Global Warming, eh?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby compared2what? » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:00 pm

Ben D wrote:
Iamwhomiam wrote:
-snip-

"It is true that the years 2000-2010 were perhaps 0.2 C warmer than the preceding 10 years."

-snip-


Yes of course, I see that in the graph, and it's been accounted for in the 0.8 degree C warming over 130 years, but can you also see that there has been no increase in warming this century.

That's what Chris Jones was on about the lack of warming in the last whatever years in the Climategate emails...global warming has been in a pause over the last 12 to 14 years, and that's why all the projections (again see graph) over time by the IPCC/AGW lobby are showing that their computer climate models using CO2 as the main driver remain in error.

Surely everyone can see that....

Image


^^^They're using one of their very favorite forms of graphic deceit there.

In fact....Well, this may already have come up and been explicated earlier in the thread. But since I can't remember and don't have time to look and -- more to the point -- because everyone on every side of the issue should learn to recognize it when they see it simply as a matter of intellectual self-defense, given that its potential for exploitation by would-be deceivers isn't limited to this subject, I guess it can't hurt to repeat it. So here goes:

Any graph that compares a raw-data line to a trend-line while urging readers who aren't scientists or statisticians to marvel at how erroneous the predicted trend was should INSTANTLY and ON SIGHT set off alarm bells, followed swiftly by a query-to-self about why on earth anyone mocking up a graph that purported to show statistical error wouldn't fucking include the error bars.***

It's kind of abstruse, but it can't really be that difficult to remember, if you're interested in a subject that requires elementary statistical-graphic literacy? Can it? So let's try harder.
_________________

***Which, in this case, would look something like this:

Image

I was too rushed to give it a considered reading, but fwiw, the above came from what looked more or less like the clear explanation of the above that I was looking for when I ran out of time, a link to which is here:

LINK.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby tazmic » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:02 pm

Putting error bars on the linear trend projections would just show temperatures fitting the least alarmist forecasts, don't you think?

But you are right. I would have preferred to see them, for the reasons you mention. But I also wanted to see the hindcasts, which you didn't mention, but which are shown at least on the AR4 graph you provided (with error bars suggesting a rather long wait before we can demonstrate more than a little predictive value, but at least they show observations appearing not inconsistent with theory.)

Here is another presentation of the data:

Image

And as I mentioned hindcasting, for those interested, a discussion of baselines*.

(*and how the above graph, was 'fixed'!).
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:40 pm

First of all C2W, that graph you show is from Real Climate which is a joke among skeptical climate scientists, it has about zero credibility in an honest debate on the subject.

Secondly, despite the unworthy source of your link, if I understand it correctly, the error bar spread on that graph is a ridiculously large 0.8 degree C (which btw is equal to the whole amount of global warming over the last 130 years), so no matter what the actual temperatures turns out to be, it was sure to fall within that range, so regardless they can say it's within the margin of error of model predictions.

Now what the eminent climate scientists are saying to the public to my understanding goes like this, yes, the IPCC/AGW lobby are predicting a horror global warming scenario for which they offer a way forward that will mitigate the problem, and although it will cost you heaps, it's better to pay and be safe than sorry. However, it is a fact that we also are experts on climate change and offer you a second opinion, we have thoroughly reviewed the same data, and what we see is that the IPCC/AGW lobby are exaggerating the forcing effect of CO2 in their climate models, and this is a systemic problem that needs correcting before even the thought of additional tax burdens to be placed on the humanity of planet Earth occurs.

Here we present to you a graph of the track record of the IPCC/AGW lobby's temperature projections against actual recorded temperatures.

So if there are any IPCC/AGW scientists who find any error in the graph, don't just pan it with propaganda through pro-CAGW MSM journalists and blogs, you have our address, show us where our graph is wrong to our face.

Image

So you see C2W, imo these scientists aren't going to go away, these aren't the Anthony Watts, or the Steve McIntyres who don't yet have the clout of the eminent scientists of the IPCC/AGW lobbly, these scientists are equally if not more eminent and do have real clout and influence in the world of science.

So fwiw, imo this debate (no, I don't mean here, we can only sit back and watch,.. :popcorn:), is in the process of moving up to a higher level of the real scientific community...

Oh and btw tazmic, that image isn't working for me,...anyone else?
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Simulist » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:10 pm

"Yes, the ice caps are melting, but no need for 'alarm' — just look at this graph! (And don't look at THAT one.)"

If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs... you obviously don't understand the situation.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:26 pm

Image
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Simulist » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:34 pm

Ben D wrote:Image

If not for Chicken Little's "end," the AGW denialist might feel alone as the butt of jokes.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:51 pm

Look here Simulist, since you are always dropping by this thread to make inane comments that really don't reflect an iota of real understanding of what is being discussed here, isn't time you showed us some of the depth of your own understanding.

So let me ask you,..why do you think the degree of CO2 forcing factored into the AGW climate change computer modeled warming projections by the IPCC are without error?
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Simulist » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:54 pm

Look here, Ben D. Since you are always dropping by this thread to misrepresent the facts in evidence, isn't it time you stopped?

And I'll consider discussing your question once you've satisfactorily answered my observation, which you made nothing but an "inane" joke about: obviously the ice caps are melting; it is disingenuous — and, frankly, an outright fucking LIE — for you to post a graph that describes concerns about that topic as alarmist. The reason I have no interest in discussing anything whatsoever with you specifically, Ben D, is because you are a crank and an artful prevaricator.

"Namaste!"

(That should make you feel better.)
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 18 guests