By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
Guys, stop feeding the trolls. The “recent comments” list is almost always filled with posts from this worthless thread. If nobody posts to them, they will eventually go away. Tim would be far better off to just banish posters like Jonas or sunspot than have these useless threads distracting intelligent posters from the serious content of the site. Keeping them around only makes the site look bad.
[Huntingford et al., 2006](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024831.shtml): “We find that greenhouse gas forcing would very likely have resulted in greater warming than observed during the past half century if there had not been an offsetting cooling from aerosols and other forcings.”
Be my guest.
I doubt at this point that Olaus is a sock puppet. This one is even more delusional than Jonas. “You losing in every aspect of the word”? How precious.
The juvenile compulsion to add smileys to everything does seem very GSW-esque, added nose or not though. Or is that just a symptom?
This is the current loop:
“Where does very likely come from?”
“No, you can’t show me. Where does it come from?”
“It doesn’t say that literally!”
“It’s a conclusion based on this, this and this.”
“Yes, but those do not say ‘very likely’!”
I recall having conversations like that with my kid. When she was 5 years old.
And Olaus, this is not “disinterest in Jonas”. This is a very lengthy demonstration of how he and you have no arguments. You’re down to infantile, pathetic whining now. A handy reference, nothing more. You have no argument. Jonas’ question has been repeatedly answered. That you have no compunction about stamping your precious little feet screaming “nuh-uh!” tells the world everything it needs to know about who has evidence, and who does not. Even more telling is that you actually seem to think you’re scoring points here. It’s funny, sad and something I think a psych major is going to graduate on.
But do carry on. You’re very entertaining, sweetheart.
>Jeff Harvey, so now there are 1000s of references in empirical sciences showing that luminous b’s nonsens claim is true!?
How effing stupid can _you_ make yourself? I mean, even if you tried your hardest, and wanted to be seen like a total moron?
Do any of you intellects want to correct LB 391,396 in his assertion that the two statements are equivalent;
“very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes”
“Warming during the past half century is not solely due to known natural causes” and gives that statement a ‘very likely’ rating.
He wouldn’t accept it if I told him.
Dear stu #402
I can assure you that a psych major wont be sufficient when it comes to explain the rise and the fall of CAGW in the first decade of this millie. Its material for many PhD-programs and conferences to come, in the sociology of religions, psychology, anthropo(geno)logy and similar disciplines. I’m rather convinced that the next big break through in CAGW will be in the field of sociology or perhaps religion. Blogs like this one will for sure be good material.
I’m also convinced that your hostility and incapability to deliver straight answers to simple Qs, is a result from CAGW getting out of fashion. Maybe the end is near?
Do you seriously doubt that the IPCC’s assessments are often extremely and unnecessarily conservative? After all, in the consensus process, every word in the SPM had to be signed off by policy representatives from every national government, including those most reluctant to accept any kind of ‘alarmist’ conclusions such as the U.S.(Bush Administration), Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Olaus, that loud whooshing sound is the point flying straight over your head. You do not disappoint!
By the way, the answer has been delivered eight times now, but do keep on flailing precious.
No wooshing heard by anyone Stu, but the sound of your cryings is quite impressive, I must admit. And the smell of goregonzola…cheezus. You are the gift that keeps on giving.
Why don’t you just admit that the 90-95% is an educated guess? I’m sure you will be relieved letting it out. Se further in Jonas’ excellent #394.
I can’t resist, its like picking at a scab you know you shouldn’t but you do anyway.
Olaus/Jonas (for they are the same) please look up the word disinterest…it is not a synonym for uninterest. If you learn nothing else from this thread you may at least learn that and thus this thread will not have been completely useless.
Marco, you sure know how to blow nothing away. What a knocker!
But to be fair and balanced, you Marco, at least, seem to understand that the magic number discussed, is an educated guess and nothing else.
You aren’t paying attention. I have introduced probative [evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5278001), fulfilling with exactitude, Jonas demands for provenance that the ‘magic number’ and its associated conclusion are both underestimated and understated.
I have also [introduced](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5278276) an hypothesis for why this is so.
Feel free to attempt a carefully reasoned and rational rebuttal, if you can. I’m betting you can’t.
He can’t go reading that LB, or he won’t be able to claim that he never sawed the science.
Olaus: You do know that CAGW is a term invented by denialists when they realised that they could no longer deny the global warming nor the anthropogenic part of AGW?
Where, exactly, do you think that climate scientists have got it wrong and how do you justify your beliefs?
That was a funny reference. It speculates about what a ‘perfect model’ would say, and “introducing inter-model variance as an extra uncertainty”
And based on these models, they claim that if there hadn’t been cooling forcings, they very likely would have given more warming.
I don’t really have any problem with such statements although they don’t contain that much substance. But at least from the title and the abstract, the study does not purport to establish how certain the models can incorporate and reproduce every relevant mechanism.
Rather it notes the opposite, that the models are rudimentary, and vary amongst each other. Unfortuntely, those differences then seems to be interpreted as ‘remaining uncrtainty’ and (if that is true) that is nonsense ..
Sorry, I can’t read the full article from here, but it describes once more model runs, compared to each other, and to historic temperature records. If so, it describes curve fitting procedures … that’s all fine, but such do not constitute validation of a model, only how well the fit the fitted data.
And I have looked at some more papers, they all use this technique, fitting, and then saying the fitting is good. Showing (after that if you exclude GHGs from the models, the fit is much worse). That’s all correct, but not what is needed to verify the propsed hypothesis.
And I already stated that in the Perry-thread
Also known as the third stage of denial.
such do not constitute validation of a model, only how well the fit the fitted data.
You really, really, really have no idea how model validation works, do you? When did you have your embarrassmentectomy?
>If so, it describes curve fitting procedures … that’s all fine, but such do not constitute validation of a model, only how well the[sic] fit the fitted data.
No, GCMs are not curve fitting procedures.
Here’s a little quiz to test your scientific acumen:
At the core of most every General Circulation Model lies a simple set of differential equations. For ten points;
!. Who first formulated those equations?
2. When was it done?
For extra credit.
3. What are those equations?
4. What are the basic physical principles from which those equations are formulated?
When you can answer those questions correctly, maybe you will begin to understand why everyone here knows you’re an idiot. Hint: Knowing this should be a matter of national pride for you.
If you want to read the whole paper, it will only cost you $25.00, but I warn you, you won’t understand it.
Navier Stokes has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing … I am surprised that you think so.
And no, ‘idiot’ is still not an argument, but you do not seem alone here in the belief that it is …
I didn’t expect that much after your previous attempts, but your thinking that N-S is the explanation for and confirming the hypothesis and confidence is just too much … you pretty much gave it all away there. Sorry.
I’ll give you a reference where you can read about it (without paying), it is quite similar, also with Peter Stott as (here main) author. And it describes the ‘optimal detection analysis':
Observational Constraints on Past Attributable Warming and Predictions of FutureGlobal Warming>/a>
Look under 3. Methodology, and start learning something. Or rather, as you say, “you won’t understand it” ..
Seriously, are you in the same department as Jeff Harvey, having deep discussions over lunch? That would explain some of it …
I said much the same in another thread a long time ago. Ignore the brain-eating zombie and it will eventually go away looking for brains elsewhere.
Feed it and not only will it stay but new zombies will be attracted.
Some very good people have wasted a lot of time in this thread arguing with the zombies. It was always pointless: they cannot reason and honesty is a concept beyond them.
My my, what a strangely fluent ‘Jonas’ there suddenly is.
Be sure to inform us in which journal your claim of the inadequacy of Huntingford et al is published.
Unfortunately for your ‘case’ such as it is, you have no explanation for the ongoing warming, whereas back at square one – [here](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-4.html) – there is. Without one, your whole empty pantomime routine has been for nothing.
Seriously, is this still going? So much time has been wasted on this idiot that could have been put to more productive use. I am reminded of this brilliant story I heard earlier this year:
Growing up in the South Australian industrial city of Whyalla, Gary Gray
was old school Labor before he even left high school. Now a minister in
the Gillard government, Gray joined Labor’s national secretariat in
1986 and became national secretary in 1993, at the fag end of Labor’s
last period in government.
At his resignation speech at the National Press Club in 2000, Gray
recounted his horror when, as a 16-year-old in Whyalla, his steelworker
and Laborite father, Gordon, invited the local Liberal candidate into
the house during the 1974 federal election campaign. ”I went into a
complete tailspin. I was appalled. What would Gough think?” Gray said.
Gray snr ”sat the Lib down” and talked to him for 20 minutes before
dragging Gray jnr from his bedroom where he had sought refuge and forced
him to shake the hand of the candidate.
”It got worse. Dad actually offered him a drink. My father is a
Yorkshireman. Yorkshiremen do not give away alcohol,” Gray said.
”But that day, there was a Liberal Party candidate in the front room
of our home sharing a scotch with dad.”
Just as Gray jnr was contemplating running away from home, the Liberal
excused himself and left to continue doorknocking. Standing on the
porch, the candidate told Gray snr, rhetorically, to let him know if
there was anything he could do for him.
”Well, there is,” said Gray snr, who pointed to the blocked gutter
on the verandah and then his own crook back which prevented it being
The Liberal, a tall man, said ”no worries” and promptly reached up.
”In no time, he’d cleaned the gutter out completely,” Gray said.
”That done, he shook dad’s hand and headed up the street. I turned
to my father and asked him, with all the self-control I could muster,
how he could do that, invite this Liberal into our home and make friends
Gray snr calmed his son: ”He’s just wasted an hour with us, he’s got
alcohol on his breath and muck running down his sleeve. How many votes
do you think he’ll win today?”
Don’t feed the troll. Even on his own thread. He’s wasting our time and we’re not achieving anything here, and we are getting muck all up our arms (and probably hitting the bottle in the evening too).
So we seem to have agreement from Olaus Petri that:
– “Glaciers ARE melting”
– “The planet IS warming”
I wonder if he can agree with us that:
– “CO2 levels have increased by about 100ppm since the pre-industrial era.”
How about it Olaus? Agreed?
The CO2-level in the atmosphere is higher. I’m not sure you are aware of this, but we humans are using fossil fuels, which very likely can explain most of the increased level of CO2. That’s why its called anthropogenic CO2. Now you know a little more Craig, on the socratic house.
And yes, at the moment, the last 10 years or so not so much though, Gaia has become warmer. In fact, it has become warmer the last 10 k/y or so, with ups and downs on the way.
The CAGW-acronym might be invented by infidels, but is nonetheless spot on.The goregons of armageddon are ruining climate science.
since the CAGW-prophets now are less in political and scientific fashion, their reactions become more agitated and frustrated. That is a natural process.
Olaus Petri is the next in line who should consider that there may be more than one poster using the screenname “Marco” (in reality, there is a “Marco” and a “marco”).
Olaus Petri may also need to consider some basic scientific philosophy: everything we do and say is “an educated guess”. Every calculation is “an educated guess”, because we will never know 100% certain that it is exactly the right calculation. The typical problem with people like yourself and Jonas N is that you believe to have the same ability in making an “educated” guess, but in reality, don’t. An “educated” guess actually requires relevant education and the ability to process relevant information.
But perhaps you can prove me wrong. I will give you the same challenge as I gave Jonas N:
Using the data provided in chapter 9 of AR4, WG1, calculate what YOU believe to be the likelihood that anthropogenic forcings explain most of the warming since 1950. No shifting of goalposts by complaining about the provided numbers themselves, use these numbers and calculate. If you cannot do the calculation, come with an argumented exposition as to why you believe the statement is wrong.
Marco, “No shifting of goalposts” you require, in an attempt to seriouslyt shift the goalposts.
If I remember correctly, you first claimed that the AR4 claim was properly established Wg1 ch9. Now that it isn’t you try two new approaches:
1. Everything is an ‘educated guess’, and
2. Present your best (alternative) guess
And you are missing the central point here:
3. It is indeed just a ‘guess’ (which has been the point the entire time, and what has been upsetting people to the point where some finally lose it all together).
4. And since no proper quantitative analysis is presented how that AR4 laim (‘educated guess’) is arrived at, there is not really any way to say it must be wrong (or any reason for that).
But it is of course possible to present arguments for why an educated guess should arrive at a lower certainty. And the support provided be the references themselves are a considerable part of that. Just by noting how they go about their ‘attribution methods’
First, I apologize if I have mixed up the m/Marcos. My bad.
Second, @428, I know my limits. If you guys can’t come up with anything in that region, I can’t see myself being successful either. Hopefully science will progress and hand out a scientific answer when its ready.
Until then it should refrain from being used in a context that is unnatural to it, that is hypothesis should be dealt with in a scientific environment and not being used as a battering ram in politics and ideological struggles. Such a milieu ruins the scientific process, educated guesses or not. Nota bene, its perfectly OK to stretch conclusions in science but when the same stretched conclusions are abducted from the lab, science takes a nosedive ending up in blogs like this one reeking of sectarian body fluids.
So we are agreed:
> glaciers are melting
> planet is warming
> CO2 levels are increasing
> increased CO2 is anthropogenic in origin
So…do we agree with this proposition:
– CO2’s physical properties enable it to act as a “greenhouse gas”, allowing higher-energy radiation from the Sun to pass down, but trapping the lower-energy radiation from the Earth from passing up, thus warming the planet.
And what about *you*, Jonas, are *you* having any trouble with this stuff so far?
I was hoping for something like excessive unicorn funeral pyres or something gloriously whacky, at least. But at the end of this particular shaggy dog thread, we get offered … natural variability as the punchline.
As the more sensible brethren and sisteren warned, troll feeding is never productive.
Craig # 431
I have already stated that I find the CO2-hypothesis worthy scientific inquiries. What more do you want?
Yes, it makes perfect sense explaining your hard words and very unfriendly attitudes with “natural causes”. Its in fact text book sociology.
Craig – The climate is a bit more complicated than that scalar Gore:esque description you present. And the term ‘trapping heat’ is more appropriate for propaganda nonsense by failed ex VP politicians, directed at scaring kids …
Sorry trying to catch up on the posts. Things seem to be moving into other more detailed disputes.
Can I just ask, are we all agreed now that the IPCC ‘likelihood’ statements are subjective ‘opinion’?
and there is a strong ‘political’ (LB 406) influence over what is, or is not expressed, in those opinions?
Yes, I think we can. We are making progress.
@LB, chek etc
We probably disagree on the direction of the ‘political’ influence, but we all recognize that it is a factor?
Olaus Petri wrote: “I have already stated that I find the CO2-hypothesis worthy scientific inquiries. What more do you want?”
Why are people still wasting time on these scientific illiterate trolls?
You have a very pertinent point (which is a major part of the explanation), and lb touched upon it:
The AR4 SPM is a politically endorsed summary, and its final form is the result of many governmet bureaucrats fianlly ‘agreeing’ what it shoud say. And of course also the named IPCC authors.
lb seems to imply that the politically appointed IPCC bureaucrats, the ones ensuring “every word .. to be signed off”, that they should be expected to understate the findings, downplay the certainties, diminish any gravity or possible threats, and ensure restraint when stating IPCC authority ..
Well, one may of course speculate that this is how it happened. But I would say that is a very romantic understanding of how such bureaucracies function and what kind of people are appointed.
Andy S – You are the one who time and time agian reposts fig 9.9, aren’t you? Does that make you a scientifically illiterate troll? Because, you too gave up arguing the facts pretty quickly (after hoping that since 90% is not 100% the different ‘reconstructions’ still might all be correct)!?
*Why are people still wasting time on these scientific illiterate trolls?*
Exactly. These trolls are writing as if we are starting from a clean slate with respect to the field. IPCC concluded, on the basis of going through thousands of studies, that the human fingerprint on the current warming is highly significant. In other words, we are responsible for most of it. Certainly there are some of the finer points to be ironed out, but by now it is known what is responsible for most, if nolt all of the recent warming.
Case closed. This conclusion is beyond debate or discussion. Now we have to move on a better understand what the consequences of AGW are likely to be on natural and managed ecosytstems. This is what I’d be happy to discuss. But the triplet trolls here are trying to drag the discussion down to the lowest common demominator. To argue that humans are not primarily responsible for the rapid warming currently occurring. That is why AndyS, Duckster and TrueSkeptic are spot on with their posts. The trolls are time wasters and I implore others here to leave them stewing in their onw s@#$.
Science moved on 5-10 years ago. The deniers are trying to muddy the waters and slow down mitigation efforts. To do this they focus on the uncertain outcomes of warming and apply this uncertainty to the factors underlying the warming itself. The 90% figure was provided because the media and the public demand ‘handles’. What the writers of AR4 meant was ‘very highly significant’. That is enough evidence right there.
Tim’s web site is a brilliant forum for discussion, but all-too-often some of its threads are hijacked by time-wasting anti-environmental idiots who would not believe the evidence for AGW if it was put right in front of them. We have all wasted too much effort here to debate people who are not interested in scientific discussion but in futile efforts to downplay the human contribution to the current warming, which is agreed upon by the vast majority of the climate science community.
Jonas N immediately confirms both the “wasting time” and the “scientific illiterate trolls” part of my previous comment. It is all just empy posturing, a mindless game of throwing garbage around in the air.
Jonas, yes, the AR4 claim is very well established. The “educated guess” that lies behind this claim is as educated a guess as the theory of evolution. But I guess you’ll attack that theory, too, if that were to have implications that rock your ideology a bit too much.
As AR4 establishes quite well, we KNOW in which direction the most important forcings have been since 1950: down for volcanic, down for solar, up for GHGs.
We KNOW that most of the GHG increase is due to anthropogenic contributions (allow me to add carbon black, too).
We KNOW that the temperature has gone up. We can discuss by how much, but not that it has gone up, that is established beyond reasonable doubt.
We KNOW that there are some other forcings that may contribute in either direction, but there is no evidence they contribute much on the long term (short term, yes, long term no).
Anyone looking at the basic facts would have to conclude that it is virtually certain that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the primary cause of the complete temperature increase since the 1950s. Compare that to the statement in AR4. It’s watered down!
It is telling you claim there are arguments, and then come with “Just by noting how they go about their ‘attribution methods’ “. That’s plain old handwaving, also known as an “uneducated guess”.
Dear Andy #442
You are correct, Jonas is throwing “garbage around the air”, your garbage, and that hurts – mucho.
Finally Jeff admits that 90-95 its a political number and noting else, which was declared from the beginning by Jonas.
I don’t believe climat science is just a clean white board, but so far we have seen nothing yet of a “tipping point”, escalating sea levels, rapid increase of heat in the oceans etc. I also believe that a mix of activism and science not only is fatal for science as such, but also dangerous to mankind and mother earth. Some of you guys are down right (left?) scary.
Dear Olaus Petri,
If you think it is garbage, why don’t you demonstrate to us all that you have thoroughly understood what’s at the link I gave before. And don’t just give us some “they run a couple of simulations” mumble. Show that you understand the methods they are using and demonstrate why they are inadequate. Also show that you understand the results they come to, and in particular the implications of Fig 9.9.
> The typical problem with people like yourself and Jonas N is that you believe to have the same ability in making an “educated” guess, but in reality, don’t.
Yup, Jonas, Git and Olaf/Jonas are lacking one of the primary ingredients to make an educated guess: education.
*Finally Jeff admits that 90-95 its a political number and noting else*
I never said it was political. I said that the public and media demand ‘handles’, so we provided one based on the best estimates. And Marco is correct that it was ‘watered down’. This is because so many people contributed to the various drafts – on both sides of the so-called debate. A large proportion of the climate science community think its a lot worse than 90% – more closer to 100%.
But, as expected, Olaus digresses. The main point was that the human fingerprint is very highly significant. Those clinging vainly to the 90% figure are doing so in order to try and create doubt as to the human fingerprint. The science is ‘in’ as far as that is concerned. Too bad that the right wing anti-regulatory denialists missed the boat.
As for ‘tipping points’, they have already been demonstrated in other fields – for instance lost ecosystem services and processes, such as pollination, seed dispersal, water purification, maintenance of soil fertility and forest re-generation, due to a suite of anthropogenic stresses. But since Olaus apparently isn’t a scientist and clearly is not up on the empirical literature, they do not exist as far as he is concerned. And tipping points are exactly that – systems can be pushed and stretched to a certain point and still function effectively enough to sustain life in a manner that we take for granted. But suddenly systems collapse and critical services are lost. Humans are lucky that considerable redundancy is present in most systems, and thus the human assault has only resulted in a few regional effects thus far, and not a systemic collapse. But nature is not forgiving and as long as we maintain the current path there will be serious consequences down the road. The trouble is, that our species is so uttely contemptuous of the natural world that we have fooled ourselves into believing that we, and we alone, have the ability to survive and prosper irrespective of the damage we inflict on nature and the lost services that result from that.
And, since climate control is a largely deterministic process that is characterized by temporal lags in cause-and-effect relationships, Olaus is just another troll expecting instantaneous effects of human actions. We know that the extinction debt occurs, and that the loss of mammals at the terminal end of the food chain is still rippling through ecosystems in North America (Tilman and May, 1994). Some of these effects took decades and even centuries to be realized. The effects of climate warming will also be realized way down the road, long after the forests are cut and the fossil fuels are burned.
Its your garbage if you think that 90-95 is a scientific number and not a political and opinionated one.
Why shouldn’t I “mumble” about simulations and their prognostic atrophied muscles? The are biafran and hence they need a lot more protein than you guys can deliver at the moment. I do not mind though, that climate scientist are using model simulations. If find it great. But still, view them for what they are: incomplete attempts which results are not suited to call out the cloaked doomsayers for.
So Olaus Petri has no clue of the thing he is calling “garbage”. Quel suprise! As I said before: waste of time, scientific illiterate trolls.
*Its your garbage if you think that 90-95 is a scientific number and not a political and opinionated one*
And Olaus it is your garbage to say that you and Jonas are attacking the 90% figure (or, indeed the very highly significant conclusion reached by the IPCC) for anything other than even much more brazenly political purposes. To sow doubt. To give the impression that there is huge uncertainty over the human contribution to warming when there isn’t. And, ultimately, to reflect your own idealogical and political views which, as I said above, are anti-government, anti-regulation, pure libertarianism. The kind of nonsense than Ayn Rand preached.
Funny thing is that the scientific community has moved on, leaving you right wing dead-enders way, way behind.
Jonas/Olaus are playing a smoke and mirrors game with figures here, or at least using a stick which on closer inspection proves to be made of smoke which serves to beat and impress credulous dolts at places like WTFUWT or Montford’s stalker HQ.
To use an analogy, since the first Model T rolled off Henry Ford’s production line, engines and their systems have been designed, redesigned, augmented and improved a thousandfold to the limits of human genius using scientific and engineering best practice in use today. And yet even after all that, it cannot be guaranteed with 100% certainty that when the key is turned, an engine will fire. There is only a very high probability that it will.
It’s the word ‘uncertainty’ being puffed up and played to the rubes as a colloquial rather than scientific term. That’s what the so-called lukewarmers always have done and what Jonas et all have been wasting their time to eventually tell us.
More fool us.
> Its your garbage if you think that 90-95 is a scientific number
90-95 is a mathematical range.
Maths is core to science, if you think that maths isn’t used in science, then you’re sadly mistaken.
But at least you’re improving, you’re now actually saying what the range is.
Now, Greater than 95% is the actual figure from the scientists.
The politicians wanted some more wiggle room so wanted it downrated to the next lower category.
And that “Greater than 95%” is a scientific result of the fact that nothing known to affect the climate can explain the climate of the past 150 years without the inclusion of anthropogenic causes and that there is no way to get the climate explained without that anthropogenic change being dominated over the last 50 years.
Now, a SCIENTIFIC number you want to argue for would be what?
Olaus Petri: “The are biafran…”
I note (without much surprise) that Olaus Petri finds children starving to death during civil war suitable material for witticisms.
I can’t speak for the others here, but the problem I see is that the very same instant we actually start looking at the science, if we read what is actually done, and how it is done there ..
.. the moment we go beyond just airing our convictions and beliefs, repeating words we’ve heard/seen, the very same moment you and many many others throw in the towel and start your name calling instaed.
As Olaus pointed out, I have been hinting (OK, little stronger than just suggesting) that this 90% certainty claim is not based on real science from the start. And many here went of the deep end because of that. But now it seems we all pretty much can agree on that (except for some few in real denial).
And the various ‘attribution studies’ have been trying to confirm that the models actually can cover observations in hindcasting, but that all the relevant physical mechanisms for the climate already were contained in them, and to correct signs and magnitudes. (Meaning, all is based on that the underlying assumption that the models got it right to start with)
Marco – you need to make up your mind! Are we talking about science, or are we talking about a reasoned guess, somebody opining on the basis of his/their perceived experties. We both seem to agree on the latter, so there is no discrepancy. You might put higher faith in that guess than I do, but that is not even discussed or challenged.
But I can tell you (and the rest) that making attributions, to such high levels of confidence, in a system with so much fluctuation (internal variability it’s called here), and exhibiting chaotic and non linear behavior, and with so many mechanisms involved is extremely difficult. Usually one needs to have a huge number of experiments to determine, quantify (and rule out) the statistics of such phenomena, especially if they all act and interfere simultaneously. Here, we have one experiment, run over a limited time.
Quantifying the tails of a pdf where you can’t even isolate the factor you want to study attribute, is really really hard. Nothing you can extablish from just ‘looking’ at the facts.
And you are right, me saying ‘just looking at how they try to attribute .. ‘ is armwaiving, before i specify further. But I can do that, and judt did (some more). It is, as I told Andy S above, when I do that, things go downwards ..
Can I ask you if you want to discuss the issues further, because there are of course many more. (I don’t remember you as beeing among the many name callers)
Judging from Fig 9.9, one could add a helluva lot of more uncertainty and still have at least 90%.
“this 90% certainty claim is not based on real science from the start
That’s your mistake right there. You choose to discount multiple simulations run on multiple models built on empirical data that show high correlation as “not based on real science”. It’s already been pointed out that the certainty claim is actually higher than 90% but was downgraded for the purposes of global political agreement, which is the opposite of your belief.
Andy, if this is how you interpret fig 9.9, you indeed show that you do not understand what the different error bars and confidence levels represent. (But on the other hand, it explains why you so persistently have pointed at a figure instead of addressing the topic)
But that’s agian and again the impression I get here. Lots of agtitated conviction, but much fewer being able and even fewer actually doing the homework.
As I’ve said many times. Usually, the people referring one to some reference haven’t even read it (only maybe opened it in their browser, and found some phrases), and that’s not good enough. Further, most of them couldn’t interpret what is actually done in the papers, and just spout ot that whatever they think there is, also must be science and the truth.
This happens essentially every time, you check to actual science. It is grossly overstated, every caveat, premiss, precondition, restriction, limitiation of applicability, often is completely missing … but are usually quite well presented in the paper (if one reads them).
That’s why I’ve gotten tired of following references from people who can’t conduct a civil discussion.
I mean, just look at Jeff Harvey. He sounds like he is close to a stroke from high blood pressure in almost every comment. And still he never adresses the issues, only demands that everybody shared his faith, and for the same reason …
You forgot to morph back to your Olaus sock that time.
How seriously do you expect to be taken using socks?
Here’s the proper analogy to the Jonas et al. crowd and I will leave it at that.
A dump truck dumps a large pile of sand on an ashphalt surface. Over the course of the coming months, on weekly basis several workman shovel some of it into wheel barrows and take it to naother site, while a smaller amount is blown away in the wind, or else is eroded by rainfall. Over a year or two, the pile is entirely removed.
Researchers are left to estimate which agent took away most of the sand: the guys with shovels who took some every week, or natural agents such as wind and rain. Eventually, studying the evidence, as well as with the use of model estimations of the three factors, they conclude that workers took away the vast majority of the sand. When pressed they say “at least 90%, but probably more like >95%”.
The sceptics scream foul. They want to know (1) exactly how many grains of sand there were in the pile to begin with, (2) exactly how many were taken by each agent, and (3) how many there are left. They demand this information even though the evidence that most of it was removed by the workers is abundantly clear. They claim that the 90-95% figure is purely political, yet without it they argue that the total amount taken away by the workers is unknown and might just as well be nil.
This is what Jonas and his chums are doing here. Well done, guys. No wonder most of those posting on this thread are exasperated. Its like trying to knock down a brick wall of illogic.
*I mean, just look at Jeff Harvey. He sounds like he is close to a stroke from high blood pressure in almost every comment*
Really? Actually Jonas, I am quite calm. I am going to a fitness center twice a week and feel great. Never better. And my blood pressure and heart are fine; I had them checked last year.
You see, your problem is that you think you are an expert. That you are on top of the subject. And that, through attrition, you are winning an argument that your side lost years ago. Must be hard eh? Screaming ino the wind, and nobody in science listening to you. I am sure that every climate scientist who contributed to the final draft of AR4-2007 has not read a thing you have ever written. They have never heard of you, and even if they have, they ignore you completely. This is because you are an amateur in every sense of the word. In truth, Jonas, you should be flattered that so many of us here have paid any attention to your pure and utter gibberish. Its just a shame that nobody involved in the actual research will ever hear it. Why? Because they know your arguments are a complete joke, driven by your hatred of science.
I rest my case. Case closed.
Jeff, are you now comparing probabilities and confidence levels for stated magnitudes in the tails of non established but estimated pdf ..
.. with fractions of a predefined weight which is easily measured, as is the average removed weight in one weelbarrow, and the numbers of those?
You go on to say:
>They want to know (1) exactly how many grains of sand there were in the pile to begin with, (2) exactly how many were taken by each agent, and (3) how many there are left. They demand this information even though the evidence that most of it was removed by the workers is abundantly clear
No, Jeff, none of this is demanded. And the analogy is very poor. But your attempt is still indicative of your understanding of the issue.
More empty trollish posturing from Jonas N. Quel surprise! Waste of time.
Jeff, I am glad you are physically fine. That’s why i specified:
> He **sounds like** he is close to a stroke from high blood pressure in almost every comment. And still he never adresses the issues, only demands that everybody shared his faith, and for the same reason
and it was a metaphorical comparison, I dont think it is the blood pressure that causes anger, emotions runing amok, un uncontrolable urges to spout all that you do ..
.. and I don’t think it works in the opposite way either. That those emotions cause strokes.
Relax, will you please (as you say you are). And if possible also in your language and content here …
[Jonas N said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5277719):
>I’ll make an exception for you. If you say that 90% certainty, together with the ‘most/at least half of the warming the last 50 years’ is to be found in any among that list, I’ll check it out.
>But is there? Because I seriously doubt that.
>[My emboldened emphasis]
You didn’t admit to not having previously read any of my references, but you now expressly admit that you haven’t read any of the ones posted by LB.
So, tell us this – how can you possibly claim that the IPCC and the professional body of climatologists are lying, and have not performed the analyses of uncertainty, if you haven’t read the bloody references?!
You accuse me of not reading the ones that I have in my files, but you have explicitly revealed that you have not done any reading yourself.
You are full of shit.
>That was a funny reference.
I was going to pull the wings from this blowfly of a post, but I see that others have beat me to it.
This troll dungeon, as odious as it is, has actually been useful for me. Specifically I’d like to thank Luminous Beauty for the Ebisuzaki paper. That’s one I haven’t previously found, and it’s handy to have.
Olaus Sockpetri [says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5283463):
>I’m not sure you are aware of this, but we humans are using fossil fuels, which very likely can explain most of the increased level of CO2.
By “most”, I’m sure that you mean “greater than 90% certainty”…
>In fact, it has become warmer the last 10 k/y or so, with ups and downs on the way.
You’re wrong. [The Holocene trend is not one of warming](http://i52.tinypic.com/vpkh03.jpg).
But then, you’ve never been one to let a little thing like truth stand in the way of a story.
And [the fool in the corner asks](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5284509):
>Can I just ask, are we all agreed now that the IPCC ‘likelihood’ statements are subjective ‘opinion’?
He may ask the question, but the answer is a very definite “no“. If he doesn’t understand why, then there is no hope for him.
Just as there is no hope for any of the trolls here. I will join the chorus of sensible folk including Duckster and Robert Murphy, and also recall my own previous advice, and leave these ideologues and shills to wink at and fellate themselves as they so desire.
Still, it’s been interesting. Push Jonas hard enough and he eventually demostrated that he had nothing to offer. At least that job was done.
It is very obvious that you, and many more here start name calling and labelling when you run out of substance.
Your ‘substance’ here has been one fig 9.9 (which you cannot interpret properly) and that 90% < 100% (which it is) Have you noticed how many of you (on your side) have managed to argue with out name calling, and empty ad homs etc?
Game, set and match. Debate closed. Science has moved on. Next step is to better understand the effects of AGW – with an emphasis on anthropogenic – on natural and managed ecosystems. This is where the discussion must now go.
Repeat 100 times before you go to bed…
HUMANS ARE REPSONSIBLE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE…
Then you’ll finally accept what most scientists already know.
>Have you noticed how many of you (on your side) have managed to argue with out name calling, and empty ad homs etc?
Diddums, if you demonstrate yourself to be an idiot and a troll, you have to expect to be called for it at some point.
Lose the glass jaw.
Jeff H – man of the incessant misrepresentations (contd.)
Maybe you remember how this discussion came about. I noted that the IPCC claim of what can be attributed to manmade GHGs is not very alarming. That what they say is ‘at least half of what is seen last 50 years, at 90% likelyhood’
Which is not a whole lot. In the order of ~0.2 °C, ie nothing to get all worked up about in the light of what fluctuations we have had both short term and long term.
And this was what then started the brouhaha. Because immedeately folks started to take those numbers very literately, and interpreting them i alarmist and layman fashion: ‘Oh, but it could be **much more** and the likelyhood could be **even larger**
Which is even more hysteric armwaiving than the actual claim (which at least may be in the realm of the possible, wrt to the warming at least, maybe not the true confidence)
But pointing out minor details, like that really made the whol flock (almost) go off the deep end ..
And they are still there howling ..
> And that, through attrition, you are winning an argument that your side lost years ago.
To be specific, over 50 years ago.
Yes, I know you would like to ‘close’ the debate. Declare it closed, proclaim ‘game set and match’. Rubberstamp it as complete victory and settled science. Ban people who point out even the simplest disturbuing facts. That is what a bureaucrat or an activist would like to accomplish.
And your statement:
>HUMANS ARE REPSONSIBLE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE…
is completely false, even if you restrict yourself to only this interglacial. See eg figure 3 here.
I think what you meant to say is that the hypothesis syas humans might be resonsible for (possibly > half) the warming since the 1950:s.
But then you are talkning about the weather, there is barely enough data to observe one *climate* properly during 40 years, even less to observe it changing.
Temperatures are not climate, Jeff, I tought you know that.
> man of the incessant misrepresentations (contd.)
Yup, that’s you all right!
> I noted that the IPCC claim of what can be attributed to manmade GHGs is not very alarming.
This is an opinion.
Indeed an opinion that Niel Craig vehemently disagrees with, but there you go, I don’t expect him or anyone complaining of the “alarmists” or “CAGW crowd” to disagree with you.
> That what they say is ‘at least half of what is seen last 50 years, at 90% likelyhood’
OK, if that’s your paraphrasing. Still not seeing where the “IT’S NOT SCIENCE!” comes in.
> Which is not a whole lot. In the order of ~0.2 °C, ie nothing to get all worked up about
Another opinion. And an uninformed one too.
> in the light of what fluctuations we have had both short term and long term.
Except that after 100 years of fluctuations, you’re still around the same temperature. After 100 years of trend, you’re 100 times further away from the same temperature as you were 99 years before.
It seems that your “nothing to get worried about” is purely because YOU won’t be harmed by it.
If you care so little for the future, you’re going to get lambasted by Olaf who cares passionately about the poor little kiddies.
Bah, who am I kidding? Even if he wasn’t you, he’s a denier like you and they NEVER disagree with each other.
> Because immedeately folks started to take those numbers very literately
Indeed you did, you kept screaming about how it wasn’t scientific, and ranted and raved about 90% as if that was a very literal number and so extremely important that unless it was arrived at under your definition of scientifically, the whole edifice of AGW falls down.
> ‘Oh, but it could be much more and the likelyhood could be even larger
Well, yes, a trend upwards WILL be a larger difference in temperature after more time has passed. This is the very definition of “an upward trend”.
> Which is even more hysteric armwaiving than the actual claim
What’s hysteric is your splashing about and pretending that you’re not drowning, even after you’ve had to claim that you said “swimming” not “drowning”.
> But pointing out minor details
What? like your complete revision of your insane ravings after nearly 500 posts?
> And your statement:
> > HUMANS ARE REPSONSIBLE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE…
> is completely false
Nope, it’s completely true.
> See eg figure 3 here.
You mean the paper with the title:
> Past Temperatures Directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet
? Yah, sorry, greenland is big, the biggest island on the planet, but it’s not the size of the globe.
[How about a more complete dataset](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif), where we use thermometers to measure temperature, as opposed to proxies?
> But then you are talkning about the weather,
As I said early on, I dont mind the name calling, but I do think it reveals how secure you are in your position (I wouldn’t call it ‘arguments’, because they are almost non existent and if OT very superficial, most often only appeals to perceived authority)
Jeff – typo correction:
You need 30 years to observ ‘a climate’, you can hardly say much about that chaninging over 50 years …
> but I do think it reveals how secure you are in your position
Why do you do it, then?
> You need 30 years to observ ‘a climate’, you can hardly say much about that chaninging over 50 years
Yes, you can say that the climate has changed.
What you can also do is take a 30 year period from 1850 and compare to the last 30 years and see a climate change.
You can do this for a rolling 30-year period from 1850 (technically, 1865) until today (technically, 1998) and then look at the temperature change over that period and see that the warming is accelerating.
Which means that you’re agreeing that “alarmism” is incorrect when you ascribe it to the IPCC claims for future climate.
And so to conclude and leave Jonas mulling away on his own legendary status in his own mind, the troll(s) only mentioned Al Gore six times. Always a giveaway.
Now that was some reading! And its quite fascinating to see that so few people make so many people extremely upset. Makes you wonder. All that name calling! And all that ad hominen.
Jonas and Olaus! you sre doing a great job!
Ah, another denialist loving the trolling!
You note that this denialist isn’t saying that they’re *right*, just that it’s great that they’re upsetting so many people (which would be how many? Three? Two? One?).
No, all that’s wanted from the denialists is delay.
Couldnt resist name calling could you?
Lets say that I agree more to what they say than what their opponents do.
Notice how all of the sock puppets have the same usage styles, focus on certain subjects, and problems with spelling?
Ah, couldn’t resist playing the martyr.
Say, do you tell your momma off for calling you your name? That’s name-calling too.
Still, it’s so fascinating to see how calling someone a denier when they deny facts by one person makes so many people extremely upset! Makes you wonder.
I guess I’m doing a great job!
You really make me laugh out loudly.
More name calling
Martyr, sock puppets.
Problems with spelling. Well pardon me, English is not my first language.
Well I made my little contribution and I am out of here. This is like a sect.
Yup, accccording to you, how upset someone gets proves the point of the one saying the upsetting thing.
Since you got so upset over being called denier, then it proves there’s something to the accusation, doesn’t it.
And, yes, we can tell your first language is not English. So why did you write your drivel blog in English? So you could pretend that any errors were “poor english”? Or maybe to pull the PC card: “you can’t accuse me of incoherent arguments! I’m foreign!!!”.
And, yes, your site DOES show that you’re a denier.
since the CAGW-prophets now are less in scientific fashion
since the CAGW-prophets now are less in scientific fashion
Which scientific journal would this be?
Chris, since the only ones spouting CAGW are the denialists, the only ones persuing their faith with blind devotion and fervour are the denialists and that their papers are more and more being found out to be arrant rubbish and repudiated in the science world, Olaus/Jonas PetriN is talking about how he and his bishops are falling out of favour.
He’s lamenting the end of his church.
Wow – Which position is it that you want to take:
1. That the climate has changed since 1850 and during this intergalcial? Or
2. That humans are responsible for the vast majority of claimate change?
At the risk of getting the thread away away from abuse and back on track.
I think we’ve agreed that IPCC assessments are subjective ‘opinion’.
Does anyone actually disagree with this? I think we did agree, but a lot of name calling has gone on since.
“So why did you write your drivel blog in English? So you could pretend that any errors were “poor english”?
Oh, I think the blogroll on the right panel of his homepage emphatically negates that possible excuse, Wow.
“I think we’ve agreed that IPCC assessments are subjective ‘opinion'”.
…whereas rather more interestingly, I think that’s a pretty good illustration of your delusion and denial.
Congratulations to Jonas N to your own thread here!
Jonas, although writing using a pseudonym, is no troll but a well known, lively and outspoken member of the public opinion about global warming in Sweden.
As this picture may illustrate our Nordic country is also affected by the dramatic narrative of the Arctic sea ice meltdown:
Jonas, your perturbation of the climate debate here has revealed some interesting but not unexpected response in the form of tweaked superficial arguments and ad hominem.
> Wow – Which position is it that you want to take:
They aren’t mutually exclusive either.
If you want to know what the science says, have a look [here](http://www.ipcc.ch).
The climate has changed since 1850. The climate changed in the past. Humans have caused it this time.
Ah, great. Another denialist under the illusion that they speak for Sweden this time.
(see also the ad hom in the name “climate scam” for the blogroll for extra denialist cashpoints!)
And I guess that Pehr will also agree it’s great how calling people denialists when they deny the science and evidence behind AGW perturbs these people so greatly.
Listen to yourselves 486,481.
You’ve just suggested that someone, who appears to be Swedish(?), has chosen to blog in english and is doing so purely to pass off errors as a problem with language!
I think you both need to step away from the computer for a bit and come back when you’re rational again and regained your composure.
See, only me calling them denialists and ALL these self-proclaimed “skeptics” are REALLY upset.
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it.
Seems like there’s something to the charge, doesn’t it.
> and is doing so purely to pass off errors as a problem with language!
Yes. And it seems like this is what he’s doing:
> Well pardon me, English is not my first language.
You see, we look at evidence, unlike deniers like you.
> I think we’ve agreed that IPCC assessments are subjective ‘opinion’.
I don’t know if this one has been answered, by the way, but you’re wrong there.
YOU have agreed with Jonas/Olaus/OtherSocks that it’s subjective opinion.
Apparently because you either haven’t read the science underpinning, don’t understand the science, or just do not wish to admit error.
I would suggest you go away from the internet and get a good bit of work done at your library.
I’ll come back later when you’ve calmed down a bit. You have some anger issues wow – I think you’ve lost it.
Ah, again we have projection.
Tell me, how do you know I’m not calm? Your psychic abilities ought to be used to good effect on “The Jeremy Kyle Show”.
But I guess you’re all frizzed up with being called a denier.
Heh? Four Swedish denialist trolls, the last three of which are all effusive with their praise for the first?! Oh, and all fixated with their off-the-mark perception of ad hominem…
Excuse me if I up my sock puppet count to four.
You’re [repeating](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5287774) [yourself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5284509).
The answer to your fatuous question is still no, but I am morbidly curious to see you provide a detailed explanation of the process of ‘logic’ (I use the term reservedly) by which you formulated your proposition.
As someone for whom English is his second language, please allow me to say that if you can’t properly use a language, DON’T.
I’m so, so tired of that lame excuse. Stilted idiom, fine — I’m guilty of that myself… but at least put some effort in and run your whining through a spell-checker.
And to all of Jonas’s Scandinavian buddies he felt the need to call in: here’s a quick refresher course.
You’re a moron, therefore you are wrong: ad hominem.
You’re wrong, here’s why, therefore you are a moron: NOT ad hominem.
Could you spread that around, please? It gets really old seeing clown after clown come in abusing a term they do not understand.
I think we’ve agreed that IPCC assessments are subjective ‘opinion’. Does anyone actually disagree with this? I think we did agree, but a lot of name calling has gone on since.
Sure, if you disregard this entire thread and the IPCC AR4 itself, you can call it “opinion”. Anyone who has actually read the report would call it “conservative assessment”.
But do go on GSW, you seem to be on a roll.
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Let’s skip straight to January.