What does the “snowpocalypse” tell us about the likelihood of climate change? Nothing. As Roger Pielke Jr. explains:
What happens in the weather this week or next tells us absolutely nothing about the role of humans in influencing the climate system. It is unjustifiable to claim that a cold snap or heavy snow disproves or even casts doubts predictions of long-term climate change. It is equally unjustifiable to say that a cold snap or heavy snow in any way offers empirical support for predictions of long-term climate change. This goes for all weather events.
Further, it is professionally irresponsible for scientists to claim that some observed weather is “consistent with” long-term predictions of climate change. Any and all weather fits this criteria. Similarly, any and all weather is also “consistent with” failing predictions of long-term climate change. The “consistent with” canard is purposely misleading.
Knowledge of climate requires long-term records — on the time scale of a decade and longer. Don’t look to the weather to learn about climate, unless you have a long time to watch. Using the weather to score cheap political points in the climate debate appears to be a tactical area of agreement among those who otherwise disagree about climate change.
Alast says:
Knowledge of climate requires accurate long-term records — on the time scale of a
February 11, 2010, 12:01 pmdecadeseveral centuries or longer.Guest14 says:
It’s particularly silly to point to heavy snow as contradicting climate change, or even warming. Nobody has predicted that the climate would warm to the extent that it would no longer snow at all.
February 11, 2010, 12:04 pmyankee says:
Considering that prominent conservatives are claiming the snowpocalypse is not consistent with global climate change, scientists arguing that it is consistent is entirely appropriate.
February 11, 2010, 12:04 pmBugz says:
True, the weather last week, nor this week, nor next week can be considered as useful indicators regarding global warming, but it is my understanding that average tempertures on the planet have decreased over the last decade. No wonder more and more climate alarmists prefer the term ‘climate change’ over ‘global warming’.
It’s hard to whip up a panic over warming that isn’t happening. It’s much easier to dupe people with the terminology ‘climate change’.
February 11, 2010, 12:08 pmorca says:
What happens in the weather this week or next tells us absolutely nothing about the role of humans in influencing the climate system.
Trust me…I’m the only “scientist” who knows the truth! Honest! Pay no attention at all to the climate change models that predicted this! They were lucky guesses! Reallly!
February 11, 2010, 12:08 pmAlast says:
True, but several times in the last million years, during inter-glacial periods such as we are in now, the North pole was ice-free for long periods of time. It is to be expected.
February 11, 2010, 12:09 pmPhatty says:
I completely agree that specific weather events cannot be used as evidence for or against long-term climate change. My biggest beef is that climate change scientists (or, more generally, AGW proponents) aren’t consistent. If there is a record-setting cold weather event, the AGW advocates quickly denounce it as isolated weather events that don’t disprove long-term global warming. Fair enough. However, anytime there is a record-setting warm weather event, it is used as propaganda by AGW advocates to support their warming theories. If D.C. was experiencing a record-breaking heat wave right now, we all know that certain politicians would be screaming loudly how it proves global warming is occurring and we must act now or it’s only going to get worse.
Also, when AGW advocates make predictions like “If we don’t do something about our carbon emissions immediately, I expect we won’t be seeing anymore snow fall in D.C. next year or the coming years” you can understand how the public will then throw the theory of AGW under the bus when record-breaking snow occurs the next year.
February 11, 2010, 12:11 pmSteve says:
It’s not like the IPCC has been issuing press releases out of the blue claiming that the snowstorm vindicates the predictions of climate change. I have only seen this point raised as a rebuttal to Fox News-style arguments that every time a flake of snow falls from the sky, Al Gore is somehow proven wrong. If we could all stipulate that weather and climate are different, and the anti-climate change people would stop making these absurd arguments, there would be no need to go there.
Pielke is wrong that “consistent with” is misleading; in fact, it is precisely accurate. “Consistent with” does not express or imply causation; it merely states that two things, like climate change and heavy snowstorms, are perfectly happy to coexist. Again, these statements are offered purely as rebuttals to the fallacious argument that snowstorms disprove climate change. The point is that snowstorms not only do not disprove climate change, they are not even evidence against climate change, because the two things are entirely consistent.
February 11, 2010, 12:13 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
I agree, but just to play Devil’s Advocate here, there are some models of AGW where not only is heavy snowfall entirely consistent with AGW computer modeling, but in fact expected. The reasoning and findings both being that with AGW you have more heat meaning more evaporation from some areas to be deposited as precipitation elsewhere. More vapor in the air means that when it does get cold enough(and no, winter will not go away with AGW) you will end up with more snow than normal.
Having said that, this is the notion behind why AGW could trigger an ice age, due to the “increased albedo” (reflectivity) effect where more ice and snow coverage would then lower the earth’s temps enough (notice that Antarctica creates its own microclimate and is colder than the Arctic, due to this albedo effect of reflectivity of sunlight) enough through reflection.
On the other hand, I have about as much respect for the Day After Tomorrow scenarios as the late night scare radio that features such, along with werewolf stories and the CIA beaming radio waves into your teeth at night. It’s about on par with that. Come to think of it, so is AGW.
February 11, 2010, 12:13 pmMauricio says:
What we need is to understand that science is merely a compilation of our understanding and its usefulness derives from its adaptability (due to improved understanding).
Science should be apolitical otherwise it is not science anymore… at least not in the sense of empirical analysis serving as the foundation of proof.
Let us not build altars to ideology by claiming science is in our side (whatever side that is)… science should not have a side, it should be pragmatic.
February 11, 2010, 12:15 pmGuest14 says:
Cite?
February 11, 2010, 12:17 pmK Dackson says:
If weather is not climate, then why do the warmists rely on data that is weather-based to describe the climate?
I am specifically thinking about tree rings (moisture and temperature, not to mention any number of other uncontrolled variables).
February 11, 2010, 12:18 pmPatHMV says:
Entirely true, but somehow most of the climate change proponents and their cheerleaders in the media only remember that when there’s unseasonably cold weather. When there’s a hurricane or a drought or whatever, then we see LOTS of stories about how we should expect more of such horribleness because of global warming, and the disclaimers, if they exist at all, are buried deep below the fold.
February 11, 2010, 12:19 pmPhatty says:
Good catch. Should have clarified it to reflect “proponents of the validity of the theory.”
February 11, 2010, 12:20 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
However, anytime there is a record-setting warm weather event, it is used as propaganda by AGW advocates to support their warming theories. If D.C. was experiencing a record-breaking heat wave right now, we all know that certain politicians would be screaming loudly how it proves global warming is occurring and we must act now or it’s only going to get worse.
Yeah–I too notice that there is always that handy escape hatch about how damned hot it is in certain places.
I think it was Upton Sinclair who said South Carolina was “Hell’s Backyard” over a centuray ago. Today, it is still about as hot, and people say “ohhh, it’s hot out today. Must be global warming!!”
No kidding it’s hot. It’s summer in SC, knucklehead, I respond.
February 11, 2010, 12:20 pmTCO says:
I read a lot of the pro and anti warmer blogosphere. The people there are pretty silly. Y’all are better.
February 11, 2010, 12:31 pmAl says:
Here you go…
http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles/2008_sep_Los_angeles_times.html
February 11, 2010, 12:32 pmJKB says:
True, a snow storm doesn’t support or contradict global warming. But it does put a big dent in the PR campaign of the alarmists. And that impacts their funding and that is unforgivable. It’s going to be a tough spring for the alarmist as they cry of the impending disaster with mountains of snow slowly, very slowly melting in the background.
But come on, it is pretty funny that a town that produces the most CO2 for the least productive purposes, i.e., the chattering classes, is buried in ice and longing for a little warming global or otherwise. A little slap in the face to the hubris of those thinking they and they alone can save the Earth. A tip, the Earth doesn’t care. She’ll kill a sainted eco-warrior as fast as a hazardous waste polluter. Probably faster since the eco-warrior rarely shows respect for the dangers nature presents.
February 11, 2010, 12:36 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Like Michael Crichton once said (I’m paraphrasing here) the merging of science and politics is a VERY dangerous thing.
Also, consensus is not science, and science is not shown from consensus.
February 11, 2010, 12:36 pmAllan Walstad says:
These big snowstorms are not showing up in the middle of monotonically rising temperatures. They are coming as a bit of an exclamation point after a full decade in which there has not been an upward trend. Who was it in those climategate emails who lamented that the inability to explain the lack of warming in this time frame is a “travesty?”
No, snomageddon doesn’t prove anything, but it’s worth a chuckle as the alarmists continue to squirm.
February 11, 2010, 12:41 pmAllan Walstad says:
…ie, more or less what JKB said while I was typing.
February 11, 2010, 12:43 pmHarryEagar says:
True, and also what Alast said in the first post.
However, if individual weather events are evidence of not much, long series of accurate quantified events which match or do not match models are evidence of something.
For example, the AGW alarmists are consistent in promising that a warmer world means more and more powerful storms.
It happens, there is only one long, accurate record of powerful storms, the F5 tornado series. F5s are rare.
In the first 30 years of records, there were only 15. And in the most recent 30 years, despite 2 of those decades being — we are assured by the panicmongers — the 2 warmest in a millenium, the total of F5s was (wait for it!): 15.
I now await the true believers to explain why that outcome doesn’t count.
February 11, 2010, 12:44 pmPhatty says:
Almost every “it’s really cold here!” story can be balanced out with a “it’s really hot here!” story in another party of the world at the same time. For example, the record-breaking heatwave in Brazil right now.
February 11, 2010, 12:47 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
For example, the AGW alarmists are consistent in promising that a warmer world means more and more powerful storms.
Yep.
http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/michael-fumento-stormy-times-for-global.html
February 11, 2010, 12:47 pmbyomtov says:
What Yankee said.
Sure, a statement that the snowfall is consistent with the theory is not very useful in isolation.
But when major conservative
buffoonsleaders like McConnell, DeMint, and Gingrich all mouth off about how the snowstorm is inconsistent with climate change then the statement does have value. Or is disagreement with those people not allowed?Perhaps Pielke should target his criticisms and charges of “irresponsibility” more accurately.
February 11, 2010, 12:50 pmgeokstr says:
I would argue that even several centuries is far too short a time.
Weather is a cyclic, chaotic system, but climate is as well, only on longer time scales. In both there will be wild short term and medium length swings in both directions when the very long term trend is warming or cooling, for reasons little understood yet. With respect to both warming and cooling trends, it is an ever present possibility that the long term direction will reverse itself naturally at any given moment, but even that would take many millennia to recognize with any certainty.
Yet there is a movement with the hubris and arrogance to believe that, through their brilliance, they have solved these unbelievably chaotic equations. They claim to have identified the enemy, and it is us.
But hey, on the off hand minute chance that the warmists are totally correct this time, let’s hand over the entire world’s economy to them so they can radically restructure the earth’s energy signature by controlling all decision making for individuals, which will (coincidentally) reward them with riches and power beyond the dreams of avarice.
What could go wrong?
February 11, 2010, 12:51 pmAlast says:
I agree if you want to make predictions that cover all the cycles.
For example, the the Earth’s axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years, which is a major factor in Milankovitch Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
February 11, 2010, 12:56 pmToday's Tom Sawyer says:
Which doesn’t help AGW whatsoever…..it seems that a balancing out between a Northern Hemisphere cold snap and a Southern Hemisphere heatwave would indicate that the Earth could care less about human activity, and is instead wobbling/tilting deeper on it’s axis…but no one wants to talk about real science, just climatology navel gazing.
February 11, 2010, 1:06 pmadam says:
@Guest14
There are no statements of climate change and DC snow specifically, but a quick search shows an astounding number of statements to this effect (i.e, warm weather ~ AGW)
http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/pdf/winterindicators_09.pdf “In other words, the decision we make today and over the next decade concerning how we produce and how we use energy will determine how much warmer winter in the northeastern United States will be in the future.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2003/dec/10/lifeonlineaguidetotheinternet.environment “Snowfall will decrease throughout the UK. The reductions in average snowfall over Scotland might be between 60% and 90% (depending on the region) ”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSYD301113 “A heatwave scorching southern Australia, causing transport chaos by buckling rail lines and leaving more than 10,000 homes without power, is a sign of climate change, the climate change minister said on Thursday.”
Obviously scientists in the field mostly have more nuanced views, but this is what has been in the press for many years now.
February 11, 2010, 1:07 pmAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
The great thing about the AGW hypothesis is that no weather event can ever disprove it and every weather event is consistent with it.
I can understand how a four foot snowstorm in Winnipeg does not say much about the climate. However, the same in Washington DC, or Havana Cuba would seem to be a bit different as that would be brandy new in recorded history.
February 11, 2010, 1:12 pmFederal Farmer says:
Sounds like evidence of a closed system in perfect balance.
February 11, 2010, 1:19 pmAnon321 says:
but it is my understanding that average tempertures on the planet have decreased over the last decade.
Is that right? This article suggests the opposite. I don’t follow this debate all that closely, but is there data suggesting that temperatures have fallen? Or is it just that the data suggesting warming comes from an unreliable source?
February 11, 2010, 1:52 pmLarvell Blanks says:
… given that prominent conservatives are claiming the snowpocalypse is not consistent with global climate change …
In fairness, most skeptics don’t actually claim that snow or cold weather is inconsistent with global warming, but are simply trying to poke fun at the alarmists — it’s great fun to note that it snows whenever Al Gore is in town. The alarmists, on the other hand, can usually be relied on to claim that any hurricane, tsunami, or other unusual event is evidence of climate change. It’s only when something cold happens that they put on their scientist face and sternly lecture us about the difference between weather and climate.
February 11, 2010, 2:04 pmCheckEnclosed says:
Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said:
February 11, 2010, 2:06 pm“Climate is what you expect, but what you get is weather”?
JeremyKidd says:
I take it no one’s really surprised that politicians of all stripes are blowhards, willing to say anything in support of their personal theories. Hence, Al Gore turns everything into global warming and Inhofe turns everything into no-global warming. None of that changes the science, but it does sway popular opinion, since most people have no capacity to understand the complex models. I can’t see a reason to call down Inhofe, however, until Al Gore agrees to keep his mouth shut. Occasions of severe weather, to both extremes, are, by definition, not common, but neither are they unheard of, and having blowhards on both sides spouting off seems to keep the political equilibrium in balance.
As for the models that “predict” this or that, it probably bears mentioning that it is possible to create a model that will predict anything you want. In a movement as broad as the global warming movement, it is not surprising that there are models that span a broad spectrum of possible future events. I don’t believe there is a coordinated effort in this regard, but having that broad range of models certainly covers the bases for whatever claims you want to make regarding the “signs” of global warming.
In general, we should all be skeptical of all of these models because, by their very nature, they propose to dramatically simplify one of the most complex systems we know. That task is not an easy one, even if there is some real cost to being wrong. In this case, I don’t know what the cost would be of being wrong, but if there is no cost, then I don’t feel comfortable trusting them as far as I could have thrown them after shoveling 18 inches off my driveway last weekend.
February 11, 2010, 2:10 pmcarr1on says:
Even scarier is the merging of fundamentalist politics and fundamentalist religion. It’s scary when it happens overseas, and it’s even worse when it happens here in the US. And it is happening here…
February 11, 2010, 2:15 pmBruce says:
My conclusion from listening to both sides of the AGW debate is that most people think that “global average” is wholly determined by this months weather in the eastern US , and that policy decisions should be based on anecdotal evidence.
It’s so depressing I think I’ll go overdose on my homeopathic medicine…
February 11, 2010, 2:22 pmzuch says:
Not quite true. It’s a perfectly valid response to those that unscientifically claim that some observed weather disproves the validity of any long-term predictions, particularly if those long-term predictions include predictions of an increase in such type weather. “[C]onsistent with” may not be “conclusive”, but it is nonetheless consistent data.
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 2:27 pmzuch says:
The remedy for such poisoning is easy: Take more of it. Matter of fact, it’ll certainly kill you if you don’t take any at all…
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 2:29 pmzuch says:
How can statistics of a “rare” event be “accurate”?
And then there’s the problem of looking for effects at the extremes, too. Such matters as kurtosis may invalidate any discussion of mean behaviour based on this.
And the premise is flawed. I think that we have pretty good hurricane records.
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 2:40 pmzuch says:
Today’s Tom Sawyer:
… and nobody noticed…. ;-)
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 2:47 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Well in that case, to avoid having the crazies in the churches end up working for RealClimate or fighting against the Cap-N-Tax schemes that some are cooking up as a new way to nip the pocketbook, however ineffectual on the actual goals, let’s move then to a REALLY fundamental qustion, rather than piddling with long-debunked claims about the suffering of the wine crop and increased hurricane intensity/frequency due AGW:
What IS the ideal temp of Mother Earth, seeing that she’s changed the settings on the thermostat herself far more often than we have (so alleged)??
And let’s do go ahead and start adding to this list:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/17/global-warming-ate-my-homework-100-things-blamed-on-global-warming/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
February 11, 2010, 2:57 pmHarryEagar says:
‘How can statistics of a “rare” event be “accurate”?’
Are you suggesting the count of F5 tornadoes is inaccurate? They occur only in No. America, and since 1900 the observing density has been thick enough to catch them all. That is not true with respect to hurricanes; where an accurate count (of numbers but not necessarily of strength) is available only since 1960.
You could be right about kurtosis and F5s, but the point here is, every other claim by the alarmists, such as yourself, is even less susceptible to statistical analysis. because every other claim is based on less accurate observations.
February 11, 2010, 3:00 pmzuch says:
Time to lighten up, everyone. Fun from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 3:04 pmAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
Don’t forget earth quakes.
February 11, 2010, 3:04 pmzuch says:
See if you can spot your mistake.
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 3:05 pmRich M says:
Why do liberal assholes like you always feel so free to insult conservatives?
February 11, 2010, 3:13 pmorca says:
As per climate change predictions, the first South Atlantic hurricane ever recorded occured a couple years back…
February 11, 2010, 3:18 pmDavid Schwartz says:
This nonsense comes from both sides. Here’s one example:
“THE HURRICANE that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.” Boston Globe
February 11, 2010, 4:01 pmPaul says:
That’s why we changed it from Global Warming to Climate Change. That way ANY weather is “consistent with” Global Climate Change.
Strangely warm? Climate change. Strangely cold? Climate change. More snow than normal? Climate change. Less snow? Climate change.
February 11, 2010, 4:10 pmbyomtov says:
Why do liberal assholes like you always feel so free to insult conservatives?
1. When people say and do buffoonish things they deserve to be called buffoons.
2. Do you read these threads often? I notice no shortage of conservatives insulting liberals, (it’s just about impossible to get through a climate thread without some crap being thrown at Al Gore, for example) or scientists who argue that AGW exists (that is, almost all of them).
February 11, 2010, 4:20 pmmelk says:
2.Guest14 says:
It’s particularly silly to point to heavy snow as contradicting climate change, or even warming. Nobody has predicted that the climate would warm to the extent that it would no longer snow at all.
Au contraire……here’s just one example
March 20, 2000 (Independent)
Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Dr Viner is now head of the British Council’s Climate Change Program
February 11, 2010, 4:37 pmjweaks says:
Bingo.
February 11, 2010, 4:41 pmFrank Drackman says:
Its gonna snow this weekend
February 11, 2010, 4:45 pmIn Florida.
And yeah, I’m one of those kids who got the Bee-jesus scared out of me in 1974 when my 7th grade Science teacher told us there was gonna be another Ice Age, I mean he read it in NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE MAN!!!!!
Growin up in North Dakota, NORTHERN North Dakota, you pay attention to things like Ice Ages, heck we used to go to Fargo for the warm weather…
I’d have an easier time believing in Global Warming if it’d actually get Warm, and if that Imbecile Al Gore didn’t believe in it…
Sarcastro says:
The great thing about the hollow earth theory is that no weather event can ever disprove it and every weather event is consistent with it.
Glad to see only the other side does the climate-weather switcheroo. This makes sense, of course, because the other side always gets away wit stuff our side does not.
Also, Frank Drackman‘s “I’d have an easier time believing in Global Warming if it’d actually get Warm, and if that Imbecile Al Gore didn’t believe in it…” is the height of understanding the main point of the post AND of logic. Rational ignorance indeed!
February 11, 2010, 5:04 pmwws says:
“Even scarier is the merging of fundamentalist politics and fundamentalist religion”
Exactly, and the worst Fundamentalist religious fanatics of all are the liberals screeching their undying faith in global warming even though all of the evidence has turned against them!
They don’ need no steenkin’ evidence, Gaia be praised!
Warmism is religion for people who think themselves too trendy and cool to fall for religion.
February 11, 2010, 5:16 pmSarcastro says:
It’s better to call it a ‘religion’ than to actually debate the science! That way, all the science can be seen as fraud perpetrated by cultists.
The way to win arguments is to say the argument is stupid and the other side is all arguing in bad faith!
February 11, 2010, 5:29 pmJSinAZ says:
Not so much “SMRRT”, as committed to the cause. Sarcastro has volunteered his efforts to spread the Good News, by ridiculing the infidel and apostates alike. He is popular at church gatherings and Sunday school and is well-liked for his good works.
February 11, 2010, 5:55 pmHarryEagar says:
‘the first South Atlantic hurricane ever recorded occured a couple years back…’
And the records go back to . . . not even to 1960 for the South Atlantic.
AGW alarmists would be more persuasive if they would pay attention to observations instead of harping on models. And stop claiming to have observations back to 1850, a transparent falsehood that the Hansenists repeat constantly.
But I am amused that while Zuch claims that 75 events are too few to have statistics, you claim one is enough. Texas Cage Match! Panicmongers fight to the death!
February 11, 2010, 5:56 pmSarcastro says:
Lets take this parallel even further, since it is clearly very constructive.
If global warming is the ‘Good News” then is Al Gore Jesus, or only St. John the Baptist? Maybe we can have Phil Jones be like Peter.
And then Obama can be maybe the Holy Spirit? Or the father? Course, that opens the possibility that Obama and Al Gore are one and the same. Though I do like the idea that Obama was a jealous and hateful Obama till Al Gore came along and died (electorally) for our pollution. I think that makes Bush Rome?
February 11, 2010, 6:05 pmJSinAZ says:
Sarcastro – I shall bow to your superior ability to strain an analogy. Like most talk from the religious, it bores the bejeezus out of me.
February 11, 2010, 6:11 pmzuch says:
Hip, hip, hurrah! A veritable Ambrose Bierce of our times. And that’s a mighty compliment. Bierce, of course, was popular enough to be elected Preznit a century ago. So keep your hopes up, Sarcastro! And save your more pungent bon mots; you could do “DD²”.
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 6:19 pmzuch says:
Since when is “15″ seventy-five?:
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 6:22 pmNigel Kearney says:
In any political dispute you have to convince people who are unable or unwilling to understand the real reasons that one side or the other is right.
If the other side can win people over with a picture of a polar bear on an ice floe or saying Katrina was caused by CO2 emissions, then our side can win them back by pointing out record snowfalls in DC. That’s only fair. Skeptics would be perfectly happy to disregard all evidence other than thermometer readings if the AGW crowd would do the same.
February 11, 2010, 6:24 pmWeather is not climate change | Radio Vice Online says:
[...] over to read the full post, and the comments are pretty good too. Hat tip to Volokh Conspiracy. A small taste… What happens in the weather this week or next tells us absolutely nothing [...]
February 11, 2010, 6:30 pmShelbyC says:
Yer just jealous :-)
February 11, 2010, 6:37 pmHarryEagar says:
‘Since when is “15” seventy-five?’
Actually, 82 (84 if you include Ontario). From my blog:
‘Here is the U.S. count by decade since 1900: 4, 5, 6, 5, 6, 13, 15, 13, 3, 10, 2.’
I will add that 82 maximum tornado events is more than 25 times the number of maximum Atlantic hurricane events over the same period, but I have yet to hear any of you panicmongers complain that Kerry Emanuel doesn’t have enough data to work statistics on.
February 11, 2010, 6:50 pmA. Zarkov says:
The climategate emails tell us that the GCMs did not predict a decade of stable temperature, and they were concerned about it.
February 11, 2010, 7:32 pmJim Owen says:
Robert Kennedy did exactly that.
February 11, 2010, 7:37 pmJim Owen says:
No – the sceptics mostly believe that snowmageddon is not consistent with global WARMING. It’s perfectly consistent with climate change in the form of global cooling. Your definition of terms is ambiguous and misleading.
February 11, 2010, 7:40 pmJim Owen says:
Scientist or not – there is NO climate model that predicted the halt in temp increase that the planet has experienced for the last 9 years or so (OK, since 2001.2). See:
February 11, 2010, 7:54 pmhttp://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001.2/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.2/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.3/trend
Nobody At All says:
If this is a reasonable statement of skeptical belief, then it seems unduly harsh (if not misleading in its own right) to condemn those who correct this misperception for professional irresponsibility.
February 11, 2010, 8:00 pmzuch says:
This is not a political dispute. If it were a “political dispute”, we could just pass legislation defining “warming” to be “climate” (and an “increase” to be a “decrease”) for legal purposes and be done with it. But this is a scientific dispute and Mother Nature is not a Democrat or a Republican.
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 8:04 pmNobody At All says:
I hate to direct you to this site, but you should really consider browsing around on it for a bit – if only to anticipate your opponent’s arguments. Otherwise, this is just all re-tread.
February 11, 2010, 8:05 pmJim Owen says:
I use the term AGW religionists.
To summarize – one (or even two) years of (whatever) is weather. But if it continues after that, it’s no longer “just” weather – it’s becoming climate. I’ve spent the last 4 summers in places like Alaska, Newfoundland, the Rocky Mountains (including the Canadian Rockies) and the SoCal desert. And they’ve all been 10 to 20 deg cooler than normal for those years. Weather isn’t climate – but continuation of the same weather is, by definition, climate.
And now I’m done – before I get in too much trouble. I’ve been snowbound for 3 days by 30+” of global warming. And as one vulture said to the other: Patience, my ass, I’m gonna kill something.
February 11, 2010, 8:07 pmzuch says:
Do you really think there were less than 82 hurricanes in that time period? I’d note that a hurricane is just a “maximum” tropical storm….
But you’re factually wrong here. There’s been at least 32 Atlantic Cat 5s since 1924.
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 8:15 pmJim Owen says:
It’s neither harsh nor misleading. It’s a statement of fact. Read it as it stands. But don’t misquote me again by deleting the rest of the thought. Which was: It’s perfectly consistent with climate change in the form of global cooling.
How is it that you do not understand that “climate change” is bi-directonal? And therefore ambiguous in the context of the post that I answered. If you want your argument to be clear and concise, then use the proper terms. Climate change is a general term that can mean ANYTHING.
February 11, 2010, 8:15 pmA. Criminal says:
See if you can spot your mistake.Cheers,
I spotted your mistake: “Statistics” = the data.
February 11, 2010, 8:17 pm– or –
“Statistics” also means the set of tools and methods to analyze the data.
You can perform an accurate analysis on any number of data points (1, 2 or 2 million), though obviously less data will have less predictive accuracy than more data. “Statistics” will tell you whether the data is to able predict anything accurately.
lgm says:
People who can’t define (without wikipedia) “quasi-geostrophic” or “beta plane” or “quasi biennial oscillation” should refrain from offering expert opinions on atmospheric dynamics. [In the same way, someone who doesn't know the legal definition of "mens rea" (a term I learned from "Legally Blonde"!) should refrain from offering expert opinions on criminal procedure.] If you don’t know what “heteroskedasticity of residuals” means, you should refrain from offering opinions on the validity of time series related to global warming. Climate science experts have earned the right to their expert opinions. Sean Hannity has not.
February 11, 2010, 8:22 pmNobody At All says:
Two (or Three) Questions:
1.
Do you believe in global cooling? And, upon what basis?
2.
This is the misperception that I was alluding to. And, let’s be clear about the mistake being made here: you do not have to believe in AGW to recognize it. It is a mistake about theory. That is, is the theory of AGW consistent with a snowstorm, or isn’t it? One can at least get a proper handle on what the theory holds or does not hold, regardless of whether you believe the theory to be true. This isn’t even a disagreement on climate, it is a purposeful misrepresentation of what the theory of AGW is.
February 11, 2010, 8:23 pmJim Owen says:
Hmm – been there, done that long ago – and left because the site is extremely biased, extremely restrictive and fails entirely to discuss anything that does not conform to the Hockey Team dogma. Tell me – have they had an open discussion of the IPCC errors. How about that Climategate? How’s that working out for them?
No, my friend, if you want real science, you’ll have to go to other sites. If you want recomendations, just ask – I have a long list. But I also have no burning desire to educate those who have no desire to be educated.
February 11, 2010, 8:23 pmzuch says:
You compared two thirty year periods with 15 each:
It is true that if you take individual years (or decades), you get more d.f., and a lower SEM. But lumping them together like you did, you have 1 d.f., and a very poor estimator of the variance (and thus the power of your claim). But you also get even lower cell counts too.
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 8:23 pmSkyler says:
Pay no attention to that snow behind the curtain. This is man made wizard of global warming.
February 11, 2010, 8:32 pmA. Criminal says:
The formatting above (8:17 pm) was faulty; it should be:
zuch: ‘How can statistics of a “rare” event be “accurate”?’
February 11, 2010, 8:33 pmHarryEagar: Are you suggesting the count of F5 tornadoes is inaccurate?
zuch: See if you can spot your mistake.Cheers,
Sarcastro says:
Winner! It may be absent any actual argument, but it does make a decent soundbite!
February 11, 2010, 8:36 pmzuch says:
You generate statistics from the data. Statistics are not the data. Averages, cell counts, frequency of occurrence, are statistics. The data are each incident. When you count these incidents, say, for a set period of time, now you have a statistic.
I don’t suggest the counts are wrong. I suggest that the counts (a statistic) are not accurate estimators of the actual population characteristic (at least not for 2 sampling periods of count 15 each).
If you had 10 in one period and 20 in another (a 100%) difference, you still wouldn’t be able to reject H₀ (frequencies are the same) at the P<0.05 level. This comparison has very little power to detect even relatively large differences between the two periods.
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 8:40 pmwlpeak says:
I think the switch from AGW to ‘Climate Change’ as the preferred term of art for advocates of government intervention in the name of ‘protecting’ us from the same, marked the point at which the issue went from an opportunistic co-optation to a full blown self justifying industry.
Using AGW requires a defense and worse, a consistency with measurable reality. CC on the other hand is rhetorically stronger and can be used to mean almost anything and nothing. It has built in plausible deniability while implying some vague sense of noble urgency carried over from its historic association with the assumed AGW emergency.
It is on par with Social Justice as a signature phrase of the new left. And I find most uses of it to be a black mark on the intellectual integrity of the user.
February 11, 2010, 8:41 pmSkyler says:
I think most people understand that specific weather fluctuations aren’t indicative of global warming or a lack thereof.
I think most people also understand that climatologists are also not indicative of global warming.
You see, because it’s all a fraud. So it’s fun to poke them in the eye every time it snows.
February 11, 2010, 8:42 pmJSinAZ says:
Quite true. The rest of us will merely be content to judge the motives, manner and quality of the science practiced within the climatological community. Evidence of this shoddiness is readily available for all to see as shown by the corruption and subsequent destruction of data sets, and the conspiratorial behavior of these individuals and organizations toward anyone who would attempt to analyize and reproduce their results.
However, if you choose to ignore the actual poor practices of those who claim to be the leaders in that field, then you are merely appealing to authority and that authority has proven itself suspect at the least. Given that the western world was/is on the verge of a massive economic disruption driven by this highly suspect self-serving IPCC summary, skepticism is more than warranted, it is mandatory!
February 11, 2010, 8:49 pmzuch says:
A quick run of this data gives a high probability that the cells are not all the same. At this point, tests for trends might be appropriate. A quick linear trend test can’t rule out slope = 0, though.
Cheers,
February 11, 2010, 8:57 pmG. May says:
Quite possibly the most juvenile appeal to authority I’ve ever seen. And that’s quite the accomplishment given the topic.
February 11, 2010, 9:02 pmSkyler says:
Well, opinions are like rear ends. Everyone has one and they all stink.
The “earned” opinions of climatologists most especially stink since they are proven liars and frauds.
February 11, 2010, 9:08 pmSkyler says:
Sarcastro, I’m learning that there is no point in presenting logical reasoning to the global warming defrauders. They keep trying to deny facts and put forward proven liars as authority. They are indefatiguable liars or supporters of proven liars. They present fraudulent data as though it were valid and act hurt if you don’t play their games.
The only appropriate response is mockery.
February 11, 2010, 9:16 pmJim Owen says:
OK – I’ve got at least another 16 hours before the roads will be clear enough to get out of here. So…
1. I believe in the possibility of global cooling. I also believe that the probability of global cooling is no less than that for global warming.
Why? First, let’s define some terms. Possibility – ANYTHING is possible – gremlins, Djinn, ghosts, whatever (including both global warming – and global cooling). However – the PROBABILITY of any event, entity, etc is another matter.
The probability of the existence of djinn or gremlins is vanishingly small. So.. Realclimate notwithstanding, the Earth has NOT been warming for the last 9 years – and if you cherrypick the data, since 1998. (I prefer to not cherrypick the data because that’s deceptive practice.) On that basis alone, the probability of cooling as the next phase of “climate change” is as likely (in IPCC terms) as that of warming. Which way will it go? I don’t know, you don’t know – and anyone who claims to know is a fraud.
Oh yeah, you’ll want some “data” for the “no warming” won’t you? try this link – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001.2/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.2/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.3/trend
The site uses the major data sets AS THEY ARE RELEASED by the respective organizations. It allows YOU to manipulate the data in various ways. Go play with it – it can be a lot of fun. And very educational.
OK – that’s enough for the data (at least for now). Let’s change venues – to archaeology. Go read Brian Fagan’s book titled “The Little Ice Age”. Find the passages where he talks about the unsettled weather leading into the LIA. Can you draw the analogy between the conditions during that time period and the present?
One more – astronomy (and history/archaeology). Have you tracked the transition from solar cycle 23 to cycle 24? What is the historic relationship between climate and sunspots? Not just for the LIA, although that’s pertinent, but as recorded in Middle Eastern and Chinese historical records. If you don’t know, you should research that.
There’s more, but that’s sufficient for now.
2. Let’s start with this – the AGW religion says that heat waves, snow storms, drought, excessive rainfall, etc, etc ad nauseum are all caused by global warming. There is, in fact, a website that catalogs all the purported effects of global warming. Basically there’s nothing that happens on Earth that’s NOT caused by global warming. And that, my friend, is logical nonsense. In fact, there are many peer reviewed papers that contest this kind of nonsense. Do they show up in the IPCC reports? Hell no. That would cast doubt on the IPCC storyline – and that’s not to be borne.
Next – the AGW religionists believe that all of the above effects are the result of global warming. The IPCC, for the most part, says so – or at least so they believe (have been led to believe?). So – have you followed the many revelations about the IPCC AR4? If you haven’t you should, because one by one, the allegations made in that report are being shown to be based on either the reports of environmental pressure groups or on your basic blue sky conclusions drawn from God only knows where. Amazon drought? Himalayan glaciers? Crop failures in Africa? Disease? and others – all supported only by non-peer-reviewed papers, newspaper and magazine articles and other “grey literature”. I should believe all this? Hmmm – I don’t think so.
Now, some background – and I don’t think you want to match this kind of openness, because while I could be wrong, I think I may have a pretty good idea of your ID. For myself – I’m an aerospace systems engineer who worked as a NASA contractor for 42 years. I worked the Nimbus, Landsat, HST and UARS programs, among others. I was the science ops engineer for most of those years and most of those programs. I worked directly with the PI’s and their teams as well as the data processing facilities, the spacecraft and the ground systems. I learned first-hand what “good” science is – and isn’t. And what I’ve seen of the AGW dogma is purely “not good” science.
Example – the Hockey Stick – is entirely dependent on the “elimination” of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period). If the MWP is real, then the Hockey Stick has no reality. History and archaeology including physical evidence from Africa, New Zealand, China and South America as well as Europe and North America that says the MWP was real and global. Therefore the Hockey Stick is a fraud, based only on false statistical techniques. I knew that in 2001, when first confronted with the AGW arguments based on the Hockey Stick. I’ve seen nothing since to convince me that a science that’s based on fraud has enough fundamental truth for me to support it or believe in it.
Don’t mistake me here – like many, if not most, sceptics I believe that the Earth warmed for a short period (several decades). That’s a natural process that’s to be expceted of a planet that’s recovering from the LIA. It did not, however, warm with the intensity, to the level or at the rate that the alarmist media, the IPCC and some scientists claimed. It did not even warm at as great a rate as during the early 20th Century. Nor have the present temps exceeded the temps of the 1930′s. How many lies do you expect me to swallow without choking?
And I didn’t even mention the failure of multi-billions of dollars in computer models, simulations, etc.
Finally – the probability that you could get me fired is vanishingly small. I retired in 2006 and have spent 4+ years wandering in places that have been 10 to 20 deg cooler than normal. I’ve spent several years of my life as a long distance hiker, spending 5-6 months (and thousands of miles of hiking) at a time living in a tent IN the “warming world” that you seem to believe in, but that I can’t find out there in the real world. I know what the SoCal desert was in 2000 – and what the Rockies and the New Mexico desert were in 1999. And I know that they’re no longer (if they ever were) the overheated world that the AGW religionists believe they should be.
So – whatever your experience, mine comes from both the world of science and from first hand experience with “warming” in more places and under more varied conditions than you’re likely to have experienced.
OK – I’m rambling cause I have no interest in watching my wife’s TV programs. But it’s time to do something useful with my life for a while. No – I have no expectation of “converting” or even “educating” you. So this can hardly be termed “useful”. Just entertaining. Have a good night anyway.
February 11, 2010, 10:08 pmwlpeak says:
I think at least one important definitive conclusion can be drawn from the retractions and admissions of error in the IPCC AR4. The belief that the AR4 is based solely on strong scientific research has been debunked.
And to the extent that the scientific ‘consensus’ is drawn from the AR4′s reputation, that ‘consensus’ too must be reevaluated.
Finally, to acknowledge that the IPCC’s review process for inclusion has been proven flawed in specific cases but refuse to consider the implications this has for the rest of the AR4 is the height of non-skepticism. It borders on self delusion.
February 11, 2010, 10:47 pmSarcastro says:
Awesome, Skyler! I guess since the huge debate threads complete with cites and whatnot on both sides aren’t convincing anyone, they should really devolve into name-calling.
Speaking of name-calling, I do love how you called out everyone who supports global warming as defrauders. I have no doubt they are all intentionally trying to deceive everyone else! Why are they not all arrested (including one Prof. Adler!)
February 11, 2010, 10:49 pmSkyler says:
That’s a damn good question. The ones who had the appropriate mens rea should certainly be facing criminal charges.
February 11, 2010, 10:56 pmJones' Cell Mate says:
I once lived with a Deputy DA who, for a time, handled the bulk of fraud prosecutions in her county. She explained to me that the best confidence men would always identify marks who would become so wed to the fraud (and the stories therein) that they would be almost incapable of admitting they were conned- even to themselves. The hold that a good confidence man would have on his mark was so great that, much like DV cases, the marks often end up flipping on the stand and defending the con man.
Has anyone here ever seen anything like that?
February 11, 2010, 11:22 pmSarcastro says:
Glad Skyler knows what the objective truth about climate change, and the mental state of its defenders. We could use more psychic detectives like him.
Of course, as Jones’ Cell Mate notes, not everyone who disagrees with you is lying, some might be deceived by liars. The important thing is that they are all super duper wrong, and should never be argued with.
[I am amused how the believers on both sides of this issue really don't want debate.]
February 11, 2010, 11:38 pmJones' Cell Mate says:
Hey look, Sarcastro can “read” things that aren’t there. Maybe if we have him review the CRU’s efforts, he can even “read” the metadata they don’t have anymore. Then, with all the information needed to have a discussion consistent with legitimate scientific inquiry, we can have that debate he’s so excited about. Given his sincere interest in such a debate- how could he refuse?
I wonder why, given his sincere interest in such a debate, he’s not more frustrated that critical components needed for such have been destroyed? Anyone want to guess.
February 12, 2010, 12:09 amHarry Eagar says:
Zuch, claims about hurricane counts prior to 1960 are bogus.
I like my science to be based on observations.
Anyhow, if we accept your view, you keep making my underlying point, which is that claims to know what the climate is doing are based on inadequate (and sometimes confected) data.
Wharever the inadequacies of the F5 data (and I never offered an opinion about that, I just said it was the longest complete global series of that kind), every other set is worse.
The reason I consider claims about climate change over the past century to be at best wildly speculative is that there are no global observations over that period.
It doesn’t help that people like Hansen invent data (and admit doing it). Even an honest researcher could not do it, because nothing to work with. Claiming 90% confidence levels on manipulations of imaginary data does not persuade.
February 12, 2010, 12:55 amNobody At All says:
If I understand you correctly, you are contending that the past 9 years of data gives us 90% confidence that a doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentrations will lead to a global cooling on the order of 2-4.5°C. Usually, the skeptics prefer longer-term records; preferably, nothing less than temperature stations with continuous records for the past several thousand years. Your argument is audacious and unpredictable (though, sadly, not groundbreaking). I commend you.
Regarding the solar cycle: may I direct you to some of the latest research, or would that be beneath your station?
I recommend: R. E. Benestad, A review of the solar cycle length estimates:
Also, could you elucidate what you mean by:
This decade is not warmer than the 1930s? Really?
Let’s try to keep our screeds to a manageable length. It is late, and I am not retired.
February 12, 2010, 12:58 amzuch says:
Which is a good thing for you, eh?, given your capabilities…. But this observation does explain a lot about your comments.
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 3:39 amzuch says:
I forget. Are we talking about the Obama “birth certificate” here, or the GISTEMP data?
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 3:42 amzuch says:
Not true. So says the NRC.
Cheers,
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 4:01 amzuch says:
“… and, didntcha see, it snooooowwwwinnngg in Washington, DC!!!!”
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 4:05 amzuch says:
My claim was there were at least 32 Cat 5 hurricanes since 1924. This was in response to this false claim of yours:
That this is false is obvious to anyone who knows the subtle art of derision.
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 4:13 amA. Zarkov says:
I don’t know where you got those counts of tornadoes, but let’s say they are correct. Since those are counts for decades, the events are pretty rare so let’s use the Poisson distribution to model the counts. Take the first 5: x=(4, 5, 6, 5, 6) and the last 5 y= (15, 13, 3, 10, 2). Since the sum of Poissons is also Poisson, we can sum x and y to get x.sum and y.sum. If the rate constants are all equal then (y.sum-x.sum)/sqrt(x.sum + y.sum) is asymptotically normal(0,1). I get y.sum= 43 and x.sum= 26, so (y.sum-x.sum)/sqrt(x.sum + y.sum)= 2.05. That’s about 2 standard deviations, so the rate constants don’t seem to be equal because that assumption leads to a 2 sigma event or p= .05.
It does seem that the tornado frequency has increased from the first half of the 20th Century to last half. But we didn’t get a strong result with this little quick-and-dirty analysis, so it needs some more work. In particular it would be nice to have the dates for the tornado events so we can check the Poisson assumption.
February 12, 2010, 7:24 amYossarian says:
Pielke’s point, of course, cuts both ways.
February 12, 2010, 8:38 amSkyler says:
Fishhead is a great example of fanatical worship at the altar of global warming fraud. He repeatedly denies that anyone could have ever told a lie or obstructed the science, despite the clear and unequivocal proof, and he then spouts off with arcane data that he demands everyone else sift through, when in each instance his arcane data is based on the manufactured data.
There is no debating with someone like that. They are illogical and fanatical, much like jihadists. The only difference is that jihadists want to saw the heads and arms off of little children and women, and global warming jihadists want to kill us off in a few generations, because having a planet unpolluted by the presence of humans is more important than your grandchildren having a life in modern civilization.
February 12, 2010, 9:24 amJonathan H. Adler says:
A point worth reiterating, since so many commenters seem to have missed it.
JHA
February 12, 2010, 9:25 amJohn Person says:
Sir, I agree that a single “weather” event does not herald a “climate” change. However, if you’ve been paying attention to the news the last six months or so, you will have observed numerous reports of record cold temperatures being recorded around the world. This accumulation of “weather” events are what become “climate”. And add the fact that world-wide temperatures have been lower for the last ten years to the mix. A ten year span could be called “climate”.
February 12, 2010, 10:30 amSarcastro says:
And the plural of anecdote is data!
SCIENCE!
And that zuch, with his arguments and links will clearly never be convinced, so why engage him?! Unlike the open-minded Skyler , who is just waiting for info that disagrees with him.
I mean, if you can’t convince someone posting on a political message board, then all dialogue with them is useless, and you should stop making arguments and just insult people.
February 12, 2010, 10:34 amsardonic_sob says:
Reason #3495 I could never be a coroner/ME:
At some point I would probably find the urge to list the possible COD for someone who drowned in the ocean as “accidental overdose of saline-based homeopathic remedy” completely irresistible.
Of course long before that I would get busted for listing a falling death as “negative acceleration trauma syndrome.”
February 12, 2010, 10:39 amlgm says:
Pielke writes:
That depends on the meaning of “consistency”. A scientist could presumably was using in the sense of statistics, where it means that the observed weather is not unlikely in the climate change model. Inconsistent does not mean absolutely impossible, but very unlikely. Statisticians are raised on 1% and 5% probabilities as the borderline between consistent and inconsistent.
February 12, 2010, 10:55 amJim Owen says:
So – why do you think I’ve been snowbound for 3 (going on 4) days? :)
February 12, 2010, 10:56 amruralcounsel says:
So this is a 2006 report, issued long before the cherry-picking of data was discovered. I guess I don’t see this as supporting your point.
February 12, 2010, 11:04 amJim Owen says:
Dear God – you believe Wiki with regard to climate change? You poor baby. Don’t you know that Wiki had a gatekeeper for many years – and that there’s NO evidence that the situation has changed even though he was sacked. At least until very recently, the only viewpoint you’d find on Wiki is that of the Hockey Team. Has that changed? Given your reference, apparently not.
Now – for reality, and Wiki notwithstanding, find me a hockey stick that presents both the MWP and the LIA. If those were there, then the Hockey Stick would not be scary enough to be used by the IPCC and the AGW religionists. In fact, it wouldn’t even be a Hockey Stick. Try reading “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by A. W. Montford. And spend some time on Climate Audit digging into the archives.
February 12, 2010, 11:07 amDotar Sojat says:
The idea of AGW is merely a means to and end; a necessary tool to achieve a larger goal: more government control of the world’s economies and peoples’ lives by the enlightened ones, to whom government naturally belongs. As such, it is not susceptible to counter-argument because it HAS to be true in order to achieve the larger goal. They need it too much to consider that it might not be as they wish.
February 12, 2010, 11:23 amSkyler says:
Being open minded is only an asset before the evidence is presented. Once the evidence is presented and there is no evidence for one side of an issue except that which was created through fraud, and all the remaining evidence is for the other side, then to maintain an “open mind” is immoral.
February 12, 2010, 11:49 amSarcastro says:
Skyler is sounding suspiciously like zuch. Makes ya wonder which is the good twin, and which is the evil. Too bad on the internets, no one can see your goatee.
February 12, 2010, 11:57 amJim Owen says:
Fortunately, I said nothing of the sort. I didn’t mention CO2, largely because CO2 is only one factor in climate change – and likely not the dominant one. Nor did I mention CO2 doubling which seems to be a ”magic number” in the AGW dogma, but which is of limited utility in reality. I didn’t mention a temperature range because I’m generally not foolish enough to tie myself to specific unprovable numbers. Nor, as you should know, are there multi-thousand year temp station records. Nor did I claim a 90% confidence level for cooling. Only you have made those claims for me, so … to paraphrase someone else’s response : Many thanks for deciding on my behalf the conclusions you believe I should have arrived at. Just today I was getting tired of thinking, and hoping someone might come along and volunteer to do it for me. But I held out little hope as I had never met someone with both the ego and bad manners necessary to presume to be up to the job, and feared they may not exist. I was worried over nothing, thank you.
So… to continue – I said – the likelihood of cooling is the same as the likelihood of warming. You can make what you want of that, but if you want to claim warming, you’ll need some solid proof – and there’s no more proof for that than there is for cooling. The best thing you’ve got going for that argument is that the planet is still recovering from the last Ice Age. Or, if you prefer, from the LIA. Which may weight the probability in your direction for some time. But as any competent geologist knows, eventually there WILL be another Ice Age.
Note that none of this discussion has even mentioned time spans. Therefore, BOTH propositions will prove to be true – eventually. But I believe the assumption we’ve both made so far is that we’re both talking about the next decade – or several decades. True?
Let me consider this – you’ve failed to read “The Little Ice Age”, you’ve no understanding of the Chinese and/or Middle Eastern historical records, but you want me to believe that they were entirely mistaken on the basis of a study that’s based on less than 60 years of data? Think about that.
Have you ever delved into the actual temp records? Do you have any idea what period of time holds the greatest number of record HIGH temps? It is, of course, the 1930’s.
Perhaps your problem is that you don’t understand the process used by, for example, GISS? Perhaps you fail to understand that much of the “meteoric rise in temps” is simply the depression of past high temps? So tell me what reason would GISS have for modifying the temp record as far back as 1888 when they’re calculating THIS MONTH’S anomaly? Do you really believe that’s reasonable?
Finally, I AM retired – but I still have a life that allows me 4-5 months of the year to catch up with the state of the science. I figure you can catch up to me during the 7-8 months that I’m not here to argue with. Which, BTW, starts about 2 weeks from now (Mar 1).
February 12, 2010, 12:13 pmJim Owen says:
It was Aaron Wildavsky who said “global warming is the Mother of all envoronmental scares.”
February 12, 2010, 12:16 pmHarry Eagar says:
Zarkov, on what theory do you claim that first half/second half are relevant periods to compare?
February 12, 2010, 12:21 pmzuch says:
al-Gawh-Dwein’s Law. Neat.
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 2:14 pmzuch says:
Not Wiki. The NRC. Do you dispute that Wiki reported (and cited) the NRC study?
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 2:17 pmOrganized Clime says:
No, weather is not climate, but much rides on perceptions and statements that have been used at “official” levels of governance far more than the easy “man on the street” quips about the silence of Al Gore, all the while the nation’s capital digs out of the ultimate “shovel ready” project.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/10/breitbart-tv-looks-back-on-byrd-boxer-klobuchar-blaming-lack-of-snow-on-agw/
Climate Change, at least for some pitchmeister pols, is apparently anything that happens one way or another.
Likewise across the Pond, the Brit pols and Climate Hustlers once told their groveling subjects in Her Majesty’s chilly dominion that it would never snow heavy again.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Folks, this bad boy train is coming off the damned rails, and everyone knows it by now.
Organized CLIME should be a punishable offense.
Hello? *tap* *tap* *tap*
February 12, 2010, 2:34 pmNobody At All says:
February 12, 2010, 2:47 pmJim Owen says:
To your credit, you at least admit the existence of the LIA. How about the MWP?
POPULAR climate scepticism? WTF ever made you think that scepticism is limited to a particular storyline? Scepticism is a free range critter. Which is precisely what “science” is supposed to be. And what AGW has proved to NOT be.
So, would you care to bet as to whether – or when – the temps will continue to increase? Or whether they’ll continue to decrease? Or, in either case, for how long? I did say that nobody knows which way it’ll go for the next decade – or several decades. Do you really think that’s not true?
Note that I did NOT claim this as anyone else’s view. You assumed that. Without my holding a gun to your head. But I’ve seen no reasonable rebuttal from you either.
To continue, the ’30s were the warmest in the US record before GISS “adjusted” them. They were also the warmest in the Australian record. Care to look at the records for other parts of the world?
So perhaps you’d like to explain this story that’s still going on and on and on like the Energizer bunny:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html
Or this relatively new one:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/giss-manipulates-climate-data-in-mackay/
Or any of the analyses listed here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/author/chiefio/
My particular favorite is this one:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
Although this one is also attractive:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/mysterious-madagascar-muse/
But of course, you’re welcome to find your own.
If you wander through his website, you’ll find that E.M. Smith does a wonderful job of deconstructing the dogma re: temp “adjustments”. And if you look at the many recent instances of temp problems you’ll find multiple violations of the criteria you list.
Your faith is touching. But you’ve forgotten that I worked for da Gubmint for a long, long time. My scepticism and cynicism exceeeds yours by at least an order of magnitude. And I am constitutionally incapable of accepting dishonesty and dissembling as truth.
If you’re tired of playing here, why are you still answering?
February 12, 2010, 4:54 pmJim Owen says:
Go read originals of the Wegman Report – and the North report – and the followup documents. The Wiki summary is so twisted it makes my teeth itch.
February 12, 2010, 5:14 pmA. Zarkov says:
Most of the temperature change is supposed to have occurred from 1970 to now. But we could do other times, or better yet get an estiamte of the underlying rate intensity function. What I did was quick and dirty. But I need the times.
February 12, 2010, 7:39 pmzuch says:
Go read the NRCD report. After you, my dead Alphonse.
Wegman, BTW, was dragged in by that Nobel Laureate, James Inhofe, in what a lot of people thought was a bit of a witch-hunt. The Wegman inquiry’s criticism was far from damning either. They say they might have done things differently … and my thesis advisor thought that t-tests were the ultimate in terms of statistics (it seemed to me because his HP calculator had a FN button for them).
What Wegman couldn’t do — even if they claimed their own preferred methods were better (obviously…) that those Mann used — was to say that Mann et al. came to the wrong conclusion using the methods they did.
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 7:52 pmHarry Eagar says:
‘But I need the times.’
Why?
I chose 30 years because the Hansenists are content to tell us that 30 years of data are sufficient to detect with certainty trends that stretch into centuries. The starting point was the start of the data set. The ending point was the end of the data set (so far).
My position is that there are no data that allow anyone to say that climate now is different from climate a century ago, but that’s just me. All the big geniuses seem to know, and to within a hundredth of a degree, what the global temperature was 100 years ago.
Once again, you and Zuch are pounding home my point. I couldn’t do it better if I tried, and I did try. Thanks.
February 12, 2010, 8:02 pmJim Owen says:
I read the Wiki summary. I read the original documents long ago. They don’t match. As for Wegman, his conclusions were far more damning than you seem to think. IIRC one of the statements was: Right results, wrong method = bad science. If you read the report, you’d know that Mann’s method’s were crap. And that his results passed peer review only because they were reviewed by his “friends” (later to be named the Hockey Team), who highly approved of the end result regardless of the validity of the method.
The cap on the whole thing was that Mann’s results could not be replicated. So it wasn’t even “science”.
IIRC, Wegman stopped just short of calling Mann a liar.
Also, given the recent Climategate flap, Wegman’s take on the social relationships (the Hockey Team) has been entirely vindicated.
If you want to diss Wegman, you’ll have to find something else to do it with. If you want to praise Mann, you’ll have to find something else to do it with.
February 13, 2010, 1:11 amA. Zarkov says:
I need the dates the tornadoes occurred so I can check the Poisson assumption and to see if the rate intensity function is changing. There is information in the time of occurrence that you don’t get with just the counts. We can also try to see if the rate intensity function is related to surface temperature. The warmists claim tornado frequency has increased because the U.S. is warmer. Well shouldn’t we look at the surface temperature where the tornadoes breed?
You can choose any time period you want, but small intervals mean less resolution because the counts are fewer.
BTW I am now a skeptic. Please don’t associate me in any way with Zuch.
February 13, 2010, 5:16 amHarry Eagar says:
Here they are back to 1950.
February 13, 2010, 12:16 pmA. Zarkov says:
Thanks for the link. But what about before 1950? You give counts per decade starting in 1900.
February 13, 2010, 2:19 pmNobody At All says:
I could be wrong, but I believe that you are attempting to replicate the results of this study:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034562.shtml
The data is publicly available here:
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/data_products/get_AIRS_data/
A related study (I believe) can be found here; it also uses the AIRS database.
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/itwg/itsc/itsc16/proceedings/5_6_Aumann.pdf
(Apologies for the long links; formatting appears to be no longer available for this comment thread.)
February 13, 2010, 3:02 pmHarry Eagar says:
Wow, a 5-year assessment of weather. Well, I’m totally convinced by that. Surely all the possible trends are encompassed.
Among the points that leap out from the simple decadal count is the importance of finding a base period. The first 30 years v. the last 30 of the 20th c. sure seems to give a big increase — 15 v. 26. But the first 30 years of observation v. the last 30 gives no increase at all.
February 13, 2010, 4:19 pmHarry Eagar says:
Sorry, got posted before I finished.
Alast started this thread by saying that you need centuries of observations. I dunno how much you need, but 30 years is obviously inadequate.
February 13, 2010, 4:21 pmHarry Eagar says:
Also, I wasn’t lookin’ for no help from nobody, but nobody can predict what will turn up, can they?
Since we slackjawed, iggernunt denialists is allus bein’ reminded thet weather ain’t climate, no how, I have question for Nobody in particular: Can a longitudinal study no longer than 5 years be called a climate study?
February 13, 2010, 8:52 pmNobody At All says:
Harry:
It would be unusual if the conclusions of a short-term study were not observationally constrained by the results from long-term studies.
See, e.g. p. 4 of the second link:
“As the frequency of DCC increases by 6%/decade with global warming, the amount of water vapor injected into the stratosphere also increases. Assuming a linear correlation between the DCC frequency and the amount of water vapor injected into the stratosphere, a 6%/decade increase in the stratospheric water vapor would be expected. This is reasonably consistent with the observation by Rosenlof et al. (2001) that the stratospheric water vapor mixing ratio has increased steadily over the past half century at the rate of 10%/decade.”
FYI: the “past half century” should be around roughly 50 years.
February 13, 2010, 9:21 pmHarry Eagar says:
And somebody was observing the global stratospheric mixing ratio 50 years ago? You’re pulling my finger again. Also, I note that a 10%/decade increase, thanks to the wonders of compounding, would give us a doubling. It doubled and no observable effects? Somebody’s pulling your finger.
However, for Zarkov, back to some actual, you know, observations. I have the dates, no thanks to the National Climatic Data Center, which directs us to — get ready for it! — wiki.
My original decadal counts (I had to pull off my socks to do the big decades) were obtained digitally (uh, 1, uh, 2 . . .) from Christopher Burt, ‘Extreme Weather,’ 1st ed., p. 169. I was hoping to avoid having to type ‘em in, but no such luck.
5-10-05
6-5-05
4-23-08
6-5-08
6-15-12
6-11-15
5-25-17
5-21-18
6-22-19
3-11-23
5-14-23
3-18-25
4-12-27
5-7-27
4-10-29
5-22-33
4-5-36
6-10-38
4-14-39
3-16-42
4-29-42
6-17-44
4-12-45
4-9-47
5-31-47
F5ness is determined by damage, although for later years I believe also by Doppler radar speed measurements. So there could be some play in the early decades. However, unlike Mann and Hansen, I don’t invent or adjust data. I take it where found. Wiki, though, also lists near-F5 events, offering an opportunity to compare the F5 series against the combined near F5-F5 series.
February 14, 2010, 11:56 ammick says:
And this is why 2010 is the HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD AND THIS PROVES GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!
August 8, 2010, 11:00 amJim Owen says:
LMAO!!!
And I suppose you think this HOTTEST year on record is happening globally? You might want to rethink that position –
http://www.boliviabella.com/1-million-fish-dead-in-bolivian-ecological-disaster.html
August 9, 2010, 5:21 pm