Hmm and I thought you were the self appointed guru of all things IPCC.
"The standard terms used to define levels of confidence in this report are as given in the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note, namely:
Confidence Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct
Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance
High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance"
So when you said this.
"Again, I am happy to accept the conclusion of the IPCC, that warming is unequivocal and high confidence that humans are responsible"
So you think there is a 1 in 5 chance they are wrong?
Brave man to bet his house on those odds don't you think?
You could have this as well.
"The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:
Likelihood Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
Virtually certain > 99% probability
Extremely likely > 95% probability
Very likely > 90% probability
Likely > 66% probability
More likely than not > 50% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely < 33% probability
Very unlikely < 10% probability
Extremely unlikely < 5% probability
Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability"
"Probability is a way of expressing knowledge or belief that an event will occur or has occurred."
So they are saying very likely means odds of least or greater than 10 to 1 on that it will all turn out to be down to humans.
So can you clarify?
Off course the IPCC could always get off the hook by saying we never said anything was particular certain. The politicians should have checked the statistical meaning of our words.
"In statistics, a claim to 95% confidence simply means that the researcher has seen something occur that only happens one time in 20 or less."
"Similarly, the finding of a statistical link at 95% confidence is not proof, nor even very good evidence, that there is any real connection between the things linked."
That should get them out of trouble if things go bad!
So we had GW skeptics, then deniers and now science deniers. How about heretics?
No, science denier is an accurate description, since that is what they do. It is possible to have a position outside of the mainstream without being a science denier, but such contrarian arguments are seldom seen in threads like this.
Your own position: "All the data is wrong because I say so and I'm not interested in the science" is firmly in the science denier category, for example.
No, science denier is an accurate description, since that is what they do. It is possible to have a position outside of the mainstream without being a science denier, but such contrarian arguments are seldom seen in threads like this.
Your own position: "All the data is wrong because I say so and I'm not interested in the science" is firmly in the science denier category, for example.
You guys don't understand scientific method. All the data are wrong because they fiddled with it. You don't understand that by using a self selected set of weather stations you will get a biased estimate. After that all bets are off son.
You guys don't understand scientific method. All the data are wrong because they fiddled with it. You don't understand that by using a self selected set of weather stations you will get a biased estimate. After that all bets are off son.
You guys don't understand scientific method. All the data are wrong because they fiddled with it. You don't understand that by using a self selected set of weather stations you will get a biased estimate. After that all bets are off son.
actually so does this guy. :eek::eek:
What Evidence for “Unprecedented Warming”?
This is a new paper which takes a look at the statistical uncertainty of the long term warming trends by Pat Frank. He looks at the uncertainty of the data including that created by non-stationary errors and comes to the reasonable conclusion that global trends for the length of the temp record are statistically indistinguishable from zero. This has particular implications for model verification and especially to the real need for vetting errors in station measurements. Pat asked me to post on it here, and he has written a blog style explanation of his results below.
Hmm and I thought you were the self appointed guru of all things IPCC.
"The standard terms used to define levels of confidence in this report are as given in the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note, namely:
Confidence Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct
Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance
High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance"
So when you said this.
"Again, I am happy to accept the conclusion of the IPCC, that warming is unequivocal and high confidence that humans are responsible"
So you think there is a 1 in 5 chance they are wrong?
Brave man to bet his house on those odds don't you think?
You could have this as well.
"The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:
Likelihood Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
Virtually certain > 99% probability
Extremely likely > 95% probability
Very likely > 90% probability
Likely > 66% probability
More likely than not > 50% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely < 33% probability
Very unlikely < 10% probability
Extremely unlikely < 5% probability
Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability"
"Probability is a way of expressing knowledge or belief that an event will occur or has occurred."
So they are saying very likely means odds of least or greater than 10 to 1 on that it will all turn out to be down to humans.
So can you clarify?
Off course the IPCC could always get off the hook by saying we never said anything was particular certain. The politicians should have checked the statistical meaning of our words.
"In statistics, a claim to 95% confidence simply means that the researcher has seen something occur that only happens one time in 20 or less."
"Similarly, the finding of a statistical link at 95% confidence is not proof, nor even very good evidence, that there is any real connection between the things linked."
That should get them out of trouble if things go bad!
Maggie
Your problem is that the only way you seem to be able to make a point is to continually rewrite the things you are attempting to argue against.
"at least" is the phrase you are having to ignore here.
I think we are getting to the root of your confusion. You have no idea why we need models.
Which is not what happens. Both of those things are model outputs, not inputs.
.
Same thing in effect. You don't think these scientists are as clueless as you do you.
The models were created to explain the late 20th century temperature rise. These scientists created these hoping to confirm their hypothesis that rising CO2 was causing it.
Given the known quantitive effect of increasing radiative forcing, assuming everything else remained unchanged, you could work out on the back of a **** packet what temperature
response to that was required to meet the observed increase in the temperature record. Seeing as we already know the radiative forcing for increasing CO2 they could see that that was far too small to do it on it's own. That is why, they needed a positive feedback response to increasing radiative forcing and again that response value could be worked out quickly on said **** packet.
The models are hugely complicated in that all the factors in there have to be linked . We have an accurate figure for average TSI for instance, However, for a number of other factors there are no agreed values, effects, or measurements. Reflective aerosols, albedo, volcanoes, land use etc.You get to play around with them in the model. Now you know what final value of sensitivity you are looking for and I am sure they kept running the models and tweaking the values till they got close to it.
What would be the point otherwise?
Of course some, like aerosols, have to have their effect change sharply over time, like reflective aerosols, that is to curve fit the cooling periods. Hey, but no problem once we have got the curve we can just flat line the effect until we need it again, GISS, in its model, has been flat lining the following factors since the late 1980s. Black Carbon, Reflective Aerosols, Land Use and Ozone all of which it had changing values for in the model prior to the 80s. None of these factors have any confirmed agreed effect so you can play around with them to your hearts content, which GISS apparently does!
So forget any idealistic thoughts about the purity of scientists, these models are outputting just what they were programmed to do. Just in as complicated a fashion as possible to impress laymen and politicians
I spoke too soon. Clearly you failed to appreciate the significance of this:
As the global temperature of the Earth climbs because of the rising luminosity of the Sun, the rate of weathering of silicate minerals will increase. This in turn will decrease the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So that will act to reduce the temperature! This is the silicate weathering thermostat that has played a vital role throughout much of the climate history of the Earth.
.
Can't you understand simple ideas and do simple maths?
In the next 600 million years the sun will increase its output by about 6%. That is about 80 WM2. They predict CO2 will fall to 50ppm. That is an effect of minus 3 doublings from the current levels. Three doublings of CO2 is 12WM2 approximately.
80 - 12 is a net increase of radiative forcing of 68 WM2 .
Got it! Gosh I bet you feel foolish now, don't you?
Is that one of those that Jones et al decided to boycott?
Hell, no! It's much worse than that one. It's a social science journal, which is not the kind of place one would choose to publish a paper concerning the physical sciences - unless, say, one was unable to get it published anywhere else, but wanted to claim that it had been "peer-reviewed".
You'd need to got back 1.2 billion years, either 3 or 3000 times the period you gave to get a 10% increase.
page 72, graph of both CO2 levels and Temperature.
First impression, whilst CO2 is falling there is an associated fall in temperature, despite a rise in the available energy. A billion years ago the temperature starts to rise slowly. And 1/2 a billion years ago there is an increase in the rate of temperature rise, at the same time as the fall in co2 seems to have slowed to a minimum. Given those details it may have been possible for a human to link all three graphs up to that point, and predict the most probable level in the recent past. That would of course depend on the co2 level continuing its slow decline.
Given a 3.3% rise then if 290 is an accurate estimate of the temperature today, a starting point of 287.6 looks a pretty close fit to what the graph shows.
Trouble is you can't really go back much more than 500 million years before any comparison with current conditions and climatic processes breaks down. Back then there was no life on land and the composition of the atmosphere was totally different.
The Earth does seem determined to stay within a narrow temperature range though. There is the 'Faint Sun' paradox which shows that 3.5 billion years ago it was only about 70% as bright as now.
However, we know for certain that we had liquid water back then, meaning temperatures must have been close to todays figure.
The Earth just seems to want to refuse to warm up significantly no matter what.
You guys don't understand scientific method. All the data are wrong because they fiddled with it. You don't understand that by using a self selected set of weather stations you will get a biased estimate. After that all bets are off son.
As you've already been told, the temperature data is not the only proof of warming, we also have a host of observed natural warming.
Further, all the unadjusted temperature data is available, much of it for free, just begging for an eminent statistician such as yourself to give it a proper going over. I've always been curious why no-one has done so yet.
As you've already been told, the temperature data is not the only proof of warming, we also have a host of observed natural warming.
Further, all the unadjusted temperature data is available, much of it for free, just begging for an eminent statistician such as yourself to give it a proper going over. I've always been curious why no-one has done so yet.
So you're happy that it shows a trend despite being fiddled with? I think McIntyre has trashed the data enough. Why would I waste my time when it is incumbent upon you to show that the data support your claim, they don't. You cannot even claim a warming based on the data so how are you going to explain that man caused it? It's joke science.
Hell, no! It's much worse than that one. It's a social science journal, which is not the kind of place one would choose to publish a paper concerning the physical sciences - unless, say, one was unable to get it published anywhere else, but wanted to claim that it had been "peer-reviewed".
You guys don't understand scientific method. All the data are wrong because they fiddled with it. You don't understand that by using a self selected set of weather stations you will get a biased estimate. After that all bets are off son.
You can't explain how by using a self selected set of weather stations you will get a biased estimate.
So you're happy that it shows a trend despite being fiddled with? I think McIntyre has trashed the data enough. Why would I waste my time when it is incumbent upon you to show that the data support your claim, they don't. You cannot even claim a warming based on the data so how are you going to explain that man caused it? It's joke science.
I already provided you with several links to peer reviewed papers that showed warming without relying on the instrumental record. That is when you changed your initial null hypothesis form "there is no warming" to "warming is natural".
Same thing in effect. You don't think these scientists are as clueless as you do you.
Inputs are "the same thing in effect" as outputs?
Who were you saying is clueless?
Given the known quantitive effect of increasing radiative forcing, assuming everything else remained unchanged, you could work out on the back of a **** packet what temperature response to that was required to meet the observed increase in the temperature record. Seeing as we already know the radiative forcing for increasing CO2 they could see that that was far too small to do it on it's own. That is why, they needed a positive feedback response to increasing radiative forcing and again that response value could be worked out quickly on said **** packet.
You keep droning on, but clearly have no idea of the underlying physics. As I've told you before, you have to calculate the radiative forcing due to increased CO2. It's not just something that you know. And a positive water vapour feedback is inevitable, given that the amount of water vapour increases in accordance with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. Cloud feedbacks are more complex, but are still modelled based on known physical processes, not just input into the model, as you imagine.
So forget any idealistic thoughts about the purity of scientists, these models are outputting just what they were programmed to do. Just in as complicated a fashion as possible to impress laymen and politicians
I think I can see why you (in your "Alan Millar" incarnation), had so much trouble on Real Climate. Having you insist on telling actual climate modellers how their models work must have been a bit tiresome for them!
But a lot of your posts there seem to have survived censorship. Here's a game anyone can play: go to the RealClimate web site, enter "Alan Millar" in the search box, and see how many of "Maggie's" arguments were previously attempted there, and observe how the patient answers were simply ignored.
Can't you understand simple ideas and do simple maths?
In the next 600 million years the sun will increase its output by about 6%. That is about 80 WM2. They predict CO2 will fall to 50ppm. That is an effect of minus 3 doublings from the current levels. Three doublings of CO2 is 12WM2 approximately.
80 - 12 is a net increase of radiative forcing of 68 WM2 .
Got it! Gosh I bet you feel foolish now, don't you?
No, I don't feel foolish. I feel smug.
You seem to have conflated TSI with global average insolation, and (rather unsurprisingly) ended up with a stupid answer!
Comments
Good luck in getting anything out of him.
Your own position: "All the data is wrong because I say so and I'm not interested in the science" is firmly in the science denier category, for example.
You guys don't understand scientific method. All the data are wrong because they fiddled with it. You don't understand that by using a self selected set of weather stations you will get a biased estimate. After that all bets are off son.
actually so does this guy. :eek::eek:
What Evidence for “Unprecedented Warming”? http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/what-evidence-for-unprecedented-warming/#more-11278
"at least" is the phrase you are having to ignore here.
Same thing in effect. You don't think these scientists are as clueless as you do you.
The models were created to explain the late 20th century temperature rise. These scientists created these hoping to confirm their hypothesis that rising CO2 was causing it.
Given the known quantitive effect of increasing radiative forcing, assuming everything else remained unchanged, you could work out on the back of a **** packet what temperature
response to that was required to meet the observed increase in the temperature record. Seeing as we already know the radiative forcing for increasing CO2 they could see that that was far too small to do it on it's own. That is why, they needed a positive feedback response to increasing radiative forcing and again that response value could be worked out quickly on said **** packet.
The models are hugely complicated in that all the factors in there have to be linked . We have an accurate figure for average TSI for instance, However, for a number of other factors there are no agreed values, effects, or measurements. Reflective aerosols, albedo, volcanoes, land use etc.You get to play around with them in the model. Now you know what final value of sensitivity you are looking for and I am sure they kept running the models and tweaking the values till they got close to it.
What would be the point otherwise?
Of course some, like aerosols, have to have their effect change sharply over time, like reflective aerosols, that is to curve fit the cooling periods. Hey, but no problem once we have got the curve we can just flat line the effect until we need it again, GISS, in its model, has been flat lining the following factors since the late 1980s. Black Carbon, Reflective Aerosols, Land Use and Ozone all of which it had changing values for in the model prior to the 80s. None of these factors have any confirmed agreed effect so you can play around with them to your hearts content, which GISS apparently does!
So forget any idealistic thoughts about the purity of scientists, these models are outputting just what they were programmed to do. Just in as complicated a fashion as possible to impress laymen and politicians
Fact. Comparing their output against 21st century reality.
Can't you understand simple ideas and do simple maths?
In the next 600 million years the sun will increase its output by about 6%. That is about 80 WM2. They predict CO2 will fall to 50ppm. That is an effect of minus 3 doublings from the current levels. Three doublings of CO2 is 12WM2 approximately.
80 - 12 is a net increase of radiative forcing of 68 WM2 .
Got it! Gosh I bet you feel foolish now, don't you?
Maggie
There is no limit to their ability to absorb embarrassment.
Funny thought I do wonder if any of those living in the Maldives are considered to be extremists.
Trouble is you can't really go back much more than 500 million years before any comparison with current conditions and climatic processes breaks down. Back then there was no life on land and the composition of the atmosphere was totally different.
The Earth does seem determined to stay within a narrow temperature range though. There is the 'Faint Sun' paradox which shows that 3.5 billion years ago it was only about 70% as bright as now.
However, we know for certain that we had liquid water back then, meaning temperatures must have been close to todays figure.
The Earth just seems to want to refuse to warm up significantly no matter what.
Maggie
Further, all the unadjusted temperature data is available, much of it for free, just begging for an eminent statistician such as yourself to give it a proper going over. I've always been curious why no-one has done so yet.
seeing as they are using the norm for the north pole as 100% ice one can only expect a negative. not stupid are they.
So you're happy that it shows a trend despite being fiddled with? I think McIntyre has trashed the data enough. Why would I waste my time when it is incumbent upon you to show that the data support your claim, they don't. You cannot even claim a warming based on the data so how are you going to explain that man caused it? It's joke science.
Needs must when there's a monopoly.
You can't explain how by using a self selected set of weather stations you will get a biased estimate.
Maybe it will be back to being a 'naughty naughty boy' next year if it is 0.1C below the new record.
Who were you saying is clueless?
You keep droning on, but clearly have no idea of the underlying physics. As I've told you before, you have to calculate the radiative forcing due to increased CO2. It's not just something that you know. And a positive water vapour feedback is inevitable, given that the amount of water vapour increases in accordance with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. Cloud feedbacks are more complex, but are still modelled based on known physical processes, not just input into the model, as you imagine.
I think I can see why you (in your "Alan Millar" incarnation), had so much trouble on Real Climate. Having you insist on telling actual climate modellers how their models work must have been a bit tiresome for them!
But a lot of your posts there seem to have survived censorship. Here's a game anyone can play: go to the RealClimate web site, enter "Alan Millar" in the search box, and see how many of "Maggie's" arguments were previously attempted there, and observe how the patient answers were simply ignored.
No, I don't feel foolish. I feel smug.
You seem to have conflated TSI with global average insolation, and (rather unsurprisingly) ended up with a stupid answer!