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

Yep, 1.96 is the standard in science.

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

Ok! been brow beaten enough. 😆

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

edit: this is from a recent paper of his.

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

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

Yep, it can be tough going!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The grey bits are the potential error.

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

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

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

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

Anyway I give up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are more repeats on STW than TF1.

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

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

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

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

Give me strength! Right...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

risen by just under 1 degree

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

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

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

[img] [/img]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teamhurtmore

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

c02 acts as a greenhouse gas very strongly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tips:

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

• climatologists know that the oceans are quite big.

• climatologists can do basic science.

Notice a trend?

[img] [/img]

The global warming we see now is NOT caused by solar activity

That is indeed true, the high solar activity is only responsible for local climate change over a small period of time.

Not sure what you're trying to show with that graph LHS, other than natural cycles in temperature, CO2 and methane?

The actual bit we are interested in, the last 200 years, is a only a couple of pixels on the far right of that graph.

The actual bit we are interested in, the last 200 years, is a only a couple of pixels on the far right of that graph.

And I agree with you on that, however what about the little pixels at the peaks every 100,000 years. What happened then? Why did the temperatures decrease as dramatically as they increased? Those peaks occur over (very rough estimation) somewhere between 2000-5000 years. 200 years seems like a small period to measure ourselves against?

The 'oh it's happened loads of times in the past' is a red herring to be honest. The world was not like it is now, we didn't have millions of people poised on the brink of starvation or if we did no-one knew about it; it wasn't our fault and we couldn't do anything to mitigate or stop it. We mostly didn't even exist.

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

Wrong. Although water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, its concentration is a function of temperature. It amplifies the extra warming effect caused by anthropogenic releases of greenhouse gases such as CO2, but does not cause it. This is an example of positive feedback.

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

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

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

what about the little pixels at the peaks every 100,000 years. What happened then? Why did the temperatures decrease as dramatically as they increased? Those peaks occur over (very rough estimation) somewhere between 2000-5000 years.

All I can say is this isn't news to anyone involved in climate research.

They are clever people. They are not just sat looking at graphs for the past 200 years to the exclusion of everything else.

They've looked at previous periods of warming and cooling. And the majority think that the current rise is out of step and occurring at a faster rate than any previous natural cycle.

The IPCC report covers natural cycles quite well.

All I can say is this isn't news to anyone involved in climate research.

Not really concrete proof though is it? I am certain that no scientist would put their hand on their heart and state that they know with 100% certainty what happened over a period of 2000 years, 300,000 years ago to reverse a sharp rise in global temperatures.

read the IPCC report they have thought about this and the factors you mention. Again I note the complete and utter absence of any data in your philosophical attack ...this is not science.

JY - I am shocked at you 😉 You really think that I haven't been to the IPCC website. I am truly hurt. 😉

Ok Ransos!!

Wrong. Although water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, its concentration is a function of temperature. It amplifies the extra warming effect caused by anthropogenic releases of greenhouse gases such as CO2, but does not cause it. This is an example of positive feedback.

From the IPCC: "Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas" ...Ok I was going for a bit of selective editing there (!!) because we then get.."carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one".

There is positive feedback with both gases:

IPCC again: "as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle."

and interestingly....

"This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone."

Wrong. If there were no CO2, it would be too cold for life to exist on earth.

Oh and yes, JY, the greenhouse effect is a natural one (albeit one where human life has had an effect):

IPCC again, "The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth’s surface would be below the freezing point of water. Thus, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible."

And finally Ransos for balance the IPCC notes that:

" In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation. However, in the cold, dry polar regions, the effect of a small increase in CO2 or water vapour is much greater. The same is true for the cold, dry upper atmosphere where a small increase in water vapour has a greater influence on the greenhouse effect than the same change in water vapour would have near the surface."

So please forgive me if I don't accept your first point!

Now you lot are all much clever scientists than me obviously. So can you tell me: what happens to the amount of drink in my G&T (subsitute your tipple of choice) when the ice melts. Does the level go up, down or stay the same?

It is fairly amusing that some mountain biking schmo on a website can look at a graph and think they suddenly know more than people who've spent their whole careers studying climate.

Think about it, come on.

It is fairly amusing that some mountain biking schmo on a website can look at a graph and think they suddenly know more than people who've spent their whole careers studying climate.

Think about it, come on.

And I would ask you to do the same, don't trust in blind faith.

Oh and good use on the use of "amusing" and "schmo" to help belittle a debate, why don't you go the whole hog and call me a Daily Mail reading Denier! 😉

For the first time ever I am going to quote TJ from earlier today:

Critical thinking is the ability to decide for yourself from the evidcne offered.

Mol, I am glad that my children are being educated to think critically and to understand and be aware of how natural biases will always influence any material your are given to study.

So forgive me if I allow myself the same indulgence. And when there has been so much sculduggery in the whole area to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism.

I do not differ in conclusion from many other posters, despite what it seems, but I object to the way that the BBC/Channel 4 news and the New Scientist have taken one conclusion and tried to thrust another conclusion down our throats!

And Mol, let's take your analogy further with an emotive subject - eg, bankers. You could equally say that "how can some mountain biking schmo on a website, look at a newspaper article and think they suddenly know more than people who've spent their whole careers studying finance and conclude that all bankers are.....{insert your adjective of choice}."

Because this sort of thing happens the whole time!

And Mol:

Yes; the type, frequency and intensity of extreme events are expected to change as Earth’s climate changes, and these changes could occur even with relatively small mean climate changes. Changes in some types of extreme events have already been observed, for example, increases in the frequency and intensity of heat waves and heavy precipitation events (see FAQ 3.3).

Scientists have studied this issue and come to the opposite conclusion: extreme events are becoming LESS common. Atlantic hurricanes were much more numerous from 1950 to 1975 than from 1975 to present. Hailstorms in the US are 35% less common than they were fifty years ago. Extreme rainfall in the US at the end of the 20th century is comparable to what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Roger Pielke, Jr, in the journal Climatic Change (1999) said “it is essentially impossible to attribute any particular weather event to global warming.”

So think about it, come on 😉

And I would ask you to do the same, don't trust in blind faith

What makes you think I am? I evaluate evidence as I see it, but the issue is that we only see media reports which are most emphatically not the whole story. The point is that you CAN'T come to any kind of meaningful conclusion by browsing a few graphs and reading some reports. You have to really make the effort to understand the science, which is what the scientists are doing.

Critical thinking is an excellent passtime, and one in which I engage regularly, but to think you can have a quick gander at some published evidence (or even a long one) and draw a conclusion anything like as useful as the countless experiments and computer models and the scientific leg-work done day in day out in universities the world over is a bit silly, isn't it?

Unless you are doing the science, or closely involved, you can't really disagree with the things that the scientist are saying, on the whole. There are certainly some things on which you can call them up though, of course - we are all human.

And Mol, let's take your analogy further with an emotive subject - eg, bankers.

Let's not. The two things are completely different. With the economy you've got a few people trying to figure out something that's practically un-knowable, and a great many people trying to f*ck it over to make cash in the shorter term. When you can make a huge profit from causing problems, and an even bigger one from gambling recklessly, is it any surprise that it went tits up?

Two totally different situations.

draw a conclusion anything like as useful as the countless experiments and computer models and the scientific leg-work done day in day out in universities the world over is a bit silly, isn't it?

My point exactly - which is why I felt annoyed that the media and mags like NS chose to present the Berkely Report findings in a misleading way to suit their own agenda. But this is of course, circular reasoning, because critical thinking allows you to understand that anyway.

Unless of course you accept Grum's hypothesis from the Europe thread that the vast majority of the population will swallow what the popular press and TV will feed them without question.

But Mol, your edit has ruined your argument. By saying:

and a great many people trying to f*ck it over to make cash in the shorter term. When you can make a huge profit from causing problems, and an even bigger one from gambling recklessly, is it any surprise that it went tits up?

...you are demonstrating exactly the same behaviour as you are objecting to above.

And I agree with you on that, however what about the little pixels at the peaks every 100,000 years. What happened then? Why did the temperatures decrease as dramatically as they increased? Those peaks occur over (very rough estimation) somewhere between 2000-5000 years. 200 years seems like a small period to measure ourselves agains

LHS - have you not heard of Milankovich Forcing...

A bloke told me once, if someone can't explain to you why we have different seasons on this planet then they have nothing to say worth listening to as regards climate research.

With the economy you've got a few people trying to figure out something that's practically un-knowable, and a great many people trying to f*ck it over to make cash in the shorter term. When you can make a huge profit from causing problems, and an even bigger one from gambling recklessly, is it any surprise that it went tits up?

Maybe not quite so different after all eh? 😉

But Mol, your edit has ruined your argument. By saying:

[quoted text]

...you are demonstrating exactly the same behaviour as you are objecting to above.

Quite right, good spot. However my point stands that they are very different situations. One science, one profiteering.

THM it is pretty pointless you taking little extracts from the IPCC report when their conclusion is pretty clear about what they think is the cause of the current warming and the role of man made C02 in it.
I assume you are not suggesting that they dont think the cause is AGW so why use selected extracts to "prove your point" or counter its own conclusions. If anything it supports the point they have considered everything. I sort of get your points but it is clutching at straws/unwise to use the IPCC to support your view.

Molgrips makes some good points hence why we get philosophical points then you using a report that concludes AGW is occurring as proof [ or to support if you prefer] it is not and other things are more/equally important.
Next week shall we try and cure cancer?

I should have realised you would have read it as well sorry 😳

LHS - have you not heard of Milankovich Forcing...

I have, yes.

What's your point?

I evaluate evidence as I see it

And to your point, there is no conclusive evidence available.

One science, one profiteering.

Which one's which? 😉