Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Statistical Analysis of Global Temperature (so-called) Data is Inherently Nonsense

Raff

If CO2 does not more or less directly control global atmospheric temperature
why in heaven's name does any one think that reducing anthropogenic CO2
emissions would have any purpose in relation to abating global warming( aka climate change) and that
We need to cover the planet with windmills and solar panels and trash the global economy ?

Dec 30, 2015 at 9:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterDelta Whiskey

One of the symptoms of an imploding ideology is a frantic rewriting of history.

Dec 30, 2015 at 9:58 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Delta Whiskey

NATO phonetics are always welcome here.

When people back themselves into a corner, with their own circular arguments, they end up with self inflicted stab wounds in their own back.

Dec 30, 2015 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

DW:

If CO2 does not more or less directly control global atmospheric temperature...
I think you'll find the idea is that increased CO2 causes an energy imbalance and an accumulation of heat in the biosphere in general. This continues until the imbalance is cancelled out by a higher temperatures and hence higher radiation to space. So the endpoint is higher temperature. The path from now to then (or 1950 to then etc, chose your starting date) seems likely to be a more or less consistent curve, given the mechanisms by which heat is moved around the planet. But it would be foolish to think it must be directly and immediately proportional (i.e. lockstep). That would be to think that other influences on climate and measured temperature do not exist. I don't know if anyone has every predicted lockstep.

Observing a relationship and noting that things appear to be in lockstep is not the same as predicting that it should be, but perhaps that is too subtle a difference.

Dec 30, 2015 at 11:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff

So do you think that there is any merit in the world taking drastic steps to radically reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the immediate future - and if not why not?

Dec 30, 2015 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterDelta Whiskey

Raff, so are you agreeing with the title of this thread, or not?

Dec 30, 2015 at 11:25 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

DW, yes we need to reduce emissions. I get the feeling from your comments that you don't understand climate science very well.

Dec 31, 2015 at 1:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff, I get the impression you don't understand why more and more people are giving up on climate science. Being condescending, doesn't help. Nor does passing off flawed science as factual evidence, and using rhetoric to slip in your assumptions.

I thought improved communication was one of the lessons learned by Climate Science after Climategate, but now I think about it, a climate scientist wrote that, so it may not have been too trustworthy.

Dec 31, 2015 at 1:44 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"On a longer scale, decades to centuries, it responds to forcings such as changing CO2."
English Translation: "The longer term temperature record varies in unpredictable ways because of factors that are neither understood nor predictable."

Lets agree on the 'random' forcings over the longer term. EM don't you think the AMO shows up in 20th century temp records in particular?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation

And we also have other unexplained phenomena such as the PDO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation

Also I'm pretfy sure that if we studied it scientifically we might find natural oscillations in the hundreds and thousands of years timescale.

Dec 31, 2015 at 2:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

Raff

Any chance you would answer the question - if increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is not more or less
causing temperature to rise why would reducing it cause temperature to fall?

Dec 31, 2015 at 8:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterDelta Whiskey

Also I'm pretfy sure that if we studied it scientifically we might find natural oscillations in the hundreds and thousands of years timescale.
Dec 31, 2015 at 2:44 AM Rob Burton

That's for sure. And in the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years timescale too.

So far as I can see, climate is fractal-like. Not only does climate itself change unpredictably with time, its statistics are nonstationary, changing unpredictably with time. And on all timescales.

One of the fictions of climate science (so-called) is that there is some distinct period, shorter than which it is "weather" and longer than which it is "climate". So far as I can see, this fiction was pulled out of the hat to counter the point that, if next month's weather can't be forecast, then forecasting next century's climate is obviously pissing into the wind.

Dec 31, 2015 at 9:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Raff ( and EM)

I have been following BH for some time now but being a mere engineer I have not felt confident enough to write in about the doubts that have arisen in my mind as a result.

Einstein said if you can not explain it to a 4 year old child you do not understand it yourself. The little story that a 4 year old child can understand ( as repeated ad nauseum) by climate alarmists, green NGO’s, the UNFCC, the “renewable energy” industry lobby and left liberal politicians says :-

1]Since the industrial revolution the amount of CO2 emitted by the human race has grown close to exponentially – and is still growing rapidly. This seems to be undisputed

2]Since the start of the Industrial revolution the CO2 concentration of the Atmosphere has increased from +/- 280 ppm to +/- 400 ppm. This MIGHT be true for the period from 1950 to the present day but is not anything like the whole truth which is MUCH more complex.

3] The cause of the rise in CO2 is the human combustion of fossil fuel. This is not demonstrably true but there is a correlation between cumulative fossil fuel burned and the overall rise in CO2 levels

4]Since the start of the industrial revolution the global average temperature has generally followed a rising trend and has risen by +/- 1ºC. This is true but not the whole truth which is much more complex. For example at times the temperature has fallen for as much as 25 years at a stretch or not risen as much as expected, if at all.

5]The cause of the temperature rise is the rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere. This contains an element of truth but is not the whole truth which is apparently much more complex. There is evidence that rising temperature causes the release of CO2 from the ocean and the human contribution of CO2 is a small element of the annual CO2 fluxes between ocean, atmosphere, biosphere and rocks being eroded and deposited.

6]Further growth of CO2 emissions will continue to result in a rising global temperature. This would be true ONLY IF there were no other influences on the climate , of which there are many, but even then the temperature would probably not rise as much as the models project

7]This will have catastrophic adverse effects. I have not seen any convincing evidence to support this assertion.

8]The increase in CO2 emissions must be curtailed drastically to avoid the global average temperature from rising more than 2ºC ( or 1.5ºC). I have not seen any undisputed scientific basis for this claim – which was apparently made by a UNFCC politician who admitted this when he proposed the “2ºC limit”

9]If the temperature rises above 2ºC the climate will irrevocably pass a “tipping point” beyond which we do not know what will happen but it will be catastrophic for “the Planet” This seems to be political scare mongering for which no undisputed, or even convincing scientific evidence has been provided. It has been higher than 2ºC above postulated pre industrial levels many times in the past - even the relatively recent past ( 1,000 - 10,000 years)

10]The science is settled, the debate is over - 97% of scientists agree with all of the above nine points. This claim seems to be is true to the extent that a large majority agree that the temperature has risen in recent decades and humans have some influence on the climate. It has not been shown that 97% of scientists unreservedly accept points 5 through 9 above and the real number is probably less and may even be less than a majiority !

11]To stop this happening we must all give up the use of the most reliable, abundant and cheapest forms of energy – fossil fuels and rely on their replacement by “renewables” This is a political objective - it is not a scientifically supported conclusion and it has never been proven that it would or could stop temperature changes. Also other than nuclear fission- which is strongly opposed by most people who want to reduce fossil fuel consumption- the the technology and infrastructure to do this does not presently exist

11] Because CO2 emissions pass all national boundaries this is a global problem and can only be done by ceding enormous power to the UNFCC This is a prime political objective of the United Nations.

It seems to me that here is a very simple, very powerful and continuously repeated mantra and to most people ( especially politicians) who do not have a scientific training it must seem compelling - and probably resonates with a left liberal political mind set anyway. There are points that are wholly or partially true – sufficient to enable climate evangelists to convince many people that climate change is – to use Barak Obama’s words- “ real, man made and dangerous” and most importantly that if we cede our freedom and quality of life to them they will solve the problem and “save the planet”

Dec 31, 2015 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimple Engineer

DW said

if increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is not more or less causing temperature to rise ...
where did you get that gem?

... why would reducing it cause temperature to fall?
I've not seen much serious contemplation of "reducing it" (CO2 in the atmosphere) or making temperatures fall. As I said, I get the feeling from your comments that you don't understand climate science or even climate policy very well.

Martin, observing a relationship and noting that things appear to be in lockstep is not the same as predicting that it should be, but perhaps that is too subtle a difference.

Simple Engineer, I have yet to meet a 4 year old who could understand much of what you wrote. I don't know why you directed it at me, there's no question for me to answer. So what of it?

Dec 31, 2015 at 1:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Martin, observing a relationship and noting that things appear to be in lockstep is not the same as predicting that it should be, but perhaps that is too subtle a difference.

Raff -
Please don't even implicitly put words into my mouth. Somebody had said "The idea that temperatures should rise in lockstep with CO2 is not from the scientists at all. It is another simplistic denialist straw man."

I was just pointing out that the predictions of GCMs and CO2 concentration had said they would rise in lockstep, so it can't be said to be "another simplistic denialist straw man".

We don't need staw man anyway. Plenty of live targets out there.

Dec 31, 2015 at 3:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Martin, I don't want to argue about a word again. I haven't seen the word lockstep used. I don't know the context in which you have seen it used.

Dec 31, 2015 at 4:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

It seems interesting to me that as late as January 2015,Mann shows a graph showing CO2 rising in lockstep with the temperatures he charted in the hockey stick that Raff believes is outdated and disregarded by serious climate scientists. How strange.

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/71/1/33.full.pdf

Dec 31, 2015 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes