Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Jinx said:
For an apparent "El Nino" year the global temperatures haven't been as high as hoped (for the CAGW cargo cult) - the data would suggest that the discharge/recharge cycle of ocean energy is not reaching the peaks of 1998 or even 2010. Perhaps less energy than expected in the system?
As we always say - buy Damart and candles.
Yeah but warmest year EVER is the headline. Gives the impression that it's never been hotter in 5bn years As we always say - buy Damart and candles.
I also read that the oceans are warming up and sea levels are rising, we'll all be drowned shortly if we don't resolve the pesky CO2's!
TX.
PS Can someone explain this to me pls taking from link below:
"The most striking evidence of warming was probably in the oceans, however. Most of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gas emissions ends up in the oceans."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/03...
Terminator X said:
Jinx said:
For an apparent "El Nino" year the global temperatures haven't been as high as hoped (for the CAGW cargo cult) - the data would suggest that the discharge/recharge cycle of ocean energy is not reaching the peaks of 1998 or even 2010. Perhaps less energy than expected in the system?
As we always say - buy Damart and candles.
Yeah but warmest year EVER is the headline. Gives the impression that it's never been hotter in 5bn years As we always say - buy Damart and candles.
I also read that the oceans are warming up and sea levels are rising, we'll all be drowned shortly if we don't resolve the pesky CO2's!
TX.
PS Can someone explain this to me pls taking from link below:
"The most striking evidence of warming was probably in the oceans, however. Most of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gas emissions ends up in the oceans."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/03...
There was a paper by Matthew England et al which claimed to show that the hiatus in mean global surface temperature (aka t'pause) since around 2000 is due to strengthening Pacific trade winds causing increased heat uptake by the global oceans, concentrated in the top 300m and occurring mainly in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Unfortunately (!) that study used model-based ocean temperature "reanalyses" not measurements. Lyman and Johnson of the US Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory showed in a recent paper - using actual measurements of sub-surface ocean temperatures no less - that ocean heat uptake has actually fallen significantly from around 2002, whether measured down to 100m, 300m, 700m or 1800m.
This is heresy against doctrine so may not appear in The Guardian.
The long term buoy data is looking interesting (sea surface air temp) because these show the critical period of supposed accelerated warming, but are largely immune to other man-made environmental changes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/28/buoy-tempera...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/28/buoy-tempera...
I see from the comments Pat Frank posted this, I hope he's ok with me reposting here:
''Notice for marine air temperatures, the stated resolution is (+/-)0.1 C while the stated accuracy is (+/-)1.0 C. That’s for every single listed type of deployed buoy.
Those accuracies are not to be seen as statistical standard deviations. They do not represent normal distributions of random error (i.e., precision) and do not average away with repeated observations.
Honestly, it is so very refreshing to see such a forthright official declaration of temperature sensor accuracy in a climate science context. All honor to the NDBC staff, scientists, engineers, technicians and everyone else.
Notice, by the way, that the SST limit of accuracy is (+/-)1 C, as well.
But anyway, let’s track that accuracy through the preparation of an air temperature anomaly.
For creating an anomaly, the average temperature over a standard 30-year interval is taken, say 1951-1980 if you’re GISS. The average accuracy of the standard mean temperature is (+/-)sigma = sqrt[(sum-over-errors)^2/(N-1)] = ~(+/-)1 C, where N is the number of temperature measurements entering the average.
To find the anomaly, monthly or annual means are subtracted from the 30-year average. The accuracy of a monthly or annual mean is calculated the same way as the 30-year mean, and it works out to pretty much the same uncertainty: ~(+/-)1 C.
The annual temperature anomaly = [(annual mean) minus (30-year average)]. The accuracy of the anomaly is (+/-)sigma = sqrt[(annual accuracy)^2 + (30-year-standard accuracy)^2] = sqrt[1^2 +1^2] = sqrt[2] = (+/-)1.4 C.
There it is, the uncertainty in any buoy marine air temperature anomaly is (+/-)1.4 C. That should be the width of the error bars around every BEST, GISS, and UEA buoy marine air temperature anomaly.
Anyone see those error bars in the BEST representation?
In any field of physical science except climate science, error bars like that are standard. Such error bars put boundaries what can be said because they indicate what is actually known.
The (+/-)1.4 C is the 1-sigma uncertainty. Those error bars would obscure the entire average trend, leaving nothing to be said at all. At the 95% confidence interval, (+/-)2.8 C, pretty much the entire set of temperature anomalies would be submerged.
So it goes in climate science. The occulted is far more important than the displayed.''
That puts things in perspective. Why are the accuracy of these measurements never mentioned?
''Notice for marine air temperatures, the stated resolution is (+/-)0.1 C while the stated accuracy is (+/-)1.0 C. That’s for every single listed type of deployed buoy.
Those accuracies are not to be seen as statistical standard deviations. They do not represent normal distributions of random error (i.e., precision) and do not average away with repeated observations.
Honestly, it is so very refreshing to see such a forthright official declaration of temperature sensor accuracy in a climate science context. All honor to the NDBC staff, scientists, engineers, technicians and everyone else.
Notice, by the way, that the SST limit of accuracy is (+/-)1 C, as well.
But anyway, let’s track that accuracy through the preparation of an air temperature anomaly.
For creating an anomaly, the average temperature over a standard 30-year interval is taken, say 1951-1980 if you’re GISS. The average accuracy of the standard mean temperature is (+/-)sigma = sqrt[(sum-over-errors)^2/(N-1)] = ~(+/-)1 C, where N is the number of temperature measurements entering the average.
To find the anomaly, monthly or annual means are subtracted from the 30-year average. The accuracy of a monthly or annual mean is calculated the same way as the 30-year mean, and it works out to pretty much the same uncertainty: ~(+/-)1 C.
The annual temperature anomaly = [(annual mean) minus (30-year average)]. The accuracy of the anomaly is (+/-)sigma = sqrt[(annual accuracy)^2 + (30-year-standard accuracy)^2] = sqrt[1^2 +1^2] = sqrt[2] = (+/-)1.4 C.
There it is, the uncertainty in any buoy marine air temperature anomaly is (+/-)1.4 C. That should be the width of the error bars around every BEST, GISS, and UEA buoy marine air temperature anomaly.
Anyone see those error bars in the BEST representation?
In any field of physical science except climate science, error bars like that are standard. Such error bars put boundaries what can be said because they indicate what is actually known.
The (+/-)1.4 C is the 1-sigma uncertainty. Those error bars would obscure the entire average trend, leaving nothing to be said at all. At the 95% confidence interval, (+/-)2.8 C, pretty much the entire set of temperature anomalies would be submerged.
So it goes in climate science. The occulted is far more important than the displayed.''
That puts things in perspective. Why are the accuracy of these measurements never mentioned?
rovermorris999 said:
I see from the comments Pat Frank posted this, I hope he's ok with me reposting here:
''Notice for marine air temperatures, the stated resolution is (+/-)0.1 C while the stated accuracy is (+/-)1.0 C. That’s for every single listed type of deployed buoy.
Those accuracies are not to be seen as statistical standard deviations. They do not represent normal distributions of random error (i.e., precision) and do not average away with repeated observations.
Honestly, it is so very refreshing to see such a forthright official declaration of temperature sensor accuracy in a climate science context. All honor to the NDBC staff, scientists, engineers, technicians and everyone else.
Notice, by the way, that the SST limit of accuracy is (+/-)1 C, as well.
But anyway, let’s track that accuracy through the preparation of an air temperature anomaly.
For creating an anomaly, the average temperature over a standard 30-year interval is taken, say 1951-1980 if you’re GISS. The average accuracy of the standard mean temperature is (+/-)sigma = sqrt[(sum-over-errors)^2/(N-1)] = ~(+/-)1 C, where N is the number of temperature measurements entering the average.
To find the anomaly, monthly or annual means are subtracted from the 30-year average. The accuracy of a monthly or annual mean is calculated the same way as the 30-year mean, and it works out to pretty much the same uncertainty: ~(+/-)1 C.
The annual temperature anomaly = [(annual mean) minus (30-year average)]. The accuracy of the anomaly is (+/-)sigma = sqrt[(annual accuracy)^2 + (30-year-standard accuracy)^2] = sqrt[1^2 +1^2] = sqrt[2] = (+/-)1.4 C.
There it is, the uncertainty in any buoy marine air temperature anomaly is (+/-)1.4 C. That should be the width of the error bars around every BEST, GISS, and UEA buoy marine air temperature anomaly.
Anyone see those error bars in the BEST representation?
In any field of physical science except climate science, error bars like that are standard. Such error bars put boundaries what can be said because they indicate what is actually known.
The (+/-)1.4 C is the 1-sigma uncertainty. Those error bars would obscure the entire average trend, leaving nothing to be said at all. At the 95% confidence interval, (+/-)2.8 C, pretty much the entire set of temperature anomalies would be submerged.
So it goes in climate science. The occulted is far more important than the displayed.''
That puts things in perspective. Why are the accuracy of these measurements never mentioned?
Except on PH ''Notice for marine air temperatures, the stated resolution is (+/-)0.1 C while the stated accuracy is (+/-)1.0 C. That’s for every single listed type of deployed buoy.
Those accuracies are not to be seen as statistical standard deviations. They do not represent normal distributions of random error (i.e., precision) and do not average away with repeated observations.
Honestly, it is so very refreshing to see such a forthright official declaration of temperature sensor accuracy in a climate science context. All honor to the NDBC staff, scientists, engineers, technicians and everyone else.
Notice, by the way, that the SST limit of accuracy is (+/-)1 C, as well.
But anyway, let’s track that accuracy through the preparation of an air temperature anomaly.
For creating an anomaly, the average temperature over a standard 30-year interval is taken, say 1951-1980 if you’re GISS. The average accuracy of the standard mean temperature is (+/-)sigma = sqrt[(sum-over-errors)^2/(N-1)] = ~(+/-)1 C, where N is the number of temperature measurements entering the average.
To find the anomaly, monthly or annual means are subtracted from the 30-year average. The accuracy of a monthly or annual mean is calculated the same way as the 30-year mean, and it works out to pretty much the same uncertainty: ~(+/-)1 C.
The annual temperature anomaly = [(annual mean) minus (30-year average)]. The accuracy of the anomaly is (+/-)sigma = sqrt[(annual accuracy)^2 + (30-year-standard accuracy)^2] = sqrt[1^2 +1^2] = sqrt[2] = (+/-)1.4 C.
There it is, the uncertainty in any buoy marine air temperature anomaly is (+/-)1.4 C. That should be the width of the error bars around every BEST, GISS, and UEA buoy marine air temperature anomaly.
Anyone see those error bars in the BEST representation?
In any field of physical science except climate science, error bars like that are standard. Such error bars put boundaries what can be said because they indicate what is actually known.
The (+/-)1.4 C is the 1-sigma uncertainty. Those error bars would obscure the entire average trend, leaving nothing to be said at all. At the 95% confidence interval, (+/-)2.8 C, pretty much the entire set of temperature anomalies would be submerged.
So it goes in climate science. The occulted is far more important than the displayed.''
That puts things in perspective. Why are the accuracy of these measurements never mentioned?
The reason is, clearly, that the propaganda hit from a message which says 'but the precision means we are better off sticking a finger in the sea' (almost) would be rather less than the certainty theme which is a lie that believers like to repeat implicitly or explicitly.
Even where data is used, with or without error bars, the concept of causality is casually forgotten.
rovermorris999 said:
Those error bars would obscure the entire average trend, leaving nothing to be said at all.
You've hit the nail on the head - there is no data anywhere that shows anything worthwhile about warming or cooling of the earth's climate.But the warmists don't want you to understand that. They want to convey certainty where there is none.
Everything is estimated, mashed, hashed, adjusted, reconstructed, short period (i.e. a decade or 3), so called trends wiped out by the margin of error.
Look at the way the Met likes to convey that the CET is a meticulous accurate consistent record of temperature for the last 350 years. Just a lie.
No one can say if 2014 England was warmer than any other year in the last 350, and what do you mean by warmer anyway? You can make up any definition you like.
I've said it many a time before and I'll say it again (I'm already blue in the face, cos it's a bit cold outside). There is no justification whatever for using 'anomaly' graphs, beyond the fact that the man on the street does not understand them because he is led to believe that they are indicating absolute values. Anomaly graphs are epistemologically unsound, full stop. There is no significance in any 30, 50, 100, 200 year average that has been cherrypicked, for what is such an average supposed to signify beyond itself: that it represents an ideal, or normal, or somehow significant timespan? It cannot do any such thing and only indicates that those who peddle such BS are logically and philosophically illiterate, and indeed dishonest, and that ultimately the 'data' displayed have no significance whatever.
Jinx said:
For an apparent "El Nino" year the global temperatures haven't been as high as hoped (for the CAGW cargo cult) - the data would suggest that the discharge/recharge cycle of ocean energy is not reaching the peaks of 1998 or even 2010. Perhaps less energy than expected in the system?
As we always say - buy Damart and candles.
Almost perfect timing! The latest ENSO Advisory has arrived.As we always say - buy Damart and candles.
During November 2014, sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies increased across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific. At the end of the month, the weekly Niño indices ranged from +0.4°C in the Niño-1+2 region to +1.0°C in the Niño-3.4 region. The subsurface heat content anomalies (averaged between 180º-100ºW) also increased during November as a downwelling oceanic Kelvin wave increased subsurface temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific. However, the overall atmospheric circulation has yet to show a clear coupling to the anomalously warm waters. The monthly equatorial low-level winds were largely near average, although weak anomalous westerlies appeared in a portion of the eastern tropical Pacific. Upper level easterly anomalies emerged in the central and eastern tropical Pacific during the month. The Southern Oscillation Index has been somewhat negative, but the equatorial Southern Oscillation Index has been near zero. Also, rainfall continued to be below average near the Date Line and over Indonesia, and near average east of the Date Line. Although the SST anomalies alone might imply weak El Niño conditions, the patterns of wind and rainfall anomalies generally do not clearly indicate a coupling of the atmosphere to the ocean. Therefore, despite movement toward El Niño from one month ago, the combined atmospheric and oceanic state remains ENSO-neutral. Similar to last month, most models predict SST anomalies to be at weak El Niño levels during November-January 2014-15 and to continue above the El Nino threshold into early 2015.
Still no strong El Nino this side of 2015 for believers wrongly to attribute to tax gas.
jshell said:
Well they are meant to be true believers.....the aresholes!jshell said:
All that incense they burn can't be very good for the climate innit. In fact I reckon funding could be available for a study in to UHLHI effect - that's Urban House of The Lord Heat Island effect. jshell said:
But the Good Lord moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform! Pray like buggery and all will be revealed come the last trumpet call...
of my Damart fund on the same bet.Report on the Julia Slingo CSAR Lecture from Person Attending
The lecture hall was fairly full, probably 200+ in the audience.
Of those 200 there was only one person daring to ask a critical question
- me.
The lecture was a mixture of how impressive the models are and how we
must act to prevent doom because climate change is already happening.
The models, she said, are all firmly science based ("if you disagree
with the models you are disagreeing with the immutable laws of
physics" - I kid you not). Nevertheless, several times she said that
some aspect or other was poorly understood, or spoke about how models
had been improved in the light of real world experience, the "light
rain package" being one example.
She did mention "the pause" unprompted, but only to show a time series
graph of European summer temperature, which conveniently shows only
slight pausiness. She had a slide showing the IPCC RCP scenarios,
including the implausible RCP8.5 and asked us if we wanted to be up
there - it was our choice. She had more slides than the available
time. One slide that she flicked past appeared to claim that
wetter/dryer/hotter/colder weather was all because of climate change.
The slides are up on the CSAR website.
I was slightly surprised that, in a large group of intelligent people,
most presumably scientists, there was no apparent scepticism. I
noticed the same in a previous CSAR lecture. The questioners at the
end all appeared to accept the narrative. I pointed to the "pause" in
the HadCRUT4 graphs on the Met Office web site while CO2 concentration
had continued to rise and suggested that a model that failed to
predict this could be called "broken". Not surprisingly, she
disagreed, saying that this just showed multi-decadal variation and
was entirely to be expected (although one couldn't predict in which
decades it would pause).
As a result of my question, the student sitting next to me asked if I
was a "sceptic". I explained that I was an engineer and I liked to be
evidence based. He then said that he "couldn't debate me because he
didn't know about the subject". I suggested that he not believe me,
nor Slingo, but should do his own research and make his own mind up.
Report from Anon
Slides (~64MB) http://www.csar.org.uk/programs2/syn/2014-15/s0112...
The lecture hall was fairly full, probably 200+ in the audience.
Of those 200 there was only one person daring to ask a critical question
- me.
The lecture was a mixture of how impressive the models are and how we
must act to prevent doom because climate change is already happening.
The models, she said, are all firmly science based ("if you disagree
with the models you are disagreeing with the immutable laws of
physics" - I kid you not). Nevertheless, several times she said that
some aspect or other was poorly understood, or spoke about how models
had been improved in the light of real world experience, the "light
rain package" being one example.
She did mention "the pause" unprompted, but only to show a time series
graph of European summer temperature, which conveniently shows only
slight pausiness. She had a slide showing the IPCC RCP scenarios,
including the implausible RCP8.5 and asked us if we wanted to be up
there - it was our choice. She had more slides than the available
time. One slide that she flicked past appeared to claim that
wetter/dryer/hotter/colder weather was all because of climate change.
The slides are up on the CSAR website.
I was slightly surprised that, in a large group of intelligent people,
most presumably scientists, there was no apparent scepticism. I
noticed the same in a previous CSAR lecture. The questioners at the
end all appeared to accept the narrative. I pointed to the "pause" in
the HadCRUT4 graphs on the Met Office web site while CO2 concentration
had continued to rise and suggested that a model that failed to
predict this could be called "broken". Not surprisingly, she
disagreed, saying that this just showed multi-decadal variation and
was entirely to be expected (although one couldn't predict in which
decades it would pause).
As a result of my question, the student sitting next to me asked if I
was a "sceptic". I explained that I was an engineer and I liked to be
evidence based. He then said that he "couldn't debate me because he
didn't know about the subject". I suggested that he not believe me,
nor Slingo, but should do his own research and make his own mind up.
Report from Anon
Slides (~64MB) http://www.csar.org.uk/programs2/syn/2014-15/s0112...
jshell said:
With "over £9 Bn" to invest you'd think they might be able to vote with their feet and put it into, I dunno, a wind blade manufacturer, or solar panel plant, wave machine, Ivanpah....oh, I see.Perhaps the current ArchBish of Canterbury should have done more - when he was a senior oil exec - to have diversified the business, or maybe he wanted it to remain profitable? Who knows?
Obama China Deal Backfires As Emboldened China Plays $100 Billion Trump Card
China offered new details on its commitment to rein in greenhouse gases and called on rich nations to speed up delivery of the $100 billion in annual climate-related aid they’ve promised by 2020. Su Wei, China’s lead climate negotiator, coupled his comments on China’s commitment with a call to accelerate funding for climate aid, shifting the pressure to industrialized nations, led by the USA and European Union, to do their part toward reaching an agreement next year. The “$10 billion is just one 10th of that objective,” and “we do not have any clear road map of meeting that target for 2020,” Su said. Climate aid is “a trust-building process,” they added.
Alex Morales and Reed Landberg, Bloomberg, 05 December 2014
Rich nations' pledges of almost $10 billion to a green fund to help poor nations cope with global warming are "far from adequate," particularly Australia's lack of a donation, the head of China's delegation at U.N. climate talks said on Thursday. Su Wei also urged all rich nations to deepen their planned cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, signalling that a joint Chinese-U.S. announcement of greenhouse gas curbs last month does not mean an end to deep differences on climate policy.
Reuters, 05 December 2014
More http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-04/china-bro...
China offered new details on its commitment to rein in greenhouse gases and called on rich nations to speed up delivery of the $100 billion in annual climate-related aid they’ve promised by 2020. Su Wei, China’s lead climate negotiator, coupled his comments on China’s commitment with a call to accelerate funding for climate aid, shifting the pressure to industrialized nations, led by the USA and European Union, to do their part toward reaching an agreement next year. The “$10 billion is just one 10th of that objective,” and “we do not have any clear road map of meeting that target for 2020,” Su said. Climate aid is “a trust-building process,” they added.
Alex Morales and Reed Landberg, Bloomberg, 05 December 2014
Rich nations' pledges of almost $10 billion to a green fund to help poor nations cope with global warming are "far from adequate," particularly Australia's lack of a donation, the head of China's delegation at U.N. climate talks said on Thursday. Su Wei also urged all rich nations to deepen their planned cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, signalling that a joint Chinese-U.S. announcement of greenhouse gas curbs last month does not mean an end to deep differences on climate policy.
Reuters, 05 December 2014
More http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-04/china-bro...
Mann snookered as it turns out to be a 'Hickory Stick' (taken from the comments).......
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/12/5/t...
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/12/5/t...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff