tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1129414026888568502..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Deniers are weird at WUWT. ENSO is a BoM conspiracy!Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger212125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35591161665641003102014-11-25T03:34:04.131+11:002014-11-25T03:34:04.131+11:00"I've read countless articles" sound..."I've read countless articles" sounds like my friend who claimed to have read the IPCC reports and discovered that they were not nearly as certain about human influence as what gets reported in the press.<br /><br />He didn't reply when I quoted the relevant page of AR5 SPM at him.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29206639903233742042014-11-24T22:42:38.731+11:002014-11-24T22:42:38.731+11:00Countless? In your case that would be about 4 then...Countless? In your case that would be about 4 then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62261035911972467452014-11-24T10:42:58.887+11:002014-11-24T10:42:58.887+11:00Marco got it from the Henry's law Wikipedia pa...Marco got it from the Henry's law Wikipedia page with a direct link to the paper it references stating it applies just to PCO2(aq) instead of PCO2(g).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1586295141402330682014-11-24T03:59:32.759+11:002014-11-24T03:59:32.759+11:00Donald, as pointed out many times above, you did n...Donald, as pointed out many times above, you did not ask the question you claimed to have asked because, apparently, when you talked about "increasing CO2" you really meant "an increase in the rate at which CO2 rises". The right thing to do now is apologize for mis-phrasing the question and getting annoyed at people. Man enough to do it?PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16053424393103039062014-11-24T02:54:36.123+11:002014-11-24T02:54:36.123+11:00Donald, if the warming trend is linear then no, th...Donald, if the warming trend is linear then no, there will not be any tendency for trends to "reach statistical significance sooner." It's possible that there will be random periods of about 10 years that will have higher-than-average or lower-than-average slopes, because the temperature trend has serial dependence. And of course these periods of drift can interact with El Nino / La Nina events to appear even steeper or flatter than the overall trend. But in the long term, a linear trend should show no tendency for trends to "reach statistical significance sooner."<br /><br />That is the cause of your "pause" and the reason that different periods of time in the data series might be similarly statistically. Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31951833653881787942014-11-23T22:30:37.203+11:002014-11-23T22:30:37.203+11:00Donald, I find it hard to believe you've read ...Donald, I find it hard to believe you've read "countless articles". If you have you've either not read the relevant ones or you've not understood what you've read.<br /><br />Nor do I believe that you bothered to read any of those articles I went out of my way to provide links for after you asked your question. Nor that you have any grounds for disputing "my" conclusions, which aren't mine but those of people who've taken and analysed measurements. You call objective measurements and scientific analysis "guesses" and "leaps" - and this coming from you, who've shown us that you don't even know why earth can accumulate heat without it all going to raise the temperature of the atmosphere.<br /><br />Dunning and Kruger material, I'd say.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61675961318778915832014-11-23T15:38:12.644+11:002014-11-23T15:38:12.644+11:00Come on. You state a poorly worded assertion that...Come on. You state a poorly worded assertion that doesn't make sense and get frustrated when nobody agrees. When others point out good links to help you understand the science, you either ignore those links or just ignore the data as you did with your comments about the ocean. If you really want to learn, go read the articles and engage on the science. However, it doesn't seem that you want to learn and instead just want to argue, which I take from this sentence fragment: "so I could use it to make a point." Unfortunately, it's hard to agree to incorrect premise for you to make your point.<br /><br />Maybe you'll listen now. I'm not sure, but I'll try. Here goes. What I'm about to say is not controversial among scientists that study this stuff every day (regardless of what you may read on anti-science blogs). CO2 has increased from ~280PPM to ~400PPM since the industrial revolution. The extra CO2, as a greenhouse gas, is causing more and more energy to be stored within the atmosphere. Even if we cut CO2 emissions to zero today, the energy would still be increasing because we have not yet hit equilibrium from the additional 120PPM of CO2 already in the atmosphere. The total additional energy added to the earth is ~10^20 joules per year. That energy may go into surface temperatures or may go into the ocean, but it's going somewhere. You can see the effects in declining worldwide ice, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic land ice. You can see it in the increasing sea level. You can also see it in the increasing surface temperatures. Deniers typically point to the RSS temperature history as their one last way to obfuscate the issue, but the RSS temp history is the worst of the temperature data sets to use. First, it doesn't cover the poles where rate of surface temperature increase has been most great. Second, there are issues with their reliability since it's a complex calculation. Don't take my word for it, read it from the RSS blog ( http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures ) where you'll find this: "A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)." Lastly, the work of Weng et al is beginning to question all satellite data sets. All the surface datasets are showing that 2014 will be among the hottest years on record, if not the hottest. GISS has I believe 3 months already that are the hottest on record in 2014.<br /><br />So to repeat, the Earth is accumulating an extra 10^20 joules per year from GHGs, with the forcing coming specifically from CO2. CO2 has grown ~40% since the start of the industrial age. The extra energy naturally accumulates more in the ocean than on the surface because it covers more of the Earth's surface and can hold much more heat. You can see that in the ocean measurements as others have linked to. You can also see it in the rising sea level. Surface temperatures are increasing, especially at the poles, but not all data sets capture that. The best way to understand surface temperatures is in the work of Cowtan and Way (Google their names and find the Youtube video if you really want to learn).Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69523590641055465262014-11-23T14:12:18.681+11:002014-11-23T14:12:18.681+11:00I'm sure Donald has some reason for thinking t...I'm sure Donald has some reason for thinking this and I'd sincerely like to know what it is. It appears to be somewhat foundational in his most recent comments, so he can hardly have plucked the notion out of thin air.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78080067741789743242014-11-23T13:31:49.545+11:002014-11-23T13:31:49.545+11:00Make whatever point(s) you want to make and be don...Make whatever point(s) you want to make and be done with it already.<br /><br />So, for example, if you were to provide a better AOGCM then the current lot of AOGCM's, than you would score some point(s).<br /><br />Your funding for said alternative universe will be provided by the Ayn Rand Institute and your thesis adviser will be Rand Paul. Good luck.<br /><br />Otherwise, whatever point(s) that you are not willing to make, kind of leaves you in Limbo/Purgatory/Hell (you know, of your own doing).Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15745453654788601872014-11-23T12:48:30.014+11:002014-11-23T12:48:30.014+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55717589575255444242014-11-23T12:39:19.724+11:002014-11-23T12:39:19.724+11:00Donald: Your point might have been simple, but you...Donald: Your point might have been simple, but you didn't say what you meant. A mere ongoing rise in CO2, at a constant rate, won't change the time interval you need for statistical significance much. If anything, it will *increase* it slightly due to the logarithmic nature of the actual T-CO2 relationship (more CO2 needed at higher concentrations for a constant change in T). However, maybe the high-frequency changes with T (e.g., ENSO becomes more or less active) so that the length of the record needed becomes longer or shorter; or postulate your own reason for temperature-dependent change in high frequency variability.<br /><br />You might think Jammy and I are being obtuse, but you screwed up your question. This was explained to you a long time ago but you chose to ignore us.PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2227155076481256082014-11-23T12:31:34.676+11:002014-11-23T12:31:34.676+11:00"It was a yes or no question" Donald, in..."<i>It was a yes or no question</i>" Donald, in a simple terms, the answer you ask for is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus" rel="nofollow"> ceteris paribus</a>, "yes". Also, you may be under the disillusionment that CO2 is believed to be the only factor affecting warming trends. Then again, perhaps it's not a disillusionment and you can cite a quote of a climate scientist who states that the sun (solar insolation), aerosols, etc. are irrelevant to warming trends. <br /><br />And, in reference to one of your comments above, in really simple terms the relative heat capacities of the hydrosphere and the atmosphere are 1000 to 1. Given that the ocean has an average depth of 4.3 km, arithmetically and ignoring the dynamics involved, non-uniform heat distribution, time scales, etc., the top 4.3 metres of the ocean can absorb the same amount of heat as the atmosphere. George Montgomeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042191140401441348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33336063147987227092014-11-23T11:56:43.152+11:002014-11-23T11:56:43.152+11:00I'd say you meant that you don't want advi...I'd say you meant that you don't want advice. Whether you need it or not is a different issue.<br /><br />As for mandating who can or cannot participate in the discussion here, that's my call not anyone else's.<br /><br />You didn't get the agreement you wanted. That doesn't mean that you can't make whatever point you want to make, just that not everyone will agree with it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14856166881430374112014-11-23T11:55:41.340+11:002014-11-23T11:55:41.340+11:00Donald: So, when you said "CO2 increases"...Donald: So, when you said "CO2 increases", did you mean "when the rate of CO2 increase increases"? That's a different question than what you asked. You see why it's important to say what you mean, rather than floundering around.PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18770906589533220272014-11-23T11:52:10.224+11:002014-11-23T11:52:10.224+11:00Sou..... I don't need advice. I posed the qu...Sou..... I don't need advice. I posed the question many posts ago and PL misread my post and somehow thought I was asking about statistical significance. I was not. There are some people on here that I may disagree with but I think they are probably pretty sharp individuals. ... like PL. Then there is Jammy. In any event. ... my point was very simple. ... it was just that when looking at warming trends. ... one would expect that over time (since co2 will be continuing to rise) warming trends should reach statistical significance sooner (since things eventually will be getting hotter and getting hotter quicker) a pretty simple fact that I wanted agreement on ...so I could use it to make a point. However there are people who probably are just looking to disagree with anything I say. ... even the most basic and mundane claim. I am definitely not looking for Jammy to respond to this. My attempt to have a discussion with posters here was hijacked by that nit wit.Donald Deannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89292740188496013892014-11-23T10:08:55.642+11:002014-11-23T10:08:55.642+11:00Wikipedia link?
Wikipedia paper reference?
TIAWikipedia link?<br />Wikipedia paper reference?<br /><br />TIAEverett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24265158294131909742014-11-23T09:52:01.928+11:002014-11-23T09:52:01.928+11:00Yes that amused me. If that was the case then it w...Yes that amused me. If that was the case then it would fatally contradict a favourite denier meme that CO2 is saturated so the temperature rise will slow down. I guess deniers will always pick what suits them at that moment to fit their made up facts.Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12267825716331680532014-11-23T09:35:17.242+11:002014-11-23T09:35:17.242+11:00Donald, your first sentence isn't a question, ...Donald, your first sentence isn't a question, it's a statement. Are you wanting other people to test your hypothesis or are you just writing it as a belief statement. <br /><br />The fact you keep repeating yourself suggests you want someone else to do some work on your behalf. <br /><br />If I may make a suggestion: Rather than repeat yourself like a broken record and have people respond to whatever they read you saying in any particular comment, and since you're the person who is making this claim, could you write up a "proof" in the style of Tamino - or point readers to a proof that someone else has written. <br /><br />Either that or clarify whether you are making a statement about something you think you know, or asking the opinion of other people to a hypothesis you are entertaining but don't know how to test and want others to test it for you.<br /><br />You've kept raising the point in one form or another, so it strikes me that you are seeking advice from stats experts and aren't sure how to go about it. The one suggestion I would make is to be nice. If you want something from someone else and aren't in a position to use brute force, then being nice will work better than being not so nice.<br /><br />Of course, Jammy or PL may have brought up sufficient points for you to come to a conclusion one way or another already. Then all you need to is thank them for their time and effort.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40090124208307391462014-11-23T09:34:04.263+11:002014-11-23T09:34:04.263+11:00Why should the trend increase with increasing CO2?...Why should the trend increase with increasing CO2?Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80527050405422301062014-11-23T08:24:09.606+11:002014-11-23T08:24:09.606+11:00To everyone except Donald Dean who really has no c...To everyone except Donald Dean who really has no clue and is a rude little prick. (Apologies to everyone if DD reappears because of this post.)<br /><br /><i>As co2 increases would you expect the trends to more easily reach the significant level?</i><br /><br />As PL points out this is another poorly framed question from a statistical illiteratus, so consequently there are at least three ways of answering it.<br /><br />1. No. Over any similar time interval, all other things being equal, then the probability of reaching the significance level is the same.<br /><br />2. Possibly slightly. As CO2 goes up and temperature goes up then the noise might, only might, be less in proportion to the signal. Hence the significance will be more prominent.<br /><br />3, Yes. If over time and CO2 level going up the temperature rises the probability of seeing significance will increase. In other words the longer the time interval the more sure you can be of your data. <br /><br />This is why the escalator is so apt though deniers do not get its significance. (Pun intended).<br /><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47" rel="nofollow">The Escalator</a><br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56679142386611592802014-11-23T04:50:07.917+11:002014-11-23T04:50:07.917+11:00Doubling the partial pressure from a16K temperatur...Doubling the partial pressure from a16K temperature change cited on Wikipedia applies only to PCO2(aq) in the ocean and not to PCO2(g) in the atmosphere if you read the paper it references. These two reservoirs have dramatically different amounts of CO2 and thus would require different amounts of changes in temperature to double their partial pressure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58611414829944653512014-11-23T03:01:12.901+11:002014-11-23T03:01:12.901+11:00For an intro to the role of oceans in excess heat ...For an intro to the role of oceans in excess heat uptake, see http://tinyurl.com/mzgjmpc. Then read the more formal science papers cited therein.<br /><br />Basically, get off the blogs, and read.PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82838046996684919512014-11-22T23:44:59.085+11:002014-11-22T23:44:59.085+11:00I have read countless articles about what other fa...I have read countless articles about what other factors scientists guess may be causing the differences. .... and they don't know. ..... so it's funny for you to pretend that you do. If you look at these studies objectively there is no way you reach the conclusions you have.... Especially if you have a science background. And I am not picking on the scientists because in most cases they are using the best data they have . ... it's just that they are forced to make leaps that they would never take if they had a more complete data set.Donald Deannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74376365519613692892014-11-22T23:31:32.433+11:002014-11-22T23:31:32.433+11:00Warming trends should reach statistical significan...Warming trends should reach statistical significance much sooner as co2 increases since the warming should take place more and more rapidly. It was a yes or no question. Funny to hear you go on and on about being obtuse. Still waiting for you to prove my objections wrong. Donald Deannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87069727351120021922014-11-22T20:57:12.107+11:002014-11-22T20:57:12.107+11:00@Donald Dean talking about significance and trends...@Donald Dean talking about significance and trends<br /><br />"<i>" ...as I am sure by the posts that Jammy has no clue."</i><br /><br />Dunning Kruger run riot! LOL<br /><br />Degrees in statistics:<br /><br />Jammy Dodger: 1<br />Donald Dean: 0<br /><br /><br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.com