theweatheroutlook

Remove ads from site

Gandalf The White
30 March 2011 08:43:17


If 99.9%  Did you get that figure from reliable source?


not thatb wilki is overly reliable but here is a list of sceptic scientists...


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


But either way, since when did science become ruled by consensus? If 99.9% of scientists believed the world to be flat or the Earh is the centr of the universe, that would not make it right. So it is with the AGW THEORY.  There is some evidence that Man made Co2 is helping warm the earth above its norm (whatever that is), but equally there is evidence showing that Man made Co2 has little or no effect. The truth is, there is a great element of doubt and the whole thing has become an economic and political nightmare. Could you imagine if someone proved to the world that man made AGW did not exist?


There would be world wide chaos as people wonder why they are paying co2 taxes on this, that and everything! It is in no ones interest to have the AGW theory debunked, there simply is too much money at stake for goverments and companies!!


Originally Posted by: Robertski 


Well you cannot have it both ways, as you intimate.  Your two statements are incompatible - 'lots of scientists are sceptics' to suggest a lot of support for the sceptical position then you really cannot turn to the argument that consensus doesn't matter.


As you know a lot of those sceptics are not climate scientists.  Also as you know the impartiality of a number of them is tainted by association with the fossil fuel industry or their lobbyists.


Your flat earth analogy is correct but not in the way you have used it.  When first it was proposed that the earth was round that view was dismissed. It started as a tiny minority and grew as the evidence mounted and became conclusive.  At what point did the evidence become conclusive?  That is the issue with the AGW debate.  AGW started out as a proposal from a very few scientists - evidence has grown.  The only issue is whether that evidence is yet conclusive.


There is plenty of evidence that the Earth is warming in response to GHGs (not only CO2).  There is precious little evidence that it is not.


Your final comment is nonsense I'm afraid.  If CO2 was found not to be an issue we would still need taxes because fossil fuels are finite and we have to wean ourselves off them.


I find your use of the word 'debunked' offensive.  Go and look it up.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
30 March 2011 09:05:57

Who said this?



Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming


Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.





Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?


An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.


Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).


I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.


So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.


Here are the trends and significances for each period:
































PeriodLengthTrend
(Degrees C per decade)		Significance
1860-1880210.163Yes
1910-1940310.15Yes
1975-1998240.166Yes
1975-2009350.161Yes

North York Moors weather 
TomC
  • TomC
  • Advanced Member
30 March 2011 09:12:50


Who said this?



Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming


Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.





Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?


An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.


Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).


I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.


So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.


Here are the trends and significances for each period:
































PeriodLengthTrend
(Degrees C per decade)		Significance
1860-1880210.163Yes
1910-1940310.15Yes
1975-1998240.166Yes
1975-2009350.161Yes

Originally Posted by: four 



It was said nearly two years ago by Phil Jones, since then the waming sicne 1995 has become statistically significant you will see that the periods with statistically significant warming are all 20 years plus. I am not sure why 1975 to 1998 and 1995 to 2009 were separated out though. It is normal to use periods of 30 years or more for changes in climate as this way you minimise the impact of decadel  variability.

Marcus P
30 March 2011 18:08:56
"It was said nearly two years ago by Phil Jones, since then the waming sicne 1995 has become statistically significant you will see that the periods with statistically significant warming are all 20 years plus. I am not sure why 1975 to 1998 and 1995 to 2009 were separated out though. It is normal to use periods of 30 years or more for changes in climate as this way you minimise the impact of decadel variability." TomC

Yes, yes... but what about multi-decadal variability? GCMs don't like it do they? IPCC doesn't like it either, although even they don't say that the late 20th C warming is "incontrovertibly" due to mankind, as John Mason insists we should believe.
Gandalf The White
30 March 2011 18:48:27

Marcus, go and look at the global temperature trends for the last century or more. That deals adequately with your concern about multi decadal variability.

In addition as regards the UK it is very striking seeing the trend of the CET: there is most clearly and unargubly a distinct warming trend.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Marcus P
31 March 2011 20:24:28

Marcus, go and look at the global temperature trends for the last century or more. That deals adequately with your concern about multi decadal variability.

In addition as regards the UK it is very striking seeing the trend of the CET: there is most clearly and unargubly a distinct warming trend.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 



Of course there's a warming trend in global surface temperature! I have never said there isn't. The role of multi-decadal changes is generally excluded from being a factor because it cannot be easily be differentiated from any forcing terms. Multi-decadal changes are of a comparable time-scale to the total period of warming, and likely to be of greater magnitude than the slow-and-steady warming due to anthro-GHG. Warming feedbacks then have to be attributed between warming from forcing and warming from multi-decadal changes: hence the uncertainty in all this, which few express appropriately.
Gandalf The White
31 March 2011 23:31:40


Marcus, go and look at the global temperature trends for the last century or more. That deals adequately with your concern about multi decadal variability.

In addition as regards the UK it is very striking seeing the trend of the CET: there is most clearly and unargubly a distinct warming trend.


Originally Posted by: Marcus P 

Of course there's a warming trend in global surface temperature! I have never said there isn't. The role of multi-decadal changes is generally excluded from being a factor because it cannot be easily be differentiated from any forcing terms. Multi-decadal changes are of a comparable time-scale to the total period of warming, and likely to be of greater magnitude than the slow-and-steady warming due to anthro-GHG. Warming feedbacks then have to be attributed between warming from forcing and warming from multi-decadal changes: hence the uncertainty in all this, which few express appropriately.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


OK Marcus.  Maybe this is an issue of definition.


You said 'multi-decadal changes' and I assumed from that expression that your meaning was natural changes occurring over several decades.  On that basis I thought that the global trends over the last 100+ years addressed that point.


I think you need to demonstrate possible natural mechanisms for these 'mulit-decadal changes' - otherwise the door is open to pick any potentially random period of time and propose that there is some as yet unknown natural forcing at work.


As far as I am aware there is nothing known that might account for the warming trend over this extended period other than GHGs?


Of course the issue concerns the confidence level that may be attributed to GHGs as the agent. We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident, which given the complexities is a remarkably high number - and higher than their previous assessment.  I suspect the next one won't put it any lower.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


AIMSIR
01 April 2011 13:40:54


[quote=Marcus P;148267][quote=Gandalf The White;148002]


 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

For your information Gandalf.


A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.


This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"


Interesting times ahead, my friend.

TomC
  • TomC
  • Advanced Member
01 April 2011 14:19:37



[quote=Marcus P;148267][quote=Gandalf The White;148002]


 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

For your information Gandalf.


A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.


This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"


Interesting times ahead, my friend.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Well I know many perhaps most of the contributors to the physical science (working group 1) of the IPCC and this is just nonsense, none of them have.

Robertski
01 April 2011 14:21:55



[quote=Marcus P;148267][quote=Gandalf The White;148002]


 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

For your information Gandalf.


A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.


This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"


Interesting times ahead, my friend.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Watch the use of the word Debunk as GTW finds it offensive....


I thought this rather amusing...


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100030204/climategate-two-more-bricks-fall-out-of-the-ipcc-wall-of-deceit-rainforests-and-polar-bears/

AIMSIR
01 April 2011 14:22:54




[quote=Marcus P;148267][quote=Gandalf The White;148002]


 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,


Originally Posted by: TomC 

For your information Gandalf.


A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.


This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"


Interesting times ahead, my friend.


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 


Well I know many perhaps most of the contributors to the physical science (working group 1) of the IPCC and this is just nonsense, none of them have.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

I,ve just recieved an email from Mark Sereeze himself confirming this Tom .


Apparently the reason for JOE ******I'S departure from Accuweater was to facilitate the presentation of their views on a new site to be set up.

Gandalf The White
01 April 2011 14:28:51



[quote=Marcus P;148267][quote=Gandalf The White;148002]


 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

For your information Gandalf.


A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.


This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"


Interesting times ahead, my friend.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Fortunately I realised it was April Fool's Day AIMSIR, so had a good chuckle at your post.


That was very creative of you.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


AIMSIR
01 April 2011 14:31:38




[quote=Marcus P;148267][quote=Gandalf The White;148002]


 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

For your information Gandalf.


A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.


This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"


Interesting times ahead, my friend.


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 


Fortunately I realised it was April Fool's Day AIMSIR, so had a good chuckle at your post.


That was very creative of you.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Looks like my cover has been blown Gandalf.


AH well, It was a bit corny,but worth a try.


(Also, SORRY TOM)

Gandalf The White
01 April 2011 14:34:50




[quote=Marcus P;148267][quote=Gandalf The White;148002]


 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,


Originally Posted by: Robertski 

For your information Gandalf.


A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.


This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"


Interesting times ahead, my friend.


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 


Watch the use of the word Debunk as GTW finds it offensive....


I thought this rather amusing...


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100030204/climategate-two-more-bricks-fall-out-of-the-ipcc-wall-of-deceit-rainforests-and-polar-bears/


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


What a load of utter bo****cks.   More farcical ranting by someone with zero understanding of the science. 


You just need to read a little about what happens to rainforests in severe droughts, of which there have been two "once-in-a-century" events in the last five years, as I recall.  What do the models predict about rainfall in that region?


As for polar bears, he at least admits to the declining population but then has to resort to more ignorant nonsense to dismiss the issue.


Tiresome.


I think you have helped debunk another bunch of sceptic/denier nonsense, thanks.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


TomC
  • TomC
  • Advanced Member
01 April 2011 14:35:49





[quote=Marcus P;148267][quote=Gandalf The White;148002]


 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

For your information Gandalf.


A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.


This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"


Interesting times ahead, my friend.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Fortunately I realised it was April Fool's Day AIMSIR, so had a good chuckle at your post.


That was very creative of you.


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

Looks like my cover has been blown Gandalf.


AH well, It was a bit corny,but worth a try.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


You spelt Mark's name incorrectly, bit of a give away

Gandalf The White
01 April 2011 14:36:59





[quote=Marcus P;148267][quote=Gandalf The White;148002]


 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

For your information Gandalf.


A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.


This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"


Interesting times ahead, my friend.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Fortunately I realised it was April Fool's Day AIMSIR, so had a good chuckle at your post.


That was very creative of you.


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

Looks like my cover has been blown Gandalf.


AH well, It was a bit corny,but worth a try.


(Also, SORRY TOM)


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Also, and more tellingly, Robertski fell for it hook line and sinker.


What does that say about the desperation of the sceptic/denier fraternity?  So so anxious to bolster their untenable position...


Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


AIMSIR
01 April 2011 14:41:54






[quote=Marcus P;148267][quote=Gandalf The White;148002]


 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

For your information Gandalf.


A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.


This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"


Interesting times ahead, my friend.


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 


Fortunately I realised it was April Fool's Day AIMSIR, so had a good chuckle at your post.


That was very creative of you.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Looks like my cover has been blown Gandalf.


AH well, It was a bit corny,but worth a try.


(Also, SORRY TOM)


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 


Also, and more tellingly, Robertski fell for it hook line and sinker.


What does that say about the desperation of the sceptic/denier fraternity?  So so anxious to bolster their untenable position...



Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Oh come on lads.It's friday and April the first.


I didn't know I was going to start WW3.


 

Gandalf The White
01 April 2011 15:34:14


Oh come on lads.It's friday and April the first.


I didn't know I was going to start WW3.


 

Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 


 


LOL.


Hardly - I thought it was very amusing but I think my comment is valid.


As for WW3, I thought that started here some time back...?

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


AIMSIR
01 April 2011 15:54:09



Oh come on lads.It's friday and April the first.


I didn't know I was going to start WW3.


 

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


 


LOL.


Hardly - I thought it was very amusing but I think my comment is valid.


As for WW3, I thought that started here some time back...?


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

I do have an issue when it comes to confusing sceptics with deniers.(two completely separate spheres of thought).I think we might have had this out on here before.


As for your comment on WW3. I think I could agree.

four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
01 April 2011 17:10:41


 


As for polar bears, he at least admits to the declining population but then has to resort to more ignorant nonsense to dismiss the issue.


Tiresome.


I think you have helped debunk another bunch of sceptic/denier nonsense, thanks.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 



You didn't read to the end:


The bottom line is the actual statistics, conceded even by warmists: since 1970 the world’s polar bear population has “declined” from 5,000 to 25,000. Some of us would term that a quintupling, but obviously we do not share the same mathematical skills as those who predicted the imminent loss of the Himalayan glaciers.

North York Moors weather 
AIMSIR
01 April 2011 17:54:04



 


As for polar bears, he at least admits to the declining population but then has to resort to more ignorant nonsense to dismiss the issue.


Tiresome.


I think you have helped debunk another bunch of sceptic/denier nonsense, thanks.


Originally Posted by: four 



You didn't read to the end:


The bottom line is the actual statistics, conceded even by warmists: since 1970 the world’s polar bear population has “declined” from 5,000 to 25,000. Some of us would term that a quintupling, but obviously we do not share the same mathematical skills as those who predicted the imminent loss of the Himalayan glaciers.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Polar bear populations in general are increasing and have been doing so for a number of years.

Gandalf The White
01 April 2011 17:55:11



 


As for polar bears, he at least admits to the declining population but then has to resort to more ignorant nonsense to dismiss the issue.


Tiresome.


I think you have helped debunk another bunch of sceptic/denier nonsense, thanks.


Originally Posted by: four 



You didn't read to the end:


The bottom line is the actual statistics, conceded even by warmists: since 1970 the world’s polar bear population has “declined” from 5,000 to 25,000. Some of us would term that a quintupling, but obviously we do not share the same mathematical skills as those who predicted the imminent loss of the Himalayan glaciers.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 



Well that would be because it is wrong....


http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2008/03/10/scientist-on-western-hudson-bay-polar-bear-population-i-consider-myself-a-historian/


It was predictable Four, that you would fall for the sceptic propaganda line yet again.  It would help if you checked these things for yourself rather than jumping aboard a superficially promising opportunity to expose your sceptic views again.


I stick with my original judgement - he is talking rubbish from a convenient position of ignorance.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


AIMSIR
01 April 2011 18:10:39

Do sceptics use propaganda to forward their views?.
What do you think of the latest efforts/plans to COMMUNICATE an understanding of agw to the masses using a more correct form of media.??????

Essan
01 April 2011 18:15:53

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ....... problems with the Berkeley Group who are not, so far, reaching the conclusions they were meant to reach


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/mar/31/scienceofclimatechange-climate-change-scepticism


And Wattsy's response:


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf

Andy
Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl
Weather & Earth Science News 

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job - DNA
AIMSIR
01 April 2011 18:51:30


Meanwhile, back at the ranch ....... problems with the Berkeley Group who are not, so far, reaching the conclusions they were meant to reach


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/mar/31/scienceofclimatechange-climate-change-scepticism


And Wattsy's response:


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf


Originally Posted by: Essan 

Propaganda at it's best Essan.


Is your post Proxy PROPAGANDA?.

Remove ads from site

Ads