tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post2691183308154223544..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Dr. Hoo issues a challenge. Oops.mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37743184483916665692012-12-24T16:32:43.338-05:002012-12-24T16:32:43.338-05:00What global warming models predicted the Pause? (c...<i>What global warming models predicted the Pause? (cite them).</i><br /><br />And here we have the core of understanding Egnorance. Egnor the full-time liar doesn't actually understand the science he talks about, he only understands slogans. If you ask him actual science questions, he can only respond with slogans, because that's all he knows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29187202090328606702012-12-23T15:57:10.787-05:002012-12-23T15:57:10.787-05:00Michael,
Simple questions:
1. What are the natu...Michael,<br /><br />Simple questions:<br /><br />1. What are the natural drivers of global warming or cooling?<br /><br />2. If greenhouse gases cause warming from -18 degrees C to 15 degrees C (and this is simple physics, not doubted by AGW denialists - I'll go into the physics if you want...), then why shouldn't humans adding 30% to atmospheric CO2 levels since preindustrial times not cause further warming?<br /><br />3. If you doubt average global temperature graphs from the 20th century as being unreliable, why do you accept the one from 1997 to 2012 uncritically?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12944221261727529152012-12-23T11:17:46.392-05:002012-12-23T11:17:46.392-05:00Thank you, Dr. Egnor.
May I inquire how small? On...Thank you, Dr. Egnor.<br /><br />May I inquire how small? One degree centigrade? <br /><br />If you think the instrumental recor is unreliable, what reasons do you have to question its reliability? Here is Judith Curry in her post <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/04/pause/" rel="nofollow">Pause (?)</a>. She thinks it is quite reliable: <br /><br /><i>IMO, the significance of the BEST data in terms of the temperature record of the past 50 years or so is that it puts to rest the concern that Phil Jones and Jim Hansen have “cooked” the land surface temperature data. <b>This has not been a serious concern among the people paying close attention to this issue and who actually read the journal publications and look at the actual data; but it is a concern in certain circles, and in the U.S. this concern has been raised by at least one Republican presidential candidate.</b> The relatively small discrepancies between the BEST and the GISS and CRU data sets are of some interest; the apparent discrepancy with GISS has been resolved. Note: the CRU data set shows less warming than BEST over the past 15 years.</i> <br /><br />A separate question, which I have previously asked and you have not responded to. What is your definition of the `pause?' Is it the same definition as Dr. Curry gives? You can find it in the same post: <br /><br /><i>Further, addressing these questions requires an unambiguous definition of ‘warming’, ‘stopped’, and ‘paused’. ’Warming’ means a rate of change of temperature that is greater than zero. Here I define “stopped” to mean a rate of change of temperature that is less than or equal to zero. Here <b>I define “pause” to mean a rate of increase of temperature that is less than 0.17 – 0.2 C/decade.</b> </i> <br /><br />Please answer these questions. You have plenty of time to do so as I am about to start driving to a vacation destination and will not have access to the internet until the evening. You can also start a new thread specifically dedicated to the `pause.'<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83812740433977898622012-12-23T11:04:25.300-05:002012-12-23T11:04:25.300-05:00The earth cools and warms, naturally. I accept the...The earth cools and warms, naturally. I accept the evidence for net warming in the 20th century, although I believe that the reliability of instrumental measurements is grossly overstated. Measuring sites change, the human environment of each site changes (urban heat island) and the "adjustments" for all of this are dodgy.<br /><br />All in all, I have no quarrel that there has been a small amount of warming in the 20th century.<br /><br />Now answer my questions. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83151754321828664172012-12-23T10:10:39.806-05:002012-12-23T10:10:39.806-05:00Dr. Egnor,
Are you planning to affirm the reality...Dr. Egnor,<br /><br />Are you planning to affirm the reality of the global warming in the 20th century? For if not the I see no point in discussing the finer aspects of a phenomenon with someone who denies its existence in the first place. <br /><br />Hoo<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68439737110409477382012-12-23T09:42:18.167-05:002012-12-23T09:42:18.167-05:00@Hoo:
Question:
What global warming models predi...@Hoo:<br /><br />Question:<br /><br />What global warming models predicted the Pause? (cite them). <br /><br />How do you explain the pause, in light of the large rise in CO2, if human CO2 is driving warming?<br /><br />If no models predicted the Pause, why should we trust the predictions of apocalypse?<br /><br /><br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27137287450281593862012-12-23T09:31:57.573-05:002012-12-23T09:31:57.573-05:00Dr. Bachfiend,
Indeed it is. You quote the GISTEM...Dr. Bachfiend,<br /><br />Indeed it is. You quote the GISTEMP set, which gives a trend of +0.171±0.090 °C/decade at the 2σ level. The mean is +3.8σ.<br /><br />For HadCRUT4, the numbers are similar: +0.154±0.085 °C/decade at the 2σ level, with a mean of +3.6σ. <br /><br />But I am afraid Dr. Egnor is scared of looking at data. He might be data-phobic.<br />That is a serious condition. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-78823826667647604992012-12-23T09:16:37.987-05:002012-12-23T09:16:37.987-05:00Oops,
Actually the trend 1990 to 2012 is statisti...Oops,<br /><br />Actually the trend 1990 to 2012 is statistically significant.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8674930509439964852012-12-23T09:01:26.306-05:002012-12-23T09:01:26.306-05:00Dr. Egnor,
You should say at least whether you w...Dr. Egnor, <br /><br />You should say at least whether you will answer my question or not. I think you will not, but I may be mistaken. <br /><br />If you answer the question, I <i>promise</i> to address the pause.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-59002018620624420352012-12-23T08:56:59.977-05:002012-12-23T08:56:59.977-05:00Question:
What global warming models predicted th...Question:<br /><br />What global warming models predicted the Pause? (cite them). <br /><br />How do you explain the pause, in light of the large rise in CO2, if human CO2 is driving warming?<br /><br />If no models predicted the Pause, why should we trust the predictions of apocalypse?<br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66673744403622045322012-12-23T08:42:46.504-05:002012-12-23T08:42:46.504-05:00Dr. Egnor,
I am flabbergasted by your flat refusa...Dr. Egnor,<br /><br />I am flabbergasted by your flat refusal to affirm a simple fact and move on. As I have said many times, I will be happy to discuss theories. However, I see no point in discussing them with a person who is irrational to the degree that he denies the reality of the 20th-century warming. <br /><br />It is your choice, Dr. Egnor. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-759188465849416042012-12-23T08:37:17.748-05:002012-12-23T08:37:17.748-05:00Michael,
I keep on explaining to you that no mode...Michael,<br /><br />I keep on explaining to you that no model can predict confounding factors such as solar output. And if you start with a warm El Niño and end with a cool La Niña, you're going to eliminate most of the warming due to cherry-picking your data.<br /><br />If you take the period 1990 to 2012, and avoid starting with an El Niño, the trend is:<br /><br />0.171 +/- 0.09 degrees C/decade. Not quite statistically significant but close. It could be close to 0. Equally unlikely, it could be 0.28 degrees C/decade. If I was a bettor (I'm not) I'd bet strongly on there being warming over this period.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37488135752073692942012-12-23T08:23:21.364-05:002012-12-23T08:23:21.364-05:00Michael,
OK. The global warming trend from 1980 ...Michael,<br /><br />OK. The global warming trend from 1980 to 2012 is:<br /><br />0.158 +/- 0.051 degrees C/decade.<br /><br />Again statistically significant. And also a higher increase in average global temperature than for 1940 to 2012. Even though a greater proportion is due to the recent 'pause'.<br /><br />The models haven't 'failed'. They just can't predict short term temporary factors such as solar activity and El Niño/la Nina events.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-70522414475128100652012-12-23T08:02:04.509-05:002012-12-23T08:02:04.509-05:00"Scientists can't predict over short peri..."Scientists can't predict over short periods, but they can predict over decades, 30 years or so"<br /><br />"Scientists" predicted AGW in 1980.<br /><br />Thirty years is now, bach. <br /><br />Why have your models failed? Why should we trust them about the AGW apocalypse?<br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68745262907472572622012-12-23T07:59:24.678-05:002012-12-23T07:59:24.678-05:00Your reluctance to discuss the failure of warming ...Your reluctance to discuss the failure of warming during the recent 16 years of massive CO2 increases is understandable. <br /><br />Question:<br /><br />What models predicted the Pause? (cite them). <br /><br />How do you explain the pause, in light of the large rise in CO2, if human CO2 is driving warming?<br /><br />If no models predicted the Pause, why should we trust the predictions of apocalypse?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73028447478557969402012-12-23T07:54:22.966-05:002012-12-23T07:54:22.966-05:00Dr. Egnor,
I do not understand your refusal to ev...Dr. Egnor,<br /><br />I do not understand your refusal to even acknowledge the facts and the desire to jump to theory. As I have written before, I am very much interested in discussing the 'pause' . But I think that we should first agree on the facts. One of the facts that seem incontrovertible is that the surface temperature anomaly has risen by one degree centigrade since the late 1800s. Do you affirm that?<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-34658974876640676372012-12-23T07:26:11.515-05:002012-12-23T07:26:11.515-05:00Michael,
I've explained to you why the models...Michael,<br /><br />I've explained to you why the models can't predict a pause in global warming, because there's no model of the Sun that allows us to predict the strength of each solar cycle. There's no model of ocean currents that allows us to predict the timing of El Niño and La Niña events. There's no model of volcanic activity that allows to predict the timing and magnitude of volcanic eruptions.<br /><br />Scientists can't predict over short periods, but they can predict over decades, 30 years or so, because short term influences average out. My previous analogy still applies; you're like the man who tosses a coin, rigged to give 'heads' 75% of the time, twice, and gets one 'head' and one 'tail' and then claims that the coin is perfectly fair.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-906137257423164392012-12-23T07:07:24.412-05:002012-12-23T07:07:24.412-05:00@Hoo:
[Before we start arguing over theoretical a...@Hoo:<br /><br />[Before we start arguing over theoretical aspects of the warming...]<br /><br />Answer my question: <br /><br />What models predicted the Pause? (cite them). <br />If no models predicted the Pause, why should we trust the predictions of apocalypse?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-84287816898812899542012-12-23T00:18:01.541-05:002012-12-23T00:18:01.541-05:00Michael,
The Little Ice Age is generally agreed t...Michael,<br /><br />The Little Ice Age is generally agreed to have finished in 1850. The cooler than average climate returned to the 'normal' temperatures in 1850. How long are you going to blame the Little Ice Age for the current global warming? 200 years? 500 years? A thousand?<br /><br />There are reasons for the Little Ice Age. The Maunder Minimum. The Black Death in 1347, causing human mortality of 30-50% across wide areas of Europe and Asia, and recurring every 15 years or so for at least 3 centuries. The introduction of Old World diseases such as smallpox, malaria, yellow fever and measles into the New World after 1492 more than decimating the native populations. The last two events causing reduced agriculture and regrowth of forests, soaking up CO2 and increasing cooling. Volcanic eruptions, including Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the Year without a Summer in 1816.<br /><br />Tha models can't predict a pause in global warming, because there's no way of predicting whether the solar cycle will be quiet (the current situation) resulting in less solar output and cooling. Or when a El Niño or La Niña event will occur. Or any volcanic eruptions will occur (although, apparently the eruption of volcano Unpronouncable in Iceland in 2010 wasn't large enough to cause significant cooling).<br /><br />We might be 'lucky'. We might go into another Maunder Minimum. We might have a global pandemic killing off 30-50% of the global human population. The supervolcano under Yellowstone might erupt (it's overdue). But it's not the sort of luck I'd want.<br /><br />The fact remains. We understand how greenhouse gases work to cause global warming. The physical properties of greenhouse gases is the basis of AGW, not pretty temperature graphs over time. Carping on the recent pause in global warming when it's an artifact of deliberately choosing the end points, and also because there are other factors playing a role is just lazy. There's a well understood mechanism making concern about AGW completely reasonable, in comparison to the Mayan calendar end of the world hoax.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1673941047938195572012-12-22T22:02:33.623-05:002012-12-22T22:02:33.623-05:00Dr Egnor,
Before we start arguing over theoretica...Dr Egnor,<br /><br />Before we start arguing over theoretical aspects of the warming, we have to first agree on what the data show. Do you agree with me that the global surface temperature anomaly has increased by one degree Celsius since the late 1800s? <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56492340008663894682012-12-22T21:55:25.469-05:002012-12-22T21:55:25.469-05:00Why are you merely arguing that we are warming for...Why are you merely arguing that we are warming for the past century?<br /><br />We are emerging from the Little Ice Age. Of course we are warming (that's what "emerging from an Ice Age" means).<br /><br />The issue is: what is your evidence that it is man-made warming?<br /><br />Correlation with rising CO2? But CO2 has risen considerably since 1996, without significant warming. <br /><br />The Pause has occurred during a period of major CO2 increase. Did your models predict this? Why should we trust them to predict a warming apocalypse, if they didn't predict the Pause we are in now?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11124894893535214242012-12-22T21:08:05.243-05:002012-12-22T21:08:05.243-05:00Dr. Egnor,
You are confusing two periods. The war...Dr. Egnor,<br /><br />You are confusing two periods. The warming is small, about 1 standard deviation, for 1997–2012. It is more substantial for any other starting year aside from 1997, which was bumped up by a strong El Nino. <br /><br />If you take 1996-2012, the warming trend is much more noticeable: 2 standard deviations, which means it is "significant" in the sense you are using. Go ahead and <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php" rel="nofollow">graph it</a>. Don't be afraid. You only have your chains to lose. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-82606805596399021602012-12-22T20:57:51.887-05:002012-12-22T20:57:51.887-05:00The data shows no significant warming. Insignifica...The data shows no significant warming. Insignificant warming, if present, is... insignificant. <br /><br />I accept Curry's analysis, not yours. <br /><br />Explain why we should trust models that predict apocalypse, that didn't predict the Pause. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-34012871813962904892012-12-22T20:44:31.351-05:002012-12-22T20:44:31.351-05:00Dr. Egnor,
We can certainly discuss the 'paus...Dr. Egnor,<br /><br />We can certainly discuss the 'pause' as it is defined by Dr. Curry, but first you have to acknowledge that you understand the definition as given by her. <br /><br />I would also like you to acknowledge that the data for 1996 to 2012 do show signs of a warming. At 95-percent confidence level as my numbers show above. The warming signal for that period is quite clear. You can plot the data yourself if you can or use the unfairly maligned calculator to do it for you. <br /><br />What do you say to this? I promise to get to the pause later.<br /><br />Hoo<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76508340291503306202012-12-22T20:30:17.914-05:002012-12-22T20:30:17.914-05:00I'm a graceful guy.
Very few modern scientist...I'm a graceful guy.<br /><br />Very few modern scientists are statisticians. Statistics is a full-time job. We have a whole department that does it for us. It is the job of scientists to keep the statistics grounded, to make sure that GIGO isn't driving the results, to make sure that the results are considered in context. <br /><br />It is the job of scientists to look at the broader picture, and keep it honest. <br /><br />I don't doubt that the 20th century warmed, except for 1940-1980 and 1996-2000. We are emerging from the Little Ice Age that ended at the beginning of the 19th century, so natural warming is acknowledged by all. <br /><br />I question your assertion that the warming is man-made, and not natural, and I question your assertion that it is dangerous, and I question your assertion that it is continuing in any significant way. I question the data itself-- the siting and constant changes in temp measuring stations is very problematic, as are the manipulations of data that are routinely done to "correct" the problem. <br /><br />I seriously question the integrity of the AGW scientific community. I think their science is substandard and that many of them are gangsters in labcoats. I refer you to the Climategate emails for confirmation. <br /><br />Tell me: Your models didn't predict the Pause, so why should we trust them when they predict the apocalypse?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.com