tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1383536151511039587..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Breaking news: BBC gets science from scientistsSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger183125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57711399120718868782014-01-15T22:38:13.388+11:002014-01-15T22:38:13.388+11:00"Well it could be that the data only shows, s..."<i>Well it could be that the data only shows, say, the rising edge of a sine wave. Without the full period of 60 years it would be, by definition, only an indication.</i>"<br /><br />I seem to remember that Tamino indicated that two full cycles at least are required to demonstrate periodicity, so yet again you are wrong - half of a putative period shows nothing at all - not even an "indication".Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30963838514562293542014-01-15T22:34:30.881+11:002014-01-15T22:34:30.881+11:00"Same statement, different words."
Actu..."<i>Same statement, different words.</i>"<br /><br />Actually, no.<br /><br />But you've shown great skill at confabulation so I am not surprised that you don't understand the point.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77924089043192866622014-01-15T20:29:50.361+11:002014-01-15T20:29:50.361+11:00NoE provides a masterclass in the argument from as...NoE provides a masterclass in the argument from assertion (aka dishonest framing):<br /><br /><i>Sou, the BBC are dismissive of the views of the vast majority of the British public.</i><br /><br />False claim; no supporting evidence.<br /><br /><i>As you are an Australian, you will be largely oblivious to the contempt the BBC are now held in.</i><br /><br />False claim (contempt); no supporting evidence.<br /><br /><i>This seminar, stuffed as it was with people all singing from the same hymn book, just about sums the BBC up, for most people.</i><br /><br />False claim; no supporting evidence.<br /><br /><i>That, coupled with the fact the BBC was prepared to spend whatever it took to cover things up, is the reason the story is so big here in the UK.</i><br /><br />Two false claims: cover-up and big story; no supporting evidence.<br /><br /><i>The BBC are at real risk of losing their licence fee funding, so angry are the public at their behaviour.</i><br /><br />False claim (public anger); no supporting evidence.<br /><br /><i>Just ask yourself, if everything was so honest and above board, why were the BBC so desperate to cover this up?</i><br /><br />Two false claims: dishonesty and cover-up; no supporting evidence.<br /><br />Try this in court, NoE, and see how far you get. <br /><br />I don't know about others here, but I've had about enough of this rubbish.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65051546595090368252014-01-15T18:21:06.085+11:002014-01-15T18:21:06.085+11:00Annoymous. My request for some names on January 13...Annoymous. My request for some names on January 13, 2014 at 6:59 PM was actually a request for you to provide some names of scientists who you feel should have been on the panel.<br /><br />Quiet WatersQuiet Watersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25259666434841830982014-01-15T18:18:12.385+11:002014-01-15T18:18:12.385+11:00It's not even as if this story is "big&qu...It's not even as if this story is "big" in the UK. NoE and the various Anons have had more to say on this subject than I've heard anywhere else...and I live on a street where three people fly the St George Cross in their gardens...<br /><br />Quiet WatersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4893998707985218132014-01-15T16:59:32.395+11:002014-01-15T16:59:32.395+11:00"Statistically significant change requires a ..."<i>Statistically significant change requires a reference period to determine the change from. It there are only 2 possible measured 60 year cycles in the thermometer data (measured please note - not estimated) then any statistics on just those 2 samples has to be very close to 'toss a coin' time. YMMV.</i>"<br /><br />Is this your only response to the demonstration that there is inherent noise in the surface temperature record of the last 30 years that results in 95% confidence in a warming trend to any particular year requiring on average 17 years of prior data? Seriously? That there are only two "60 year cycles" so "toss a coin"?!<br /><br />Statistically significant change is inferred by taking into account the 'noise' in the system, and this can be determined from more than a 60 year period in the temperature record. Your introduction of 'cycles' is a red herring. If you really believe that "statistics on just those 2 samples has to be very close to 'toss a coin' time" I would suggest that you are talking from the wrong end of your alimentary canal. Don't take my word for it though - go to Tamino's site as Sou has recommended on multiple occasions and tell Tamino your interpretation of the data... See, he's a professional statistician and a damned good one, and I have an inkling that he would beg to differ from somewhat your <i>opinion</i>.<br /><br />Seriously, go over there and have at it with him. This is Tamino's bread and butter, and you're going to get a much more thorough dissection of the matter than you will here. Please be sure to provide a link to Open Mind where you've started the discussion so that we can all be kept in the loop.<br /><br />And note, if you're going to be (erroneously) pedantic about determining statistical significance within the data, you should also then be accounting for cofactors that affect the temperature record. Things such as the input of various forcings, and where the thermal energy is moving through the Earth system. Oh, hang on, that's already been done and guess what? The Earth is very demonstrably warming and this warming hasn't stopped, no matter how much you try to wave smoke and mirrors at the surface temperature record.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13796263282949176142014-01-15T15:43:33.957+11:002014-01-15T15:43:33.957+11:00"Interesting"? You think it's a mer..."Interesting"? You think it's a mere curiosity? You make it sound like you are disinterestedly watching a bushfire head towards your town and are idly wondering if all the houses will burn down while you do nothing but stand and gawk, while everyone else is doing their best to get people to safety or quell the flames.<br /><br />No, it won't be "interesting" so much as increasingly difficult for all of us. This is going to keep getting worse each decade:<br /><br />http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-14/adelaide-reaches-451c/5199778Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1634181604192927362014-01-15T15:37:49.788+11:002014-01-15T15:37:49.788+11:00BTW - you'll have noticed these anomalies are ...BTW - you'll have noticed these anomalies are all positive. It will be eons before the earth gets anything close to the the 1951-1980 mean again, or the twentieth century average. (Probably at least 50,000 years, even if we cut CO2 emissions enough to stop global warming.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58673368373943801622014-01-15T13:58:42.158+11:002014-01-15T13:58:42.158+11:00What is strange about it? I think you probably st...What is strange about it? I think you probably still don't understand the meaning but I'm not sure how to explain it better. I'll have a shot.<br /><br />The surface temperatures are fluctuating within the band of the model trends. The models don't claim to be able to get the timing of ENSO events for example. <br /><br />As someone pointed out recently, over the period of the biggest ENSO event in recent years global surface temperature went like this (GISTemp)<br />0.43 1995<br />0.33 1996<br />0.46 1997 El Nino<br />0.62 1998 El Nino then La Nina<br />0.4 1999 La Nina<br /><br />What science deniers do is focus on the shorter term blips in order to ignore and sometimes outright reject the bigger picture and the medium to long term trend.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43540742299053905392014-01-15T08:53:10.948+11:002014-01-15T08:53:10.948+11:00A little more education about the work of people t...A little more education about the work of people trying to find cycles in temperaure records, which are evidently cause by leprechauns: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/ludeckerous/t_p_hamiltonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38100991876146990852014-01-15T05:19:53.874+11:002014-01-15T05:19:53.874+11:00"Usually decadal variability is around ten ye..."Usually decadal variability is around ten years but it could go out to twenty years."<br /><br />Strange how they are unable to track (or predict) the current GST then. But then , it hasn't happened so there is not need to explain it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39858345241090425002014-01-15T04:33:15.148+11:002014-01-15T04:33:15.148+11:00Sorry, I shouldn't laugh. But, no - that'...Sorry, I shouldn't laugh. But, no - that's not what the passage means. <br /><br />Here are <a href="http://blog.lib.umn.edu/stgeorge/decadalblog/2012/09/exercise-what-is-decadal-variability.html" rel="nofollow">a few comments</a> citing the literature. Usually decadal variability is around ten years but it could go out to twenty years. Any longer and it should be referred to as multi-decadal variability. 60 years is way beyond decadal variability.<br /><br />What it means is that models at present (that is these long term projection models) aren't expected to align with observations on a short time frame (eg year by year) basis. They give an indication of temperature beyond the decadal time frame. So look out sixty years and they'll be in the ballpark. Look out a year and they won't be out of the ballpark but don't expect them to model variable weather year by year. They are climate models not weather forecasts.<br /><br />As for finding magical cycles - I've no doubt you can find "cycles" with various mathturbations - but that doesn't mean they are real. Not only that but you've still not said what causes your (mythical) 60 year cycle. With various mathturbations you could do a John McLean, remove the trend altogether and try to argue there is no warming. <br /><br />Since you didn't comment on <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/mathturbation-king/" rel="nofollow">Tamino's take</a> the previous two times, how <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/ludeckerous/" rel="nofollow">about this one</a>. Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51749624725766397942014-01-15T04:03:04.941+11:002014-01-15T04:03:04.941+11:00Sou:
"There is medium confidence that intern...Sou:<br /><br />"There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability."<br /><br />i.e. The models/simulations are not able/expected to resolve decadal variability - such as one at 60 years.<br /><br />Most IPCC references suggest that 100 years is the minimum time period for which the result resolutions apply. I'll see if I can look up an IPCC based reference for you but I thought it was well accepted.<br /><br />As to why 60 years, well that is what the data itself says is there. Only two measured cycles to date to be sure. If you are prepared to go to estimation then you can creep that up to 4 cycles but estimation is often determined by pre-conceptions so I try to avoid it where possible.<br /><br />I think you will find that if you apply a Gaussian low pass/smooth to the HadCrut4 data you too will observe its presence. Or a LOWESS one if you prefer. Or any other way you would like to use to determine if it is there or not. Why not give it a go?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72418028224554243872014-01-15T03:48:40.790+11:002014-01-15T03:48:40.790+11:00I won't speak for Bernard, but from my perspec...I won't speak for Bernard, but from my perspective, it's not your quote that illustrated your denialist tendencies, it's your focusing on a very short period of time. Also your apparent lack of understanding of the quote you provided. Plus, of course, your way of thinking (or not thinking) about science in general, as amply demonstrated throughout this thread.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76248942058440482762014-01-15T03:42:17.049+11:002014-01-15T03:42:17.049+11:00Can you give a page and volume reference for the I...Can you give a page and volume reference for the IPCC stating the models only resolve to 60 years (from when to when - from initialisation to 60 years out or what).<br /><br />IF that's too hard, what do you mean by the "limit of resolution". Are you trying to say that the model runs out to 2100 and 2300 weren't worth doing. <br /><br />And you haven't said what is causing your 60 year cycle or how you've deduced there is one. Is it just Scafetta's mathturbation or are you pinning it on a known, measured oscillation that has been named?Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55458370086828647412014-01-15T03:18:45.956+11:002014-01-15T03:18:45.956+11:00Sou: "You mentioned a sixty year cycle but di...Sou: "You mentioned a sixty year cycle but didn't mention anything about "limits of resolution", did you?"<br /><br />Can I suggest that the concept of local text search in this web page would be useful in reducing your confusion. In IE Ctrl F and the word 'resolution' should help in finding the sub-thread required. And yes I did previously observe that 60 years is at the very limit of what the models can be reasonably expected to show, just as the IPCC noted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46302697523519928902014-01-15T02:58:42.878+11:002014-01-15T02:58:42.878+11:00I suggest you read the report in question (or some...I suggest you read the report in question (or some of it quoted above) and decide for yourself if the BBC claimed that this seminar included 'some to the best scientists' or not and if was in support of their position about 'climate change' and balance.<br /><br />Some people have expressed surprise that disciplines that are not normally included in 'science' were also part of that mix. Others have suggested that the intention all along was to mean 'some of the best experts' (but what's a word between friends). Others have claimed that the ratio of real scientists to others is a nasty distraction and the BBC never meant in any way to mislead.<br /><br />Decide for yourself . Tell others of your conclusions if you must. Please do stop name calling on those who do not accept that your point of view is not the only one that can be reasonably drawn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50352540560444783572014-01-15T02:47:29.543+11:002014-01-15T02:47:29.543+11:00It will be interesting to see how long (or not) th...It will be interesting to see how long (or not) the GST temperatures continue on the trend they are currently on and what that helps to prove or disprove.<br /><br />The 'tangents to a curve' comment was, for those who require things spelt out in minutest of detail, was a non too gentle hint that 'linear trends' are also just a form of that particular beast. (I didn't bring up 'flat earthers' first!).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27726866273058340562014-01-15T02:38:57.581+11:002014-01-15T02:38:57.581+11:00A direct quote of the observed change in behaviour...A direct quote of the observed change in behaviour of the GST from the IPCC is denying something?<br /><br />Strange how some peoples minds work.<br /><br />Statistically significant change requires a reference period to determine the change from. It there are only 2 possible measured 60 year cycles in the thermometer data (measured please note - not estimated) then any statistics on just those 2 samples has to be very close to 'toss a coin' time. YMMV. (Or your definition of 'statistics').Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19460605395242303082014-01-15T01:49:32.006+11:002014-01-15T01:49:32.006+11:00"Using the extremes to disparage shades of op..."Using the extremes to disparage shades of opinion is a tactic that has a long and tragic history."<br /><br />if anything we've got the opposite problem: minor disagreements among scientists get inflated into wild claims that all of climatology is wrong, courtesy of a tiny handful of people on the outskirts of mainstream scientific opinion (if they're even in the same county).<br />lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8637481330142946342014-01-15T01:33:58.280+11:002014-01-15T01:33:58.280+11:00I see Anonymous is using "the pause" as ...I see Anonymous is using "the pause" as a defence. The "pause" is entirely normal in a data series with the given standard deviation and slope. Anyone who cites the "pause" as an argument for anything is statistically illiterate. The "pause" is completely normal in this data series. It requires 21 years of data to show statistical significance, or 24 years if starting from an abnormally high data point (such as 1998). All the denialists who quote this shit need to recognize that when the next el nino comes around they are going to be looking at warming on 15 year time scales. If they have any rhetorical sense, they will retire the pause now, before the next el nino bites their arses.Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67749286407964195642014-01-15T00:22:42.001+11:002014-01-15T00:22:42.001+11:00ooh, i know! the answer is "15 years, or wha...ooh, i know! the answer is "15 years, or whatever the biggest stretch you can draw with woodfortrees -- whichever is longest".<br />lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89882666862460410072014-01-15T00:19:01.051+11:002014-01-15T00:19:01.051+11:00has Concerned of Surbiton actually even complained...has Concerned of Surbiton actually even complained about the accuracy of the BBC's conclusions? all i've seen is 50 posts of abstract worry that not all the people present were scientists (did the BBC ever claim that was the case?), and that perhaps some proportion of these non-scientists maybe said some hypothetical things that potentially weren't completely balanced.<br />lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10465064125560212072014-01-15T00:04:09.602+11:002014-01-15T00:04:09.602+11:00"Meanwhile back in the Antarctic.
...a large..."<i>Meanwhile back in the Antarctic.</i><br /><br />...a large continent continues to lose ice and, through several physical mechanisms, act as a slurpy machine churning out sea ice around it.<br /><br /><i>Quelle surprise</i>.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5904791001100309852014-01-14T23:56:15.869+11:002014-01-14T23:56:15.869+11:00"Meanwhile, back in Australia..."
Archi..."<i>Meanwhile, back in Australia...</i>"<br /><br /><a href="http://archive.is/zylmI" rel="nofollow">Archived version</a>, because BoM's graphs are continuously updated.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.com