... statistical tests for global warming fails to find ..... anthropogenic forcing

Jan 4, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Free Republic

From the journal Earth System Dynamics billed as 'An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union' comes this paper which suggests that the posited AGW forcing effects simply isn't statistically significant in the observations, but other natural forcings are.

Comments
1 - 20 of 96 Comments Last updated Mar 14, 2013
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1 Jan 4, 2013
Just wait for the 2014 reports.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#2 Jan 4, 2013
.. "to avoid significantly elevated sea level in the long term, atmospheric CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/...
equote

Llano, TX

#3 Jan 4, 2013
The article is better than most, it gives a link to the actual paper. That allows anyone with the skills to do their own review.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#4 Jan 4, 2013
Read this from the linked paper:

"This means, however, that as with all hypotheses, our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint."

[The nail to shut this one up.]

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#5 Jan 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Read this from the linked paper:
"This means, however, that as with all hypotheses, our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint."
[The nail to shut this one up.]
Actually the nail was in your coffin and not his. You did not actually go to the paper but the article. So you missed a few little landmines like, "there is no physical theory for this modified theory of AGW" and "GCMs embody hundreds if not thousands of unknown parameters to be calibrated". The entire quote for what you were using was, "This means, however, that as
with all hypotheses, our rejection of AGW is not absolute;
it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the
possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic
footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not
statistically significant at conventional levels."

Or in other words they set out to proved AGW with statistics and ended up disproving it. Just one more nail in AGW's coffin.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#6 Jan 4, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the nail was in your coffin and not his. You did not actually go to the paper but the article. So you missed a few little landmines like, "there is no physical theory for this modified theory of AGW" and "GCMs embody hundreds if not thousands of unknown parameters to be calibrated". The entire quote for what you were using was, "This means, however, that as
with all hypotheses, our rejection of AGW is not absolute;
it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the
possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic
footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not
statistically significant at conventional levels."
Or in other words they set out to proved AGW with statistics and ended up disproving it. Just one more nail in AGW's coffin.
I was only referring to the paper's coffin, dummy.

You got deadly with me. Nasty tina, who does not know the difference between a reactor or a reaction..

YOU ARE HERE FOR THE FIGHTS. You lose every time.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#7 Jan 5, 2013
If you can't find a statistically significant relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature, then you're missing the elephant in the room. Statistics, when applied wrongly, allows you to find evidence for the possible non-existence of the elephant in the room. As physics tells us there is an elephant in the room, this is pretty dumb.(The physical properties of CO2 tell us it must cause warming.)

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images...

Probably what they're doing wrong is looking for a relationship between short term variation and CO2, which is something AGW science never said should exist- a straw man.
PHD

Overton, TX

#8 Jan 7, 2013
What their doing wrong is making corrections to errors to discover more errors finding that their correction to their error is incorrect. It's all about the money.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#9 Jan 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text> I was only referring to the paper's coffin, dummy.
You got deadly with me. Nasty tina, who does not know the difference between a reactor or a reaction..
YOU ARE HERE FOR THE FIGHTS. You lose every time.
Actually I am here to educate a few people who are not sure. You on the other hand are here for the fights which is amazing how many of them you loose. Then again you normally raise your bloody head off the floor and try to tell the person standing over you that they must of lost.

The simple fact is that the paper in question even admitted that AGW had no backing, that the models were flawed.

Of course I can rely on you to claim that I have to be wrong. After all, if I am right then you might have to admit that you have been wrong and you are just incapable of admitting that you have been wrong even when the wealth of evidence that you are.
PHD

Overton, TX

#10 Jan 8, 2013
Well there you have it again the educated trying to educate by the cut and paste method. They really really don't know.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#11 Jan 9, 2013
tina anne wrote:
The simple fact is that the paper in question even admitted that AGW had no backing, that the models were flawed.
This is what you get when economists write science papers- total ignorance of the science, along with the totally misapplied statistics.

You misunderstand how science works. The fact that a paper gets published (in an obscure journal, after two previous rejections) does not mean it's true.

It means that now people who really know about the physics of AGW and statistics will look at the paper, and publish a response.

The paper has been knocking about the internet for a year or so, and various people have pointed out holes (misapplied statistics and total ignorance of the physical basis of AGW), so expect these criticisms to be formalised in the response in the literature.

For deniers of course, it says what they want to believe, so it must be true.
PHD

Overton, TX

#12 Jan 9, 2013
And the scientist write opinion.
my opinion

Renton, WA

#13 Jan 9, 2013
PHD wrote:
And the scientist write opinion.
Science is first of all about discovery (the first word on
everything). But the more science knows, the more it realizes what it doesn't know (the last word on nothing).
PHD

Overton, TX

#14 Jan 9, 2013
my opinion wrote:
<quoted text>Science is first of all about discovery (the first word on
everything). But the more science knows, the more it realizes what it doesn't know (the last word on nothing).
Agreed, scientist correct errors to discover more errors to discover that their corrections are in error unless they state in my opinion.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#15 Jan 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what you get when economists write science papers- total ignorance of the science, along with the totally misapplied statistics.
You misunderstand how science works. The fact that a paper gets published (in an obscure journal, after two previous rejections) does not mean it's true.
It means that now people who really know about the physics of AGW and statistics will look at the paper, and publish a response.
The paper has been knocking about the internet for a year or so, and various people have pointed out holes (misapplied statistics and total ignorance of the physical basis of AGW), so expect these criticisms to be formalised in the response in the literature.
For deniers of course, it says what they want to believe, so it must be true.
How true, how many papers about AGW were published in journals to only discover that it was not true. Funny thing about both those involved in the field of physics and economics is that both require lots of math.

As for AGW, it has a basis in fiction not physics. The physical basis for AGW was based on a lie, a phyicological need as it were for some to believe that they made a major difference in the world be existing. That they had a major affect on life around them.
PHD

Overton, TX

#16 Jan 10, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
How true, how many papers about AGW were published in journals to only discover that it was not true. Funny thing about both those involved in the field of physics and economics is that both require lots of math.
As for AGW, it has a basis in fiction not physics. The physical basis for AGW was based on a lie, a phyicological need as it were for some to believe that they made a major difference in the world be existing. That they had a major affect on life around them.
Do agree but Wind Mills still rule.
Wondering

San Diego, CA

#17 Jan 10, 2013
Gee, another government lie, just like all the bees are dying mankind will face massive starvation in 2000.

Don't forget 2038 Y2K is coming soon.....

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#18 Jan 11, 2013
tina anne wrote:
Funny thing about both those involved in the field of physics and economics is that both require lots of math.
Applied maths.

When you take the tools of one field and apply them to another without an understanding of the underlying physical reality, you risk coming up with an answer that the maths say is right but is obviously wrong because it says something that is obviously physically true does not exist.

What's going to happen now is the real maths experts are going to look at the paper and point out why the statistical test applied was wrong and why it gives the wrong result.
PHD

Overton, TX

#19 Jan 11, 2013
That would be called an opinion. Science correcting errors to discover that their corrections are in error.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#20 Jan 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Applied maths.
When you take the tools of one field and apply them to another without an understanding of the underlying physical reality, you risk coming up with an answer that the maths say is right but is obviously wrong because it says something that is obviously physically true does not exist.
What's going to happen now is the real maths experts are going to look at the paper and point out why the statistical test applied was wrong and why it gives the wrong result.
Other words you are trying hard to ignore that 2+2=4 no matter who did the adding. The funny thing with math is the right answer is the right answer no matter how you twist it. The speed of light is the speed of light and Pytagorean Theorum still is a^2+b^2=c^2.

As for the mathematicians, they have already looked at the paper and declare the math is sound. As for what exists and does not exist, that is a philosophical question and has little to do with math or physics. Then again, the reason this all upsets you is that it attacks the foundation of your religious beliefs. Which is man is the root cause. Just because the math did not add up and the numbers refuse to lie for you is upsetting.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Science Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min Sharrp Shooter 256,438
Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 8 min El Cid 201,369
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 23 min Kong_ 115,249
Global warming pioneer calls for CO2 to be take... 38 min SpaceBlues 5
US: Beware of giant snails 47 min SirPrize 1
Cleaned Dried Processing debuts new 143,000-squ... 2 hr WOW 1
Climate change: Rising sea levels pose salt thr... 2 hr bach dang 4
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Science People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••