More Prof the AWG Alarmists are Running Out of Time...

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

You have been called name

[accent]

Is better insult in Russian.

[rushmc 23]

I will say, this expliation and discussion makes as much sense to me as i have seen in a while.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217190433.htm


I HAVe been doing some searching ....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I haven't had the chance to go buy the article and read it yet, but a couple of things have jumped out at me from an article I just pulled up from USA

Dont ya just hate it when that happens....... shit that is scary when it jumps like that.... but when it happens again... WOW...

[lawrocket 3]

Wait. Did NASA say the margin of error was 2-3 C?

So, assuming .1 degrees per decade, over 50 years, that leads to .5 C of proven warming. The margin of error over the last 26 years is 2-3 degrees C.

A .5 degree increase in temperature with a 2-3 degree C margin of error is not proof of anything. The increase could be 3.5 degrees. It could be a decrease of 3.5 degrees. We don't know!

I should probably ask, "What is the margin of error" before my altimeter tells me that I'm at 200 feet when I hit the ground.

Quote

Does your GPS really know exactly where you are

Yes. typically within 3 meters, laterally. So if it tells me it's bouncing between my living room walls when it's perfectly still, I reckon it is merely a fluctuation within the margin of error.

Quote

Does the speedometer in your car actually measure how many miles you covered in one hour

No. It measures my rate of speed per hour at that instant, but nothing about the last hour.

Quote

or does it measure the rotation rate of your wheels and do some "mathematical manipulation"?

It does some mathematical manipulation to give me an estimate. It'll tell me I'm doing 69 and my GPS will tell me I'm doing 67. There is some slight disagreeement between the two.

Incidentally, the speedometer and odometer on my car are susceptible to a number of things, like tire wear. For example, let's say I've got 30 inch rims, and 9 inches of sidewall. A new tire may have an inch of tread. So I've got a 25 inch radius of a new tire - 50 inch diameter. Pi D = circumference, so my circumference is 157.0795 inches (13.0900 feet).

Now let's say it's 2 years later and I've lost a half inch of tread. Circumference is 153.93791 inches (12.8282 feet). I've lost three inches per revolution of distance covered.

My spedometer and odometer don't know the difference, so there is a margin of error involved. So if I set a goal to do 60mph, I need 411.5932 revolutions per minute on my odometer for my used tires. New tires need 403.6134 revolutions per minute!


Incidentally - that's a two percent margin of error one can expect for an odometer or a speedometer. Not much, but that's 20 miles per thousand miles you don't know what happened to.

So my speedometer and odometer are actually very nice examples. If I'm measuring my speed and my speedometer says I'm going 65 but the cop says I'm doing 66 - and I'm on new tires - a 2% margin of error on mine may mean that, yes, I was speeding.

I could go on and on.

So when a calculated .5 C warming over 50 years is proof of global warming, I think I can say "Hogwash" when it may have actually cooled by 1 or 2 degrees.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,073]

>I will say, this expliation and discussion makes as much sense to me
>as i have seen in a while.

Cool! I'd call that progress. Reading as much as possible can indeed give one a better perspective.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I will say, this expliation and discussion makes as much sense to me
>as i have seen in a while.

Cool! I'd call that progress. Reading as much as possible can indeed give one a better perspective.

I am more impressed with more research based open discussions than those based on computer simulations.

Not conviced as there are still too many hole/questions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>I will say, this expliation and discussion makes as much sense to me
>as i have seen in a while.

Cool! I'd call that progress. Reading as much as possible can indeed give one a better perspective.

Indeed. I am still at work and haven't accessed the article yet, but I did get some background on things.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Indeed. I am still at work and haven't accessed the article yet, but I did get some background on things.

It has been offered.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,073]

>So when a calculated .5 C warming over 50 years is proof of global
>warming, I think I can say "Hogwash" when it may have actually cooled by
>1 or 2 degrees.

Let's go back to your car's example.

Let's say you have two identical sets of tires. You measure them, note their circumference, make sure they are perfectly round. You put the first set on and fill them to 30psi. You get on the road and drive along at 60mph. The speed limit is 60mph. A cop clocks you at 60mph and does not give you a ticket. You get to work (60 miles away) in an hour.

A few years go by. Your tires wear down and your indicated speed changes. You finally replace them with those brand new tires.

The next day you drive at 61mph to work. You get there in just under an hour. The next day you drive at 61mph again, and a cop pulls you over for doing 61mph in a 60mph zone. Nitpicky cop, but you get out of the ticket by being a nice guy.

Were you going faster after you changed the tires? How can you know, if your speedometer is only accurate to within 2%? Maybe something else changed! Why would you think that the second time you were going faster?

Because many things back up the fact that you're going faster. The cop's radar gun saw you going faster - even if it was not 100% accurate. Your watch tells you that you get to work sooner - even if it's not 100% accurate. The sum total of all these things leaves little question that you were going faster the second time around.

[lawrocket 3]

So does this mean that the margin of error of the satellite images is not 2-3 degrees anymore? Note that the NASA release I posted listed 2-3 degree margin of error - in 2007.

How does that affect Mann's "contrarian" allegation? Is a deviation within the margin of error sufficient to make a scientific conclusion without error?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>So when a calculated .5 C warming over 50 years is proof of global
>warming, I think I can say "Hogwash" when it may have actually cooled by
>1 or 2 degrees.

Let's go back to your car's example.

Let's say you have two identical sets of tires. You measure them, note their circumference, make sure they are perfectly round. You put the first set on and fill them to 30psi. You get on the road and drive along at 60mph. The speed limit is 60mph. A cop clocks you at 60mph and does not give you a ticket. You get to work (60 miles away) in an hour.

A few years go by. Your tires wear down and your indicated speed changes. You finally replace them with those brand new tires.

The next day you drive at 61mph to work. You get there in just under an hour. The next day you drive at 61mph again, and a cop pulls you over for doing 61mph in a 60mph zone. Nitpicky cop, but you get out of the ticket by being a nice guy.

Were you going faster after you changed the tires? How can you know, if your speedometer is only accurate to within 2%? Maybe something else changed! Why would you think that the second time you were going faster?

Because many things back up the fact that you're going faster. The cop's radar gun saw you going faster - even if it was not 100% accurate. Your watch tells you that you get to work sooner - even if it's not 100% accurate. The sum total of all these things leaves little question that you were going faster the second time around.

This is one of the few times I understand one of your analogies.

So, extended to the climate change subjuect. Your example here works except for one detail (for me anyway) That is the time frame. So much of the research you hang your opinion on is less than a blink of an eye in the life of this planet. So much has been made of data in the last say 50 years. That is less than one rotaion of one tire in your example.

There are paleoclimate studies that do not agree with the one I posted but, because it deals with a time frame that means something in the cycles that are the climate, I pay attention.

I pay little attention to the near term NASA data cause I feel it is meaningless.

In any event, I do pay attention.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I am more impressed with more research based open discussions than those based on computer simulations.

Open discussions? I don't understand that. To be science, whether experimental or theoretical, a basic requirement to be considered science is that it be public. That's the basis of the publication system.

Do you mean open discussions of experiments versus models?

While I don't know specifically how the researchers developed the model used to derive the results in the article being discussed, models have to be tested against known data. Run old date for which the outcome is known through the model; if what comes out does not match the observed results (experiment), then it's thrown out. That's validation.

For some science, one can develop a model and do the experiment in a laboratory. For some science, one can't do the experiment for a variety of reasons. E.g., in the development of medical countermeasures against smallpox, anthrax, the plague, etc, scientists can't intentionally infect humans with those diseases to test efficacy of potential candidates. In that case, model systems are used, typically guinea pigs and non-human primates (NHP). You might be surprised sometimes how few model animals (NHPs) are in the tests.

For certain high-energy physics and astrophysics, in order to test the model experimentally one would have to re-start the Universe ... or destroy it.

With climate change models, the experiment requires intentionally impacting the environment with the potential for long term consequences for generations of humans. Some would argue that we are the experiment in progress. We don't have a 2nd or 3rd Earth to do the experiments. So instead, one relies on validated models.

Does that make sense?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I am more impressed with more research based open discussions than those based on computer simulations.

Open discussions? I don't understand that. To be science, whether experimental or theoretical, a basic requirement to be considered science is that it be public. That's the basis of the publication system.

Do you mean open discussions of experiments versus models?

While I don't know specifically how the researchers developed the model used to derive the results in the article being discussed, models have to be tested against known data. Run old date for which the outcome is known through the model; if what comes out does not match the observed results (experiment), then it's thrown out. That's validation.

For some science, one can develop a model and due the experimental in a laboratory. For some science, one can't do the experiment for a variety of reasons. E.g., in the development of medical countermeasures against smallpox, anthrax, the plague, etc, scientists can't intentionally infect humans with those diseases to test efficacy of potential candidates. In that case, model systems are used, typically guinea pigs and non-human primates (NHP). You might be surprised sometimes how few model animals (NHPs) are in the tests.

For certain high-energy physics and astrophysics, in order to test the model experimentally one would have to re-start the Universe ... or destroy it.

With climate change models, the experiment requires intentionally impacting the environment with the potential for long term consequences for generations of humans. Some would argue that we are the experiment in progress. We don't have a 2nd or 3rd Earth to do the experiments. So instead, one relies on validated models.

Does that make sense?

/Marg

Sorry I worded my comments poorly. More the way I think is in my post to billvon above ours.

I can not pay attention to computer models in any event (for climate anyway) Too short term and way too many as of yet unknown variables that can not be accounted for. Manipulations at best from what I have learned. Right or wrong, this is where I stand

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

What's got me concerned about bill is that even if nothing is accurate enough to show something is happening, the fact that so many say that it is happening leaves little doubt that it is happening.

Isn't that why we went to Iraq? Isn't that also called the "overwhelming weight" of questionable intelligence? Isn't that the, "come on. We all kniw what Saddam is up to. And we'll find the proof. The failure to act now could be catastrophic."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

What's got me concerned about bill is that even if nothing is accurate enough to show something is happening, the fact that so many say that it is happening leaves little doubt that it is happening.

Isn't that why we went to Iraq? Isn't that also called the "overwhelming weight" of questionable intelligence? Isn't that the, "come on. We all kniw what Saddam is up to. And we'll find the proof. The failure to act now could be catastrophic."

Exactly. That is why I remain a serious skeptic.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Allow me to fix that. It's not "about bill" - I meant to write "about bill's post."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,073]

> That is the time frame. So much of the research you hang your opinion
> on is less than a blink of an eye in the life of this planet. So much has
>been made of data in the last say 50 years. That is less than one rotaion
>of one tire in your example.

That is definitely correct! And during that one rotation of the tires we have VERY good data. Going back to the last set of tires, you have to be very careful if we are to claim any accuracy at all. Were the tires the same size? How do we know? Do we have measurements? No, but here are a set of tread prints in the mud behind the house, and they give a pretty accurate measurement of the tread length. Here's a picture of the tires on the new car, and we can take exactly the same picture of the car now and measure the observed difference in tire size.

So with enough work we can get a very good sense of what the car _used_ to be doing, even if we weren't there with a pencil recording everything.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Allow me to fix that. It's not "about bill" - I meant to write "about bill's post."

I knew what you meant. But, it makes sense to clarify.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> That is the time frame. So much of the research you hang your opinion
> on is less than a blink of an eye in the life of this planet. So much has
>been made of data in the last say 50 years. That is less than one rotaion
>of one tire in your example.

That is definitely correct! And during that one rotation of the tires we have VERY good data. Going back to the last set of tires, you have to be very careful if we are to claim any accuracy at all. Were the tires the same size? How do we know? Do we have measurements? No, but here are a set of tread prints in the mud behind the house, and they give a pretty accurate measurement of the tread length. Here's a picture of the tires on the new car, and we can take exactly the same picture of the car now and measure the observed difference in tire size.

So with enough work we can get a very good sense of what the car _used_ to be doing, even if we weren't there with a pencil recording everything.

No, in one rotation not nearly enough data can be gathered to make any solid conclusions. In this case it would take a couple of miles. Time and distance. 1 rotation can not get you there

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

I will add this however.

For one rotation, if very finite and exact measurements could be taken (and I know they can in the tire example) then yes, one could look forward and make a good prediction. But in this case, all the variables can be noted and accounted for. The ability to take very specific measurements is possible and this is where climate study can not follow. Too many variables and variability within the variables and then, take into account what we as of yet do not know.

Relate to the tire. If we could not measure tire pressure, surface traction (for just two) or say we did not even know about them, just these two factors could affect data that could significantly distort any conclusions/predictions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Here is my subjecive synopsis of the article (Letter);
The Weather station records show insignifican changes, bu they are (except two) near he coast. Little informaion exists as to the interior.

They use "statistical climate-field-reconstruction techniques to obtain a 50-year-long, spatially complete estimate of monthly Antarctic temperature anomalies." (emphasis added.) The reconstruction and records are reliable because continental Alaska has a high degree of spacial coherence.

Previous atempts to do this were inconsistent. This one is beter because of a few thinggs: (1) there are two independent estimates of "the spatial covariance of temperature across the Antarctic ice sheet: (2) surface temperature measurements from satellite thermal infrared (TIR) observations; (3) up-to-date automatic weather station (AWS) measurements of near-surface air temperature."

The use a method for estimation of missing data. They use variation metrics that weren't used before. "Skill metrics for our TIR-based reconstruction from split calibration and verification experiments are significant (.99% confidence) at all grid points except in some restricted areas, mostly on the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula." (lawrocket note - NASA assigned a 2-3 percent margin of error for their TIR measurements - this is my inherent problem with this data - being more confident in derived results than with the figures upon which the derivations were made, i.e., "We are 99 percent confident that the answer is '5' since the TIR was 9 (+/-2) minues 4.

"Results from our AWS-based reconstruction agree well with those from the TIR data." (fine - a best 2-3 C margin of error) And they accounted for things like clouds that can skew data.

"We also find significant warming in East Antarctica at 0.10+/-.07 uC per decade (1957–2006). The continent-wide trend is 0.12+/-.07 uC per decade. In the reconstruction based on detrended TIR data, warming in West Antarctica remains significant at greater than 99% confidence, and the continent-wide mean trend remains at 0.08 uC per decade, although it is no longer demonstrably different from zero (95% confidence)."

My note - this is giving another margin of error of .07 degrees C, meaning that it is anywhere between 2.07 and 3.07 degrees C margin of error.

The paucity of data from Wes Africa contributed to the lack of information showing warming. But reconstructions with satellite data (that are confirmable at many stations) show warming, with (wha I think is a high) margin of error. "The results showmean trends of 1.1+-.8 uCper decade and 0.45+-1.3 uC per decade at Siple and Byrd, respectively13. Ourvreconstruction yields 0.2+-0.26 uC per decade and 0.36+-0.37 uC per decade over the same interval." Longer reconstructions gave less margin of error showing positive warming.

While studies showed a warming peninsula-cooling East, the cooling occurred mainly between 69 and 2000. Most areas warmed betwen 57 and 80.

---

That's the first three pages.

My point - I see the logic behind what they did. I can see how their methodology makes sense - in the abstract. In the real, they confirmed their results with the TIR measurements, which have a margin of error of 2-3 degrees, C. If the results are in agreement, then the results have a similar margin of error. This means that there is roughly a 55%-60% chance of warming, with a 45%-40% chance of cooling (as my understanding of margins of error tells me).

This I have not seen pointed out, so maybe I'm just being an asshole. But if someone can explain it to me how being well within the margin of error is enoug to shut up a "contrarian" I'm open to it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

What's got me concerned about bill is that even if nothing is accurate enough to show something is happening, the fact that so many say that it is happening leaves little doubt that it is happening.

Isn't that why we went to Iraq? Isn't that also called the "overwhelming weight" of questionable intelligence? Isn't that the, "come on. We all kniw what Saddam is up to. And we'll find the proof. The failure to act now could be catastrophic."

You spent the time going through this article in some detail so, let me ask you a question.

In your opinion, were there deceitful conclusions or questionable directions (attempts to mislead or cover up) in the article? I know the detail was there cause you found it but, when I read some things like you have commented to here, I get the feeling that the authors think something like, "well, ya, we know that there are holes in the data but, since we know man is increasing the speed of global temperature rises we need to look past that and report what we think, not what we see".

(I do not mean that "quote" to be leading but I wrote it that way to try and make my point)

And it may not be a coercive attempt at covering some things up but it is there none the less.

Did you feel that to be the case in what you are commenting to here?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

This is an intereting perspective

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

From the article itself? No. I didn't see an intent to deceive. I think that they probably think that antarctica is warming and want to prove it. In doing so, they will, of course, not be quite so hard on themselves.

The article itself got me to thinking that these folks are simply doing the best they can. The article was explicit that these are "estimates" but that they are 99 percent confident in them.

Had their calculation methodology showed no warming or showed net cooling then I also think they would have either: (1) not released the results; (2) limited their results to West Antarctica and the Peninsula; or (3) tweaked the calculations.

Though I cannot really say.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

From the article itself? No. I didn't see an intent to deceive. I think that they probably think that antarctica is warming and want to prove it. In doing so, they will, of course, not be quite so hard on themselves.

The article itself got me to thinking that these folks are simply doing the best they can. The article was explicit that these are "estimates" but that they are 99 percent confident in them.

Had their calculation methodology showed no warming or showed net cooling then I also think they would have either: (1) not released the results; (2) limited their results to West Antarctica and the Peninsula; or (3) tweaked the calculations.

Though I cannot really say.

Thanks but, your feelings indicate you really wonder to the intent based on what they believe today.

Enough on it though, thanks again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln