Man Based Global Warming....

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by F8L

Tim, I don't think you can treat a short period of temperature stagnation or even a slight reduction as falsifying argument. As you can clearly see from your graph the over trend for temperature is still upward. You know just as well as I do that other factors come into play and that CO2 is not the only contributing factor. I would not go so far as to state that CO2 is the main driver but it does not appear to be insignificant either. When adding heat to a system we know that the system will distribute that excess heat in many different ways. Thus rarely should we expect to find a nice smooth line of temperature gradation over a timeline spanning decades. Take ENSO events for example. When heat builds up in tropical waters this effects the frequency and intensity of ENSO events which work to redistribute the excess heat. These events can be measured worldwide so we should expect to find sudden spikes in some reason and dips in others while the system balances itself back out. So IMO counting 1-2years worth of temperature dips as proof that global warming is false or that CO2 is not a climate driver is no different than the global warming hysterics claiming a temperature spike is proof that CO2 IS a climate driver. Does that make sense? It's late and I'm sleepy so I apologize if I'm all over the place.

True the long term temperature trend is upward, but this was true before anthropogenic CO2 became significant (i.e., prior to 1940). So is the trend from the mid '80s onward CO2 driven, or simply a resumption / return of whatever caused earlier warming?

In any case, I agree that a temperature dip for a few years does not disprove AGW. However, one really has to reconsider the impact of CO2 when a 50 year span produces no net warming.

But the real climate "litmus test" is probably better assessed using ocean heat content. There is a nice discussion here, on Pielke's website:

"...Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis: When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.

Writing in 2005, Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al. suggested that GISS model projections had been verified by a solid decade of increasing ocean heat (1993 to 2003). This was regarded as further confirmation the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis. Their expectation was that the earth’s climate system would continue accumulating heat more or less monotonically. Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it.

It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate. One may argue that projections for global warming are measured in decades rather than months or years, so not enough time has elapsed to falsify this hypothesis. This would be true if it were not for the enormous deficit of heat we have observed. In other words, no matter how much time has elapsed, if a projection misses its target by such a large magnitude (6x to 8x), we can safely assume that it is either false or seriously flawed."

As Pielke notes here:

"Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should be approximately 5.88 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2008 than were present at the beginning of 2003.

For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 9.8 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next four years. This requires a heating rate over the next 4 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean of 2.45 * 10**22 Joules per year, which corresponds to a radiative imbalance of ~1.50 Watts per square meter.
This rate of heating would have to be about 2 1/2 times higher than the 0.60 Watts per meter squared that Jim Hansen reported for the period 1993 to 2003."

[Fibb222]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Well Fibber, you obviously know as little about polling and statistical sampling as you do climate science.

First, those polled would have to be randomly sampled, not self-selected, in order to represent the larger population of climate scientists. Secondly, to obtain an accurate sample (95% confidence with +/- 3% margin of error) for a population of say, 1000 climate scientists, you would need a sample size of 516 climatologists, not 77.

Dude, self-selection just might bias towards people who like to express themselves which could be in either camp.

More importantly, there is no way you need to poll more than 50 percent of a population to get an accurate result. Give us a break.

[Fibb222]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Ah, figures.

Anyway, it is about time to ask you again about what I "lied" about and where your evidence is to support your claim.

As you recall, my statements were roughly as follows (supported by previously provided graphical evidence):
- arctic sea ice extent has returned to about its 1979-2000 average
- antarctic sea ice extent is near an all time high
- sea surface temps have fallen since ~2002
- global temperatures have been flat to declining for most of this decade

All this has occurred despite a continued rapid rise in CO2.

So I am waiting for you to provide evidence that these are "lies" or ... retract your statement that I am a "liar". What do you say, Fibber?

Alright, you got me. I don't have a clue if you are technically right or wrong on this or that cherry picked measurement about climate. Unlike you, I never claimed to be a armchair climatologist.

My personal gauge is the real expert consensus, and for me that's the IPCC. But because the IPCC reports are somewhat dated and conservative, I have no problem supplementing them with news from major outlets like the CBC - which report on recently published studies from journals like Science and Nature.

So why do I say you are a liar?

Because, within every AGW thread that you have participated in, you've repeatedly demonstrated disdain for the big-picture conclusions of the climatologist community.

You discount clear evidence that GW is happening now and you try to spread doubt about the seriousness of the damage it will cause in the future.

That is total dishonesty at the core - completely shameful and irresponsible.

This is not a simple intellectual debate with no serious consequences for the future. This is not just an academic exercise for your entertainment.

100s of millions of real people are going to suffer needlessly unless we take bold steps and yet you think it's more important to win this little game of distract and deny.

Grow a conscience and stop trying to manipulate selective bits of data to suite your big picture agenda of dishonesty and irresponsibility.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

Dude, self-selection just might bias towards people who like to express themselves which could be in either camp.

More importantly, there is no way you need to poll more than 50 percent of a population to get an accurate result. Give us a break.

Regarding your first point - of course self selection could work either way. The point is, the researcher does not know which way it is going to go or to what degree. That is why they use random sampling.

On your second point, I suppose I am lying about n=516, right? Of course, I just pulled the # out of my a$$, right? You need 516 to represent a sample of 1,000 at 95% confidence with a margin of error of +/- 3%. This does not mean you need to sample 516,000 to represent a population of 1 million. It doesn't work that way Fibber. See the sample size calculator here if you don't believe me.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

Alright, you got me. I don't have a clue .....

....stop trying to manipulate selective bits of data to suite your big picture agenda of dishonesty and irresponsibility.

Fibber - you are certainly right on point one above.

On point two, should science simply ignore the fact that the climate system - in contradiction to AGW models - is no longer accumulating heat? As the ocean heat content calculations demonstrate, "It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate."

Don't you think it is important for science to understand this, even if it doesn't fit neatly into the AGW narrative?

[ufourya]

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohioshort.pdf

This is 45 pages long. (1 mb in this format) It is an explication of the history of what happened when someone completely outside climate science decided to look at the famous Mann et. al. 'hockey stick' used to jump start the whole global warming 'debate'.

The scientists (who claim to have superior knowledge in their area of expertise) come off looking rather petty, vindictive, uncooperative, well, generally unscientific.

It is no accident that the statistician with that initial curiosity authors one of the best science blogs on the internet ( climateaudit.org )and quite regularly embarrasses the so-called experts at realclimate.org.

If you are not frightened of a truthful look at what transpired(s), have a gander.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by ufourya

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohioshort.pdf

This is 45 pages long. (1 mb in this format) It is an explication of the history of what happened when someone completely outside climate science decided to look at the famous Mann et. al. 'hockey stick' used to jump start the whole global warming 'debate'.

The scientists (who claim to have superior knowledge in their area of expertise) come off looking rather petty, vindictive, uncooperative, well, generally unscientific.

It is no accident that the statistician with that initial curiosity authors one of the best science blogs on the internet ( climateaudit.org )and quite regularly embarrasses the so-called experts at realclimate.org.

If you are not frightened of a truthful look at what transpired(s), have a gander.

Here is the short version from MIT Technology Review.

[Fibb222]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Regarding your first point - of course self selection could work either way. The point is, the researcher does not know which way it is going to go or to what degree. That is why they use random sampling.

On your second point, I suppose I am lying about n=516, right? Of course, I just pulled the # out of my a$$, right? You need 516 to represent a sample of 1,000 at 95% confidence with a margin of error of +/- 3%. This does not mean you need to sample 516,000 to represent a population of 1 million. It doesn't work that way Fibber. See the sample size calculator here if you don't believe me.

Nice calculator. Makes sense that you would need a bigger % to be accurate at smaller pop levels.

It also shows that to accurately sample a population of 10,200 you need only 966 respondents. Well since the authors got 3146 respondents, they did pretty well then. A good poll.

*The authors contacted 10,200 scientists listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments and received 3,146 responses to their two questions: "have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?" and "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

[Fibb222]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Fibber - you are certainly right on point one above.

On point two, should science simply ignore the fact that the climate system - in contradiction to AGW models - is no longer accumulating heat? As the ocean heat content calculations demonstrate, "It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate."

Don't you think it is important for science to understand this, even if it doesn't fit neatly into the AGW narrative?

Well it's just a matter of a few days before we see the IPCC climatologists on mass say that they were wrong. Thank goodness. I hope you get a nobel prize for your work on pointing out where they missed all this data.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

Nice calculator. Makes sense that you would need a bigger % to be accurate at smaller pop levels.

It also shows that to accurately sample a population of 10,200 you need only 966 respondents. Well since the authors got 3146 respondents, they did pretty well then. A good poll.

Well, again it depends. If you want a random sample, an opt in poll is really not going to give it to you. Also, even if it was a random sample, you just have to be clear about what that sample represents. In this instance, I believe it was submitted to members of a scientific society. So the poll is not really representative of climatologists at large, but rather members of the scientific society.

In any case, as I mentioned previously and as you well know, the veracity of AGW will not be determined by a poll. But I don't doubt that a majority of climate scientists believe CO2 will have an effect on climate (as do I). The heart of the matter to me is will that effect be minimal or catastrophic. Based on the evidence, I judge it will be the former. But am open to evidence, beyond inadequate models, that would demonstrate it is the latter.