A Note: Global Warming Threads

[adoucette]

Well you are defending it, by using it as an example.

It's only use is as an example of 'cherry picking'

Something commonly done by people on both sides of the argument.

I'd just never seen you do it before.

Life is too short to waste time tracking this level of minutia down, particularly when it's obvious from the later GISS graph I posted that any conclusions would not be supported when you use a longer term look at climate.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Well you are defending it, by using it as an example.

It's only use is as an example of 'cherry picking'

Something commonly done by people on both sides of the argument.

I'd just never seen you do it before.

Life is too short to waste time tracking this level of minutia down, particularly when it's obvious from the later GISS graph I posted that any conclusions would not be supported when you use a longer term look at climate.

Arthur

Oh bullshit.

You're presenting a false dichotomy, and life is too short to waste trying to argue the point with you any further.

The simple fact of the matter is that commenting on an Inaccuracy in person B's objection to person A's argument is not the same thing as supporting person A's argument.

It is simply an example of critical thinking, and you're completely missing the mark here.

The simple fact of the matter is that Hansen's 1986 predictions were being misrepresented, and I reproduced that graph, directly from Hansen's 1986 paper, with a link to the original paper so that it could be seen and taken in context, to demonstrate that what was being argued against wasn't what Hansen actually predicted.

Saying "What Hansen actually said was this..." is not the same thing as saying "Hansen's right, you're wrong, here's the proof".

Equally, let's assume, for a moment, that you're right, and the graph also illustrates cherry picking, as well as what Hansen predicted, and that including the earlier data increases the future uncertainty.

Let's stop and consider what that means for a moment.

You're saying that when we consider all the historic data, the uncertainty in the future predictions increases.

So then what - according to you, if we combine Hansen's 1986 predictions with the earlier climate data, the predictions become less certain, and the difference between Anthropogenic and natural forces becomes less statiscally significant.

You realize that this weakens the moronic argument that "Because current climate patterns are indistinguishable from natural variations, climate change predictions are wrong" - which, by the way, if we follow your own logic, and apply it to you, is precisely what you're defending.

 

[adoucette]

The graph was presented in the context of clarifying what the original prediction actually was - namely that while some scenarios predicted a climate divergent from historical norms, other scenarios predicted a climate barely distinguishable from those norms at the 3-sigma level.

Maybe that was its original context, but now it's just a graph under Albums labeled "Climate Change BS Repellant", which is the only way I know about it.

Equally, let's assume, for a moment, that you're right, and the graph also illustrates cherry picking, as well as what Hansen predicted, and that including the earlier data increases the future uncertainty.

Of course it does. Statistically.

Let's stop and consider what that means for a moment.

You're saying that when we consider all the historic data, the uncertainty in the future predictions increases.

No, it says NOTHING about the uncertainty of future predictions.
It says you have to be sure that when you make predictions you account for Natural Variability when you do so, because as we have seen, natural variations can be quite large.

BUT

Natural variations have Natural causes and thus one can use them to bracket future predictions, for instance I think you would agree that future predictions of warming assume significant increases in GHGs, increased levels of land use changes due to a growing population along with no significant increase in Volcanic Activity, no significant drop in Solar Radiation, No significant increase in global Albedo etc.

So then what - according to you, if we combine Hansen's 1986 predictions with the earlier climate data, the predictions become less certain, and the difference between Anthropogenic and natural forces becomes less statiscally significant.

You realize that this weakens the moronic argument that "Because current climate patterns are indistinguishable from natural variations, climate change predictions are wrong" - which, by the way, if we follow your own logic, and apply it to you, is precisely what you're defending.

Nope, while it shows that current temps remain within the range of Natural Variations, that doesn't mean they are indistinguishable from them. The route that Climate Scientists have taken, because statistical analysis doesn't work, is to do detailed analysis on what causes those natural variations, and insure the models account for those natural variations and can hind cast the past accurately, thus allowing them to make predictions going forward (with the caveats listed above). I think you will find that the issue of late 20th century temperature increase vs known causes of natural variation are extensively addressed in the latest IPCC report. Indeed their description of Anthropogenic warming begins at the last half of the 20th century.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.8

IPCC AR4 - Synthesis Report

As to the actual graph, if indeed it was the best that Hansen could do in 1986, that still doesn't make it valid today, and even presenting an old paper done on that very limited climatic data today, when we know there is so much more data available, is kind of silly don't you think?


Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Maybe that was its original context, but now it's just a graph under Albums labeled "Climate Change BS Repellant", which is the only way I know about it.

At which point if you're genuinely interested, you ask about the source.

As to the actual graph, if indeed it was the best that Hansen could do in 1986, that still doesn't make it valid today, and even presenting an old paper done on that very limited climatic data today, when we know there is so much more data available, is kind of silly don't you think?


Arthur

No, because as I have already stated in this very discussion, the topic of the conversation was about what Hansen's original predictions were, not what the current models suggest.

Incidentally, I'm not implicitly agreeing with most of the rest of your post by ignoring it. I just can't quite bring myself to that kind of indepth discussion at this point of my day, there's a couple of points I disagree with, but my general response is "I haven't said otherwise".

 

[adoucette]

At which point if you're genuinely interested, you ask about the source.

I've no interest in a graph that is so obviously out of date.

If I'm discussing Climate I certainly am not going to reference the FAR, SAR or TAR.

And if I am discussing Hansen's original predictions I'm STILL not going to use those cherry picked date to make my case.

Indeed no reputable climate scientist today would produce a graph of climate today using 1950 to 1980 as a baseline for future climate predictions.

Indeed it's use by Hansen's GISS as their baseline for Anomalies is one of the reasons the 20th Century warming is reported as so high, they intentionally left out the warm Fortys.

But that's because Hansen isn't a climate scientist, he's a climate ACTIVIST.

He lost ALL credibilty once he started saying that energy execs should be tried for crimes against humanity.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...execs-should-be-tried-crimes-against-humanity

The fact that you display it, without comment, under Climate Change BS Repellant, seems a tad ironic though.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

I've no interest in a graph that is so obviously out of date.

honestly?
I don't care whether or not you're interested in it.
It's not there for your benefit.
I didn't present it to you.
I didn't ask you to look at it or consider it.
Therefore your opinion of it is irrelevant to me.

And if I am discussing Hansen's original predictions I'm STILL not going to use those cherry picked date to make my case.

Fercrissake.
You're arguing that when discussing Hansen's original work, Hansen's original work is irrelevant.

Indeed no reputable climate scientist today would produce a graph of climate today using 1950 to 1980 as a baseline for future climate predictions.

Indeed it's use by Hansen's GISS as their baseline for Anomalies is one of the reasons the 20th Century warming is reported as so high, they intentionally left out the warm Fortys.

But that's because Hansen isn't a climate scientist, he's a climate ACTIVIST.

He lost ALL credibilty once he started saying that energy execs should be tried for crimes against humanity.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...execs-should-be-tried-crimes-against-humanity

Thankyou for your opinion piece.

The fact that you display it, without comment, under Climate Change BS Repellant, seems a tad ironic though.

Arthur

The BS was the Bogus claims being made about Hansens original predictions.
It's functionality as BS repellant lies in the fact that the graph is Hansen's original predictions (and contradicts the bogus claims that were made).

I'm not interested in debating the validity of the 1950-1980 baseline with you because it's wholly irrelevant to the purpose for which the graph was being used in the first place.

If you don't like it, tough, I don't actually care, this entire discussion has been purile at best.

 

[Trippy]

In relation to above, and the 'discussion' so far, there is one thing that strikes me as somewhat amusing and Ironic at the same time.

Arthur, if you're not going to take the time to look up Hansen 1986, then what right do you really have to critiscize the date range on the graph?

I mean, if you haven't looked it up, you don't know what his justification for selecting that date range is, you don't know what dataset the predictions in his graph are based on, or the variability depicted, you've got no leg to stand on. You're critiscizing something without bothering to look up its original context.

 

[adoucette]

Yup.

No interest what so ever.

It's less interesting then last years box scores.

The graph is NOT displayed in relation to Hansen 1986 so what's your point of putting it on display?

It MAY have had some validity when it was related to a SPECIFIC point you were making but now NO link to that discussion remains and so outside of that use it is totally misleading.

I'm actually amazed at your response.
You had always been relatively level headed in your debate and not relying on cherry picking or distorting the science.
What changed?

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Yup.

No interest what so ever.

It's less interesting then last years box scores.

The graph is NOT displayed in relation to Hansen 1986 so what's your point of putting it on display?

It MAY have had some validity when it was related to a SPECIFIC point you were making but now NO link to that discussion remains and so outside of that use it is totally misleading.

I'm actually amazed at your response.
You had always been relatively level headed in your debate and not relying on cherry picking or distorting the science.
What changed?

Arthur

Nothing has changed, and for the 10 billionh time, I'm not cherry picking.

It sounds to me what you're complaining about is the mechanics of how this site handles uploaded pictures.

Try uploading one for yourself - I can't link it to a specific discussion (AFAIK).
As I have already explained to you.
I downloaded Hansen 1986, Hansen et al 1989, and several others.
When I posted the graph in the discussion that I was having, at that point, I provided a link to the paper, outlined the context of the graph, where it was in the paper, and then proceeded to explain how it proved what was being suggested wrong.

I cherry picked nothing, and did nothing wrong.

And as for the not labelling it something more descriptive to avoid 'discussions' such as this, there's several reasons why this might not have occured, most of which involve children, some of which involve things like the point that I might have been at work and posting in a 'spare moment' (with the various implied time constraints associated with that fact).

I would generally expect that if someone was genuinely interested they'd ask me where it was from, and if I could provide them a link to the original paper, or the original discussion, rather than going on some tangent effectively accusing me of cherry picking, or whatever.

 

[adoucette]

I cherry picked nothing, and did nothing wrong.

And I never said you did.

Go back and read the thread.

I commented only on the graph, not you or your motives.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

And I never said you did.

Go back and read the thread.

I commented only on the graph, not you or your motives.

Arthur

Then we may have had a miscommunication.

Either way, it's from Hansen 1981, not 1986.

And, incidentaly, in reviewing Hansen 1981, I suspect that the reason for th choice of 1950 for the start point was one of scaling - the predictions went forward to 2020.
:Shrug:
However, the projections are based on models that used data from 1880-1978, and all of the graphs before fig 6 & fig 7 cover the period 1880-1980, except one which is 1880-2000.

And because tracking them down in my post history wasn't as complicated as I thought it might be.

Hansen et al 1981
Hansen & Lebedeff 1987

 

[Trippy]

Addendum:
I can confirm that you can not provide links in the comments, or the title, and I've ammended the the image title to 'Hansen et al 1981, fig 7' something I actually thought I had done when I uploaded it.

 

[adoucette]

Trippy,
Hansen is pulling the wool over your eyes.
Yes he says the data is from fig 3, which goes from 1880 to 1980, but look at the small range that he says is 2 sigma in the graph you are showing.
That's just from the 1950 to 1980 data that he extracted from that other set of temps.
Hansen didn't lie.
It is a tad misleading though.
Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Trippy,
Hansen is pulling the wool over your eyes.
Yes he says the data is from fig 3, which goes from 1880 to 1980, but look at the small range that he says is 2 sigma in the graph you are showing.
That's just from the 1950 to 1980 data that he extracted from that other set of temps.
Hansen didn't lie.
It is a tad misleading though.
Arthur

I'm not sure I agree, however commenting further, for me at least, would involve seeing some detail of his methodology, and preferably handling his raw data myself, or at least a similar dataset.

However, what I will say is this -
Firstly, look at the average temperature, his graph shows most of the time from 1960-1980 as being below it, which is indicative (to me at least) that the average extends further back than the graph is drawn to.

Secondly, take a look at the predicted variation, I suspect that what he may have done is basically calculate the initial 1&2 sigma based on the 1950-1980 interval and then say for example used 1920-1950 to calculate the variance at 1985, 1890-1920 to calculate the variance at 1995, and say 1880-1975 to calculate the variance at 2020, or something very similar.

I'm not saying it's right.
I'm not sure it's how I would have done things.
However :shrug:.

I would certainly have liked it if he had been a little more explicit in detailing how he obtained the bands that he did.

 

[Trippy]

Addendum:
Even if you consider say the 30 year period between 1920 and 1950, there's still only a variation of no more than 0.2-0.3 degrees in extremes of temperature.

 

[adoucette]

The 2 sigma from 76 to 2020, a 44 year span, has a rise of .3 C and and equiv drop of .3C, indicating the range of the possible outcomes at twice the standard deviation but the data from 1890 to 1940 shows about a natual variation .1 C rise per decade, or .44 per 44 years. Thus normal warming is actually higher than what is given as twice the deviation.

It's also misleading to show negative 2 sigma values, since at no period of time equal to 40 years, did the temps ever go down over the preceeding measuring period.

But, as I've learned from McIntyres site, when climate scientists start working with statistics all sorts of strange things happen.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Addendum:
I can confirm that you can not provide links in the comments, or the title, and I've ammended the the image title to 'Hansen et al 1981, fig 7' something I actually thought I had done when I uploaded it.

Well you can put a link in, it just doesn't know it's a link, so you have to copy and paste it, but that is still good practice for this sort of stuff.

http://www.sciforums.com/album.php?albumid=129&pictureid=765

"Hansen et al YYYY", isn't that helpful since Hansen typically has multiple papers per year, and so it could still be the equiv of a internet wild goose chase to find the original, still that is better than no reference.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Well you can put a link in, it just doesn't know it's a link, so you have to copy and paste it, but that is still good practice for this sort of stuff.

http://www.sciforums.com/album.php?albumid=129&pictureid=765

"Hansen et al YYYY", isn't that helpful since Hansen typically has multiple papers per year, and so it could still be the equiv of a internet wild goose chase to find the original, still that is better than no reference.

Arthur

Actually, if you go to google and type in 'Hansen et al 1981' the paper on the GISS server is the first result listed.

And as I've said a couple of times now, the one time i've used the graph in a discussion, it was provided with a link to the paper, and I had generally expected that if anybody had been curious about its origins that they would have contacted me and asked me.

 

[Trippy]

The 2 sigma from 76 to 2020, a 44 year span, has a rise of .3 C and and equiv drop of .3C, indicating the range of the possible outcomes at twice the standard deviation but the data from 1890 to 1940 shows about a natual variation .1 C rise per decade, or .44 per 44 years. Thus normal warming is actually higher than what is given as twice the deviation.

It's also misleading to show negative 2 sigma values, since at no period of time equal to 40 years, did the temps ever go down over the preceeding measuring period.

But, as I've learned from McIntyres site, when climate scientists start working with statistics all sorts of strange things happen.

Arthur

I tend to disagree in one respect at least, Fig 3, the combined average (bottom graph). The period 1940-1960 (late 60's) shows a drop of around 0.3 degrees (my experience is that this is a feature that some like to cherry pick).

 

[adoucette]

It is.
But the SD that he shows for the entire period is that cooling is a mirror image of warming.
But the preceeding period of 1880 to 1980 was one of predominate warming. Clearly the projection is based on a virtually flat record for the period shown, thus you get equal 2 sigma warming and cooling trends (no idea why there would be an inflection going forward in time though)

Not sure you heard, but it would appear that the explanation that the cooling in the post 40s period was caused by Sulfates recently got shot down, so I think that's that's back on the unexplained list. I'll see if I can find a link. I've not been that involved in the climate debate recently, I'm actually more interested in the Energy issues, since those issues face us regardless of how the climate trends.

Arthur