• Sections

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

Jan 4, 2013 Full story: Free Republic 96

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.

Full Story

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#21 Jan 11, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Other words you are trying hard to ignore that 2+2=4 no matter who did the adding.
Not as simple as that.

Statistics deal in probability, not certainty.

And the validity of the result depends on the validity of your assumptions.

Make the wrong assumptions and you can conclude that 2+2 probably = 5, or 2+2 almost certainly != 4.

Which is what the authors of this study, not knowing anything about physics or climate science, have done.

And no, the rest of the scientific community has not looked at it yet. When they do, the paper is going to fall over pretty quickly.

If it's as bad as some of the denialist crap that's made it into a journal before, it will be a resigning issue.

Judged:

4

4

3

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#22 Jan 11, 2013
So when scientific community look at the paper they will conclude that their corrections to errors they dicover more errors to their correction. Or they will say in my opinion.

Judged:

4

3

3

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#23 Jan 15, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Not as simple as that.
Statistics deal in probability, not certainty.
And the validity of the result depends on the validity of your assumptions.
Make the wrong assumptions and you can conclude that 2+2 probably = 5, or 2+2 almost certainly != 4.
Which is what the authors of this study, not knowing anything about physics or climate science, have done.
And no, the rest of the scientific community has not looked at it yet. When they do, the paper is going to fall over pretty quickly.
If it's as bad as some of the denialist crap that's made it into a journal before, it will be a resigning issue.
And if the assumptions are flawed the results will be flawed as well. Which is the reason why AGW fell flat. It was all based on that flawed assumption.

Meanwhile statistical results like modeling can be tested. It matters not if the test is as simple as rolling dice or flipping a coin or something far more complex. The fact is that there is enough data to apply a statistical test of anthropogenic forcing of climate change and the results do not lie, it failed. The affect of humans is far less than you want to believe it to be.

So far you have claimed that they do not know anything of the physics and science involved. That may be true because no human knows that much about the subject. Which means the real issue is do they know the math involved and that is they do know the math involved and as a result know as much about the physics since physics and math are interelated.

As for the rest of the community, the math community seems to have looked into it and found no errors, as for the physics community. The only ones who seem to be upset with it are because they cannot find any errors in the math or the conclusions other than they like you disagree with them.

Judged:

3

3

3

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#24 Jan 15, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And if the assumptions are flawed the results will be flawed as well. Which is the reason why AGW fell flat. It was all based on that flawed assumption.
Meanwhile statistical results like modeling can be tested. It matters not if the test is as simple as rolling dice or flipping a coin or something far more complex. The fact is that there is enough data to apply a statistical test of anthropogenic forcing of climate change and the results do not lie, it failed. The affect of humans is far less than you want to believe it to be.
So far you have claimed that they do not know anything of the physics and science involved. That may be true because no human knows that much about the subject. Which means the real issue is do they know the math involved and that is they do know the math involved and as a result know as much about the physics since physics and math are interelated.
As for the rest of the community, the math community seems to have looked into it and found no errors, as for the physics community. The only ones who seem to be upset with it are because they cannot find any errors in the math or the conclusions other than they like you disagree with them.
AS predicted you gave them another spanking. But I do disagree with you assumption that the math is correct. They are flawed as well.

Judged:

4

3

3

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

#25 Jan 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
So when scientific community look at the paper they will conclude that their corrections to errors they dicover more errors to their correction. Or they will say in my opinion.
Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians
A majority of scientists who dispute global warming lack the climatological expertise to do so
By David Biello June 22, 2010 37

The new analysis, published June 21 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 908 researchers publishing in scientific journals from around the world on the subject and found that not only were those in the unconvinced camp less expert in the field, they were also less likely to be trained in the climate science.

"A physicist or geologist with a PhD is a scientist, but not a climate scientist and thus their opinions on complex climatological issues is not likely to be expert opinion," says William Anderegg, lead author of the analysis and a biologist-in-training at Stanford University. "Cardiologists, for example, don't prescribe chemotherapies for cancer, nor do oncologists claim expertise at heart surgery-they are all doctors, of course, but not experts outside of a narrow specialty."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

AND,

<< There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action...

As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Well, probably they did, but point taken.>>

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.c...

Judged:

4

4

4

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

#26 Jan 15, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And if the assumptions are flawed the results will be flawed as well. Which is the reason why AGW fell flat. It was all based on that flawed assumption.
What right wing garbage are YOU listening to? Fox perhaps?

#1 virtually all the world renown science agencies have put out statements warning about the potential serious threats of global warming:

"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion [on global warming - see below]. A few organizations hold non-committal positions >>
taken from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...

This includes all the national SCIENCE academies in the world [which study many sciences -- not just climatology]

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Science Council of Japan
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

All the organizations specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS/NASA)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These organizations also agree with the consensus:
Royal Meteorological Society Community
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
The Institute of Medicine
American Chemical Society
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

This is typical:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years.

The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occur Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_c...

#2 All the mainstream science media supports global warming -- examples: Scientific American, Discover, NewScientist, Science, Science News.

#3 Essentially all the scientific studies in peer review science journals support global warming.

Judged:

4

4

4

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#28 Jan 16, 2013
Never ending useless babble cut and paste. Will you ever show your own work?

Judged:

5

4

4

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

#29 Jan 18, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Other words you are trying hard to ignore that 2+2=4 no matter who did the adding..
Not true.

This paper only plays games with statistics, not physics.

That's what all the whackos do.

The author at the link below shows how these statisticians took two linear measurements and tried to argue they... viola really weren't linear after going through an amazing series of manipulations...

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/idiots-del...

Excerpt

<<So the new best thing in the denialsphere is a paper by Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz from the Department of Economics of the The Hebrew University where they pull a Wegman, analyzing climate data without knowing anything about the science. Now this is par for the course in economics where there are no constraints, but it ain't so cool when you deal with physical reality. Anyhow, the rubber hits the road very quickly when they say that

The method of co-integration is designed to test hypotheses with time series data that are non-stationary to the same order, and to avoid the pitfall of spurious regression. The order of non-stationarity refers to the number of times a variable must be differenced (d) to render it stationary, in which case the variable is integrated of order, d, or I(d). We confirm previous findings, that the radiative forcings of greenhouse gases (C02, CH4 and N2O) are stationary in second differences (i.e. I(2)) while global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in first differences (i.e. I(1)).

Straightforwardly this is a claim that forcing has been increasing as a second order function, while temperature has only been increasing linearly. Given the noise in the temperature record, that is a reach as an absolute.

The estimates of the radiative forcing is the NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, which was first described in a paper by Hofmann, et al. and considers all forcings since 1979. Why 1979? Well that's when they established the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory global cooperative air sampling network. It's also the year when Eli got a tenure track job. Makes sense.

If you look at the CO2 forcing above it looks pretty linear, but how about the total radiative forcing, because, our new hero's are claiming that
.......greenhouse gas forcing, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated and AGW is refuted.

Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predicitons of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.

Hmm, that looks pretty linear too (the color you can't see in the legend is for CH4)[see graph on site] So we have the result that the radiative forcing since 1979, has been linear. What about before 1979? Well, let's go to the IPCC WGI. Calculation of radiative forcing requires calculations, that means models. The figure below is from Nozawa et al., 2005; and Takemura et al., 2005.

Different GCMs, get different values, but the general trends are as shown. Even if you simply plug into simple algebraic equations to calculate the radiative forcings, those equations came from GCMs, so in a real sense Beenstock and Reingewertz are unwittingly engaging in a circle jerk...

Judged:

4

4

4

Report Abuse Judge it!
ObamaSUX

#30 Jan 18, 2013
Hey Wallop10,

Geeze, ALL the AGW papers are STATISTICS....there are ZERO AGW papers with ANY:

- Laws of Science that support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" and AGW
- Measurements that support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" and AGW

CO2 vs Temperature in the AGW "Junk Science" papers are EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to this:

Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global...
----------
What a HOOT you AGW-Ahole Cult Nuts are!

Judged:

3

3

3

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#31 Jan 18, 2013
Science at best again science fiction.

Judged:

4

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

#32 Jan 19, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
Hey Wallop10,
Geeze, ALL the AGW papers are STATISTICS....there are ZERO AGW papers with ANY:
- Laws of Science that support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" and AGW
- Measurements that support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" and AGW
CO2 vs Temperature in the AGW "Junk Science" papers are EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to this:
Need measurements?
The most conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect – and the role CO2 plays – can be seen in data from the surface and from satellites. By comparing the Sun’s heat reaching the Earth with the heat leaving it, we can see that less long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving (and since the 1970s, that less and less radiation is leaving the Earth, as CO2 and equivalents build up). Since all radiation is measured by its wavelength, we can also see that the frequencies being trapped in the atmosphere are the same frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gases.
Disputing that the greenhouse effect is real is to attempt to discredit centuries of science, laws of physics and direct observation. Without the greenhouse effect, we would not even be here to argue about it.
Scientific papers that prove empirical evidence that 20th century changes in average global temperatures are linked to human emissions of CO2 and that the current changes are unusual
Fourier, J.-B. J. 1824. "Memoire sur les Temperatures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Planetaires." Annales de Chemie et de Physique 2d Ser. 27, 136-167.
Tyndall, J. 1859. "Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies." Proceed. Roy. Soc. London 10, 37-39.
Arrhenius, S.A. 1896. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground." Phil. Mag. 41, 237-275.
Manabe, S. and R.F. Strickler, 1964. "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment." J. Atmos. Sci. 21, 361-385.
Suess, H.E. 1955. "Radiocarbon Concentration in Modern Wood." Sci. 122, 415-417.
Revelle, R. and H.E. Suess 1957. "Carbon Dioxide Exchange between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 During the Past Decades." Tellus 9, 18-27.
Hanel, R. A., and B. J. Conrath 1970. "Thermal Emission Spectra of Earth and Atmosphere from Nimbus-4 Michelson Interferometer Experiment." Nature 228, 143-&.
Hoffert, Martin I., Covey, Curt 1992. "Deriving Global Climate Sensitivity from Palaeoclimate Reconstructions." Nature 360, 573-576.
Harries, J.E., H.E. Brindley, P.J. Sagoo, and R.J. Bantges 2001. "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997." Letter, Nature, 410, 355-357.
Griggs, J.A. and J.E. Harries 2004. "Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present." EUMETSAT Conference and Workshop Proceedings 2004.
Philipona, R., B. Du"rr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild 2004. "Radiative Forcing--Measured at Earth's Surface--Corroborate the Increasing Greenhouse Effect." Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L03202
Hegerl Gabriele C., Crowley Thomas J., Hyde William T., Frame David J. 2006. "Climate Sensitivity Constrained by Temperature Reconstructions over the Past Seven Centuries." Nature 440, 1029-1032 (letter).
W.F.J. Evans, W.F.J., and E. Puckrin 2006. "Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate." 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, P1.7
Rowa*n T. Sutton, Buwen Dong, and Jonathan M. Gregory (2006) Land/sea warming ratio in response to climate change: IPCC AR4 model results and comparison with observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L02701, pp. 1-5
http://atmosdyn.yonsei.ac.kr/nrl/seminar/Sutt...
Royer, D.L. 2006. "CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic" Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70, 5665-5675.
Came R.E., J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer, K. Azmy, U. Brand, and C.R. Weidman 2007. "Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era." Nature 449, 198-201.
continued!

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

#33 Jan 19, 2013
continued

Chen, C., J. Harries, H. Brindley, and M. Ringer 2007. "Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006." EUMETSAT Conference and Workshop Proceedings 2007.
Doney, S.C. et al. 2007. "Carbon and climate system coupling on timescales from the Precambrian to the Anthropocene" Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources 32, 31-66.

Griggs, J. A., and J. E. Harries 2007. "Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation over the tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS." Journal of Climate 20, 3982-4001.

Horton, D.E. et al. 2007. "Orbital and CO2 forcing of late Paleozoic continental ice sheets" Geophys. Res. Lett. L19708.

Fletcher, B.J. et al. 2008. "Atmospheric carbon dioxide linked with Mesozoic and early Cenozoic climate change" Nature Geoscience 1, 43-48.

Fu, Qiang and Celeste M. Johanson 2005. "Satellite-Derived Vertical Dependence of Tropical Tropospheric Temperature Trends." Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L10703

Vinnikov, K.Y., N.C. Grody, A. Robock, R.J. Stouffer, P.D. Jones, and M.D. Goldberg 2006. "Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere." J. Geophys. Res. 111, D03106.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD0...

Knutti, R. and G. Hegerl 2008. "The equilibrium sensitivity of the earth's temperature to radiation changes." Nature Geoscience 1, 735-743.

W. M. Kurschner et al. 2008. "The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystem"Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 499-453.

Lean, J.L. and D.H. Rind 2008. "How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006." Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L18701.

Sherwood, S.C., C.L. Meyer, R.J. Allen, and H.A. Titchner, 2008. "Robust Tropospheric Warming Revealed by Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data." J. Clim. 21, 5336-5350.
http://camels.metoffice.gov.uk/quarc/Sherwood...

Zachos, J.C. 2008. "An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics" Nature 451, 279-283.

Allen, R.J. and S.C. Sherwood 2009. "Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds." Nature Geosci. 1, 399 - 403.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/... http://cce.890m.com/models/images/allen-sherw...

Clement, A.C., Burgman R., and J.R. Norris 2009. "Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback." Science 325, 460-464.

Titchner, H.A., P.W. Thorne, M.P. McCarthy, S.F.B. Tett, L. Haimberger, and D.E. Parker 2009. "Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments." J. Clim. 22, 465-485.

Try again.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

#34 Jan 19, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And if the assumptions are flawed the results will be flawed as well. Which is the reason why AGW fell flat. It was all based on that flawed assumption.
Meanwhile statistical results like modeling can be tested. It matters not if the test is as simple as rolling dice or flipping a coin or something far more complex. The fact is that there is enough data to apply a statistical test of anthropogenic forcing of climate change and the results do not lie, it failed.
Yes, unless the statistics used are flawed. That's what appears to be the problem with these guys. I wrote some details on that too.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#35 Jan 20, 2013
More useless scientific science fiction useless babble cut and paste BS. Will it ever end?

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

#36 Jan 20, 2013
PHD wrote:
More useless scientific science fiction useless babble cut and paste BS. Will it ever end?
LOL. Listing scientific journals is just cut and paste to this troll.

All this irrelevant moron can do is ... whine.

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
SpaceBlues
#37 Feb 5, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Listing scientific journals is just cut and paste to this troll.
All this irrelevant moron can do is ... whine.
True. Concentration is lacking for it to know that itself is a moron.

Judged:

3

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#38 Feb 5, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Listing scientific journals is just cut and paste to this troll.
All this irrelevant moron can do is ... whine.
So again wallop10 that gets walloped again and again. You must be a less-on. And commander troll that is all you have is cut and paste useless babble. Do show your entire peer reviewed published work.

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#39 Feb 5, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>True. Concentration is lacking for it to know that itself is a moron.
Well spoken from the best moron AKA less-on you continue to make of your---self. Let me tell you what a great job you do making your--self look like a moron AKA less-on.

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#40 Feb 7, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Listing scientific journals is just cut and paste to this troll.
All this irrelevant moron can do is ... whine.
Funny when you consider all you have done is cut and paste with little additional thought added. No time taken to check what your posting for even duplication let alone for accuracy.

Judged:

3

3

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#41 Feb 8, 2013
Another good day seeing the wallop10 getting walloped again and again.

Judged:

3

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.