunderstand the difference between likelihood and certainty. If the globe kept warming at the same rate in the last 16 years as in 25 years before, 2014 would have a very high probability of being warmer then 1998. I personally see silly bets as pointless, but if someone insists and I estimate odds to be in my favourite, I might accept.

Once again, because you seem to have trouble understanding:
If your believe that temperature is trending up significantly, then the probability of 2014 being warmer then 1998 is very high. The odds in your favour, why are you so scared of the bet that you were pushing?



In any case, since you do accept that there was warming up to 1998 and think the warming stopped then, my questions are:

1. Up until when did you believe that it had been warming and where have you stated this?
2. When did you suspect the warming had supposedly paused, why, and where have you stated this?
3. When did you become fairly sure that the warming has supposedly paused, why, and where have you stated this?
First a correction of your assumptions:
a. I accept that there was a warming up to approximately 96-98. You can calculate different trend from either 96, 97 or 98. The change can be significant in all cases (as long as you do not over-parameterise the model with more then two trends). They you choose one of the models based on available information criteria (such as Bayesian, Akaike, etc.).
b. To be pedantic, I am not saying warming stopped. I am saying we do not have sufficient evidences that it didn't stop around 96-98.

I am not going to bother sifting through all my posts. If you think I am misstating my position, feel free to point to contradicting posts. One more thing:
Blind believers do not change their position when new facts arrive. Sceptics re-evaluate their opinions in view of new facts.

Answers:
1. Up until reports in October 2012 I was willing to accept that globe is likely to be warming. I doubted models used by IPCC and other warmists, but accepted that there was some degree of warming.
2. My post #2241 (which was immediately met by personal attack from "road runner" in #2242) mentioned reports that the temperature was flat since 1996. The ferocity of responses convinced me that the doubt is warranted.
3. No warmist bothered to even try showing that the trend change around 96-98 was insignificant. AGW proponents started to peddle the fallacy "last 10(or 12, or 16, or whatever) years were hottest on record", while avoiding the question of trend change. It convinced me that most likely warming indeed plateaued.

Vlad
09-02-2014, 02:57 PM
I am sure goldy-the-house-of-soviets wants to amend your offer. He is illiterate (you should have pointed that out less obviously, he might be upset with you now) but very-very scroogy. He wants to get everything but happy to give you nothing. What about infinity:1 odds?




So far, the rat cunning is from road runner.
He wanted to bet on something that is very likely to happen, but proves absolutely nothing, yet afraid to bet on something that would be likely if his ranting about global warming was supported by the facts.
I like his whining about "reneging on a potential bet" (and he is a native English speaker, unlike his opponent!). So, who "don't no wot the wurds meen."?

Amazingly correct, is not it? How close his bet is to infinity:1??:eek:

Igor_Goldenberg
09-02-2014, 03:16 PM
Question to road runner:
Do you support carbon tax?

Desmond
09-02-2014, 03:56 PM
Ignoring your rant and personal attack, what hypothesis is this suppose to prove? You tell me, it is your "hypothesis". You propose to compare 2014 with the year 1998, 16 years before. I am performing a similar comparison with the data that we do have.


Then stop complaining about cherry picking.:lol: not on your life. You so far have not provided any reason for your picking 1998, and I am presuming that it is because it was a particularly hot year. If I am wrong give your reason. Until then it is cherry picking. Why didn't you bet to compare 2014 with 1997 or 1996 if it wasn't for the reason of cherry picking the most favourable date for yourself?



Once again you confuse necessary and sufficient condition and misunderstand the difference between likelihood and certainty. If the globe kept warming at the same rate in the last 16 years as in 25 years before, 2014 would have a very high probability of being warmer then 1998. I personally see silly bets as pointless, but if someone insists and I estimate odds to be in my favourite, I might accept.
And yes we see from the dozen 16 years comparison above giving a 12/12 result, that yes there does seem to be pretty high probability of happening.


Once again, because you seem to have trouble understanding:
If your believe that temperature is trending up significantly, then the probability of 2014 being warmer then 1998 is very high. The odds in your favour, why are you so scared of the bet that you were pushing?If you believe that the temperature is not trending up significantly then the probability of 2014 being warmer than 1996 is about even. Given that I am giving you 2:1 odds and the added advantage of knowing the first ~12% of 2014's data, that sounds like a pretty good deal for you, eh? Or is there some reason your "hypothesis" applies at a 16-year gap and not an 18-year one?


First a correction of your assumptions:
a. I accept that there was a warming up to approximately 96-98. You can calculate different trend from either 96, 97 or 98. The change can be significant in all cases (as long as you do not over-parameterise the model with more then two trends). They you choose one of the models based on available information criteria (such as Bayesian, Akaike, etc.).
b. To be pedantic, I am not saying warming stopped. I am saying we do not have sufficient evidences that it didn't stop around 96-98.

I am not going to bother sifting through all my posts. If you think I am misstating my position, feel free to point to contradicting posts. One more thing:
Blind believers do not change their position when new facts arrive. Sceptics re-evaluate their opinions in view of new facts.

Answers:
1. Up until reports in October 2012 I was willing to accept that globe is likely to be warming. I doubted models used by IPCC and other warmists, but accepted that there was some degree of warming.
2. My post #2241 (which was immediately met by personal attack from "road runner" in #2242) mentioned reports that the temperature was flat since 1996. The ferocity of responses convinced me that the doubt is warranted.
3. No warmist bothered to even try showing that the trend change around 96-98 was insignificant. AGW proponents started to peddle the fallacy "last 10(or 12, or 16, or whatever) years were hottest on record", while avoiding the question of trend change. It convinced me that most likely warming indeed plateaued.Re #1, O rly? Where did you say that on this thread between when you started posting on chesschat and October 2012 that the globe was currently warming?
Re #2 so what you are basically saying is that you won't know for another 15 years or so whether current trend is a statistically significant warming or not. Sure, you know it was warming before, and you don't posit any reason to think that it should have changed, and you can't say yet that it hasn't changed you don't have any reason to think it has stopped warming. But hey if someone wants to prove it your all ears, eh?
Re #3 what climate scientists had been spending time on is understanding where the missing warming had gone, and it turned out that it had been going into oceans. So there is not mystery here, just incomplete understanding, which has been improved.

Oh yeah and your oh so innocent #2241, containing charged words such as "warmists" and "spin", got exactly what it deserved when I pointed out that, then as know, your or your preferred media outlet's cherry picking tendencies.


Do you support carbon tax?Compared to what?

Rincewind
09-02-2014, 08:04 PM
rr, if you want to have a bet with Prof Dinolizard on a zero trend since 1998 why not propose the year 2000 as your baseline? After all 2000 is a nice round number and if there has been zero warming since 1998 then using 1998 or 2000 shouldn't make any difference to Ignor.

Patrick Byrom
09-02-2014, 11:32 PM
3. No warmist bothered to even try showing that the trend change around 96-98 was insignificant. AGW proponents started to peddle the fallacy "last 10(or 12, or 16, or whatever) years were hottest on record", while avoiding the question of trend change. It convinced me that most likely warming indeed plateaued.
In the Cowtan and Way (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/) plot I've previously referred to, the continuation of the pre-1998 trend is in red, the zero trend is in blue, and the dotted lines are the two-sigma error ranges. Most of the data points are outside the two-sigma range of the zero trend, which shows that the hypothesis of a zero trend can be safely rejected. On the other hand, almost all data points are within two sigma of the continuing trend, which is consistent with there been no significant change in the trend.

Capablanca-Fan
11-02-2014, 01:52 AM
Amazingly correct, is not it? How close his bet is to infinity:1??:eek:
Do you have anything to add to the issue?


Do you support carbon tax?

Compared to what?

Normally I would commend such a Sowellian answer. But in this context, the comparison is likely, "compared to no carbon tax" and letting the market work.

Desmond
11-02-2014, 06:32 AM
Do you have anything to add to the issue?



Normally I would commend such a Sowellian answer. But in this context, the comparison is likely, "compared to no carbon tax" and letting the market work.Well I would only support repealing the current arrangement if it is replaced with something meaningful.

Do I support action on reducing carbon emissions - yes.
Do I think the carbon tax is the ideal method - no.
Do I think it is better than nothing - yes.

Desmond
13-02-2014, 08:19 PM
rr, if you want to have a bet with Prof Dinolizard on a zero trend since 1998 why not propose the year 2000 as your baseline? After all 2000 is a nice round number and if there has been zero warming since 1998 then using 1998 or 2000 shouldn't make any difference to Ignor.
How about it, Igor?
Tick tock.

Vlad
13-02-2014, 10:07 PM
Well I would only support repealing the current arrangement if it is replaced with something meaningful.

Do I support action on reducing carbon emissions - yes.
Do I think the carbon tax is the ideal method - no.
Do I think it is better than nothing - yes.

I agree with rr and only add that it is important to advertise the tax properly. Unfortunately Labor was doing a terrible job in terms of advertising.

After living for 15 years in Australia I am still finding it completely unbelievable the level of economic support people running the country have. Americans hiring good economists to get good economic advise. Even Russians do - my former senior colleague was an adviser for Medvedev. Why aussies are not capable to understand the importnce of a good economic advise is just completely beyond me...:)

I also think that the mining tax was a great idea but the original proposal, rather than the one that was implemented. It was strongly supported by the majority of economists across the country.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2014, 12:52 PM
The idiotic, all-pain-and-no-gain, carbon tax works its magic (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/now_alcoa_closes_too/)

"Deloitte Access Economics in its report to the Victoria Government last September cites Treasury modelling showing Gillard’s tax will savage the aluminium industry"

Now the ore will just be shipped overseas, causing more emissions, then smelted, causing still more emissions. So this moronic tax costs jobs and harms the planet eve more.

Patrick Byrom
18-02-2014, 05:58 PM
The idiotic, all-pain-and-no-gain, carbon tax works its magic (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/now_alcoa_closes_too/)
"Deloitte Access Economics in its report to the Victoria Government last September cites Treasury modelling showing Gillard’s tax will savage the aluminium industry"
Now the ore will just be shipped overseas, causing more emissions, then smelted, causing still more emissions. So this moronic tax costs jobs and harms the planet eve more.
According to Alcoa, the closure had nothing (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcoa-denies-carbon-price-to-blame-for-decision-to-shut-its-point-henry-aluminium-smelter-20140218-32x91.html) to do with the carbon tax:

In a statement, a company spokeswoman confirmed "the carbon tax was not a factor in the decision to close Point Henry smelter or the rolled products business".

Damodevo
18-02-2014, 10:19 PM
According to Alcoa, the closure had nothing (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcoa-denies-carbon-price-to-blame-for-decision-to-shut-its-point-henry-aluminium-smelter-20140218-32x91.html) to do with the carbon tax:

In a statement, a company spokeswoman confirmed "the carbon tax was not a factor in the decision to close Point Henry smelter or the rolled products business".


Well its submission to the government on the CEF said (http://210.193.178.189/en/government/submissions/closed-consultations/regulations/~/media/government/submissions/jcp/JCP-Submission-Alcoa-20111028-PDF.pdf) this;


Given the extraordinary electricity intensity of aluminium smelting and limitations of supply opportunities in Victoria, Alcoa has no flexibility to obtain its long term power needs from anywhere other than Victorian brown coal-fired generators… This situation will impact the future economic viability of these two smelters ...

Patrick Byrom
18-02-2014, 10:56 PM
Well its submission to the government on the CEF said (http://210.193.178.189/en/government/submissions/closed-consultations/regulations/~/media/government/submissions/jcp/JCP-Submission-Alcoa-20111028-PDF.pdf) this;
If the carbon tax is a major cause, why would the company close the plant in August, which is after the tax will be (almost certainly) abolished on July 1? The falling price of aluminium (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/2/18/energy-markets/carbon-price-gone-alcoa-smelter-shut-anyway) is probably the main reason for the closure.

Capablanca-Fan
19-02-2014, 05:20 AM
If the carbon tax is a major cause, why would the company close the plant in August, which is after the tax will be (almost certainly) abolished on July 1?
Maybe they are not sure that the Greenstapo and Layba won't hold up repeal in the Senate?

Rincewind
19-02-2014, 09:30 AM
Maybe they are not sure that the Greenstapo and Layba won't hold up repeal in the Senate?

*facepalm*

Desmond
19-02-2014, 06:06 PM
Poster "Vlad" (used to be "drug", guess addiction was successfully cured) is not an admin, so he has comfortably been on my "ignore" list for few years.Sounds like there must be a story behind this one.

Vlad
19-02-2014, 09:44 PM
Sounds like there must be a story behind this one.

Poster goldy-the-house-of-soviets has been on my idiots list for years. I do not think there is anything that can be done to cure this particular poster. As we say in Russia - "only grave will cure him".

Desmond
20-02-2014, 07:00 AM
Poster goldy-the-house-of-soviets has been on my idiots list for years. I don't think you're alone, just quietly.

Capablanca-Fan
22-02-2014, 03:59 PM
The Myth of 'Settled Science' (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/23512)
By Charles Krauthammer · Feb. 21, 2014

I repeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.
...
Last Friday, Obama ostentatiously visited drought-stricken California. Surprise! He blamed climate change. Here even The New York Times gagged, pointing out that far from being supported by the evidence, “the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter.”

How inconvenient. But we've been here before. Hurricane Sandy was made the poster child for the alleged increased frequency and strength of “extreme weather events” like hurricanes.

Nonsense. Sandy wasn't even a hurricane when it hit the U.S. Indeed, in all of 2012, only a single hurricane made U.S. landfall. And 2013 saw the fewest Atlantic hurricanes in 30 years. In fact, in the last half-century, one-third fewer major hurricanes have hit the U.S. than in the previous half-century.
...
THE RIGHT OPINION
The Myth of 'Settled Science'
By Charles Krauthammer · Feb. 21, 2014
14 Comments Print Email Bigger Smaller
I repeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less).

Now we learn from a massive randomized study – 90,000 women followed for 25 years – that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery.

So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today's climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?

They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.” Not surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly wrong” in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy – and always, amazingly, in the same direction.

Settled? Even the U.K.'s national weather service concedes there's been no change – delicately called a “pause” – in global temperature in 15 years. If even the raw data is recalcitrant, let alone the assumptions and underlying models, how settled is the science?

Last Friday, Obama ostentatiously visited drought-stricken California. Surprise! He blamed climate change. Here even The New York Times gagged, pointing out that far from being supported by the evidence, “the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter.”

How inconvenient. But we've been here before. Hurricane Sandy was made the poster child for the alleged increased frequency and strength of “extreme weather events” like hurricanes.

Nonsense. Sandy wasn't even a hurricane when it hit the U.S. Indeed, in all of 2012, only a single hurricane made U.S. landfall. And 2013 saw the fewest Atlantic hurricanes in 30 years. In fact, in the last half-century, one-third fewer major hurricanes have hit the U.S. than in the previous half-century.

Similarly tornadoes. Every time one hits, the climate-change commentary begins. Yet last year saw the fewest in a quarter-century. And the last 30 years – of presumed global warming – has seen a 30 percent decrease in extreme tornado activity (F3 and above) versus the previous 30 years.

None of this is dispositive. It doesn't settle the issue. But that's the point. It mocks the very notion of settled science, which is nothing but a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate. As does the term “denier” – an echo of Holocaust denial, contemptibly suggesting the malevolent rejection of an established historical truth.

Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith. For folks who pretend to be brave carriers of the scientific ethic, there's more than a tinge of religion in their jeremiads. If you whore after other gods, the Bible tells us, “the Lord's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit” (Deuteronomy 11).

Sounds like California. Except that today there's a new god, the Earth Mother. And a new set of sins – burning coal and driving a fully equipped F-150.

But whoring is whoring, and the gods must be appeased. So if California burns, you send your high priest (in a carbon-belching Air Force One, but never mind) to the bone-dry land to offer up, on behalf of the repentant congregation, a $1 billion burnt offering called a “climate resilience fund.”

Ah, settled science in action.

Patrick Byrom
22-02-2014, 04:33 PM
The Myth of 'Settled Science' (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/23512)
By Charles Krauthammer · Feb. 21, 2014
...
Settled? Even the U.K.'s national weather service concedes there's been no change – delicately called a “pause” – in global temperature in 15 years. If even the raw data is recalcitrant, let alone the assumptions and underlying models, how settled is the science?

The interesting question is why Krauthammer gets paid to write the same column over and over again - he's been doing this since at least 2008 (http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/05/30/202681/krauthammers-strange-denier-talk-points-part-1-newtons-laws-were-overthrown/). If he updated his columns, he would realise that global temperature has definitely increased over the past 15 years.

At least he is no longer (hopefully) claiming that Newton's laws have been overthrown:
If Newton’s laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming — infinitely more untested, complex and speculative — is a closed issue.

The point he is missing, of course, is that modifications of a theory do not invalidate it - Newton's laws work fine in most cases, and the fundamental basis of anthropic global warming hasn't changed.

Ian Murray
25-02-2014, 09:25 PM
The idiotic, all-pain-and-no-gain, carbon tax works its magic (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/now_alcoa_closes_too/)

"Deloitte Access Economics in its report to the Victoria Government last September cites Treasury modelling showing Gillard’s tax will savage the aluminium industry"

Now the ore will just be shipped overseas, causing more emissions, then smelted, causing still more emissions. So this moronic tax costs jobs and harms the planet eve more.

Andrew Bolt at his finest. Aluminium smelting is an energy-intensive operation and Alcoa et al depend on cheap subsidised power to run their smelters. Even with the subsidies, paid for by Australian taxpayers, current world prices make their Australian operations uneconomic and deals such as those being offered by Iceland more attractive (Iceland now has two smelters with three more under construction). Iceland uses hydroelectric and geothermal power, which has no raw material costs and no GHG emissions.

Desmond
06-03-2014, 06:21 AM
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Managing_Risk.jpg

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Managing_Risk.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
06-03-2014, 01:28 PM
Silly warm-mongers who fail to demonstrate that billions of dollars of imposed cost on Aussie industries and the crass ban on Edison lightbulbs will make a detectable difference to global temperatures.

Capablanca-Fan
06-03-2014, 01:29 PM
Column - Blasphemy! Abbott can see the wood for the table (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_abbott_can_see_the_wood_for_the_table/)
Andrew Bolt Blog

Bits of a Tasmanian forest could even make a “magnificent example of an Australian-made chair” — like the one the Prime Minister told a forestry industry dinner he was going to stick in his office.
In fact, Abbott said: “The forest wasn’t just a place of beauty, but it was a source of resources.”

So what, you might ask. What’s the big deal about seeing a tree and dreaming of furniture?

Well, it’s a blasphemy against the green religion that has Greens leader Christine Milne smelling sulphur.

Rincewind
06-03-2014, 01:51 PM
From the Southbank Jester (via Jono)

"Humans do rule and it’s OK."

Praise the Lord. Now we just need to spread the good news to the Atlas bears, Aurochs, Baijis, Bali tigers, Barbary lions, Big-eared hopping mice, Bluebucks, Bubal hartebeests, Bulldog rats, Bushwrens, etc, etc, etc.

Damodevo
08-03-2014, 08:31 AM
A Sensitive Matter (http://www.thegwpf.org/sensitive-matter-ipcc-hid-good-news-global-warming/): How The IPCC Hid The Good News On Global Warming


The scientific part (WGI) of the fifth IPCC assessment report (AR5), published in final form in January 2014, contains some really encouraging information. The best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate scientists had previously thought. The clues and the relevant scientific papers are all mentioned in the full IPCC report. However, this important conclusion is not drawn in the full report – it is only mentioned as a possibility – and is ignored in the Summary for Policy- makers (SPM).

Until AR5, for 30 years the scientific establishment’s best estimate and their uncertainty range for climate sensitivity had hardly changed. The best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) started and ended at 3◦C and the uncertainty range generally had a lower bound of 1.5◦C and an upper bound of 4.5◦C. However, several recent studies give best estimates of between 1.5◦C and 2◦C, substantially lower than most earlier studies indicated.

Rincewind
08-03-2014, 10:47 AM
Is there anything published in the peer review literature about this or just self-published reports by climate denial groups?

Damodevo
08-03-2014, 09:00 PM
On (http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/peter-smith/2014/02/statistics-dummies-warmists/) the sheer stupidity of holding up certain years as the hottest on record:


During the last 12 or 13 years, the annual global temperature has sometimes oscillated below the horizontal trend, sometimes above. As a matter of sheer inevitability the above-trend years will turn out to be among the hottest on record because they are coming off a new high plateau. In fact to have an ‘above-trend year’ which is only the joint sixth-highest on record is desultory. It is the very least that the warmists might have hoped for and expected. It is the least that anyone with any knowledge of statistics would have expected.

The same goes for attributing breathless significance to this century having thirteen of the fourteen warmest years. An irreverent sceptic might retort: Yes, you fathead! That is because the temperature was trending up quite strongly prior to 2000.

Put it this way: Suppose it is 2040 and the global temperature has continued to oscillate around a horizontal trend. The CO2 hypothesis will have been totally discredited. Yet the then-head of the WMO would almost certainly be able to claim that 39 of the warmest years have occurred in this century.

Rincewind
08-03-2014, 11:05 PM
There is a horizontal trend? Someone should tell the oceans...

2521

Desmond
09-03-2014, 09:43 AM
On (http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/peter-smith/2014/02/statistics-dummies-warmists/) the sheer stupidity of holding up certain years as the hottest on record:
More like: the sheer stupidity of using a record hot year with an exception El Nino as a "baseline".

Patrick Byrom
10-03-2014, 12:21 PM
More like: the sheer stupidity of using a record hot year with an exception El Nino as a "baseline".
You're absolutely correct, but the 2014 article Damodevo quoted isn't using 1998 - it's using either 2001 or 2002: "During the last 12 or 13 years, the annual global temperature has sometimes oscillated below the horizontal trend, sometimes above." (my emphasis). These years were two of the coldest in this century (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/), so the quoted section is completely wrong about surface temperatures. And it completely ignores ocean warming - if the North Pole is ice free by 2040 (which seems almost certain based on current trends), even a complete lack of surface warming won't invalidate the "CO2 hypothesis".

Desmond
14-03-2014, 12:19 PM
After living for 15 years in Australia I am still finding it completely unbelievable the level of economic support people running the country have. Americans hiring good economists to get good economic advise. Even Russians do - my former senior colleague was an adviser for Medvedev. Why aussies are not capable to understand the importnce of a good economic advise is just completely beyond me...:)

Tony Abbott or Ken Henry, Bernie Fraser and Ross Garnaut - who do you believe? (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/tony-abbott-or-ken-henry-bernie-fraser-and-ross-garnaut--who-do-you-believe-20140313-34oxf.html)


... So if they broadly agree on any course of action we should all probably sit up and listen, right?
In the past seven days all three have, in different ways, supported a price on carbon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet. ...

Capablanca-Fan
16-03-2014, 12:36 PM
Tony Abbott or Ken Henry, Bernie Fraser and Ross Garnaut - who do you believe? (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/tony-abbott-or-ken-henry-bernie-fraser-and-ross-garnaut--who-do-you-believe-20140313-34oxf.html)


... So if they broadly agree on any course of action we should all probably sit up and listen, right?

Why? None of them are scientists of any stripe.

Rincewind
16-03-2014, 03:04 PM
Why?

Because they are economists and putting a price on carbon is an economic policy.

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2014, 05:04 AM
Because they are economists and putting a price on carbon is an economic policy.

But this is all predicated on AGW being more costly than the methods to try to prevent it. They have all swallowed the alarmism and started from there.

Desmond
17-03-2014, 06:34 AM
But this is all predicated on AGW being more costly than the methods to try to prevent it. They have all swallowed the alarmism and started from there.The coalition accepts the reduction in carbon emissions target, and so the only question is what is the most efficient way to achieve this. On the one hand we have high-profile economists agreeing a price on carbon is the way to go, and on the other we have the coalition's political will to avoid doing anything that could be branded as a "tax".

Rincewind
17-03-2014, 05:12 PM
But this is all predicated on AGW being more costly than the methods to try to prevent it. They have all swallowed the alarmism and started from there.

Climate change's effect on crop yields worse than thought: study (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-17/climate-change-effect-on-crops-worse-than-thought-study/5325130)


Dr Howden says the result is worse than previous forecasts.

"Looking back a few years we thought maybe we could get away with a bit more warming before we went negative, but this is actually showing the spike will happen sooner than later," he said.

Dr Howden says the agriculture sector will need to adapt to avoid global food shortages.

The cost of adaption seems to be going up. Does that mean there is even more justification for a price on carbon?

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2014, 08:48 AM
The Poverty of Renewables (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bj-rn-lomborg-says-that-the-prevailing-solution-to-global-warming-is-hurting-the-poor-more-than-the-problem-is#pMU2Z8QVaVIhwkiY.99)
Bjørn Lomborg, 17 March 2014

MIAMI – According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, “Climate change harms the poor first and worst.” This is true, because the poor are the most vulnerable and have the least resources with which to adapt. But we often forget that current policies to address global warming make energy much more costly, and that this harms the world’s poor much more.

Forcing everyone to buy more expensive, less reliable energy pushes up costs throughout the economy, leaving less for other public goods. The average of macroeconomic models indicates that the total cost of the EU’s climate policy will be €209 billion ($280 billion) per year from 2020 until the end of the century.

The burden of these policies falls overwhelmingly on the world’s poor, because the rich can easily pay more for their energy. I am often taken aback by well-meaning and economically comfortable environmentalists who cavalierly suggest that gasoline prices should be doubled or electricity exclusively sourced from high-cost green sources. That may go over well in affluent Hunterdon County, New Jersey, where residents reportedly spend just 2% of their income on gasoline. But the poorest 30% of the US population spend almost 17% of their after-tax income on gasoline.

Similarly, environmentalists boast that households in the United Kingdom have reduced their electricity consumption by almost 10% since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects a 50% increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase in the share of renewables from 1.8% to 4.6%.

The poor, no surprise, have reduced their consumption by much more than 10%, whereas the rich have not reduced theirs at all. Over the past five years, heating a UK home has become 63% more expensive, while real wages have declined. Some 17% of households are now energy poor – that is, they have to spend more than 10% of their income on energy; and, because elderly people are typically poorer, about a quarter of their households are energy poor. Deprived pensioners burn old books to keep warm, because they are cheaper than coal, they ride on heated buses all day, and a third leave part of their homes cold.

In Germany, where green subsidies will cost €23.6 billion this year, household electricity prices have increased by 80% since 2000, causing 6.9 million households to live in energy poverty. Wealthy homeowners in Bavaria can feel good about their inefficient solar panels, receiving lavish subsidies essentially paid by poor tenants in the Ruhr, who cannot afford their own solar panels but still have to pay higher electricity costs.

A new analysis from the Center for Global Development quantifies our disregard of the world’s poor. Investing in renewables, we can pull one person out of poverty for about $500. But, using gas electrification, we could pull more than four people out of poverty for the same amount. By focusing on our climate concerns, we deliberately choose to leave more than three out of four people in darkness and poverty.

Addressing global warming effectively requires long-term innovation that makes green energy affordable to all. Until then, wasting enormous sums of money at the expense of the world’s poor is no solution at all.

Desmond
18-03-2014, 05:36 PM
Climate change's effect on crop yields worse than thought: study (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-17/climate-change-effect-on-crops-worse-than-thought-study/5325130)


Dr Howden says the result is worse than previous forecasts.

"Looking back a few years we thought maybe we could get away with a bit more warming before we went negative, but this is actually showing the spike will happen sooner than later," he said.

Dr Howden says the agriculture sector will need to adapt to avoid global food shortages.

The cost of adaption seems to be going up. Does that mean there is even more justification for a price on carbon?You don't expect Jono to care if the poor pay more for food do you? Can't they eat cake?

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2014, 11:44 PM
You don't expect Jono to care if the poor pay more for food do you? Can't they eat cake?
Yet as my previous post showed, it's the poor who are suffering from energy poverty because ecofascist policies of penalizing fossil fuels and subsidizing low-efficiency "renewables" has driven up the cost of power more than they can afford. But as usual, leftards talk a good game about "the poor" in the abstract as their policies hurt real flesh-and-blood poor people.

Desmond
19-03-2014, 05:38 AM
Yet as my previous post showed, it's the poor who are suffering from energy poverty because ecofascist policies of penalizing fossil fuels and subsidizing low-efficiency "renewables" has driven up the cost of power more than they can afford. But as usual, leftards talk a good game about "the poor" in the abstract as their policies hurt real flesh-and-blood poor people.What your previous post shows is that as usual that you ignored the one before it. Is a 10% reduction in household energy usage really "suffering"? I expect many people could reduce their energy consumption by such an amount without much real impact, just with being a bit conscious of waste and acting on it. Yet with food yields predicted to decline 10% per decade, I'm not sure that will be so painless. I'm sure you or I could eat less or eat cheaper alternatives if we had to but others will be much closer to the line.

Damodevo
20-03-2014, 06:44 AM
More like: the sheer stupidity of using a record hot year with an exception El Nino as a "baseline".

Nope Sept 1996 on the RSS data;

2528

Rincewind
20-03-2014, 11:18 AM
2529

As previously posted an ignored in this thread the oceans are showing no horizontal trend at all. That's why graphs of atmospheric temperatures cannot be used to argue no global warming. Only no atmospheric warming. which is less than 3% of the total heat.

The picture which was earlier ignored is repeated here in case you missed it...
2521

Desmond
20-03-2014, 12:47 PM
Or this one. But yes been ignored before and no doubt will be again.

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg

Damodevo
24-03-2014, 12:17 AM
Or this one. But yes been ignored before and no doubt will be again.

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg

Proves nothing. Its a deceptive graph because it is measured in Joules rather than W/m^2 which shows very little is going in and the error bars are so large the total balance is meaningless. See this from the Levitus (2012) data

2531

Desmond
24-03-2014, 06:35 AM
Proves nothing. Its a deceptive graph because it is measured in Joules rather than W/m^2 which shows very little is going in and the error bars are so large the total balance is meaningless. See this from the Levitus (2012) dataPerhaps you could tell us in your own words why you feel forcing is the more relevant measurement than heat content, and if my graph proves nothing what does your graph prove?

Damodevo
24-03-2014, 07:36 AM
Perhaps you could tell us in your own words why you feel forcing is the more relevant measurement than heat content, and if my graph proves nothing what does your graph prove?

What about it are you having trouble understanding? The graph I have given is the amount of radiative forcing necessary for the degree of ocean warming presented in your graph. Its a piddly amount and not nearly enough to make up for the pause in warming and the lack of accounting for the total forcing from GHGs. It also means that error bars in calculating OHC are huge

Rincewind
24-03-2014, 10:07 AM
The person who compiled that graph seems to no idea whatsoever. I assume they are someone with impeccable scientific and in particular climate science credentials. So Damodevo, what was the source of the "spread the significant heat content ocean over the whole surface of the ocean and then pretend it isn't significant" graph?

Desmond
24-03-2014, 11:47 AM
What about it are you having trouble understanding? The graph I have given is the amount of radiative forcing necessary for the degree of ocean warming presented in your graph. Its a piddly amount and not nearly enough to make up for the pause in warming and the lack of accounting for the total forcing from GHGs. It also means that error bars in calculating OHC are hugeI guess the part that I am having trouble understanding is why a graph supposedly based on Levitus (2012) (http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf) should reach an opposite conclusion to the paper.

It's very pretty, what with the coral and all, though.

Rincewind
24-03-2014, 12:51 PM
I guess the part that I am having trouble understanding is why a graph supposedly based on Levitus (2012) (http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf) should reach an opposite conclusion to the paper.

The thing is it depends on how you massage the data. I'm guessing this data has been massaged by a professional masseuse.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2014, 01:18 PM
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY SEES THE LIGHT: WILL IT BE THE FIRST MAJOR SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION TO REJECT THE GLOBAL WARMING 'CONSENSUS'? (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/20/American-Physical-Society-Sees-The-Light-Will-It-Be-The-First-Major-Scientific-Institution-To-Reject-The-Global-Warming-Consensus)
by JAMES DELINGPOLE 20 Mar 2014 3579 POST A COMMENT

The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its position on "climate change" by appointing three notorious climate skeptics to its panel on public affairs (POPA).

They are:

Professor Richard Lindzen, formerly Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a highly regarded physicist who once described climate change alarmism on The Larry King Show as "mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who has written: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see."

Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a former Warmist (and still a self-described "luke warmer") who has infuriated many of her more extremist colleagues by defending skeptics and by testifying to the US House Subcommittee on the Environment that the uncertainties in forecasting climate science are much greater than the alarmists will admit.

Rincewind
24-03-2014, 02:23 PM
Has anything actually come out from the APS regarding a change in stance? Three appointees to the POPA doesn't mean a huge reversal of position. The panel is made up of around 25 members and observers. So if I was a non-scientist like Watt or Delingpole I would be inclined to wait until the POPA actually issued some revised position statement on climate change before reporting that "APS sees the light". Otherwise it will just be like the BEST project that Watt said he would accepted the findings of and then after that project confirmed the warming data even after taking into account the sorts of anomalies that Watt had be campaigning for years over he then disregarded the BEST groups findings.

Take home message: best not to get your hopes too high when all the evidence is against you.

Desmond
24-03-2014, 08:22 PM
Why's Lindzen wasting his time here - with his powers of prophecy shouldn't he be playing lotto or something?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Hansen_vs_Lindzen_500.jpg

Patrick Byrom
24-03-2014, 10:22 PM
The thing is it depends on how you massage the data. I'm guessing this data has been massaged by a professional masseuse.
I wouldn't use the word "professional" - he's definitely an amateur. This link (http://davidappell.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/wuwt-ocean-misunderstanding-and.html) describes the major problems with that graph: What is shown is not actually the forcing, and the errors have been massively over-estimated.

Damodevo
24-03-2014, 10:47 PM
The person who compiled that graph seems to no idea whatsoever. I assume they are someone with impeccable scientific and in particular climate science credentials. So Damodevo, what was the source of the "spread the significant heat content ocean over the whole surface of the ocean and then pretend it isn't significant" graph?

Here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/19/forcing-the-ocean-to-confess/)


So what I’ve done is I’ve looked at the annual change in heat content of the upper ocean (0-2000m). Then I’ve calculated the global forcing (in watts per square metre, written here as “W/m2″) that would be necessary to move that much heat into or out of the ocean. Figure 1 gives the results, where heat going into the ocean is shown as a positive forcing, and heat coming out as a negative forcing.

As per the paper


The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-2000 m layer increased by 24.0×1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.39 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09ºC. This warming rate corresponds to a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 per unit area of earth’s surface.

This is much less than the IPCC AR4 and Hansen's estimate of where it should be. In other words, the "missing heat" is still "missing".

Damodevo
24-03-2014, 11:12 PM
I wouldn't use the word "professional" - he's definitely an amateur. This link (http://davidappell.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/wuwt-ocean-misunderstanding-and.html) describes the major problems with that graph: What is shown is not actually the forcing, and the errors have been massively over-estimated.

Why should such large error bars be shocking when even the IPCC's AR4;


The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the effect of human activities since 1750 has been a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2.

Yet Levitus measures 0.29 W/M^2. And here (http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~tristan/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf) from Stephans et al. 2012


For the decade considered [2000-2010], the average imbalance is 0.6 = 340.2 − 239.7 − 99.9 Wm2 when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005 (refs 13,14). This small imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm2(95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors12,15. Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change11.

Damodevo
24-03-2014, 11:21 PM
Why's Lindzen wasting his time here - with his powers of prophecy shouldn't he be playing lotto or something?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Hansen_vs_Lindzen_500.jpg

But the low forcing estimates of Levitus is more inline with skeptics like Lindzen but far below predictions given by the IPCC and Hansen.

Rincewind
25-03-2014, 12:15 AM
Here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/19/forcing-the-ocean-to-confess/)

So I was right this is the work of an amateur whose work was not reviewed and whose highest qualifications seems to be a BA and a certificate in massage.


As per the paper

Willis's methodology makes no sense. The surface of the ocean does not all contribute to warming since it is not all exposed to identical forcing. It also ignore factors like currents and tradewinds on the atmosphere ocean interface.


This is much less than the IPCC AR4 and Hansen's estimate of where it should be. In other words, the "missing heat" is still "missing".

In other words Willis's arguments make no sense and he should probably have a good lie down.

Patrick Byrom
25-03-2014, 01:27 AM
Why should such large error bars be shocking when even the IPCC's AR4;
Yet Levitus measures 0.29 W/M^2. And here (http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~tristan/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf) from Stephans et al. 2012
The problem with the large error bars on the graph is that they don't seem to have been correctly derived from the original data. If you can justify them, then please do so. Pointing out that related measurements also have large error bars isn't very convincing.

As you've referred to Stephans et al, do you agree with their statement about OHC:

"This uncertainty is almost an order of magnitude larger than the imbalance of 0.58 ±0.4 Wm–2 inferred from OHC information."

One final point. As I've explained elsewhere, uncertainty works in both directions. If the forcing really is 0.2±0.3 Wm–2, then we can be almost certain that the forcing is positive, and that OHC is increasing.

Desmond
25-03-2014, 06:19 AM
Here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/19/forcing-the-ocean-to-confess/)



As per the paperA WUWT "paper"? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Desmond
25-03-2014, 06:23 AM
But the low forcing estimates of Levitus is more inline with skeptics like Lindzen but far below predictions given by the IPCC and Hansen.I suppose you think he is batting 100. Just like your hero weatherman watts on his annual sea ice extent prophecy::

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Overall_SEARCH.jpg

Desmond
31-03-2014, 07:43 PM
What your previous post shows is that as usual that you ignored the one before it. Is a 10% reduction in household energy usage really "suffering"? I expect many people could reduce their energy consumption by such an amount without much real impact, just with being a bit conscious of waste and acting on it. Yet with food yields predicted to decline 10% per decade, I'm not sure that will be so painless. I'm sure you or I could eat less or eat cheaper alternatives if we had to but others will be much closer to the line.

Climate change is going to turn the Earth into a planet of hungry kids (http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-change-is-going-to-turn-the-earth-into-a-planet-of-hungry-kids/)


...
A report released Monday evening by Oxfam America, an anti-poverty organization, finds that, “food prices could double by 2030, with half of this rise driven by climate change.” The result? “There could be 25 million more malnourished children under the age of 5 in 2050, compared with a world without climate change.”

We’re not talking about kids in the backseat whining that they want their chicken McNuggets posthaste. This is about already impoverished families in the world’s poorest countries that will be pushed to starvation by rising prices for their dietary staples.

Growing food is highly dependent on a delicate balance of natural conditions. Even slight shifts in average temperature or precipitation can make a now-plentiful crop unable to survive. Warmer or wetter weather can unleash crop-eating plagues such as locusts. And floods or fires can, of course, wipe out a season’s yield entirely.

Lower supplies of food means higher prices. And for the more than 3 billion people living on less than $2.50 per day, even small increases in food prices can be a matter of life and death.

We’re seeing these effects already.
...

Desmond
27-04-2014, 08:52 AM
How global warming broke the thermometer record (http://www.skepticalscience.com/how_global_warming_broke_the_thermometer_record.ht ml)


...
The broken temperature record

It looks likely that the rapid warming of the Arctic has broken the thermometer temperature record in two different ways - firstly by violating the assumption that unobserved regions of the planet warm at a broadly similar rate to observed regions, and secondly by violating the assumption that neighbouring regions of the planet's surface warm at a similar rate. While the errors are small in absolute terms and do not affect the big picture, they are enough to distort the noisy short term trends which have dominated the public discourse on climate change.

If this analysis is correct then all of the land-ocean records used in the IPCC AR5 report have been overstating the slowdown in warming over the past 16 years, although for different reasons. The existence of two distinct cool biases in different versions of the temperature record may of course have contributed to the fact that the problems went undetected. Of the professionally maintained datasets, only the new Berkeley Earth land-ocean record is unaffected.

We anticipate that there will be continuing developments from the main temperature record providers both to address the problem of coverage and to establish consistent and carefully validated records for the most important high latitude stations. The new International Surface Temperature Initiative will provide a basis for the next version of the GHCN data, and will feature many more Arctic stations. Weather model reanalyses, satellite data and manual reconstructions of critical stations may also prove important. Hopefully much of the disagreement between different versions of the temperature record can be resolved. If this is the case then one source of uncertainty in our understanding of recent temperature trends will have been addressed.

Damodevo
13-05-2014, 09:58 AM
leading climate scientist defects: No longer believes in the 'consensus'


one (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/08/Leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus) of the world's most eminent climate scientists - for several decades a warmist - has defected to the climate sceptic camp.

Lennart bengtsson - a swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the max planck institute for meteorology in hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st imo prize of the world meteorological organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith - up to and including the belief that michael mann's hockey stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between co2 emissions and global mean temperature.

But this week, he signalled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of britain's global warming policy foundation (gwpf), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former chancellor lord lawson.

Bengtsson


"I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened. So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show."

Rincewind
13-05-2014, 10:17 AM
I don't think Bengtsson ever believed "the consensus".


I have not changed my view on a fundamental level. I have never seen myself as an alarmist but rather as a scientist with a critical viewpoint, and in that sense I have always been a skeptic. I have devoted most of my career to developing models for predicting the weather, and in doing so I have learned the importance of validating forecasts against observed weather. As a result, that's an approach I strongly favor for "climate predictions." It's essential to validate model results, especially when dealing with complex systems such as the climate. It's essential do so properly if such predictions are to be considered credible.

I note that Bengtsson is pushing 80 though and at that stage in a career it can be tricky to find someone willing to pay your salary. Perhaps his agreement to join the GWPF was at least partially to do with them being the best offer on the table.

Desmond
13-05-2014, 12:30 PM
Apparently we might be headed for a cracker of an El Nino year. Should be interesting if it breaks the record, not quite so interesting for the other things and people it breaks. I wonder what the denialists will do; wait a couple of years and then start with the "there has been no warming since 2014" routine?

Patrick Byrom
13-05-2014, 01:13 PM
I don't think Bengtsson ever believed "the consensus".
Based on the quotes, I would describe him as a lukewarmer rather than a sceptic or rejector: "The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show."

Of course, he may not be an active researcher, so he probably isn't familiar with current research.

Damodevo
13-05-2014, 03:34 PM
Global Cooling: Antarctic Sea Ice Coverage Continues To Break Records


It was (http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/12/global-cooling-antarctic-sea-ice-coverage-continues-to-break-records/#ixzz31ZRzXnBK) a cold summer down in Antarctica, with sea ice coverage growing about 43,500 square miles a day, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSDC). April 2014 beats the previous sea-ice coverage record from April 2008 by a whopping 124,000 square miles.

But even with autumn in full swing in the South Pole, “record levels continue to be set in early May,” reports the NSDC. Sea ice levels have been “significantly above” satellite data averages for 16 consecutive months.

Rincewind
13-05-2014, 04:57 PM
Sea ice is good but land ice is better.

Unfortunately the West Antarctic glaciers sheding land ice at a fast rate. See...

West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148)


A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea.

The study presents multiple lines of evidence, incorporating 40 years of observations that indicate the glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica "have passed the point of no return," according to glaciologist and lead author Eric Rignot, of UC Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The new study has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

These glaciers already contribute significantly to sea level rise, releasing almost as much ice into the ocean annually as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet. They contain enough ice to raise global sea level by 4 feet (1.2 meters) and are melting faster than most scientists had expected. Rignot said these findings will require an upward revision to current predictions of sea level rise.

"This sector will be a major contributor to sea level rise in the decades and centuries to come," Rignot said. "A conservative estimate is it could take several centuries for all of the ice to flow into the sea."

Damodevo
14-05-2014, 03:38 PM
Sea ice is good but land ice is better.

Unfortunately the West Antarctic glaciers sheding land ice at a fast rate. See...

West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148)


A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea.

The study presents multiple lines of evidence, incorporating 40 years of observations that indicate the glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica "have passed the point of no return," according to glaciologist and lead author Eric Rignot, of UC Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The new study has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

These glaciers already contribute significantly to sea level rise, releasing almost as much ice into the ocean annually as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet. They contain enough ice to raise global sea level by 4 feet (1.2 meters) and are melting faster than most scientists had expected. Rignot said these findings will require an upward revision to current predictions of sea level rise.

"This sector will be a major contributor to sea level rise in the decades and centuries to come," Rignot said. "A conservative estimate is it could take several centuries for all of the ice to flow into the sea."

So 10cm a century in sea level rise? That hardly justifies the alarmist heading.

And its not unprecedented and actually is reversible;


There is some evidence (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/studies-indicate-collapse-of-west.html) to suggest that, in previous interglacials, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet completely disappeared, leading to sea levels about 5m higher than at present

Rincewind
14-05-2014, 06:13 PM
So 10cm a century in sea level rise? That hardly justifies the alarmist heading.

Where is 10cm per century come from?

Also the headline was factual not alarmist. Contrast this with "Global cooling" which is risible by comparison.

And its not unprecedented and actually is reversible;

By unstoppable they are saying it will melt before anything we can do the the climate can arrest the decline. Obviously if they disappear then a period of extensive snow fall in the Western Antarctic then the glaciers can reappear. But that does not invalidate anything stated or implied. The point of the story was to demonstrate that the sea ice figure in the Antarctic is not evidence of global cooling. It is not even evidence of regional cooling in the antarctic since there are other worrying warming effects like glacial loss.

If I was a betting man I would say that the sea ice issue could be a global warming effect and the sea ice increase is linked to the loss of land ice causing a short term local cooling in the ocean. I don't know if this is true but it is certainly more plausible than "global cooling". Since if global cooling was happening then (all other things being equal) the glaciers should not be in decline.