[Closed] Global warming again...........

ransos - Member

Ah, the classic cherry pick tactic - using 1998 as your base year. Funny how they never choose 1997, or 1999.

Show me a model that successfully predicted the fact there would be virtually no warming trend over the past decade's observational data... or one that can explain why

Except, urr, we have. As discussed in the report that this thread is about.

Ransos - thats a graph of different observational records

not a graph of modelled predictions

the fact that the ten year trend is limited, is irrelevant

the modeled predictions all showed a constant warming trend, with no downturn

the models did not match the observational data

that means the models were wrong

that mans you go back to the drawing board and figure out why, instead of denying it

[b]Note[/b] I've never denied one here that warming is happening, I've also never accepted it has - I've consistently said that I think the data is bollocks, and therefore we simply do not know, I maintain that that is a perfectly responsible and fair scientific position to hold.

the models did not match the observational data

that means the models were wrong

that mans you go back to the drawing board and figure out why, instead of denying it

Read the report.

Basically the sea was a slightly better heat sink than expected, so it hasn't warmed as much as was expected.

As a result if you include sea temperatures in your observations then it looks like there is less warming than was predicted, because it is lagging behind a bit.

If you look just at land temperatures then the 1°C rise has been continuous as modelled.

[img] [/img]

Reckon The Flying Ox had it right and deserves posting again:

[img] [/img]

Ransos - thats a graph of different observational records

All of which refute your earlier assertion. If you're going to start with a false premise, there's no point in discussing anything else with you.

Next!

I've never denied one here that warming is happening, I've also never accepted it has - I've consistently said that I think the data is bollocks, and therefore we simply do not know, I maintain that that is a perfectly responsible and fair scientific position to hold.

Only if you give equal credence to the internationally recognised climate scientists and the rag bag fringe of deniers with no expertise in the area.
And on he last debate we had on this you flatly denied it was happening

Except, urr, we have. As discussed in the report that this thread is about.

Except, urr, the report was observational data, not a predictive model 🙄

For those interested, here's the prediction made by Hansen in 1988. The scenarios are for different rates of emissions growth and assumptions about volcanic eruptions. Scenario B most closely represents what actually happened - modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption. Note how accurate it was!

[img] [/img]

Except, urr, the report was observational data, not a predictive model

That's right. It is a report on observational data that follows the predictive model.

Show me a model that successfully predicted the fact there would be virtually no warming trend over the past decade's observational data... or one that can explain why

Not that I expect it will change your mind Zulu but here's a quote from the report about that "fact":

Though it is sometimes argued that global warming has abated since the 1998 El Nino event (e.g. Easterling and Wehner 2009, Meehl et al. 2011), we find no evidence of this in the GHCN land data.

Applying our analysis over the interval 1998 to 2010, we find the land temperature trend to be 2.84 ± 0.73 C / century, consistent with prior decades.

Meehl et al. (2011) associated the recent 27 decreases in global temperature trends with increased heat flux into the deep oceans. The fact that [u]we observe no change in the trend over land[/u] would seem to be consistent with the conclusion that any change in the total global average has been driven solely with oceanic processes.

-- [url= http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process ]Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process, October draft [PDF][/url]

Obviously there's a bit more discussion, but I'm sure you've read it all so I won't bore you with repeating it here.

Well no scienist thought that there was a faster speed than light until a few weeks ago. This was proclamed with 'absolute certainty'... thats all I have to say about that.

Well no scienist thought that there was a faster speed than light until a few weeks ago. This was proclamed with 'absolute certainty'... thats all I have to say about that.

They think the same now. Your point is?

Well no scienist thought that there was a faster speed than light until a few weeks ago. This was proclamed with 'absolute certainty'... thats all I have to say about that.

Yeah. And and they still don't think there is this week.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/17/remember-those-faster-than-light-neutrinos-great-now-forget-e/

But besides that, science being overturned is not a sign of weakness. It shows that scientific method is working.

Yep, you are right. But shall we give up questioning as we are told that a 'consensus' has been reached?

But shall we give up questioning as we are told that a 'consensus' has been reached?

Of course not. But likewise should we do nothing because there are still people with questions?

No-one's given up questionning. But if you're going to do so, it's better to come up with some evidence to support your assertions. Then that evidence can be examined, tested, and either be rejected or accepted. What we have from the denialists is a load of half-truths, lies, cherry picking and a near total absence of any actual science.

I certainly don't advocate doing nothing, but I certainly don't think its a foregone conclusion either. We have a very long way to go yet before we reach a thorough understanding of what is happening.

(incidentally I like "denialist" better than "denier", which always makes me think I'm arguing with some unusually thick lady's stockings)

I certainly don't think its a foregone conclusion either.

Which part?

The evidence that warming/change is happening is fairly clear. Most sceptics, (even Zulu apparently) accept that part.

The remaining debate is how fast, are we causing any/part/all of it, can we do anything to mitigate it and do we need to?

What's the downside to trying to cut down our emissions while we figure this stuff out?

What's the downside to trying to cut down our emissions while we figure this stuff out?

Absolutely zilch. We will only achieve better things.

My personal stance is I am unconvinced by the amount of effect man is having. But that doesn't mean that we should acquiesce.

Maybe to some people burning lots of stuff still feels like 'progress'

My personal stance is I am unconvinced by the amount of effect man is having.

Based on what though?

a rudimentary understanding of carbon cycles - no more.

I do however have a very profound understanding of predictive models (day job), and know how fallible they are.

'to accurately predict the future, you need an infinite knowledge of the past'.

edit: sorry that is quite nebulous, not looking for a debate, just trying to make the point that arrogance and dogma should have no place in science, whatever discipline.

That's what we mean - having questions about consensus is good - but generalised, arm-wavy [i]"I don't think so, but have no particular evidence or critique to offer"[/i] isn't really all that helpful.

'to accurately predict the future, you need an infinite knowledge of the past'.

True to a degree, but, for example, I don't need infinite knowledge to know that pulling the trigger on a loaded gun held at my head is likely to end badly.

Sometimes knowing that things are bad, and that we are currently doing them and they have seem to have the bad effect we thought they might, should be enough to persuade us to stop. Or at least pause!

Ok - so back from doing the work that needed to be done. So how much progress has been made? Do we have an answer?

Graham - despite the fact that I think the "head in the sand" photo was aimed at me, you seem to making particular sense both in your first post and more recently:

The remaining debate is how fast, are we causing any/part/all of it, can we do anything to mitigate it and do we need to? What's the downside to trying to cut down our emissions while we figure this stuff out?

The case for global warming does seem to be strong (so lets hope that unlike the IPCC data that allegedly fudged some of the graphs) that this analysis holds up to scrutiny. Then that part of the argument can be put to bed. But given the debate already today, I doubt this will be the smooth ride that others predict here.

[Out of interest - what are the arguments for the decline in temperature between approx 1940-70s and does any one know about solar activity over this period - genuine ? here BTW]

But as you say the crux really is the causation argument. It really isn't good enough for either side to hide behind comments such as TJ's above:

equal credence to the internationally recognised climate scientists and the rag bag fringe of deniers with no expertise in the area.

It is absurd to claim that there is unanimity in the science profession in this area and that any opponents are merely the 'fringe'. This is TJ's usual cyber bullying approach. But it is absurd. Imagine if derniers/sceptics did the same.

The problem in this area is the vast interest groups that lie behind each side of the argument. And mistakes made on each side. So for every Pachauri we will have a Delingople etc....Who is funding Lawson's group etc...?

what's the big deal about climate change anyway ? Humanity will survive, just not in the way it does now.

Toxicity, however, may kill us all. Why is there less fuss about that ?

Out of interest - what are the arguments for the decline in temperature between approx 1940-70s and does any one know about solar activity over this period - genuine ? here BTW

the cause is probabaly [ most likely ] whatever you prefer as your "proof" word

The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.

t is absurd to claim that there is unanimity in the science profession in this area

Imagine if derniers/sceptics did the same.

Flinging mud is easy for either view but clearly temperature is rising, clearly C02 is a green house gas and it is rising - ppm. There little suggestion from deniers as to what would or could ameliorate the forcing affect of rising C02.
I am not sure what people want as proof tbh as they seem happy to deny despite the fact they have no "proof" to account for these known facts.

You cannot deny that most vociferous deniers are not academics or students of the discipline - see lord lawson for example. It is amasing [ actually no its not] but very few even have a science background.
It is worthy of debat eand there are areas for debate but sadly most of the noise if from loud but ill informed individuals [ a bt like stw then really

Incidentally I think the climate change arguments are absolutely hilarious. Truly, utterly hilarious.

What other branch of science has suddenly bred such a massive amount of "experts" overnight?

It would be great if we could channel this to another science. Surely with the sheer brain power of all the armchair scientist experts (who obviously have studied this area in their spare time to a greater depth than people whose jobs it is to do this every day) we could have cured cancer/HIV/antibiotic resistance/food shortages etc. by now?

Shouldn't we just ask Lord (but not of the Lords) Monckton to give us the cure for leukaemia? He should be able to whip it up in no time!

Ok - so read some of the Berkeley stuff and what does this tell me? First, there is an incredible amount of data and it seems a high degree of openness. But does it make me more or less sceptical about global warming and what does it add to the debate as to the causes.

With regards to the first question: [b]It does neither. [/b]To state the obvious, I do not think that there is a debate a global warming. It is happening and has been happening for a long term. Given that we are in an interglacial phase, this is a non-contraversial conclusion. The same can be said for greenhouses gases. But reading the reports (particularly the third draft from the website ( http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php) the most striking thing for me it the doubts that is raises on the usefulness of the data.

The report quotes its own findings and that of other research which show that the statistical errors are three-four times the scale of the actual increase in global warming that has been "found". And this excludes the data from non-US stations. Professor Muller concludes that "our temperature record is poor, especially over the oceans, that it is limited, filled with errors and biases, and when used as a basis for judgment, [b]leads to over-certainty[/b]."

So one does not have to be a denier, or one of TJ's rag bag fringe members to at least maintain a relatively healthy degree of scepticism about the findings. Muller concedes that himself. I had hoped that reading the report would increase my level of certainty but it has actually done the opposite.

Ok, the second question. Again one only has to read the authors' own comments: "How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."

So really, I cannot see what the fuss is about. We know that global warming is happening, we know about greenhouse gases (and the relative importance of water vapour vs CO2), we have data that is very difficult to draw reliable conclusions from, and we still do not understand the causes.

Now i understand why the likes of Al Gore have to use images of power station towers - they do not show CO2 at all, but they look sufficiently scary to raise alarm in the absence of scientific proof. Funny I though CO2 was invisible - just shows how little I know!

So really, I cannot see what the fuss is about. We know that global warming is happening

Well not everyone does. The aim of the report was to openly re-examine the data and make it all public.

The hardcore deniers (the "fringe members") were claiming that the data was flawed (due to weather stations within urban heat islands), and that the Climategate emails and closed nature of their data showed that GW proponents were trying to hide the "fact" that global warming didn't exist or had completely stopped in the last decade.

The report demonstrates that is false, that urban heat islands have not skewed the data, and proposes new methods for examining the data to address mathematical criticisms of other models.

You are quite right that it doesn't tackle the possible causes. That was not its aim. It simply confirms it is definitely happening.

you are cheery picking

our temperature record is poor, especially over the oceans, that it is limited, filled with errors and biases, and when used as a basis for judgment, leads to over-certainty."

Given that we are in an interglacial phase, this is a non-contraversial conclusion.

How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."

So really, I cannot see what the fuss is about.

We know that global warming is happening, we know about global warming, we have data that is very difficult to draw reliable conclusions from, and we still do not understand the causes.

A new mathematical framework is presented for producing maps and large-scale averages of temperature changes from weather station data for the purposes of climate analysis.
This allows one to include short and discontinuous temperature records, so that nearly all temperature data can be used. The framework contains a weighting process that assesses the
quality and consistency of a spatial network of temperature stations as an integral part of the averaging process. This permits data with varying levels of quality to be used without compromising the accuracy of the resulting reconstructions. Lastly, the process presented here is extensible to spatial networks of arbitrary density (or locally varying density) while maintaining the expected spatial relationships. In this paper, this framework is applied to the Global
Historical Climatology Network land temperature dataset to present a new global land temperature reconstruction from 1800 to present with error uncertainties that include many key effects. In so doing, we find that the global land mean temperature has increased by 0.911 ±
0.042 C since the 1950s (95% confidence for statistical and spatial uncertainties). [b]This change is consistent with global land-surface warming results previously reported, but with reduced uncertainty.[/b]

The absence of a statistically significant difference between the two sets [poor and ok data sets] suggests that networks of stations can reliably discern temperature trends even when individual stations have large absolute uncertainties

EDIT: should i work on being as brief as GrahamS

The world is a biggg old place, some humility on both sides regarding understanding it all would be nice.
Altering our climate by accident, and not design, would be truly tragic though.

Junkyard, in the bit you've quoted it refers to 95% confidence levels. Whilst this 'sounds' a high percentage. Statistically this is appalling.

In a world where companys use six sigma methodology to ensure their products don't fail, if we were to rely on 95% confidence levels we would have planes falling out of the sky, trains derailing, gas explosions etc, etc. Whilst these catastophes still happen (you can never 100% accurately predict) they are thankfully the exeption rather than the rule. And we use confidence levels of 99.996%.

The data can too easily be discredited. The data simply is not good enough... for now.

95% confidence levels. Whilst this 'sounds' a high percentage. Statistically this is appalling.

Statistically, 95% is the standard and most commonly used confidence level, as used by researchers in every field across the world.

However, the dataset is published with the report so if you'd like to calculate a different CI and precision then you are free to do so.

In a world where companys use six sigma methodology... we use confidence levels of 99.996%.

Sorry but that is a completely different measurement and has chuff all to do with confidence intervals.

It is absolutely about confidence levels.

Statistically, 95% is the standard and most commonly used confidence interval, as used by researchers in every field across the world.

Yes but this standard is not high enough.

However, the dataset is published with the report so if you'd like to calculate a different CI and precision then you are free to do so.

However I mucked about with the figures I still couldnt improve the precision of the raw data.

Yes but this standard is not high enough.

Damn them for using the standard eh?

However I mucked about with the figures I still couldnt improve the precision of the raw data.

No but you can calculate it to your own confidence level.

For example, Junkyard's quote talks about 0.911 ±0.042 C (95% confidence).
I'm not about to sit and do the maths (especially on my phone) but you could recalculate it to be something like 0.9 ±0.1 C (99% confidence) if you really wanted to.

You lose precision but gain confidence.

Whilst this 'sounds' a high percentage. Statistically this is appalling.
The data can too easily be discredited. The data simply is not good enough... for now.

and there went most/the majority of science with your first point.
Secondly the report it is specifically about the quality of the data and what it means. I gave the quotes on what they concluded but hey you may know more . Luckily it gives the raw data and the methodology used so why not rip it apart rather than attack it philosophically.

Damn them for using the standard eh?

Ah the default position of mockery of anyone who dares question the consensus.

What I do have genuine concern about is if the data is interrogated using the rigours of statistical analysis used in six sigma, it falls apart. Athough I do concede the application differs somewhat.

Well it's easy to improve the quality of the data set.
The confidence level relates to the sample versus population size, yes?

Here our samples come from weather stations and the population is the actual temperatures at every point on the globe.

So all we need to do is jump in a time machine, go back 200 years, place one weather station every 5km around the world, then come back and collect the data, which should now be "good enough".

I'm sure a Sigma6 Black Belt can manage that 🙄

What I do have genuine concern about is if the data is interrogated using the rigours of statistical analysis used in six sigma, it falls apart. Athough I do concede the application differs somewhat.

Yes.

Six Sigma is concerned with failure rates. The 99.99966% it quotes has **** all to do with statistical confidence levels.
It is the expected yield rate when ensuring the mean value of your component is 6 sigma values away from being out of spec.

BTW

Ah the default position of mockery of anyone who dares question the consensus.

I'm not mocking anything. I'm pointing out that 95% confidence level is the default standard used across the world in statistical estimates of this type. If they had used anything else then no doubt the naysayers would be raising eyebrows and accusing them of massaging the data.

I'm sure a Sigma6 Black Belt can manage that

So all we need to do is jump in a time machine, go back 200 years, place one weather station every 5km around the world, then come back and collect the data, which should now be "good enough"

Data we have access to is skewed with too much variability because of primative collection methods. In the future methods will improve and data will be more reliable... back to my initial point, we are far from having a thorough understanding of what is happening.

he never said you were a black belt I can see a pattern emerging here aswell 😉

Yes.

Six Sigma is concerned with failure rates. The 99.99966% it quotes has **** all to do with statistical confidence levels.
It is the expected yield rate when ensuring the mean value of your component is 6 sigma values away from being out of spec

What is six sigma precisely then?

It is a common misconception that the discipline is applicable only to engineering/manufacture. Not going to have a discussion about six sigma. Think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not a 6sigma black belt

Didn't say you were. (Not with any stated confidence anyway)

Data we have access to is skewed with too much variability because of primative collection methods.

Really? How do you come to that conclusion?

In the future methods will improve and data will be more reliable

More likely in another 200 years your great ancestor will be complaining that the data from the 2000's is too primitive and can't be trusted as it doesn't measure to 97 decimal places (and besides most of those weather stations are now underwater).

That's the thing with measurements from the past - they are generally "primitive".

back to my initial point, we are far from having a thorough understanding of what is happening.

As said earlier, the aim of this study was [u]not[/u] to understand causes. It was to determine if global warming is happening at all. And it turns out we can be very certain that it is.

Not going to have a discussion about six sigma

what areas of scientific research is it used in then ?

What is six sigma precisely then?

I think I just explained the basis of it. You have a component. It has an operating value. If you keep the mean of the operating values of your components six "sigma" values away from the operating tolerances then you should have a successful yield of 99.99966%

Now, can you explain what a confidence level (in relation to a confidence interval) is precisely then?

what areas of scientific research is it used in then ?

None. It's a process for making management consultants rich by "encouraging quality"

GrahamS you really are a pain in the arse when i am trying to argue 😉
I knew that by the way [ i can read Wiki 😀 ] I was just waiting for them to say it.
I see the point they are trying to make but it is not a wise/appropriate comparison.
I liked your line about past measures being primitive

None. It's a process for making management consultants rich by "encouraging quality"

Thats why I'm not a 'Black Belt' its a bit gimmicky for me. The statistical methods it uses though are proven, rigorous and valid and I use them on a daily basis.

The basis of these methods are to gain confidence that the data is valid, accurate and pertinent.

who gives a f***, climate change is happening, it always has and always will, thing is [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/22/population-world-15bn-2100 ]world population is predicted to be 15billion by 2100[/url] and that mixed with [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil ]peak oil [/url] and the massive reliance on oil for the production of food means the sh** may well be hitting the fan in a big way.

ho hum.

The statistical methods it uses though are proven, rigorous and valid and I use them on a daily basis.

I'm sure they are and I'm sure you do.

But they don't relate to this work in the way you are stating.
Specifically a "99.99966% confidence level" is pretty meaningless, not to mention unachievable if you want any level of precision.

and yet no one questions their oncologist when they recommend a certain treatment

the same peer review process and statistical rigour will have been used to determine that

no other branch of science has been so publicly and relentlessly attacked - id normally dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand and in this case i can see no way in which a climate scientist would benefit from this

the multi-trilion dollar oil industry however, i can maybe imagine that there may be a teeny weeny vested interest there

and yet no one questions their oncologist when they recommend a certain treatment
the same peer review process and statistical rigour will have been used to determine that

Yep, I just mentioned this discussion to Mrs(Dr)GrahamS and she remarked that pretty much all medical papers use 95% confidence levels. And she should know as she's written quite a few.

Yep, 1.96 is the standard in science.

Ahh... but what do the Black Belt scientists use? 😉

Ok! been brow beaten enough. 😆

For anyone interested read Black Swan - Nicholas Nassim Taleb about what we know, what we think we know, and what we don't know we don't know. It was a revelation for me and shaped the way I view subjects such as this- thats not to say it'll change your mind, but it may just open it.

edit: this is from a recent paper of his.

Abstract:
Ex ante predicted outcomes should be interpreted as counterfactuals (potential histories), with errors as the spread between outcomes. But error rates have error rates. We reapply measurements of uncertainty about the estimation errors of the estimation errors of an estimation treated as branching counterfactuals. Such recursions of epistemic uncertainty have markedly different distributial properties from conventional sampling error, and lead to fatter tails in the projections than in past realizations. Counterfactuals of error rates always lead to fat tails, regardless of the probability distribution used. A mere .01% branching error rate about the STD (itself an error rate), and .01% branching error rate about that error rate, etc. (recursing all the way) results in explosive (and infinite) moments higher than 1. Missing any degree of regress leads to the underestimation of small probabilities and concave payoffs (a standard example of which is Fukushima). The paper states the conditions under which higher order rates of uncertainty (expressed in spreads of counterfactuals) alters the shapes the of final distribution and shows which a priori beliefs about conterfactuals are needed to accept the reliability of conventional probabilistic methods (thin tails or mildly fat tails).

you are gonna have to translate that into something approaching plain English

Yep, it can be tough going!

but very basically; even very small error rates result in unreliable data when extapolated.

Though it does obviously depended on the type and frequency of extrapolation you're trying to do.

Philosophical objections are fine but you need to prove/demonstrate it has occurred not just tell us that if it did occur it would result in poor conclusions. Everyone knows the later and the former seems to be disproved again/not supported. The raw data is there for you to prove/demonstrate this philosophical position with data - that is what science does.
The latest research was specifically to look at the data - see conclusions cited above - but even that has not stopped people saying the same philosophical point even though the data does not support the view [ the data is poor etc]
We have proxy measures of temp like size of polar ice caps tree rings etc that also support the view of the data - its getting warmer.

The data is readily available so get some evidence to support your view
Good luck

For anyone interested read Black Swan - Nicholas Nassim Taleb about what we know, what we think we know, and what we don't know we don't know.

Not read it but I've seen the film. My main conclusion was that Natalie should eat more 😀

Jackson, your argument seems to have shifted from "[i]the data is wrong[/i]" to "[i]basic statistics as used throughout the world is wrong[/i]"!
I'm not really sure how to answer that.

With regard to errors on errors, take a another look at the graph:
[img] [/img]
/p>

The grey bits are the potential error.

Hopefully you can see that even if the error was several orders of magnitude larger there would still be a noticeable rise.

Yes there is a notable rise, but the grey band should get wider.

My position hasn't changed. I say that the data is not robust enough to draw concrete conclusions.

On a general note, just because X is not proved, does not mean that the opposite is proved.

Anyway I give up

You just cant beat deniers - no offence you seem bright and articulate like many deniers- when even with independent research on the very issue you remain unconvinced. Unfortunately your view is not based on science as we know it as you appear to be ignoring the evidence and sticking with your unsupported philosophical position.
The evidence does not support your position and yet you want to attack the science

Thats a bit disingenous Junkyard. I'm certainly not a 'denier' and resent the label. By the same token you are a 'beliver' this is your new religion but *patronising mode* you seem fairly articulate and bright!

I don't attack the science at all. The data in my view (not philosophical BTW but empirical) when put under the microsope leaves more questions unanswered.

Yes there is a notable rise, but the grey band should get wider.

Why should it get wider? Do you mean get wider as we move from 1800 to 2000??

As you pointed out, the accuracy of "primitive" readings is less reliable and they had far fewer sample points, hence the error band is wide there. In more recent times they had more accurate readings at many more sample points. Hence it gets narrower as we reach the present day.

I say that the data is not robust enough to draw concrete conclusions.

You just said there was a notable rise. Are you planning to make the error band so wide that it will encompass the entire graph?

It is robust enough for the worlds statisticians and climatologists, but feel free to email them your own statistical analysis.

But their maths is published at http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php under "Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process" and they have contact details here: http://berkeleyearth.org/contact.php I'm sure they'd welcome any improvements you can make to their analysis.

Thats a bit disingenous Junkyard. I'm certainly not a 'denier' and resent the label. By the same token you are a 'beliver' this is your new religion but *patronising mode* you seem fairly articulate and bright!

Aye fair point, clumsy use of language, I apologise and retract it. A nice retort which I deserved. I did not mean to patronise you, you get people who are illogical [ swivelled eyed loons as TJ would say] and talk incoherent stuff on this, you are not one of them so it was compliment [ if rubbish] but again point taken.

I don't attack the science at all. The data in my view (not philosophical BTW but empirical) when put under the microsope leaves more questions unanswered.

Sorry I have not been clear. (finding it hard to articulate my point).

I don't deny that there is a change in climate (the evidence is clear)

However to fully understand the effects we need to know the causes. It is here where the data is not robust enough to say one way or another. I'm unconvinced as to the (supposed significant) effect of man. As too am I unconvinced that it is merely cyclical. I just do not know (and the data to support either is not strong enough to stand rigorous scrutiny).

This I feel is hugely important because, we cannot find solutions to problems if we do not understand the causes. We will only get to greater understanding through questionning, interogation of data and rigorous scrutiny.

I see your point but it is not disputed that C02 is rising - obvioulsy burning fossil fuels releases stored carbon, it is not disputed that it is a green house gas and i assume cause and effect is not disputed. The real question is what effect this will have not whether it will have an effect
If people wish to claim it will have a minimal or no effect then they also need to explain a credible mechanism for negating the thermal forcing effect of C02. A priori I would say the case is fairly sound before data is collected never mind afterwards.
The IPCC report covers the cycles - as we have a good idea what these are and we model them then - as well as the thermal forcing effect of C02 and other possible causes. It does not just go oh look C02 is rising temperature is rising therefore it is C02
The models match observed data so it seems reasonable to assume we have a good understanding account- if you remove the thermal forcing effct of C02 from the models they no longer match the observed data. You can try other causes if you wish - people have but not found the answer.
It is not free of the risk of error but nothing is.

The models match observed data so it seems reasonable to assume we have a good understanding

I think this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. If you choose fifty models, and in hindsight cherry pick the only one of them that is close to the observed data, ignoring the rest which were nowhere near, then the models are not accurate - its like Derren Brown predicting the lottery numbers after they've been announced...

In the words of the professionals:[i] "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"[/i] and [i]"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."[/i]

Lets just nip back in to the predictions of where we'd be by now:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

http://asiancorrespondent.com/53023/the-origins-of-the-50-million-climate-refugees-prediction/

There are more repeats on STW than TF1.

...but it is not disputed that C02 is rising - obvioulsy burning fossil fuels releases stored carbon, it is not disputed that it is a green house gas and i assume cause and effect is not disputed. The real question is what effect this will have not whether it will have an effect.
If people wish to claim it will have a minimal or no effect then they also need to explain a credible mechanism for negating the thermal forcing effect of C02. A priori I would say the case is fairly sound before data is collected never mind afterwards.

JY - the problem with this line of though (dare I say it) is as follows: (1) the greenhouse effect is a necessary phenomenon designed to regulate the earth's temperature and (2) CO2 is a side show. The concentration of CO2 is minimal in relation to water vapour which is the main driver. So what we really need to explain is why are we spending so much time focusing on CO2 when it is a minor factor in the greenhouse effect?

Plus, this is a very simple and possibly very stupid question. But, if I understand this data correctly - what these graphs are showing is that the deviation of temperatures from a thirty year average (how was this determined BTW?) has risen by just under 1 degree. Given the "magnitude of the change" and the high levels of variability/statistical errors in data collection, how are we expected to jump up and down about this?

(and that doesn't meant deny - merely get excitied!)

Give me strength! Right...

I don't deny that there is a change in climate (the evidence is clear)

You've changed your tune! Didn't you just spend the past two days blethering that this data was useless because it doesn't have wide enough errors and it wasn't 6sigmaed by a Black Belt who has read Black Swan and understands recursive recursive errors???

If that's the case then how is the evidence clear now? Very confused.

we can't account for the lack of warming... it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."

Yes, you mentioned this earlier in the thread Zulu and I gave you a direct quote from the report that deals with this point. I take it you read it?

The concentration of CO2 is minimal in relation to water vapour which is the main driver. So what we really need to explain is why are we spending so much time focusing on CO2 when it is a minor factor in the greenhouse effect?

Because we're not adding over a billion of tonnes of water vapour to the atmosphere every fortnight?

risen by just under 1 degree

1°C rise in 20 years is a pretty steep rise!

Given the "magnitude of the change" and the high levels of variability/statistical errors in data collection, how are we expected to jump up and down about this?

Because the "variability/statistical errors in data collection" are accounted for and the rise is still very clear.

[img] [/img]

Permian CO2 levels will equal a Permian climate which will equal Permian-style extinctions. We might struggle to reach Permian levels but I'm sure we can get to Cretaceous levels soon.

(1)The greenhouse effect is a necessary phenomenon designed to regulate the earth's temperature

and (2) CO2 is a side show. The concentration of CO2 is minimal in relation to water vapour which is the main driver.

So what we really need to explain is why are we spending so much time focusing on CO2 when it is a minor factor in the greenhouse effect?

I am not debating noise again when a study has just been done to disprove this with all its data and methodology freely available. Please dont just give another philosophical outpouring about data. Actually use the data and show it is happening. The latest evidence again supports the view that the observed temp rise is real. Its out there the sceptics will be trying as we type. If you choose to not accept yet another study showing this then that is your choice but it is not good science...its probably not even science.
Present some data please

I am not debating noise again when a study has just been done to disprove this with all its data and methodology freely available. Please dont just give another philosophical outpouring about data.

That is not what I am doing. My point is about the role of CO2 itself.

95% of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by water vapour. The remaining 5% includes other gases including CO2 and methane.

CO2 represents 4/100 of 1% of atmospheric gases - it is not a major gas.

CO2 levels and temperatures rose together long before cars, industrial revolution etc. Wonder why?

Maybe rising global temperatures (caused possibly by changes in solar activity) caused the earth's oceans (quite big!!) to surrender CO2. Basic science - warm liquids hold less CO2 than cold ones. Hmm, no that sounds far more sense!!!

Teamhurtmore

You need to look at the data a bit more. In the past co2 levels rose after warming - now the co2 level is rising ahead of the warming. I e in the past the rise in co2 was a consequence of the warming, now its a cause

c02 acts as a greenhouse gas very strongly

read the IPCC report they have thought about this and the factors you mention.

[b]Again I note the complete and utter absence of any data in your philosophical attack ...this is not science.[/b]

95% of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by water vapour. The remaining 5% includes other gases including CO2 and methane.

Source that is just not true its not quite the levels you state [ ps its in the IPCC report ]

CO2 represents 4/100 of 1% of atmospheric gases - it is not a major gas.

CO2 levels and temperatures rose together long before cars, industrial revolution etc. Wonder why?

Who on earth disputes the fact we have natural cycles? Its the same science you attack that found this out. The issue is whether releasing vast amounts of C02 will affect these cycles - in fact given cause and effect the real question is how it will affect them not if. Again I would ask for your evidence to support your view that it wont - what mechanisms etc.

Maybe rising global temperatures (caused possibly by changes in solar activity) caused the earth's oceans (quite big!!) to surrender CO2. Basic science - warm liquids hold less CO2 than cold ones.

Tips:

• climatologists are aware of solar activity, measure it and account for it. The global warming we see now is NOT caused by solar activity.

• climatologists know that the oceans are quite big.

• climatologists can do basic science.