tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post8930286509279868983..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: How are all of those Global Warming predictions doing?mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-81545967418676324352012-12-20T18:28:39.206-05:002012-12-20T18:28:39.206-05:00Dr Hoo,
That's what I thought. I admire your...Dr Hoo, <br /><br />That's what I thought. I admire your joint publications very much. Indeed professor Nakashima's work is very uncommon, but your own work is a great descent of his work. <br /><br />cheers!troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15679327842333630702012-12-20T18:07:00.758-05:002012-12-20T18:07:00.758-05:00Yes, Dr. Troy, I indeed studied with Nakashima-sen...Yes, Dr. Troy, I indeed studied with Nakashima-sensei! <br />Very uncommon man. I learned much from him. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46896852210022448652012-12-20T17:53:21.511-05:002012-12-20T17:53:21.511-05:00Michael,
One of the causes of the Little Ice Age ...Michael,<br /><br />One of the causes of the Little Ice Age was the Black Death your caring God sent to scourge humanity in around 1347, which resulted in a mortality of around 30-50% in huge areas from Asia through Europe. And then recurred at 10 to 15 year intervals for the next 3 centuries (one of the reasons Newton thought of his theory of gravity was because he had free time because Oxford University had been closed due to an outbreak in 1660).<br /><br />The severe drop in population resulted in a lot of cleared farm land reverting back to forest, soaking up a lot of CO2 and dropping the atmospheric CO2 level and resulting in cooling.<br /><br />And then in 1492 Spaniards went to the New World, introducing Old World diseases, such as smallpox, malaria, yellow fever, measles, etc causing a collapse in human populations there too, with a reduction in agriculture, including slash and burn.<br /><br />The global human population only reached 1 billion in 1800, and has increased since then at an exponential rate, owing to industrialization, the availability of cheap energy from fossil fuels and the widespread use of fertilizers.<br /><br />Only an idiot would assert that CO2 is the only driver of climate change. There are other factors too. Changes in solar output (we're currently in a quiet phase). Aerosols from coal burning increasing albedo and causing cooling. El Niño/la Nina events.<br /><br />Some cause cooling. Some cause warming. The fact remains - increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases will cause a warmer surface temperature above the temperature it would OTHERWISE have.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-22180460268087726992012-12-20T17:26:37.280-05:002012-12-20T17:26:37.280-05:00Dr Hoo,
Off-topic, but I was just wondering - are...Dr Hoo,<br /><br />Off-topic, but I was just wondering - are you perhaps a student of professor Nakashima?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12259003845385471222012-12-20T16:53:05.746-05:002012-12-20T16:53:05.746-05:00Dr. Egnor,
I am not sure that I understand what ...Dr. Egnor, <br /><br />I am not sure that I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you now accept the warming in the last 16 years? Could you please clarify that?<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56351862437474307642012-12-20T16:48:56.753-05:002012-12-20T16:48:56.753-05:00[I don't do hand waving.]
:)
[Furthermore, ...[I don't do hand waving.]<br /><br />:)<br /><br /><br />[Furthermore, the line about the last 16 years is a significant distortion. It is statistically much more likely (50-to-1 odds) that global temperatures have been rising over the last 16 years than falling. The positive trend, reported by several different groups, is 1.2 degrees per century, in agreement with the rise in the last 100 years.]<br /><br />I'll post on it shortly.<br /><br />It's amusing that you repeatedly cite data that strengthens your opponent's argument. It's like a tic, and quite funny. <br /><br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-49454732311337981852012-12-20T16:47:47.866-05:002012-12-20T16:47:47.866-05:00One more time, for those who are slow on the intak...One more time, for those who are slow on the intake. <br /><br />1996-2012: <br />2.2 percent chance that the temperature anomaly did not rise or went down. <br />97.8 percent chance that the temperature anomaly rose. <br />68 percent chance that it rose between 0.065 and 0.195 degrees per decade. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91436671894643591292012-12-20T16:41:54.457-05:002012-12-20T16:41:54.457-05:00Dr. Egnor,
What you have described above is not ...Dr. Egnor, <br /><br />What you have described above is not a theory. It is hand waving. I don't do hand waving.<br /><br />Furthermore, the line about the last 16 years is a significant distortion. It is statistically much more likely (50-to-1 odds) that global temperatures have been rising over the last 16 years than falling. The positive trend, reported by several different groups, is 1.2 degrees per century, in agreement with the rise in the last 100 years. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74160745213790363612012-12-20T16:30:16.512-05:002012-12-20T16:30:16.512-05:00Dr. Hoo:
Looks like a hockey stick to me.
Like ...Dr. Hoo:<br /><br />Looks like a hockey stick to me. <br /><br />Like I said, the dramatic increase in CO2 began about 1950.<br /><br />From 1940-1980, there was global cooling. <br /><br />From 1996 to 2012, there was stasis.<br /><br />What was your theory again?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-6358792276506462402012-12-20T16:08:16.184-05:002012-12-20T16:08:16.184-05:00Dr. Egnor,
You are making a hand-waving argument....Dr. Egnor,<br /><br />You are making a hand-waving argument. I could reply in the same manner, but that is not my cup of tea. Instead, I will point you to the data. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere began to change measurably in the second half of the 19th century. <a href="http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/graphics_gallery/original/merged_ice_core_record.pdf" rel="nofollow">PDF figure</a>.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-67224055700656572802012-12-20T15:43:39.738-05:002012-12-20T15:43:39.738-05:00[Do you acknowledge that the global temperatures h...[Do you acknowledge that the global temperatures have been rising measurably over the last 150 years?]<br /><br />For 200 years, actually. Since the Little Ice Age, which ended circa 1800.<br /><br />Human CO2 emissions were relatively small in terms of the total atmosphere until the mid-20th century-- the US and Europe were industrialized, much of Asia (China, India) as well as South America were not. <br /><br />The large human CO2 emissions began in mid-20th century. <br /><br />So all warming since 1800 prior to the mid-20th century must have had a natural cause. <br /><br />Therefore, your observation that "global temperatures have been rising measurably over the last 150 years?" supports my argument, not yours. Most of that 150 (actually 200) years has been natural warming, and I and other skeptics assert that the natural warming has just continued, until 16 years ago. <br /><br />If warming had only been occurring for 60 years, you would have a sronger case. But 150/200 years of warming points to natural causes.<br /><br />You don't even understand your own arguments. <br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51963026217803333522012-12-20T15:31:03.589-05:002012-12-20T15:31:03.589-05:00Jones did not say that. Here is the relevant excer...Jones did not say that. Here is the relevant excerpt: <br />Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? <br /><br />A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. <b>This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.</b> The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.<br /><br />Let me unpack this for you. He is saying that the data he uses (HADCRUT) does not show a warming trend with a 95-percent confidence level, but only just so. He is not saying that there is no warming. <br /><br />Go to the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php" rel="nofollow">calculator page</a> and select the data set he mentions: HADCRUT4 (put out jointly by the Met Office and Jones). Put the start date at 1995 and end date at 2009. Hit Calculate. You will see a rising trend with a warming of 0.140±0.164 °C/decade (2σ error bars). With a 95 percent confidence the temperature trend was between −0.02 and +0.30 degree per decade. It isn't much different from the trend seen in the GISTEMP data set I quoted earlier. <br /><br />All you understand is sound bytes. Data, not so much.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72618581004657442992012-12-20T15:27:41.748-05:002012-12-20T15:27:41.748-05:00Let me reply to Dr Egnor in this sub-thread.
[Thi...Let me reply to Dr Egnor in this sub-thread.<br /><br /><i>[This is simply false. There has been an average increase (GISTEMP) of 0.128 degrees per decade since 1996, which doesn't differ much from longer-term trends.]<br /><br />Within the error bars, ace. You claimed you teach statistics?</i><br /><br />Dr Hoo already pointed out your mistakes, but it probably won't hurt to have me repeat it in my own words.<br /><br />Yes, the increase of 0.128 deg/decade since 1996 is just within two standard deviations. This means that if the true trend were completely flat, the probability of observing an increase of at least 0.128 is about 2%. That's still not very unlikely, so you could fairly say that the observed increase is not entirely inconsistent with a total lack of warming since 1996. However, an observed increase of 0.128 is equally consistent with an actual increase of 2 times 0.128, i.e. 0.256. <br /><br />So there isn't sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that no warming occurred, but there is also not sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that the true rate of warming is actually twice as big as the estimated rate of warming. <br /><br />In this case, what is a proper null hypothesis? Well, the claim is made, by you and others, that the trend since 1996 differs from the long-term trend - that whereas there might have been warming before, there isn't any more. So a proper null hypothesis would be that the increase in temperature since 1996 is identical to the increase in temperature before 1996. And guess what? The observed increase since 1996 doesn't differ significantly from the increase before 1996.<br /><br />It's like Dr Hoo said: the odds are about 50:1 against no warming since 1996. It is irrational to conclude that warming has stopped. <br /><br /><br /><i>And if your insignificant increase "doesn't differ much from longer-term trends", can we just admit that the longer term trend is insignificant as well, especially since the pre-1950 trend could not have had anything to do with AGW (not enough human CO2 prior to 1950).</i><br /><br />That is just hilarious. It's exactly the other way around. Since the increase since 1996 doesn't differ significantly from the extremely significant increase before 1996, that was based on much more data, the correct conclusion is that there was an increase since 1996 as well.<br />troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64164718947926382752012-12-20T15:17:07.867-05:002012-12-20T15:17:07.867-05:00How about this retort:
Do you disagree with Phil ...How about this retort:<br /><br />Do you disagree with Phil Jones that there has been no warming?<br /><br />[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm]mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-50691977577578244542012-12-20T15:09:07.766-05:002012-12-20T15:09:07.766-05:00Dr. Egnor,
This is a silly retort. The site only...Dr. Egnor, <br /><br />This is a silly retort. The site only provides plotting and calculation facilities. It takes the data from respectable sources. The same ones that the Met Office relies on. You can access the raw data yourself, but you would not know what to do with it. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-16530126269655147572012-12-20T14:57:22.953-05:002012-12-20T14:57:22.953-05:00"I will repeat this on an off chance..."..."I will repeat this on an off chance..."<br /><br />Repeating cute little calculations from warmist websited is amusing.<br /><br />I prefer to take my information from the Met Office data <br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html<br /><br />Wish they had a neat little calculator,so I could play with the data...mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28424032315845992972012-12-20T14:55:18.736-05:002012-12-20T14:55:18.736-05:00One more time:
1996-2012:
2.2 percent chance th...One more time: <br /><br />1996-2012: <br />2.2 percent chance that the temperature anomaly did not rise or went down. <br />97.8 percent chance that the temperature anomaly rose. <br />68 percent chance that it rose between 0.065 and 0.195 degrees per decade. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-137103200173015242012-12-20T14:54:41.997-05:002012-12-20T14:54:41.997-05:00crus,
The only one who is hysterical here is Dr. ...crus,<br /><br />The only one who is hysterical here is Dr. Egnor. He won't look at the data, won't answer questions, and only yell "Fraud!" <br /><br />Do you acknowledge that the global temperatures have been rising measurably over the last 150 years? <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33040392786024178982012-12-20T14:53:18.424-05:002012-12-20T14:53:18.424-05:00We know that the colder areas exist, because the a...We know that the colder areas exist, because the average temperture hasn't changed significantly in 16 years. <br /><br />I don't know the locations. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79632107291957181892012-12-20T14:52:02.437-05:002012-12-20T14:52:02.437-05:00I will repeat this on an off chance the Dr. Egnor&...I will repeat this on an off chance the Dr. Egnor's considerably thick skull can be penetrated by data. <br /><br />1996-2012: <br />2.2 percent chance that the temperature anomaly did not rise or went down. <br />97.8 percent chance that the temperature anomaly rose. <br />68 percent chance that it rose between 0.065 and 0.195 degrees per decade. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60650360235044728922012-12-20T14:49:56.941-05:002012-12-20T14:49:56.941-05:00Egnor: You keep evading the central questions here...Egnor: <i>You keep evading the central questions here. You have asserted the the hockey stick graph is good science. Why won't you defend it on the specifics?</i> <br /><br />You are stuck like a broken record on one proxy that diverged from the others and the temperature record in the late 20th century. You have avoided acknowledging the inconvenient fact that it agreed with the other proxies in the past. The hockey stick is alive and well and you can see it in a number of different proxies. Not just in tree rings. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91953228651790864982012-12-20T14:46:17.168-05:002012-12-20T14:46:17.168-05:00Egnor: Prior to the 19th century, there are no ins...Egnor: <i>Prior to the 19th century, there are no instrumental records, and all data is proxies. Most of the data is tree ring proxies. </i> <br /><br />I will repeat my question one last time. What would happen to the temperature record if we removed tree proxies entirely and only relied on the instrumental record and other proxies (ice cores, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments)? Would the temperature record fall appart or stay as it currently is? <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13843752726297484882012-12-20T14:44:44.832-05:002012-12-20T14:44:44.832-05:00Dr. Egnor, please feel free to reveal the location...Dr. Egnor, please feel free to reveal the location of the area(s) of dramatically colder temperatures that compensates for the dramatically warming arctic.<br />-KW<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29354930922396053092012-12-20T14:34:16.989-05:002012-12-20T14:34:16.989-05:00So the fact that the graph is flat is an optical i...<i>So the fact that the graph is flat is an optical illusion?</i><br /><br />Well, no, because the graph shows, as has been pointed out before, a 0.13 degree increase in average temperature. But that doesn't matter to you, because you'd rather lie about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-42201878069751124052012-12-20T14:31:08.723-05:002012-12-20T14:31:08.723-05:00So Mann et all only deleted the proxy data sets th...<i>So Mann et all only deleted the proxy data sets that showed cooling.</i><br /><br />No, they didn't delete the data. In fact, they included the data in the paper and pointed it out. Because that's what scientists do.<br /><br />They removed an outlier and said "hey, we removed an outlier". But you probably knew that too, but it doesn't fit your agenda to mention that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com