If you haven't been watching the Roger Pielke Jr train come off the rails and the carriages smashing into each other and exploding, I suggest you look at this post from James Annan:
Roger Pielke has been saying some truly bizarre and nonsensical things recently. The pick of the bunch IMO is this post. The underlying question is: Are the models consistent with the observations over the last 8 years?
Hey, hypothesis testing. First year stats stuff. So Annan carefully explains how it's done.
Marvel at Pielke Jr's response:
All he does is draw some graphs and wave his hands around. Does he calculate the probability of getting such a result if the null is true? Hell no.
Even if the null hypothesis was true, there would be about a 21% probability of observing data this "extreme". There's nothing remotely unusual about it.
And that's using Pielke Jr's cherry picked starting point ...
Update: More carriages exploding here.
Actually it's not Pielke, but rather an engineer (big surprise) named Lucia who's the original source for this heaping pile of poor analysis.
She claims to be teaching herself statistics ... while simultaneously convinced she's on to something that professionals like Gavin Schmidt, James Annan, and the professional statistician who blogs as Tamino can't debunk. Despite their patiently having done so over the past month or so since she first came up with her "I've proven the models wrong with a 95% certainty" baloney.
Watching the show is sort of like watching professional evolutionary biologists try to set a creationist engineer straight on science. Pathetic, in other words.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the latest thread at Pielke's is watching JohnV try to patiently pin Roger down on whether or not he agrees with Lucia's claim of having falsified the IPCC projections to the 95% confidence level.
It's interesting because JohnV began his climate blog commenting career, if you will, at climate audit, as at least a moderately enthusiastic kool-aid drinker.
But the scales quickly fell from his eyes as he began to see just how dishonest that crowd is ...
It's also interesting to watch Pielke weasel his way through the subject. At this point, rather than simply state that he doesn't agree with Lucia's assessment, he's claiming that statistical consistency is too weak a test to be meaningful anyway ...
He's steadily moving the goalposts, in other words, to avoid admitting that his past praise of Lucia's work was perhaps a bit premature.
It's also a bit hilarious to see him talk about how the analysis various depending on whether one starts at 2000 or 2001, or whether or not one includes April 2008 data (lucia's first analysis ended in March, as April data wasn't yet available).
He seems to miss that he's only demonstrating how wildly variable weather is over the short term, and how silly it is to compare with projections computed over many model runs (and several models) in order to SMOOTH the equivalent of weather variability churned out in individual model runs.
Without wishing to buy into the Annan/Pielke gerfuffle I note a commentator on the Pielke blog criticises the Koutsoyiannis study on the basis its regional samples are not representitive because they do not reflect boundary regions exempt from ENSO and MAO. Which begs the question; are any regions exempt from these phenomena?
Koutsoyiannis's study is over an 18 year model retrospectivity (not the 8 year period which informed the Annan/Pielke business) and uses 100 year temp and rainfall records as a basis for empirical comparison. His study also looks at a sample from every climatic zone. How much more representitive can you be?
Surely, given the current bit of discordant 'weather variability', the test of a model would be whether it predicts any period, of any length, in the future having a flat or declining temp; if it is all up you'd have to suspect that model; which begs the question; when does weather become climate free of weather variability
for the purpose of establishing a trend?
By looking at enough samples from each zone to attain statistical significance, perhaps?
Over a period of â18 years, but 30 years is better.
Roger Pielke Jr. says: "If scientists started saying things like:
"In a change that does not disprove global warming computer models, the jet streams that govern weather patterns around the world are shifting their course . . ."
. . . instead of . . .
"In a change that is consistent with global warming computer models, the jet streams that govern weather patterns around the world are shifting their course"
then we'd have an improvement."
And we're supposed to take this seriously? Let's imagine why scientists use the wording they do in the first place:
"in a change that does not disprove the gradualistic or punctuated equilibrium hypotheses of rate of evolutionary change, use of molecular clocks demostrates that 8% of mDNA shifted in the development of the genus Colobarus over the last 4 million years..."
"In a change that does not disprove the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis, reestablishment of transient Orca reproductive rates took less time than reestablishment of resident Orca reproductive rates..."
"In a change that does not disprove the Steady State or Inflationary cosmological hypotheses, and also does not disprove the Big Bang Theory or any theory of Stellar Evolution, supernova G1.9+0.3 has clouds of gas expanding at a rate of..."
I thought Pielke was supposed to be a thoughtful skeptic, but this suggested method of writing is just an idiotic idea.
But GCMs DO show variability similar to the ENSO effect, etc, so in the real world there's no reason to suspect them on these grounds, at least. That's why the IPCC projections are model ensembles - this has the effect of smoothing out the generated variability, resulting in a steadily increasing LONG-TERM trend.
Now are you beginning to see the silliness? Comparing the short-term temp record with its large weather variability component against a model ensemble which smooths out weather variability doesn't tell us much. You need enough years of data for the signal to swamp the noise.
Well, since he can't bring himself to out-and-out state that Lucia's "proof" that IPCC projections are "wrong", after having touted her work earlier, he's degenerated to trying to undermine the usefulness of showing that models are consistent with data altogether, as I mentioned above.
His change in wording is meant to highlight his belief. Remember, he's got this strange notion that if you play by the rules, models can't in practice be falsified.
This picture by John V tells quite a lot of falsifying longer time trends (what IPCC is talking about) on the basis of 7 year trends.
You could label the points where Lucia should claim global warming is inconsistent with the observations, ie every time the seven year trend goes to zero or below.
...except he missed the step of actually making the argument.
Truly a train wreck.
I can't help but wonder if Ti Roger is doing some kind of performance art piece. What laypeople should learn from all this is that there is noise in the system, it's misleading when you look at it as though it has significance, and you need to use enough data to smooth out the noise to see the underlying trend. What's he doing? He's making noise, it's misleading if you look at it as though it has significance, and you need to read enough to be able to "smooth out" his noise to see the underlying trend.
I can't help but wonder if Ti Roger is doing some kind of performance art piece.
I floated this sort of idea a couple of years ago, but ran out of time to make it happen.
Certainly I would have had a tap-dancing character (like both Pielkes), and an obstinate engineer character (Harold Pierce or Willis E at CA [regarding his bash-like-an-engineer methods that completely overturn the science of agronomic yield forecasting]), the clueless shill character (Thapa at DotEarth), etc.
Anyway, truth is stranger than fiction and the real characters are much more entertaining than anything I could come up with or continue to develop.
I think Pielke's point is pretty simple. People like Annan and Schmitt issue these dire warnings about future warming, and then they back them up with huge error bands and wide probability percentages. The end result is that almost anything could happen and these idiot's will claim that their models have not been falsified.
Yesterday I ask Annan to put up or shut up. Annan claims that the temp will rise at .2C per decade. So in 30 years we should have .6C of temp rise. If that number is the correct number, then there should be a 50% chance that there will be more rise and a 50% chance that there will be less. It seems to me that this is an excellent basis for a bet.
I offered Annan a bet of 10,000 dollars that if the temp increases by .6C or more over the 30 years from 2000 to 2030 I would pay him. If the temp rise is less than .6C, then he has to pay me. We will use HadCrut3 data with a linear trend line. If the trend line shows .6C or more Annan wins, if not, I win. That is a simple, straight forward bet. No probabilities, no error bands, no bullshit. Does he believe in the AGW numbers he proposes or does he not. I am waiting to hear from Annan.
So, I am now going to make the exact same offer for the exact same bet to Tim Lambert. Shit or get off the pot Tim.
This is an outright lie.
And I suspect Tilo knows it.
Dano, these people devote their lives to writing rubbish. You can't beat them in their own game.
"I honestly don't know what the proper test is." Yeah, it can't get any simpler than that.
> If the temp rise is less than .6C, then he has to pay me. We will use HadCrut3 data with a linear trend line. If the trend line shows .6C or more Annan wins, if not, I win.
You are offering Annan a 1:1 ratio on an event that according to his model is less than 50% likely. That is hardly appetizing.
Since according to you, the trend is zero, why don't you offer him a 1:1 ratio on that? Or at least split the difference and offer him a 1:1 on a .3C rise over three decades?
Since according to you, the trend is zero, why don't you offer him a 1:1 ratio on that? Or at least split the difference and offer him a 1:1 on a .3C rise over three decades?
Because he doesn't even have the sense of fairness in betting of your average Vegas casino?
"You are offering Annan a 1:1 ratio on an event that according to his model is less than 50% likely. That is hardly appetizing."
Why is it less than 50% likely?
What is wrong with a 1:1 bet. I'm on the other side, and my odds are no better than his.
I'm not the professional climate scientist - he is. If he is not bullshiting us, he should be willing to take the bet.
I also haven't said that the warming trend is zero. I have said that it is zero for the past 10 years. I am willing to make the bet with Lambert and Annan because I believe that their number is too high. Annan is always throwing out bets to people based upon their predictions. It's time that he take one based upon his own.
"over the 30 year time frame there will be strong warming"
And he defends the models when he says this:
"Also, they don't just predict "upward march" but they also quantify it (~0.2C/decade for the foreseeable future)."
Oh, the odds are 50-50 because Reber is "on the other side". Why care about this "doing the math" thing?
look ma wii dun n33d no edumacashun...
> Why is it less than 50% likely?
Let me explain:
It would have been 50% if you were talking about 30 year into the future. You, however, have loaded the dice by including 8 years in the past - 8 years that have been (according to Annan's model) on the low side - not extremely low, but lower than average. This means that the remaining 22 years have to be higher than average, which means that this event now has less than 50% chance.
Anyway, even with 50%, Annan's expectation would have been zero, according to his model, so your offer would not have been much good even if you started counting at the present rather than 8 years into the past.
Now, you are saying that some warming may be occurring, although .2C per decade is too high. If you are willing to quantify that, you and Annan may find a bet that both of you could embrace. Do you believe in, say, .1C per decade?
"Oh, the odds are 50-50 because Reber is "on the other side". Why care about this "doing the math" thing?"
Really a bunch of cretins on this site. I didn't say that the odds are 50-50 because I'm on the other side. I said on a 50-50 bet where I'm on the other side, the odds are no more appealing for me than for him.
The 50-50 statement goes like this - if you are not too dumb to follow:
Annan supports a model that claims a .2C per decade rise in temperature. That comes to .6C for 30 years. If the model that Annan supports is correct, then there should be a 50% chance that the temp rise is greater than .6C after 30 years and a 50% chance that it is less.
It's really a very simple bet. The amount of squirming and squealing that I'm hearing tell me that the AGW crowd is all mouth, all politics, and no actual believe in their alarmist crap.
Where is Annan squirming and squealing regarding your bet, again? I missed that reference. Surely you can link to it?
Tilo Reber, did you read my explanation (#20)?
"It would have been 50% if you were talking about 30 year into the future. You, however, have loaded the dice by including 8 years in the past - 8 years that have been (according to Annan's model) on the low side - not extremely low, but lower than average. This means that the remaining 22 years have to be higher than average, which means that this event now has less than 50% chance."
I don't particularly like that argument. If the trend in temperature is due to the trend in CO2, then the CO2 has been rising for the past 8 years, and any temp rise that is less than that has been masked by "natural events". So if the theory is true, then we should see an upswing in temperature that exceeds .2C per decade when those "natural events" turn in the other direction. Since we are betting on the effects of CO2, any flat portion in the temp trend should be noise, not a permanent built in offset. So we cannot treat the first 8 years as an advantage that will bias the 30 year outcome.
"Anyway, even with 50%, Annan's expectation would have been zero, according to his model, "
Don't understand what you are talking about here. Can you clarify?
"If you are willing to quantify that, you and Annan may find a bet that both of you could embrace."
Nope. Like I said, Annan is constantly throwing out bets based upon other people's predictions. If he expects people to take those bets, he should be willing to take one based upon his own.
I'm a computer scientist, he is a climate scientist. That should be edge enough for him.
of course we can. It's no different than on betting on coin flips after the first 8 have been heads, for instance. The most probable outcome of the next 22 flips is 11 heads, 11 tails, or a total of 19 heads and 11 tails for 30 flips.
So a bet that the 30 flips end up 15-15 after the first 8 turn heads is not a 50-50 bet.
Would you offer Annan a 30 year bet using January 2008 as the starting point? Just curious ...
> If the trend in temperature is due to the trend in CO2, then the CO2 has been rising for the past 8 years, and any temp rise that is less than that has been masked by "natural events". So if the theory is true, then we should see an upswing in temperature that exceeds .2C per decade when those "natural events" turn in the other direction.
Annan's model doesn't work that way. According to the model, the temperature does not have an unobserved deterministic trend that the temperature hovers around. Rather, the temperature is performing a random walk, with an upward drift. So, on average the temperature becomes hotter by .2C every decade, but if by chance one decade was below average, this lowers the expected temperature from that point on. There is no rebounding expected.
Not being a climate scientist myself, I cannot tell you authoritatively why this is the way the model is set up. My understanding is that it is not a matter of accumulating CO2 over those 8 years, but of accumulating energy over those years. If due to some random effects not as much energy has been accumulated in the atmosphere during that time (say, it was absorbed in the ocean or reflected to space), then that energy is gone for ever and will not suddenly re-appear.
> "If you are willing to quantify that, you and Annan may find a bet that both of you could embrace."
If you are unable to commit to less than, say, .15C/decade then there may not be any observable difference between your predictions and those of Annan, at least not over a period of 30 years. In that case there would be no bet where you both think you will win.
If Tilo Reber insists on his bet, then I'd like to propose my own bet. Here it is:
This month is May 2008, right? So we can make a bet based on the 30-year trend of monthly global temperature anomalies (following HadCRUT3v) starting from June 1978 and ending in May 2008. If the trend is below .2ÂºC per decade, then Tilo wins and gets to post a victory message, and I'll admit to wearing baggy pants; otherwise, I get to post the victory message, and Tilo admits to wearing baggy pants.
Want to take the bet, Tilo?
"Where is Annan squirming and squealing regarding your bet, again? I missed that reference. Surely you can link to it?"
I don't see that Tilo was refering to Annan with this comment, more likely to responses from "the AGW crowd" on this site....
Just a guess.
dhogaza "of course we can. It's no different than on betting on coin flips after the first 8 have been heads, for instance. The most probable outcome of the next 22 flips is 11 heads, 11 tails, or a total of 19 heads and 11 tails for 30 flips.
Dumb comparison dhogaza. The coins have no memory. The temperature trend does. It's called the CO2 effect. The whole thing that we are betting on here is that effect. The rise in CO2 continued unabated for those 8 years. And the trend that we are betting on is supposedly caused by the CO2. This means that this year we have 8 years worth of CO2 rise that has not manifested itself in temperature. But if the theory is true, it must do so because it is there and because it's greenhouse effect is, in fact, the trend. The extra CO2 should be like a coiled spring, pushing temperature up that much faster when the natural variations that are holding it down are removed or reversed.
"Annan's model doesn't work that way. According to the model, the temperature does not have an unobserved deterministic trend that the temperature hovers around."
If the trend is due to CO2, then the temperature rise should be relative to the increase in CO2.
"There is no rebounding expected."
Why not? If the extra CO2 is being added, then why wouldn't you get it's effect?
"If due to some random effects not as much energy has been accumulated in the atmosphere during that time (say, it was absorbed in the ocean or reflected to space), then that energy is gone for ever and will not suddenly re-appear."
If it is reflected into space, then the CO2 isn't doing the job it is advertised to do. If it is absorbed by the oceans, then it will reappear as those warmer oceans release energy into the atmosphere.
In any case, as CO2 is added, it cuts the amount of heat that the earth radiates into space. The earth responds by getting hotter. As it gets hotter it radiates more heat so that more get's through the added CO2. Eventually a balance is reached according to the total greenhouse effect. The temperature rises to seek that balance point. So the CO2 that we add now, and whose effect that we do not see now, must eventually manifest itself.
"Want to take the bet, Tilo?"
June 1978 to May 2008. .2C per decade.
Don't know what HadCrut3v is.
Make it HadCrut3 and I'll take the bet.
Yes, it is not a perfect analogy, it wasn't meant to be, and it doesn't need to be.
Though asking you to bet 100% on past history makes the stupidity clearer.
Tilo, your bet offer to Annan would result in him losing 50% of the time even if he's completely right. IOW, you're an idiot and a troll.
Just to note that IMHO RP Jr.'s recent behavior can be explained as promoting his long-standing position of favoring adaptation over mitigation. He's constantly searching for new angles on this. I wouldn't be surprised to see him taking a role in the forthcoming second round of Lomborg's "Copenhagen Consensus."
Not inconsistent with the above, being seen to influence climate policy is what gets him funded.
"Tilo, your bet offer to Annan would result in him losing 50% of the time even if he's completely right."
It would also result in me loosing 50% of the time if he is completely right. The objective here is not to make money or to loose money, he should have an equal chance of doing both. The objective is for him to show that he believes the numbers that he is proposing without relying on error bands and probabilities to save his ass.
The problem is that you only lose 50% of the time if he is completely right. If it's supposed to be a good bet, you need to offer him more if he wins, to compensate for the fact that he could lose. It's basic economics - rational people require a risk premium.
"It's basic economics - rational people require a risk premium."
The risk premium is showing that he believes in his work instead of hiding behind error bands and probabilities in order to deny that the models have been falsified. I mean what is the point of such a claim if it has no real world significance. Yeah, the stinking models haven't been falsified. But they use up so much of their huge error band that they don't tell you anything either. If you think you know what the temperature trend is, then show that you are willing to put money on it. If you think that the trend can be anything from flat to .4C per decade, then shut up and don't ask the world to spend trillions on nothing.
The coin toss wasn't a perfect analogy, but it was pretty good. Analogies are difficult to get exactly right. "Greenhouse" is an example of that. Getting away from analogies, we can focus on better questions. For example, What about positive feedbacks? Water vapour responds to increased temperatures.... That's a fairly explicit reason to expect less warmth when including cold years for the first quarter of the test period. What is the precedent? It would be interesting to look at Hansen's 1988? model output with and without the prediction of a large volcano (keeping other factors equal).
"For example, What about positive feedbacks?"
Natural variation swings to both sides of the trend line. When you swing to the plus side of the trend line you get more feedback than the trend itself. If you really have a trend and if you want it to show up as steeply as possible, then your ideal situation is to have the natural variability or noise be negative at the beginning and positive at the end. That will give you a steeper trend.
> "There is no rebounding expected."
> Why not?
It is odd that you are now trying to dictate to Annan what is the model that he should be using. I am not sure whether my explanation for the modeling assumptions is correct, but, correct or not, this is how the model is set up. If you expect Annan to take your bet, you have to set it up so that according to his model, he stands to make a profit. Insisting that he take a bet because he breaks even on that bet according to some model of your own choosing is just silly.
"The coin toss wasn't a perfect analogy, but it was pretty good."
No it is a terrible analogy. Any coin toss is completely independent of the previous one. Temperature increase, if the theory is correct, depends exactly on the amount of CO2 that was previously added. Let's try this. Let's say that I'm putting a teaspoon of gun powder into a can every second. And let's say that I ignite it every second. My explosion would always be of a given size - kind of like a constant trend. Now, let's say that I skip the ignition for one second. Then the next time that I ignite, I will have an explosion that is twice as large. Same goes for CO2. As long as you are putting it into the system you are going to get the effect (if the theory is correct). If you don't get the trend for a decade, then you should get twice the trend in a later decade (very roughtly) - otherwise it is not a trend.
"It is odd that you are now trying to dictate to Annan what is the model that he should be using. "
No, I'm just questioning your assertions about how his model works, since your explanation makes no sense with regard to CO2 forcing. Is there a layman's writeup somewhere that explains his model. I am suggesting the bet based simply on the model that he seemed to be defending when he made those two statements.
"over the 30 year time frame there will be strong warming"
"Also, they don't just predict "upward march" but they also quantify it (~0.2C/decade for the foreseeable future)."
Hm, no answer from bi about his suggested bet. Either he is thinking it over or he has something better to do for a while.
In any case, I have something better to do for a while, so I will drop of.
bi - here is the 30 year HadCrut3 minus May. I'll update the chart when May comes in.
Tilo shows no more logic here than he ever has, anywhere.
May I suggest the troll be quieted?
It's hilarious, though, that he proves the point that basing a bet that includes a historical component is stupid.
Gun. Dick. Take aim. Fire.
> I am suggesting the bet based simply on the model that he seemed to be defending when he made those two statements.
Both of the statements you refer to are consistent with the random walk with drift model as I presented it. Your interpretation of those statements as indicating some kind of unobserved deterministic trend is your own. One simple way to clear these things up is to ask Annan.
I am not aware of any writeup, but if you do find one, I am interested.
Tilo, you are so full of shit.
If you don't believe global warming is happening and the models are junk then make a bet that actually reflects your beliefs. Be a man or a close approximation. You will get takers and you will get taken.
That is, until you claim one of you conspiracies. Please.
No, actually the coin analogy was just fine. You seem to think that climate scientists believe C02 is the lone driver of climate change. You would be mistaken. There are any number of factors that drive global mean temperatures, to say nothing of the chaos of their confluence and feedbacks, so you are indeed introducing bias with your biased endpoint and no differently than in dhogaza's coin toss example. On that basis alone, the bet is a non-starter.
This gets to another point about your rant, namely error bounds. These exist because models do not account for everything. That there are no frictionless surfaces. There is this random idiosyncratic innovation component of real world outcomes that is not confined to the particulars of the climate system. Indeed natural phenomenon are almost exclusively defined in such ways. So your irritation with these bands only shows just how ignorant you are of modeling or forecasting.
Surely you should be satisfied that forecasters will be proved outrageously wrong if the temperature has not moved in 30 years, which will be way outside of the appropriate error bounds. Why shouldn't you be satisfied with that bet without trying to impose an economically idiotic version to prove something to a bunch of credulous ninnies by proving absolutely sweet FA?
RE : Simple method for analysis of temperature records.
I'm just going to make your day! Big Time! Here are the results of a multi-decadal analysis for the Quatsino temperature record from 1895-2007 for Sept 21. I'm attempting to obtained an estimate of the effect of weather on Tmax and Tmin at this site. By choosing the equinox the amount of sunlight is constant and the photoperiod is 12L:12D. Also any effects of ENSO are minimal at this time of the year. The ENSO is nothing but a trouble maker and imparts great variations on temperature at other times of the year.
Interval Tmax Tmin.
1895-99 14.8 09.0.
1900-99 14.5 07.2.
1910-09 17.4 08.0.
1920-29 16.0 07.1.
1930-09 15.3 08.7.
1940-49 17.9 08.6.
1950-59 18.8 09.2.
1960-69 16.7 09.7.
1970-79 17.6 08.4.
1980-89 16.8 09.2.
1990-01 19.8 09.2.
2001-05 15.5 10.2.
2006-06 14.0 10.0.
2007-07 14.0 09.0.
Mean Tmax 17.0 +/- 3.0, Range 14-20.
Mean Tmin 08.5 +/- 1.5, Range 07-10.
Tmean 13.0 +/- 2.0.
Note: The error is the classical average deviation, AD.
It is just 100% pure luck that Tmax and its AD are exactly twice that of Tmin and its AD.
Presumably, the most important factors which cause variations of temperature at this site are (1) clouds with rain, (2) clouds with no rain, and (3) the wind.
Since this site is at the ocean-land interface, Tmax is a measure of the sea breeze temperature and Tmin is a measure of the land-breeze temperature. Thus it is not appropiate to use the Tmean metric since Tmax and Tmin are measures of two different types of air.
Note the decline in Tmax at 2001 and thereafter: the total drop is a huge 5.8 K as compared to the really hot 1990-99 interval. This is the more important metic since it related to the sea breeze coming out of the vast Pacific Ocean. I can't wait for Sept 2008. Actually the big drop in mean temperature occured in 2001.
Suppose this type of analysis was used at other sites using only the equinoxes and the soltices and the mid points between them or any minimal set of equally spaced intervals. We would probably get just as much useful info than trying to "extract a climate change signal from the background noise.", which is a phrase I read in one of the SPM reports.
All climate, like politics, is local. It make little sense to me to try to compute a useless metric like the global mean temperature.
I welcome hostile peer review!
Double the bet Tilo!
Since this site is at the ocean-land interface, Tmax is a measure of the sea breeze temperature and Tmin is a measure of the land-breeze temperature.
?Que? I don't know about where you come from, but where I come from sea breezes tend to be cooler than land breezes.
If "All climate is local" why does ENSO appear (obviously falsely so, if the quoted phrase is true) to affect conditions across half the planet?
"Double the bet Tilo!"
Thanks Harold, but the warmers don't have the courage to take the one already there.
"I am not aware of any writeup, but if you do find one, I am interested."
Oh! Then what do you base your assertions about how Annan's model works upon? Does he have a post on his blog? Anything?
"Tilo, you are so full of shit."
Ah, Boris, so nice to see that you are here contibuting to the planet's hot air - as usual. With Boris around, we will never have to fear for an ice age.
> Oh! Then what do you base your assertions about how Annan's model works upon? Does he have a post on his blog? Anything?
Yes - I am going on the explanation in Annan's posts linked above.
> [T]he warmers don't have the courage to take the one already there.
The only offer you make is a 1:1 ratio on a bet that according to Annan's model he has less than 50% of cashing on - it is small wonder you find no takers.
In the meantime, you have already accepted the possibility of a warming trend (which makes you one of the "warmers" yourself) and although you are vehement about it being lower than .2C/decade your not willing to say even that it is lower .15C/decade. It seems it is you who is lacking in courage.
" if the temp increases by .6C or more over the 30 years from 2000 to 2030 "
you mean from "point" A in time to point B and all points between? and take a trend? not any kind of thirty year average centered on 2000 and 2030? (yes that requires waiting until 2045) do you not grasp the vast difference between the two paradigms?
in any event, a point in time is not defined by a year; you need to specify 12:00 midnight GMT July 1 2000 or something like that; then you will obviously need datapoints of comparable granularity between. going to be some big dataset. perhaps consideration of how that sounds will demonstrate the silliness of that idea.
or is what you are proposing taking the one year averages for 2000, 2001...2030? as i suspect you are thinking, at some implicit level? i believe it has been pointed out that a 30 year average is the norm, in order to provide a decent degree of damping of short term fluctuations. that doesn't work for you, eh?
"No, actually the coin analogy was just fine. You seem to think that climate scientists believe C02 is the lone driver of climate change. "
No, the coin toss isn't even remotely close to fine microbrain. I never said that CO2 is the lone driver of climate. I didn't say that scientists believed that. And I don't believe that. But the point that is being pushed by the warming cult is that CO2 is the reason for the upward trend in the climate. And the other point that is being pushed by the warming cult is that x amount of increase in CO2 causes x amount of increase in temperature. Depending on who you talk to, I believe that the number is about 3C per CO2 doubling among the warmers these days. This means that any climate change that is caused by natural effects will have that CO2 forcing effect overlaid upon it. Now, solar cycles are only about 10.7 years long. For PDOs the "D" stands for decade. The effects of volcanoes is even shorter. Meanwhile, CO2 keeps rising at a constant or slightly accelerating rate. And while the other natural effects may keep the built in CO2 forcing hidden for a time, they should not be able to keep it hidden for 30 years. So when the natural effects are removed, or reversed, then all of the effects of the built up CO2, for the entire time period, should become manifest. This is really a simple concept. It's beyond me how this forum could be so stupid as to not understand that. Do you understand the simple principle that a trend involves both a change in temperature and a change in time. If you don't catch up to the trend every time that you have a cooling period, then you have the wrong trend. If you say that the warming trend is .2C per decade, then that makes eveything outside that trend noise or natural variation. It means that if you are below the trend for a while, then you must go above the trend for a while. If you don't, then you have the wrong trend. Is there anyone on this forum with a brain?
I guess that according to Tilo, we're all cowards for not betting on what amounts to a coin toss.
I mean, if it's a 50% chance either way, even if the models are totally correct, then it's just pure chance and it doesn't prove anything more than a coin toss does.
So okay, Tilo, you want to bet $10,000 on a coin toss? The advantage is that it can be done now, nobody has to wait, and it's just as meaningful.
I call heads.
Z "that doesn't work for you, eh?"
What in the hell are you babbling about? I'm saying take the monthly global temperature data from HadCrut3 beginning at January of 2000 and ending in December of 2029. Put the damn thing in an excel spread sheet and have excel run a linear regression trend line through it. Then look at the amount of temperature rise for that line over that time period.
"I call heads."
Right. When you have confidence that you have a 50% chance of winning you will make the bet. If Annan was confident in his .2C per decade, he would make the bet. My reason for making a 50% bet is that I don't believe that Annan will stand behind his .2C prediction. And I don't believe that any of the other climate science AGW luminaries would stand behind that figure either. They are ranting, pontificating cowards that are going to cost the world trillions in carbon taxes, trillions in blocked development, and a significant chunck of human freedom for a problem that isn't a problem. But while they dump their crap on humanity, they are unwilling to put any of their own money behind the predictions that they distress us with.
Why? I would never bet $10,000 on a single fair coin toss? Why would I? It's not penny change for me, 50% odds are far too low.
And of course you've rigged it so the odds are much worse than 50% by including historical data.
Please keep posting, Tilo. You are adding to the online literature showing that denialists can't tell their dick from their assholes (because, after all, you are a dick AND an asshole), and therefore do nothing but weaken the cause of more sophisticated denialists.
"Yes - I am going on the explanation in Annan's posts linked above."
Are you talking about his Pielke posts? I don't remember a description of a random walk model that doesn't catch up when it drops below the expected trend. Could you point a little more precisely.
"your not willing to say even that it is lower .15C/decade. It seems it is you who is lacking in courage."
If I were a climate scientist I would give you a number that I would be willing to stand behind and I would let you pick the side of that number that you wanted to take on the bet. I wouldn't hide behind huge error bands and huge uncertainties while at the same time expecting legislators to make policy on the basis of my guesses. I wouldn't, like that moron Hansen, run around testifing to any legislator who will listen about death trains and 25 meters of sea level rise.
What I will do is state that global warming will not cause mankind more harm by doing nothing about it than it would by paying to try to make it go away. Now if you can quantify that statement in a way that we can both agree to, then we can make a bet on it.
So if you expect to make a dollar at the expense of a dollar you will make the bet.
Reber must think Annan is as stupid as he is.
"It's hilarious, though, that he proves the point that basing a bet that includes a historical component is stupid."
Ah, I knew that someone would jump to that conclusion. I should have known that it would be you dhogaza.
If you have a bet where the unmanifested portion of a temperature rise will have a chance to express itself, then having some historical component is not a problem. Now, most of the elements of natural variation will have time to reverse themselves in a thirty year period. So the CO2 that has piled up will have a chance to raise that temperature trend to where it should be. The only element that will not have time to go through a switch, that I can think of, is the Milankovitch cycle. But it's effect should be fairly small, and it should not change significantly over a 30 year period. In any case, I don't know what the direction of the effect of the Milankovitch cycle is at this point, so I cannot tell if it will help me or hurt me.
In any case, having a month for any unmanifested CO2 induced temperature increase to manifest itself is completely different from it having 22 years to express itself because of the length of the cycles involved.
Now, let's go on to another problem. If the past 30 years, beginning in 1978 have not given us .2C per decade of temp increase, and if all of you are unwilling to assert that the period from 2000 to 2030 will give it to us, then where the hell is the .2C per decade increase. By 2030 it would be missing in action for 52 years. What are your excuses?
I'll up my stakes: if by 18 May 2008 00:00 UTC Pielke Jr. provides actual calculations of statistical significance to support his claims, then I'll admit to having baggy pants, and Tilo Reber is entitled to post a victory message. If Pielke Jr. doesn't do so, then the opposite holds true.
"Reber must think Annan is as stupid as he is."
No, but I do think that you are as stupid as Annan is. The point that I have made several times before is that it is not about making money, but about showing a willingness to stand behind your prediction as a professional climate scientist. The whole point of this entire thread is about the falsifiability of a temperature model. My suggestion is that instead of hiding behind huge error bands and confidence levels we do something simple. Pick a number that you or your model predicts to be the temperature rise between 2000 and 2030 and then stand behind it by betting on it. Being unwilling to do that is a good indicator that the climate scientist is simply bullshitting us and then covering his ass by using the wide error bands and the probability excuse.
Tilo, how about taking my additional bet (#63)?
bi "Find out."
Ah, I get it! You are the forum clown. Okay, I'll keep that in mind for the future. But does the forum need both you and Boris? ;)
Hey you AGW true believers!
Tilo has laid it on the line. A simple even money bet.
The IPCC's claim of 90% certainty means you should be giving him 18 to 1 odds, not evens.
Put up or shut up!
You gonna be in it Tim? Don't pass your luck.
How about this: if you don't try to find out what HadCRUT3v is by 17 May 06:00 UTC and accept the bet, then the bet is off, and I'll unilaterally post a victory message.
Same goes for the bet on Pielke not doing actual statistical significance calculations. 17 May 06:00 UTC to accept the bet.
Like asking someone if they will give you a dollar for your dollar? Try it Tilo, go up to strangers in the street and say "could you give me a dollar for my dollar?" Tell us how many people do it without thinking. Or is that too simple for you?
"How about this:"
ROFL. That's funny. Got any more?
"Or is that too simple for you?"
No, Chris, you are too simple for me.
That's 90% certainty of warming greater than zero or something like like, not 90% certainty of warming greater than 0.2 deg C/decade, drongo.
OK let us know how you go. BTW, is your house insurance up-to-date?
"Why are values slightly different when I download an updated file a year later?
"All the files on this page (except Absolute) will be updated on a monthly basis to include the latest month within about four weeks of its completion. Updating includes not just data for the last month but the addition of any late reports for up to approximately the last two years. In addition to this the method of variance adjustment (used for CRUTEM3v and HadCRUT3v) works on the anomalous temperatures relative to the underlying trend on an approximate 30-year timescale. Estimating this trend requires estimation of grid-box temperatures for years before the start of each record and after the end. With the addition of subsequent years, the underlying trend will alter slightly, changing the variance-adjusted values. Effects will be greatest on the last year of the record, but an influence can be evident for the last three to four years. Full details of the variance adjustment procedure are given in Jones et al. (2001). Approximately yearly, the optimally averaged values will also be updated to take account of such additional past information."
"What in the hell are you babbling about? "
it's called a 30 year moving average. hard to believe it's a new concept. i know what you're talking about, you don't need to explain it. you do need to explain why you believe the two are equivalent, though.
C O'N, you want 90% certainty that it's warming more than 0.2c/decade before you'll take evens?
Man that's courage!
You already got 90% certainty that it's going your way.
A bet has also take into account the likelihood of the other party paying up, when the results come in. Given Tilo's behaviour here and his denial of basic scientific facts, does anybody believe he will not find a cheap excuse when he has lost the bet? I would offer anybody I trust more than even odds about it.
So James has the prospect of losing his bet with a likelihood of 50%, or being able to call some unknown bully for not paying. Hardly a bet I would take.
No, 90% certainty is necessary before I'll give him 18 to 1 odds.
CO'N, according to the IPCC you've got a lot better than evens yet you won't give him evens. Put up or shut up.
"A bet has also take into account the likelihood of the other party paying up"
"Hardly a bet I would take."
I'm willing to give my money to a third party, like an attorney, today. There we can also retain a written copy of the agreement. The lawyer can put both my money and James' money into a money market account, and whoever wins get's it all in 2030.
Sorry, Tilo Reber, but you've already proven yourself to be an idiotic coward by wimping out on both my bet offers on default, for no reason whatsoever.
Did you have so little confidence that Pielke Jr. might do some actual calculations to demonstrate statistical significance/insignificance? I think that goes to show just how much stock you put in Pielke's mathematical rigour (i.e. practically none).
Actually, if you'd taken either of the bets, you might have had a fighting chance to baggy-pants me, but you just had to give up the opportunity. If you can't lose, then you can't win.
that the trend will be above zero. The bet is about a trend of 0.2 deg C/decade not zero dec C/decade. Why don't you shut up until you understand the difference between 0.2 and zero.
Tilo; I'm a lawyer; I'll take anyone's money; I'll hold in escrow in the form of water-front property.
"Did you have so little confidence that Pielke Jr. might do some actual calculations to demonstrate statistical significance/insignificance? "
The question is why would I care at all about what Pielke calculates, and even more, why would I care if he calculates it by the arbitrary times that you picked. My objective isn't to defend Pielke, it's to fault Annan. If you weren't joking, you should have been because your suggestions for bets are comical. Regarding HadCrut data, everyone uses HadCrut3 when referencing climate change. The fact that you want 3v is an indication that you want to play a game. My suggestion - go play with yourself.
"Tilo; I'm a lawyer; I'll take anyone's money; I'll hold in escrow in the form of water-front property."
Lol. I have no problems with investments in waterfront property. As long as we get to approve the investment and you don't plan to live in it for free. Annan doesn't seem to want to respond to my offer on his site, so there may not be a bet. I would think that he would at least make a counter offer. It has to be a touchy subject for him, because the conversation will ultimately come down to, "well, what number will you stand behind?" And I don't think that he want's to answer that question for fear of either having to pick a ridicoulously low number or else having me accept the number and challenge him to a bet in any case. The bottom line still comes down to the fact that he doesn't want to be held accountable for his own conclusions about his own specialty.
Rather like saying that if you believe that overall, house owners lose money on house insurance, then you won't have house insurance because you think it's a waste of money. i.e. you're bullshitting us if you say home insurance has a net cost but still have it anyway. Annan wouldn't be bothered making this bet for the same reason I don't want to take on the risk of losing my house.
CO'N, you say you want 90% certainty before you'll give him 18 to 1.
Tilo only wants EVENS. this is your lucky day!
Even a drongo can see that.
It's clear to me, people who are knocking Tilo's bet offer, never had a bet in their lives, or if they did have no idea about odds.
It's a simple even money bet, happens hundreds of times every day, in horse racing.
What is this crap about "I give a dollar if you give me a dollar"?
And the fact is he is risking his money, there is no way they both can win!!!
What "huge error bands and huge uncertainties" is Annan hiding behind? The graph that he points to has an uncertainty s.d. of 0.009 deg C/year for the period 1995-2014. A thirty year period would have an uncertainty s.d of 0.007 deg C or perhaps less. Why are you bullshitting us that he is hiding behind "huge error bands and huge uncertainties"?
Maybe, unlike the vast majority of gamblers, they are not stupid.
CO'N, the IPCC are claiming a 90% chance of AT LEAST 0.2c warming per decade.
And you don't think it's worth an EVEN BET? PYMWYMI!
You obviously have no conviction in AGW and should retire from this blog.
for something that is only 50% certain.
Unfortunately, drongos can't follow an argument and can only come up with a never-ending supply of ways to misunderstand an argument.
Really, and where, pray tell, do they do that?
Well if his error band is so small, then all the more reason for him to take up the offer of a bet confidently!
Why doesn't he?
As to gamblers, I wouldn't know, I'm not a gambler, but I make my living off the punt!
And one does not need to be a gambler to know about odds, I thought climate "scientist" would have heard about odds?
God knows they talking about it a lot!
Tilo Reber, you wimped out of a bet, and you're now giving a bunch of after-the-fact "explanations" of why you wimped out.
How about my explanation: you wimped out because it scares the crap out of you to bet on anything outside the scope of your inactivist talking points?
Actually, if you'd checked out the HadCRUT3v data, you'd have found that your odds of winning the bet are quite high. Too bad for you that you had to reject the bet because of your cowardice.
Because it's the subject of this thread?
The mean is 3.4c for the century.
Your bet is looking safer by the minute.
spangled drongo, can you tell us what the different colours in the bottom right diagram of that page refer to?
tilo, enough. Your "bet" is off topic. You can take to the Open Thread if you want to continue to go on about it.
To get things back on topic: [another carriage comes off the rails](http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/prediction_and_fo…).
Good grief Annan. The error bars are so large it's like playing pin the tail on the donkey with an expanded scale overlay where the Donkey's arze is.... doesn't matter where you pin the tail... It'll be within the boundary.
Youse guys, really!!! ; )
The narrowness of the error band is not the same thing as the median expectation. Of course, if the bet was that the trend was within the 95% confidence interval then you'd definitely have something worth betting evens on.
Shorter J. Hansford:
What kind of error bar will not be huge, and why?
I'd love to see the inactivists answer this question.
It's the same "independent models" garbage as Douglass et al. (2007).
At this rate McKitrick will need to move aside. He only invented his temperature scale. These guys are inventing their own theory of statistics.
I have a bet for this Kofi Annan person. Unless the temperature goes up by at least 30 degrees K in the next six months, he must pay me over a billion dollars. If not, then he is a liar and so-called climate science does not exist. Plus climatologists rape lizards.
I'm indebted to spangled drongo for informing me that 30 years is a century.
Tilo Reber writes:
This is the misconception at the heart of your whole argument here, I think. Temperature INCREASE does not depend exactly on the amount of CO2 that was PREVIOUSLY added, other than warming "in the pipeline." Short-term temperature INCREASE depends exactly on the amount of CO2 that is CURRENTLY being added.
The whole theory behind your bet is based on a mistake.
Harold Pierce writes:
Okay, here's some hostile peer review: Your sentence "All climate... is local" is not only wrong, but patently stupid. It's saying there's no such thing as climate, only weather. I have new for you -- there is such a thing as climate. It involves wide areas and large periods of time. Your cherry-picking one site to prove something about global climate is not just incorrect, it's flat-out, dumbass, brain-damaged STUPID. The more so because you've had it explained to you before and you apparently went blithely on without paying any attention to the explanations.
I wish I could get a denialist poker game together. It would be so profitable. The beauty is, that after taking their money week after week they would still come back saying that their losing streak is "natural variation" and they're just about to recover from the little bad luck age.
"I can't help but wonder if Ti Roger is doing some kind of performance art piece"
Roger's audience is not the scientists that are debating him. Its the rubes and the scientifically semi-literate (like myself) who can't tell the difference between bullshit and research where a few equations are involved. Roger is talking over the heads of the experts to the folks that visit his site looking someone with a degree willing to trash the IPCC, even if incoherently.
"All climate... is local" is not only wrong, but patently stupid. It's saying there's no such thing as climate, only weather."
This was also addressed by Phoca at #49 when he used ENSO as an example......so let's use ENSO.
An ENSO event can be expected to affect different locations differently ie: heavy rains and flooding in Peru, severe droughts in Indonesia and parts of Australia....all depending on the variables local to that area.....altitude,latitude,proximity to large bodies of water or mountains etc...
Also,climate zones are sometimes described by plant hardiness....here on the east coast, alongside Long Island Sound, the Sound acts to cool the coast in the summer and warm it in the winter.....the plant zone changes from the coastline to about 7 miles inland......is this not local climate?
So in a sense....isn't all climate local?
Levenson: "Temperature INCREASE does not depend exactly on the amount of CO2 that was PREVIOUSLY added, other than warming "in the pipeline." "
You are wrong Levenson. First of all, I'm not talking about what was added. I'm talking about the measureable increase that we can see in the atmosphere. And we have seen a consistent measurable increase in the atmosphere for the entire ten years that we have had no warming. The rate of increase was as large or larger than the previous 20 year rate where we saw a significant amount of warming. The greenhouse gas effect is not dependent upon when the greenhouse gas level was raised in the atmosphere; it only cares about how much of it is there. Take for example the number that you cultists like to use for CO2 doubling of 3C per doubling. You are going to get that 3C if you increase the CO2 as a pulse immediately, if you increase it gradually over time period x or if you increase it at the end of time period x. When you do the increase will effect when you get the 3C. And there will be some delay, but regardless, you will get the 3C - all other things being equal.
So, for the ten years that we have had no warming, the CO2 has continued to increase, and it has therefore changed the radiation balance of the earth. This is all warmer theory by the way. That CO2 for the last ten years is in the atmosphere now, reflecting heat back to the earth now, and requiring that the earth get hotter to balance the equation now. If we do not see that increase, it can only be because it is temporarily masked by other natural climate events. But once that masking is removed or reversed, then all of the CO2 effect must be seen. If you don't understand that Levenson, then you don't understand the greenhouse theory that you claim to subscribe to.
But taking things one step further, you theory has a bit of a problem. There has been no warming for 10 years. CO2 has continued up for 10 years. You now have to have some other natural climate events to mask the increase that should have happened for those 10 years. What is that natural climate event. It wasn't PDO. It wasn't a large number of volcanoes. Solar cycle 23 was smaller than 21 and 22, but it was still larger than the majority of the solar cycles.
So, while explaining away 10 years of no temp increase as being due to natural variablility is not a problem, explaining just exactly what that natural variablily was is a big problem, because there doesn't seem to be any.
"The beauty is, that after taking their money week after week they would still come back saying that their losing streak is "natural variation" and they're just about to recover from the little bad luck age."
Well Boris, it seems that your are too dumb to even realize that you are on the loosing streak. You haven't had any temp increase for ten years. Considering that your hand requires .2C increase over that period to win, you have lost. And it is you that is claiming "natural variation".
"I'm indebted to spangled drongo for informing me that 30 years is a century."
How long did you have to practice to be such a dumb ass Chris. When drongo says that the mean is 3.4C per century, he is obviously saying that the mean for a 30 year period would then be .3 X 3.4, or 1.02C. Meaning than Annan is getting a very nice edge if he only has to show .6C to win.
"The beauty is, that after taking their money week after week they would still come back saying that their losing streak is "natural variation" and they're just about to recover from the little bad luck age."
The beauty is, that after increased C02 hasn't increased the warming of the planet for the past 10 years, they still come back saying that their losing streak is "natural variation" and they're just about to recover from the little bad luck age.
I'm too dumb to realize I'm on a loosing streak. Oh, noes. I'm on a loosing streak? Really I hope this loosing streak ends soon, or I might just loose my mind.
Thanks, Betula. You are welcome at my home game anytime. NL holdem, $400 max buy in, but we'll raise it to $1000 for you if you'd like. I'll even cover your share of snacks and beer.
So, Betula, do you deny that our planet's climate is noisy and variable?
If not, why do you think adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere would end that variability?
Which climate scientist has ever said that increasing CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 380 ppm will cause the natural variability of climate to stop? That it will cause ENSO to stop? That there will be no more La NiÃ±as, no more El NiÃ±os?
Do you understand just how stupid your comment is? Or do you need us to spell it out in more specific terms?
When the next El NiÃ±o inevitably shows up, are you going to remember that you don't believe in the noisiness and variability of the global climate system? Or are you going to suddenly switch allegiance and say "oh, look, global warming plays no role, El NiÃ±o is natural" after sitting here denying the importance of the ENSO effect on the cherry-picked 10-year period that just happens to start in the year of one of the strongest El NiÃ±o's in history?
Climate science doesn't resemble your strawman characterization, any more than evolutionary biologist resembles the strawman characterizations "proven false" by creationists. If you're going to overturn climate science, you're going to have to understand the field, first.
More, in spades, to Tilo, who is one of the most stubbornly uneducatable trolls on the internet.
Tilo, for one so confident in challenging climate scientists, you are quite ignorant on this subject. For one thing, you should know very well that 10 years of temperature is far too short a time interval to look at given the signal-to-noise ratio. Your cherry pick fest is not impressive. Even if there was warming or cooling over the last 10 years (in fact, a best fit line does give slight warming) it could all be simply due to chance. What's more, the projection of 0.2 C/decade does not mean that every subset of 10 years necessarily warms by 0.2 C.
While you claim to believe that CO2 is not the only thing that effects climate, and claim to be well aware that no one else believes that, your implications are that it IS the only thing that influences climate.
Next, the greenhouse effect does not work by "reflecting" heat. This is a rather elementary concept.
You are right that the ~3 C of warming will eventually be realized, but it does not need to be realized in nice linear steps. In fact, this is the idea behind the latest Keenlyside et al paper-- if it turns out right, warming will occur in staircases, since it made no implications for climate sensitivity. It will take many decades to reach 560 ppmv (the "first" doubling) and still more time for equilibrium. Now we will need to get warming over the next 15-20 years to maintain confidence in the IPCC projections, but I really don't think you understand any of this.
Tim Lambert, is it possible for you to move all the discussion about this stupid bet into the Open Thread? It's clogging up the Internets Tubes.
"Really I hope this loosing streak ends soon, or I might just loose my mind."
Boris my boy, stop your fretting, there is nothing to loose. ;)
Lambert, I think this thread misses the point. The real question to ask: When was Pielke Jr. ever on track?
There are two reasons why Tilo's bet is wrong.
The first one:
James predicts 0.2 C per decade. Plus minus something. Tilo takes this as the center and would have James win only if it's more than 0.2 and Tilo win if it's 0.19 for example. So only 0.5 for James if James is 100% correct.
This is clearly not demonstrating how much James is believing in the 0.2 C (plus minus some of course). For example, if we assume James believed he is 90% certain and Tilo has 10% correct, then James' odds would be only 45%. Only a fool would bet then.
0.1 C per decade would be a better example (if not for reason #2). Then James would have perhaps 80% chance (haven't checked the distribution that lies to the right of 0.1 C) and Tilo would have whatever he believes.
The second one:
Including some flattish years from the beginning which, when taking into account the natural variability of the global temperature, lower the odds that a 20 year trend including these 8 first years would be the same as the long term trend. It's all about window positioning which affects your results when you're trying to predict a trend in a noisy signal.
Just look at this:
Short term trends are all over the place.
Alas MT doesn't let me move things.
I'm going to make this even simpler for Tilo: Tilo, please do not post to this thread any more. And everybody else: please do not respond to him/her.
"So, Betula, do you deny that our planet's climate is noisy and variable?"
I'm sorry, I thought natural variation worked both ways, I feel like a sellout...
Yes, it does, as any climate scientist will tell you.
Is there any reason why you just raised another strawman? Do you want to force me to believe you're dishonest?
Well, at least he shows a nice graph with a 30-year slope of just 0,166 K / decade.
Good joke! Just look in your mirror at 'realclimate' where you back a bet by a professional climatologist, which is even heavily loaded with a historical component.
What do we learn? Annan's claim is consistent with the IPCC. Roger Pielke Jr's claim is consistent with the weather and with the IPCC, Rahmstorf, Keenlyside, (pirates?), and again with Annan. What is not consistent is the way how climate scientists suddenly debate in public. The level seems to be down during La NiÃ±as:-).
That "deck was stacked" by Keenlyside themselves.
What climatepatrol avoids discussing, again, is how Pielke Jr. totally fails to produce any calculations, and then leaps to the conclusion that the models are inconsistent with observations.
Feel the science, friends, feel the science!
I didn't actually think he was being dense on purpose to make a point. In reality, I think he just starts from the point pf view of models being inherently flawed and those are the rails from which he will never "de".
Apologies Tim, but I have to answer the ninny. Ninny, there are indeed cyclical factors that one would expect to wash over any 30 year period, negating the importance of including realized history. However, the system is still chaotic with multiple feedbacks both positive and negative, (ice sheets, sea ice, biosphere, cloud formation, etc.), and meaning that unforced differentiation can introduce some pre-cooked results into even a long-term forecast. In addition, there are these things called specification and sampling error (the latter applicable to GCMs only deductively in that these must be consistent with empirical outcomes) you may have heard of which will also cause random innovation around your point estimate. So you choice of bet is indeed giving Annan less than even odds by his own forecast. And what a fool he would have to be to turn it down...
The more important bit is that this passive aggressive nonsense is a real bore. You claim that the 'warmers' are a 'cult' and yet won't back up that self-parody with a simple and very favorable bet about climate sensitivity. You're trying to show climate scientists lack the courage of their convictions by making it abundantly clear you have none. You won't even take odds that climate sensitivity is, say, 1 degree per doubling, which would give you plenty of leeway in case there were a grain of truth to their conspiratorial cult to take over the world via the UN. But no, they must demonstrate their confidence by betting on a, (slightly stacked), coin toss while you lack the confidence even to bet that they overstate their case. What a hero.
So why doesn't the troll take the bet? My guess is because you're a poisonous little man with too much time on his hands when he's not using them to punch his angry inch like he caught it trying to break into his house. And this is just another way to get a kick. You poor poor fellow.
Answer on open thread.
MZ, your response is on the open thread.
Chris Colose, your response is on the open thread.
May I suggest ignoring the open thread? :)
dhogaza, your response is on the open thread.
Is there any reason why you just raised another strawman? Do you want to force me to believe you're dishonest?
The only thing dishonest is you claiming I deny natural variations......it's an interesting strategy in an attempt to distort the meaning of what I said.....what's the term used for that?
No temperature increases for 10 years.....you would think alarmists would be happy about that,instead they seem irked....like they are waiting for a long lost friend to return.
That was the point......that no further increase in temperature, or God forbid, a decrease in temperature, could be considered a loss..... blamed on natural variations.
You're not getting the point which is that for you to deny that increased CO2 is a warming force over the last 10 years requires belief that nothing else (natural or otherwise) could have given a cooling force.
So in a desperate attempt to move on from the eye gouging what might one put forward as a reason for the apparent stasis in temperatures. What options are there on the checklist - solar, clouds, random walk, decadal oscillation?
"what might one put forward as a reason for the apparent stasis in temperatures. What options are there on the checklist - solar, clouds, random walk, decadal oscillation? Any thoughts?"
Alarmist actually asks a valid and significant question. Knock me over with a feather!
Oh, let me say that "random walk" is like saying that "things happen for no reason". Not a candidate in my mind. I suppose that you could add Volcanoes to that list if you had an abnormally large number of them or if you had some really big ones.
Alarmist Creep is a strawman sockpuppet, possibly created by Tilo Reber. And I claim my ten shillings.
Further in Pielke Jr.'s trip to nutland:
No, that's not what they do.
err not likely "bi -- Intl. J. Inact." - I normally cross swords with Tilo over at Marohasy. But back to the issue - I wouldn't pick solar, random walk, or decadal or radiative forcing running out of puff - leaves? ... but I am asking and interested.
A mixture of solar cycle 23 and La NiÃ±a? Then again, I'm not an expert.
Latest from James Annan on this train wreck...
Tilo Reber posts:
You've been told what the "natural climate events" that result in your so-called trend here several times, and you rejected the explanation each time. I'll try once again: You are starting from an El Nino year and ending in a La Nina year. The "natural climate events" resulting in your trend are El Nino and La Nina. You picked a part of the curve that started with a jog up and ended with a job down, a technique that would have given you a flunking grade in any introductory data analysis course in the world.
Sorry, I posted one before reading your warning. Apologies. I'll quit.
Well how about cloud feedback or haven't got a clue.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/ interesting on the albedo but pass on the cosmic rays....
A good rule of thumb is this: if it's any good, it'll be mentioned elsewhere.
Some classic Roger Pielke Jr. rhetoric
Roger Pielke Jr.: PS. James, my sense is that when you decide to have a conversation aimed at honestly exploring why we have different views on this topic, and you drop the attitude, snark, and bad will, it will be much more satisfying for both of us and the readers. If you are not interested in such a conversation, then lets just not have it. Fair enough?
Barton, your response is on the open thread.
bi, your response is on the open thread.
Yeah, isn't that how it works? As I wrote to him:
That's how Pielkean science works: Throw all sorts of crap at the wall, repeatedly dodge and weave when called on it, and then find the flimsiest excuse -- based on nitpicked flaws in the "attitude" of the Other Side -- to end any discussion.
We don't need no stinkin' calculations!
It's a shame what happened to the brokers.
They all fell into selling the subprime stuff.
"You're not getting the point which is that for you to deny that increased CO2 is a warming force over the last 10 years requires belief that nothing else (natural or otherwise) could have given a cooling force"
And your not getting the point which is that for you to believe C02 is the main driving force behind the warming, and will wreak havoc in a short period of time if we don't take urgent action..... requires the belief that nothing (other than immediate, drastic regulatory actions) can save us.
Unless of course there is no warming for 10 years, when the cooling effect of natural variations suddenly appears, putting the urgency on hold without warning.... and the term Global Warming fades away and Climate Change begins to take hold.
Did we forget to include the cooling or suppressing effects of natural variation into the sense of urgency formula?
I understand the trend and I understand things don't happen in a linear way (due to natural variations) and I understand it would be wise to reduce and save and explore and create new etc...
What I never understood was the sense of panic....10 and more years ago and today...which is the fuel behind imaginary images of planetary doom that are the driving force behind attempting to rush overeacting policies.
And to drift off topic even further, think of it in terms of terrorism and the war in Iraq. Was the planning rushed? Was there overreaction? Was it well thought out? Was it a reaction to a trend line that created images of doom? Did it solve the problem?
Irrational doom and gloom and the need for expedience....there's a good combination to formulate rational decision making.....
But hey, we haven't had a terrorist attack in almost 8 years.....maybe rushed, overreacting policies based on worst case scenarios are a good thing.
Never mind Chris.....I'm on board.
"Now if you told me that the RC distribution was a prediction for the specific years 2000-2007 (e.g., as they have labeled their graphs)"
As another train barrels into the first pile of smoking wreckage (sigh)
"An ENSO event can be expected to affect different locations differently ie: heavy rains and flooding in Peru, severe droughts in Indonesia and parts of Australia....all depending on the variables local to that area.....altitude,latitude,proximity to large bodies of water or mountains etc... -Betula
When the water to cause that rain and flooding in Peru moves across 4/5ths the breadth of the Pacific to get to Peru, and is carried by air currents that literally circumnavigate the globe, and the heat engine for the whole thing is 93 million miles away, it would be extremely difficult to say climate is caused locally, although if you say climate's effects are felt locally, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Guys, do not feed the troll.
Or trolls, in this case.
"Guys, do not feed the troll.
Or trolls, in this case."
Or at least feed them something worth eating.....we need to have them around so we can call them trolls and denialist twits to make us feel clever.
Science will continue marching on with or without science denialists.
And the earth will continue to warm whether you believe it or not.
Reality's a bitch.
And now, via Annan, we have Pielkean arithmetic...
"it would be extremely difficult to say climate is caused locally"
This began at #48 when Harold Pierce stated "All climate is local". You can read into that what you like, but I believe we are talking semantics.....location affects climate.
This from the Colorado Climate Center......
"The climate of local areas are profoundly affected by differences in elevation, and to a lesser degree, by the orientation of mountain ranges and valleys with respect to general air movements. Wide variations occur within short distances. The difference (35Â°) in annual mean temperature between Pikes Peak and Las Animas, 90 miles to the southeast, is about the same as that between southern Florida and Iceland. The average annual snowfall at Cubres in the southern mountains is nearly 300 inches; less than 30 miles away at Manassa in the San Luis Valley, snowfall is less than 25 inches. While temperature decreases, and precipitation generally increases with altitude, these patterns are modified by the orientation of mountain slopes with respect to the prevailing winds and by the effect of topographical features in creating local air movements."
It comes down to scale, but to try to say that HPJr's "All climate is local" eyebrow-raiser is to any real extent defensible, Betula, stretches credulity. Global climate exists, and it is affected by global-scale factors. There is no hiding from this.
Methinks that it might be you who plays semantics, with your quotation and with your implication that HPJr is somehow correct.
Permit me a metaphor.