Open thread Dec. 11, 2009 (with GW) Dan Crawford | December 11, 2009 5:29 pm (Counter removed by Rdan due to loading time issues) Comments (100) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
CoRev, you’re up.
It’s nice to see the oil price fall below $70 on Nymex. The economy’s not going anywhere with $100+ oil.
Quit frightening the children.
The counter says “greenhouse gases.” Did you know that 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor? Did you know that CO2 is 3.6%? and that man-made CO2 is .117%? So the counter should be moving at about 1/1000 of the speed of your counter if you are trying to simulate mans effect on the atmosphere, and that presumably doesn’t figure carbon sinks.
As the data gets more dubious, the Warmists are getting more shrill.
Yea this counter doesn’t mean anything. Just like all the data from the UK place. The wheels are coming off te global-warming religion, just like it did with global cooling in the 70s. Sammy hit the nail on its head.
The Global Warming nuts would actually have a much better argument if they were proposing actions that actually addressed the problem as oppossed to reducing individual liberty and gaining control over people’s lives.
Exhibit #1: The lefts total outrage over the Freakonomics idea that we might find a cheap easy way to solve the problem with technology and not fascist like controls that the left seems to favor….(by the way this matched the reaction from the eco left when they announced the fraudelant cold-fusion idea. These guys were aghast they would not be able to dictate to the commoners how to live)
Exhibit #2. Lets see how many private jets, limos, and food flown in from all over the world to Copenhagen??? They used the carbon footprint of a fairly large city for a year…
Exhibit #3 How many of your global warming proponents actually LIVE like they think its a crises????
Islam will change
Hint: the derivative of a constant is zero. Water vapor in the atmosphere is, for all practical purposes, a constant.
buffy the planet killer,
The lefts total outrage over the Freakonomics idea that we might find a cheap easy way to solve the problem with technology
I don’t think the left is outraged over the Freakonomics “solution.” More like howling with laughter. It’s an exercise in magical thinking.
Water vapor in the atmosphere is, for all practical purposes, a constant.
Hint: With manmade CO2 at .117%, and total CO2 measured at 300 parts per million, Carbon Dioxide is, for all practical purposes, also a constant.
Monthly carbon dioxide Variation graphic.
The cyclic change is caused by the seasonal variation of the growth of vegetation from the Northern Hemisphere. Starting in May the growth of plants and trees uses carbon dioxide, so the concentration decreases a little bit. Starting in October, November the growth ceases, thus causing the carbon dioxide to increase.
So I guess the global warming guys don’t show this thing after the leaves comes out.
You flunked math, didn’t you. Learn the difference between levels and rates. And why do you think that 300 parts per million is a small number? The toxicity of VX nerve gas is also a small number, so does that mean you’d be willing to take your chances with a 300ppm dose? BTW, CO2 is actually closer to 380 ppm.
I thought I was teasing CoRev.
Krugman is telling us today to do what Joseph Gagnon is saying in the paper below
I don’t get it. He wants the world central banks to buy up $6 trillion in assets, and our fed to buy up $2 trillion in U.S. assets. He says this will lower long term interest rates by .75 percent. So where is the FED supposed to come up with the next $2 trillion and change?
Did you also know that atmospheric CO2 levels are at an extreme low level compared to most of the Earth’s history?
Note also the lack of correlation with temps.
Your gonna compare VX Gas to CO2? Really? Back away from the edge!
Sammy your gonna anger the Angry Bears. Just remember never run from an Angry Bear, just play dead!
Must be something wrong with the timeline on your chart. I thought you folks believed that the Hebrew Sky God created the earth in 4004 BC. That’s when Adam and Eve rode on the backs of dinosaurs.
Back on Earth, not in the mathmatical fantasy world of charts and graphs that 2 slugs dwells in which any conclusion is attainable, the climate is NOT warming. In fact it has been cooling for the last decade.
“While the wizards of smart are convening in Copenhagen, attempting to solve what they perceive to be the biggest global societal ill – anthropogenic climate change, one of the things that likely won’t be discussed is the possibility of the opposite occurring, global cooling.
But AccuWeather’s chief hurricane forecaster, Joe Bastardi warns it is a bigger threat than global warming. He says the phenomenon is coming, based on three priniciple reasons – 1) Natural reversal of ocean cycles, 2) Low sun spot activity and 3) An increase in volcanic and seismic activity.”
“”I have something behind me here called the ‘Triple Crown of Cooling,'” Bastardi said. “I’m just as worried that in the next 30 years that we are going back into a period back in the early 1800s which was a mini-Ice Age. We have the natural reversal of the ocean cycles going on. We have very low sun spot activity, increased volcanic activity. I have to tell you something, after this winter in the eastern and southern part of the United States and in Europe – this winter here – a lot of people aren’t going to want to hear about global warming because there’s already signs that things are turning around.”
So if 2slugs is right, despite a total lack of evidence, that a trace amount of CO2 can make an impact, perhaps we should be buying SUVs and idling them in our driveways.
Let me help you out. My point is that the “smallness” of a number is relative. sammy seems to think that 380ppm is a small number. But just because it sounds small doesn’t mean that it isn’t significant in the same way that an unimaginably small amout of VX can kill you.
So not only did you flunk math, but you appear to have flunked physics as well. If the Earth aborbs more of the sun’s energy that it radiates away, then the total energy budget will increase. That is global warming. How that additional energy is stored and eventually liberated as heat is another matter. There’s no shortage of theories as to why measured temperatures have flattened out over the last decade. Hey, if you hadn’t flunked physics you might even remember that middle school experiment where you apply heat to ice and water and track temperature change. But basically eveything we know about physics since Lord Kelvin tells us that as long as total energy received exceeds total energy radiated away, total heat energy must increase.
Yes, I got the point well before that, it’s just that we are getting to the point where SOME are trying to maintain the otherside of the debate, with overwhleming evidence shooting them out of the water at every turn, just for the sake of debating.
I really have to question the motive of that thinking.
I believe that we are actually going to get to a point where we will no longer have these Open Thread GW anymore, because the tables have really turned, and now with the fraud being exposed, I ask myself why someone as intelligent as you, is fighting so vigorously about something that is really insignifigant at this moment in time if you don’t consider Cap & Trade Legislation.
Is it that you want that legislation and are willing to claim that the “Ends Justifies the Means?”
“If the Earth aborbs more of the sun’s energy that it radiates away, then the total energy budget will increase.”
You’re missing something, as usual.
“The oceans can hold much more heat than the atmosphere. Just the top 3.2 metres of ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air.” http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/climatechange/whyclimate/naturalClimate/oceanAtmosphere.htm
So it’s the ocean, stupid. The Earth’s solar panel.
Maybe this will help you understand the physics.
Scroll down the picture on page 4.
Darn! Go to a verryy nice Xmas party and miss all the fun. 2slugs, as always is grasping at Mickey Mouse straws.
Rdan, I completely missed the counter, darn!!??!!
2slugs, noticed you are the last denier left here. It is similar on the other open blogs. On the Pro-Agw blogs they are resorting to more banning and editing of comments and more vituperation.
It is about to bring down the Oz Govt, if Rudd gets his back up. If not then the Govt will continue with a diminished ETS (Cap & Trade).
MG, didn’t need to say a thing did I?
How about this. Wow! That’s a big number.
Dan, thanks. It was funny.
1.) Aren’t we talking ThermoDynamics (ie Heat Transfer) here?
2.) You never even considered the variation of the Heat Source (ie The Sun gets hotter and cooler in unknown cycles)
To some extent climate scientists are to blame for a lot of the confusion. By that I mean that the public haa come to expect a monotonically increasing rise in temperatures, which is not really what global warming predicts. That view of montonically increasing temperatures is one that global warming “alarmists” have been only too happy to perpetuate even though it really isn’t something that is actually supported by global warming models. The flattening out of temperatues over the last few years does not contradict global warming…in fact, you don’t have to look very hard to find papers that were predicting a temporary cooling long before it actually happened. My concern is that this current lull is likely to last for a couple of decades, by which time it really will be too late to reverse. Climate change isn’t something that’s going to impact you or me, but it will affect the generation just now being born. And it will take about 40-50 generations before the Earth will be able to recapture all that CO2. People are generally myopic, but they are especially myopic when they are asked to give up certain current benefits in exchange for the avoidance of global calamity long after the current generation has met its maker.
Unfortunately I don’t find today very informative on the thread CoRev. The e-mail stuff will play out in some way, but I fail to see justification for such elation on the part of some nor the taunts about making Bears angry. I have quit reading the GW thread CoRev, although I do visit your site.
It’s not less “hot” just because the heat is stored in the ocean. You make it sound like “global warming” is basically just a slightly warmer breeze passing through the trees. Think about what happens when the ocean absorbs more heat.
Oil and other commodities is well worth discussion.
After being called stupid, denier, etc. when you have been right the entire time, you tend to get a kick out of it all when the tables turn.
Yes, variations in the sun’s energy is a factor. But the variation is known with a fairly high degree of confidence and the problem is that even after adjusting for known fluctuations in solar energy there has still been a net gain in energy. Of course, if the Earth radiated away the same additional amount of energy then there would be no net change in global temperatures. Greenhouse gases affect how much solar energy is radiated away from earth (i.e., they can act as cooling agents) and they also affect how much solar energy is trapped and not allowed to radiate away (i.e., they can act as warming agents). On balance the types of greenhouse gases that tend to cool the earth (e.g., water vapor) are relatively constant while the greenhouse gases that tend to warm the earth are increasing.
Hey…I don’t know anybody that has got a problem with leaving the Planet better than they found it, but that’s really not the issue. The issue has been a call for drastic changes that MAY help 50 years from now, without the technology to make those changes as painless as possible.
I’ll meet you half way!
Just imagine if your response was preached by FDR on a world stage, what would have been the consequences, and how would we be saving the planet today?
Half the population has an IQ under 100, so I wouldn’t be surprised that myopic voters and even more myopic politicians will manage to convice themselves that “Climategate” gives them a free pass at stupidity. How many of those same voters and politicians also think they understand the economics of running fiscal deficits during a liquidity trap?
2slugs, time to throw th BS flag. You are speaking as if these thigs were universally accepted. They are not! You say: “ But the variation is known with a fairly high degree of confidence and the problem is that even after adjusting for known fluctuations in solar energy there has still been a net gain in energy. ” But that knowledge is very recent. IIRC ~2002 from the CERES satellite which can measure the TOR (LW radiation.) So it has not been well known and since comparative sources are minimal there is no easy way top confirm erroors or drifts in data quality from orbit drift, equipment degradation, etc.
And this statement is just silly ignorance: “the types of greenhouse gases that tend to cool the earth (e.g., water vapor) are relatively constant while the greenhouse gases that tend to warm the earth are increasing.” No, GHGs act the same way. One does not warm and the other cool. There is grwoing evidence that all GHG can influence temps both in +ve and -ve ways.
OTH water in its liquid form, including clouds, can be a cooling agent by blocking TSI, and limiting surface and sea surface temps. But the point you completely misse earlier is that the Seas and Oceans, etc. are huge heat sinks with long lag times to release that heat. GHGs are not heat sinks, they heat and cool almost instantaneously. The do not store heat.
The only way they can dramatically slow the release of heat via LW radiation is passing on its heated photon to another molecule. Another instantaneous heat/release cycle.
Now that you are deeply into the physic of GW. Tell us how the LW radiation was to heat the lower troposphere? That area where GHGs are less and atmospheric pressures are less, both are required to optimize the absorption of the LW radiation. That is also where the AGW finger print, hot spot, was supposed to be found. It has yet to be identified.
So instead of ridiculing someone who has a diiferent view of how the heat is actually trapped, in the Oceans/Seas, and not in the atmosphere, do a little reasearch. The theory of which you are doing a yoeman defense, is far different than what you are describing.
While you are doing your basic research take a look at the different lag times between heat trapped in the Oceans/Seas and that which is passed into the atmosphere.
2slugs, just for you> Cohenite over at Jen Marohasy’s had this to say: “the coefficient of determination, r2, measures the explained variation in one variable, the dependent variable , temperature, caused by movements in another variable, the determining variable, CO2. Over the 20thC the r2 for CO2 being able to explain the variation in temperature is 0.44. Another way of looking at this is that during the 20thC a movement in CO2 gave you a 44% chance of predicting the movement in temperature; a coin toss gives you a 50% chance and during the 20thC PDO shifts gave you an 85% chance of predicting temperature trend.
The interesting thing is that since 2000 the r2 is negative; that is for any movement in CO2 the resulting movement in temperature is -ve; -0.44 for HadCrut and -0.3 for UAH. The argument about temperatures since 2000 being the hottest yet is therefore missing the point; since 2000 there has been no meaningful causal relationship between CO2 and temperature and during the 20thC the relationship was less than chance.”
Your comments are expected.
I think there are many who have stopped reading the GW thread. That argument/discussion is coming to an end. It will take several months and even years for the reality to finally get to the remaining adherents. The average person has moved on.
If they try to pass Cap & Trade, then there will be another upheaval, but for now, interest is starting to lag.
The e-mail stuff will play out in some way, but I fail to see justification for such elation on the part of some
Climate-gate is just the straw that broke the camel’s back. The camel has been struggling for some time due to the weight of implausibility and lack of evidence. They’ve been getting by on ad hominem and false claims of “consensus.” The science might be complicated, but manipulation of data and misleading is something that everyone can understand, and reject. If their case was so compelling that “the debate is over” they wouldn’t have to fudge, now would they?
As for the elation, yes I am elated. You should be too, if you were to ponder a world where some central government has the power to regulate your “carbon footprint” and reduce it 80%+ and tax the crap out of you while they live an Al Gore or Pelosi new 757 lifestyle. Screw them and the horse they rode in on.
This discussion has enlightened me no end. A thousand thanks or, indeed, more.
Breathe into a paper bag Jimi and see if CO2 wont kill you.
Yes CO2 is a normal chemical in respiration but its buildup in your body is LETHAL. I know I treat CO2 intoxication every day.
Buildup in the atmosphere is lethal too.
2slugs, just one question re: the chart. From Trenberth’s chart (Remember he’s the one in the emails who said it’s a travesty that we do not understand why it is cooling.) We see him showing 184 (W m–2) TSI reaching the surface (161 (W m–2) is absorbed by surface and 23 (W m–2) reflected) and 333 (W m–2) reflected back.
So how does the atmosphere create heat and which law of thermodynamics does that follow?
You really do need to think just a liitle bit, instead of blindly believing.
Dan, does that mean you have joined the ranks of the “Yah gotta be $hi11ing me?
No, GHGs act the same way. One does not warm and the other cool. There is grwoing evidence that all GHG can influence temps both in +ve and -ve ways.
That’s true in a sense, but the conditions under which CO2 acts as a cooling agent are relatively minor compared to the conditions under which CO2 acts as a warming agent. So on balance CO2 tends to warm the atmosphere rather than cool it.
But the point you completely misse earlier is that the Seas and Oceans, etc. are huge heat sinks with long lag times to release that heat.
How did I “completely miss” this point? I thought I was quite specific in my reply to sammy that storing heat in the oceans does not mean that there is no net increase in heat energy. The fact that the effect is lagged only means that you’ve kicked the problem down the road to another generation. It’s like saying asbestos is safe because it takes 40 years to kill you due to the lag times of a particular type of cancer.
take a look at the different lag times between heat trapped in the Oceans/Seas and that which is passed into the atmosphere.
In other words, another mess that you don’t mind creating today as long as you leave it to another generation to clean up. Sort of like Bush running structural deficits when the economy was not in recession.
“ But the variation is known with a fairly high degree of confidence and the problem is that even after adjusting for known fluctuations in solar energy there has still been a net gain in energy. ”
To which you replied:
“But that knowledge is very recent.”
So it doesn’t count??? What’s your point?
Just for 2slugs & Dale.
I’m sorry, but the statistics here are just woefully wrong. Where to start?
First, a negative r-square ought to be the first sign that something is wrong. Software programs will generate a negative r-square and display it. It’s their way of saying there’s a problem with the model. I think the person is confused and meant to say that the coefficient of correlation was -0.44 rather than the coefficient of determination.
Second, The r-square between temperature and CO2 is 0.78, not -0.44. And even the coefficient of correlation is not -0.44, it’s +0.88. So somewhere along the line it looks like this person multiplied by -.50.
Third, this person’s interpretation of r-square is wrongheaded. No one interprets an r-square to mean that it tells you what the chances are of predicting movement in the y-axis for a given change in the x-axis. This person needs to take a class in linear algebra. The coefficient of determination refers to the variability in “y” that can be explained by a change in “x” and it is best understood mathematically in terms of “orthogonal” vectors.
It is true that since 2000 you cannot say that there has been a meaningful correlation between CO2 and temperature change; but that’s because you can’t say anything meaningful due to the paucity of data points.
Here’s another explanation of the right way to check for correlations in temperatue change and CO2. This person’s calculations closely match mine.
I miss the old posts of buying property on harbors edge in Canada, or Arctic ice photos and maps and radar and what is underneath, or the International Rice Research and night time temps increases affecting growing patterns etc. GW is all yelling without much science or curiosity in many public forums.
You at least take the time. Much of the hoo ha is not specific enough to convince me…and the claims are not put into context. Manipulation of data is a silly statement without details and context, and how it actually impacts even the models.
A lot of money has alrady been stolen elsewhere (6 trillion?). Money is always a consideration and always impacts the amount of energy put into an issue. It is not a surprise for this issue either.
The science gets mixed in with the political implications and the money…
The widget was slowing loading time a lot as well. to be more mundane.
Just for Dan. I dunno about your Canadian beach front property, but mine is expanding its beach as the Sea level drops as the Arctic Sea Ice grows.
I’m sure the value has probably gone up by 1/2 ($1C to $1 1/2C per yard). Just think of the killing we can make if we sell it. Ofcourse having a beach depends on the temps and wind direction on any given day.
I believe the r2 and treatment of such is more in line with 2slugs.
Greg CO2 intoxication? What industry? How is it happening?
I bought port facilities….
That ole BS flag’s still waving strong. Saying this: “That’s true in a sense,…” Nuff said! Binary answer turns gray. T/F not almost T and almost F.
Missing the point on the Ocean heat release lag is still missing the point whether you then shift to a meaningless analogy or not. Sammy did not say it was an increase in heat energy, but (my interpretation) over time it explains how temps may increase.
And finally, saying: “So it doesn’t count??? What’s your point?” Show just how completely you missed the point. Climate is long range study (temporally and spatially) of weather conditions. One condition driving weather, TSI, has only been know for a short time. Is it climate, yet? Is it in any way a useful measurement for long range studies?
2slugs, now take it over to J Marohasy’s blog and tell Cohenite. Should develop into an interesting discussion.
You’re misunderstanding the chart. Go to Table 2b for a more detailed adding up of the components. Also, note that it’s not just the energy reaching the surface that counts in the earth’s total energy budget. You also have to add in the energy absorbed the atmosphere.
An excellent example of why people should be required to have a license before practicing time series analysis. Just drawing a mindless trend line through raw data points will almost always give you a wrong and misleading answer. Let’s see the diagnostics on the raw data.
Dan, this is a good and valid point: “Manipulation of data is a silly statement without details and context, and how it actually impacts even the models. “
As far as data manipulation we are just getting into the details of how that is/was done. If you refer to my 08:43:49 today post, you can see how the data manipulation is effecting the temp graphs. There are many more locales just undergoing evaluation, and I suspect we will find that they all, or nearly all equally changed. It has been a claim now for several years that the raw data does not reflect the heating shown in the pro-AGW actual temp graphs. That those grap[sh are only supported after the many strange modifications which cool older data and increase newer.
As far as how it effects the models, the GCMs are based upon the physics of AGW theory which are supposed to show warming. If the warming is manipulated then the comparisons are falsified. Moreover, the physics of the models rely primarily on +ve feedbacks, see Trenberth’s chart as recommended by 2slugs, which shows more coming back to the surface than was originally input. There is no physics yet, that supports a perpetual motion/heating machine.
So manipulating the temp data is reflected in manipulating the feedback parameters used in the GCMs to match a man made lie. Everything is effected by the original manipulation as it effects nearly every baseline for comparison. Lies in GO = GIGO
2slugs, the chart is junk science. Even if the math works, which I suspect it still does not, there is NO EVIDENCE for the feed back amounts.
One thing I am postive about is your understanding of the physics. That ole thermodynamics question is still unanswered.
So your properties are getting land locked? Or the routes are getting opened then closed at an ever increasing rate as the ice grows?
Dunno, I prefer my investment (increasing value) to yours (?decreasing value?). Yes, that was a question as to your investment ability? :-$
“That’s true in a sense,…” Nuff said! Binary answer turns gray. T/F not almost T and almost F.
Correct answers are usually conditionally true, not absolutely true. That’s a hard concept for conservatives to understand. It’s one reason they have a hard time understanding macroeconomics. Understanding subtlety and nuance are not exactly hallmarks of the conservative mind. Under certain conditions greenhouse gases can radiate solar energy away from the earth, which means that they can acting as cooling agents. But under most conditions that is not the case. So the dominant effect for most greenhouse gases, and CO2 in particular, is that they tend to warm the earth rather than cool it. It really isn’t all that difficult.
Just because climate change is long range does not mean we have to sit back and passively wait for it to overwhelm us before we act. That’s the caveman response. We are allowed to develop models to make predictions. And one of the things we’re finding is that manmade climate change is a lot shorter timeframe than natural climate change.
Sea ice is not growing. We recently discovered that the satellites were misinterpreting young ice as multi-year ice. The satellites were detecting light emission patterns that had been interpreted as multi-year ice. Somewhat by accident ice breaking surface vessels found that they were going through this so called “multi-year ice” at impossible speeds. It was really first year ice. The reasons for misidentifying the ice are complicated, but the bottom line is that we will have to recalibrate satellites because there has been a permanent change in the first year ice signal.
I dunno. Sounds pretty hopeless. I mean what can you say to a person who thinks that a negative r-square is a meaningful number???
I think there’s a big disconnect between what the man-on-the-street believes is data manipulation and what are facts of life when it comes to using and archiving data. Here’s a good example of just that kind of difference. It’s a realworld example of climate data and it’s by the same guy who posted the stuff on temp/CO2 correlations.
It’s a rather long piece, but the gist of it is that technological differences in equipment and programming languages make data reproducibility a lot more difficult than most people think. For example, I can run the same program on one of my 32 bit machines and get a slightly different answer than I get on one of my 64 bit machines. And when you’re doing maximum likelihood estimates you can get signficantly different results based on inherent machine precision and initial starting points. And that’s just the processing part. The archiving has its own trials and tribulations. Those are the kinds of things that most of the “climategate” emails reveal. But the way it’s being interpreted by El Rushbo and the dittoheads it sounds like the data is being completely fabricated.
An negative adjusted r-squared is a meaningful result.
2slugs, keep fighting the good fight! Miss the point much? Where’s the analysis of what was done to the data from its raw form to the new manipulated/homogenized/corrected form?
Do that, then we can discuss how best to represent the data.
2slugs, yup data processing in all its forms is complex. Thank heavens for puters!
2slugs, Bwah ha ha ha ha! Ice is ice! No more comment, just Bwah ha ha ha ha!
Captain Queeg vs. 2slugbaits:
“A second key/AGW was not imaginary…..ah but the strawberries/CO2….. that’s where I had them! …. I proved WITH GEOMETRIC LOGIC AND CERTAINTY that a duplicate key/AGW exists……”
[Courtroom looks on in horrified silence]
[Cue the sound of ball bearings clicking]
2slugs said: “ So the dominant effect for most greenhouse gases, and CO2 in particular,” So splain to this caveman the physics associated with CO2 (in particular) which singles it out over the other GHGs? While your busy doing that research tell us how it differs (I presume from your comment more reactive) than H2O. H2O is more prevalent (~25 times) and is far more reactive to LW radiation. So, I will just wait here for the splanation.
Different radar has been used systematically in flyovers in planes than was available to the satelitesw, which has provided better data. It is my impression that ice depth matters, as new ice is more susceptible to changes.
The key is a negative adjusted r-square. That clearly does not apply in this case because they are only talking about one independent variable…CO2. So in this case the adjusted r-square is inappropriate. You can get a negative adjusted r-square in a 2 stage least squares and instrumental variables model. The math will allow it. But it’s not clear what intutive intepretation can be given to an adjusted r-square in a 2SLS/IV model. In this case it’s just junk. Like I said, the most likely explanation is that someone doesn’t know the difference between the coefficient of correlation and the coefficient of determination.
This is just some junk chart that an interested amateur from Brisbane cooked up. His theory is that the adjusted data should have been adjusted downward even more than the raw data because of an intuition he has about island heat effects. His theory is that the raw Brisbane airport should be biasing readings upwards because of “island” effects. Instead the more recent observations were adjusted upwards. Interesting theory, but as it turns out, and as he would have known if he had bothered to read GISS’s explanation for the adjustment, the data was adjusted based on relative changes in mean temperatures in surrounding undeveloped areas, and those areas showed an increase. This guy’s intuition of a heat island effect is not outrageous and intuitively might seem plausible, but it doesn’t square with baseline data in the surrounding areas. So it looks like you’ve embarrassed yourself by posting this useless chart on your website.
Ice is ice!
But the signatures that new ice and multi-year ice send to satellites is very different. And it’s that signal that is used to estimate how much polar ice has retreated. Because of a change in the way new ice was reflecting back to satellites (probably due to a change in salinity), satellites were misinterpreting new ice as multi-year ice. This led to the erroneous conclusion that not only was ice not retreating, but ice was increasing. If true, this would have been a problem for some of the global warming predictions. But as it turns out the satellites were misreading the signal. Like I said, this was only recently discovered and by accident. Someone was tracking the paths of ice breaker ships and noticed that they were cutting through ice at an impossibly quick rate if the ice had actually been multi-year ice. So they checked again, and sure enough. The ice was new ice thin. So another one of those anti-GW myths that you’ve been espousing here goes down in flames.
There’s actually a very important connection between The Caine Mutiny and modern macroeconomics in general and econometrics in particular.
James Tobin and 2slugbaits – both are economists who serve as models for different characters in the ‘Caine Mutiny’! Pretty amazing 🙂
Well, now, I think the question has been settled, has it not? Such a fine discussion, back and forth, and finally the truth emerged. So wonderful to witness.
It was a trick response since a negative r-squared means your model does not explain any of the variance in the data better then just choosing the a mean. To know potential explanatory variables add don’t add value to the model is a meaningful result.
Puters aren’t enough. You got to know the scientific secret handshake. Otherwise any young punk downloading R could do what the scientists do. Its all in the handshake that makes scientists special and gives them their authority.
I will repeat: ice is ice. 1st year ice, and multi-year ice is still observed by the satellites. So their measurements are reasonably accurate for growth or lack of it. Areal measurement may be affected by another factor, misreading ice versus open water because of melt water laying on the ice. That might affect the area coverage. But its age not so much.
No. First year ice is just a seasonal phenomenon. It’s transient. It comes and goes after one season. When scientists are looking at polar ice in the context of global warming they are looking for multi-year ice because that is the stuff that persists. If you’ve got an increasing amount of multi-year ice, this means more of the first year ice is surviving the season. That implies cooler temperatures. That would contradict global warming. And that’s the result that many GW denier sites were trumpeting. Well, now we know that this was a false reading. Multi-year ice is actually receding, which is consistent with global warming. I don’t understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
I think I can promise you that this will be the one and only time that you will ever see the name “2slugbaits” alongside James Tobin. The guy was a giant. Also, I’ve always kind of wondered if Tobin’s “Q” model wasn’t a sly reference to Queeg.
2slugs, an interesting comment albeit probably quite wrong about the time series and simple line drawing. The author does not say it, but most of these graphs are developed (I’m sorry you used the term cooked up) using the official GISS tools on their web site. I will assume with some confidence that is what was done here.
So, Iagree with you! NASA GISS needs some training on how to process, analyze and then graph the results of their own data.
For those still reading here this is what the author actually said in his article: “As you can see the raw data shows a downward trend of about -0.6 C per century. The unadjusted data however shows an opposite trend of +0.6 C per century. Intuitively as the airport grew from a quiet strip to a busy international jet airport one would think the more recent data would be adjusted downwards for the heat island effect. Instead we see that the data prior to 1978 is adjusted down and the data in recent times was adjusted up. This is why it is essential that the relevant scientists disclose the reasons for each adjustment – the entire warming trend in the Brisbane data is due to the adjustments as the raw data clearly shows a cooling trend. Without being able to check the veracity of the adjustments used the trend cannot be relied upon. Our default position must be that until all data is made available to other scientists to scrutinize and test the data temperature data used to derive the graphs…”
But our friend 2slugs went off on this amateur making assumptions about the urban heat island effect. Umh, no, he did mention it in passing, but it was not relevant to his graphs. He just showed two versions of the GISS data, and probably used the NASA GISS tools to do so.
Several weeks ago I said the Climategate emails would be significant, but this was a three legged stool of issues, email, S/W code, and finally the data.
Most of the press has been concentrating on the emails which have proven extremely problematical, but the other two have actually been devestating. S/W that actually replaces data with constants to increase temps, and documented in the code comments. And many other stanger data manipulations.
Now we are seeing the beginnings of the analysis of the data. There have been many claims that what the major centers were doing was lowering the older data and raising the newer data. Well, that is exactly what we are seeing. More and more stations are being analyzed and they have, to this date, all been changed in the same direction.
Shameful? Dunno, because we have not seen the reasoning behind the changes.
Trust but verify! NO! All trust has been burned away and what is left is redo the calculations with an independent and open process.
Next will be an analysis of the models. That should be even more interesting, because they are almost surely going to be made up of manually changed variables with no or little documentation why/how they are used for each run.
Cantie, here, only 2slugs has the handshake code.
There used to be a fairly long list here who thought they had it, but the recent cooling and climategate has pretty much eaten their lunch.
Sorry, but you’re misunderstanding both what the guy said and my point. He believes that there was something nefarious about the way the GISS numbers were adjusted. The GISS numbers changed the raw data showing a downward trend to reflect an upward trend. His point was that this can’t be right because intuition tells him that if anything the latter GISS numbers ought to be showing an even sharper decline, nevermind an upward slope. In other words, he believes that the raw data in the GISS numbers already capture an upward bias that, if anything, ought to be adjusted the other way. That’s what he is saying. And he bases all this on the intuition that a heat island suggests the airport temperatures recorded by GISS are overstated in the latter half of the series. His conclusion is that the GISS adjusted numbers had to be faked. If you’re naive this sounds plausible. Except that GISS actually explained why they made upward adjustments.
2slugs said: “ I don’t understand why this is so hard for you to understand.“
but started with this ?explanation? of how Arctic ice is created.
“First year ice is just a seasonal phenomenon. It’s transient. It comes and goes after one season. When scientists are looking at polar ice in the context of global warming they are looking for multi-year ice because that is the stuff that persists. If you’ve got an increasing amount of multi-year ice, this means more of the first year ice is surviving the season.“
After picking myself up off the floor from laughter, I tried hard to think of ways to explain how wrong he is, but alas, the tears are still getting in the way.
So 2slugs, is it coming and going seasonally? Or is it more of the first year ice is surviving?
Y’ano, there are simple measurements of highs and lows for extent and areas, the normal measurements. Those who have to torture the data to get highs and low multi-year ice? Well, they’re just working too hard to tell just the right story.
So let me be very very clear. The Arctic sea ice is recovering from the low in 2007. Setting records? No, but definitely moving toward the norm since 1979, the satellite era.
The Antarctic sea ice has been on a long term growth. Ice is typically measured in total extent and area. The Total sea ice is nearly constant when calculated by adding the seasonal highs. The Arctic growth is somewhat limited as it is mostly land bound. Extraordinary growth is usually shown by extension out the straits opening into the other oceans/seas.
2slugs, so let me summarize. Sea ice is usually measured by toal extent and area. Multi-year ice is most often used to make predictions on minimums. But, to have multi-year ice there has to be one/two/three/etc year ice. Typically when we have no one year ice we will have reached a new minimum. 2009 is not one of those years.
BTW, next time you start talking about satellite errors, please define to which sat you are referring. Satellites go in and out of commission and often provide degraded data at the end of their lives. 2009 was one of those years for ice and satellites.
If the “experts” at AB want to argue, then argue about Bellamy’s points as outlined below.
Climategate: One Must Ignore 200 Years of Observations to Believe in AGW
December 12, 2009
by David J. Bellamy
Bellamy: Twenty-Eight Years on TV, Then Blackballed for Challenging AGW
December 5, 2009
by David J. Bellamy
😀 Movie Guy, there you go and find a concise article presenting even incomplete but overwhelming arguments of why we are where we are in AGW belief. No subterfuge, no hair splitting, no diversionary tactics just a historical look at the contradictions.
Sheesh! With articles like that being presented and largely accepted, what am I going to discuss here at AB? 😀
Good question. Maybe international trade.
I don’t pretend to have any answers to the GW arguments. I suppose that I fall in the Roy Spencer camp of thinking.
Roy Spenceer, PhD – Global Warming
Some Global Warming Q&A To Consider in Light of the EPA Ruling
Latest global temperatures
Want to guess if Bill Nye “The science guy” is pro-global warming or not? Well, does he want a career or not.
It’s good that this type of info is provided to the public.
UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate
It is hard to debate people who are ignorant of science and the scientific method, and refuse to acknowledge data. They are either so beholden to Big Environment, or to their selfish lifestyles of electric cars, government regulation, or cap-and-trade. The Debate is Over (TM).
Well sammy, that is why I do not read this thread much…ignorant of science and method is quite a claim. That my friend shuts the whole concept of debate of particular sciences down as well. No reason to post a free debate thread anymore?
Just my attempt at irony…….
Fair enough. Plenty to argue.
That my friend shuts the whole concept of debate of particular sciences down as well.
That’s the same aa saying the science is settled. Gore says that a lot. Same with some of the leading scientist that seem obsessed with one particular finding.
That ole rotten (multi-year) sea ice story just got torpedoed. I am truly shocked!
It is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/a-look-at-sea-ice-compared-to-this-date-in-2007/#more-14159
Thae articles conclusion: “
Gosh, the Arctic ice is rotten, the satellites are duped, and none of the major scientific organzations that track sea ice have anything to say about it?
It seems Dr. Barber’s conclusions are being left out in the cold by his peers.”
That’s after a search of all the major sea ice tracking institutions. Sigh.
The idea they were proposing yes, but the fact was many many on the “Global Warming is going to kill the planet” side were agast at the very thought that we may find a cheap technical solution. Just like the histeria over the cold-fusion breakthrough.
I’m still waiting for the all-out investment in nuclear to replace coal plants. (be like France!). If your serious that is the direction the warmers would be heading – but they are not. Every solution is about control of people….
Islam will change
Cheers CoRev for fighting the good fight here and being vindicated. My bet Cap & Trade gets killed over this -(we can only hope!)
I always new the science would back up what every indication said was true by the actions of the Global Warming crowd. Always follow the moeny and who is trying to reduce individual liberty (and not solve the problem!).
The biggest clue the the warmers were full-of-it: China – Worlds #1 polluter and now #1 automobile buyer!!!
With India coming up fast!!!
Islam will change
Just to put this thread at the century mark!!!