The good old Global Warming Policy Foundation again?
I accept AGW because; greenhouse gases work by retaining heat in the atmosphere and causing warming, increased levels of greenhouse gases will cause increased retention of heat and cause increased warming, CO2 is a greenhouse gas which humans are causing to increase by deliberately burning fossil fuels which haven't seen the light of day for at least 100 million years, and therefore humans are causing increased global warming (above the temperature the Earth would be expected to be).
No one thinks that greenhouse gases are the only factor driving climate. There are others, such as solar output, volcanic activity, sulphate emissions from coal burning ... I haven't been able to download the BEST data to see if the GWPF analysis is correct, but how do you 'know' that their analysis (which just is graphing the monthly figures, not the 13 month moving average to remove seasonal influences) is correct and the BEST one is wrong?
Professor Curry has stated that she was misquoted in the Daily Mail too.
But anyway, you aren't a realist. You want the Earth to have a human population of 10 billion. You insist that we will become richer the more humans there are.
How? Our standard of living is predicated on having cheap abundant energy. Americans use an average of 10 kilowatt.hour per person per day (with a lot of inequality persisting). Extending that standard of living to a future population of 10 billion means we'd be needing to generate 100 terrawatt.hour of energy per day (we are currently generating 16, so that's a 6 fold increase).
Where do we get the energy? You want a head in the sand approach; continue to burn finite fossil fuels, while at the same time hoping that the markets will magically create a new energy source in time.
Governments currently subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of 450 billion dollars per year. It would be sensible for this subsidy to be diverted to renewable energy sources. The Sun currently provides the Earth with 6,000 times the energy we are currently using. If we could work out how to tap just 0.1% of that, we'd have no problems.
Fossil fuels will run out (they aren't being reformed at anywhere the required rate to replace what we are burning).
More importantly, tell us why Mike links to Delingpole's article, which contains no new information and just repeats GWPF's points we have already seen. We have already addressed them in the previous thread. There was no response from Mike.
I'm aware of whom the Global Warming Policy Foundation are. Are you?
Please answer my comments. I accept AGW because of the physics of greenhouse gases. And I think that we have real serious problems in ensuring energy security.
Two reasons for doing something about developing more energy sources.
Given that the warmest year on record is 2007, of course a ten year period roughly centered on 2007 will look flat. Duh. The GWPF argument is tailored to keep the brain-dead warming deniers brain-dead.
"So why didn't the BEST authors just come clean with the fact that there has been no net warming for the past 10 years, and explain why?"
As I understand it, there was a small net increase over the last ten years, but not significantly different from no increase at all. But, given the small sample size of 10, not significantly different from a moderate positive increase either. So the observations over the last 10 years are consistent with a wide range of possibilities, not just "no net warming". Indeed, within the larger data set, there are multiple 10-year periods showing no significant increase, when analyzed in isolation from the rest of the data. This is to be expected given the level of between-year variation.
Perhaps you should consider following a course in data analysis (including time series analysis) at your university.
Look at the data, in the last 60 years there are numerous 10 year windows in which you could argue the temp remained flat. Narrow that to 3 or 4 year windows and you could show numerous instances where the temperature was down right plummeting.
Up until 2008 or 2009 warming deniers constantly repeated “since 1998 we’ve been in a cooling period” because 1998 was a record year. When the revised data came out showing 2007 as the warmest year they suddenly couldn’t say that anymore. This claim that the temp has been flat for the last 10 years is similar B.S.
My argument is simple: the BEST data shows no warming when analyzed for the past 10 years. That can be explained all sorts of ways.
The scandal is that Muller et al remained silent about it, and hid the lack of warming in the 200 year graph of the data, with the data smoothed and the y axis stretched to make the warming appear more dramatic.
"I see. Data from one year is the "hottest year on record", headline news, and touted as strong evidence for AGW."
Citation needed.
"Ten years of data that show no warming is of no real relevance to the debate."
Again, there have been flat 10 year periods before, but the long-term trend is increasing. For a research professor you seem quite ignorant about statistical analysis.
""AGW data analysis"-- definition-- the art of making data say what you want it to say."
No, that would be your approach to data analysis, the True Believer approach. Like believing that miracle worker Jeebus existed when there's no contemporary data at all.
I would prefer the warming to slow down, but I'd rather not fool myself into believing it based on cherry picking of data.
My argument is simple: the BEST data shows no warming when analyzed for the past 10 years. That can be explained all sorts of ways."
What a clueless ass. KW makes a completely valid point: decadal oscillations sometimes enhance the warming trend and sometimes obscure it. Seeing a relatively flat period on the scale of 10 years in no way disproves the warming trend.
Who is this James Delingpole? Is he an expert on climate? It seems the answer is no.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you deal with the objections raised in the previous thread? Scared and running away?
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThe good old Global Warming Policy Foundation again?
I accept AGW because; greenhouse gases work by retaining heat in the atmosphere and causing warming, increased levels of greenhouse gases will cause increased retention of heat and cause increased warming, CO2 is a greenhouse gas which humans are causing to increase by deliberately burning fossil fuels which haven't seen the light of day for at least 100 million years, and therefore humans are causing increased global warming (above the temperature the Earth would be expected to be).
No one thinks that greenhouse gases are the only factor driving climate. There are others, such as solar output, volcanic activity, sulphate emissions from coal burning ... I haven't been able to download the BEST data to see if the GWPF analysis is correct, but how do you 'know' that their analysis (which just is graphing the monthly figures, not the 13 month moving average to remove seasonal influences) is correct and the BEST one is wrong?
Professor Curry has stated that she was misquoted in the Daily Mail too.
But anyway, you aren't a realist. You want the Earth to have a human population of 10 billion. You insist that we will become richer the more humans there are.
How? Our standard of living is predicated on having cheap abundant energy. Americans use an average of 10 kilowatt.hour per person per day (with a lot of inequality persisting). Extending that standard of living to a future population of 10 billion means we'd be needing to generate 100 terrawatt.hour of energy per day (we are currently generating 16, so that's a 6 fold increase).
Where do we get the energy? You want a head in the sand approach; continue to burn finite fossil fuels, while at the same time hoping that the markets will magically create a new energy source in time.
Governments currently subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of 450 billion dollars per year. It would be sensible for this subsidy to be diverted to renewable energy sources. The Sun currently provides the Earth with 6,000 times the energy we are currently using. If we could work out how to tap just 0.1% of that, we'd have no problems.
Fossil fuels will run out (they aren't being reformed at anywhere the required rate to replace what we are burning).
For some more nuanced views:
ReplyDeleteThe blog of the BEST study's co-author Judith Curry.
Check this out too.
@oleg
ReplyDelete...Who is this James Delingpole...
Ever heard of Google or is your view blocked by your navel?
Read this if you can!
Oleg and bach are both clueless as usual and incapable using a search engine.
ReplyDeleteUnreal.
Enlighten us, Gary. What are exactly Delingpole's credentials?
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, tell us why Mike links to Delingpole's article, which contains no new information and just repeats GWPF's points we have already seen. We have already addressed them in the previous thread. There was no response from Mike.
ReplyDeleteGary,
ReplyDeleteI'm aware of whom the Global Warming Policy Foundation are. Are you?
Please answer my comments. I accept AGW because of the physics of greenhouse gases. And I think that we have real serious problems in ensuring energy security.
Two reasons for doing something about developing more energy sources.
Given that the warmest year on record is 2007, of course a ten year period roughly centered on 2007 will look flat. Duh. The GWPF argument is tailored to keep the brain-dead warming deniers brain-dead.
ReplyDelete-KW
@KW:
ReplyDeleteOh. So there's a simple explanation. Whew!
So why didn't the BEST authors just come clean with the fact that there has been no net warming for the past 10 years, and explain why?
Why hide the lack of warming, if this is objective science?
"So why didn't the BEST authors just come clean with the fact that there has been no net warming for the past 10 years, and explain why?"
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, there was a small net increase over the last ten years, but not significantly different from no increase at all. But, given the small sample size of 10, not significantly different from a moderate positive increase either. So the observations over the last 10 years are consistent with a wide range of possibilities, not just "no net warming". Indeed, within the larger data set, there are multiple 10-year periods showing no significant increase, when analyzed in isolation from the rest of the data. This is to be expected given the level of between-year variation.
Perhaps you should consider following a course in data analysis (including time series analysis) at your university.
@troy:
ReplyDeleteI see. Data from one year is the "hottest year on record", headline news, and touted as strong evidence for AGW.
Ten years of data that show no warming is of no real relevance to the debate.
"AGW data analysis"-- definition-- the art of making data say what you want it to say.
Look at the data, in the last 60 years there are numerous 10 year windows in which you could argue the temp remained flat. Narrow that to 3 or 4 year windows and you could show numerous instances where the temperature was down right plummeting.
ReplyDeleteUp until 2008 or 2009 warming deniers constantly repeated “since 1998 we’ve been in a cooling period” because 1998 was a record year. When the revised data came out showing 2007 as the warmest year they suddenly couldn’t say that anymore. This claim that the temp has been flat for the last 10 years is similar B.S.
-KW
@KW:
ReplyDeleteYou're just hand-waving.
My argument is simple: the BEST data shows no warming when analyzed for the past 10 years. That can be explained all sorts of ways.
The scandal is that Muller et al remained silent about it, and hid the lack of warming in the 200 year graph of the data, with the data smoothed and the y axis stretched to make the warming appear more dramatic.
We know when we're being lied to. Games up.
"I see. Data from one year is the "hottest year on record", headline news, and touted as strong evidence for AGW."
ReplyDeleteCitation needed.
"Ten years of data that show no warming is of no real relevance to the debate."
Again, there have been flat 10 year periods before, but the long-term trend is increasing. For a research professor you seem quite ignorant about statistical analysis.
""AGW data analysis"-- definition-- the art of making data say what you want it to say."
No, that would be your approach to data analysis, the True Believer approach. Like believing that miracle worker Jeebus existed when there's no contemporary data at all.
I would prefer the warming to slow down, but I'd rather not fool myself into believing it based on cherry picking of data.
Egnor: "You're just hand-waving.
ReplyDeleteMy argument is simple: the BEST data shows no warming when analyzed for the past 10 years. That can be explained all sorts of ways."
What a clueless ass. KW makes a completely valid point: decadal oscillations sometimes enhance the warming trend and sometimes obscure it. Seeing a relatively flat period on the scale of 10 years in no way disproves the warming trend.
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteKW makes a completely valid point: decadal oscillations sometimes enhance the warming trend and sometimes obscure it.
Blah blah blah, more atheistic pseudo-scientific babble. You have no argument so you throw words like "decadal oscillations" and "enhance".
Why don't you admit that your worldview is a flawed religion? Why do you hate America?
That's a perfect Poe, Johnny! LOL!
ReplyDelete