I don’t have much time for a detailed post, a number of people want to discuss sea ice, so here is your chance. We also need to update the ARCUS forecast for August, due Monday August 6th. Poll follows:
Earth to Phil.:
You can very easily falsify the null hypothesis, as I have explained to you repeatedly. You just will not listen. Fine. Ignorance is bliss. The null hypothesis can be falsified by simply showing that the global temperature has accelerated above its long term parameters, in line with rising CO2.
But since the global temperature has not accelerated, you claim that the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Listen to someone who knows a lot more than you do: No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.
~ Climatologist Roy Spencer
Kevin Trenberth knows about the null hypothesis, too. And he doesn’t like the fact that it falsifies the CO2=CAGW conjecture.
You really need to start thinking about your crazy comments, because just saying something does not make it true. You are winging it. Instead, admit what the evidence clearly shows: the global temperature is not accelerating. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis of CO2=CAGW is deconstructed. It was always complete nonsense anyway. Only the scientifically illiterate believe in it.
Mods, my response to this post hasn’t shown up, any chance you could find it, thanks?
[Rescued & posted. ~dbs, mod.]
Pamela Gray
August 10, 2012 2:38 pm
Let’s go the warmers’ camp and have a look. Their conclusion is that everything is just as predicted. Except the travesty part. Remember that Trenbreth laments the fact that he can’t find the heat that should be there in the temperature trend, sea level trend, etc, this past decade. And let’s not forget the unresolved issue of homogenized data in the temperature record. But even the now obvious attempt to warm the data does not make it match the model averages. Maybe their models got hacked too. /sarc http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
dave
August 10, 2012 3:08 pm
Smokey, I will ask you one more time, please point to published papers that support your point that there is no way that CO2 from human activities leads to increases on atmospheric CO2, and that there is no way that increases in atmospheric CO2 lead to warming in the atmosphere.
dave, I will tell you one more time: your Appeal to Authority fallacy is worthless when compared with real world data. The planet is falsifying the entire CAGW conjecture.
As for ‘published papers’, two things. First, scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] have nothing to prove. It is entirely sufficient for skeptics to demonstrate conclusively that the only measurable evidence shows that CO2 changes lag temperature changes. You cannot accept what that means, but that is your problem, not the problem of skeptics. It is not our fault that you cannot understand the implications of the null hypothesis.
And second: the climate pal-review process has been thoroughly corrupted by ever present and growing government money. What, you think someone is going to get a grant if they tell the truth, and say that nothing unusual is happening?? If so, you don’t understand human nature. Money doesn’t talk, it screams.
Despite your misleading comment, I have been entirely consistent in saying that I think CO2 causes some warming. But it is clearly far smaller than predicted. This is provable: there are no empirical measurements that show X amount of temperature rise per Y amount of human emitted CO2. That is all conjecture, lacking any empirical data.
Finally, I suggest you click on A.W. Montford’s book on the right sidebar: The Hockey Stick Illusion. Read it. It is heavily annotated and footnoted. It shows without any doubt how very corrupt the climate peer review/journal system is. Honesty is not in them. You can probably find a used copy online for a few dollars.
For a taste of Montford’s writing, here is a short example: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
tjfolkerts
August 10, 2012 9:22 pm
Smokey,
Could you please put your claims into a mathematical, numerical form? Then we could know precisely what you mean. For example: “But since the global temperature has not accelerated”, but I have explained to you repeatedly using math that it IS accelerating. What numbers would you give for the equation of the fit for (any commonly recognized) temperature as a function of time (over any period going back at least 30 years from the present), and what is the value of the “acceleration” term? Can you show that it is not statistically different from zero, as you are specifically claiming? “You can very easily falsify the null hypothesis” [that everything is within “natural variability”]. OK … could you state your null hypothesis in mathematical terms? Not “natural variability”, but a quantifiable expression for some particular parameter(s) that would have to be exceeded to nullify your null hypothesis. After all, to “easily falsify” a null hypothesis, we need to know exactly what circumstances you believe would lead to a falsification.
Rob Dekker
August 11, 2012 2:45 am
I owe Bill Illis an overview of NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent (which is also interesting for the Arcus forecast).
2012, 08, 04, 6.06299,
2012, 08, 05, 5.87559,
2012, 08, 06, 5.81533,
2012, 08, 07, 5.67377,
2012, 08, 08, 5.47461,
2012, 08, 09, 5.23462,
828k km^2 over 5 days, 165k km^2/day average, with a whopping 249k km^2 in the last day.
2012 is now cruising well below the curve of the previous record 2007, and has already now surpassed the first 4 catagories in the WUWT Arcus forecast for the September minimum (a total of 122 votes, or 15% of the votes).
Let’s check again in a couple of days.
Rob Dekker,
What is your point? Do you actually believe that CO2 congregates in the Arctic, causing ice melt? That is crazy. The Arctic is going through one of its routine melt cycles. This happens regularly, and it is due to factors like wind and ocean currents. Running around in circles and waving your arms over a completely natural occurrance is irrational.
.
tjfolkerts says:
“Could you please put your claims into a mathematical, numerical form?”
I prefer the use of charts and graphs, because mathematics make most readers’ eyes glaze over. Visual aids tell the story at a glance: nothing unprecedented or unusual is happening. Everything observed now has happened countless times before CO2 began to rise, and to a much greater degree. Therefore, more CO2 has had no measurable consequence.
My links show conclusively that there has been no acceleration of warming, or of sea level rise, etc. Following a 40% rise in CO2, there certainly should be ample verifiable evidence of accelerating warming, but there is no such evidence. None.
tjfolkerts then asks about the null hypothesis, which he does not understand. The definition of the null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. Understanding that concept takes some thought. I will let tjfolkerts try to work out what it means. But Kevin Trenberth understands what it means, and he doesn’t like the implications. Trenberth writes: The null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.
Trenberth wants to turn the scientific method upside down, and put the onus on scientific skeptics to, in effect, prove a negative. That is because Trenberth cannot get around the fact that the null hypothesis has never been falsified. That means the alternative conjecture of CO2=CAGW is deconstructed, because they cannot both be correct. The large increase in CO2 certainly should have caused a rapid acceleration of global temperatures – IF CO2 had the claimed effect. But based on real world observations, CO2’s effect on temperature is so minuscule that it does not even show up in temperature measurements.
At some point most folks who study the situation conclude that the CO2 scare has been wildly exaggerated. The fact is that CO2 is completely harmless [if not, show the harm], and is entirely beneficial to the biosphere. Only those with a religious belief in the non-existent “carbon” threat believe otherwise. But they have no testable, empirical evidence supporting their false beliefs. Whatever they believe, it is not based on science or the scientific method.
CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better. That is reality.
Kelvin Vaughn,
It is interesting that real world observations contradict the NSIDC’s numbers.
Who to believe? Planet Earth, or humans who get paid to exaggerate?
tjfolkerts:
It seems to be a false meme of warmers that global warming has accelerated recently. For example, you say to Smokey at August 10, 2012 at 9:22 pm;
Could you please put your claims into a mathematical, numerical form? Then we could know precisely what you mean. For example:
“But since the global temperature has not accelerated”, but I have explained to you repeatedly using math that it IS accelerating. What numbers would you give for the equation of the fit for (any commonly recognized) temperature as a function of time (over any period going back at least 30 years from the present), and what is the value of the “acceleration” term? Can you show that it is not statistically different from zero, as you are specifically claiming?
This meme that global temperature has recently accelerated seems to be a use of the Big Lie propaganda technique (i.e. proclaim an untruth often in hope that people will come to believe it). For example, Jan P Perlwitz tried to make the same silly claim recently in the thread at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/
I then pointed out that “there has been no statistically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years”. And I pointed out that “a cessation of global warming cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming”.
I also pointed out that there were two periods of warming in the global temperature data sets; i.e. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000. These two periods show the same rate of global temperature rise. So, even if one selects the trends in recent periods of global warming then there is no observed “acceleration” of their warming trends. And I added that more than 80% of anthropogenic GHG emissions were after 1940.
This resulted in Perlwitz providing a ‘master class’ in obscurantism, but I refused to be overcome by repeated torrents of b**l s**t.
Eventually, he admitted that there has been no statically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years. Of course, there was such a statistically discernible rise in the previous 15 years. So, the statistically significant global warming for the 15 year period prior to 15 years ago stopped 15 years ago. This cannot be equated with an acceleration of global warming. Indeed, it denies such acceleration.
I now await your attempt at obscurantism. Please feel free to read the link I have provided so you can see how I dealt with Perlwitz’s attempt at it. And, to save you time, please don’t claim that 15 years is not sufficient time to discern a statistically significant rise: the fact is that the period from 30 to 15 years ago did show such a statistically significant rise.
Richard
Smokey:
In your post at August 11, 2012 at 5:35 am you addressed the issue of the Null Hypothesis and Trenbeth’s attempt to reverse it. I recently addressed that same subject in another thread at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/video-john-christys-stellar-testimony-today-the-recent-anomalous-weather-cant-be-blamed-on-carbon-dioxide/
To save you and others finding that comment I copy it here.
Richard
________________________
richardscourtney says:
August 6, 2012 at 2:36 am
macnmat:
Dr Christy was presenting scientific information.
Your post at August 5, 2012 at 10:45 am goes to the heart of a difference between science and the Precautionary Principle. It says;
Dr. John Christy:
“Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.”
* * *
If we all just say “we do not know” . . .
A starting point on the end. . .
In nature, everything has happened in the past, do not hesitate, but not always for the same reasons.
The Null Hypothesis is a basic principle of science. It says that
It must be assumed that a change has not happened unless there is evidence that a change has happened.
In the case of climate behaviour, the Null Hypothesis decrees that the cause of an observed climate change is the same as the cause of similar previous climate changes unless there is evidence to the contrary. Dr Christy was pointing out the scientific conclusion that the Null Hypothesis decrees that – at present – there is no evidence that climate behaviour has changed since the industrial revolution: this is because there is no observed climate behaviour since the industrial revolution which did not happen before the industrial revolution.
This conclusion is the only valid scientific conclusion concerning the cause(s) of recent climate changes. And the fact that this is the only valid scientific conclusion on the matter is why Trenberth infamously attempted to reverse the Null Hypothesis as it applies to climate change.
The conclusion informs that we need research intended to determine the cause(s) of climate change because, as Dr Christy says,
“Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.”
The Precautionary Principle says the industrial revolution may have changed climate behaviour so we need to reverse the industrial revolution in case it has. This is the antithesis of science.
Science has given us many benefits. The Precautionary Principle has yet to provide any benefits.
Richard
tjfolkerts
August 11, 2012 10:15 am
Richard,
Thanks for engaging in a discussion of data and numbers. You said: “I then pointed out that “there has been no statistically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years”. And I pointed out that “a cessation of global warming cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming”.
The trends obviously depend on the time-frame you are looking at.
* for 1-10 year time-frames it is easy to find positive, negative, or flat slopes, as well as positive, negative or zero acceleration in the temperature record (or just about any other climate variable). The recent slope has been close to zero for global temperature (and can easily be positive, negative or zero depending on exactly what interval you select) . This also implies the calculated acceleration can also positive, negative, or zero. One of Smokey’s graphs showed a pretty clear negative acceleration in recent temperature (2003-2009 IIRC). But these trends are often not statistically significant, due to large pseudo-random fluctuations and small amounts of data.
* for 10-50 year time-frames, the short-term fluctuations become less and less important. One these scales the trend is almost always positive for the slope. And the slope tends to be getting higher — the very definition of “positive acceleration”.
* 50+ year time-frames reduce random fluctuations even more, but there is rarely consistent data covering more than 1 or 2 50-year time-spans.
There are two other challenges
1) is that is is hard to be patient enough to wait for 50 years to be sure of the true trends. It is easy for people on either side to watch some short-term data (eg the huge lose of ice in 2007, or the relatively flat temperatures since the 1998 El Nino spike) and think that this is the “new normal” when in fact it could easily be an outlier.
2) there is no easy way to distinguish what specifically is causing the trends. We only have “one experiment” and we don’t get to reset it or to control the various “knobs” (CO2, earth’s orbit, solar output …) independently. That means we are stuck using theory and historical data to try to “hindcast” past climate and to use that knowledge to try to predict the future.
tjfolkerts
August 11, 2012 10:22 am
Richard says: “It [hypothesis testing] says that It must be assumed that a change has not happened unless there is evidence that a change has happened.”
You (and Smokey) are both making a fundamental misinterpretation here.
It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, the experiment fails to reject the null hypothesis).
Wikipedia
(I would find more references, but I am suddenly short on time.)
The point is that when the null hypothesis is not rejected, we can’t assume that the null hypothesis is correct. (Much like the difference between “not guilty” and “innocent”. Many people found “not guilty” by the evidence, but who are, in fact, not innocent. )
It almost seems like tjfolkerts is seeing the light. However, being a student of human nature, I predict he will revert to his contrary belief system
As folkerts admits, the only trend that matters is the long term trend, which is clearly not accelerating. Short term temperatures have not increased in that time, much less accelerated.
Looking at the long term trend [the longest data base that the Wood For Trees site has], we see that the long term temperature trend [ the green line] is gradually coming down from prior levels. No acceleration observed.
Furthermore, the past decade, and the past two years, also show declining temperatures.
Thus, the conjecture claiming that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate disrruption is shown to be the nonsense that it is. When a conjecture like CO2=CAGW is so thoroughly falsified in so many ways, honest scientists will reset, and think about why they were so wrong. Only in climate pseudo-science does one side dig in their heels, and refuse to admit what everyone else knows: their CO2 conjecture is pure, unadulterated bunkum.
tjfolkerts says:
“the null hypothesis can never be proven.”
Well, true. No hypothesis can be proven. [The exception being in mathematics.]
But a hypothesis or conjecture can be disproven, just as the CO2=CAGW conjecture has been disproven. And that is the whole point of the null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis or conjecture: the one that is disproven is rejected. CO2=CAGW is disproven, and therefore must be rejected. The null hypothesis remains unfalsified.
dave
August 11, 2012 10:59 am
Bottom line, Smokey cannot point to a single publication to support his climate views. That leads me to conclude that he has a very limited education on climate issues, but instead regurgitates what he reads on skeptic blogs.
tjfolkerts
August 11, 2012 11:08 am
I seem to have forgotten to specifically say it in my 10:15 AM post, but the “acceleration” term would indeed be negative for a 20 year temperature trend .. maybe even a 30 year trend (I would have to crunch the numbers,) But for the 100+ year trends in the graphs that Smokey has posted, the overall acceleration is still positive and statistically significant.
So this could mean:
1) there has been a recent switch (say in the last 10 year) in the long-term acceleration, but there simply isn’t enough data to be sure.
or
2) this is a temporary fluctuation, but the long-term acceleration will continue, and we will have to wait for more data to show the original trend is indeed continuing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, no acceleration can continue forever for temperatures — that would lead to temperatures getting wildly hot or cold in a few centuries. So at some time the acceleration of the last ~ 150 years must stop. Perhaps that was 10 years ago already.
So the null hypothesis that “there has been no acceleration in warming over the last 150 years” has been show to be false (p<<0.05 for the quadratic term in the fit), and the acceleration is confirmed. The NEW null hypothesis would be "the observed conditions (of positive acceleration) continue". Countering this hypothesis would require applying a statistical tests to see if the acceleration for the last "x" years is different from the acceleration for the previous 150 years. We cannot refute the continued acceleration until a statistical test is failed. Heck .. maybe it has failed already! Do you want to give us some numbers, Smokey, for the p values of some statistical test you conduct?
dave
August 11, 2012 11:18 am
It’s not unexpected that the temperatures cool for a decade or even longer even as CO2 increases. That is because natural climate variability and CO2 warming are both happening at the same time. Sometimes they are in phase with each other, sometimes they oppose each other. Pamela, the IPCC models also show time-periods of cooling along the overall positive trend. It’s the long-term trend that is of interest, not short time-periods where natural climate variability dominates.
Note the same is true for the sea ice cover. Even when models show all the ice gone in summer, they may still show periods of recovery.
‘dave‘ is a textbook example of psychological projection: imputing his own faults onto others. Aside from his endless appeals to authority [ie: regurgitating talking points], he appears to be an uneducated noob. I have closely followed this forum since it began, posting more than sixteen thousand comments in the process. I know the argumets backward and forward. ‘dave’ has been posting for a couple of days. Clearly he is far from being up to speed on the subject.
. tjfolkerts says: “So the null hypothesis that ‘there has been no acceleration in warming over the last 150 years’ has been show (sic) to be false…”
That is not the null hypothesis, it is only a corollary. And it is astonishing that tjfolkerts is able to look at a graph of the long term temperature trend – and see something that is just not there. There has been no acceleration of warming, much as folkerts wishes there was. We have seen it all before, during times when CO2 was ≈280 ppmv. CO2 has now risen to ≈393 ppmv – and the trend from the LIA remains the same. No more, no less. Thus, CO2 has had no measurable effect.
It must be wonderful living in a bubble, insulated from reality. The rest of us see the CAGW scam for what it is: a deliberate scare tactic, based on debunked pseudo-science, used to accumulate money and political power. That is why its promoters hide out from any debate, and never practice scientific transparency.
tjfolkerts:
Thankyou for your post at August 11, 2012 at 10:15 am in reply to me. I especially appreciate the tenor of your reply. If you did read the “discussion” I had with Perlwitz then you will understand why my post to you erred on the side of petulance, and I apologise for that.
We learn from disagreement with each other but suffer from being disagreeable with each other.
To begin, I stand by what I wrote concerning the Null Hypothesis. I have written much that is similar on previous WUWT threads. Our disagreement is that you say;
The point is that when the null hypothesis is not rejected, we can’t assume that the null hypothesis is correct.
Sorry, but No! It is a scientific principle that when the null hypothesis is not rejected, then it must be assumed the null hypothesis is correct whilst remembering that this is an assumption.
Anything else is not science. And the knowledge that this is an assumption is a spur to further research to determine whether or not the assumption is correct.
Indeed, this spur to further research is why Trenberth’s attempt to reverse the Null Hypothesis caused such anger: he was attempting to inhibit the most needed research in climate science.
Having said that, and assuming you are not offended, I do not intend to debate that matter here because I think the issue of ‘accelerating global warming’ is both more important and more pertinent to existing discussions of climate change e.g. across the web.
I strongly agree with you when you say:
The trends obviously depend on the time-frame you are looking at.
Indeed, this was one of my major disagreements with Perlwitz. He refused to agree that in the global temperature time series (i.e. ice-core, surface ‘measured’, MSU determined, etc.) the observed trend – positive or negative – depends on the selected time period. But, as you and I both say, it does.
And you say;
for 10-50 year time-frames, the short-term fluctuations become less and less important. One these scales the trend is almost always positive for the slope. And the slope tends to be getting higher — the very definition of “positive acceleration”.
This quote is two statements. And I address them in turn.
The first statement is that “for 10-50 year time-frames, the short-term fluctuations become less and less important”. However, this demands an answer to the question ‘important for what?’.
In this case, we are considering if the data indicate that the rate of rise to mean global temperature is increasing (e.g. in response to anthropogenic GHG emissions) . And, as I said, more than 80% of those GHG emissions have been after 1940. If the putative acceleration in global warming is happening then decadal trends should be becoming progressively larger since 1940. They are not.
Indeed, as I said, the data indicate two periods of global warming since the nineteenth century (i.e. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000). And, as I also said, these two periods of global warming show the same trend. This indicates no acceleration to the warming.
Furthermore, if global warming is accelerating (e.g. in response to the anthropogenic emissions) then the greatest warming should have been recently. But there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years and there was statistically significant global warming in each of the two previous 15-year periods. This indicates a deceleration (n.b. not an acceleration) to the warming.
The second of your statements says;
“One these scales the trend is almost always positive for the slope. And the slope tends to be getting higher — the very definition of “positive acceleration”.”
No! Absolutely not!
That “the trend is almost always positive for the slope” merely indicates that there was net warming for the period, and that is not in dispute.
And the slope does not “tend to be getting higher”. I repeat, in the two periods of warming since the nineteenth century the slope was the same, and the slope has reduced to be indistinguishable from zero in the most recent 15 years. These facts do not indicate an acceleration of the warming, and they imply a recent deceleration of the warming.
With respect, your other two points are irrelevant. What happens over the next 50 years is not pertinent to whether global warming is accelerating now or has accelerated recently.
However, I agree with you when you say
there is no easy way to distinguish what specifically is causing the trends.
Indeed, as I say above in this post, this is why Trenberth’s attempt to reverse the Null Hypothesis was so very, very wrong.
In conclusion, I again thank you for a sensible debate of these issues. I enjoy sensible debates and I needed a bath after each interaction with Perlwitz on the matter.
Richard
dave
August 11, 2012 11:44 am
Smokey, why are you unable to to point to publications, or perform a simple statistical test such as tjfolkerts suggests?
btw, just because you have posted numerous comments over the years does not mean that you are in any way educated on the subject. I have gone back to see some of your comments and your talking points have remained exactly the same. I told you before, I am willing to read any scientific papers that support your view because I do believe in being educated on both sides of the issue.
richardscourtney says:
“Indeed, as I said, the data indicate two periods of global warming since the nineteenth century (i.e. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000). And, as I also said, these two periods of global warming show the same trend. This indicates no acceleration to the warming.”
Exactly. This chart shows those warming trends. Their slopes are identical.
.
dave, be careful what you ask for. I can post plenty of sources. Here you go. You say you are willing to read “any” scientific papers. There are more than two hundred papers right there. Better get cracking. When you’re done, let me know; I have plenty more.
D. J. Hawkins
August 11, 2012 2:28 pm
tjfolkerts says:
August 11, 2012 at 11:08 am
Do you understand the difference between acceleration and velocity? Let’s try an analogy.
If I stand still, my displacement as a function of time (velocity), or position (temperature?) anomoly is zero. A plot of my position in one dimension vs time will be a horizontal line, if we take position as the y-axis and time as the x-axis. Now I start walking, each step the same distance in time and space. I have constant velocity, and a plot of my position in one dimension vs time will be a straight line of constant slope “m” (steadily rising temperature anomoly). Now I start to alter the tempo of my stride, decreasing the time between each step at a constant rate. I am accelerating and the rate at which I change my velocity is constant, but my displacement is increasing in a non-linear fashion at some power greater than 1. For this case, each year of the temperature anomoly would have to show a larger interval than the previous year. The plot now shows a distinct upward curve.
At zero velocity, every year shows the same temperature anomoly. Say, the current value 0.37 shown on the Climate Widget on the right hand side of this page. It’s 0.37 this year, next year, forever and ever, amen.
If CO2 causes the global temperature to rise in proportion to its concentration then all other things being equal (which we know they aren’t, but work with me here), for a constant rise in CO2 we’ll see a constant rise in temperature anomoly: 0.37 this year, 0.375 next year, 0.380, 0.385, 0.390, 0.395 and so on, each year being .005 warmer than the last until you reach some limiting case, whatever it may be.
However, if you’re correct and a steady increase in CO2 leads to accelerated warming, then this year is 0.370, next year is 0.375, then 0.381, 0.388, 0.396, 0.405, and so on, each year being .005 than the last, and an additional .001 added cumulatively each year due to acceleration.
So, is the final case behavior what you intended to claim?
Earth to Phil.:
You can very easily falsify the null hypothesis, as I have explained to you repeatedly. You just will not listen. Fine. Ignorance is bliss. The null hypothesis can be falsified by simply showing that the global temperature has accelerated above its long term parameters, in line with rising CO2.
But since the global temperature has not accelerated, you claim that the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Listen to someone who knows a lot more than you do: No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.
~ Climatologist Roy Spencer
Kevin Trenberth knows about the null hypothesis, too. And he doesn’t like the fact that it falsifies the CO2=CAGW conjecture.
You really need to start thinking about your crazy comments, because just saying something does not make it true. You are winging it. Instead, admit what the evidence clearly shows: the global temperature is not accelerating. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis of CO2=CAGW is deconstructed. It was always complete nonsense anyway. Only the scientifically illiterate believe in it.
Mods, my response to this post hasn’t shown up, any chance you could find it, thanks?
[Rescued & posted. ~dbs, mod.]
Let’s go the warmers’ camp and have a look. Their conclusion is that everything is just as predicted. Except the travesty part. Remember that Trenbreth laments the fact that he can’t find the heat that should be there in the temperature trend, sea level trend, etc, this past decade. And let’s not forget the unresolved issue of homogenized data in the temperature record. But even the now obvious attempt to warm the data does not make it match the model averages. Maybe their models got hacked too. /sarc
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Smokey, I will ask you one more time, please point to published papers that support your point that there is no way that CO2 from human activities leads to increases on atmospheric CO2, and that there is no way that increases in atmospheric CO2 lead to warming in the atmosphere.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ModelTraces.png
Spaghetti version of IPCC model runs overlayed with NOAA data in the lower left corner. The sinking gray data matches the sinking feeling Trenbreth is likely feeling.
dave, I will tell you one more time: your Appeal to Authority fallacy is worthless when compared with real world data. The planet is falsifying the entire CAGW conjecture.
As for ‘published papers’, two things. First, scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] have nothing to prove. It is entirely sufficient for skeptics to demonstrate conclusively that the only measurable evidence shows that CO2 changes lag temperature changes. You cannot accept what that means, but that is your problem, not the problem of skeptics. It is not our fault that you cannot understand the implications of the null hypothesis.
And second: the climate pal-review process has been thoroughly corrupted by ever present and growing government money. What, you think someone is going to get a grant if they tell the truth, and say that nothing unusual is happening?? If so, you don’t understand human nature. Money doesn’t talk, it screams.
Despite your misleading comment, I have been entirely consistent in saying that I think CO2 causes some warming. But it is clearly far smaller than predicted. This is provable: there are no empirical measurements that show X amount of temperature rise per Y amount of human emitted CO2. That is all conjecture, lacking any empirical data.
Finally, I suggest you click on A.W. Montford’s book on the right sidebar: The Hockey Stick Illusion. Read it. It is heavily annotated and footnoted. It shows without any doubt how very corrupt the climate peer review/journal system is. Honesty is not in them. You can probably find a used copy online for a few dollars.
For a taste of Montford’s writing, here is a short example:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
Smokey,
Could you please put your claims into a mathematical, numerical form? Then we could know precisely what you mean. For example:
“But since the global temperature has not accelerated”, but I have explained to you repeatedly using math that it IS accelerating. What numbers would you give for the equation of the fit for (any commonly recognized) temperature as a function of time (over any period going back at least 30 years from the present), and what is the value of the “acceleration” term? Can you show that it is not statistically different from zero, as you are specifically claiming?
“You can very easily falsify the null hypothesis” [that everything is within “natural variability”]. OK … could you state your null hypothesis in mathematical terms? Not “natural variability”, but a quantifiable expression for some particular parameter(s) that would have to be exceeded to nullify your null hypothesis. After all, to “easily falsify” a null hypothesis, we need to know exactly what circumstances you believe would lead to a falsification.
I owe Bill Illis an overview of NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent (which is also interesting for the Arcus forecast).
2012, 08, 04, 6.06299,
2012, 08, 05, 5.87559,
2012, 08, 06, 5.81533,
2012, 08, 07, 5.67377,
2012, 08, 08, 5.47461,
2012, 08, 09, 5.23462,
828k km^2 over 5 days, 165k km^2/day average, with a whopping 249k km^2 in the last day.
2012 is now cruising well below the curve of the previous record 2007, and has already now surpassed the first 4 catagories in the WUWT Arcus forecast for the September minimum (a total of 122 votes, or 15% of the votes).
Let’s check again in a couple of days.
Rob Dekker,
What is your point? Do you actually believe that CO2 congregates in the Arctic, causing ice melt? That is crazy. The Arctic is going through one of its routine melt cycles. This happens regularly, and it is due to factors like wind and ocean currents. Running around in circles and waving your arms over a completely natural occurrance is irrational.
.
tjfolkerts says:
“Could you please put your claims into a mathematical, numerical form?”
I prefer the use of charts and graphs, because mathematics make most readers’ eyes glaze over. Visual aids tell the story at a glance: nothing unprecedented or unusual is happening. Everything observed now has happened countless times before CO2 began to rise, and to a much greater degree. Therefore, more CO2 has had no measurable consequence.
My links show conclusively that there has been no acceleration of warming, or of sea level rise, etc. Following a 40% rise in CO2, there certainly should be ample verifiable evidence of accelerating warming, but there is no such evidence. None.
tjfolkerts then asks about the null hypothesis, which he does not understand. The definition of the null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. Understanding that concept takes some thought. I will let tjfolkerts try to work out what it means. But Kevin Trenberth understands what it means, and he doesn’t like the implications. Trenberth writes: The null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.
Trenberth wants to turn the scientific method upside down, and put the onus on scientific skeptics to, in effect, prove a negative. That is because Trenberth cannot get around the fact that the null hypothesis has never been falsified. That means the alternative conjecture of CO2=CAGW is deconstructed, because they cannot both be correct. The large increase in CO2 certainly should have caused a rapid acceleration of global temperatures – IF CO2 had the claimed effect. But based on real world observations, CO2’s effect on temperature is so minuscule that it does not even show up in temperature measurements.
At some point most folks who study the situation conclude that the CO2 scare has been wildly exaggerated. The fact is that CO2 is completely harmless [if not, show the harm], and is entirely beneficial to the biosphere. Only those with a religious belief in the non-existent “carbon” threat believe otherwise. But they have no testable, empirical evidence supporting their false beliefs. Whatever they believe, it is not based on science or the scientific method.
CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better. That is reality.
Kelvin Vaughan says:
August 6, 2012 at 1:07 am
Comparing last weeks Arctic photo to yesterdays the pool of water has shrunk a bit. Refreezing has begun at the webcam.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM2/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam2_20120806004130.jpg
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM2/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam2_20120729003243.jpg
Still shrinking!
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM2/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam2_20120809123432.jpg
Kelvin Vaughn,
It is interesting that real world observations contradict the NSIDC’s numbers.
Who to believe? Planet Earth, or humans who get paid to exaggerate?
tjfolkerts:
It seems to be a false meme of warmers that global warming has accelerated recently. For example, you say to Smokey at August 10, 2012 at 9:22 pm;
This meme that global temperature has recently accelerated seems to be a use of the Big Lie propaganda technique (i.e. proclaim an untruth often in hope that people will come to believe it). For example, Jan P Perlwitz tried to make the same silly claim recently in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/
I then pointed out that “there has been no statistically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years”. And I pointed out that “a cessation of global warming cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming”.
I also pointed out that there were two periods of warming in the global temperature data sets; i.e. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000. These two periods show the same rate of global temperature rise. So, even if one selects the trends in recent periods of global warming then there is no observed “acceleration” of their warming trends. And I added that more than 80% of anthropogenic GHG emissions were after 1940.
This resulted in Perlwitz providing a ‘master class’ in obscurantism, but I refused to be overcome by repeated torrents of b**l s**t.
Eventually, he admitted that there has been no statically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years. Of course, there was such a statistically discernible rise in the previous 15 years.
So, the statistically significant global warming for the 15 year period prior to 15 years ago stopped 15 years ago. This cannot be equated with an acceleration of global warming. Indeed, it denies such acceleration.
I now await your attempt at obscurantism. Please feel free to read the link I have provided so you can see how I dealt with Perlwitz’s attempt at it. And, to save you time, please don’t claim that 15 years is not sufficient time to discern a statistically significant rise: the fact is that the period from 30 to 15 years ago did show such a statistically significant rise.
Richard
Smokey:
In your post at August 11, 2012 at 5:35 am you addressed the issue of the Null Hypothesis and Trenbeth’s attempt to reverse it. I recently addressed that same subject in another thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/video-john-christys-stellar-testimony-today-the-recent-anomalous-weather-cant-be-blamed-on-carbon-dioxide/
To save you and others finding that comment I copy it here.
Richard
________________________
richardscourtney says:
August 6, 2012 at 2:36 am
macnmat:
Dr Christy was presenting scientific information.
Your post at August 5, 2012 at 10:45 am goes to the heart of a difference between science and the Precautionary Principle. It says;
The Null Hypothesis is a basic principle of science. It says that
It must be assumed that a change has not happened unless there is evidence that a change has happened.
In the case of climate behaviour,
the Null Hypothesis decrees that the cause of an observed climate change is the same as the cause of similar previous climate changes unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Dr Christy was pointing out the scientific conclusion that the Null Hypothesis decrees that – at present – there is no evidence that climate behaviour has changed since the industrial revolution: this is because there is no observed climate behaviour since the industrial revolution which did not happen before the industrial revolution.
This conclusion is the only valid scientific conclusion concerning the cause(s) of recent climate changes. And the fact that this is the only valid scientific conclusion on the matter is why Trenberth infamously attempted to reverse the Null Hypothesis as it applies to climate change.
The conclusion informs that we need research intended to determine the cause(s) of climate change because, as Dr Christy says,
“Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.”
The Precautionary Principle says the industrial revolution may have changed climate behaviour so we need to reverse the industrial revolution in case it has. This is the antithesis of science.
Science has given us many benefits. The Precautionary Principle has yet to provide any benefits.
Richard
Richard,
Thanks for engaging in a discussion of data and numbers. You said:
“I then pointed out that “there has been no statistically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years”. And I pointed out that “a cessation of global warming cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming”.
The trends obviously depend on the time-frame you are looking at.
* for 1-10 year time-frames it is easy to find positive, negative, or flat slopes, as well as positive, negative or zero acceleration in the temperature record (or just about any other climate variable). The recent slope has been close to zero for global temperature (and can easily be positive, negative or zero depending on exactly what interval you select) . This also implies the calculated acceleration can also positive, negative, or zero. One of Smokey’s graphs showed a pretty clear negative acceleration in recent temperature (2003-2009 IIRC). But these trends are often not statistically significant, due to large pseudo-random fluctuations and small amounts of data.
* for 10-50 year time-frames, the short-term fluctuations become less and less important. One these scales the trend is almost always positive for the slope. And the slope tends to be getting higher — the very definition of “positive acceleration”.
* 50+ year time-frames reduce random fluctuations even more, but there is rarely consistent data covering more than 1 or 2 50-year time-spans.
There are two other challenges
1) is that is is hard to be patient enough to wait for 50 years to be sure of the true trends. It is easy for people on either side to watch some short-term data (eg the huge lose of ice in 2007, or the relatively flat temperatures since the 1998 El Nino spike) and think that this is the “new normal” when in fact it could easily be an outlier.
2) there is no easy way to distinguish what specifically is causing the trends. We only have “one experiment” and we don’t get to reset it or to control the various “knobs” (CO2, earth’s orbit, solar output …) independently. That means we are stuck using theory and historical data to try to “hindcast” past climate and to use that knowledge to try to predict the future.
Richard says: “It [hypothesis testing] says that It must be assumed that a change has not happened unless there is evidence that a change has happened.”
You (and Smokey) are both making a fundamental misinterpretation here.
(I would find more references, but I am suddenly short on time.)
The point is that when the null hypothesis is not rejected, we can’t assume that the null hypothesis is correct. (Much like the difference between “not guilty” and “innocent”. Many people found “not guilty” by the evidence, but who are, in fact, not innocent. )
It almost seems like tjfolkerts is seeing the light. However, being a student of human nature, I predict he will revert to his contrary belief system
As folkerts admits, the only trend that matters is the long term trend, which is clearly not accelerating. Short term temperatures have not increased in that time, much less accelerated.
Looking at the long term trend [the longest data base that the Wood For Trees site has], we see that the long term temperature trend [ the green line] is gradually coming down from prior levels. No acceleration observed.
Furthermore, the past decade, and the past two years, also show declining temperatures.
Thus, the conjecture claiming that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate disrruption is shown to be the nonsense that it is. When a conjecture like CO2=CAGW is so thoroughly falsified in so many ways, honest scientists will reset, and think about why they were so wrong. Only in climate pseudo-science does one side dig in their heels, and refuse to admit what everyone else knows: their CO2 conjecture is pure, unadulterated bunkum.
tjfolkerts says:
“the null hypothesis can never be proven.”
Well, true. No hypothesis can be proven. [The exception being in mathematics.]
But a hypothesis or conjecture can be disproven, just as the CO2=CAGW conjecture has been disproven. And that is the whole point of the null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis or conjecture: the one that is disproven is rejected. CO2=CAGW is disproven, and therefore must be rejected. The null hypothesis remains unfalsified.
Bottom line, Smokey cannot point to a single publication to support his climate views. That leads me to conclude that he has a very limited education on climate issues, but instead regurgitates what he reads on skeptic blogs.
I seem to have forgotten to specifically say it in my 10:15 AM post, but the “acceleration” term would indeed be negative for a 20 year temperature trend .. maybe even a 30 year trend (I would have to crunch the numbers,) But for the 100+ year trends in the graphs that Smokey has posted, the overall acceleration is still positive and statistically significant.
So this could mean:
1) there has been a recent switch (say in the last 10 year) in the long-term acceleration, but there simply isn’t enough data to be sure.
or
2) this is a temporary fluctuation, but the long-term acceleration will continue, and we will have to wait for more data to show the original trend is indeed continuing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, no acceleration can continue forever for temperatures — that would lead to temperatures getting wildly hot or cold in a few centuries. So at some time the acceleration of the last ~ 150 years must stop. Perhaps that was 10 years ago already.
So the null hypothesis that “there has been no acceleration in warming over the last 150 years” has been show to be false (p<<0.05 for the quadratic term in the fit), and the acceleration is confirmed. The NEW null hypothesis would be "the observed conditions (of positive acceleration) continue". Countering this hypothesis would require applying a statistical tests to see if the acceleration for the last "x" years is different from the acceleration for the previous 150 years. We cannot refute the continued acceleration until a statistical test is failed. Heck .. maybe it has failed already! Do you want to give us some numbers, Smokey, for the p values of some statistical test you conduct?
It’s not unexpected that the temperatures cool for a decade or even longer even as CO2 increases. That is because natural climate variability and CO2 warming are both happening at the same time. Sometimes they are in phase with each other, sometimes they oppose each other. Pamela, the IPCC models also show time-periods of cooling along the overall positive trend. It’s the long-term trend that is of interest, not short time-periods where natural climate variability dominates.
Note the same is true for the sea ice cover. Even when models show all the ice gone in summer, they may still show periods of recovery.
‘dave‘ is a textbook example of psychological projection: imputing his own faults onto others. Aside from his endless appeals to authority [ie: regurgitating talking points], he appears to be an uneducated noob. I have closely followed this forum since it began, posting more than sixteen thousand comments in the process. I know the argumets backward and forward. ‘dave’ has been posting for a couple of days. Clearly he is far from being up to speed on the subject.
.
tjfolkerts says: “So the null hypothesis that ‘there has been no acceleration in warming over the last 150 years’ has been show (sic) to be false…”
That is not the null hypothesis, it is only a corollary. And it is astonishing that tjfolkerts is able to look at a graph of the long term temperature trend – and see something that is just not there. There has been no acceleration of warming, much as folkerts wishes there was. We have seen it all before, during times when CO2 was ≈280 ppmv. CO2 has now risen to ≈393 ppmv – and the trend from the LIA remains the same. No more, no less. Thus, CO2 has had no measurable effect.
It must be wonderful living in a bubble, insulated from reality. The rest of us see the CAGW scam for what it is: a deliberate scare tactic, based on debunked pseudo-science, used to accumulate money and political power. That is why its promoters hide out from any debate, and never practice scientific transparency.
tjfolkerts:
Thankyou for your post at August 11, 2012 at 10:15 am in reply to me. I especially appreciate the tenor of your reply. If you did read the “discussion” I had with Perlwitz then you will understand why my post to you erred on the side of petulance, and I apologise for that.
We learn from disagreement with each other but suffer from being disagreeable with each other.
To begin, I stand by what I wrote concerning the Null Hypothesis. I have written much that is similar on previous WUWT threads. Our disagreement is that you say;
Sorry, but No!
It is a scientific principle that when the null hypothesis is not rejected, then it must be assumed the null hypothesis is correct whilst remembering that this is an assumption.
Anything else is not science. And the knowledge that this is an assumption is a spur to further research to determine whether or not the assumption is correct.
Indeed, this spur to further research is why Trenberth’s attempt to reverse the Null Hypothesis caused such anger: he was attempting to inhibit the most needed research in climate science.
Having said that, and assuming you are not offended, I do not intend to debate that matter here because I think the issue of ‘accelerating global warming’ is both more important and more pertinent to existing discussions of climate change e.g. across the web.
I strongly agree with you when you say:
Indeed, this was one of my major disagreements with Perlwitz. He refused to agree that in the global temperature time series (i.e. ice-core, surface ‘measured’, MSU determined, etc.) the observed trend – positive or negative – depends on the selected time period. But, as you and I both say, it does.
And you say;
This quote is two statements. And I address them in turn.
The first statement is that “for 10-50 year time-frames, the short-term fluctuations become less and less important”. However, this demands an answer to the question ‘important for what?’.
In this case, we are considering if the data indicate that the rate of rise to mean global temperature is increasing (e.g. in response to anthropogenic GHG emissions) . And, as I said, more than 80% of those GHG emissions have been after 1940. If the putative acceleration in global warming is happening then decadal trends should be becoming progressively larger since 1940. They are not.
Indeed, as I said, the data indicate two periods of global warming since the nineteenth century (i.e. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000). And, as I also said, these two periods of global warming show the same trend.
This indicates no acceleration to the warming.
Furthermore, if global warming is accelerating (e.g. in response to the anthropogenic emissions) then the greatest warming should have been recently. But there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years and there was statistically significant global warming in each of the two previous 15-year periods.
This indicates a deceleration (n.b. not an acceleration) to the warming.
The second of your statements says;
“One these scales the trend is almost always positive for the slope. And the slope tends to be getting higher — the very definition of “positive acceleration”.”
No! Absolutely not!
That “the trend is almost always positive for the slope” merely indicates that there was net warming for the period, and that is not in dispute.
And the slope does not “tend to be getting higher”. I repeat, in the two periods of warming since the nineteenth century the slope was the same, and the slope has reduced to be indistinguishable from zero in the most recent 15 years.
These facts do not indicate an acceleration of the warming, and they imply a recent deceleration of the warming.
With respect, your other two points are irrelevant. What happens over the next 50 years is not pertinent to whether global warming is accelerating now or has accelerated recently.
However, I agree with you when you say
Indeed, as I say above in this post, this is why Trenberth’s attempt to reverse the Null Hypothesis was so very, very wrong.
In conclusion, I again thank you for a sensible debate of these issues. I enjoy sensible debates and I needed a bath after each interaction with Perlwitz on the matter.
Richard
Smokey, why are you unable to to point to publications, or perform a simple statistical test such as tjfolkerts suggests?
btw, just because you have posted numerous comments over the years does not mean that you are in any way educated on the subject. I have gone back to see some of your comments and your talking points have remained exactly the same. I told you before, I am willing to read any scientific papers that support your view because I do believe in being educated on both sides of the issue.
richardscourtney says:
“Indeed, as I said, the data indicate two periods of global warming since the nineteenth century (i.e. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000). And, as I also said, these two periods of global warming show the same trend.
This indicates no acceleration to the warming.”
Exactly. This chart shows those warming trends. Their slopes are identical.
.
dave, be careful what you ask for. I can post plenty of sources. Here you go. You say you are willing to read “any” scientific papers. There are more than two hundred papers right there. Better get cracking. When you’re done, let me know; I have plenty more.
tjfolkerts says:
August 11, 2012 at 11:08 am
Do you understand the difference between acceleration and velocity? Let’s try an analogy.
If I stand still, my displacement as a function of time (velocity), or position (temperature?) anomoly is zero. A plot of my position in one dimension vs time will be a horizontal line, if we take position as the y-axis and time as the x-axis. Now I start walking, each step the same distance in time and space. I have constant velocity, and a plot of my position in one dimension vs time will be a straight line of constant slope “m” (steadily rising temperature anomoly). Now I start to alter the tempo of my stride, decreasing the time between each step at a constant rate. I am accelerating and the rate at which I change my velocity is constant, but my displacement is increasing in a non-linear fashion at some power greater than 1. For this case, each year of the temperature anomoly would have to show a larger interval than the previous year. The plot now shows a distinct upward curve.
At zero velocity, every year shows the same temperature anomoly. Say, the current value 0.37 shown on the Climate Widget on the right hand side of this page. It’s 0.37 this year, next year, forever and ever, amen.
If CO2 causes the global temperature to rise in proportion to its concentration then all other things being equal (which we know they aren’t, but work with me here), for a constant rise in CO2 we’ll see a constant rise in temperature anomoly: 0.37 this year, 0.375 next year, 0.380, 0.385, 0.390, 0.395 and so on, each year being .005 warmer than the last until you reach some limiting case, whatever it may be.
However, if you’re correct and a steady increase in CO2 leads to accelerated warming, then this year is 0.370, next year is 0.375, then 0.381, 0.388, 0.396, 0.405, and so on, each year being .005 than the last, and an additional .001 added cumulatively each year due to acceleration.
So, is the final case behavior what you intended to claim?