You make a good point about statistics here, and it is actually right at the root of why novices on both sides make false assumptions about what data shows. Lets say we enter or have entered a period of cooling...it wont be immediately clear. We have a historic period of warming which means it can take 10-50 years for a prided of cooling to statistically be properly weighted. And that is the real problem on both sites the proper science has a rather long lag to even read the data correctly.
That quote in the Daily Mail by skeptics: .."could have been hotter then than now". Proves that the skeptic who penned that comment must be older than 30 with a confidence level greaterthan 95% because all eople younger than 30 can not distinguish between THEN and THAN. Therefore they could never construct such a sentence. At best they might say .."hotter than then now". This is because young people are ignorant beyond their years. Especially in the USA where it is taught as dogma..
@listen2meokidoki Or!....Or the so called comment (hotter then than now) was written by a journalist/Editor simply because it was not attributed and most climate skeptics are inherently ignorant and therefore inarticulate compared to me, whom is of a superior education. And I can assure you, the parrot is simply resting.
Excellent post focusing on the exact words of Professor Jones, who never denied climate change at all. Today according the US Academy of Science, scientist Dr. Richard Alley, "almost no one"...referring to climate scientists...denies anthropogenic climate change. Note that vested carbon interests today will distort any statement to their purposes. An excellent post by potholer 54.
This is all academic now, since the trend now *is* statistically significant -- however, does anyone know whether Jones used a one-sided or two-sided test?
I'm not a climatologist, I'm in neuroscience. In that field (as well as other sciences like psychology), when a prediction is straighforward (e.g., obtained from a computational model), a one-sided test is more than appropriate. So, if Jones' obtained P was 7.5%, this is significant when using a one-tailed alpha=5% criterion.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
BTW, the actual significance level from the period 1995 to 2009 achieved by Phil Jones' linear regression t-test was 92.5% but this is all just a smoke screen anyway. The real question that should be asked is whether there is any significance to using linear regression to analyze temperature data!
You cite the IPPC 4th Assessment Report. Do you know how many of its so called peer reviewed references are actually campaign literature from Greenpeace and WWF and associated organisations?
"I don't know what figure he reached, but just for an example let's say it was 80% (significance)".
FYI, the actual significance of the warming trend (HADCRUT 1995-2009) is 93%, just missing the standard 95% cutoff for statistical significance. That's using annual data (N=15, r=.478891; for calculations, google "significance of correlation" and choose the Vassar link.) If Jones had used monthly data instead, the result would have been significant at 99.999+% (N=180, r=.367671)
Also, rock-strata paleoclimate data going back 600-million years (unlike ice-core) shows no correlation and ice-core shows an 800-year lag. I thought I should add that in to quantify my previous statement: "if the paleoclimate data suggests CO2 effects temperatures".
@potholer54 My sources are Scotese and Berner. See here for more info: ht tp://ww w.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.ht ml (remove the spaces in the link).
@CHIPSTERO7 -- Thanks, but the link you gave me is an Internet blog. I hope you understand that anyone can publish a blog saying whatever they like, so this is not a reliable source. As for Scotese and Berner (paleomap project) please cite a paper, or a statement, or whatever you read of theirs that told you CO2 and temps do not correlate over the phanerozoic. I could find nothing.
Dear Potholer54. Your comments have a 95% confidence level in truthfulness. But can we (predominantly you lol) prove with accuracy that the climate skeptical movement is DELIBERATELY promoted by journalist & editors? accusing them of having only a NUGGET of knowledge lets themoff IMHO. They must deliberately hide behind that assumption (that you seem to reinforce) to promote shit because it stirs up the readership which does understand bullshit more easily than a peer review; whatever that is.
@CHIPSTERO7 No its not sophisticated but I have been in too many pointless debates with you thick skulled mouth breathers, I do this for personal relief. I do not actually believe that rational thought and evidence can convince you of anything because your believe is retroactively justified. You came to your conclusion, I am guessing here, because of a emotional reaction to the AGW theory, so now you try and justify that position with an ad hoc logical framework.
@thesparitan You guessed wrong, didn't you? I came to my conclusion based on a conscientious appraisal of the objective evidence. As far as I can see the IPCC's claims of a 3C temperature-increase on a doubling of atmospheric-CO2 and that the CO2-increase is even anthropogenic is not backed up by real evidence and I think this is probably why scientifically-minded people who examine its claims consistently deny them. You are of course more than welcome to persist living in a false-reality.
@thespritan Of course I would be more than happy to discuss this evidence with you (although I have a feeling that you probably haven't done a any research into this subject and will refuse and have simply accepted the CAGW without actually objectively apprising the counterevidence for youself). The counterevidence is abundant; there is lots, both theoretical and observational. When you are ready to have an adult discussion instead of sophomorically throwing around silly insults, get back to me.
@CHIPSTERO7 I don't know if I should take you up on your offer, I already know what you are going to say and what you will do, I am not sure I want to go through that again for the 11th time so far. Obviously you don't care about the evidence otherwise you would accept the science. I might debate you but you will have to agree to my conditions.
@potholer54 You wrote: "I think the reason you have not seen any of this evidence". How do you know I have not seen it? Of course the evidence you have presented me with is not really convincing, is it? We know that as the oceans warm they outgas more CO2 which would be expected to increase atmospheric concentrations and as they cool they suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere. So the 'correlation' in the paleoclimate data you have offered does not prove that CO2 caused these temperature-changes.
Unfortunately for the CAGW-alarmists temperatures have essentially remained flat for the last 15 years while CO2 levels relentlessly rise, which surely puts the kibosh on the idea that mankind is controlling the climate with CO2. As for Jones's comment on the issue. Here was pretty clear-cut in the interview. He says, as verbatim: "There has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years". You don't need to take Jones's word for it though. I don't. The datasets speak for themselves.
@CHIPSTERO7 =which surely puts the kibosh on the idea that mankind is controlling the climate with CO2.= I wish it did, but unfortunately it doesn't. As I'm sure you know if you've seen my videos, CO2 is not the only factor affecting climate in the short term. The sun, aerosols, pollutants, ocean currents, even the Earth's orbit all play a role.
@potholer54 Yes, I understand that the global mean temperature is determined by a multitude of factors. However, I have yet to see convincing evidence that CO2 is having any discernable effect on global temperatures, much less whatever miniscule effect it might be having would be deleterious. Perhaps if there was a clear anthropogenic signature in the compromised (homogenised) surface-temperature data and if the paleoclimate data suggests CO2 effects temperatures, I would be less sceptical.
@CHIPSTERO7 =I understand that the global mean temperature is determined by a multitude of factors.= Then forgive me for asking, but why did you post the argument that temperatures have been flat for 15 years (not the case, but we'll skip that) while CO2 levels have been going up? Surely if CO2 is not the only cause of short-term climate change then this is not at all inconsistent with climate theory.
@potholer54 It demonstrates at the very least that the IPCC's computer models are missing the dominant driver because none of the IPCC's 21 models predicted that there would be no statistically significant increase in temperatures from 1995 to 2010. What do you consider to be the confounding variables and why was this not predicted by the All Knowing Scientists and their £100,000,000 computer models? And according to the Met Office's and CRU's own websites the temperatures have remained flat.
@CHIPSTERO7 =yet to see convincing evidence that CO2 is having any discernable effect on global temperatures= Your arguments explain why. You suggest that paleoclimate data does not show that CO2 affects temperatures, when in fact the data show a very good correlation (Royer et al). I think the reason you have not seen any of this evidence, convincing or otherwise, is that you are repeating arguments you read on the Internet. Please be skeptical and check before believing everything you read.
@potholer54 Sure, the paleoclimate ice-core record indicates a correlation between CO2 and temperature. However a correlation does not prove a cause. It only proves a coincidence and it would be no more logical or truthful to say from it that changes to CO2 cause temperature changes than it would be to say that temperature changes cause changes to CO2. Neither conclusion follows logically from a correlation, which may be no more than a coincidence without any causal interrelationship in fact.
@tragc6 Surely the example of Jones's tree-ring study proves beyond any reasonable doubt that tree-ring proxies do not correlate with global temperatures. The divergence of his tree-ring data from the instrumental data-record post-1960 proves the non-correlation and at the same time disproved the assumptions of which the idea of a correlation was based. So the science has already spoken and there is no need for us to go on the laborious exercise of testing the assumptions that underlay the idea.
You simply don't understand hypothesis testing. Still clinging to the hope that when something fails a significance test you can still hang onto crumbs of comfort that there is a chance we can say the idea is a goodun. WRONG, WRONG .. and WRONG again.
When we set up a hypothesis test, we deliberateely make it decisive. Jones will NOT take issue with the headline - he can't. THINK ABOUT IT!
@xESOTERlC - Phil Jones confessed "for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming." The Daily Mail headline claimed that he admitted "There has been no global warming since 1995".
PH has an issue with the DM headline - serious enough to have made a whole video on the topic. But I don't think a cigarette paper can be squeezed between the two statements.
Tell me xESOTERIC - do you think Jones might have a scientifically valid complaint against the DM?
@gufpott Such a ploy is typical of Media... Manipulating information to create controversy to sell a product(air time, paper, magazine, whatever), indifferent to the fact that they are spreading misinformation. Intellectuals are appalled by this underhanded tactic because it undermines intellectual pursuits. He made a vid about it because it is part of what he does--debunks blatant fallacies.. And that isn't just fallacy, that's a "news" source outright lieing.
@gufpott I would think ANYONE would be outraged by such a thing. Why do we have to SEARCH for the truth? Why is the least reliable source of objective information the one place we're SUPPOSED to receive it(mainstream media)? And if you're think they were not lieing, you're deluded. It is apparent in PJ's quote that he says there IS global warming, yet the headline reads that he says there is NO global warming(NOT that he says there is no statistically significant warming).
@gufpott Most people have a selfish agenda, so I understand if you are incapable of understanding an outrage at something that doesn't directly affect you.. Some of us give a shit, though. For instance, I would stand more on the "Truthers" side of the fence in regards to 9/11.. However, just because it's obvious to me that demolition was used doesn't mean I blindly support everything they say. I'm just as quick to berate them about their "facts". Some of us don't take sides other than truth's.
@gufpott Lastly.. as for a "scientifically valid complaint"... either you just mixed up words or you're trying to quibble semantics... Does he have a scientific complaint? I dont know.. not even sure what that is.. Does he have grounds to contest the veracity of the information they presented? Yes. . Also, he brought up this subject because others used it as "proof" in contesting his other vids.
@xESOTERlC - if it was such an OUTRAGE, then PJ has a DUTY to challenge the DM and insist on a correction. He won't - if he tried, he would make a complete fool of himself.
He can leave it to ppl like you and PH to make fools of yourselves, with your insignificant sniping from the sidelines. So, before asking what motivates me, I suggest you stop to examine your own agenda. What makes you so ready to make an arse of yourself?
Meantime pls spare us the incoherent rambling rant
@gufpott "incoherent rambling rant" ? I'm not sure how your lack of reading comprehension skills is relevant...
Why would the scientist freely engage in quibbling over semantics? He would know it to be a futile endeavor, having expect nothing more of media in the first place. Where it mattered, they quoted him correctly and he realizes that anyone of genuine interest and intelligence would recognize the truth.
The "OUTRAGE" is not at a single report, but the overall character of the system
@gufpott You've not negated the fact that the title is a lie. All you have done in this reply is state your opinion that such a lie is a trivial issue.
Very well.. you don't mind being lied to. You don't mind a "news" establishment that is willing to mislead the public in order to sell product.
Just like I'm sure those quacks that bought into "global cooling" of the 70s didn't mind.. Just don't come whining back in 30 years claiming that science had been lieing when it was the media.
@xESOTERlC - If PJ does't want to quibble, why the hell does PH make a quibbling video?
The DM never lied - the headline is logically correct for an insignificant result.
Now you're harping about lack of media support. The media was four-square behind your little catastrophe theory in the run-up to COP15. Now it's sceptical - ask yourself why that might be.
You are losing public support. Nobody's interested in your habit of inflating insignificant results and then quibbling.
@gufpott PH is just making people aware that they can't take media sources at face value.
[my] little catastrophe? I recognize that man has a negative impact on his environment(takes little intelligence to see that.. integrity is another matter), but I don't care who accepts it. All I care about is the reliability of information being shoveled about. As any idiot incapable of logic, you mutilated every point of logic I presented. I never "harped" about media coverage. My point was that "science"
@gufpott .."science" is not the source for these claims, but the media is.
"Insignificant results".. as pertaining to TODAYS environment? Sure. As pertaining to the environment 20-100 years from now? Not so insignificant. Easier to stop a train when it just begins rolling than it is to stop it from running into a building when it's already fullspeed.(No, i dont know why a train would be running into a building o.O)
@xESOTERlC - Attack the DM if it got something wrong. But there's nothing wrong with that headline. All the yapping is because PH can't stand the blunt truth of that insignificant trend.
Reliability of information? The IPCC process was promoted as a top quality scientific endeavour, but had nowere to go when things went wrong. That's why the catastrophe theory was dropped from the media agenda.
What is the point of you clinging to PJ's insignificant trend? Nobody's interested any more.
@gufpott who's clinging to anything? The only person i see emotionally invested is you(and people so vehement about the possibility of man's inevitable destruction of his environment).. Why is that? It's 2 things. 1) people(as a whole and as individuals) refuse to acknowledge their fallibility. 2) People refuse to acknowledge their mortality.
Hope youre comfy in your box. Stay there. I dont care.
@xESOTERlC - You and PH are clinging to PJ's insigificant result as though it is supposed to mean something.
I hate bad science - nothing good ever came from scare stories with no substance in fact. I'll listen to good science, good process and proper presentation. CAGW has failed miserably on those measures.
CAGW proponents have dug a huge hole for themselves. Choose your batles carefully to win the war - but you ain't gonna win anything quibbling like this.
@gufpott Again, who's clinging? This has nothing to do with PJ--I've never heard his name before the video. It has EVERYTHING to do with media! It's not SCIENCE.. it's MEDIA, you twat. you're so dense. "Oh, i don't like bad news.. I only like news that conforms to my world perspective".. good for you. Stop being an impediment for people that want the truth.
As for global warming: it IS "good" science--unless you mean science you WANT to hear
@gufpott Is global warming going to affect this generation? Most likely not. Does man's release of CO2 affect the climate? Yes. The reports are there. Look at them for yourself. . or just stick to the one or 2 that are skeptical out of the dozens that substantiate it.. I dont care.
Win what war? The only way to make people realize they are being played like fools by the media is by presenting the truth.Whether or not you dumbasses choose to accept it is on you.
If PH was only interested in the meda, he would have chosen another example. But he chose this and it should tell you something.
I had heard about PJ - even before the outrage of "Mike's trick to hide the decline" (rather than just show the data). PH made a vid, playing on semantics to try to excuse that one.
Fair minded people smelt a rat and it helped knock off its perch as an issue of public cconcern.
you know this video really highlights what politics can do to a field; science has a lot of complicated aspects to it which are essential but not published in popular science sources... I should know, the chi-square thing was just a drop of the many things I leanred here at university about sceince that I didn't knew before;
once science and politics got combined, all the un-initiated people got intested in science stuff that they did not understnad.... and stupid controversies arise
he's right about thwe statistics thing in the beginning; last year in university I learned at both physics and biology (I study both) about the Chi-square test; that's what it's called... it's measure of corelating data with causation; look up on the internet, wikpedia's got an article if you want to know more
to me it seems like these videos say that we really don't know 100% what causes climate change because there are so many variables and it's such a complicated issue.
@iLLQuintessenceTV We don't know 100% what causes climate change. We don't know 100% about anything. We can only made cautious proposals based on the the evidence. However, just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we don't know anything. In the same way we haven't ironed out all the facts of evolutions, the fact that evolution happened and is happening is undisputed within the scientific community. Same goes for climate change. We know the Earth is getting warmer, and we are the cause
potholer54, you are correct in the explanation of the statistics. as a mental health scientists, i need to be able to pick up on statistical errors in peer reviewed research. what you're dealing with here is someone allowing a natural personality trait (narcissism) confound his or her reasoning. in academia, we see people like this all the time; they are better than their peers and are unable to understand why others can't see their brilliance, and feel empowered by having to "swim upstream."
You're into labelling - but that's not scientific argument. No doubt what you're good at, as a "mental health scientist".
Jones will not challenge what that DM journo said. He doesn't have the statistical evidence to mount a credible challenge. Said so himself - his recent trend is "not significant" (i.e. not statistically discernable from zero trend).
You wanna pin a label on me now - where do you place me on "the spectrum"?
Potholer54 spends time making vids to quibble over what a DM journo said - although the journo is correct. And a video to try to excuse "Mike's nature trick" to paper over "inconvenient" data. What kind of a life is that, eh?
I hate amatuers spreading bad arguments to whip up alarmism. Have you noticed how NOBODY says the science is settled these days. Now it's all about "acknowledging uncertainty".
@gufpott Just to chime in, science is never and has never been certain or settled. We could never even say with 100% proof that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It's humbling to admit that you might be wrong and it leaves the mind open to new ideas and/or alternatives. For one to put their foot down and declare they know with certainty means they already lost and are no longer allowed in the discussion. They freely admit nothing could change their mind That isn't science, that's religion.
@rsxfreak03 - We are in full agreement on the points you make.
The global warming catastrophe theory has been heavily promoted by activists, politicians and journos (like PH54). They crossed the line from talking science and into talking bollocks.
Those (ahem) "2500 of the world's climate experts" had a duty to tell the hangers-on to butt out when all the crap about "science is settled" was doing the rounds.
This episode will go down with Lysencoism when we look back at it .
@BlankVellum "peer review means intellectual honesty" "the fact of AGW"
Nice try at tossing a flameball into the thread.
A great deal of the AGW hypothesis can be best described as controversial (subject to ongoing scientific discourse on key points). You don't dispute that, do you?
@gufpott The AGW hypothesis is now accepted by almost every climatologist. The facts are concrete. This has been demonstrated in the WG 1 Physical Science Basis section of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC . Put simply, we are making the climate warmer, and we need to do something about it.
Not acknowledging controversy makes YOU the denier in my book.
Feel free to do whatever you think is appropriate to reflect your strong belief in CAGW. Why not post again in a couple of years, let us know how you're getting on - assuming you will allow yourself the use of a computer.
@gufpott "Argument from authority is not valid and doesn't merit reply."
Ah I see, so in your mind a person who is not a quantum physicist, has the authority to reject quantum physics? My point is that it helps to have some knowledge and working experience of that which you seek to disprove. The fact that there is a scientific consensus means the facts in favour of AGW have went through peer review and has now reached a threshold.
@gufpott "Not acknowledging controversy makes YOU the denier in my book."
Who said I didn't acknowledge controversy? You're simply ignoring the scientific consensus. I don't quite understand why either. But yes, best of luck. Not sure why I'd not allow myself the use of a computer in a few years.
@gufpott Consensus is not an argument from authority when that consensus is arrived at through peer review and the scientific method. Or rather, it may be an argument from authority, bu the term in this context does not render the use of said argument as void. if you think that CO2 emissions have no effect whatsoever on the Earth's climate, then you'd have to explain where the heat released by the CO2 molecules ends up.
@BlankVellum: " if you think that CO2 emissions have no effect"
I only say that climate sensitivity is a controversial issue.
You don't need to debate with me. Go an read the work of Ferenc Miskolczi (Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres). (Easy to get a pdf on the web.)
It stands now for 3 years in the peer reviewed literature without reply. Miskolczi says the GHE is saturated, and clmate sensitivity to increased GHG's is zero.
@gufpott "Go an read the work of Ferenc Miskolczi "
Firstly, citing one article suggesting contrary views to AGW does not ipso facto mean AGW is somehow false. More importantly, the paper you cited has some major problems. I could list some, but there isn't enough space. I'll try in the next bit to briefly cite one in particular. Lack of citation or response usually means that a paper is of very poor quality.
@BlankVellum: "does not ipso facto mean AGW is somehow false"
Never said it does - all I said was that there is controversy.
I take lack of citations or response in the scientific debating arena to be a sign that Miskolczi is worth paying attention to.
And to echo your ealier point made against me - no, I'm not going to listen to an insubstantial argument made by some random punter on YT. Miskolczi doesn't search YT to see if there are replies to his work.
@gufpott "Just my view as somebody who might just know something about the subject."
Yes, because a 'background' in a certain subject (not in climatology as it happens) gives you the authority to reject the entirety of the claims made by climate scientists. Great. Fantastic.
"Miskolczi doesn't search YT to see if there are replies to his work."
No, he would search the scientific literature. Of which the replies are few. And the peer reviewed literature claims the opposite.
@BlankVellum: "No, he would search the scientific literature."
Agreed
"And the peer reviewed literature claims the opposite."
No. The publication of Miskolcz's paper means the topic is the subject of open controversy in the literature. Practising researchers are thereby invited to comment and science will advance. Miskolcz's arguments will then advance or retreat.
No answer either means no material objections, or researchers failing in their duties to engage substantial arguments.
@gufpott "The publication of Miskolcz's paper means the topic is the subject of open controversy in the literature. "
As I have just pointed out, in addition to the many problems his article exudes, there are many peer reviewed articles claiming the exact opposite of his conclusions. Still, cherry picking is such fun isn't it.
"Practising researchers are thereby invited to comment and science will advance."
If a paper is published but not widely cited, it usually means the data is flawed.
@gufpott By the way, a moments research would show you exactly what is wrong with Miskolcz's paper.
I'm sorry if I have to spell this out, but a SINGLE paper does not nullify the existing (and overwhelming) body of evidence showing the opposite. You're displaying a very vulgar form of confirmation bias by hiding behind a single paper.
I mentioned Miskolczi as an example of open controversy in the literature.
Observation of the claimed tropospheric hot spot? The travesty of no significant warming in the last 10-15 years. (What has been cooling to compensate putative AGW?) The gap between Hansen's 1988 projections and observation. Invoking positive feedback to amplify climate sensitivity. The condition of the US surface temperature network.
@gufpott "I mentioned Miskolczi as an example of open controversy in the literature."
One paper does not automatically mean that there is 'controversy' in the field. Even the most hard nosed skeptic like Lindzen doesn't ignore the warming effect of CO2. The only thing disputed is the degree of the warming. Either way, the Earth is warming up and we're the cause. My, 10 years of no warming does no negate the temperature trend. You may like to know that this year matches 1998 as the warmest.
Ah, that would be to misrepresent me (yet again). The overwhelming conclusion in the literature is that the Earth is warming up, and quicker then previous warming cycles. GHGs are the main cause of this. Humans produce large amounts of GHGs. My acknowledgment was of the dispute over the degree of the warming WITH THESE ASSUMPTIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
@gufpott With regards the troposphere, recent studies have shown that it is warming, and this warming is broadly consistent with both theoretical expectations and climate models (Thorne et al 2010). For reference, "Tropospheric Temperature Trends: History of an Ongoing Controversy," a review of four decades of data and scientific papers to be published by Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, a peer-reviewed journal.
Fantastic! Good to see you keeping up with the literature.
"what point were you tying to make?"
That the troposphere is warming due to increase in GHGs. The hot spot has in fact been observed over short time scales. Weather balloons measure wind strength, and the fact that there is a direct relationship between wind shear and temperature allows us to obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008)
@gufpott "vague distinction between climate from weather?"
Who ever said that there is a 'vague' distinction between climate and weather?! The distinction I though would have been very clear.
"Time to call it a day"
Sure. Just for the record, to get some common ground, would you concede that the climate is warming up, and that our use of fossil fuels has /some/ effect? I mean surely nobody, however skeptical, can deny basic physics? Cheers for the discussion, however brief.
Agreed - there has been some warming in fits-and-start (regionally or globally) going back to the LIA. (Regionally or globally matters because of spatial distribution of evidence.)
Was some of the effect due to FF?
Not convinced (but could be with better evidence).
A GHE can be observed in the lab, but that doesn't mean it is present in climate sensitivity for a number of reasons (some discussed below).
@BlankVellum: "vague distinction between climate from weather?"
30 years is often cited as the difference between climate and weather. On what basis? I really don't know - seems rather arbitrary.
MBH98/99 has been superceded by more recent submission by the same authorss. Although there was no formal withdrawal of MBh98/99, it is argued that the earlier work is effectively withdrawn. (I have seen it argued.)
Counting citations therefore isn't a very good point.
@gufpott 30 years is probably sufficient to establish climatic trends, and one could infer reasonably on the basis of an upward warming trend during this period that it is something other than natural, using evidence from ice cores to chart longer term climate change. For instance, the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, a value which far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years.
@gufpott Furthermore, the physics of the GHE are well understood, and I doubt any climate scientist would say that those same physics would not apply to the Earth's atmosphere.
"Right now, nobody has"
Yes, but the point I wish to stress is that it is only one paper. In my experience, if this was a paper of immaculate standard, then it would be widely or at least moderately cited in other articles. I can only reiterate my point that there are findings contrary to this paper.
@gufpott By the way, if you like I can PM you a response to the Miskolczi paper. You'll notice that the paper is making the rounds only in Denialist circles (which I assume you move in), yet has attracted little attention from the scientific community. Curious.
@BlankVellum: "PM you a response to the Miskolczi paper"
Let me guess - van Dorland & Forster. Not a reply in the literature - get this one through RC.
I don't know if Miskolczi is aware of this sniping from the sidelines, but vD&F should formally submit to the literature if they want to be taken seriously.
"Denialist"
I don't deny anything. I just want your arguments to stand up to scientific standards. Nothing you have said here has done anything to address my concerns.
@gufpott "Nothing you have said here has done anything to address my concerns."
Wouldn't have expected it to in a YT comments section. I did advise reading the entirety of the IPCC AR4 report, which does establish with some degree of certainty that our burning of fossil fuels has dramatically sped up Earth's temperature. If you dispute that, you'd be disputing a wealth of peer reviewed science.
No, Levenson. I'll PM you his response. Rather than attack the fact that it isn't peer reviewed, perhaps you can deal with the claims he addresses. Lack of response in the peer reviewed literature does not mean Miskolczi's conclusions are valid. As I said, it is a measure of how good a paper is that it is widely cited and oft repeated in other journals.
Citing from the bogosphere again. I'm familiar with the text you sent. He's wrong. He can try to persude somebody to put his complaints into a published reply, maybe that'll smoke-out his basic mistakes.
After making such a big deal of the published literature, now you want to add qualifications to argue that some articles are good and bad.
I'm not interested.
BTW - how many citations are there to erronious (and now withdrawn) analysis in MBH88/89?
Wow, outstanding. Of course, you cannot claim that Miskolczi's findings are valid without first highlighting the errors in article with different conclusion (Boer and Yu 2003; Boer et al. 2000; Dai et al. 2001; Delworth et al. 1999; Goosse et al. 2006; Hegerl et al. 2006; Roeckner et al. 1999; Sumi 2005; Washington et al. 2000; Wetherald et al. 2001). Good luck.
@BlankVellum "Wow, outstanding. Of course, you cannot claim that Miskolczi's findings are valid without first highlighting the errors in article with different conclusion" [various articles cited]
I don't need to (and it's not my job to try). I'll wait for somebody to publish a reply in the literature and develop the arguments.
Right now, nobody has. I'm not saying that none will ever appear - that's what we rightfully expect from the scientific process. But right now ...
@gufpott As for climate sensitivity, I can only forward on the conclusion from AR4, which stated that it is likely to be between 2 - 4.5 degrees Celsius, with best estimates at 3 degree Celsius.
@gufpott "BTW - how many citations are there to erronious (and now withdrawn) analysis in MBH88/89?"
I don't follow, you'll have to elaborate. My point remains unchallenged: ie 1 paper does not in any way discredit or nullify the entirety of the rest of peer reviewed articles highlighting trends contrary to that which Miskolczi has found. Perhaps you could retract your statement that there is no convincing observation of the 'hot spot'.
@gufpott Correction: "which does establish with some degree of certainty that our burning of fossil fuels has dramatically sped up Earth's temperature"
Should say has dramatically increased Earth's temperature.
@BlankVellum" Consensus is not an argument from authority"
Err, yes it is.
"arrived at through peer review"
"Arrived at" suggests you believe the scientifc process stops. That would be unscientific - science never assumes an end-point.
Researchers publish and debate their results in the journals. The iterature only ever contains a snapshot of the latest results and contending ideas at any time.
The literature is not infallible - the hand of God is not part of the process.
@gufpott "We are not duty bound to agree with or even respect with what goes into them."
You're entitled to reject them if you wish, you would just have a explain exactly why you do so. Do you even understand the concept of peer review? If so, I cannot fathom why would you make such a ridiculous comment.
"That is appealing to to hand of God as though the literature should be elevated to some mystical status like scripture"
Not what I said at all. Still, attacking strawmen is such FUN isn't it.
@gufpott Miskolczi proposes that that feedbacks constrain the gray infrared optical depth of Earth's atmosphere at a value of around 1.841. This is contrary to many publications (eg Boer and Yu 2003; Boer et al. 2000; Dai et al. 2001; Delworth et al. 1999; Goosse et al. 2006; Hegerl et al. 2006; Roeckner et al. 1999; Sumi 2005; Washington et al. 2000; Wetherald et al. 2001), and the conclusion depends on many doubtful assumptions, notably a misunderstanding of Kirchhoff's Law.
Go back and read my comment in full. Scientific consensus is fundamentally different from public consensus, for instance. There is a consensus regarding evolution, but there are still people publishing material highlighting discontent with the various mechanisms and their perceived importance in producing biological complexity.
Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the growing body of evidence won't do you any good in the long run.
@gufpott I don't see enough evidence of impending catatrophe"
Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Just read the IPCC AR4 report (physical Science Basis section WG I), which brings together peer reviewed material from 5 decades worth of research. It seems astounding that you would just dismiss all this data so that you can live under the false assumption that pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever.
@gufpott "My background includes feedback theory (engineering and mathematical). Climatologists dabble in this, and their analyis is pretty poor in my view."
You clearly haven't seen part 9 of this series. You are not a climate scientist. A geophysicist wouldn't dream of lecturing a dermatologist about the failings of his methods. I'm sure climate scientists would be overjoyed to hear what information you have that has somehow escaped their attention.
The elements of putative CAGW is too broad to say that only one particular group of people is entitled to have a view.
I really don't care if climatologists dabble in feedback theory and get things wrong. They could make sure they do a good job by interacting with, respecting and paying more attention to other disciplines.
Failing that, they are welcome to be wrong at their own expense.
@gufpott "elements of putative CAGW is too broad to say that only one particular group of people is entitled to have a view."
Actually, no. Climatology is the field that studies the climate. Those carrying out research in this field have authority to state the conclusions of their own work, more so than those of other fields. Climate science draws on a vast range of disciplines, from paleoecology to geology to paleontology. They bring these fields together.
@BlankVellum: "Actually, no. Climatology is the field ..."
Actually, climatology makes a botch of its analysis of feedback and amplification fo climate sensitiviyt. That's just my view as somebody who might just know something about the subject.
I don't ask you to accept what I say or to agree. Like I said, it's fine by me if climatologists prefer scary tales of impending catastrophe. They'll be the losers if their "projections" prove to be falsified by data.
@gufpott ", climatology makes a botch of its analysis of feedback and amplification fo climate sensitiviyt"
Ah yes, because you are such a force in the field aren't you. We wouldn't want people making claims on behalf of climate scientists, criticizing the methods used by said climate scientists, if they themselves had no working experience in the field, would we?
@BlankVellum: "you are such a force in the field aren't you"
I don't have to be. All I need to do is to use my specialist knowledge and training and look at what climatologists have done.
Like I said, if they are wrong on positive feedback, climate sensitivity will be less than 1. Miskolczi's analysis puts climate sensitivity at zero (saturated GHE).
"criticizing the methods "
Like I said, they can get it wrong if they don't want to pay attention. OK by me.
@gufpott "Climate sensitivity is multiplied as much as 3-fold on poor arguments about amplification by feedback. "
Marvelous, it seems you have clarified all lingering doubt over AGW in a single sentence in a Youtube comments section. Lets ignore all that pesky peer reviewed data (10,000 to date I believe) showing that in fact the Earth is warming and we are the cause. Just out of curiosity, but could you provide a credible reference for the last claim?
@BlankVellum: "Marvelous, it seems you have clarified all lingering doubt over AGW in a single sentence in a Youtube comments section"
I'm not a climatologist, and I have no interest in trying to join them in writing articles in their magazines ("journals").
Arguments about positive feedback are crucial to the claimed value of climate sensitivity. Climatologists can plunge-in with half-baked ideas feedback. If they get it wrong - that's fine by me.
"The headline was: "scientist ..admits: There has been no Global Warming since 1995""
Yes, which is inaccurate. Jone's even states that he's 100% confident there has been warming. It's amusing to watch you desperately try to rationalize this.
@adkinsjr - as PH says, "100% confident" is an unscientific position and Jones loses cred if that's what he said.
Somebody can admit something without necessarily using the words "I admit ..".
Your comments have given me plenty of insight into the filter-feeders at the bottom of the scientific food chain. It has been entertaining, and for that I should thank you.
Well I agree, it's not scientific to express 100% certainty. But that's not the point, he's still saying the he believes there's been warming. This isn't consistent with the DM's sensational headline.
@guffpot - “Are you really insisting those specific words must be spoken?”
Yes, if the Mail is going to attribute those words to Jones. Otherwise you could argue that if there has been no warming since 1995 then CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. So why not the headline: “Phil Jones admits: CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.”
In fact Jones said there HAS been warming since 1995. For the Mail to quote him as saying the exact opposite is…. Well, fit whatever adjective you like, but “correct” is absurd.
@potholer54 - Insisting on the exact words reduces this vid to quibbling. Scientists know what they mean by "insignificant".
Do you accept the statistical equivalence of the range of outcomes within a confidence interval?
If Jones asserted that the observed trend is "meaningful", he would have committed himself to a forecast that the trend will be confirmed by future observations. I don't think that's what he was saying - it is a risky position to take and outside empirical science.
@potholer54 - "Insisting on the exact words reduces this vid to quibbling."
Quibbling?? Jones said there HAS been warming since 1995 and the Daily Mail quoted him as saying there's been NO warming since 1995. Are you seriously telling me that criticism of this amounts to mere “quibbling”? So if President Obama says there'll be a troop withdrawl from Iraq, it's perfectly OK to quote him as saying there'll be NO troop withdrawl. Are you seriously telling us you can't see the teeniest difference?
@potholer54 - The DM is not compelled to report the precise and exact words. We can judge them by whether reporting was fair or accurate.
I see no problem with what the DM wrote. You want to quibble over the word "significant". But you never answered my question about whether an observation within a confidence interval can be separated from other possible observations in that range.
Want another A-B-C example? I'd be happy to give something from the case in point.
You still don’t get it. In the BBC piece, on which the DM story was based, Jones said there has been warming since 1995. The Daily Mail headline was “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.”
Look very, very hard at these two statements. Let me know if you have a scintilla of doubt that the DM may not be “correct” in its quote.
You're trying way too hard. Face it, the DM's headline was wrong. You're obfuscating by trying to make the issue more complicated than it really is; and pretending to have a superior knowledge of mathematics. It's really quite simple. You roll the die twice; you get a six both times. Is this a statistically significant indication of weighted die? If not, is it accurate to say the die is not weighted?
@adkinsjr - "[you are just making] the issue more complicated than it really is!
Good grief! And there was PH saying "it's complicated, but that's why ...". Just as he falls into all sorts of holes trying to argue from statistics.
Did you get that textbook.
I'd recommend "Introductory Statistics" by Wonnacot and Wonnacot (father and son authors). It is a really good book - go look it up on the web (I have it in my hand right now, in case you are wondering).
Maybe it's complicated to a layperson, but potholer seems to get it. Now I know you think you have a superior knowledge of mathematics, but you keep dodging a very simple analogy.
You roll the die twice; you get a six both times. Is this a statistically significant indication of weighted die? If not, is it accurate to say the die is not weighted?
@adkinsjr - Go get the book. PH doesn't "seem to get it" and you are soaking up bad arguments.
Your Null Hypothesis is: "The die is not weighted". After about 30 statistically independent trials, you should have enough data to test the hypothesis. You don't with only 2.
A massive 180 data points and Jones STILL cannot reject his NH in the last 15 years. Something ain't right and he hasn't explained it. He just wants to add more data until he gets the answer he wants. That ain't science.
"After about 30 statistically independent trials, you should have enough data to test the hypothesis. You don't with only 2."
Right! I don't have a statistically significant indication of weighting after only 2 trials. So would it be accurate for the DM to report that I've admitted the die are not weighted?
"He just wants to add more data until he gets the answer he wants. That ain't science. "
So if I add more trials with the die, that ain't science?
@adkinsjr - I'll keep going if you are willing to try to learn.
It is important to design an experiment at the outset and stick to the criteria you have set yourself. Rolling dice is cheap and you have plenty choice in the exact details of your test.
Let's say you design your test which has exactly 30 rolls and you have stated a 95% level of statistical significance. That's the test at the outset .... you're now BOUND to stick to it
Given the test described above, we should have enough data to do some significance testing using statistical methods. But I'll not do that because I know it's not your thing.
Instead, I'll describe a different experiment which will have the same effect of the quicker statistical approach.
Let's say you repeat your test (stick with 30 rolls each time, and count the number of sixes) to get 100 values of X ...
Your repeat tests return a cluster of X values. Sometimes you rolled a six 5 times, but maybe you got no sixes on one test. Maybe a test gave you 12.
If the dice is balanced, we expect X=5. For convenience, we can calculate Y=X-5 to get a variable which should be centred around zero. We can therefore turn this into a hypothesis test, because we expect to see an equal number of postive and negative values of Y....
Taking that 95% significance level, if the total could of positive versus negative values of Y exceeds 5, you can report that the null hypothesis is rejected (NH: "the dice is balanced")
Now that's quite a complicated procedure, and I know that the dice was rolled many times in the "non technical" method. But it didn't need to be - we should be able to get to the same result with 30 rolls and then using stats....
What you definitely don't do is arbitrarily increase from 30 to 40 rolls if your results are not what expected to see. Empirical science is to observe and report.
We don't have hundreds of independent researchers (with their own independent measurement networks) to give us the number of independent observations we'd need to carry out the "long-hand" method for global Temp. We're therefore stuck with statistical methods
@ShwangShwing - "Achieving statistical signiricance depends on the background noise."
As I said to PH earlier, pleas don't try to develop arguments around signal to noise ratio. That's going nowhere. Everything I have written is consistent with accepting uncertainty. The "noise" is fully accounted for in the stats I have mentioned.
Let's nto get into another long discussion around elementary statistics. I recommend you do some reading - a good textbook and an open mind is all it takes.
@ShwangShwing - "less noise .. easier it would be to get a trend."
A confidence interval takes into account the "noise level". Noisy data has wide confidence interval, making it tougher to pass a test (the point you are probably reaching for).
It only takes about 30 STATISTICALLY INDEPENDENT observations to test significance. Things get more complicated if the data is not statistically independent.
It's therefore crucial that a scientist understands his data. Jones seemingly doesn't.
I know what he's refuting, nothing. He's just a smug pseudo-intellectual who thinks he's the only one who understands the rather simple concept of statistical significance.
LOL - just like the above vid ... a veritable 10 minute quibble-fest about whether or not scientists say "significant", and what that REALLY MEANS to the unwary.
And the suggestion that if we cannot reject a Null Hypothesis, can we still tease scraps of meaning from our insignificant results ("Oh we said 95%, errr our result would be OK if we just drop that to 80%")
Except there would be no point in recruiting Jones to refute the DM's statement. He doesn't have the scientific evidence to mount a credible challenge. We know this because he just told us so.
Funny how a DM journo is clever enough to spot that one, but it flies straight over the head of both you and PH.
Kinda gives you a measure of where you stand in the scientific pecking-order: several classes below a DM journalist!
You make a good point about statistics here, and it is actually right at the root of why novices on both sides make false assumptions about what data shows. Lets say we enter or have entered a period of cooling...it wont be immediately clear. We have a historic period of warming which means it can take 10-50 years for a prided of cooling to statistically be properly weighted. And that is the real problem on both sites the proper science has a rather long lag to even read the data correctly.
TheShowThatSUX 1 month ago
This video deserves more views - and Likes.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
That quote in the Daily Mail by skeptics: .."could have been hotter then than now". Proves that the skeptic who penned that comment must be older than 30 with a confidence level greaterthan 95% because all eople younger than 30 can not distinguish between THEN and THAN. Therefore they could never construct such a sentence. At best they might say .."hotter than then now". This is because young people are ignorant beyond their years. Especially in the USA where it is taught as dogma..
listen2meokidoki 4 months ago
@listen2meokidoki Or!....Or the so called comment (hotter then than now) was written by a journalist/Editor simply because it was not attributed and most climate skeptics are inherently ignorant and therefore inarticulate compared to me, whom is of a superior education. And I can assure you, the parrot is simply resting.
listen2meokidoki 4 months ago
Excellent post focusing on the exact words of Professor Jones, who never denied climate change at all. Today according the US Academy of Science, scientist Dr. Richard Alley, "almost no one"...referring to climate scientists...denies anthropogenic climate change. Note that vested carbon interests today will distort any statement to their purposes. An excellent post by potholer 54.
followthefleet1 5 months ago
This is all academic now, since the trend now *is* statistically significant -- however, does anyone know whether Jones used a one-sided or two-sided test?
I'm not a climatologist, I'm in neuroscience. In that field (as well as other sciences like psychology), when a prediction is straighforward (e.g., obtained from a computational model), a one-sided test is more than appropriate. So, if Jones' obtained P was 7.5%, this is significant when using a one-tailed alpha=5% criterion.
vinvanveen 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago
BTW, the actual significance level from the period 1995 to 2009 achieved by Phil Jones' linear regression t-test was 92.5% but this is all just a smoke screen anyway. The real question that should be asked is whether there is any significance to using linear regression to analyze temperature data!
dartplayer170 6 months ago
You cite the IPPC 4th Assessment Report. Do you know how many of its so called peer reviewed references are actually campaign literature from Greenpeace and WWF and associated organisations?
stevehayes13 7 months ago
"..the nugget of science they know is so small, it can be drowned in their lunchtime gin & tonics". Priceless!
TheMegarabbit 7 months ago
This is why I dont buy the paper, its all tits and disinformation. I can get the tits for free on the internet.
roadkill1001 7 months ago
Okay so the Earth is warming. So let's stop it! We can't stop it with band-aid effects. It requires major surgery.
grandpied 10 months ago
"I don't know what figure he reached, but just for an example let's say it was 80% (significance)".
FYI, the actual significance of the warming trend (HADCRUT 1995-2009) is 93%, just missing the standard 95% cutoff for statistical significance. That's using annual data (N=15, r=.478891; for calculations, google "significance of correlation" and choose the Vassar link.) If Jones had used monthly data instead, the result would have been significant at 99.999+% (N=180, r=.367671)
keithpickering 11 months ago
Also, rock-strata paleoclimate data going back 600-million years (unlike ice-core) shows no correlation and ice-core shows an 800-year lag. I thought I should add that in to quantify my previous statement: "if the paleoclimate data suggests CO2 effects temperatures".
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 =rock-strata paleoclimate data going back 600-million years (unlike ice-core) shows no correlation= Really? What is your source for this?
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 My sources are Scotese and Berner. See here for more info: ht tp://ww w.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.ht ml (remove the spaces in the link).
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 -- Thanks, but the link you gave me is an Internet blog. I hope you understand that anyone can publish a blog saying whatever they like, so this is not a reliable source. As for Scotese and Berner (paleomap project) please cite a paper, or a statement, or whatever you read of theirs that told you CO2 and temps do not correlate over the phanerozoic. I could find nothing.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 There is a link to a scientific paper on the page. I downloaded the pdf.
meghaljani 7 months ago
Dear Potholer54. Your comments have a 95% confidence level in truthfulness. But can we (predominantly you lol) prove with accuracy that the climate skeptical movement is DELIBERATELY promoted by journalist & editors? accusing them of having only a NUGGET of knowledge lets themoff IMHO. They must deliberately hide behind that assumption (that you seem to reinforce) to promote shit because it stirs up the readership which does understand bullshit more easily than a peer review; whatever that is.
listen2meokidoki 4 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 HURRRR DURPA DURPA DURRRRRRR DUR DERP.
volound 7 months ago
@volound Thanks.
CHIPSTERO7 7 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 You moron
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thesparitan Name-calling? How very sophisticated of you.
CHIPSTERO7 8 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 No its not sophisticated but I have been in too many pointless debates with you thick skulled mouth breathers, I do this for personal relief. I do not actually believe that rational thought and evidence can convince you of anything because your believe is retroactively justified. You came to your conclusion, I am guessing here, because of a emotional reaction to the AGW theory, so now you try and justify that position with an ad hoc logical framework.
Or in other words, moron.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thesparitan You guessed wrong, didn't you? I came to my conclusion based on a conscientious appraisal of the objective evidence. As far as I can see the IPCC's claims of a 3C temperature-increase on a doubling of atmospheric-CO2 and that the CO2-increase is even anthropogenic is not backed up by real evidence and I think this is probably why scientifically-minded people who examine its claims consistently deny them. You are of course more than welcome to persist living in a false-reality.
CHIPSTERO7 8 months ago
@thespritan Of course I would be more than happy to discuss this evidence with you (although I have a feeling that you probably haven't done a any research into this subject and will refuse and have simply accepted the CAGW without actually objectively apprising the counterevidence for youself). The counterevidence is abundant; there is lots, both theoretical and observational. When you are ready to have an adult discussion instead of sophomorically throwing around silly insults, get back to me.
CHIPSTERO7 8 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 I don't know if I should take you up on your offer, I already know what you are going to say and what you will do, I am not sure I want to go through that again for the 11th time so far. Obviously you don't care about the evidence otherwise you would accept the science. I might debate you but you will have to agree to my conditions.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@potholer54 You wrote: "I think the reason you have not seen any of this evidence". How do you know I have not seen it? Of course the evidence you have presented me with is not really convincing, is it? We know that as the oceans warm they outgas more CO2 which would be expected to increase atmospheric concentrations and as they cool they suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere. So the 'correlation' in the paleoclimate data you have offered does not prove that CO2 caused these temperature-changes.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
Unfortunately for the CAGW-alarmists temperatures have essentially remained flat for the last 15 years while CO2 levels relentlessly rise, which surely puts the kibosh on the idea that mankind is controlling the climate with CO2. As for Jones's comment on the issue. Here was pretty clear-cut in the interview. He says, as verbatim: "There has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years". You don't need to take Jones's word for it though. I don't. The datasets speak for themselves.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 =which surely puts the kibosh on the idea that mankind is controlling the climate with CO2.= I wish it did, but unfortunately it doesn't. As I'm sure you know if you've seen my videos, CO2 is not the only factor affecting climate in the short term. The sun, aerosols, pollutants, ocean currents, even the Earth's orbit all play a role.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 Yes, I understand that the global mean temperature is determined by a multitude of factors. However, I have yet to see convincing evidence that CO2 is having any discernable effect on global temperatures, much less whatever miniscule effect it might be having would be deleterious. Perhaps if there was a clear anthropogenic signature in the compromised (homogenised) surface-temperature data and if the paleoclimate data suggests CO2 effects temperatures, I would be less sceptical.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 =I understand that the global mean temperature is determined by a multitude of factors.= Then forgive me for asking, but why did you post the argument that temperatures have been flat for 15 years (not the case, but we'll skip that) while CO2 levels have been going up? Surely if CO2 is not the only cause of short-term climate change then this is not at all inconsistent with climate theory.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 It demonstrates at the very least that the IPCC's computer models are missing the dominant driver because none of the IPCC's 21 models predicted that there would be no statistically significant increase in temperatures from 1995 to 2010. What do you consider to be the confounding variables and why was this not predicted by the All Knowing Scientists and their £100,000,000 computer models? And according to the Met Office's and CRU's own websites the temperatures have remained flat.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 =yet to see convincing evidence that CO2 is having any discernable effect on global temperatures= Your arguments explain why. You suggest that paleoclimate data does not show that CO2 affects temperatures, when in fact the data show a very good correlation (Royer et al). I think the reason you have not seen any of this evidence, convincing or otherwise, is that you are repeating arguments you read on the Internet. Please be skeptical and check before believing everything you read.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 Sure, the paleoclimate ice-core record indicates a correlation between CO2 and temperature. However a correlation does not prove a cause. It only proves a coincidence and it would be no more logical or truthful to say from it that changes to CO2 cause temperature changes than it would be to say that temperature changes cause changes to CO2. Neither conclusion follows logically from a correlation, which may be no more than a coincidence without any causal interrelationship in fact.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Seriously go away everyone here thinks you are both a moron and a freak of a person,.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@tragc6 Surely the example of Jones's tree-ring study proves beyond any reasonable doubt that tree-ring proxies do not correlate with global temperatures. The divergence of his tree-ring data from the instrumental data-record post-1960 proves the non-correlation and at the same time disproved the assumptions of which the idea of a correlation was based. So the science has already spoken and there is no need for us to go on the laborious exercise of testing the assumptions that underlay the idea.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
PH - I saw your mailbag vid.
D'oh!
You simply don't understand hypothesis testing. Still clinging to the hope that when something fails a significance test you can still hang onto crumbs of comfort that there is a chance we can say the idea is a goodun. WRONG, WRONG .. and WRONG again.
When we set up a hypothesis test, we deliberateely make it decisive. Jones will NOT take issue with the headline - he can't. THINK ABOUT IT!
Or just keep making a fool of yourself.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott What are you talking about.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - Phil Jones confessed "for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming." The Daily Mail headline claimed that he admitted "There has been no global warming since 1995".
PH has an issue with the DM headline - serious enough to have made a whole video on the topic. But I don't think a cigarette paper can be squeezed between the two statements.
Tell me xESOTERIC - do you think Jones might have a scientifically valid complaint against the DM?
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott Such a ploy is typical of Media... Manipulating information to create controversy to sell a product(air time, paper, magazine, whatever), indifferent to the fact that they are spreading misinformation. Intellectuals are appalled by this underhanded tactic because it undermines intellectual pursuits. He made a vid about it because it is part of what he does--debunks blatant fallacies.. And that isn't just fallacy, that's a "news" source outright lieing.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@gufpott I would think ANYONE would be outraged by such a thing. Why do we have to SEARCH for the truth? Why is the least reliable source of objective information the one place we're SUPPOSED to receive it(mainstream media)? And if you're think they were not lieing, you're deluded. It is apparent in PJ's quote that he says there IS global warming, yet the headline reads that he says there is NO global warming(NOT that he says there is no statistically significant warming).
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@gufpott Most people have a selfish agenda, so I understand if you are incapable of understanding an outrage at something that doesn't directly affect you.. Some of us give a shit, though. For instance, I would stand more on the "Truthers" side of the fence in regards to 9/11.. However, just because it's obvious to me that demolition was used doesn't mean I blindly support everything they say. I'm just as quick to berate them about their "facts". Some of us don't take sides other than truth's.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@gufpott Lastly.. as for a "scientifically valid complaint"... either you just mixed up words or you're trying to quibble semantics... Does he have a scientific complaint? I dont know.. not even sure what that is.. Does he have grounds to contest the veracity of the information they presented? Yes. . Also, he brought up this subject because others used it as "proof" in contesting his other vids.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - if it was such an OUTRAGE, then PJ has a DUTY to challenge the DM and insist on a correction. He won't - if he tried, he would make a complete fool of himself.
He can leave it to ppl like you and PH to make fools of yourselves, with your insignificant sniping from the sidelines. So, before asking what motivates me, I suggest you stop to examine your own agenda. What makes you so ready to make an arse of yourself?
Meantime pls spare us the incoherent rambling rant
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "incoherent rambling rant" ? I'm not sure how your lack of reading comprehension skills is relevant...
Why would the scientist freely engage in quibbling over semantics? He would know it to be a futile endeavor, having expect nothing more of media in the first place. Where it mattered, they quoted him correctly and he realizes that anyone of genuine interest and intelligence would recognize the truth.
The "OUTRAGE" is not at a single report, but the overall character of the system
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@gufpott You've not negated the fact that the title is a lie. All you have done in this reply is state your opinion that such a lie is a trivial issue.
Very well.. you don't mind being lied to. You don't mind a "news" establishment that is willing to mislead the public in order to sell product.
Just like I'm sure those quacks that bought into "global cooling" of the 70s didn't mind.. Just don't come whining back in 30 years claiming that science had been lieing when it was the media.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - If PJ does't want to quibble, why the hell does PH make a quibbling video?
The DM never lied - the headline is logically correct for an insignificant result.
Now you're harping about lack of media support. The media was four-square behind your little catastrophe theory in the run-up to COP15. Now it's sceptical - ask yourself why that might be.
You are losing public support. Nobody's interested in your habit of inflating insignificant results and then quibbling.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott PH is just making people aware that they can't take media sources at face value.
[my] little catastrophe? I recognize that man has a negative impact on his environment(takes little intelligence to see that.. integrity is another matter), but I don't care who accepts it. All I care about is the reliability of information being shoveled about. As any idiot incapable of logic, you mutilated every point of logic I presented. I never "harped" about media coverage. My point was that "science"
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@gufpott .."science" is not the source for these claims, but the media is.
"Insignificant results".. as pertaining to TODAYS environment? Sure. As pertaining to the environment 20-100 years from now? Not so insignificant. Easier to stop a train when it just begins rolling than it is to stop it from running into a building when it's already fullspeed.(No, i dont know why a train would be running into a building o.O)
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - Attack the DM if it got something wrong. But there's nothing wrong with that headline. All the yapping is because PH can't stand the blunt truth of that insignificant trend.
Reliability of information? The IPCC process was promoted as a top quality scientific endeavour, but had nowere to go when things went wrong. That's why the catastrophe theory was dropped from the media agenda.
What is the point of you clinging to PJ's insignificant trend? Nobody's interested any more.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott who's clinging to anything? The only person i see emotionally invested is you(and people so vehement about the possibility of man's inevitable destruction of his environment).. Why is that? It's 2 things. 1) people(as a whole and as individuals) refuse to acknowledge their fallibility. 2) People refuse to acknowledge their mortality.
Hope youre comfy in your box. Stay there. I dont care.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - You and PH are clinging to PJ's insigificant result as though it is supposed to mean something.
I hate bad science - nothing good ever came from scare stories with no substance in fact. I'll listen to good science, good process and proper presentation. CAGW has failed miserably on those measures.
CAGW proponents have dug a huge hole for themselves. Choose your batles carefully to win the war - but you ain't gonna win anything quibbling like this.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott Again, who's clinging? This has nothing to do with PJ--I've never heard his name before the video. It has EVERYTHING to do with media! It's not SCIENCE.. it's MEDIA, you twat. you're so dense. "Oh, i don't like bad news.. I only like news that conforms to my world perspective".. good for you. Stop being an impediment for people that want the truth.
As for global warming: it IS "good" science--unless you mean science you WANT to hear
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@gufpott Is global warming going to affect this generation? Most likely not. Does man's release of CO2 affect the climate? Yes. The reports are there. Look at them for yourself. . or just stick to the one or 2 that are skeptical out of the dozens that substantiate it.. I dont care.
Win what war? The only way to make people realize they are being played like fools by the media is by presenting the truth.Whether or not you dumbasses choose to accept it is on you.
Enjoy your blissful ignorance
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - "you twat"? Huh - who's emotionally hitched!
If PH was only interested in the meda, he would have chosen another example. But he chose this and it should tell you something.
I had heard about PJ - even before the outrage of "Mike's trick to hide the decline" (rather than just show the data). PH made a vid, playing on semantics to try to excuse that one.
Fair minded people smelt a rat and it helped knock off its perch as an issue of public cconcern.
gufpott 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Narrow Naughty girls and ladies here benaughtyman.info
bhgtyujikcas34 1 year ago
you know this video really highlights what politics can do to a field; science has a lot of complicated aspects to it which are essential but not published in popular science sources... I should know, the chi-square thing was just a drop of the many things I leanred here at university about sceince that I didn't knew before;
once science and politics got combined, all the un-initiated people got intested in science stuff that they did not understnad.... and stupid controversies arise
bbphnix 1 year ago
he's right about thwe statistics thing in the beginning; last year in university I learned at both physics and biology (I study both) about the Chi-square test; that's what it's called... it's measure of corelating data with causation; look up on the internet, wikpedia's got an article if you want to know more
bbphnix 1 year ago
Let's not forget the tide will go back out again.
theodric0001 1 year ago
@theodric0001 unless man blows up the moon. then there will be no more tides.
arp76 1 year ago
to me it seems like these videos say that we really don't know 100% what causes climate change because there are so many variables and it's such a complicated issue.
iLLQuintessenceTV 1 year ago
@iLLQuintessenceTV We don't know 100% what causes climate change. We don't know 100% about anything. We can only made cautious proposals based on the the evidence. However, just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we don't know anything. In the same way we haven't ironed out all the facts of evolutions, the fact that evolution happened and is happening is undisputed within the scientific community. Same goes for climate change. We know the Earth is getting warmer, and we are the cause
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@iLLQuintessenceTV PS apologies for the terrible grammar in my previous post. I should read over what I write more thoroughly next time!
BlankVellum 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every year 2,500,000 people die of car exhaust. And car exhaust is destroying the nature! We know how to stop it!
youtube.com/watch?v=sHw7XSz2OGI
Stop the global warming !!!
MediaCryptix 1 year ago
potholer54, you are correct in the explanation of the statistics. as a mental health scientists, i need to be able to pick up on statistical errors in peer reviewed research. what you're dealing with here is someone allowing a natural personality trait (narcissism) confound his or her reasoning. in academia, we see people like this all the time; they are better than their peers and are unable to understand why others can't see their brilliance, and feel empowered by having to "swim upstream."
tyrannosaurusinf14 1 year ago
@tyrannosaurusinf14 - narcissism LOL.
You're into labelling - but that's not scientific argument. No doubt what you're good at, as a "mental health scientist".
Jones will not challenge what that DM journo said. He doesn't have the statistical evidence to mount a credible challenge. Said so himself - his recent trend is "not significant" (i.e. not statistically discernable from zero trend).
You wanna pin a label on me now - where do you place me on "the spectrum"?
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott thanks for proving my point. get a life and stop replying to everyone who writes to you...none of it is that important and neither are you.
tyrannosaurusinf14 1 year ago
@tyrannosaurusinf14 - "get a life and stop replying.." LOL
Potholer54 spends time making vids to quibble over what a DM journo said - although the journo is correct. And a video to try to excuse "Mike's nature trick" to paper over "inconvenient" data. What kind of a life is that, eh?
I hate amatuers spreading bad arguments to whip up alarmism. Have you noticed how NOBODY says the science is settled these days. Now it's all about "acknowledging uncertainty".
Why do you think that is?
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott Just to chime in, science is never and has never been certain or settled. We could never even say with 100% proof that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It's humbling to admit that you might be wrong and it leaves the mind open to new ideas and/or alternatives. For one to put their foot down and declare they know with certainty means they already lost and are no longer allowed in the discussion. They freely admit nothing could change their mind That isn't science, that's religion.
rsxfreak03 1 year ago
@rsxfreak03 - We are in full agreement on the points you make.
The global warming catastrophe theory has been heavily promoted by activists, politicians and journos (like PH54). They crossed the line from talking science and into talking bollocks.
Those (ahem) "2500 of the world's climate experts" had a duty to tell the hangers-on to butt out when all the crap about "science is settled" was doing the rounds.
This episode will go down with Lysencoism when we look back at it .
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "Now it's all about "acknowledging uncertainty".
Why do you think that is?"
I believe it's called intellectual honesty, more commonly known as peer reviewed science. You don't dispute the fact of AGW do you?
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum "peer review means intellectual honesty" "the fact of AGW"
Nice try at tossing a flameball into the thread.
A great deal of the AGW hypothesis can be best described as controversial (subject to ongoing scientific discourse on key points). You don't dispute that, do you?
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott The AGW hypothesis is now accepted by almost every climatologist. The facts are concrete. This has been demonstrated in the WG 1 Physical Science Basis section of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC . Put simply, we are making the climate warmer, and we need to do something about it.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "now accepted by almost every climatologist"
Argument from authority is not valid and doesn't merit reply.
@BlankVellum: "The facts are concrete."
Not acknowledging controversy makes YOU the denier in my book.
Feel free to do whatever you think is appropriate to reflect your strong belief in CAGW. Why not post again in a couple of years, let us know how you're getting on - assuming you will allow yourself the use of a computer.
Good luck and best wishes.
gufpott 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gufpott "Argument from authority is not valid and doesn't merit reply."
Ah I see, so in your mind a person who is not a quantum physicist, has the authority to reject quantum physics? My point is that it helps to have some knowledge and working experience of that which you seek to disprove. The fact that there is a scientific consensus means the facts in favour of AGW have went through peer review and has now reached a threshold.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@gufpott "Not acknowledging controversy makes YOU the denier in my book."
Who said I didn't acknowledge controversy? You're simply ignoring the scientific consensus. I don't quite understand why either. But yes, best of luck. Not sure why I'd not allow myself the use of a computer in a few years.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum
Consensus is an argument from authority and, like I said, it has no merit. It is typical groupthink behaviour.
There are plenty of examples of its failure - like a recent sea-change in opinion on the cause of stomach cancer.
If you are acknowledging uncertainty, you could moderate use of words like "fact" and "concrete".
Your computer uses energy. I was teasing you about how far you're prepared to go in self-imposing your own low carbon diet.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott Consensus is not an argument from authority when that consensus is arrived at through peer review and the scientific method. Or rather, it may be an argument from authority, bu the term in this context does not render the use of said argument as void. if you think that CO2 emissions have no effect whatsoever on the Earth's climate, then you'd have to explain where the heat released by the CO2 molecules ends up.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: " if you think that CO2 emissions have no effect"
I only say that climate sensitivity is a controversial issue.
You don't need to debate with me. Go an read the work of Ferenc Miskolczi (Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres). (Easy to get a pdf on the web.)
It stands now for 3 years in the peer reviewed literature without reply. Miskolczi says the GHE is saturated, and clmate sensitivity to increased GHG's is zero.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "Go an read the work of Ferenc Miskolczi "
Firstly, citing one article suggesting contrary views to AGW does not ipso facto mean AGW is somehow false. More importantly, the paper you cited has some major problems. I could list some, but there isn't enough space. I'll try in the next bit to briefly cite one in particular. Lack of citation or response usually means that a paper is of very poor quality.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "does not ipso facto mean AGW is somehow false"
Never said it does - all I said was that there is controversy.
I take lack of citations or response in the scientific debating arena to be a sign that Miskolczi is worth paying attention to.
And to echo your ealier point made against me - no, I'm not going to listen to an insubstantial argument made by some random punter on YT. Miskolczi doesn't search YT to see if there are replies to his work.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "Just my view as somebody who might just know something about the subject."
Yes, because a 'background' in a certain subject (not in climatology as it happens) gives you the authority to reject the entirety of the claims made by climate scientists. Great. Fantastic.
"Miskolczi doesn't search YT to see if there are replies to his work."
No, he would search the scientific literature. Of which the replies are few. And the peer reviewed literature claims the opposite.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "(not in climatology as it happens)"
We have covered that point. We all have a particular "background".
Your appeal to the authority of climatologists asks us to draw unecessary boundaries. Science will be more credible and develop faster if we don't.
"gives you the authority"
I don't appeal to my authority. Climatologists can listen to, or ignore my points. I really don't care.
"Great. Fantastic."
You sound emotional - never a good start for rational discussion.
gufpott 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "No, he would search the scientific literature."
Agreed
"And the peer reviewed literature claims the opposite."
No. The publication of Miskolcz's paper means the topic is the subject of open controversy in the literature. Practising researchers are thereby invited to comment and science will advance. Miskolcz's arguments will then advance or retreat.
No answer either means no material objections, or researchers failing in their duties to engage substantial arguments.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "The publication of Miskolcz's paper means the topic is the subject of open controversy in the literature. "
As I have just pointed out, in addition to the many problems his article exudes, there are many peer reviewed articles claiming the exact opposite of his conclusions. Still, cherry picking is such fun isn't it.
"Practising researchers are thereby invited to comment and science will advance."
If a paper is published but not widely cited, it usually means the data is flawed.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "many problems his article exudes"
Then researchers will find it EASY to reply and point out the errors you claim. Miskolcz might then respond.
Having initially lauded the literature as though elevated to the level scripture, you are now adding a great deal of caveat and equivocation.
No trying to constrain publication and review to turn it into something that supports your confirmation bias. Cherry picking indeed.
You have clearly learned nothing from recent events.
gufpott 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gufpott "Then researchers will find it EASY to reply and point out the errors you claim."
Already done.
"Having initially lauded the literature as though elevated to the level scripture"
Ah, strawman no. 3. Do carry on.
"You have clearly learned nothing from recent events.
Recent events? Enlighten me. I'm dying to hear it.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@gufpott By the way, a moments research would show you exactly what is wrong with Miskolcz's paper.
I'm sorry if I have to spell this out, but a SINGLE paper does not nullify the existing (and overwhelming) body of evidence showing the opposite. You're displaying a very vulgar form of confirmation bias by hiding behind a single paper.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "hiding behind a single paper"
I mentioned Miskolczi as an example of open controversy in the literature.
Observation of the claimed tropospheric hot spot? The travesty of no significant warming in the last 10-15 years. (What has been cooling to compensate putative AGW?) The gap between Hansen's 1988 projections and observation. Invoking positive feedback to amplify climate sensitivity. The condition of the US surface temperature network.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "I mentioned Miskolczi as an example of open controversy in the literature."
One paper does not automatically mean that there is 'controversy' in the field. Even the most hard nosed skeptic like Lindzen doesn't ignore the warming effect of CO2. The only thing disputed is the degree of the warming. Either way, the Earth is warming up and we're the cause. My, 10 years of no warming does no negate the temperature trend. You may like to know that this year matches 1998 as the warmest.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "One paper does not automatically mean ... "
Let me repeat - I gave that as an example of controversy in climate sensitivty. Kinda central point of issue, don't you think?
"The only thing disputed is the degree of the warming."
Acknowledgement of controversy. Noted.
"the Earth is warming up and we're the cause."
Causation is controversial.
Are you trying to imply "concrete" certainty on the cause of earlier warming periods in the Holocene?
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "Causation is controversial."
No, it isn't.
"Acknowledgement of controversy. Noted"
Ah, that would be to misrepresent me (yet again). The overwhelming conclusion in the literature is that the Earth is warming up, and quicker then previous warming cycles. GHGs are the main cause of this. Humans produce large amounts of GHGs. My acknowledgment was of the dispute over the degree of the warming WITH THESE ASSUMPTIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@gufpott With regards the troposphere, recent studies have shown that it is warming, and this warming is broadly consistent with both theoretical expectations and climate models (Thorne et al 2010). For reference, "Tropospheric Temperature Trends: History of an Ongoing Controversy," a review of four decades of data and scientific papers to be published by Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, a peer-reviewed journal.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: Thorne et al 2010 "Tropospheric Temperature Trends: History of an Ongoing Controversy"
Yep - read it last week. Nice review of a controversy, discussion of uncertainty, and how this have evolved over a period of time.
Don't bother reading this if you're expecting a convincing confirmation that the putative hot spot has been confirmed in observation.
Obvious question - what point were you tying to make?
gufpott 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gufpott "Yep - read it last week"
Fantastic! Good to see you keeping up with the literature.
"what point were you tying to make?"
That the troposphere is warming due to increase in GHGs. The hot spot has in fact been observed over short time scales. Weather balloons measure wind strength, and the fact that there is a direct relationship between wind shear and temperature allows us to obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008)
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "The hot spot has in fact been observed over short time scales"
I don't know what you mean by "short". Is that consistent with the usual vague distinction between climate from weather? Who knows!
It was an intereting exchange of views BV. I quite enjoyed our little exchanges, and I can see lots of things we could agree on.
Bit it is becoming tedious. Time to call ot a day.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "vague distinction between climate from weather?"
Who ever said that there is a 'vague' distinction between climate and weather?! The distinction I though would have been very clear.
"Time to call it a day"
Sure. Just for the record, to get some common ground, would you concede that the climate is warming up, and that our use of fossil fuels has /some/ effect? I mean surely nobody, however skeptical, can deny basic physics? Cheers for the discussion, however brief.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "to get some common ground"
Agreed - there has been some warming in fits-and-start (regionally or globally) going back to the LIA. (Regionally or globally matters because of spatial distribution of evidence.)
Was some of the effect due to FF?
Not convinced (but could be with better evidence).
A GHE can be observed in the lab, but that doesn't mean it is present in climate sensitivity for a number of reasons (some discussed below).
Regards
gufpott 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "vague distinction between climate from weather?"
30 years is often cited as the difference between climate and weather. On what basis? I really don't know - seems rather arbitrary.
MBH98/99 has been superceded by more recent submission by the same authorss. Although there was no formal withdrawal of MBh98/99, it is argued that the earlier work is effectively withdrawn. (I have seen it argued.)
Counting citations therefore isn't a very good point.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott 30 years is probably sufficient to establish climatic trends, and one could infer reasonably on the basis of an upward warming trend during this period that it is something other than natural, using evidence from ice cores to chart longer term climate change. For instance, the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, a value which far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@gufpott Furthermore, the physics of the GHE are well understood, and I doubt any climate scientist would say that those same physics would not apply to the Earth's atmosphere.
"Right now, nobody has"
Yes, but the point I wish to stress is that it is only one paper. In my experience, if this was a paper of immaculate standard, then it would be widely or at least moderately cited in other articles. I can only reiterate my point that there are findings contrary to this paper.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@gufpott By the way, if you like I can PM you a response to the Miskolczi paper. You'll notice that the paper is making the rounds only in Denialist circles (which I assume you move in), yet has attracted little attention from the scientific community. Curious.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "PM you a response to the Miskolczi paper"
Let me guess - van Dorland & Forster. Not a reply in the literature - get this one through RC.
I don't know if Miskolczi is aware of this sniping from the sidelines, but vD&F should formally submit to the literature if they want to be taken seriously.
"Denialist"
I don't deny anything. I just want your arguments to stand up to scientific standards. Nothing you have said here has done anything to address my concerns.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "Nothing you have said here has done anything to address my concerns."
Wouldn't have expected it to in a YT comments section. I did advise reading the entirety of the IPCC AR4 report, which does establish with some degree of certainty that our burning of fossil fuels has dramatically sped up Earth's temperature. If you dispute that, you'd be disputing a wealth of peer reviewed science.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@gufpott "Let me guess - van Dorland & Forster"
No, Levenson. I'll PM you his response. Rather than attack the fact that it isn't peer reviewed, perhaps you can deal with the claims he addresses. Lack of response in the peer reviewed literature does not mean Miskolczi's conclusions are valid. As I said, it is a measure of how good a paper is that it is widely cited and oft repeated in other journals.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum " No Levenson"
Citing from the bogosphere again. I'm familiar with the text you sent. He's wrong. He can try to persude somebody to put his complaints into a published reply, maybe that'll smoke-out his basic mistakes.
After making such a big deal of the published literature, now you want to add qualifications to argue that some articles are good and bad.
I'm not interested.
BTW - how many citations are there to erronious (and now withdrawn) analysis in MBH88/89?
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "He's wrong"
Wow, outstanding. Of course, you cannot claim that Miskolczi's findings are valid without first highlighting the errors in article with different conclusion (Boer and Yu 2003; Boer et al. 2000; Dai et al. 2001; Delworth et al. 1999; Goosse et al. 2006; Hegerl et al. 2006; Roeckner et al. 1999; Sumi 2005; Washington et al. 2000; Wetherald et al. 2001). Good luck.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum "Wow, outstanding. Of course, you cannot claim that Miskolczi's findings are valid without first highlighting the errors in article with different conclusion" [various articles cited]
I don't need to (and it's not my job to try). I'll wait for somebody to publish a reply in the literature and develop the arguments.
Right now, nobody has. I'm not saying that none will ever appear - that's what we rightfully expect from the scientific process. But right now ...
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott As for climate sensitivity, I can only forward on the conclusion from AR4, which stated that it is likely to be between 2 - 4.5 degrees Celsius, with best estimates at 3 degree Celsius.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@gufpott "BTW - how many citations are there to erronious (and now withdrawn) analysis in MBH88/89?"
I don't follow, you'll have to elaborate. My point remains unchallenged: ie 1 paper does not in any way discredit or nullify the entirety of the rest of peer reviewed articles highlighting trends contrary to that which Miskolczi has found. Perhaps you could retract your statement that there is no convincing observation of the 'hot spot'.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gufpott Correction: "which does establish with some degree of certainty that our burning of fossil fuels has dramatically sped up Earth's temperature"
Should say has dramatically increased Earth's temperature.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum" Consensus is not an argument from authority"
Err, yes it is.
"arrived at through peer review"
"Arrived at" suggests you believe the scientifc process stops. That would be unscientific - science never assumes an end-point.
Researchers publish and debate their results in the journals. The iterature only ever contains a snapshot of the latest results and contending ideas at any time.
The literature is not infallible - the hand of God is not part of the process.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "science never assumes an end-point."
I never implied that it did. Strawman no.1
"The literature is not infallible"
Never said it was. Strawman no.2
"I have no interest in trying to join them in writing articles in their magazines ("journals")."
Do I detect a pejorative use of 'journals'? If so, why?
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "Do I detect a pejorative use of 'journals'? If so, why?"
The journals are just a forum for scientific debate. We are not duty bound to agree with or even respect with what goes into them.
"infallible Never said it was"
You said: "[it is] not an argument from authority when that consensus is arrived at through peer review and the scientific method"
That is appealing to to hand of God as though the literature should be elevated to some mystical status like scripture.
gufpott 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gufpott "We are not duty bound to agree with or even respect with what goes into them."
You're entitled to reject them if you wish, you would just have a explain exactly why you do so. Do you even understand the concept of peer review? If so, I cannot fathom why would you make such a ridiculous comment.
"That is appealing to to hand of God as though the literature should be elevated to some mystical status like scripture"
Not what I said at all. Still, attacking strawmen is such FUN isn't it.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@gufpott Miskolczi proposes that that feedbacks constrain the gray infrared optical depth of Earth's atmosphere at a value of around 1.841. This is contrary to many publications (eg Boer and Yu 2003; Boer et al. 2000; Dai et al. 2001; Delworth et al. 1999; Goosse et al. 2006; Hegerl et al. 2006; Roeckner et al. 1999; Sumi 2005; Washington et al. 2000; Wetherald et al. 2001), and the conclusion depends on many doubtful assumptions, notably a misunderstanding of Kirchhoff's Law.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@gufpott Finally:
"Err, yes it is."
Go back and read my comment in full. Scientific consensus is fundamentally different from public consensus, for instance. There is a consensus regarding evolution, but there are still people publishing material highlighting discontent with the various mechanisms and their perceived importance in producing biological complexity.
Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the growing body of evidence won't do you any good in the long run.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlankVellum : "Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the growing body of evidence won't do you any good in the long run. "
I'm happy to wait thank you.
Right now, I don't see enough evidence of impending catatrophe. I see a growing body of evindence which refueses to support the catastrophe theory.
And a there is plenty of reason mistrust earlier evidence put forward when there are issues like presentation of data designed to "hide the decline" .
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott I don't see enough evidence of impending catatrophe"
Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Just read the IPCC AR4 report (physical Science Basis section WG I), which brings together peer reviewed material from 5 decades worth of research. It seems astounding that you would just dismiss all this data so that you can live under the false assumption that pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum - Your earlier comment was marked by spam. Not by me - I don't agree with censorship.
Other than the principle of argument from authority, there are issues with "marking-out the experts". Who is entitled to express a view?
My background includes feedback theory (engineering and mathematical). Climatologists dabble in this, and their analyis is pretty poor in my view.
Climate sensitivity is multiplied as much as 3-fold on poor arguments about amplification by feedback.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "My background includes feedback theory (engineering and mathematical). Climatologists dabble in this, and their analyis is pretty poor in my view."
You clearly haven't seen part 9 of this series. You are not a climate scientist. A geophysicist wouldn't dream of lecturing a dermatologist about the failings of his methods. I'm sure climate scientists would be overjoyed to hear what information you have that has somehow escaped their attention.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "You are not a climate scientist"
Exactly the point I was trying to make.
The elements of putative CAGW is too broad to say that only one particular group of people is entitled to have a view.
I really don't care if climatologists dabble in feedback theory and get things wrong. They could make sure they do a good job by interacting with, respecting and paying more attention to other disciplines.
Failing that, they are welcome to be wrong at their own expense.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "elements of putative CAGW is too broad to say that only one particular group of people is entitled to have a view."
Actually, no. Climatology is the field that studies the climate. Those carrying out research in this field have authority to state the conclusions of their own work, more so than those of other fields. Climate science draws on a vast range of disciplines, from paleoecology to geology to paleontology. They bring these fields together.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "Actually, no. Climatology is the field ..."
Actually, climatology makes a botch of its analysis of feedback and amplification fo climate sensitiviyt. That's just my view as somebody who might just know something about the subject.
I don't ask you to accept what I say or to agree. Like I said, it's fine by me if climatologists prefer scary tales of impending catastrophe. They'll be the losers if their "projections" prove to be falsified by data.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott ", climatology makes a botch of its analysis of feedback and amplification fo climate sensitiviyt"
Ah yes, because you are such a force in the field aren't you. We wouldn't want people making claims on behalf of climate scientists, criticizing the methods used by said climate scientists, if they themselves had no working experience in the field, would we?
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "you are such a force in the field aren't you"
I don't have to be. All I need to do is to use my specialist knowledge and training and look at what climatologists have done.
Like I said, if they are wrong on positive feedback, climate sensitivity will be less than 1. Miskolczi's analysis puts climate sensitivity at zero (saturated GHE).
"criticizing the methods "
Like I said, they can get it wrong if they don't want to pay attention. OK by me.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott "Climate sensitivity is multiplied as much as 3-fold on poor arguments about amplification by feedback. "
Marvelous, it seems you have clarified all lingering doubt over AGW in a single sentence in a Youtube comments section. Lets ignore all that pesky peer reviewed data (10,000 to date I believe) showing that in fact the Earth is warming and we are the cause. Just out of curiosity, but could you provide a credible reference for the last claim?
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum: "Marvelous, it seems you have clarified all lingering doubt over AGW in a single sentence in a Youtube comments section"
I'm not a climatologist, and I have no interest in trying to join them in writing articles in their magazines ("journals").
Arguments about positive feedback are crucial to the claimed value of climate sensitivity. Climatologists can plunge-in with half-baked ideas feedback. If they get it wrong - that's fine by me.
gufpott 1 year ago
"but it flies straight over the head of both you and PH."
No, we understand it quite well. Face it, the DM's report wasn't accurate. Now tell me where Jone's said there's no warming.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr
The headline was: "scientist ..admits: There has been no Global Warming since 1995"
PH quibbles because the DM did not quote actual words.
The DM stated the Null Hypothesis. They did so with the knowledged that there was no credible evidence to refute it.
PH's last point relates to credibility. The DM is more scientifically savvy and credible than both of you.
This vid and the discussion thread are where you earn your rightful place at the bottom of the class.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott
"The headline was: "scientist ..admits: There has been no Global Warming since 1995""
Yes, which is inaccurate. Jone's even states that he's 100% confident there has been warming. It's amusing to watch you desperately try to rationalize this.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr - as PH says, "100% confident" is an unscientific position and Jones loses cred if that's what he said.
Somebody can admit something without necessarily using the words "I admit ..".
Your comments have given me plenty of insight into the filter-feeders at the bottom of the scientific food chain. It has been entertaining, and for that I should thank you.
I shall now bid you farewell.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott
Well I agree, it's not scientific to express 100% certainty. But that's not the point, he's still saying the he believes there's been warming. This isn't consistent with the DM's sensational headline.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@guffpot - “Are you really insisting those specific words must be spoken?”
Yes, if the Mail is going to attribute those words to Jones. Otherwise you could argue that if there has been no warming since 1995 then CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. So why not the headline: “Phil Jones admits: CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.”
In fact Jones said there HAS been warming since 1995. For the Mail to quote him as saying the exact opposite is…. Well, fit whatever adjective you like, but “correct” is absurd.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 - Insisting on the exact words reduces this vid to quibbling. Scientists know what they mean by "insignificant".
Do you accept the statistical equivalence of the range of outcomes within a confidence interval?
If Jones asserted that the observed trend is "meaningful", he would have committed himself to a forecast that the trend will be confirmed by future observations. I don't think that's what he was saying - it is a risky position to take and outside empirical science.
gufpott 1 year ago
@potholer54 - "Insisting on the exact words reduces this vid to quibbling."
Quibbling?? Jones said there HAS been warming since 1995 and the Daily Mail quoted him as saying there's been NO warming since 1995. Are you seriously telling me that criticism of this amounts to mere “quibbling”? So if President Obama says there'll be a troop withdrawl from Iraq, it's perfectly OK to quote him as saying there'll be NO troop withdrawl. Are you seriously telling us you can't see the teeniest difference?
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 - The DM is not compelled to report the precise and exact words. We can judge them by whether reporting was fair or accurate.
I see no problem with what the DM wrote. You want to quibble over the word "significant". But you never answered my question about whether an observation within a confidence interval can be separated from other possible observations in that range.
Want another A-B-C example? I'd be happy to give something from the case in point.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott @potholer54 – “You want to quibble over the word "significant".”
You still don’t get it. In the BBC piece, on which the DM story was based, Jones said there has been warming since 1995. The Daily Mail headline was “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.”
Look very, very hard at these two statements. Let me know if you have a scintilla of doubt that the DM may not be “correct” in its quote.
potholer54 1 year ago
PH - Maybe quibbling was too generous. I know you hate statistics, but you need to improve your understanding.
To ask again: what grounds are there to claim that X1 is superior to X2 in the experiment I gave?
Taking that one step further - do you understand how observations within a confidence interval are not statistically distinct?
What can you say about the confidence interval of Jones's 15 year trend? (ample 180 monthly anomalies!)
Your viewers need to hear your answers.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott
-_-
You're trying way too hard. Face it, the DM's headline was wrong. You're obfuscating by trying to make the issue more complicated than it really is; and pretending to have a superior knowledge of mathematics. It's really quite simple. You roll the die twice; you get a six both times. Is this a statistically significant indication of weighted die? If not, is it accurate to say the die is not weighted?
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr - "[you are just making] the issue more complicated than it really is!
Good grief! And there was PH saying "it's complicated, but that's why ...". Just as he falls into all sorts of holes trying to argue from statistics.
Did you get that textbook.
I'd recommend "Introductory Statistics" by Wonnacot and Wonnacot (father and son authors). It is a really good book - go look it up on the web (I have it in my hand right now, in case you are wondering).
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott
Maybe it's complicated to a layperson, but potholer seems to get it. Now I know you think you have a superior knowledge of mathematics, but you keep dodging a very simple analogy.
You roll the die twice; you get a six both times. Is this a statistically significant indication of weighted die? If not, is it accurate to say the die is not weighted?
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr - Go get the book. PH doesn't "seem to get it" and you are soaking up bad arguments.
Your Null Hypothesis is: "The die is not weighted". After about 30 statistically independent trials, you should have enough data to test the hypothesis. You don't with only 2.
A massive 180 data points and Jones STILL cannot reject his NH in the last 15 years. Something ain't right and he hasn't explained it. He just wants to add more data until he gets the answer he wants. That ain't science.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott
"After about 30 statistically independent trials, you should have enough data to test the hypothesis. You don't with only 2."
Right! I don't have a statistically significant indication of weighting after only 2 trials. So would it be accurate for the DM to report that I've admitted the die are not weighted?
"He just wants to add more data until he gets the answer he wants. That ain't science. "
So if I add more trials with the die, that ain't science?
-_-
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr - I'll keep going if you are willing to try to learn.
It is important to design an experiment at the outset and stick to the criteria you have set yourself. Rolling dice is cheap and you have plenty choice in the exact details of your test.
Let's say you design your test which has exactly 30 rolls and you have stated a 95% level of statistical significance. That's the test at the outset .... you're now BOUND to stick to it
X is the number of times you get a 6 .... more
gufpott 1 year ago
Post 2.
Let's say Your first test produces X1 = 5.
Given the test described above, we should have enough data to do some significance testing using statistical methods. But I'll not do that because I know it's not your thing.
Instead, I'll describe a different experiment which will have the same effect of the quicker statistical approach.
Let's say you repeat your test (stick with 30 rolls each time, and count the number of sixes) to get 100 values of X ...
gufpott 1 year ago
Post 3
Your repeat tests return a cluster of X values. Sometimes you rolled a six 5 times, but maybe you got no sixes on one test. Maybe a test gave you 12.
If the dice is balanced, we expect X=5. For convenience, we can calculate Y=X-5 to get a variable which should be centred around zero. We can therefore turn this into a hypothesis test, because we expect to see an equal number of postive and negative values of Y....
gufpott 1 year ago
Post 4
Taking that 95% significance level, if the total could of positive versus negative values of Y exceeds 5, you can report that the null hypothesis is rejected (NH: "the dice is balanced")
Now that's quite a complicated procedure, and I know that the dice was rolled many times in the "non technical" method. But it didn't need to be - we should be able to get to the same result with 30 rolls and then using stats....
gufpott 1 year ago
Post 5
What you definitely don't do is arbitrarily increase from 30 to 40 rolls if your results are not what expected to see. Empirical science is to observe and report.
We don't have hundreds of independent researchers (with their own independent measurement networks) to give us the number of independent observations we'd need to carry out the "long-hand" method for global Temp. We're therefore stuck with statistical methods
gufpott 1 year ago
Post 6 (last)
A few issues:
I cannot recall climatologists ever justifying how long a period they need for "significance"
15 years should be 180 monthly anomalies, and that would normally be ample for a statistical test.
But Jones cannot report a "significant" trend. His result is indistinguishable from the NH ("there has been no warming in the last 15 years")
It is unacceptable and unscientific to simply stretch the data series until you get a desired result.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott Achieving statistical signiricance depends on the background noise.
ShwangShwing 1 year ago
@ShwangShwing - "Achieving statistical signiricance depends on the background noise."
As I said to PH earlier, pleas don't try to develop arguments around signal to noise ratio. That's going nowhere. Everything I have written is consistent with accepting uncertainty. The "noise" is fully accounted for in the stats I have mentioned.
Let's nto get into another long discussion around elementary statistics. I recommend you do some reading - a good textbook and an open mind is all it takes.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott What do you mean? The less noise you have the easier it would be to get a trend. I don't know what you are refuting.
ShwangShwing 1 year ago
@ShwangShwing - "less noise .. easier it would be to get a trend."
A confidence interval takes into account the "noise level". Noisy data has wide confidence interval, making it tougher to pass a test (the point you are probably reaching for).
It only takes about 30 STATISTICALLY INDEPENDENT observations to test significance. Things get more complicated if the data is not statistically independent.
It's therefore crucial that a scientist understands his data. Jones seemingly doesn't.
gufpott 1 year ago
@ShwangShwing
"I don't know what you are refuting. "
I know what he's refuting, nothing. He's just a smug pseudo-intellectual who thinks he's the only one who understands the rather simple concept of statistical significance.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr "I know what he's refuting, nothing."
LOL - just like the above vid ... a veritable 10 minute quibble-fest about whether or not scientists say "significant", and what that REALLY MEANS to the unwary.
And the suggestion that if we cannot reject a Null Hypothesis, can we still tease scraps of meaning from our insignificant results ("Oh we said 95%, errr our result would be OK if we just drop that to 80%")
You guys really make me laugh.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott
"LOL - just like the above vid ... a veritable 10 minute quibble-fest"
Not a quibble-fest, a correction of the DM's irresponsible mistake and/or desperate attempt at a sensational headline.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr - "DM's irresponsible mistake "
Except there would be no point in recruiting Jones to refute the DM's statement. He doesn't have the scientific evidence to mount a credible challenge. We know this because he just told us so.
Funny how a DM journo is clever enough to spot that one, but it flies straight over the head of both you and PH.
Kinda gives you a measure of where you stand in the scientific pecking-order: several classes below a DM journalist!
Enjoy.
gufpott 1 year ago
@adkinsjr As I understand he says that "there isn't STATISTICALLY significant trend from 1995 to 2009" doesn't mean "Global warming stopped at 1995".
ShwangShwing 1 year ago
@ShwangShwing - "not equivalent to saying "there was no global warming".
Err, yes it is. The Null Hypothesis ("there has been no global warming") is NOT refuted by the data.
It may have been annoying to some true catastrophe theory believers when the DM blurted it out in plain language.
But that's the way it is - the DM's assertion cannot be credibly challenged, and even Jones has said as much.
Quibbling about precise words isn't gonna change it.
gufpott 1 year ago
@gufpott If you set the null hypotheshis to "there is global warming since 1995", you will also fail to reject it.
ShwangShwing 1 year ago