Let me begin by saying that I have no brief against teachers. I come from a family of teachers, and I taught both here and abroad at the university level for many years. From my university perch, I watched the skills of new undergraduates deteriorate over the years. It is now so bad that the University of Chicago Urban Education Institute estimates show
...that 40 percent of students nationwide, and over 60 percent of students from urban districts, are required to take at least one remedial course upon entering college. In California, 84 percent of students enrolled in community college are required to take remedial English coursework.
This action by the KY BoE is precisely the sort of thing that has led to the growth of homeschooling, charter, and independent schools. We have several friends with school-age children who homeschool, and as it happens, every single one of those parents is better qualified to teach than most graduates from a university-level School of Education.
I am a volunteer teacher for a local literacy center and Federal prison. I teach a course in GED mathematics (widely viewed as the most challenging part of the GED). My course runs in 16 week cycles.
Most of the students I see drop out of school in the 11th grade, fewer as seniors, and fewest drop out at 10th grade or below (nearly all are minorities, in this case meaning black or Latino/a). Obviously, all my students passed their math classes with at least a D until they dropped out.
Most students beginning a new 16-week course cycle cannot effectively add and subtract (and, as it happens, our President thinks "subtraction is tougher than addition"). If you can believe it, we begin with the number line. Yet these same students got passing grades in algebra.
The teachers' unions have basically killed content in public education. That should not surprise anyone; as Albert Shanker (former teacher union leader) said, When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children.
The teachers' unions are completely, totally in bed with the Progressive left and are one of their richest veins of political campaign contributions. And the unions do not represent the interests of children. They represent greed, outsize retirement packages, and government funding to support membership growth through administrative positions and classroom featherbedding.
In return, the unions are required to teach the current left-wing dogma. A major dogmatic point on the left is AGW, the gateway to seizure of the energy economy.
Of course the Arctic has continued to warm at an alarming rate, with 2012 seeing the lowest volume of sea ice ever recorded. If the Globe hasn’t warmed since 1998, I’m sure the good Doctor or some other Christian smarter than all the scientists can point out the area that has even more dramatically cooled since 1998 to compensate. We know it isn’t the U.S., because we had our warmest year on record in 2012 as well.
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Goebbels would be proud.
And the Goebbels remark is pretty funny. The Nazis were passionate environmentalists-- they can credibly be called the first large scale environmentalist movement, they loved big government, and they weren't too tolerant of people who questioned their "consensus" science...
Mr Mathoo (from the Book of Mathoo) provided a link to a very popular eurosite run by string theorist Lubos Motl. Mathoo obviously didn't bother to read the fucking post he linked (as usual), so please allow me to provide Dr Motl's summary:
The temperature changes either fail to be global or they fail to be warming. There is no global warming - this term is just another name for a pile of feces.
And that's the memo.
Please note that neither Progressive commenter had anything whatsoever to say about the fucking TOPIC - i.e., the KY BoE. Just more blattering about how mean and stupid non-Progressives are. In statistics, that's called "noise".
Lubos Motl is indeed a string theorist. A former string theorist, to be exact. He was a junior faculty at Harvard until he got bored, quit academia, and moved back home in 2007.
I was fully aware whose site I linked to.
The whole point was to demonstrate that the atmosphere is indeed warming on average. Motl's analysis of the available data shows exactly what Egnor said: some warming and some cooling. However, once one gets quantitative, it's clear that the warming trend dominates. 30 percent of the stations show cooling, 70 percent warming. Look at the histograms he exhibits: they all are centered on the positive side. If one looks at these data analyses and concludes that there hasn't been a warming in the past century, he is a delusional fool.
And as to math, admiral, mine is bigger than yours. Don't even start. I do Grassmann integrals before breakfast.
[it's clear that the warming trend dominates. 30 percent of the stations show cooling, 70 percent warming.]
One trend or the other will dominate at any given time. Since the the last glacial period, warming has dominated. Since the Medieval warm period, cooling has dominated. Since the Little Ice Age, warming has dominated.
The science of AGW hasn't shit to do with "trends" associated with epochs. You can pick any epoch you want to show any trend you want.
The science of AGW has to do with what all science has to do with: making an educated guess about how something works, making a testable prediction based on that guess (theory), then testing it, then facing up to the results of the test.
You made predictions (polar bears, rising of the seas, 50 million climate refugees, multi-degree global temperature rises, yada yada.)
You predictions have been tested, to a substantial degree. You crashed and burned. Your models, based on your theory, failed to predict the most characteristic feature of 21st century global climate: temperature stasis, despite a substantial rise in CO2.
Nothing to be ashamed of. Theories splash down all the time. Look at aether, or vitalism, or ESP, or alchemy.
What bothers me is your refusal to do science step 4:facing up to the results of the test. That's what distingushes charlitans from scientists. Both push their ideas. But scientists stop pushing, when their predictions fail.
[Don't even start. I do Grassmann integrals before breakfast.]
I do commonsense before breakfast. Beats Grassman integrals.
One trend or the other will dominate at any given time. Since the the last glacial period, warming has dominated. Since the Medieval warm period, cooling has dominated. Since the Little Ice Age, warming has dominated.
Again, this is a qualitative statement. If anyone cares to look at the numbers, the warming trend over the last 100 years is much faster than trends in the preceding millenium. The warming trend over the last 100 years was +0.75 degree centigrade per century. The cooling trend from the MWP to the LIA was at best −0.1 degree. The difference is vast. Anyone pretending that these are equivalent is either scientifically illiterate or a liar.
Admiral, are you a crackpot who thinks imaginary numbers are somehow inferior? No surprise here. Maybe you should tak to some electrical engineers for starters.
[The warming trend over the last 100 years was +0.75 degree centigrade per century. The cooling trend from the MWP to the LIA was at best −0.1 degree. The difference is vast. Anyone pretending that these are equivalent is either scientifically illiterate or a liar.]
The warming trend since 1998 is 0.0 deg, despite a 20% increase in atmospheric CO2. The warming trend over the past 100 years was +0.75 deg., associated with a lesser increase in CO2.
A vaster difference.
Which of your models of climate sensitivity to CO2, based on the theory of AGW, predicted this vaster stasis?
I still don't know whether you're stupid or just dishonest. As you've been told many times, if you cherrypick your data set, and start your series with a strong El Niño year (1998) which is accompanied by the dumping of heat from the ocean into the atmosphere causing a warm year, and finish with a moderate La Niña year (2012) accompanied by the reverse causing a cooler year, then naturally you'll get a 'pause'.
And that's even before the current 'quiet' sun, with reduced solar output, and the rapid Indian and Chinese industrialisation, resulting in increased atmospheric particulates from the burning of 'dirty' coal for electricity generation.
Only an idiot (ie an AGW denialist) thinks that the theory of AGW asserts that greenhouse gases is the only factor driving global temperatures.
Anyway. Scientific theories aren't 'proved'. They are just failed to be disproved. Even if a climatologist was foolish enough to predict back in 1998 that according to his model, global temperatures would increase by x degrees by 2012 ( there wasn't one - you're just cherry picking the data after the event, which isn't a prediction), all that it would mean is that his model is incorrect or incomplete. Certainly incomplete, because there are no models available to predict solar output, El Niño/la Niña years or Chinese economic growth.
The current 'pause' is no different to the previous two 'pauses' in global temperature, both in a background of increasing temperatures.
AGW is based on the well known and well understood physical properties of greenhouse gases, in absorbing infrared radiation and retaining heat.
The current stasis is not a "pause", because "pause" implies knowledge of trend, and since your theory of AGW is disproved, we have have no such knowledge.
I can't tell you how happy I am that you and yours are persisting in your fraud. It makes your depravity even more obvious to the public, who may not understand the science of your failure, but who certainly know con men when they see them.
Seeing frauds get caught is its own reward. The only negative here is what all of this says about human nature. We are a profoundly fallen race, to have members who do this crap, and fools who believe it. Original sin, I guess.
You have no knowledge. That's the right assessment. We do.
Even if you look at the temperatures between 1998 (a local maximum) and now, the trend is +0.042 °C/decade with a standard deviation of 0.070 °C/decade (HADCRUT4).
Move one year off the local maximum, and the positive trend becomes significant: between 1999 and 2013, it is +0.078 °C/decade with σ=0.074 °C/decade.
In fact, the trend of +0.073 °C/decade is what has been observed over the last century, with σ=0.011 °C/decade. Thus the mean trend for the last 15 years is consistent with the last century of observations. It's the fluctuation that masks it. Too short a period of time.
No. AGW hasn't been disproved. The most you can arguably claim is that the various climate models have been shown to be incomplete, and that only at a stretch.
You need to get clear in your mind what would disprove a scientific theory. But then again, you prefer theories which can never be disproved, such as Thomistic evolution.
Can't even spell Grassmann correctly? Better not mention it at all. You wouldn't know what end is up.
As to the warming trend, the last 15 years are +0.042 °C/decade with a standard deviation of 0.070 °C/decade (HADCRUT4). That's consistent with the last century's +0.073 °C/decade.
You are either scientifically illiterate and do not understand that or a liar. The former seems unlikely given your involvement in research, so I conclude that you are a liar.
[The warming trend over the last 100 years was +0.75 degree centigrade per century. The cooling trend from the MWP to the LIA was at best −0.1 degree. The difference is vast. Anyone pretending that these are equivalent is either scientifically illiterate or a liar.]
Pretty funny, Hoo. You assert that the temperature change that transformed Greenland from green to an ice-sheet from was 0.5 degrees.
If the proxies were so reliable as to give you confidence in the 0.1 degree/century warming since the MWP, why did Mann drop the proxy data and surreptitiously switch to instrumental data in mid-20th century in order to generate his Hockey Stick, which has since been expunged?
The issue is the correspondence between the temperature record and the AGW models. The record at most hews to the least warming consistent with any of the models, and this occurred during a time of marked increase in CO2.
This two-decade stasis is obvious and admitted by all parties. Whether playing with endpoints gets you just in or well out of the SD is not point. Statistical casuistry reflects on your unwillingness to be honest with the data. Even alarmist frauds aren't going there.
At what point will you admit that the models are wrong, and vastly overstate climate sensitivity to CO2?
This two-decade stasis is obvious and admitted by all parties.
A two-decade stasis? Really? Let's look at the numbers. HADCRUT4 data from 1994 to 2013 give a trend of +0.119 °C/decade with a standard deviation σ = 0.052 °C/decade. GISTEMP, mean +0.131 °C/decade, σ = 0.054 °C/decade. A clear positive trend exceeding two standard deviations.
You chose your starting point for the epoch well. The eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991 diminished the sunlight reaching the earth by 10%, and its effects remained until 1995-1996. It caused a global cooling of about 0.5 deg.
The claim that the amount of sunlight reaching the earth was reduced by 10 percent is laughably absurd. Had that happened, the earth's absolute temperature would go down by one quarter of 10 percent = 2.5 percent = 7 °C.
Anyway, it was you, not me, who chose to claim that there has been a stasis for two decades.
Don't like 1994 as a starting point? Let's look at the period from 1990 (prior to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo) to 2013. The trend is +0.145 °C/decade with a σ = 0.041 °C/decade (HADCRUT4). Positive at the level of three standard deviations.
Or take two decades from 1990 to 2010. +0.176 °C/decade with a σ = 0.050 C/decade.
There is a clear positive trend, no doubt about it. You can run from the numbers and come up with more laughable excuses, but it merely exposes you as a liar.
[The claim that the amount of sunlight reaching the earth was reduced by 10 percent is laughably absurd. Had that happened, the earth's absolute temperature would go down by one quarter of 10 percent = 2.5 percent = 7 °C.]
Looks like your AGW model doesn't fit the data. Big surprise.
[Don't like 1994 as a starting point? Let's look at the period from 1990 (prior to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo) to 2013.]
Actually, what I don't like is your dishonesty.
We all agree: beyond 15-17 years, there has been warming in most data sets. That is not at issue.
You still haven't explained why you chose 1994, if you knew about Pinatubo. You can also explain why you make the case for warming in epochs during which we all agree there has been warming.
The 10-percent reduction in transmission was transient. By 1994 the transmission was back to the typical values (0.92-0.93). So your complaint about my choice of 1994 was completely without merit.
Furthermore, I did not choose that year, you did. You mentioned a "two-decade stasis." Two decades is 1994 to 2013.
And like I said, forget 1994. Take 1990, the year before the eruption, as a starting point. The warming trend is there, clear and unequivocal.
We all agree: beyond 15-17 years, there has been warming in most data sets. That is not at issue.
Ah, we have a concession. Very good. Next time you tell us the warming has stopped, I'll rub your face in it.
[Ah, we have a concession. Very good. Next time you tell us the warming has stopped, I'll rub your face in it.]
Of course there has been some warming over some epochs, and some cooling over some epochs. Weather happens. Your theory was not "there is some warming over some epochs".
Let me remind you of your theory:
1) CO2 is rising. 2) Man is a major cause of CO2 rise 3) Climate is highly sensitive to CO2, which causes warming. 4) Due to rising man-made CO2, climate is warming in a dangerous way.
1 is true. 2 is possibly true. 3 is at issue. 4 is at issue.
To test 3 and 4, we compare CO2 concentrations to global temperature.
Over the past 15 years, CO2 concentrations have increased substantially. Global temperature over the same period is essentially flat.
Conclusion: 3 and 4 of your hypothesis are disproven. Because they are the kernel of the AGW hypothesis, the AGW hypothesis is disproven.
That's how science works. Anything else is politics, ideology, etc.
You made an elementary error in your analysis. You assumed that the rising CO2 is the only factor affecting climate. But that's not true. Natural events add oscillations to the warming trend.
The 1998 maximum in the global temperature anomaly reflects a particularly intense El Niño. The 1991 volcano eruption pushed the temperatures down.
All of these additional factors dominate the positive trend over short periods of time, say a decade. Over longer terms, the warming trend becomes clear.
The error in discounting factors other than CO2 is your error, not mine. Skeptics have long observed that CO2 is not the primary, or even a particularly significant, cause of warming. It's the warmists who have claimed the CO2 was the big issue.
[All of these additional factors dominate the positive trend over short periods of time, say a decade. Over longer terms, the warming trend becomes clear.]
Any epoch, long or short, will show either a warming or cooling trend. If you pulled your AGW theory out of your ass because a fairy told you, you would still have a 50:50 chance of finding a "warming trend" to buttress your theory.
Your theory is not tested by "trends". We're coming out a Little Ice Age, so warming is no surprise.
Your theory is tested by the specific predictions of your models. All of your models predicted significant sensitivity of climate to atmospheric CO2.
This was tested in a very straightforward way over the past 15 years. CO2 went up a lot. Temperature didn't change much, if at all.
Your theory is DOA. Perhaps there are caveats, yada, yada. But a dead theory is a dead theory. Apocalyptics always struggle to explain why the world didn't end. Pitiful.
Any epoch, long or short, will show either a warming or cooling trend.
Ah, running away from numbers and into vague statements. That's the only way for you, Bozos, to argue against the reality of global warming. LOL.
Your theory is not tested by "trends". We're coming out a Little Ice Age, so warming is no surprise.
Except we're "coming out" of it at a rate about 10 times higher than usual. Ah, sorry, I'm being quantitative again and you can't do math.
This was tested in a very straightforward way over the past 15 years. CO2 went up a lot. Temperature didn't change much, if at all.
Over 15 years, the anomaly is expected to rise by 0.1 to 0.2 °C. Natural variability is of the same order of magnitude. If the contribution of natural oscillations is going up, the positive trend is enhanced (as in the 1990s). If the natural part is going down, the positive trend is reduced. Ho hum.
Your theory is DOA. Perhaps there are caveats, yada, yada. But a dead theory is a dead theory. Apocalyptics always struggle to explain why the world didn't end. Pitiful.
Dream on. You were forced to acknowledge in this thread that the warming trend is visible on the scales of two decades. What a sore loser.
You're a liar. You can't even get AGW theory correct. Have a read of James Hansen's 'Storms of My Grandchildren'. You consider him to be an alarmist. In his book, he notes that greenhouse gases have a small incremental heating effect. The solar output is about 1000 Watts per square metre. Greenhouse gases provide warming equivalent to less than 1 Watt per square metre, so it's not a huge overwhelming effect that's going to cause sudden catastrophic warming, but it's an effect that persists regardless of temporary declines in solar output, increased Indian and Chinese industrialisation or volcanic eruptions.
The added worry are tipping points. Such as melting of the summer arctic ice cap decreasing albedo. Or the melting of the Arctic permafrost resulting in release of methane from decomposing buried vegetation.
Some climate scientists think crossing the tipping points will result in abrupt warming. Hansen thinks it will be gradual but irreversible.
Global warming is sound science. We know this because scientists have gone to great lengths to hide data, destroy data, and corrupt the peer review process. That always happens when the argument is irrefutable. Oh yes, and they sue people to silence them.
That's just how science is done. Newton, for example, conducted all of his experiments in secret, locked up the data, then announced his results to the world. And everyone believed him.
They should add this book as required reading!
ReplyDeleteLet me begin by saying that I have no brief against teachers. I come from a family of teachers, and I taught both here and abroad at the university level for many years. From my university perch, I watched the skills of new undergraduates deteriorate over the years. It is now so bad that the University of Chicago Urban Education Institute estimates show
ReplyDelete...that 40 percent of students nationwide, and over 60 percent of students from urban districts, are required to take at least one remedial course upon entering college. In California, 84 percent of students enrolled in community college are required to take remedial English coursework.
This action by the KY BoE is precisely the sort of thing that has led to the growth of homeschooling, charter, and independent schools. We have several friends with school-age children who homeschool, and as it happens, every single one of those parents is better qualified to teach than most graduates from a university-level School of Education.
I am a volunteer teacher for a local literacy center and Federal prison. I teach a course in GED mathematics (widely viewed as the most challenging part of the GED). My course runs in 16 week cycles.
Most of the students I see drop out of school in the 11th grade, fewer as seniors, and fewest drop out at 10th grade or below (nearly all are minorities, in this case meaning black or Latino/a). Obviously, all my students passed their math classes with at least a D until they dropped out.
Most students beginning a new 16-week course cycle cannot effectively add and subtract (and, as it happens, our President thinks "subtraction is tougher than addition"). If you can believe it, we begin with the number line. Yet these same students got passing grades in algebra.
The teachers' unions have basically killed content in public education. That should not surprise anyone; as Albert Shanker (former teacher union leader) said, When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children.
The teachers' unions are completely, totally in bed with the Progressive left and are one of their richest veins of political campaign contributions. And the unions do not represent the interests of children. They represent greed, outsize retirement packages, and government funding to support membership growth through administrative positions and classroom featherbedding.
In return, the unions are required to teach the current left-wing dogma. A major dogmatic point on the left is AGW, the gateway to seizure of the energy economy.
Of course the Arctic has continued to warm at an alarming rate, with 2012 seeing the lowest volume of sea ice ever recorded. If the Globe hasn’t warmed since 1998, I’m sure the good Doctor or some other Christian smarter than all the scientists can point out the area that has even more dramatically cooled since 1998 to compensate. We know it isn’t the U.S., because we had our warmest year on record in 2012 as well.
ReplyDeleteRepeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Goebbels would be proud.
-KW
Sometimes it warms, sometimes it cools. Weather.
DeleteAnd the Goebbels remark is pretty funny. The Nazis were passionate environmentalists-- they can credibly be called the first large scale environmentalist movement, they loved big government, and they weren't too tolerant of people who questioned their "consensus" science...
(http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/nazi-greens-inconvenient-history)
If the Arctic warms enough, it will be much easier to mine and drill for oil there. Win-win!
DeletePopeye, you one funny guy. You still believe in Anthropogenic Goebbel Warming!
DeletePersonally, I wish the Arctic would warm a little faster. It's still too cold up there for cost-effective mining and drilling operations.
Sometimes it warms, sometimes it cools.
DeleteThat's a qualitative statement. On a quantitative level, it warms more than it cools.
Conservatives have always had problems with math.
Hoo
You don't have a problem with math, hoo. Your relationship with math is similar to the sentiment on a t-shirt I saw in the French Quarter:
Delete"I don't have a problem with alcohol. I get drunk, I fall down, I pass out. No problem"
Lol, admiral. Math is what I do every day. If you wish to call me a math-aholic, fine. I would consider that an honor.
DeleteHoo
hoo: "Math is what I do every day."
DeleteI thought they had little pictures on those cash register keys.
@Adm:
Delete"Goebbel Warming"
Heh.
Mr Mathoo (from the Book of Mathoo) provided a link to a very popular eurosite run by string theorist Lubos Motl. Mathoo obviously didn't bother to read the fucking post he linked (as usual), so please allow me to provide Dr Motl's summary:
ReplyDeleteThe temperature changes either fail to be global or they fail to be warming. There is no global warming - this term is just another name for a pile of feces.
And that's the memo.
Please note that neither Progressive commenter had anything whatsoever to say about the fucking TOPIC - i.e., the KY BoE. Just more blattering about how mean and stupid non-Progressives are. In statistics, that's called "noise".
Lubos Motl is indeed a string theorist. A former string theorist, to be exact. He was a junior faculty at Harvard until he got bored, quit academia, and moved back home in 2007.
DeleteI was fully aware whose site I linked to.
The whole point was to demonstrate that the atmosphere is indeed warming on average. Motl's analysis of the available data shows exactly what Egnor said: some warming and some cooling. However, once one gets quantitative, it's clear that the warming trend dominates. 30 percent of the stations show cooling, 70 percent warming. Look at the histograms he exhibits: they all are centered on the positive side. If one looks at these data analyses and concludes that there hasn't been a warming in the past century, he is a delusional fool.
And as to math, admiral, mine is bigger than yours. Don't even start. I do Grassmann integrals before breakfast.
Hoo
Yours is imaginary.
Delete@Hoo:
Delete[it's clear that the warming trend dominates. 30 percent of the stations show cooling, 70 percent warming.]
One trend or the other will dominate at any given time. Since the the last glacial period, warming has dominated. Since the Medieval warm period, cooling has dominated. Since the Little Ice Age, warming has dominated.
The science of AGW hasn't shit to do with "trends" associated with epochs. You can pick any epoch you want to show any trend you want.
The science of AGW has to do with what all science has to do with: making an educated guess about how something works, making a testable prediction based on that guess (theory), then testing it, then facing up to the results of the test.
You made predictions (polar bears, rising of the seas, 50 million climate refugees, multi-degree global temperature rises, yada yada.)
You predictions have been tested, to a substantial degree. You crashed and burned. Your models, based on your theory, failed to predict the most characteristic feature of 21st century global climate: temperature stasis, despite a substantial rise in CO2.
Nothing to be ashamed of. Theories splash down all the time. Look at aether, or vitalism, or ESP, or alchemy.
What bothers me is your refusal to do science step 4:facing up to the results of the test. That's what distingushes charlitans from scientists. Both push their ideas. But scientists stop pushing, when their predictions fail.
[Don't even start. I do Grassmann integrals before breakfast.]
I do commonsense before breakfast. Beats Grassman integrals.
One trend or the other will dominate at any given time. Since the the last glacial period, warming has dominated. Since the Medieval warm period, cooling has dominated. Since the Little Ice Age, warming has dominated.
DeleteAgain, this is a qualitative statement. If anyone cares to look at the numbers, the warming trend over the last 100 years is much faster than trends in the preceding millenium. The warming trend over the last 100 years was +0.75 degree centigrade per century. The cooling trend from the MWP to the LIA was at best −0.1 degree. The difference is vast. Anyone pretending that these are equivalent is either scientifically illiterate or a liar.
Hoo
I do commonsense before breakfast. Beats Grassman integrals.
DeleteThen you should join the crackpots at Common Sense Science. You'll fit right in.
Hoo
Yours is imaginary.
DeleteAdmiral, are you a crackpot who thinks imaginary numbers are somehow inferior? No surprise here. Maybe you should tak to some electrical engineers for starters.
Hoo
@Hoo:
Delete[The warming trend over the last 100 years was +0.75 degree centigrade per century. The cooling trend from the MWP to the LIA was at best −0.1 degree. The difference is vast. Anyone pretending that these are equivalent is either scientifically illiterate or a liar.]
The warming trend since 1998 is 0.0 deg, despite a 20% increase in atmospheric CO2. The warming trend over the past 100 years was +0.75 deg., associated with a lesser increase in CO2.
A vaster difference.
Which of your models of climate sensitivity to CO2, based on the theory of AGW, predicted this vaster stasis?
I haven't had breakfast yet, by the way.
15 years is too short a period of time. The noise dominates the signal.
DeleteHoo
Is the large 15 year rise in CO2 noise?
DeleteYou don't understand which noise I am talking about, do you?
DeleteHoo
I love you, too, Mickey, you math-challenged Bozo.
DeleteHoo
Michael,
DeleteI still don't know whether you're stupid or just dishonest. As you've been told many times, if you cherrypick your data set, and start your series with a strong El Niño year (1998) which is accompanied by the dumping of heat from the ocean into the atmosphere causing a warm year, and finish with a moderate La Niña year (2012) accompanied by the reverse causing a cooler year, then naturally you'll get a 'pause'.
And that's even before the current 'quiet' sun, with reduced solar output, and the rapid Indian and Chinese industrialisation, resulting in increased atmospheric particulates from the burning of 'dirty' coal for electricity generation.
Only an idiot (ie an AGW denialist) thinks that the theory of AGW asserts that greenhouse gases is the only factor driving global temperatures.
Anyway. Scientific theories aren't 'proved'. They are just failed to be disproved. Even if a climatologist was foolish enough to predict back in 1998 that according to his model, global temperatures would increase by x degrees by 2012 ( there wasn't one - you're just cherry picking the data after the event, which isn't a prediction), all that it would mean is that his model is incorrect or incomplete. Certainly incomplete, because there are no models available to predict solar output, El Niño/la Niña years or Chinese economic growth.
The current 'pause' is no different to the previous two 'pauses' in global temperature, both in a background of increasing temperatures.
AGW is based on the well known and well understood physical properties of greenhouse gases, in absorbing infrared radiation and retaining heat.
The current stasis is not a "pause", because "pause" implies knowledge of trend, and since your theory of AGW is disproved, we have have no such knowledge.
DeleteI can't tell you how happy I am that you and yours are persisting in your fraud. It makes your depravity even more obvious to the public, who may not understand the science of your failure, but who certainly know con men when they see them.
Seeing frauds get caught is its own reward. The only negative here is what all of this says about human nature. We are a profoundly fallen race, to have members who do this crap, and fools who believe it. Original sin, I guess.
You have no knowledge. That's the right assessment. We do.
DeleteEven if you look at the temperatures between 1998 (a local maximum) and now, the trend is +0.042 °C/decade with a standard deviation of 0.070 °C/decade (HADCRUT4).
Move one year off the local maximum, and the positive trend becomes significant: between 1999 and 2013, it is +0.078 °C/decade with σ=0.074 °C/decade.
In fact, the trend of +0.073 °C/decade is what has been observed over the last century, with σ=0.011 °C/decade. Thus the mean trend for the last 15 years is consistent with the last century of observations. It's the fluctuation that masks it. Too short a period of time.
Hoo
Your argument is with your fellow warmists.
Delete(http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/04/long-list-of-warmist-scientists-say-global-warming-has-stopped/)
You frauds should at least get your story coordinated. Maybe you can meet in the lunchroom of your asylum.
How many years of no warming do we need before it ain't no fluctuation. Let me guess the answer: always one more than the stasis so far.
Better fire up those Grassman integrals.
Michael,
DeleteNo. AGW hasn't been disproved. The most you can arguably claim is that the various climate models have been shown to be incomplete, and that only at a stretch.
You need to get clear in your mind what would disprove a scientific theory. But then again, you prefer theories which can never be disproved, such as Thomistic evolution.
Can't even spell Grassmann correctly? Better not mention it at all. You wouldn't know what end is up.
DeleteAs to the warming trend, the last 15 years are +0.042 °C/decade with a standard deviation of 0.070 °C/decade (HADCRUT4). That's consistent with the last century's +0.073 °C/decade.
You are either scientifically illiterate and do not understand that or a liar. The former seems unlikely given your involvement in research, so I conclude that you are a liar.
Hoo
[The warming trend over the last 100 years was +0.75 degree centigrade per century. The cooling trend from the MWP to the LIA was at best −0.1 degree. The difference is vast. Anyone pretending that these are equivalent is either scientifically illiterate or a liar.]
DeletePretty funny, Hoo. You assert that the temperature change that transformed Greenland from green to an ice-sheet from was 0.5 degrees.
If the proxies were so reliable as to give you confidence in the 0.1 degree/century warming since the MWP, why did Mann drop the proxy data and surreptitiously switch to instrumental data in mid-20th century in order to generate his Hockey Stick, which has since been expunged?
The issue is the correspondence between the temperature record and the AGW models. The record at most hews to the least warming consistent with any of the models, and this occurred during a time of marked increase in CO2.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/
This two-decade stasis is obvious and admitted by all parties. Whether playing with endpoints gets you just in or well out of the SD is not point. Statistical casuistry reflects on your unwillingness to be honest with the data. Even alarmist frauds aren't going there.
At what point will you admit that the models are wrong, and vastly overstate climate sensitivity to CO2?
Silly Hoo, thinking that Egnor could be swayed by facts. Facts mean nothing to Egnor at all. He is a Muslim propagandist of the very worst sort.
DeleteThis two-decade stasis is obvious and admitted by all parties.
DeleteA two-decade stasis? Really? Let's look at the numbers. HADCRUT4 data from 1994 to 2013 give a trend of +0.119 °C/decade with a standard deviation σ = 0.052 °C/decade. GISTEMP, mean +0.131 °C/decade, σ = 0.054 °C/decade. A clear positive trend exceeding two standard deviations.
You are a liar.
Hoo
You chose your starting point for the epoch well. The eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991 diminished the sunlight reaching the earth by 10%, and its effects remained until 1995-1996. It caused a global cooling of about 0.5 deg.
Deletehttp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/twenty-two-years-of-no-actual-global-warming/
You chose the nadir of Pinatubo-induced global temperature (1993-1994) as the start point for your warming calculations. How convenient.
Why didn't you mention Pinatubo, and why did you start your analysis with the temperature record influenced by it?
The claim that the amount of sunlight reaching the earth was reduced by 10 percent is laughably absurd. Had that happened, the earth's absolute temperature would go down by one quarter of 10 percent = 2.5 percent = 7 °C.
DeleteAnyway, it was you, not me, who chose to claim that there has been a stasis for two decades.
Don't like 1994 as a starting point? Let's look at the period from 1990 (prior to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo) to 2013. The trend is +0.145 °C/decade with a σ = 0.041 °C/decade (HADCRUT4). Positive at the level of three standard deviations.
Or take two decades from 1990 to 2010. +0.176 °C/decade with a σ = 0.050 C/decade.
There is a clear positive trend, no doubt about it. You can run from the numbers and come up with more laughable excuses, but it merely exposes you as a liar.
Hoo
[The claim that the amount of sunlight reaching the earth was reduced by 10 percent is laughably absurd. Had that happened, the earth's absolute temperature would go down by one quarter of 10 percent = 2.5 percent = 7 °C.]
Deletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Mauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png
Looks like your AGW model doesn't fit the data. Big surprise.
[Don't like 1994 as a starting point? Let's look at the period from 1990 (prior to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo) to 2013.]
Actually, what I don't like is your dishonesty.
We all agree: beyond 15-17 years, there has been warming in most data sets. That is not at issue.
You still haven't explained why you chose 1994, if you knew about Pinatubo. You can also explain why you make the case for warming in epochs during which we all agree there has been warming.
The 10-percent reduction in transmission was transient. By 1994 the transmission was back to the typical values (0.92-0.93). So your complaint about my choice of 1994 was completely without merit.
DeleteFurthermore, I did not choose that year, you did. You mentioned a "two-decade stasis." Two decades is 1994 to 2013.
And like I said, forget 1994. Take 1990, the year before the eruption, as a starting point. The warming trend is there, clear and unequivocal.
We all agree: beyond 15-17 years, there has been warming in most data sets. That is not at issue.
Ah, we have a concession. Very good. Next time you tell us the warming has stopped, I'll rub your face in it.
Hoo
[Ah, we have a concession. Very good. Next time you tell us the warming has stopped, I'll rub your face in it.]
DeleteOf course there has been some warming over some epochs, and some cooling over some epochs. Weather happens. Your theory was not "there is some warming over some epochs".
Let me remind you of your theory:
1) CO2 is rising.
2) Man is a major cause of CO2 rise
3) Climate is highly sensitive to CO2, which causes warming.
4) Due to rising man-made CO2, climate is warming in a dangerous way.
1 is true. 2 is possibly true. 3 is at issue. 4 is at issue.
To test 3 and 4, we compare CO2 concentrations to global temperature.
Over the past 15 years, CO2 concentrations have increased substantially. Global temperature over the same period is essentially flat.
Conclusion: 3 and 4 of your hypothesis are disproven. Because they are the kernel of the AGW hypothesis, the AGW hypothesis is disproven.
That's how science works. Anything else is politics, ideology, etc.
You made an elementary error in your analysis. You assumed that the rising CO2 is the only factor affecting climate. But that's not true. Natural events add oscillations to the warming trend.
DeleteThe 1998 maximum in the global temperature anomaly reflects a particularly intense El Niño. The 1991 volcano eruption pushed the temperatures down.
All of these additional factors dominate the positive trend over short periods of time, say a decade. Over longer terms, the warming trend becomes clear.
Hoo
The error in discounting factors other than CO2 is your error, not mine. Skeptics have long observed that CO2 is not the primary, or even a particularly significant, cause of warming. It's the warmists who have claimed the CO2 was the big issue.
Delete[All of these additional factors dominate the positive trend over short periods of time, say a decade. Over longer terms, the warming trend becomes clear.]
Any epoch, long or short, will show either a warming or cooling trend. If you pulled your AGW theory out of your ass because a fairy told you, you would still have a 50:50 chance of finding a "warming trend" to buttress your theory.
Your theory is not tested by "trends". We're coming out a Little Ice Age, so warming is no surprise.
Your theory is tested by the specific predictions of your models. All of your models predicted significant sensitivity of climate to atmospheric CO2.
This was tested in a very straightforward way over the past 15 years. CO2 went up a lot. Temperature didn't change much, if at all.
Your theory is DOA. Perhaps there are caveats, yada, yada. But a dead theory is a dead theory. Apocalyptics always struggle to explain why the world didn't end. Pitiful.
No one takes you seriously any more.
Any epoch, long or short, will show either a warming or cooling trend.
DeleteAh, running away from numbers and into vague statements. That's the only way for you, Bozos, to argue against the reality of global warming. LOL.
Your theory is not tested by "trends". We're coming out a Little Ice Age, so warming is no surprise.
Except we're "coming out" of it at a rate about 10 times higher than usual. Ah, sorry, I'm being quantitative again and you can't do math.
This was tested in a very straightforward way over the past 15 years. CO2 went up a lot. Temperature didn't change much, if at all.
Over 15 years, the anomaly is expected to rise by 0.1 to 0.2 °C. Natural variability is of the same order of magnitude. If the contribution of natural oscillations is going up, the positive trend is enhanced (as in the 1990s). If the natural part is going down, the positive trend is reduced. Ho hum.
Your theory is DOA. Perhaps there are caveats, yada, yada. But a dead theory is a dead theory. Apocalyptics always struggle to explain why the world didn't end. Pitiful.
Dream on. You were forced to acknowledge in this thread that the warming trend is visible on the scales of two decades. What a sore loser.
Hoo
Michael,
DeleteYou're a liar. You can't even get AGW theory correct. Have a read of James Hansen's 'Storms of My Grandchildren'. You consider him to be an alarmist. In his book, he notes that greenhouse gases have a small incremental heating effect. The solar output is about 1000 Watts per square metre. Greenhouse gases provide warming equivalent to less than 1 Watt per square metre, so it's not a huge overwhelming effect that's going to cause sudden catastrophic warming, but it's an effect that persists regardless of temporary declines in solar output, increased Indian and Chinese industrialisation or volcanic eruptions.
The added worry are tipping points. Such as melting of the summer arctic ice cap decreasing albedo. Or the melting of the Arctic permafrost resulting in release of methane from decomposing buried vegetation.
Some climate scientists think crossing the tipping points will result in abrupt warming. Hansen thinks it will be gradual but irreversible.
My comment preceding bachfiend's is gone. It was a response to Egnor's silly arguments at 4:21 pm.
DeleteIf you can't take the heat, Mike, get out of the kitchen.
Hoo
Global warming is sound science. We know this because scientists have gone to great lengths to hide data, destroy data, and corrupt the peer review process. That always happens when the argument is irrefutable. Oh yes, and they sue people to silence them.
ReplyDeleteThat's just how science is done. Newton, for example, conducted all of his experiments in secret, locked up the data, then announced his results to the world. And everyone believed him.
Joey