Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Comment Included From David Hoffer, Edited by Just The Facts:
In the above graphic, the green line is the slope since May 1993 without consideration of error bars. When including error bars, the range could be as low as zero as indicated by the blue line. It could also be an equal amount above the green line as indicated by the purple line.
The numbers that were used to generate the above graphic are from Nick Stokes’ Temperature Trend Viewer site.
For RSS, the numbers are as follows:
Temperature Anomaly trend
May 1993 to Feb 2016
Rate: 0.871°C/Century;
CI from -0.022 to 1.764;
t-statistic 1.912;
Temp range 0.118°C to 0.316°C
So in other words, for 22 years and 10 months, since May 1993, there is a very small chance that the slope is negative.
For UAH6.0beta5, the numbers are as follows:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 1993 to Feb 2016
Rate: 0.911°C/Century;
CI from -0.009 to 1.830;
t-statistic 1.941;
Temp range -0.001°C to 0.210°C
So in other words, for 23 years and 2 months, since January 1993, there is a very small chance that the slope is negative.
As mentioned in my January post, there is now no period of time going back from February 2016 where the slope is negative for any period worth mentioning on any of the five data sets I am analyzing.
As a result, my former Section 1 will not be shown for the foreseeable future.
My last post had an excellent comment by David Hoffer that I would like to share to give it wider exposure and for you to give your thoughts:
davidmhoffer
March 2, 2016 at 10:11 am
1. The “Pause” hasn’t disappeared. It now just has a beginning and an end. But it is right there in the data where it always was, and it doesn’t cease to exist merely because we can’t calculate one starting from the present and working backwards.
2. The “Pause” was never significant in terms of showing the CO2 doesn’t heat up the earth. It only became significant because the warmist community (Jones, Santer, etc) said that natural variability was too small to cancel the warming of CO2 for more than a period of 10 years…er 15…er 17 and made a big deal out of it.
So regardless of the “Pause” having ended or not, what we have is conclusive evidence that the models either:
a) grossly under estimated natural variability or
b) grossly over estimated CO2 sensitivity or
c) both
In all three scenarios above, natural variability dominates in terms of any risk associated with a changing global temperature. That’s what we should be studying first and foremost. Once we understand it, then we can determine how much CO2 changes natural variability. Trying to determine CO2 sensitivity without first understanding the natural variability baseline that it runs on top of is a fool’s errand. Unfortunately, fools seem determined and well funded, and so they continue to try and do just that.
The world has been warming for 400 years, almost all of it due to natural variability. It will continue to warm (I expect) and most of the warming will be due to natural variability, which we just learned from this last 20 years of data is a lot bigger deal than CO2.
(End of David’s post)
In the sections below, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in two sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The second section will show how 2016 so far compares with 2015 and the warmest years and months on record so far. For three of the data sets, 2015 also happens to be the warmest year. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 11 and 23 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH6.0: Since January 1993: Cl from -0.009 to 1.830
This is 23 years and 2 months.
For RSS: Since May 1993: Cl from -0.022 to 1.764
This is 22 years and 10 months.
For Hadcrut4.4: Since October 2001: Cl from -0.016 to 1.812 (Goes to January)
This is 14 years and 4 months.
For Hadsst3: Since May 1996: Cl from -0.002 to 2.089
This is 19 years and 10 months.
For GISS: Since March 2005: Cl from -0.004 to 3.688
This is exactly 11 years.
Section 2
This section shows data about 2016 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadsst3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 15ra: This is the final ranking for 2015 on each data set.
2. 15a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2015.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that the satellite data sets have 1998 as the warmest year and the others have 2015 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year. The 2016 records are not included here.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
8. sy/m: This is the years and months for row 7.
9. Jan: This is the January 2016 anomaly for that particular data set.
10. Feb: This is the February 2016 anomaly for that particular data set.
11. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months.
12. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2016 without regards to error bars and assuming no changes. Think of it as an update 10 minutes into a game.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.15ra | 3rd | 3rd | 1st | 1st | 1st |
| 2.15a | 0.263 | 0.358 | 0.745 | 0.592 | 0.86 |
| 3.year | 1998 | 1998 | 2015 | 2015 | 2015 |
| 4.ano | 0.484 | 0.550 | 0.745 | 0.592 | 0.86 |
| 5.mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Dec15 | Sep15 | Dec15 |
| 6.ano | 0.743 | 0.857 | 1.009 | 0.725 | 1.10 |
| 7.sig | Jan93 | May93 | Oct01 | May96 | Mar05 |
| 8.sy/m | 23/2 | 22/10 | 14/4 | 19/10 | 11/0 |
| 9.Jan | 0.542 | 0.663 | 0.899 | 0.732 | 1.14 |
| 10.Feb | 0.834 | 0.974 | 1.057 | 0.604 | 1.35 |
| 11.ave | 0.688 | 0.819 | 0.978 | 0.668 | 1.25 |
| 12.rnk | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st | Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 6.0beta5 was used. Note that WFT uses version 5.6. So to verify the length of the pause on version 6.0, you need to use Nick’s program.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta5.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
To see all points since January 2015 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below. Note that UAH version 5.6 is shown. WFT does not show version 6.0 yet. Also note that Hadcrut4.3 is shown and not Hadcrut4.4, which is why many months are missing for Hadcrut.
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2015. This makes it easy to compare January 2015 with the latest anomaly.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
UAH6.0beta5
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since January 1993: Cl from -0.009 to 1.830. (This is using version 6.0 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2016 is 0.688. This would set a record if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.484. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.743. This is prior to 2016. The average anomaly in 2015 was 0.263 and it was ranked 3rd.
RSS
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since May 1993: Cl from -0.022 to 1.764.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2016 is 0.819. This would set a record if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.550. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. This is prior to 2016. The average anomaly in 2015 was 0.358 and it was ranked 3rd.
Hadcrut4.4
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since October 2001: Cl from -0.016 to 1.812. (Goes to January)
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far is 0.978. This would set a record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in December of 2015 when it reached 1.009. This is prior to 2016. The average anomaly in 2015 was 0.745 and this set a new record.
Hadsst3
For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since May 1996: Cl from -0.002 to 2.089.
The Hadsst3 average anomaly so far for 2016 is 0.668. This would set a record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in September of 2015 when it reached 0.725. This is prior to 2016. The average anomaly in 2015 was 0.592 and this set a new record.
GISS
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since March 2005: Cl from -0.004 to 3.688.
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2016 is 1.25. This would set a record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in December of 2015 when it reached 1.10. This is prior to 2016. The average anomaly in 2015 was 0.86 and it set a new record.
Conclusion
Warming does not become catastrophic just because we cannot go back from February 2016 and find a negative slope. This is especially true since it was a very strong El Nino and not CO2 that was mainly responsible for the negative slope disappearing for now.
Perfect Logical Fallacies-false dichotomies Toneb!-
“1)All climate scientists are incompetent.”
False choice. Some climate scientists may be very competent, and others, not so competent. There are a million shades of competency between ALL being totally incompetent and ALL being freaking geniuses. The odds that “all” of them are the exact same degree of competent are very small. In fact, when actual scientists are ASKED directly how they feel and believe about different aspects of global warming, it results in a range with lots of combinations!
“2)All climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.”
Another false choice just like the one above. NOT agreeing with YOU or them does NOT come down to these three idiotic choices you offered up. Group think is most likely and it doesn’t have to involve actual “conspiratorial” motivations or behavior. Herd mentality affects all IQ levels.
3)Climate scientists know more than you.
Again, assumption. What percentage of them? Know more (or less) about what specifically? Being a “climate scientist” means that your daily work involves aspects of the climate….it does not mean knows everything there is to know about the climate, all of it’s physical properties, every single way it can or will interact with every other natural system ….etc. The “title” of Climate Scientist is only a title. YOU cannot know what every climate scientist knows, nor can you know what every poster here knows, so making a statement like that is illogical at it’s roots.
Why is it that Climate Skeptics only refer to UAH and RSS data and Climate believers only refer to NOAA data?
If 2015 is the hottest year on record, then what was the temperature for 2015? What was it for 2014 and 2010 and 1998? What was the pre-industrial temperature that we are trying to avoid going over by 2 degrees C? Why are their no climatologists on TV espousing AGW?
What was the square miles of ice coverage in the Artic last year and the year before and in 2010 and 2000? Is it increasing or decreasing overall over the last decade? Was it retreating and now growing back?
Why does the media not answer these questions? Why does the public not ask them?
That is a very good question! If they would have said 1970 for example, it would have made more sense. But to base it on a temperature where we know it with the least amount of accuracy seems strange.
Below are some other answers where I had the answers handy.
The average is 13.9 C. See:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2013/03/misunderstanding-of-the-global-temperature-anomaly/
My December post here gives the top 10 years for 5 data sets:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/27/final-2015-statistics-now-includes-december-data/
Add the anomaly for each year to 13.9 C to get the actual temperature. However this may not be totally accurate since there has been some dispute over the actual temperature. Furthermore, this only applies to the surface data sets, not the satellite data sets.
As for not trusting NOAA, compare GIS5 with GIS6. Check out all adjustments over a single year. GISS and NOAA were similar here.
For sea ice data, see:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Phil T April 9, 2016 at 7:18 pm
Maybe you should not solely focus on climate change skeptics nor on its believers: there are lots of people keeping between the two. For many skeptics, you are automatically a “warmista” if you don’t fully share their position; I imagine the same is true for “the other side” (I never experienced).
1. The main problem isn’t RSS/UAH vs. NOAA (nor GISSTEMP if you would prefer).
It is rather the difference between
– measurement of the troposphere’s brightness (due to oygen’s microwave emission) by satellites from which temperatures are derived;
– traditional, thermometric measurement of land and sea surface temperatures.
Both have advantages, both have drawbacks. The best for us lay(wo)men is probably to build a mean of all.
2.a (surface) The probably most accurate measurement of the actual absolute surface temperature on Earth is made by the BEST group (“Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature”).
They even have two different ones, due to two different ways to interpret temperature near sea ice.
Here is an exerpt of their data file:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
Estimated Jan 1951-Dec 1980 global mean temperature (C)
Using air temperature above sea ice: 14.762 +/- 0.049
Using water temperature below sea ice: 15.299 +/- 0.049
Even this yearly global temperature is a mean over the twelve months, since it differs from month to month (only one of the two variants shown here):
Estimated Jan 1951-Dec 1980 monthly absolute temperature (C):
. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
12.86 13.09 13.72 14.65 15.63 16.34 16.61 16.43 15.84 14.89 13.86 13.11
2.b (troposphere) The troposphere (even its lower part at about 5 km above surface) is by far cooler than the land and sea surfaces (UAH6.0 mean in 2015: 263.95 K, i.e. -9.04 °C).
. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
-10.11 -10.04 -9.85 -9.43 -8.83 -8.18 -7.86 -8.04 -8.68 -9.36 -9.88 -10.08
Here you may understand why scientists use deltas rather than absolutes: when needing a plot for comparison of surface and troposphere temperatures, they wouldn’t see more than two desperately flat lines distant by around 24 °C, when using absolute data. (Deltas of course are used for many other purposes.)
Some highly intelligent commenters think it’s intended for manipulation, in order to make all more dramatic.
Here is a plot of such a comparison between troposphere and surfaces for jan-dec 2015:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160410/rpap6gpb.jpg
3. The best source for Arctic sea ice extent is the Danish Institude DMI, true professionals who keep away from polemics and manipulation:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
Below the upper plot you see a month bar on which you may run with the mouse pointer.
There has been an uptick phase of ice reconstruction a few years ago.
Thank you very much for that!
Are you sure it was me and not Bindidon?
(After 368 comments, things get harder to check and track.)
[Reply: Try being a moderator. Keeping up is more than a full time job. Fortunately, Anthony generously gives mods a cut of the Big Oil money he gets for running this site -mod]
[Just in case anyone actually believes ^that^… {/sarc}. ~mod.]
Wow. A source is missing here, concerning the absolute TLT values!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
Werner,
Thanks for the links. I just got around to reading them. From the first one:
In January of 2013 (CO2) was 395 ppm and in 1985 it was 50 points lower at 345 ppm. So despite the fact that CO2 was higher, the Earth was losing energy at a higher rate to space. CO2 was not blocking the energy from escaping despite all the claims that increased CO2 prevents heat from escaping the Earth. The Earth 30 years later was losing a significantly larger amount of energy to space than it was in the past.
If CO2 kept energy from escaping, then accelerating global warming would be observed, no? But just the opposite is happening. Despite the rise in CO2, global warming (*ahem*) “paused” for many years. The same thing happened beginning in the ’40’s.
The more facts that come out regarding the claim that CO2 causes AGW, the more false that conjecture appears to be.
Any significant warming from CO2 happened within the first few dozen ppm. After that, any warming from more CO2 is simply too minuscule to measure. That is what’s being observed in the real world.
Who should we believe? The real world? Or the climate alarmist contingent?
One of them is right; the other is wrong. Take your pick.
Law of physics…the warmer something gets, the more it radiates away from itself, up to the 4th power of it’s temperature increase. Right?
And the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than exponential.SO:
Unless the power of CO2 to absorb and or slow down only a very specific spectrum of IR ALSO increases up to the 4th power of it’s previous level for some unknown, undiscovered reason, then there will always be more increasing radiating energy than there is increasing CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to slow down that radiation! You can’t make a certain volume of CO2 react to more energy than it has the natural ability to react to! All that “extra” energy just sails right past it cause it’s already busy with other photons.:)
Aphan April 10, 2016 at 3:08 pm
Law of physics…the warmer something gets, the more it radiates away from itself, up to the 4th power of it’s temperature increase. Right?
And the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than exponential.SO:
Unless the power of CO2 to absorb and or slow down only a very specific spectrum of IR ALSO increases up to the 4th power of it’s previous level for some unknown, undiscovered reason, then there will always be more increasing radiating energy than there is increasing CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to slow down that radiation! You can’t make a certain volume of CO2 react to more energy than it has the natural ability to react to! All that “extra” energy just sails right past it cause it’s already busy with other photons.:)
You have a misunderstanding about how the Physical Chemistry works.
In any case over the last century pCO2 has increased by about 30% whereas the surface temperature has increased by ~1K or ~0.3% so T^4 has increased by ~1%, so your hypothesis isn’t borne out by the facts.
Phil. said-“You have a misunderstanding about how the Physical Chemistry works.
In any case over the last century pCO2 has increased by about 30% whereas the surface temperature has increased by ~1K or ~0.3% so T^4 has increased by ~1%, so your hypothesis isn’t borne out by the facts.”
You misunderstand my smiley face at the end of my comment to dbstealey indicating humor.
Again, everything you are arguing with dbstealey about regarding CO2 and how he expressed himself is SEMANTICS. YOU don’t get to decide what he meant by saying it a certain way and THEN declare him a moron for the meaning YOU assigned to him. He’s already demonstrated (for years here) that he DOES know what he’s talking about and he’s stated repeatedly in this thread that he “could have stated it better” or more clearly than he did. But YOU just keep smacking that dead horse carcass over and over again as if each additional blow makes you more manly or more correct or more…..something. Walk away from the corpse man….it’s starting to get creepy.
dbstealey said something poorly in this thread!!! Phil. has never, and will never, EVER say something poorly and therefore has the moral authority to declare dbstealey’s public execution at dawn!
Let’s review-
What does it mean when people say “ppm” when it comes to CO2 and our atmosphere?
From NASA’s Climate Kids-
“This number tells how many parts of carbon dioxide there are in one million parts of air. So, if carbon dioxide is at 390 parts per million (or ppm), that means in one million pounds of air there are 390 pounds of carbon dioxide.”
(Now, I realize it’s Climate Kids, but NASA doesn’t use the term “dry air”. It just uses regular old air. So I’m going to too.)
100 years ago, in every 1 million pounds of air, there was roughly 280 pounds of carbon dioxide. That means that carbon dioxide was roughly 0.028% of the total atmosphere at the time.
Today, in every 1 million pounds of air, there is roughly 400 pounds of carbon dioxide. That means that carbon dioxide is roughly 0.040% of the total atmosphere today.
Now, it is just as perfectly logical and accurate to say that in the past 100 years, the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased by 0.012 % (relative to our atmosphere as a whole) as it is that pCO2 has increased about 30%.(relative to just the amount of CO2 as a whole). It depends entirely upon what your mathematical reference points are. If you are considering JUST the amount of C02, and 400 ppm =100%, then sure, an increase of 120 ppm= a 30% in the total amount of CO2. If you are considering the amount of CO2 relative to the atmosphere, in which the total atmosphere is 100%-then and increase of 120 ppm= 0.012% increase in the ratio of CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere.
0.012 is mathematically stated as being “12 one thousandths” of something. If I want to recalculate that into “ten thousandths”, I merely divide it by 10….giving me 1.2 “ten thousandths”. Thus, dbstealey’s thinking might not be YOURS, but he is not INaccurate in stating that the increase can equal 1 in 10,000 (if he rounds the number down from 1.2 to 1).
It should be clear to every rational, logical human being that this issue can be stated in a number of ways and be accurate/correct in ALL of them depending upon the context the author of the statement is referring to. YOU don’t get to declare what dbstealey’s context is any more than HE gets to declare what yours is.
As far as what I said to dbstealey (not you) above- In the comment from dbstealey (not you) that I was commenting on, my comment ONLY APPLIES to HIS comment on the specific study in question. And ONLY specifically to the SB law, all other factors remaining equal and constant. Which is impossible, thus the smiley face indicating the idea was funny to me.
The Earth losing MORE energy to space can be explained by the SB Law…as the temperature of Earth increases, the amount of radiation it emits increases exponentially to the 4th power. But the amount of CO2 HAS NOT been increasing exponentially to the 4th power as well has it? But even if it had been… its AFFECT on temperatures would STILL BE logarithmic, not exponential. Thus it would have to increase TWICE as exponentially to the 4th power in order to even keep up (absorb and trap all or most of) the rate of increase in radiation being emitted by the Earth, just to keep temps steady!
Now, the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not ONLY apply to the 1K increase in average global temperature, or global mean temperature, of the entire planet since 1880 Phil. It applies to EVERY increase in temperature anywhere at any time of any black body/object/surface! For example, let’s say that it was 30F outside my house at 8:00 am this morning when the Sun rose, and let’s say that it warms up to 70 degrees F during the day. There has been an increase of 40F today, and the SB law applies to every single degree of that warming! What the global average today is, is completely irrelevant to what happens to the temps and atmosphere in my location.
The more the temperature where I am increases during the day, the more the amount of radiation being given off increases, in direct proportion to the 4th power of EACH temperature increase. Right? It’s not linear, it’s exponential!
Now, when I woke up today, lets say that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere where I live is 390 ppm, and at the peak of temperature increase today, it is still 390ppm. (it could be less, or more, depending on weather situations/fluctuations, but for my example, it doesn’t change today) So…at 8:00 am, for every million pounds of “air” where I live, there is 390 pounds of CO2 molecules and we start at 30F. Over the course of 20 minutes-from 8:00am to 8:20 am…the temperature rises by 1 degree. According to SB…that means that radiation being emitted from the Earth rose to the 4th power of that 1F increase.
BUT…the amount of CO2 in the air did not change. There’s still the exact same number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere where live AFTER the increase in temps, as there was BEFORE it. Another 20 minutes goes by…and another 1F increase in temps occurs. Another exponential increase in radiation being emitted FROM the planet. Still the same amount of CO2 molecules. Over and over again, the amount of radiation being emitted into the atmosphere where I live increases…and not just a little….a lot….until a 40 F temperature increase has occurred. Do the math for me Phil….what’s the difference between the amount of radiation that was being emitted at 30F and the amount being emitted at 70F?
And if the number of CO2 molecules remains constant, and thus, their ability to absorb a certain spectrum of the increasing radiation remains constant, what happens to all of the additional radiation being emitted in that certain spectrum….does it hang out…hover under the extinction height for a CO2 molecule to become open and available to grab it? Or does it just simply move past all of existing CO2 molecules in it’s trajectory (cause they are already occupied with absorbing and convecting and conducting as much as they possibly can) and head directly for space?
I want to learn. Teach me!
dbstealey April 10, 2016 at 2:29 pm
Werner,
Thanks for the links. I just got around to reading them. From the first one:
“In January of 2013 (CO2) was 395 ppm and in 1985 it was 50 points lower at 345 ppm. So despite the fact that CO2 was higher, the Earth was losing energy at a higher rate to space. CO2 was not blocking the energy from escaping despite all the claims that increased CO2 prevents heat from escaping the Earth. The Earth 30 years later was losing a significantly larger amount of energy to space than it was in the past.”
If CO2 kept energy from escaping, then accelerating global warming would be observed, no? But just the opposite is happening. Despite the rise in CO2, global warming (*ahem*) “paused” for many years. The same thing happened beginning in the ’40’s.
You and the poster of the referenced article both seem to have a misunderstanding about how the energy transfer of the planet works.
The original poster was apparently comparing the increase in temperature (LTL) between 1985 and 2013 of ~0.5ºC and the increase in pCO2 of ~50ppm.
He seems to think this means that the Earth was losing energy at a higher rate to space.
Increase in pCO2 blocks more IR in the 15micron band causing the surface temperature to increase thereby allowing more IR to exit to space in the ‘window’ regions, causing the energy exchange to balance.
“Phil.” says:
…over the last century pCO2 has increased by about 30% whereas the surface temperature has increased by ~1K or ~0.3%…
Therefore, the conjecture that a rise in CO2 will cause global warming is falsified.
The steady rise in CO2 from the 1940s to ’70s did not cause a rise in temperature. The world cooled dramatically during those decades.
Rising T and CO2 did more or less correlate from the late ’70s to ’90s, but that now appears to have been coincidental, as CO2 continued to climb over the next two decades without much if any increase in T. Now we have another super El Nino, as in the late ’90s and ’80s, so there has been a warmth spike again, but it won’t last.
Thus, CO2 is not correlated with T. You are right that CO2 warms the earth for its first 100 or 200 ppm, but there is no obvious correlation between c. 315 ppm in 1900 and 400 ppm now.
Radiative physics suggest that doubling CO2 should raise T about one degree C, but it appears that negative feedbacks limit or might even cancel out this effect. To be sure, the positive feedbacks imagined by IPCC and assumed in the GIGO computer models are decidedly not in evidence.
See: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
“Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm.”
Oh…and just a couple of small things Phil.
You said: “You have a misunderstanding about how the Physical Chemistry works.
In any case over the last century pCO2 has increased by about 30% whereas the surface temperature has increased by ~1K or ~0.3% so T^4 has increased by ~1%, so your hypothesis isn’t borne out by the facts.”
Um…I hate to be the one to tell you this…but you stated this poorly. And extremely inaccurately.
1) We don’t actually measure the surface temperature of the entire Earth. The “surface temperature increase” you speak of is really just the average of temperature “anomalies” that have occurred over the last century. If you need help understanding the difference between an actual measured temperature and an “anomaly”, here’s a helpful link:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/how-reliable-are-global-temperature-anomalies/
2) you’re so right that I don’t understand how the Physical Chemistry works….but apparently YOU have a misunderstanding about how MATH and exponents and and powers works.
According to the Stefan Boltzmann Law, as a body’s temperature increases, the amount of radiation it EMITS is directly proportional to that increase to the 4th power. According to your math, you took the percentage increase of Earth’s temperature in Kelvin (0.3%) and multiplied it BY 4 (0.3 x 4= 1.2%)…you did not multiply those radiated energy units out to the 4th power (which is very different from simply multiplying by 4) Tsk tsk. And you “work with this stuff every day”???
As of today, Earth’s temperature in Kelvin is roughly 288K, but in Celsius it’s 15C and in F it’s 49 F. And you gotta do some funky math first (before you compare them) because 0 C= 273.15 K right off the bat. After THAT every 1K= 1C. But you have to consider ALL the Kelvins in your math…not just the ones that match the positive C numbers. (you know this right?)
So if 0C= 273.15, then 1C is = 274.15 degrees K, and 2C is 275.15 and so on.
Reportedly Earth’s temperature has risen 0.8C since 1880 (I’ll give you a whole 1 C for ease here) And while a 1K rise is a 0.3% in total Kelvin, you gotta subtract out that first 273.15 K first, in order to compare the rise in temps Kelvin to a rise in temps C since 1880!!
Zeroing out the Kelvins to match the Celsius, gives us a 1C increase from 14 C to 15C since 1880. That is a 7% increase right there buddy! ( A 0.3% increase in Celsius would only be 0.042 C!!!) And that is a LOT scarier amount to tell people that the planet it warming….0.3% vs 7 percent??? Why would you ever want to tell them 0.3%? (its not scary and its also wildly wrong)
But… NOW we have to do the “to the 4th power thing” (instead of something like 7×4=28). silliness!
7= base number (1st power) 7×7=49 (2nd power) 49×7= 343 and 343 x 7=2401 (4th power)
WOW…7 to the 4th power (2401) is a much higher number than 7×4 (28) isn’t it?
And while a 7% increase in Earth’s surface temp is certainly a scary idea (if you really don’t understand things) it comes along with an almost 350% increase in the amount of radiation that the Earth GETS RID OF at the same time. Whew! Lucky us right?
NOW do you begin to understand why I was laughing about a 120 ppm increase in CO2 (a mere 30% increase with an ever diminishing effect on temps=logarithmic) having ANY ability to capture/absorb/affect an exponentially increasing amount of radiation (350%) being emitted from the planet for every increase in temperature??????
You have to use K.
See:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
“In quantum physics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law (sometimes called Stefan’s Law) states that the black-body radiation energy emitted by a given object is directly proportional to the temperature of the object raised to the fourth power. The equation for this law is:
R=σT4
where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, which is equal to 5.670 373(21) x 10-8 W m-2 K-4, and where R is the energy radiated per unit surface area and per unit time. T is temperature, which is measured in Kelvin scale. Although this law is accurate and helpful, it is only usable for the energy radiated by blackbodies.”
Werner,
“You have to use K.”
No you don’t. You simply convert the absolute temperature into Celsius:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin
“The absolute temperature scale was designed so that a change in temperature of 1 kelvin is equal to a change of 1 degree Celsius. This means that it is easy to convert a temperature from degrees Celsius to kelvin.
To convert a temperature originally expressed in degrees Celsius into kelvins you must add 273.15 units. For example 0 degrees Celsius (0 °C), which is the temperature at which water freezes, is 273.15 kelvins (273.15 K).
To convert a temperature originally expressed in kelvins into degrees Celsius you must subtract 273.15 units. For example 310 kelvins is 36.85 degrees Celsius, which is roughly the normal temperature of a human body.”
But even if you DID “have to use K”, Phil. still multiplied the increase by 4, he did not calculate that increase out to the 4th power. THAT is a huge problem, and a weird mistake for a professional in the physical chemistry field to me.
If that is the case, then what is the change when going from -16 C to + 16 C? Or what is the change when going from -16 C to 0 C? That just makes no sense in the formula R=σT4.
Aphan April 11, 2016 at 9:49 pm
Werner,
“You have to use K.”
No you don’t. You simply convert the absolute temperature into Celsius:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin
No, as Werner and I have tried to tell you must use an absolute temperature scale (Kelvin or Rankine) not a scale with an arbitrary zero like ºC or ºF otherwise the increase in emission depends on which scale you use which makes no sense.
But even if you DID “have to use K”, Phil. still multiplied the increase by 4, he did not calculate that increase out to the 4th power. THAT is a huge problem, and a weird mistake for a professional in the physical chemistry field to me.
Try using your calculator.
1.003 is the result of a 0.3% increase in a quantity
(1.003)^4 is therefore 1.01205
However a quick approximation is as follows:
(1 + 0.003)^4 ≣ (1+x)^4 can be expanded to give you 1+4x+6x^2+4x^3+x^4
If x is small compared to 1 then all terms with a higher power than unity can be dropped giving:
1+4x as a first approximation.
In the case above we get 1.012 (an error of only 0.005%)
Using that approximation is something you’ll see professionals in the physical sciences do all the time, especially those who grew up in the era before calculators. (It’s quicker to use that approximation than log tables or slide rules and just as accurate).
Phil. (And to dbstealey….Houston, I think we found his problem!)
You OBVIOUSLY do not understand the difference between AN absolute temperature measurement system, or scale, “like Kelvine and Rankine” and The Absolute Temperature SCALE! You must have missed that I actually QUOTED it in my post (using quotation marks) along with posting the link to where it came from.I will do it again:
“The absolute temperature scale was designed so that a change in temperature of 1 kelvin is equal to a change of 1 degree Celsius. This means that it is easy to convert a temperature from degrees Celsius to kelvin.” I included that quote in my post…used quotation marks and everything.
The “absolute temperature scale” is a TOOL that allows the perfect conversion from Kelvin INTO Celsius IF you use the formulation of the “absolute temperature scale”, which I ALSO included in my post using quotation marks!
WE-as in every person on the planet who talks about climate change/global warming- discuss the Earth’s temperature increase since 1880 IN DEGREES CELSIUS! 0.8C. How can we logically and scientifically, rationally do that ? Because of the “absolute temperature scale! (Which is something entirely different from “a range or scale in absolute temperature=Kelvin/Randine!)
You (and now Werner) are the first and ONLY people that I have ever seen refer to the change of temperature since 1880 as “1K” that actually mean “in absolute Kelvin” (as opposed to 1K being relatively scaled to= 1 C! ) while ALSO invoking The Absolute Temperature SCALE in the breath! For example, invoking TATS, we say temps increased by 0.8C or…almost 1C. And to us, 1C=1K.
You cannot talk in absolute Kelvin one moment, and be referring to a number calculated using TATS the next without clarifying.
The increase in temperature since 1880 is equivalent to 1C.
You multiplied a percentage of the TOTAL temperature today (0.3% of 288k), and multiplied it (the percentage)to it’s 4th power. You did not take the actual increase in temp (1K or 1C), calculate what that increase in temp equates to in radiated energy, and THEN calculate that increase in radiated energy out to its fourth power!
Multiplying decimals by decimals results in small differences. Multiplying whole digits of temperature increased radiation to their 4th power results in large differences.
Aphan April 11, 2016 at 12:54 pm
I actually thought you were joking until I saw this:
I want to learn. Teach me!
So I’ll take you at your word.
Again, everything you are arguing with dbstealey about regarding CO2 and how he expressed himself is SEMANTICS. YOU don’t get to decide what he meant by saying it a certain way and THEN declare him a moron for the meaning YOU assigned to him. He’s already demonstrated (for years here) that he DOES know what he’s talking about and he’s stated repeatedly in this thread that he “could have stated it better” or more clearly than he did. But YOU just keep smacking that dead horse carcass over and over again as if each additional blow makes you more manly or more correct or more…..something. Walk away from the corpse man….it’s starting to get creepy.
Firstly, I never called stealey a ‘moron’ despite his personal attacks on me (he’s been asked to stop doing this in the past by the Mods but it has no effect).
********
[Reply: You were both recently asked to stop the bun fight. Since that moderator comment, dbstealey never replied to a comment of yours, until you personally goaded him by name three or four times, for no good reason. -mod.]
********
Secondly, science uses the terms %, ppm etc. in a particular way, the US SAT tests even has questions in it in their exams, stealey’s version is one of the wrong answers in the multi choice set!
100 years ago, in every 1 million pounds of air, there was roughly 280 pounds of carbon dioxide. That means that carbon dioxide was roughly 0.028% of the total atmosphere at the time.
Today, in every 1 million pounds of air, there is roughly 400 pounds of carbon dioxide. That means that carbon dioxide is roughly 0.040% of the total atmosphere today.
Now, it is just as perfectly logical and accurate to say that in the past 100 years, the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased by 0.012 % (relative to our atmosphere as a whole) as it is that pCO2 has increased about 30%.(relative to just the amount of CO2 as a whole). It depends entirely upon what your mathematical reference points are. If you are considering JUST the amount of C02, and 400 ppm =100%, then sure, an increase of 120 ppm= a 30% in the total amount of CO2. If you are considering the amount of CO2 relative to the atmosphere, in which the total atmosphere is 100%-then and increase of 120 ppm= 0.012% increase in the ratio of CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere.
That’s the problem those two ways of expressing it are not equivalent.
The percentage change in a quantity is given by:
100x(Newvalue-Oldvalue)/Oldvalue
To avoid ambiguity the way of representing the change in the percentage value of two quantities expressed in percentages is to refer to them as ‘percentage points’. For example if the interest rate on a loan goes up from 3% to 4% you might see it reported as an ‘increase of 1 percentage point’, however the interest on your loan just increased by 33%!
0.012 is mathematically stated as being “12 one thousandths” of something. If I want to recalculate that into “ten thousandths”, I merely divide it by 10….giving me 1.2 “ten thousandths”. Thus, dbstealey’s thinking might not be YOURS, but he is not INaccurate in stating that the increase can equal 1 in 10,000 (if he rounds the number down from 1.2 to 1).
See above but also you’d multiply by 10 not divide by 10 so 0.012 is stated as ‘120 ten thousandths’.
It should be clear to every rational, logical human being that this issue can be stated in a number of ways and be accurate/correct in ALL of them depending upon the context the author of the statement is referring to. YOU don’t get to declare what dbstealey’s context is any more than HE gets to declare what yours is.
This is supposed to be a Science blog, as such correct scientific usage is appropriate.
The Earth losing MORE energy to space can be explained by the SB Law…as the temperature of Earth increases, the amount of radiation it emits increases exponentially to the 4th power. But the amount of CO2 HAS NOT been increasing exponentially to the 4th power as well has it? But even if it had been… its AFFECT on temperatures would STILL BE logarithmic, not exponential. Thus it would have to increase TWICE as exponentially to the 4th power in order to even keep up (absorb and trap all or most of) the rate of increase in radiation being emitted by the Earth, just to keep temps steady!
The idea that the CO2 in the atmosphere is limited in its ability to absorb the IR in the 15micron band is flawed.
Now, the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not ONLY apply to the 1K increase in average global temperature, or global mean temperature, of the entire planet since 1880 Phil. It applies to EVERY increase in temperature anywhere at any time of any black body/object/surface! For example, let’s say that it was 30F outside my house at 8:00 am this morning when the Sun rose, and let’s say that it warms up to 70 degrees F during the day. There has been an increase of 40F today, and the SB law applies to every single degree of that warming! What the global average today is, is completely irrelevant to what happens to the temps and atmosphere in my location.
The more the temperature where I am increases during the day, the more the amount of radiation being given off increases, in direct proportion to the 4th power of EACH temperature increase.
Ok so far
Right? It’s not linear, it’s
exponentialquartic!Now, when I woke up today, lets say that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere where I live is 390 ppm, and at the peak of temperature increase today, it is still 390ppm. (it could be less, or more, depending on weather situations/fluctuations, but for my example, it doesn’t change today) So…at 8:00 am, for every million pounds of “air” where I live, there is 390 pounds of CO2 molecules and we start at 30F. Over the course of 20 minutes-from 8:00am to 8:20 am…the temperature rises by 1 degree. According to SB…that means that radiation being emitted from the Earth rose to the 4th power of that 1F increase.
BUT…the amount of CO2 in the air did not change. There’s still the exact same number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere where live AFTER the increase in temps, as there was BEFORE it. Another 20 minutes goes by…and another 1F increase in temps occurs. Another exponential increase in radiation being emitted FROM the planet. Still the same amount of CO2 molecules. Over and over again, the amount of radiation being emitted into the atmosphere where I live increases…and not just a little….a lot….until a 40 F temperature increase has occurred. Do the math for me Phil….what’s the difference between the amount of radiation that was being emitted at 30F and the amount being emitted at 70F?
That’s about an 8% increase in T so 1.08^4 = 1.36 times more radiation emitted (36% more)
And if the number of CO2 molecules remains constant, and thus, their ability to absorb a certain spectrum of the increasing radiation remains constant, what happens to all of the additional radiation being emitted in that certain spectrum….does it hang out…hover under the extinction height for a CO2 molecule to become open and available to grab it? Or does it just simply move past all of existing CO2 molecules in it’s trajectory (cause they are already occupied with absorbing and convecting and conducting as much as they possibly can) and head directly for space?
That’s where you go wrong, the absorption capabilities of the CO2 have not been exhausted, even if the first few meters were saturated then the additional radiation would be absorbed in the next few meters.
HTH
Like Bindidon, I have to ask you to STOP pretending to know what Im thinking or how I “might be” applying a specific discussion or statement. I never said ANYTHING about radiation bands or absorption etc, so you bringing them up is irrelevant to what I am specifically trying to express. I also didn’t quote you as calling dbstealey a moron….no quotation marks….You just implied it.
When WE…as in the general public and laypeople who discuss climate science etc, oh…and NASA and NOAA and the EPA etc- we speak of the increase in global temps as 0.8C. Sorry if you don’t like that or approve of it, or it makes your little old fashioned calculator seize up. Just how it is.
We can DO that, again, perfectly logically because of The Absolute Temperature Scale….its a SCALE that makes it possible to talk about that increase in the past 135 years IN CELSIUS!!! It also makes it possible to apply the Stefan Boltzmann principle to changes in degrees Celsius or Farenheight or Klingon (if someone wants to work out the relativity of the Klingon numerical system to the freaking scale!)
It doesn’t really matter how many molecules of CO2 are in our atmosphere, it matters if those molecules are available at the exact moment that a photon of energy they are capable of absorbing approaches them. Each one can only absorb, hold, transfer, emit a specific amount of photon energy. If the amount of radiation flowing through them doubles, their ability to absorb and emit and transfer does not. It remains the same.
Imagine a football stadium filled with 60,000 fans. Imagine all members of a professional football team (53) standing on the field and each one of them throwing a football into the crowd at the same time. Odds are that all or most of the footballs would be caught due the number of throwers in relation to the number of catchers. Right? And the 53 people in the crowd could then toss those 53 footballs in any direction and they would most likely be caught by someone else on and on for quite a while before those footballs “escaped” being caught. Right?
Now, reverse it.
Have every single fan in the stadium, throw one football each at the 53 players on the ground at the same time. There is no possible way for those 53 players to catch every single football coming at them at once. Even if every single player catches TWO, that’s 106 out of 60,000!!! MOST of them are going to “escape being caught”. Right?
Well, the odds are even worse in the atmosphere. There is only ONE football player for every 10,000 fans. (yes, I’m going all dbstealey on you!) So if we were trying to be accurate (as well as silly) there would only have been six players on the field in our example above. Not 53. SIX. And to be even more accurate, let’s fill the field up completely with other people, but strap their arms to their sides so that ONLY the SIX football players among them can attempt to catch ANY of the 60,000 footballs thrown at the same time. Oh, and tell all of the people on the field, including the players, that they can move anywhere in any random way they want to around and with the six players, but those six players MUST remain equidistant from each other at all times. (if CO2 really is a well mixed gas….OCO 2 shows differently…but whatever) Do you see how incredibly overwhelmed those poor CO2 molecules…er…players are?
But wait! The temperature in the stadium doubles…and now the 60,000 fans aren’t just throwing 60,000 footballs at the field….the number of footballs they are throwing increases by a factor of 16!! (2 to the 4th power) But the number of players that can catch those footballs remains the same! I might be inclined to be a benevolent science God and give you BACK all 53 players (which would be like C02 going from 400 ppm to 3600 ppm) but you’re STILL going to have to deal with the number of footballs being thrown being 60,000 x a factor of 16…and increasing all the time.
The Stefan Boltzmann principle applies NO MATTER WHAT temperature system I’m using. It does NOT matter if I’m using Kelvin or Celsius or F to measure the temperature in that formula because TATS allows me to “scale” the “absolute temperature of Kelvin” to make it relative to all of the other temperature measurements we currently use. Thus I could, and DID logically read your 1K increase since 1880 as =1 C because that is how the current climate science community DISCUSSES it.
Your 0.3% increase in Kelvin ONLY WORKS if you are talking about the increase in Kelvin from 1880-2016 being from 287K to 288K (because only then does 1K=.03% of 288). In the real world today, that increase in 1K is relative to 1C and an increase of 0.8C=….what Phil.? And how does that relate to an increase in radiation proportional to the 4th power of that increase? And how many players are on the field to catch all those increasingly numerous footballs?
Please see my comment at the very end. This thread is getting extremely long.
Your 0.3% increase in Kelvin ONLY WORKS if you are talking about the increase in Kelvin from 1880-2016 being from 287K to 288K (because only then does 1K=.03% of 288). In the real world today, that increase in 1K is relative to 1C and an increase of 0.8C=….what Phil.? And how does that relate to an increase in radiation proportional to the 4th power of that increase? And how many players are on the field to catch all those increasingly numerous footballs?
An increase of 0.8ºC results in an increase of 1.1% in the radiant emittance of a blackbody.
The CO2 absorbs IR in the 15µm band so we should consider emission in that band so lets take a 1µm wide band at 15µm. At 288K the spectral emission in that band is ~5.8W/m^2/sr/µm so 1m^2 will emit 5.8 W into a steradian above it which is about 44×10^19 photons/sec.
In the 10m above that 1m^2 there are ~1.1×10^23 molecules of CO2, so just in that 10m CO2 molecules outnumber the photons emitted by a factor of 1000 or so. The energy absorbed by CO2 from a photon is lost to the surroundings in less than a second so your concern about there being too few CO2 molecules is misplaced. In any case a molecule isn’t limited to absorbing one photon at a time.
You multiplied a percentage of the TOTAL temperature today (0.3% of 288k), and multiplied it (the percentage)to it’s 4th power. You did not take the actual increase in temp (1K or 1C), calculate what that increase in temp equates to in radiated energy, and THEN calculate that increase in radiated energy out to its fourth power!
It makes no difference.
288^4/287^4 = 6879707136/6784652161 = 1.014
(1.0035)^4 = 1.014
Do you mean from 288 K to 576 K? Or do you mean from 15 C to 30 C? And if the latter, are you suggesting that a change from 15 C to 30 C has the same effect as going from 1 C to 2 C?
Aphan April 12, 2016 at 5:31 pm
Like Bindidon, I have to ask you to STOP pretending to know what Im thinking or how I “might be” applying a specific discussion or statement. I never said ANYTHING about radiation bands or absorption etc, so you bringing them up is irrelevant to what I am specifically trying to express.
Then what are you talking about here then?
And if the number of CO2 molecules remains constant, and thus, their ability to absorb a certain spectrum of the increasing radiation remains constant, what happens to all of the additional radiation being emitted in that certain spectrum
Aphan
In response to our little ‘thread in the thread’
– my first comment (April 8, 2016 at 4:30 am) trying to explain exactly the contrary of what all ‘honest skeptics’ à la dbstealey automatically imagine;
– your unluckily misplaced comment (April 8, 2016 at 2:49 pm) I first got to read right now;
– my second trial (April 8, 2016 at 2:30 pm) to explain more accurately my meaning that actually, temperature increase is far away from Arrhenius’ ln level, and therefore the idea of its CO2-based forcing is inacceptable;
– your answer to the latter (April 8, 2016 at 4:11 pm)
1. I’m really disappointed by your reaction on my first graph. Simply because already there it was visible that I tried to show how far the temperature curve (in this case: JMA’s) still is from the CO2 concentrations’ logarithm. I was sure everybody (able to concentrate on a piece of text, some are not) would understand the message:
– that CO2 increase certainly is manmade, but
– that it actually hardly can be the major source of temperature increase.
2. In your last answer you wrote
‘Thank you for admitting your first graph was nonsense.’
But it was no nonsense! Due to the arbitrary scaling it was certainly not accurate, but the corrected plot had by no means more sense than the first one.
Simply because having the values for ln(CO2-now/CO2-1891) and the temperature anomalies at the same scale (with values ranging from -2 up to +5) is exactly as arbitrary as scaling them at some factor to have them visible together with a CO2 concentration delta curve with values ranging from 0 to up to 120.
So I repeat: only a professional scientist will be able to explain us how to bring Arrhenius’ formula and temperature anomalies in a correct and accurate relation to eachanother.
3. Thanks for the 1906 link. I should have the file somewhere, but it seems that Google Desktop Search sometimes is quite a bit asleep and misses file arrivals. But first I’ll reread the 1901 document (only in german as appendix to a 1896 translation.
“3. Thanks for the 1906 link. I should have the file somewhere, but it seems that Google Desktop Search sometimes is quite a bit asleep and misses file arrivals. But first I’ll reread the 1901 document (only in german as appendix to a 1896 translation.”
I want to clarify. Arrhenius LOWERED his previous climate sensitivity estimates from 4-5 C increase in temps from a doubling of CO2, to a1-2 C increase in a speech he gave in 1901. That speech was documented in German, and most people today have no idea he ever changed his calculations. That speech has been translated into English and can be read at the link I posted.
So, the 1901 document is NOT an “appendix” to anything written in 1896, nor anything translated in 1896. It is a stand alone, completely different document of a speech that didn’t even occur until 1901! Arrhenius changed his mind, and admitted that his previous calculations on climate sensitivity were too high.
Thus current estimates on climate sensitivity, that are much lower than Arrhenius’s FIRST calculations, actually ARE almost perfectly in line with Arrhenius’s LATER calculations on CO2 based forcings.
Clarifying my comments on your graphs. YOU started the whole thing by taking a swipe at a WFT graph and saying that you ask yourself why people publish graphs that are “nonsense”…= make very little, if any, sense. AND THEN YOU published a graph that could ALSO be viewed as making very little sense! You admit it wasn’t accurate. You admit it wasn’t professional, or scientific etc, and that it was erroneous to try to graph those elements together.
Now, I wouldn’t have been harsh with YOUR graph, at all, but YOU had been harsh with someone else’s graph FIRST, so I was merely giving you a taste of what you so eagerly seemed to dish out. Put simply, YOU have NO IDEA what all skeptics “automatically imagine”. YOU are not an authority on whether someone is an “honest skeptic” a la ANYONE here, or not. So it is nothing but either arrogant or stupid to presume to “explain exactly the contrary” of something you cannot possibly know in the first place.
If what I said isn’t perfectly clear to you, ASK me to explain further. Do not ASSUME to know what I think or feel.
1. Sorry: I definitely see a great difference between publishing a nonsense like
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
and trying to make things visible which otherwise wouldn’t be.
See e.g.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160411/7ukphjhm.pdf
and
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160411/qjayx8vy.pdf
The text in my comment had made clear: the main aspect here is that the global mean temperature still is far below Arrhenius assumptions (of 1896! You are the VERY FIRST person who also knows about the 1901 and 1906 papers).
Dropping the CO2 concentration curve made the plot technically more accurate, but let disappear the more important aspect: how many people know about Arrhenius’ ln formula?
And I personally miss in the same plot also a curve showing the CO2 emissions, what makes bringing the four meaningfully together even more difficult.
2. ‘So, the 1901 document is NOT an “appendix” to anything written in 1896’
Nobody told that. But my german translation of it IS an appendix to that of his 1896 publication.
3. ‘If what I said isn’t perfectly clear to you, ASK me to explain further. Do not ASSUME to know what I think or feel.’
Kindly returned to you… and this is my last comment in your direction. I don’t like to communicate with people pretending I’m arrogant.
Bindidon-
1.-you never defined clearly what made the WFT graph “nonsense” to you. The WFT graph CLEARLY demonstrates what the data on the chart represents (in the box) and CLEARLY shows that despite an ever increasing amount of CO2 in the air, the temperature trend in the rss data has been flat. If I align YOUR graph’s results from 1996-2016 with the WFT graph (which only involves data from that date range) the exact same thing is “visible” to me in both graphs. Your chart can’t really be “compared specifically to” the WFT graph equally because-
A- you use a different temp data source
B-you include 101 years worth of data that is NOT included on the WFT graph
C- you include an Arrhenius equation (which even you admit doesn’t work well in this scenario)
In other words, you had to post 100+ more years, to illustrate your point, but if the WFT chart had included that same 100+ years, it would most likely look pretty much like YOUR chart! It doesn’t make the WFT chart “nonsense” to anyone except you. Maybe the person who used that chart was only focused on the time frame between 1996 and 2016, which makes that chart perfectly relevant and useful!
You said: “the main aspect here is that the global mean temperature still is far below Arrhenius assumptions (of 1896! You are the VERY FIRST person who also knows about the 1901 and 1906 papers). ”
Wow…if THAT was the main aspect you wanted to show on you chart, just chart where the temps SHOULD have been according to Arrhenius’s 1896 calculations, vs where they actually are today! How simple is that?
And NO, I’m NOT the “very first person” here at WUWT who also knows about the 1901 and 1906 papers. They are mentioned by commenters on this WUWT thread in 2009- starting with “Sam the Skeptic June 27, 2009 at 3:05 pm”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/warmists-deny-copenhagen-access-to-polar-bear-scientist/
But that brings me to ask you, if 1) you KNEW that Arrhenius recanted his earlier calculations and lowered them significantly, AND 2) you suspected that no one else here knows that-why on earth didn’t you feel the urge to SHARE that information with us? Why didn’t you bring it up and THEN calculate your charts? Why did you try to calculate them using the “old” Arrhenius calculations, which were inaccurate, rather than his newer, more accurate ones?
3.-You said “Kindly returned to you… and this is my last comment in your direction. I don’t like to communicate with people pretending I’m arrogant.”
See, there you go again. You ASSUME that I’m “pretending you are arrogant”. I say assume, because you couldn’t possibly KNOW what I am, or am not pretending, or even believing…unless you ASK me personally. For the record, I’m not pretending you are arrogant. I have no idea what you are, or are not, so pretending you are anything would be irrational and illogical. I’m pointing out WHY I responded to your exact words/comments in the manner I did, based upon nothing more than what they actually said. (I don’t try to pretend to know exactly what you MEANT so if you don’t say exactly what you mean…I’m going to naturally read your words differently than you intended them) Obviously there is a small language/communication issue here as you have said things (such as about the “appendix” issue) that can be taken any number of ways, and only upon you adding more clarification do I see that you mean something different.
You are under no obligation to respond, or not respond to me, or anyone else on this site. But when you post things I disagree with, I’ll probably say something if I see it.
Aphan
1. I couldn’t imagine you would accept this graph as accurate. We live in 2 different worlds, I guess.
It is nonsense for me because:
(1) – it makes – for me – no sense to put CO2 emissions and hence its atmospheric concentration together with temperature measurement within such a small time scale;
(2) – it makes – for me – no sense as well to plot temperature measurements over such a small time scale, especially for those measurements subject to higher statistical uncertainty, like those of the lower troposphere.
When I see at Kevin Cowtan’s trend computer within York University the trend for RSS with 2σ (i.e. 95% CI) for the period 1997-now: 0.034 ± 0.174 °C/decade, I ask me what that does mean to publish a flat curve with a 2σ 5 times higher than the trend itself, and I ask me further why to put it in relation with by far more accurate data like Mauna Loa’s.
Look at these fluctuations of RSS’ trend/2σ data (all in °C/decade):
Start 1991
0.126 ± 0.118
0.130 ± 0.126
0.104 ± 0.131
0.077 ± 0.137
0.060 ± 0.147
0.058 ± 0.161
0.034 ± 0.174
0.011 ± 0.188
0.076 ± 0.183
0.057 ± 0.202
0.026 ± 0.223
0.026 ± 0.252
0.053 ± 0.285
0.093 ± 0.325
0.095 ± 0.377
0.174 ± 0.434
0.222 ± 0.524
0.320 ± 0.624
0.189 ± 0.767
0.175 ± 1.003
0.773 ± 0.974
As a comparison: all surface temp data have for the period from 1891 till 2015 far more accurate trend values with far less uncertainty ranging within [0.071 – 0.077] ± 0.008 °C / decade (2σ).
Even over the statellite era, they range within [0.158 – 0.172] ± 0.040 °C / decade (2σ).
That’s what I can manage to trust in. When you write
‘Maybe the person who used that chart was only focused on the time frame between 1996 and 2016, which makes that chart perfectly relevant and useful!’
you probably will have a completely different view of that: OK!
But that doesn’t change my mind.
2. I wrote indeed:
‘You are the VERY FIRST person who also knows about the 1901 and 1906 papers’
You are right, but… what else than
‘You are for me the VERY FIRST person who also knows about the 1901 and 1906 papers’
could I have meant? Is that not evident? There will be thousands of persons knowing of these papers, especially outside of WUWT. But I don’t know them!
So it’s evident to me that I keep on the 1896 line. I reread the 2006 paper together with that dated 2001 and was disappointed by both: the 1896 paper possibly was based on wrong assumptions but had – in my opinion, that’s evident! – far more clarity and strength.
Bindidon,
“1. I couldn’t imagine you would accept this graph as accurate. We live in 2 different worlds, I guess.”
Nope. We live in the same world. It makes perfect sense to put CO2 emissions, and hence atmospheric concentrations together with temperature measurements for ANY time period you wish to discuss, focus on, point something out. Small time scale discussion-small time scale chart. Long time scale discussion, long time scale chart. See? This particular discussion covers the past 23 years. 2016-23= 1993 on. If you want to drag the discussion of a small time scale issue OFF TOPIC and into a discussion related to LONG TIME scales, (going off topic is frowned upon in the first place) maybe next time try not stooping to illogical insults or references to material that was never intended to be applied to a long time scale?
Bindidon said-“As a comparison: all surface temp data have for the period from 1891 till 2015 far more accurate trend values with far less uncertainty ranging within [0.071 – 0.077] ± 0.008 °C / decade (2σ).”
Read this slowly: This thread is NOT about the trend from 1891 until 2015. It is a discussion about a 23 year trend, of very little to no warming, WITHIN the 1891-2015 time frame. Read those two sentences again and again until you grasp and accept their meaning. Then maybe you’ll understand why it was so ODD for you to criticize a perfectly logical and accurate chart that was completely and totally relevant to that 23 year trend-specifically-and then introduce a chart/graph NOT specific to the topic that had all kinds of problems with it’s construction!!!
Bindidon said” it makes no sense as well to plot temperature measurements over such a small time scale, especially for those measurements subject to higher statistical uncertainty, like those of the lower troposphere.”
HAHAHAHAHA! You DO realize that the temperature measurements since 1993 are MUCH, MUCH more statistically certain than those going backwards in time? The further back you go, the more those “measurements are subject to higher statistical uncertainty”! And yet you apparently thought it made “perfect sense” to plot those temperatures AND introduce them into a conversation about a small time scale. In my view, you just contradicted your own chart’s credibility due to the “higher statistical uncertainty” of the data in it.
You think fluctuations in trends are bad? Cowtan’s trend computer in New York City-
UAH starting in 1991
-3.269 +/-10.578 C/decade
-2.005 +/- 8.224 C/decade
2.626 +/- 9.197 C/decade
1.774 ±7.588 °C/decade (2σ)
I’d keep going but I’m sure your trust in everything outside of RSS is perfectly justified. 🙂
“You are for me the VERY FIRST person who also knows about the 1901 and 1906 papers’
could I have meant? Is that not evident? There will be thousands of persons knowing of these papers, especially outside of WUWT. But I don’t know them!”
Of course I KNOW you meant this! But you still posted here based on the assumption that NO ONE-not even ME-knows the truth. It shouldn’t matter if all of us, or none of us “knows the truth”, you should always discuss THE TRUTH and not make ASSUMPTIONS about everyone else. If you use incorrect calculations, when you KNOW they are incorrect, it makes you a LIAR and a hypocrite if you are talking about whether or not others are “honest skeptics”!
“So it’s evident to me that I keep on the 1896 line. I reread the 2006 paper together with that dated 2001 and was disappointed by both: the 1896 paper possibly was based on wrong assumptions but had – in my opinion, that’s evident! – far more clarity and strength.”
What 2006 and 2001 papers are you talking about? I’d assume you meant 1901 and 1906, but that’s not what you actually SAID, and I already told you, I don’t like to ASSUME what people are thinking.
So, if I have to CHOOSE between what YOU personally think (your opinion) regarding Arrhenius’s papers, and WHAT HE SAID about his own previous calculations in 1901, you’ll have to forgive me for choosing Arrhenius’s own words as “what I can manage to trust in.”
Bindidon is from Germany, therefore he has been infected with the ‘Green’ narrative. The eco-green nonsense is such a monumental pile of horse manure that rational folks here in America rejected it long ago.
But Germans are used to taking orders from whoever is their current führer — and today that is the green contingent. They give the orders, and Bindidon, being a ‘good German’, parrots their talking points.
Next, Aphan says:
Arrhenius LOWERED his previous climate sensitivity estimates from 4-5 ºC increase in temps from a doubling of CO2, to a 1-2 ºC increase…
I’ve commented on that same fact for years here. It is nothing new or obscure. Well, maybe to some folks it’s new information.
Arrhenius recanted his original estimate, and replaced it with what is currently at the high end of sensitivity estimates. But recent observational evidence indicates that Arrhenius’ later estimate is still too high.
Finally, Bindidon says:
I definitely see a great difference between publishing a nonsense like
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-
So posting a graph based on data from the WoodForTrees database is “nonsense”??
What ‘Bindidon’ is saying is this:
“Since I can’t refute reality, I will label it ‘nonsense’ and hope that readers accept that.
Wrong, bindidon. It is you posting nonsense. A total non-skeptic (bindidon) is incapable of coming up with anything credible that supports his belief in ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ — proving once again that alarmists like bindidon have lost the science argument.
Typical skeptic blah blah written by one of these many many persons thinking: “Who is not skeptic is a desperate green warmista”.
Your own words:
But Germans are used to taking orders from whoever is their current führer — and today that is the green contingent. They give the orders, and Bindidon, being a ‘good German’, parrots their talking points.
One more clear proof that skeptics like you are unable to avoid unnecessary polemics. Compare that what you write with Aphan’s well-balanced crticisms, and you’ll measure your own incredibly low level.
Look at my last answer to Aphan (April 11, 2016 at 1:39 pm), maybe you understand what I mean with nonsense.
WFT is one among many! Like all other sites of that kind, Paul Clark fetches data from several providers (Kevin Cowtan at York University, Nick Stokes at moyhu, for example). Paul unfortunately seems to slowly shutdown, what a pity.
I do the same job as hobby, have downloaded some known data, with in addition the 5×5°-gridded data from JMA’s Tokio Climate Center. This is the ideal surface dataset for skeptics, quite a lot cooler than the warmistas’ products 🙂
So I can compare 5 surface (BEST, JMA, GISS, HadCRUT4, NOAA) and 3 satellite datasets (UAH5.6, 6.0beta5, RSS3.3); when I get time to do, I’ll add some radiosonde providers (RATPAC, RAOBCORE, etc).
Here is a plot of all of the eight, together with the mean I computed out of them:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160411/rti8czjt.pdf
That’s accurate data, with valuable trends and uncertainties: all the inverse of what you do when plotting RSS from 1997 till now… Feel free to scale the pdf up to 200% or more, and look at the data.
What about you doing the same job, instead of all the time keeping just above your counterproductive insulting niveau?
*
P.S. The green people are in Germany simply inaudible and uninteresting. All what happens here is done under the direction of Angela Merkel and the parties located at the center/right of the political spectrum.
You have no idea of what happens in Germany… no idea!
Bindidon-
“One more clear proof that skeptics like you are unable to avoid unnecessary polemics. Compare that what you write with Aphan’s well-balanced crticisms, and you’ll measure your own incredibly low level.”
What do you mean when you say “skeptics like you”? dbstealey usually DOES avoid unnecessary polemics, and I respect him for that, but he also gets very tired of dealing with overt attacks from multiple sources at once…and I can respect that as well.
I’m TRYING to be well balanced and avoid unnecessary polemics right now. But that doesn’t mean I ALWAYS avoid them or act in a well balanced manner. I can get pissy and mean and impatient too. And I can enjoy it immensely. But “how” I act at any given moment has ZERO bearing upon my level of intelligence or knowledge, it rarely affects the logical foundation of my arguments, and it certainly doesn’t put me in any category of “skeptics like me that are unable to do something”…other than being “unable” to perfectly and politely speak to every other human being 24 hours a day 7 days a week!
I believe they call that “being human” in almost every place in the world, even Germany 🙂
In other words, you are being just as unreasonable and judgemental about dbstealey’s type of “skeptic”, as he is being about you being “German”. It’s ridiculous and immature coming from both of you. But like all other human beings, my fondness for dbstealey (as well as my knowledge/ wariness of his razor sharp retorts) makes me biased when it comes to snarking at him for it, whereas I have no such bias concerning you…yet. As you can see, I am perfectly willing to openly admit and embrace my biases, especially when they are completely irrelevant to “the science” or the “data” being discussed.
I don’t care where you are from, or what you are, or what your IQ is, or whether you come from a long line of distinguished professors or a long line of inbred, moonshine running, back woods lunatics. Unless of course I can trace every flaw in every argument back to that as a direct cause with empirical evidence…in which case I will print t shirts and bumper stickers and hound you with it until the end of time. 🙂
Bindidon,
You fabricate a plot of eight different opinions, put them together, and call it “good data”?
You’re in the wrong place. This is a science site.
And you say WoodForTrees is “one among many”.
WFT uses publicly available databases to automatically construct charts. And that’s the best argument you have?
You lost the science debate many years ago. You’re just another climate alarmist who is mystefied that the planet isn’t doing what you expected. The planet is decisively falsifying your CO2 scare.
You’re certainly no skeptic — and that is no complement. All honest scientists are skeptics, first and foremost. You’re just parroting the Narrative.
Finally, you call (self-described) ex-Communist Angela Merkel as “center/right”??
You really are clueless. Merkel is a dictator, ignoring German voters in favor of the foreign illegals she is flooding into the country. Who does she represent, anyway? Young Syrian rapists? Or Germans?
The answer is crystal clear: she represents the flood of foreign illegals. That isn’t just being a dictator — that is being a traitor.
And it shows that you don’t have a clue.
I understand your concern but that simply is not practical and my table would be meaningless. We just have to accept the fact that the numbers are what they are along with +/- 0.1 or something like that. Look at the table for example. If I did as you suggest, I would have 3 zeros and 27 ones. How meaningful would that be? And when I gave the yearly summary with the December data, all 12 UAH months would have been a 0. And all 12 GISS months would have been a 1. Furthermore, the cold base period that GISS uses would have been responsible for those ones.
Here in Canada, we are up the creek now. But if you in the United Stated vote in Trump or Cruz, you will have won the political debate. I know that Cruz has an aid that follows WUWT and informs him of important things. For example, he at one point held up one of Lord Monckton’s graph with a long pause.
Prominent Senate CACA skeptic Inhofe of OK supported Rubio, but I suppose now might be backing his neighbor Cruz.
I should add that Inhofe is a friend to WUWT and its host.
‘Phil.’ is clearly fixated on me.
I ignored his first several personal digs. But I’m as human as the next guy, and I finally replied to one of them. Of course, ‘Phil.’ ratcheted it up from there. A classic case of insecurity; he has to be right, even when he’s wrong.
I would much prefer to keep the discussion on the fact that there has been no statistically significant global warming. But the alarmists in this debate don’t want that, because that falsifies their claim that CO2 is the control knob of global temperatures.
They lost the science debate a long time ago, so their fall-back position is to nitpick, to set up strawmen and knock ’em down, to deflect, to misrepresent what others have written… anything except to admit that Planet Earth is busy falsifying the central tenet of their climate alarmism.
For example, I had written that CO2 has risen by just one part in 10,000; a true statement, no?
‘Phil.’ replied:
…your use of ‘1 part in 10,000’ in your statement is improper, exactly as I said.
Introducing things like “dry air” and other typical forms of deflection and misdirection are done because the basic debate is whether a rise in CO2 will cause global warming. Observations contradict that assumption. There are many decades over the past century that falsify that conjecture. And as Einstein said, it only takes one.
The simple fact that the change from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, is exactly the same as a change of one part in 10,000, makes the “carbon” scare not so scary at all. Thus, the insecure losers of the basic ‘dangerous AGW’ debate feel compelled to nitpick and argue.
In this case, the anonymous ‘Phil.’ goes into a long-winded series of strawman arguments in an attempt to muddy the waters, concluding with:
Clearly the remainder of the statement illustrates why your use of ‘1 part in 10,000’ in your statement is improper, exactly as I said.
So there you have it: the rise in CO2, by only one part in 10,000, is “improper”. Not only is it “improper”, but ‘Phil.’ feels it necessary to add: exactly as I said.
Well, exactly as your strawman said.
However, if ‘Phil.’ wishes to continue to argue that there is something “improper” with pointing out that CO2 has risen by only one part in 10,000, I am happy to oblige. That objection is so preposterous that it shows ‘Phil.’ — whomever he is — to be an insecure, nitpicking, Google-searching cut ‘n’ paster, who desperately tries to impress upon everyone how smart he is. I think it’s all phony, or he would use a uniquely identifiable screen name. Heck, Aphan knows at least as much about the subject as ‘Phil.’ Maybe more.
As stated above, I turned the other cheek several times before I took the bait. Why else would ‘Phil.’ be so fixated on little old me? The reason is insecurity. Anyone who disagrees with ‘Phil.’ is wrong — and he’ll prove it with a fast Google search, pretending he knew it all along.
The alarmist crowd has lost the basic science argument: Planet Earth is simply not doing what was repeated incessantly — until it became clear that global warming stopped for many years. Then, “global warming” became “climate change”.
So now they deflect, nitpick, change the subject, misrepresent, use the strawman fallacy… anything except to admit that the hated skeptics were right all along.
And yes, a change from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is exactly the same as a change of one part in 10,000. No matter what the anonymous ‘Phil.’ says.
Hey db,
Maybe Phil has a little man crush on you. I mean, I’m a woman and you could just as easily think I am “fixated” on you as well, but in my case it would be a flattering thing….(I would HOPE….it might be really stalkerish to you…muhuhahahaha). 🙂 <—– indicates humor, teasing, lightheartedness
Honestly db, you are BEYOND patient in my estimation considering the number of AGW clown cars that pull up in here, spit out numerous passengers that run around honking for a while, and then disappear as quickly as they arrived. ANYONE who has been around WUWT for more than a week or two has seen the pattern, and anyone with any integrity knows exactly how little the clowns bring to the table or the quality of the discussion. That it takes as many jabs to get you snark back as it does, really IS a testament to YOU db. And all their antics do is just prove it again and again.
(Hey…waddayamean I "know at least as much as Phil"???? The man cannot even calculate to the 4th power correctly! I resent your insinuation! hehehehe *grin I mean seriously, the man puts a period at the end of his own name for crying out loud!)
No one ever goes to battle in public against a "nobody" like dbstealey. People only exert that much effort against something they feel threatened by, or that scares or intimidates them. It's like watching a dragon get fired on by tiny little villagers with Qtips for arrows….not painful, but after a while, annoying as h^%$!!! I'm evil enough to enjoy the moments with the dragon turns around and eats a villager or two. Kind of makes life worth living.
Fixatedly yours….
Aphan April 11, 2016 at 9:21 pm
(Hey…waddayamean I “know at least as much as Phil”???? The man cannot even calculate to the 4th power correctly! I resent your insinuation! hehehehe *grin I mean seriously, the man puts a period at the end of his own name for crying out loud!)
Tutorial about calculating x^n given above. 🙂
Regarding the use of a period at the end of an abbreviation, it’s the habit of a lifetime having been taught the ‘correct’ way to do so many years ago.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/punctuation-in-abbreviations-american
dbstealey April 11, 2016 at 7:48 pm
‘Phil.’ is clearly fixated on me.
Nope, as a scientist I correct errors which I see here, you make more than most and generally refuse to acknowledge them, so you get more attention.
I ignored his first several personal digs. But I’m as human as the next guy, and I finally replied to one of them. Of course, ‘Phil.’ ratcheted it up from there. A classic case of insecurity; he has to be right, even when he’s wrong.
I made no personal digs, you’re the one who made those.
They lost the science debate a long time ago, so their fall-back position is to nitpick, to set up strawmen and knock ’em down, to deflect, to misrepresent what others have written… anything except to admit that Planet Earth is busy falsifying the central tenet of their climate alarmism.
For example, I had written that CO2 has risen by just one part in 10,000; a true statement, no?
‘Phil.’ replied:
…your use of ‘1 part in 10,000’ in your statement is improper, exactly as I said.
As I pointed out that is not correct usage of that terminology, there were no ‘strawmen’
Introducing things like “dry air” and other typical forms of deflection and misdirection are done because the basic debate is whether a rise in CO2 will cause global warming. Observations contradict that assumption. There are many decades over the past century that falsify that conjecture. And as Einstein said, it only takes one.
I didn’t mention that at all.
The simple fact that the change from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, is exactly the same as a change of one part in 10,000, makes the “carbon” scare not so scary at all. Thus, the insecure losers of the basic ‘dangerous AGW’ debate feel compelled to nitpick and argue.
In this case, the anonymous ‘Phil.’ goes into a long-winded series of strawman arguments in an attempt to muddy the waters, concluding with:
Clearly the remainder of the statement illustrates why your use of ‘1 part in 10,000’ in your statement is improper, exactly as I said.
I made no ‘strawman’ arguments, longwinded or otherwise.
However, if ‘Phil.’ wishes to continue to argue that there is something “improper” with pointing out that CO2 has risen by only one part in 10,000, I am happy to oblige.
It’s just correct scientific usage.
Here’s an example the EPA sets the safety level for lead in drinking water as 15ppb, suppose your local council tests your local supply and finds it is 30ppb. Which would you regard as a more accurate statement, “it’s only over by 15 parts in a billion” or “the limit was exceeded by 100%”?
“Here’s an example the EPA sets the safety level for lead in drinking water as 15ppb, suppose your local council tests your local supply and finds it is 30ppb. Which would you regard as a more accurate statement, “it’s only over by 15 parts in a billion” or “the limit was exceeded by 100%”?”
“Its over by 15 ppb” is JUST as accurate as “the limit was exceeded by 100%” as is “the level of lead in your drinking water is twice the safe level set by the EPA”. But you aren’t really concerned with “accuracy” or you’d be perfectly FINE with every single way it can be expressed accurately. Which is why you had to include “weasel words” in your two examples above.
YOU wanted to draw an emotional distinction so you used it’s “ONLY over by” ( a small amount) in the first one, and “limit” “exceeded” and “100%” . It’s obvious to every reader here that your insistence all this time on “saying it your way rather than how dbstealey said it” has had more to do with emotional manipulation and urgency than it has scientific neutrality and accuracy. This whole thing is about semantics…NOT science.
Aphan April 12, 2016 at 3:07 pm
“Here’s an example the EPA sets the safety level for lead in drinking water as 15ppb, suppose your local council tests your local supply and finds it is 30ppb. Which would you regard as a more accurate statement, “it’s only over by 15 parts in a billion” or “the limit was exceeded by 100%”?”
“Its over by 15 ppb” is JUST as accurate as “the limit was exceeded by 100%” as is “the level of lead in your drinking water is twice the safe level set by the EPA”. But you aren’t really concerned with “accuracy” or you’d be perfectly FINE with every single way it can be expressed accurately. Which is why you had to include “weasel words” in your two examples above.
YOU wanted to draw an emotional distinction so you used it’s “ONLY over by” ( a small amount) in the first one, and “limit” “exceeded” and “100%” .
So you infer that my use of ‘only’ (you capitalized it) was “to draw an emotional distinction”?
That’s interesting because the poster to whom I was responding used:
“CO2 has risen by just one part in 10,000″
and
“CO2 has risen by only one part in 10,000″
“the rise in CO2, by only one part in 10,000″
Do you believe that the original poster was attempting to make ‘an emotional distinction’?
Phil.
It’s entirely possible the other poster was attempting an emotional appeal, but your argument this whole time has APPEARED to be that his comment was not “scientifically accurate”. Since it has been pointed out that it IS mathematically equivalent, and thus accurate, now YOU seem to have changed tactics and want to argue about what YOU see as a personally inappropriate response, rather than a “scientifically accurate” one.
Pick one. If dbstealey’s comment really was accurate, but you don’t like his using “only” for emotional appeal reasons, then you should have addressed THAT instead of arguing the “accurate” angle.
You keep repeating the statement that “this is a science blog”, as if that statement means something so universally specific that invoking it automatically makes all of your behavior, logic, and arguments scientifically sound and perfect. They aren’t. This is Anthony Watt’s PERSONAL BLOG. On the “About page” it says-
“About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”
We discuss science here, but no one here thinks or expects that any one person, or group of people, is a Supreme Authority on Science, nor that invoking the word “science” results in some kind of exacting, definitive, absolute criteria response.
So please, for the sake of understanding, define for all of us exactly what YOU personally mean, or insinuate, or expect when you use that statement, so responders can try to address your personal expectations.
Aphan April 14, 2016 at 12:38 pm
Phil.
It’s entirely possible the other poster was attempting an emotional appeal, but your argument this whole time has APPEARED to be that his comment was not “scientifically accurate”.
Correct.
Since it has been pointed out that it IS mathematically equivalent, and thus accurate, now YOU seem to have changed tactics and want to argue about what YOU see as a personally inappropriate response, rather than a “scientifically accurate” one.
No, it isn’t accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. When I gave an example using the same wording that stealey used you objected claiming that : “YOU wanted to draw an emotional distinction so you used it’s “ONLY over by” ( a small amount) in the first one,”
Pick one. If dbstealey’s comment really was accurate, but you don’t like his using “only” for emotional appeal reasons, then you should have addressed THAT instead of arguing the “accurate” angle.
It’s you who raised the “emotional appeal” argument, not I. You appear to think that stealey uses the language he does for emotional appeal reasons.
You keep repeating the statement that “this is a science blog”, as if that statement means something so universally specific that invoking it automatically makes all of your behavior, logic, and arguments scientifically sound and perfect. They aren’t. This is Anthony Watt’s PERSONAL BLOG. On the “About page” it says-
“About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”
If people want to discuss the science here that’s fine but it should be correct and use the proper terminology etc. For example knowing when absolute temperatures should be used, knowing how to properly calculate the increase in a quantity raised to a power, knowing certain scientific relationships such as Beer’s Law, Stefan-Boltzmann and not mis-stating them, using proper scientific terminology etc.
Stealey frequently says: “This is a science site”
Phil.
Equivalence-
Mathematically, dbstealy’s numbers/ratios are equivalent to yours. Period.
Emotionally, dbstealey using “only” to represent his view of something being small and/or insignificant is equivalent to you stating a “100%” increase to represent your view that the same thing is significant and scary!
I’m trying to get it through your head that it is entirely possible for people to disagree with your positions and still be thinking logically and rationally. In a debate involving so many factors, so many estimates, so many opinions (even amongst prominent scientists) so much conflicting research, and so much still unknown, the idea that everything posted or discussed here must meet YOUR personal standards or satisfaction level or be deemed “wrong” is not only arrogant, but illogical.
How you think the “science” should be discussed here is your opinion and you are entitled to it. How others think it can and should be discussed is their opinion and they are just as entitled. Anthony’s site is number one because it doesn’t restrict discussion to academics or scientists. There are forums that do, and you can see for yourself how their traffic and participation compares to WUWT. If that is what you want to participate in, GREAT! GO!! But trying to change how other people communicate and discuss and learn and share successfully here, will leave you frustrated and most likely ignored by those who aren’t exactly like you.
Aphan is correct. As Karl Popper wrote:
“It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.”
Phil. argues largely based on the strawmen he erects. He re-frames what others write, then proceeds to argue with his strawman.
That’s what most of the alarmist crowd does, for the simple reason that they were wrong in their scary predictions. Their basic premise was that rising CO2 would cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, with all the concomitant disasters — none of which have ever came true.
As Prof Richard Feynman pointed out: if your hypothesis is contradicted by observations, “it’s wrong.” Feynman concluded with, “That’s all there is to it.”
None of the alarming predictions ever happened. In honest science, the climate alarmists’ hypothesis should have been discarded. It was wrong. They should try to understand why and where they were wrong, and formulate a new hypothesis, taking into account new informatioin — like the fact that all of their alarming predictions were wrong (and as Einstiein pointed out, all it takes is one).
But the ‘carbon’ scare is all politics now. Skeptics have won the science debate. But rather than admit that the hated skeptics were right in falsifying the CO2=cAGW hypothesis, the alarmist clique has switched to politics.
They may win the political argument. But they lost the scientific debate long ago.
dbstealey April 12, 2016 at 12:23 am
Firstly, please keep off naming a courageous woman like Angela Merkel a “dictator”. I repeat: your political extremism is by no means relevant for a discussion about Germany’s politics.
I’m sorry: your way of describing the german situation is far nearer to Germany’s absolutely insignificant neonazis than to the democratic parties of that country which we elect with a great majority all the time.
If you consider your opinion be the right one: that’s your choice, not mine.
*
What now concerns your appreciation of the plot
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160411/rti8czjt.pdf
in my comment dated April 11, 2016 at 2:22 pm
What exactly do you mean with
1. You fabricate a plot of eight different opinions, put them together, and call it “good data”?
What do you understand under these “eight different opinions” ?
2. And you say WoodForTrees is “one among many”.
WFT uses publicly available databases to automatically construct charts. And that’s the best argument you have?
Please help me to understand you. What does WFT else than do e.g. Nick Stokes’ trend viewer or Kevin Cowtan’s trend computer (there will be more of them doing the same job, but I don’t know them all) ?
All these sites load their data (I restrict them here to surface and TLT anomalies) from e.g.
– UAH6.0beta5 tlt: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
– UAH5.6 tlt: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
– RSS3.3 tlt: http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TTT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
– Berkeley Earth: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
– HadCRUT4: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
– NASA/GISSTEMP: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
– NOAA (baselined 1901-2000): https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/p12/12/1880-2016.csv
– NOAA (baselined 1971-2000): http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaaglobaltemp/operational/timeseries/aravg.mon.land.90S.90N.v4.0.1.201602.asc
None of the three mentioned (WFT, Stokes, Cowtan) plot JMA’s data, so I added that source
– Japan’s JMA: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/grid/gst_mon_1891_last.gz
to the seven I had. (There was some little work to transform their stuff from 72×36 long/lat grids into monthly data.)
Please have a look at all these sources, so you can convince yourself that I use these datasets, and not “different opinions”. Why should I do that?
All data I plot is “baselined” (i.e. normalised, a more accurate term used by Bob Tisdale) w.r.t. the baseline of UAH (1981-2010). This is necessary when you plot them alltogether, since all of them have their own baselines:
– RSS3.3: 1979-1998
– Berkeley Earth: 1951-2000
– HadCRUT4: 1961-1990
– JMA: 1971-2000
– NASA: 1951-2000
– NOAA: 1901-2000 / 1971-2000
That’s after all the same we all do in WFT when using the offset attribute according to Paul’s notes (http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes). Without normalizing the 8 sets, you obtain this:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160412/fu37igup.pdf
Due to their baselining at earlier (and cooler) periods, BEST, NASA and NOAA are litterally pushed up. Compare the two plots around 1998…
(The Y axis denotes °C; Excel unfortunately is made language dependent at installation time, so comma’s are in fact dots. I’ll use gnuplot instead when i have time to switch.)
*
What now concerns my degree of skepticism/warmism: feel free to keep your estimation, I won’t care.
I share the ideas of e.g. Willis Eschenbach, Ferdinand Engelbeen, Roy Spencer concerning both man-made CO2, greenhouse warming through H2O/CO2, and also the uncertainty about CO2 be the major cause of warming (what I tried to make visible in a plot showing that temperature increase keeps below the logarithm of CO2’s atmospheric concentration over the last 125 years).
I apologize for having depicted your WFT comparison of CO2 and temp as “nonsense”: that term clearly was exaggerated. Nevertheless, even if Aphan and you consider your plot be accurate, I do not, due to the uncertainty of RSS’s trend having a confidence interval five times bigger then the trend’s value.
That’s all.
Bindidon said (to dbstealey) “I apologize for having depicted your WFT comparison of CO2 and temp as “nonsense”: that term clearly was exaggerated. Nevertheless, even if Aphan and you consider your plot be accurate, I do not, due to the uncertainty of RSS’s trend having a confidence interval five times bigger then the trend’s value.”
1-thank you for admitting the term was clearly exaggerated. It only took 4 whole days of bickering to get you to admit that. (endless bickering gets tiresome and makes people not want to respond nicely, or at all, to you)
2- “Even if Aphan and you consider your plot to be accurate….”
You need to STOP wondering what other people think, and responding based upon what you THINK people think.
Here’s what I mean- db posted a graph of RSS data. If you want to be scientific and unbiased, YOU don’t get to assume ANYTHING about dbstealey, or his intelligence, or his motives for posting it. If you DO-we call you illogical and irrational, because you simply do not have super powers or the ability to know or determine any of those things on your own over the internet. All you get to do logically and reasonably is view the chart and the data source of that chart and determine if that chart supports or undermines the point that db was trying to make when he posted it. PERIOD. You can ASSUME all kinds of things like “Well, db posted an RSS data plot instead of a UAH data plot. Why? Does db not LIKE UAH? Does db prefer to use data with huge error margins for some reason? Does he honestly think that chart with that data is more “accurate” than another chart with different data?” But if you do, you’ll get called on your magical thinking. 🙂
YOU formed the opinion that original chart was “nonsense” based your responses to dbstealey based upon that (your opinion) You could have EASILY said “I find that X data is more reliable” and posted another chart of the exact same time period regarding CO2 increases and temp increases for comparison. But you didn’t. You insulted the first graph’s usefulness, and then invented your own graphs that looked odd and weren’t easy to read or understand, that contained data that you admitted didn’t really correlate well, AND compared an entirely different period of time, and thus a different trend, and took the entire discussion off topic for days. It was the equivalent of saying “Well you eat your own boogers!” and then immediately picking your nose and eating it in front of everyone. (silly comparison but accurate nonetheless)
POINT-RSS’s data might produce a trend with a higher confidence interval than UAH’s. BUT….that does not mean that the degree of those trend slopes are different in any significant way outside of statistics. Maybe YOU think a perfectly calculated trend of 0.20C is WAY MORE significant than a 0.25C trend calculated with far less accuracy. But that is your OPINION….based upon factors that are unique only to you. You might think that a difference of 0.05 C between the two trends is ENORMOUS, while I might think that it’s small and unimportant. It might be “statistically significant” while at the exact same time being completely irrelevant and INsignificant to anything else. It really all depends on WHAT that 0.05C difference in that particular trend means to each individual person here, when it’s applied to the real world.
Oh…and you seem to PREFER using Cowtan’s charty thing more than WFT charty thing…which is fine. BUT your preference for Cowtan’s system IN NO WAY makes the WFT graphing tool wrong, or incorrect, or flawed etc. When they are comparing the exact same data sources and the exact same time frames, using the exact same parameters, their results should be IDENTICAL or pretty darn close. If you decide you want a chart with a wider variety of apples on it, great. But that doesn’t make the chart results from a vendor that uses a more narrow selection of apples WRONG.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue we were discussing. We were discussing the formula R=σT4.
And for T, you have to put in the K value (or Rankine) and not the C value (or Fahrenheit). So if you want to compare a body at 0 C (273.15 K) versus the affect at 1 C (274.15 K), you have to plug in 273.15 for T and raise it to the fourth power and then compare it to 274.15 raised to the fourth power. You do NOT raise 0 to the fourth power and compare that to raising 1 to the fourth power.
One of the most highly ranked Physics textbooks for Engineering students by Halliday and Resnick and Walker, has this quote: “No distinction in nomenclature is made between temperature and temperature differences. Thus we can say, “the boiling point of sulfur is 717.8 K” and “the temperature of this water bath was raised by 8.5 K.”
(In case you are wondering, I have an engineering degree.)
To be neither skeptic nor the inverse sometimes has a little advantage: instead of proudly repeating what your chief thinkers say („Look! There is / has been a big pause!“ or „Look! No pause has ever occured!“) you rather try to construct your private meaning out of available information.
It’s not very professional, but it’s yours.
Here is a plot of a virtual temperature dataset (let’s call it „Mean“) I built as the mean of 5 surface and 3 TLT datasets:
– Berkeley Earth, HadCRUT4, JMA (Tokyo Climate Center), NASA/GISSTEMP, NOAA;
– UAH5.6, UAH6.0beta5, RSS3.3.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160412/df6ykndk.jpg
This Mean looks a bit as if I had obtained from Grant Foster and Michael Rahmstorf a software able to extirpate ENSO bursts out of RSS‘ data :-))
*
Since Werner Brozek’s guest post is entitled as No Statistically Significant Satellite Warming For 23 Years, the plot’s data source was reduced for this comment down to the interval 1993-2015.
In the background we see, as comparison to the Mean it is an element of, the RSS monthly data plotted in thin white.
Mean’s monthly is plotted together with its linear trend in turquoise blue.
In middle blue a 12 month running mean, in dark blue one over 60, and in red one over 120 months.
The linear trend for RSS clearly speaks about a possible long term warming: see
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,1,279%5D
From Cowtans‘ trend computer similar data for confirmation: 0.104 ±0.131 °C/decade (2σ)
Thus nobody will wonder about my Mean’s trend be even higher: 0.151 ± 0.011 °C /decade.
BUT… though I lack the technical competence to interpret them correctly, the running means over 60 resp. 120 months look quite a bit pausy, don’t they?
*
The idea to show this mean of several datasets with trend and associated running means came from a nice page located in the Nederlands (in dutch, translate.google.com might help):
http://wxgr.nl/index.htm?Clim/world_temp.htm
Thank you for that! Are you aware of the fact that Lord Monckton regularly did this combining of data sets? For his latest post with the January data, see:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/06/the-pause-hangs-on-by-its-fingernails/
You obviously have talents that I do not have! Would you be willing to do me a favour and do the following plot that I may want to use in my next report? Naturally, I will give you credit for it as I did for Nick Stokes and David Hoffer with this report.
I can do whatever WFT allows me to do, but as you know, it does not have the latest UAH6.0beta5 and Hadcrut4.4. And it never did have NOAA.
So only if you are willing and able, I would like a graph of the following 5 data sets: RSS, UAH6.0beta5, GISS, Hadcrut4.4 and NOAA.
I would like all 5 to start in January of 1998 and go to the latest date available which would of course be February or March 2016, depending on the data set.
I would like RSS and UAH6.0beta5 plotted together and and centered with the best fit slope line for the two combined. Please give that combined slope on the graph.
Then on the same graph if possible, plot the other three, namely GISS, Hadcrut4.4 and NOAA in such a way that they are centered and with a combined slope for only these three that touches the slope line for RSS and UAH6.0beta5 on the left. Then give that combined slope as well.
If a single graph does not want to work well, two graphs would also be fine with me: one with a combination of RSS and UAH6.0beta5 and then the other with a combination of GISS, Hadcrut4.4 and NOAA.
Thank you very much for your consideration!
Bindidon says:
To be neither skeptic nor the inverse sometimes has a little advantage…
Yes, the advantage is that you can be a fake skeptic.
All honest scientists are skeptics, first and foremost. Skepticism is the basis of the Scientific Method.
To be a “neither skeptic” discredits you.
And you say:
Firstly, please keep off naming a courageous woman like Angela Merkel a “dictator”.
You forgot “traitor.” She’s that, too.
Next, do a search here for cowtan and way. You will find out how thoroughly discredited they are. You have several hours’ reading ahead of you. Don’t neglect the comments.
And you are no scientific skeptic.
For interested people: I just discovered that Kevin Cowtan added 2 new datasets to his trend computer: the TTT (Temperature Total Troposphere) for RSS 3.3 and 4.0.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Maybe Mr Cowtan finds some time to include the complete set for UAH 6.0beta5 as well.
If an alien scientist arrived on Earth and said, “Take me to your leader,” who would that be? The Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Society …
Yes, not WUWT with dbstealey and company.
Dennis Horne,
That’s just a simple-minded ad-hom, showig you’ve got nothing else. With a dash of the old ‘Appeal to Authority’ fallacy thown in.
The fact you hate is that WUWT is the internet’s “Best Science” site. So what are you doing here?
This site has more traffic than every alarmist blog combined.
So yes, I think your alien would visit here.
Final question: is bindidon your alien?
dbstealey. Oh, so considering the consensus of every scientific society and institution on the planet is a fallacy but visiting WUWT is advised. Because it’s an authority…
dbstealey will explain that an increase in CO2 from 280 to 400ppm is better described, not as a 40% increase, but as an an increase of a few parts per 10,000. That way it’s not so scary…
Why am I here? To watch the way you talk to people: bindidon follows his Fuhrer… What’s up with that!
I don’t need argumentum ad hominem because the science is clear and incontrovertible. The balance of informed opinion is that increasing the CO2 massively is increasing the energy retained by Earth substantially, causing climate change: global warming, ocean acidification and loss of ice.
Dennis Horne-
Its so cute how you said “I don’t need argumentum ad hominem because the science is clear and incontrovertible” but you did “need” to engage in any number of the following fallacies:
Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous. (like having dbstealey trying not to “scare” a non-existent alien?)
Appeal to tradition- a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true
OR
Appeal to authority-where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
OR
Argumentum ad populum- where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so (naming every society on the planet won’t make AGW theory “true”)
Or Cognitive Biases-
Availability cascade-repeat something long enough and it will become true
Group think/Herd behavior
Exaggerated Expectations-“Based on the estimates, real-world evidence turns out to be less extreme than our expectations”
Framing Effect-“Drawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how that information is presented”
Stereotyping- surely everyone at WUWT thinks, feels, acts and believes the exact same things…
If the science is so clear and incontrovertible, why didn’t you bring it to the table instead of a bad sci-fi movie quoting alien scientist and a list of societies? If the science is so clear and incontrovertible, present it here for discussion instead of making silly presumptions about alien scientists, or insinuating “because they said so”?
Horne says:
…so considering the consensus of every scientific society and institution on the planet…
Aphan, isn’t he amusing? He just can’t help it. But then, it’s all he’s got. He certainly has no credible measurements.
And:
The balance of informed opinion is that increasing the CO2 massively is increasing the energy retained by Earth substantially, causing climate change: global warming, ocean acidification and loss of ice.
But never a measurement quantifying AGW. Just all assertions, all the time.
Horne, you’re in this way over your head. Put your dunce cap on and go stand in the corner, until you can produce an empirical, testable measurement of AGW.
Thanks for the laugh, guys. The consensus is the accepted view of reality. But hey, keep the abuse coming. Love it.
“The consensus is the accepted view of reality.”
So….that’s all you got? An “accepted view of reality”? I’m sure that in YOUR mind that more than makes up for:
No actual scientific, empirical evidence
No demonstrable facts
No duplicated measurements
No accurate models
No actual evidence demonstrating that “all” of the experts in relevant scientific fields were ASKED and incontrovertibly agreed with a specific statement or definition or even meme
No accurate predictions
No empirical evidence of ethical or mathematical credibility demonstrated by social scientists who write papers about “consensus”-
*2009 study by University of Illinois Kendall Zimmerman/Peter Doran:
–5 percent of respondents, 160 scientists, were climate scientists. 79 respondents were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” 77 of the 79 agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor. Doran/Zimmerman declared their results showed a “97% consensus”.
*2010-William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University-
“used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.”
*2013 Cook et al-
“Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed.”
(Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle)
Trust me, if anyone deserves to be laughed at when it comes to pretending that there is ANY “science” behind some declared “consensus”, it is people like you Dennis. But thank you for giving us reasons to post the EVIDENCE that supports our laughter over and over again.
But again, if you want to any actual aspects of “science” here, BRING SOME.
I posted this on the other site about the 97%, but it fits here perfectly in answer to the above quote. See the following where Aaron Mair mentioned the 97% for the last 5 or 6 questions Cruz asked him:
(Regulars may have seen this here several weeks ago.)
Senator Cruz asked about the pause of over 18 years on the satellite record. Aaron Mair denied the pause existed and used the phrase “preponderance of data” and he repeatedly referred to the 97%. But facts are facts and it does not matter if 100 societies deny them!!
See Lord Monckton’s article from February 6 here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/06/the-pause-hangs-on-by-its-fingernails/
Now I know that since then, as of the February data, the negative slope is now gone. However Senator Cruz also talked about no significant warming for 18 years. As this article points out, both satellite data show no statistical significant warming for 23 years. So 18 years is still way too low. But Mair points to learned societies who, according to him, apparently deny plain facts.
So the world’s most eminent scientists are wrong. It takes a politician to get to the truth.
Goodness. What a strange world we live in. Well, some of us, anyway.
That is for sure! And where do you suppose this politician learned the truth? I am told that one of his aids follows WUWT.
“The world’s most eminent scientists”???? Was there a contest? An election? Who voted?
Eminent- “famous and respected within a particular sphere or profession.”
Freeman Dyson. Myron Ebell, Kiminori Itoh, Ivar Giaever, Will Happer, Ian Plimer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Svensmark, Spencer, Shaviv, Scafetta, Plimer, Taylor, Ball, Gray, Easterbrook, Lindzen, Moore, Stott, Tennekes, Vahrenholt, Corbin, Loehl, on and on and on.
NOT ONE of the “authors” of the “consensus” studies is an EMINENT CLIMATE SCIENTIST of any kind!!!!!
Aaron Mair….NOT a climate scientist and his name (and position with the Sierra Club) are only known because he makes an idiot of himself on camera like he did with Cruz, all the time.
Michael Mann is “so respected” that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON or organization filed an amicus brief on his behalf in his “famous” court case with Mark Steyn.
Oh, the majority of geoscientists and engineers (who are actually ASKED for their opinions rather than having them assumed FOR them by someone else) also agree with meteorologists and are “skeptical” about global warming being man caused OR dangerous-
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#724dce8f171b)
You wouldn’t know “the truth” if it bit you on the nose! But if 41 papers out of 11,994 “implied or expressed” that it might be “the truth” that bit you, THEN you’d know for sure….right?
No, they are right! But if not in public, then in private. If you do not believe me, see this comment upthread:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/07/no-statistically-significant-satellite-warming-for-23-years-now-includes-february-data/#comment-2184481
Dennis Horne is getting his head handed to him by Werner Brozek and Aphan. And his appeals to corrupted authorities is a logical fallacy.
I might add that among the most eminent of all climate scientists is Prof. Richard Lindzen. So by Horne’s “logic” Horne must accept Lindzen’s views.
But of course, Horne is just trolling. He’s about as knowledgeable regarding this subject as benbenben.
dbstealey: I might add that among the most eminent of all climate scientists is Prof. Richard Lindzen. So by Horne’s “logic” Horne must accept Lindzen’s views.
Really? I can see how that works for you. For rational people it’s the balance of informed opinion that’s important. Lindzen is one man amongst thousands; the odd man out. Quite bluntly, he’s wrong. And ignored now.
Prof Lindzen is supported by tens of thousands of professionals in the hard sciences, so your ridiculous “consensus” argument falls flat on its face.
The alarmist crowd NEVER had a consensus; that has always been heavily on the side of skeptics. You are incapable of producing even one percent of the OISM’s numbers refuting their statement.
Take your eco-lemming assertions elsewhere. This is a science site, and it’s clear you’re out of your depth here.
“For rational people”??
That leaves you out.
[Deleted. ‘Deniers’ is a pejorative. -mod.]
[Deleted. Strike two. One more comment with “denier”, “denial”, denialist”, etc., and your comments will be put in the bit bin. -mod]
In Stealey’s defense, he’s been in the hospital with internal bleeding, so don’t always assume people are simply ignoring you. He’s back home now.
That said, I agree on the policy issue and will speak to him about it once he’s recovered.
Thank you Anthony, sorry to hear that Stealey’s been ill, I hope he makes a speedy recovery.
The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight warming of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years.
“There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can’t claim that anymore,” said Carl Mears, the scientist who runs the Remote Sensing System temperature data tracking.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html#jCp
True.
And from the article you referred to, there is this quote:
And that is exactly what Cruz did in October. As I showed in this post, there has been no statistically significant warming for 23 years. However without getting into the semantics as to exactly what is meant by “ statistically significant warming”, I am sure that most would agree that the 0.18 F (or 0.10 C) over 18 years is not significant. That amounts to 0.10 x 100/18 = 0.56 C/century.
The difference between “statistically significant” and “significant” is not semantics. You could have massively significant warming but inadequate data to show it.
Actually Werner your head post shows that there has been statistically significant warming over the last 23 years at the 0.05 level. (I assume you’re reporting 2σ statistics).
Let me put it this way: The satellite warming since 1998 is NEITHER significant NOR statistically significant. Do you agree?
I was using Nick Stokes’ numbers which are at the 95% level. With the February numbers, RSS was at 22 years and 10 months and UAH at 23 years and 2 months. The March data shortened RSS by one month but did not affect UAH.
P.S. Are you alluding to the “zero” line with a slight up tick? I had to manually detrend that line and I did it with the February data. It looked good then. However by the time it was edited, the March data appeared and it was a bit off, but I decided to let that go. I had given the exact numbers earlier.
Werner Brozek April 14, 2016 at 12:24 pm
“Actually Werner your head post shows that there has been statistically significant warming over the last 23 years at the 0.05 level. (I assume you’re reporting 2σ statistics).”
I was using Nick Stokes’ numbers which are at the 95% level. With the February numbers, RSS was at 22 years and 10 months and UAH at 23 years and 2 months. The March data shortened RSS by one month but did not affect UAH.
‘Warming’ means that the trend is positive (i.e. nonnegative), the statistics you present indicate that the probability of that is more than 95%. So warming is statistically significant since the probability that the trend is negative is less than 5% (it’s called a one-tailed test).
I am comfortable discussing many things, but how Nick comes up with his numbers is not one of them. That is why I sent him an email prior to this posting and asked that he respond to any statistics questions. And he has kindly done so. I do not know if he has addressed your question. He may not be following this post any more, but if you have a statistics question he has not answered, I would be more than happy to send him an email and ask that he discuss further things with you.
My understanding is that it is something like 97.4%.
My original post describing what is now on the trend viewer page is here. A more detailed discussion of autocorrelation is here. I do use a two-tailed test – a cut-off t-value of 1.96, so it is really a 2.5% probability of being out of range on that side. I quote the CI values, being those for which 95% of instances should lie between, so significance corresponds to being outside CI.
Thank you very much! Could I also ask you to weigh in on the following by barry:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/07/no-statistically-significant-satellite-warming-for-23-years-now-includes-february-data/#comment-2191784
Thank you!
Nick Stokes April 17, 2016 at 2:37 pm
I do use a two-tailed test – a cut-off t-value of 1.96, so it is really a 2.5% probability of being out of range on that side. I quote the CI values, being those for which 95% of instances should lie between, so significance corresponds to being outside CI.
So as I said Werner the probability of Warming is about 97.5% so that is definitely statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Fair enough. I am assuming that Nick Stokes knows what climate scientists regard as “statistically significant warming”.
What? They are talking about satellites. And 2014 and 2015 did NOT break any satellite records.
Here are the top 14 UAH6.0beta5 years:
UAH6.0beta5
Here are the top 14 RSS years:
RSS 2016 as of April 10, 2016
As for 2016, that could set a new record. It is on a record pace so far to break the 1998 record but we will have to wait and see.
Clearly not talking about satellites with the statement “2014 became the hottest year on record — and again when 2015 blew away the 2014 record.” That would be the thermometers measuring temperatures near the surface. Wouldn’t it. Not satellites counting photons emitted by oxygen molecules up in the air.
Don’t you love the word “stunning” in there? So we have an extremely strong El Nino now. This 0.833 in February 2016 breaks the previous all time high monthly anomaly of 0.743 set in April of 1998 by 0.090 C. That is not much after 18 years. Furthermore, March dropped to 0.734.
Oh, so the “No Warming” has gone now…
Yes, in my opinion, but Ken does not agree. See:
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/the-pause-update-march-2016-preliminary/
[Please, no more ‘Koch Brothers’ articles. -mod.]
Okay, no references. A study by Drexel University’s environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle while at Stanford University’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences asserts some funding for climate change is now hidden (not disclosed). Peer-reviewed paper but you shouldn’t read the article.
News flash! Drexel University social scientist learns in 2013 what everyone else familiar with 501C organizations has known for decades- US law only requires certain types and amounts of funding to 501 C groups to include the name/source from which those certain types of funds/amounts originate!!!
Three years later, Dennis Horne mentions this study here and claims said study asserts that “some funding for climate change is now hidden (not disclosed).”
1)Not disclosing FUNDING is illegal. Not disclosing sources of funding is not. Two different things.
2) Apparently someone is funding climate change! These people must be stopped so that the climate does not change!
Reference to the paper was deleted. Article must have been unimportant and irrelevant. The level of disclosed funding has decreased and non-disclosed increased substantially. Not because certain people no longer want to be associated with alternative science…
I R smart. Me find article online. Use letter keys. Hit enter. Me read. Mod right. Article unimportant and irrelevant to thread. Me no read minds like Mr. Horne or Mr. Brulle. No idea what “certain people” want. Refuse make illogic assumptions pretending such. Correlate no Causate.
Aphan: I R smart.
If you say so. What is your expertise in
1. Science
2. Climate science
“If you say so. What is your expertise in 1. Science 2. Climate science?”
I’m sorry, where it is written that it is necessary to be an “expert” in anything in order to read a paper written in basic English and understand that it reeks of agenda driven, completely illogical cow cookies rather than unbiased scientific data crunching/analysis?
Using your logic…you MUST be an expert in Science and Climate Science (because you’re here talking about them) but your “expertise” didn’t help you distinguish the obvious flaws, assumptions, and unproven foundation of every argument made in the paper you mentioned.
Your desperate clinging to appeals to authority are really pathetic and sad.
Horne says:
Lindzen is one man amongst thousands…
Several basic fallacies there, by someone who can’t argue without using logical fallacies.
…the odd man out.
And what is Horne’s CV? Who is he to judge his betters? What is Horne’s education in this subject? So far, all he has are personal ad-hom attacks, with zero credible science. I think he has no background that would qualify him to give a credible opinion, as I and many others here do.
Next, Horne asserts this of Prof. Lindzen:
Quite bluntly, he’s wrong.
Quite bluntly, Horne is full of carp. Horne gives no examples. In fact, it is Horne’s alarmist crowd that has been 100.0% wrong. Not a single scary prediction any of them have ever made has happened. They were wrong. All of them.
On the other hand, Prof Lindzen is exactly right when he writes:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”
Lindzen’s prediction is right on course.
Next, Mr Ignorant says that Prof Lindzen is…
…ignored now.
Horne certainly isn’t ignoring Prof Lindzen, is he?
With Lindzen’s more than 240 published, peer reviewed papers — more than any alarmist scientist — and which are regularly cited in the literature, it’s clear that all Horne has are his pathetic, ad hominem attacks based on desperation and delusion.
If Mr. Horne wants any credibility, he will stop his incessant cut ‘n’ pasting from alarmist blogs, and his ignorance-based ad hom attacks, and begin to make some logical sense here. So far, he hasn’t even started.
Here’s where Horne can start, if he wants to honestly discuss these issues (courtesy of Jo Nova):
Step 1 – Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
Step 2 – When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
Step 3 – Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
Step 4 – Stop the hate.
Step 5 – Stop avoiding debate.
Step 6 – Answer questions.
Step 7 – Stop enjoying catastrophes.
Step 8 – Don’t use invalid arguments.
Step 9 – When you are wrong, admit it and apologise.
Step 10 – Stop claiming your 97% nonsense. It’s based on a lie.
Step 11 – Stop lying. If you think it is OK to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
Step 12 – Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way.
Step 13 – Stop blaming everything on man-made global warming.
Step 14 – The only solutions are not big-government policies.
Horne should start with #11.
db-
Just a side note. I’m sorry to hear you weren’t/ aren’t feeling well and I hope you are feeling better soon. All good thoughts to your complete recovery. 🙂
As I don’t have a Nobel Prize in Physics or Chemistry I’ll go with the consensus. I guess that’s the value of having professional qualifications and an MSc – you learn and understand what the balance of informed opinion means.
Dennis-
“As I don’t have a Nobel Prize in Physics or Chemistry I’ll go with the consensus. I guess that’s the value of having professional qualifications and an MSc – you learn and understand what the balance of informed opinion means.”
Wow…an MSc and yet you don’t have the slightest notion how to examine the data/evidence in any given instance for yourself and draw accurate, scientific conclusions on your own? That’s really sad.
I mean, how embarrassing to admit that you would most likely agree completely with the following completely imaginary scenario/conclusion:
“Well, ok….so only 41 papers out of 11,994 actually imply, or specifically state, that if an alien scientist landed on Earth, it would say “Take me to your leader”…(and it would of course be referring to one of the world’s Scientific Institutions) but everyone KNOWS that it WOULD so the fact that 11,994 papers DO NOT imply or state anything remotely close to the “alien consensus” can logically be ASSUMED to mean that the “consensus on alien introductory messages” is so completely taken for granted that the authors of those 11,994 papers didn’t feel the NEED to express or quantify it in their abstracts.”
Using your logic, since you’ve never been declared a Saint and you’re not the Pope, you must also “go with the consensus” that God exists! Right?
Can I ask where you obtained your college degree from so that I can avoid sending any of my children there for an education?