The new open thread on climate science for a new year, and a new decade – perhaps the Soaring Twenties? What precisely will be soaring is yet to be decided though.
Two things will almost certainly go up – CO2 emissions and temperatures:
As 2019 wraps up, what can we look forward to in 2020?
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) December 22, 2019
More of the same, plus a little bit more… pic.twitter.com/nmMP6riIjZ
But maybe also ambition, determination, and changes that will lead to reduced emissions in future? Fingers crossed.
Victor @ 165
Victor I guess you didn’t want to respond to this question.
The temperature has risen about 1C since the beginning of the 20th century. There have been slowdowns and pauses during that time but it has still risen as CO2 has risen. What is your point? I’m always open to learning but what are you trying to show?
Gavin or somebody: How much polar amplification has there been since, say, 1980? Does anyone have a figure for Arctic and Antarctic temperature increase versus global? I could use it for a paper I’m writing. Citation, too, of course, or just point me to the source. Thanks.
[Response: Use the zonal index which has the global and Arctic annual means. The ratio is roughly 3x at this point. – gavin]
I have read the CNN and CNBC websites for years to keep informed. Conservatives in the US consider CNN to be a biased liberal site but I don’t know of anyone who considers the CNBC site which focusses on financial news as a liberal website. Over the past 6 months I have seen an uptick in climate change news being reported as impacting the economy. Over the past month the articles have jumped again. This week the BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, who is the world’s largest money manager at $7 trillion in assets, interview was published which was titled “BlackRock CEO says the climate crisis is about to trigger ‘a fundamental reshaping of finance’”.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-says-climate-change-will-soon-reshape-markets.html
This created a rush of comments from other CEO’s and financial managers that agreed. Also the host of Mad Money Jim Cramer.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/cramer-on-blackrocks-climate-change-investing-shift-esg-and-tesla.html
If CEO’s and financial managers start to accept the problem of a climate crisis it will be a game changer in the US. While our government tries to encourage more CO2 being dumped into our atmosphere the people that control a lot of money and are beginning to see the effects of the climate crisis may start influencing the public enough to make some major changes. Fingers crossed.
Regarding my comment @344. Should add a bit more information on improving how much carbon soils can sequester. The Nordborg research on soils was based on field trials and is among the more optimistic research. It found:
HM (holistic management, regenerative farming) applied to 1 billion hectares worldwide;
Plant growth measured as Net Primary Productivity (NPP) above and below ground is 3.8 tonnes of C per ha and year before introduction of HM;
NPP doubles following implementation of HM;
10% of NPP is sequestered in the soil in the first year;
Soil carbon sequestration declines from 10% to 2% to 0% after 50 years and then 100 years respectively.
….However, using the assumptions, a calculation of 26.5 billion tonnes of carbon was produced, which is approximately 4.8% of the total emissions of carbon since the industrial revolution..(with the sequestration programme spread over about 50 years. This is obviously a rather small % of current yearly CO2 emissions)
351
TPaine says:
Victor I guess you didn’t want to respond to this question.
The temperature has risen about 1C since the beginning of the 20th century. There have been slowdowns and pauses during that time but it has still risen as CO2 has risen. What is your point? I’m always open to learning but what are you trying to show?
V: As I’ve demonstrated (many times), there is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures (aside from a brief 20 year period). During a period when CO2 levels were too small to make a difference we see a steep rise in temperature. During periods when CO2 levels are rising steeply, we see either a dip in temperatures or a significant slowdown in temperature rise. Etc. Thus the relation to which you refer is most likely a coincidence.
340 Ray Ladbury says:
RL: Mathematically, what you are proposing is a change-point analysis–which is designed to show if the behavior of the system has changed significantly in two intervals.
V: Sorry, but the ultimate test of correlation is not change-point analysis but the tried and true scattergram. The (very similar) scattergrams presented by BPL, MAR and Grumbine actually provide us with the information we need — but only when we add in the relevant dates, which they failed to do. When we add the dates it becomes clear that the correlation which looks so convincing covers only the last 20 years of the previous century. Before and after that period: NO correlation.
Since there’s been so much debate regarding what happened since the turn of the present century, here’s a useful scattergram produced by one Danley Wolfe: https://archive.is/VP5ZZ/4450888313a8e9a35c9319dca60c624cb84d9998
According to Wolfe, “The data set is NASA GISS global mean temperature and Mauna Loa/Keeling CO2, from 1959 through March, 2015.” And for you math whiz’s out there, “The R squared(Ref3) of 0.033 prima facie tells you this correlation is, well … just meaningless. Therefore, using a 1st order regression is meaningless, as is any calculated climate sensitivity. The spread of data indicated by the standard deviation vs. min-max spread of the data shows the data are simply a scatter, no more.” ( https://archive.is/VP5ZZ#selection-935.0-947.207 )
Since Wolfe’s essay was presented at the notorious WUWT site, it will certainly be attacked in these comments. Fine. But if you wish to contest his result, please produce a more convincing one covering those exact same dates (prior to the big El Nino, natch).
Nigel: Ban discussion of nuclear power? Its the height of arrogance
AB: How so? This site ain’t Your Entire Life. If the consensus is that porn (or whatever) isn’t appropriate here then you (I?) aren’t constrained from delving to you’re heart’s desire at a more appropriate site.
That said, we’ve actually had some informative discussions about nukes and electric motors/reactive power recently.
Go team!
Re #346 nigelj said Ban discussion of nuclear power? Its the height of arrogance.
Nice to know you consider Mann, Schmidt, et al., arrogant. It is/was their ban.
People here are supposed to be open minded. We should consider all options on their merits.
And people like you are why False Equivalence derailed change for decades: You are unable to tell the difference between the germane and non-germane. Nuclear will never be the solution over time frames that matter inre climate.
Re #352 Barton Paul Levenson said Gavin or somebody: How much polar amplification has there been since, say, 1980? Does anyone have a figure for Arctic and Antarctic temperature increase versus global? I could use it for a paper I’m writing. Citation, too, of course, or just point me to the source. Thanks.
[Response: Use the zonal index which has the global and Arctic annual means. The ratio is roughly 3x at this point. – gavin]
3x? Yet, we constantly, and only in my case, have ever seen/heard the “2x faster” phrasing. Might be good to update the public onversation a bit more quickly given how rapidly change is happening.
Re #342 obn said #337 #326 #324 MA Rodger, Kevin McKinney ,John Pollack
Many thanks. I am slowly drawing a picture that will, I hope make sense. I am guessing that the sensitivity is key here
Yes, there are two issues here: The measurement of temperatures and the effects of temperature changes. The vast mjaority of discussion surrounding climate focus on the temperatures themselves, but the vital issue is the effects that come from those changes.
When scientists say their models have been pretty accurate WRT climate, they are talking about temperatures. What I, as an citizen analyst, non-scientist and #permaculturist focus on is the changes being wrought and to be wrought, and this is where the issue of sensitivity arises.
Ten years ago, Antarctica was not an issue for up to a hundred years, and not much of an issue then as melt would be slow. Now? Multi-meter SLR possible by century’s end. That’s due to two things: Emissions remaining high and new understandings of sensitivity, inclusive of better undertanding the dynamics in the cryosphere.
Also now, the next IPCC includes some startling (for most, apparently) increases in climate sensitivity ranges where the highest seem to be comin in at between 5 and 6C. But there are 3 kinds of sensitivity:
https://skepticalscience.com/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity.html
The concern for 8 of the new models is higher sensitivity, particularly ESS, which is essentially the state of the planet when all warming is done. So, yes, look at temps all you want, but it is the sensitivity to those temps that tells the tale… and indicates the degree of self-inflicted chaos headed our way.
Re #344 nigelj said Killian @332 waves his arms furiously,and churns out a whole forest of straw people, and says ignore the peer reviewed science because “we know better.”
Idiot. In no way can my post be interpreted that way. Once again, you lie. You also don’t know what the term “hand wave” means. Letter first:
This is stupid on your part. What I stated, apparently far above your head, is that what science is only now discovering, #TEK and/or #permaculture and/or so-called, and incorrectly called, “fringe” science, has long been known. There are numerous cases of science catching up to #TEK and there is a globa concerted effort to better integrate such knowledge into “mainstream” science.
But you, being the damned fool you are, think stating such is the case equals “hand-waving.” You’re fecking useless. You *still* do not belong on these pages any more than Victor, et al.
I have already made this point, but you’re stupid, so I will be more explicit: I in no way said ignore the science. There is not a single word in that post that could be interpreted to mean that. I made a VERY clear point that the science simply does not know yet. The science is catching up to #TEK/#Permaculture, not leading it, WRT soil managment.
Useless goddamned troll.
BPL and Gavin,
3x, eh? Larger than the old 2x rule of thumb. Makes sense. Seriously, how do you get to ferns at the poles without baking absolutely everything in the tropics without lots more than 2x? I wouldn’t be surprised if that 3x started creeping upwards.
V 355: there is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures
BPL: This is a false statement and you should stop making it.
V 356: the correlation which looks so convincing covers only the last 20 years of the previous century. Before and after that period: NO correlation.
BPL: You still, after due and diligent efforts at educating you by many people here, have no idea what “correlation” means. Your statement above is false. Quit saying it.
People here should remember that Victor the Troll is not best described as being a troll. Rather he is a moron suffering denial on climate change. Psycologically he is trapped in a world-view in which AGW is a myth and so CO2 cannot ever be the reason for the global warming over the last century. We do not here converse with Victor – he is in denial. Rather we converse with his subconscience, which is the source of all the bullshit he serves up here. And the human subconscience is not known for logical consistency. So expecting straight answers to straight questions that would make sense of his intellectual position is expecting rather too much.
Instead we need to analyse the all blather he gushes out as within it his basic errors are quite plain.
So @343 we have Victor trying hard to sound like he understands correlation by waving Anscombe’s quartet, a construct which stresses “the importance of graphing data before [statistically] analyzing it.” Yet in that same coment @343, Victor also makes great play of examining a graph that doesn’t present any CO2 data, so one which cannot display the temperature-CO2 correlation. He repeatedly insists on examining a plot of temperature against time to determine of there is a temperature-CO2 correlation.
When the moron does use a temperature-CO2 graph (and here you need to visit his grubby little blog-page), he says that
So Anscombe’s test is satisfied!!
The crux of Victor’s demented thinking is presented @315 where he insists “Look, it’s really simple.” We are then presented with a set of short time period within which there is “clearly NO correlation” between CO2 & Temperature (when actually there is). The moron Victor then contrasted this with the dates 1979-98 which he insists is “the ONLY period where correlation is evident” (which is of course untrue), concluding
What the moron is perhaps getting at is that he can happliy cherry-pick some sections of that 120-year-long record and of these cherry-picks he found only the one 1979-98 provides the same result as the “very strongly correlated” period 1900-2019. So I don’t see that such an analysis would lead to his denialist assertion that this full 120-year period shows no correlation when his eyeball was telling him it was “very strongly correlated.” (To assist, I plot out this grand finding of moron Victor in a form he appears to be able to grasp – see here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’). Indeed, I don’t know why he ignores the full set of data. HadCRUT4 runs back to 1850, see here – again plotted in a fashion that is hopefully within Victor’s limited grasp to understand (2 click). We see that the “very strong” correlation 1850-2019 is remarkably similar to the 1979-2019 correlation projected over that full period.
(Purists may agrue that CO2 forcing should be used rather than CO2 concentrations, or we should use some calculation of the temerature rise that would appear from such a forcing, but the outcome is not significantly different.)
To me, what Victor the Troll is actually providing with his idiosyncratic analysis is perhaps the exact opposite of what he intends – his analysis is evidence that the last 40-year temperature rise is almost entirely attributable to rising CO2 levels.
Weaktor: “Sorry, but the ultimate test of correlation is not change-point analysis but the tried and true scattergram.”
And Jesus fricking wept. A scattergram is NOT a test. It is a graph. You have to perform tests on the data if you want to know whether trends that your eye picks out are significant (that is, really there).
Temperature vs. time is a very noisy dataset. That is because there are many different forcings that drive temperature. Most of those forcings operate on relatively short time scales. The trend–and climate–are the long-term, persistent trends.
I have no problem that you and Wolfe don’t understand how to estimate correlation. As an exercise, start with yearly average temperature anomalies. You, yourself have said that warming takes time, start with a year for your averages. When you’ve done that tell us what you find.
Victor:
Asserted, yes. Demonstrated, no.
#343 Victor,
Sorry, you lose the bet, because you didn’t answer my actual question.
Way back before we all had super computers and apps in our pockets, a common exercise would be to have students plot data on graph paper, and then “eyeball” draw a straight line as a “best fit”, and then determine the slope.
But what one observes in this exercise is that there is considerable variation in what the students come up with.
So you seem to be dodging the point. Of course each individual is convinced that his/her line is the best… that’s the problem. My question was, how do we determine the correct slope?
You say: “When disagreements arise as to the meaning of any such observation, what is called for is additional research, not the taking of a vote. ”
OK, but the data is the data…what is the “additional research”? I await your answer.
And with respect to your question about Gavin’s graph…I would look at the graph and conclude that the trend is the same.
Okay, Victor @356
Let’s entertain your hypothesis for a bit. You say regarding the correlation between CO2 levels and annual surface air temperatures “When we add the dates it becomes clear that the correlation which looks so convincing covers only the last 20 years of the previous century. Before and after that period: NO correlation.”
How do you explain that the correlation didn’t exist before then, and shut off afterward? Was there a physical process involved? Since there is now no current correlation between elevated CO2 levels, their consequent enhanced greenhouse effect, and warmer air temperatures, how do those air molecules know to stay warm? Why couldn’t they simply revert to 1910 levels, now that the 1998 El Nino is over? Since they aren’t getting their signal from CO2, are they looking at a calendar? A scatterplot? Secret messages from George Soros and Tom Steyer?
Don’t just be a naysayer on the physical impact of the greenhouse gases. Give us your reason why temperatures keep rising.
Killian @358
“Re #346 nigelj said Ban discussion of nuclear power? Its the height of arrogance.”
“Nice to know you consider Mann, Schmidt, et al., arrogant. It is/was their ban.”
I never said anyone was arrogant. I’m talking about a persons decisions on a particular issue, not the personality. You cant seem to work out the difference.
And I don’t care who promoted it. Gavin is great on most things, 99% of things, but I don’t see a good case to ban discussion of nuclear power and it sure looks arrogant to do so and certainly looks closed minded or like censorship.
If people spam the website with repetitive material on nuclear power, then of course it’s time to start giving them a warning. All points of view need a fair go without being crowded out.
I’m not even a huge fan of nuclear power. But we need to calmly consider all options and put ideology, ignorance, misplaced fears and emotion aside. We need all the tools we can get.
“And people like you are why False Equivalence derailed change for decades: You are unable to tell the difference between the germane and non-germane. Nuclear will never be the solution over time frames that matter inre climate.”
Thanks for your opinion and that’s all its is, empty opinion devoid of any substantiating evidence, laced with a pack of lies about me.
The time frames that matter most for climate are the next 30 years and stopping warming getting over 2 degrees, preferably 1.5 degrees. We have seen enough reports on this. This will requires a lot of new energy generation in a relatively short time. That’s what most of us think is needed. Nuclear power could play a part in that, even if its just a part. I wont go further because this is not the right thread for it.
Killian @361
“Once again, you lie. You also don’t know what the term “hand wave” means. Letter first: Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while actually doing nothing effective or substantial.”
Yes well that definition of hand waving does pretty much sum you up much of the time. Certainly your ideas about how much carbon you think soils sequester are hugely optimistic and not based in anything substantial. Its just wishful thinking.
“This is stupid on your part. What I stated, apparently far above your head, is that what science is only now discovering, #TEK and/or #permaculture and/or so-called, and incorrectly called, “fringe” science, has long been known. There are numerous cases of science catching up to #TEK and there is a globa concerted effort to better integrate such knowledge into “mainstream” science.”
Yes science is discovering some value in those things. That’s an awful long way from proving we can make soils sequester vast amounts of carbon in a relatively short time, which is what you have posted and people like Alan Savory have claimed is possible. You are too lacking in discernment to see the difference.
The science finds we can only sequester small additional amounts of soil carbon with holistic agriculture, (although I think that’s still valuable and enough reason to look at changing how we farm). There’s a thing called “field trials” that shows all this and the problem that warming causes soils to release carbon. You need to explain how permaculture changes those two physical facts, and it doesn’t look easy to me. So explain away.
“: I in no way said ignore the science. There is not a single word in that post that could be interpreted to mean that. I made a VERY clear point that the science simply does not know yet. The science is catching up to #TEK/#Permaculture, not leading it, WRT soil managment.”
Whatever. Nit picking I think. You keep rubbishing peer reviewed science you don’t like, and scientists opinions, and telling us permaculture knows better.
I am in no way an expert on anything but even I realize that Victor is a waste of time claiming to have demonstrated the untrue and telling actual scientists of their supposed ignorance. What happened to the borehole?
RE. Victor
LOL, ignoring the history of the relationship. What a joke. Correlation is correlation, dates have NOTHING to do with it. Atmospheric temperatures near the surface which is the subject of this correlation discussion are determined by MULTIPLE drivers with CO2 being just ONE of them. That is why we use statistical methods to determine the level of correlation—other variables over time may mask the effect of any of the particular variables. The longer the time frame of data, the better information one has on the strength of the correlation overall. The information isn’t misleading at all because the coefficient of correlation accounts for periods where the correlation may be weaker.
Conveniently ignoring 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.
Victor, a musicologist with no formal training in science or statistics, continues to arrogantly lecture experts of both on the proper use of statistics.
The data most certainly does not mean the relationship of temperatures to CO2 is likely a coincidence. Only an ignoramus would make that claim, someone who ignores the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
One of the more ironic comments made by Victor. Diligent critical analysis is not a strength of Victor’s. Science is about looking at all of the evidence. All of it. Every last ounce of data, every observation, all of the pertinent science, all of our knowledge of physics and physical properties. EVERYTHING, not just statistical analysis, which is just one tool to help us not be fooled and must be used in context of the whole—the whole of the science.
Wonder if Victor has done a correlation study between ocean heat content and CO2 levels. Doubt it. Victor doesn’t think or work like a scientist. He ignores data and evidence.
Al Bundy @357, while I get your point, the consensus is not that nuclear power should be banned as a discussion point. Only Killian is whining and complaining about it currently. Even if everyone agreed it should be banned doesn’t prove a whole lot.
William Jackson @372 “I am in no way an expert on anything but even I realize that Victor is a waste of time claiming to have demonstrated the untrue and telling actual scientists of their supposed ignorance. What happened to the borehole?”
Agreed. You will find the borehole is already full of many of Victors comments, full to bursting point. The man is like a machine creating intellectual rubbish like a production line. Sophistry describes his writing perfectly.
Victor,
“Global warming” includes the oceans. That humans first started recording temperature five feet or so above ground level is just an interesting but provincial and irrelevant factoid. And since air has a pitiful heat content the proper focus is Ocean heat content. Less important are the top 100 meters or so of ground and groundwater/ice heat content, and atmospheric heat content, of which only a smidgen is at 0-6 feet.
Why adamantly insist that only a tiny fraction of a single variable be used when determining the amount of global warming?
“Changing goalposts” is how science works, but the analogy can be improved. It’s more like “moving the first down markers” because scoring a goal (complete understanding) is either impossible or far into the future.
So, tell us why ocean heat content is irrelevant when discussing global warming.
Cuz if it is included your whole pontification minimizes its potential energy. (Collapses)
However: my original point was, very simply, that “denialists” are not the only ones to claim the hiatus was real.
I really don’t understand what your problem is other than you’re an ass. Your shtick is worn completely out.
Would someone please borehole this guy?
Apparently, Victor said:
I didn’t see the original, and I’ve done more than enough recreational scrolling for one morning.
But, no. Just no. Both CO2 and temperature data are ordered by date, and correlated accordingly.
It is indeed disconcerting when I’m forced to recognize the level of sheer ignorance (supplemented with a heavy dose of stubbornness seasoned by denial) on the part of so many involved in what is supposed to be a scientific discussion. The analysis presented in the blog post to which I linked ( http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html ) is perfectly straightforward. And yes, it’s certainly acceptable to contest my findings by introducing some reasonable objection. But that is NOT what I see in your responses. All I get are crude put-downs, pleas for exile to the bore hole, and irrelevant shifting of the goal posts. And yes, equally crude insistence that a correlation MUST be a correlation, regardless of the history associating the two datasets. My point is that we have to distinguish between a purely technical correlation and a meaningful one. A correlation that’s laid out in such a way as to emphasize only one relatively brief period of time and effectively hide the others is of little value scientifically.
Moreover, a correlation involves a relationship between two data sets, for all practical purposes two sets of numbers. If those two sets are correlated the correlation should be clear from the examination of a scattergram. And yes, that’s done by eyeball. I suppose braille is also possible. And yes, as I must insist, the scattergram is valid only if the history of the relation between the datasets is taken into account.
If the scattergram fails to clearly display the telltale diagonal to all reasonable parties (pace Zebra), then, in all likelihood there is no correlation. No amount of statistical legerdemain can produced a correlation where no such thing is evident from the visual display. What the math can do is assist in determining the strength and consistency of the correlation (or lack of same). But, as illustrated by Anscombe’s Quartet, the math can also lead you astray. Which is why visual examination of the data must take priority.
Additionally: a correlation involves two sets of numbers. Period. Whether or not the true meaning of these numbers is masked by some other factor not apparent from examination of the numbers is another matter entirely. Thus objections based on the presence or absence of “forcings” not represented in the data at hand may well be legitimate, but are irrelevant as far as the correlation (or lack of it) is concerned. So any additional effects of industrial pollutants, volcanic eruptions, oceanic temperatures, etc., have no bearing on the correlation per se. Those issues are another matter entirely — on which I’ve made my position clear many times on this blog.
Here is a surprise:
https://m.phys.org/news/2020-01-chemists-fungal-shrapnel-air.html
Might contribute to ice cloud formation.
Nigel,
Not sure how I worded it. Perhaps ‘consensus’ was a poor choice. In any case, the consensus here is two-layered. You, I, and the rest of the inmates can clamor, “Please, sirs, can we fight about nuclear in your room?” Then the powerful consensus decides.
Then the inmates decide whether to abide.
Then the mods decide whether it’s worth the effort to peel bickering semi-morons off the prohibited nuclear third rail or just get on with their passion, perhaps by donning a clothespin to handle the stench of our reciprical immolation.
As Kevin noted, it’s so toxic in here that folks instinctively attack those their mind has labeled “Other” even when that Other is largely agreeing.
“We’re all bozos on this bus” Monty Python
Re #374 nigelj said Al Bundy @357, while I get your point, the consensus is not that nuclear power should be banned as a discussion point.
Jesus, you’re dumb. Guess what? It never was. It was a very, very minority opinion on the part of the owners of this blog to ban it. Most seemed happy to engage, foolishy, as has been demonstrated, the issue. So, get this: It is NEVER an issue of consensus of posters bc YOU, et al., do not own/run/manage this site. You are completely non sequitur.
Only Killian is whining and complaining about it currently.
Two more words you do not understand. I mention it infrequently. I mention it in terms of the owners following *their own ban*, not asking for anything not already in place. I ask them to follow *their own rules* because this site has become virtually unusable between the idiocy and wasted bandwidth of letting denial slop all over everything, now – for how many months? – nuclear is taking up even more space than denial when nuclear is simply never going to be a significant – and should not be any – part of the solution set. It fails on multiple grounds already repeatedly covered.
I whine in trying to redirect conversation to useful topics as the planet is clearly careening toward oblivion? You’re a goddamned fool. Never more so than now.
Even if everyone agreed it should be banned doesn’t prove a whole lot.
It matters not a tiny whit what you agree to. So far as I know, the ban was never revoked. The owners are clearly just not bothering to police. I am asking them to simply do what they had already done for years. It was the right policy. You’re too damned foolish to realize that. So be it.
Re #370 nigelj said Killian @358
“Re #346 nigelj said Ban discussion of nuclear power? Its the height of arrogance.”
“Nice to know you consider Mann, Schmidt, et al., arrogant. It is/was their ban.”
I never said anyone was arrogant. I’m talking about a persons decisions on a particular issue, not the personality. You cant seem to work out the difference.
You really do have the mental acquity of a moon rock. Arrogance is a noun. One who engages in arrogance over a long period of time (the ban has been in place for years) cannot but be considered arrogant. You said banning nuclear was not just arrogance, but the *height* of arrogance; the most arrogant one can be. You did not say, “Banning nuclear would be arrogant,” you said it is the height of arrogance, a TRAIT, not a one-time behavior.
M-W are here to elucidate: “Definition of arrogance : an **attitude** of superiority manifested in an overbearing **manner** or in **presumptuous claims** or **assumptions**”
Emphases mine. Is it overbearing manner to ban a topic one does not want, or to ask that a ban be enforced bc the site is spammed with denial and nuclear? How is presumptuous for owners to do as they wish? Or, for me to ask them to resume previous behaviors? A request is presumptuous? A demand would be, certainly, but a request for resumption of what was done for years? Is there an assumption anywhere in my request?
You, sir, are a fool. You got caught with your pants down bc you thought the ban was my idea, and any idea from me is a trigger for you, so you didn’t stop to think for a nanosecond, took a knee-jerk shot at me and hit the blog owners.
LOL…
Victor says “However: my original point was, very simply, that “denialists” are not the only ones to claim the hiatus was real.”
He can go on about this forever, but so what? It’s in the past. Meanwhile the last 5 years have had record temperatures, during a period of low solar activity. What does that tell you Victor?
I hate censorship, but that utter drivel by Victor @379 about scattergrams and correlation really does belong in the borehole. Its pure sophistry at best.
AB@381, ha ha agreed.
RE. Victor @379
The irony. Victor can never recognize his ignorance of science and statistical methods. His arrogance and ego makes him believe he is more knowledgeable than the experts. Stubbornness? Victor defines the word. Victor purports to be in a *scientific* discussion where he refuses to acknowledge the actual science.
Baloney. Not another matter entirely, it is exactly why we look at statistical correlation.
Irrelevant? Says who? That’s not how science works. The presence of these other factors are exactly why we use statistical tools–to help discern dependence out of the noise.
Only in Victor’s fantasy world of science where evidence and data are ignored.
You can be assured that Victor will never look at the correlation of CO2 levels to the other aspect of a warming planet–ocean heat content. The answer won’t support his myopic world view so it is to be avoided, just like all the rest of the science and evidence. His sheer level of ignorance of the science, which he refuses to learn, and lack of critical thinking skills is readily apparent in his years of posting nonsense. It is a tiresome bore.
Killian @382
“Re #374 nigelj said Al Bundy @357, while I get your point, the consensus is not that nuclear power should be banned as a discussion point”…”Jesus, you’re dumb. Guess what? It never was. It was a very, very minority opinion on the part of the owners of this blog to ban it. ”
I never said said there was a consensus that nuclear power be banned on this website. I am clearly saying there’s no apparent consensus “right now” that it “should” be banned, with contributors anyway.
You literally can’t seem to read simple english, yet you feel free to throw abuse at all and sundry on this website. Dunning Kruger perhaps?
“Only Killian is whining and complaining about it currently”….”Two more words you do not understand. I mention it infrequently. ”
Pointless pedantry.
“– nuclear is taking up even more space than denial when nuclear is simply never going to be a significant – and should not be any – part of the solution set. It fails on multiple grounds already repeatedly covered.”
Personally I think your simplicity ideas fail on multiple grounds. Like I said it seems like its the moderators job to give everyone fair space.
————————-
Killian @383
“You, sir, are a fool. You got caught with your pants down bc you thought the ban was my idea, and any idea from me is a trigger for you, so you didn’t stop to think for a nanosecond, took a knee-jerk shot at me and hit the blog owners.”
Nope. If was wanting to embarrass you and score points, I would have said ‘Killian’ is being arrogant to suggest nuclear power be banned. I didn’t. I just said its arrogant for nuclear power to be banned. I’m strong on freedom of speech, even although I don’t think nuclear is likely to be a big part of the climate solution. You are just being paranoid. That’s the most charitable response.
Next?
Victor the Troll,
You describe in another place what you call “the all important distinction I’ve made between a purely statistical correlation and a meaningful one.” Given that correlation is in its entirety “purely statistical,” perhaps you could set out for the amusement of all here what you mean by this alternative “meaningful one.”
Victor, #379–
Here, let me fix that for you:
If the scattergram
fails to clearly displayclearly displays the telltale diagonal to all reasonable parties (pace Zebra), then, in all likelihood there isnoa correlation. No amount ofstatisticalverbal legerdemain canproducednegate a correlation whereno such thingit is evident even from the visual display.Well, at least closer to being true, anyway.
AB 381: “We’re all bozos on this bus” Monty Python
BPL: Firesign Theater
#379 Victor
“pace zebra”
Sorry again, Victor, but no answer, no peace.
I try to be polite (except to those who aren’t themselves), but you can’t expect people to be infinitely patient. If you want to have a “scientific” discussion/debate, you have to be willing to have some point of agreement to begin with before you can disagree. You say:
“f the scattergram fails to clearly display the telltale diagonal to all reasonable parties (pace Zebra), then, in all likelihood there is no correlation. No amount of statistical legerdemain can produced a correlation where no such thing is evident from the visual display.”
“Clearly display” and “all reasonable parties” and “evident from the visual display” are not meaningful/useful expressions. Other than “ask Victor”, how are we to determine what is “clear”, “reasonable”, or “evident”?
I asked you if we should take a vote, or do a statistical analysis of the individual’s answers, and you said no.
So, for all your protestations about wanting to be “scientific”, you still haven’t explained how to arrive at the correct value, other than “ask Victor”.
Please feel free to try again.
RE. Victor
More on Victor’s inane claims.
The surface temperature problem is a case of multiple correlation…there are several independent variables for which one variable is dependent. In such cases, treating the one variable as dependent on only one of the independent variables in a statistical analysis is less than ideal unless we can do an experiment and control the other variables to be non-changing, although without that ability the exercise can still be useful. In lieu of that, it would be more accurate to determine the multiple correlation coefficient—if the data is available, but in the case of surface temperature the data to do such is sparse or nonexistent.
What Victor is doing is completely asinine. We could do exactly what Victor has done and run a correlation analysis of solar output versus surface temperatures from about 1980 to the present. The analysis would clearly show that surface temperatures have no correlation to solar output—-solar output was flat or declining, yet surface temperatures increased! Fortunately, we know that such a conclusion would be absurd and any statistician making that claim would be laughed off the planet. This is no different than making the claim that surface temperatures are not dependent on CO2 levels. Physics clearly tells us surface temperatures are dependent on both.
Some new, free open access research of possible interest:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab63e3
On the relationship between Atlantic meridional overturning circulation slowdown and global surface warming
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/01/14/1900577117.full
Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6498
Wildfire risk science facilitates adaptation of fire-prone social-ecological systems to the new fire reality
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-14049-6
Antarctic Ice Sheet and emission scenario controls on 21st-century extreme sea-level changes.
#392 Will wonders never cease? CCHolley has actually come up with a reasonable post for a change. This is the sort of intelligent response I’m always hoping for but hardly ever get. So good — finally:
CC: We could do exactly what Victor has done and run a correlation analysis of solar output versus surface temperatures from about 1980 to the present. The analysis would clearly show that surface temperatures have no correlation to solar output—-solar output was flat or declining, yet surface temperatures increased! Fortunately, we know that such a conclusion would be absurd and any statistician making that claim would be laughed off the planet. This is no different than making the claim that surface temperatures are not dependent on CO2 levels. Physics clearly tells us surface temperatures are dependent on both.
V: Excellent! And of course you are right as far as the sun is concerned. The sun is in fact the major source of planetary warmth by far. And yet a scattergram opposing solar output to global surface temps would in all likelihood not produce much in the way of correlation. Because, as you very reasonably argue, “several independent variables” are at work in determining global temperatures. The fact that solar output is only one such variable cannot minimize its influence, despite the lack of a simple, one-to-one correlation. And yes, an analogous argument can be made when assessing the influence of CO2 levels.
My response is twofold:
1. First, if you read the blog post I originally referenced ( http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html ), you will see that it was written in response to a claim that there is, indeed, a simple one-to-one correlation of precisely the sort you’ve questioned. My analysis was directed explicitly at this particular claim, not the more general claim you’ve raised regarding the influence of CO2 on temperature. This is precisely the point I made in my previous post.
2. There would be no need to produce a correlation demonstrating the influence of solar output on planetary temperatures, because everything we know about the physics involved tells us that this has to be so. If no correlation can be seen then we have no choice but to consider the influence of additional variables, both known and unknown.
However, this is NOT the case as far as CO2 levels are concerned. In fact, the whole debate now raging over “climate change” is centered on this very issue. If “the physics” of AGW were as clear as the physics of solar warming there would be no need for a correlation to support such a claim. Which is why so many AGW supporters are so eager to insist on a correlation even when none can be found. (And, of course, even if there were a genuine long-term correlation, as so many here take for granted, that in itself cannot determine a cause and effect relation, as is well known.)
The core of the issue I’ve raised is that so many have insisted on a one-to-one correlation between temperature and CO2 as evidence supporting AGW. And what I’ve demonstrated is simply that no such correlation actually exists. It’s a mirage. And since the influence of CO2 levels on global temperatures is by no means as clear as the influence of solar output, then the lack of correlation represents a serious obstacle to the AGW claim.
Which is not to say that other factors shouldn’t be taken into consideration. It’s just that the existence of other factors cannot be seen as evidence that CO2 is the major driving force. So if you want to invoke additional factors you need also to provide evidence that there is some underlying influence of CO2 that’s being masked by these factors. It’s not enough simply to invoke this influence. You need to provide solid evidence not only that it exists, but that it is THE major forcing, as is so often claimed. I’ve yet to see such evidence.
Can anyone make the case that the Australian wildfires (or the conditions supportive of fires) are NECESSARILY a result of climate change?
Looking at the BoM data for rainfall from 1900 (first year on record) to now, it appears that Australia has gotten wetter over almost the entire country, including areas heavily affected by fires:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ=map%3Drain%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0112%26period%3D1900
A look at the deciles maps (very cool) also shows that the 2019 drought was a total one-off, and not part of a trend:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/
Also, their evaporation pan data (if I understand it correctly) doesn’t support any linkage in many locations.
Granted, there are other factors in drought, like wind, clouds/sun, plant growth/transpiration, and ambient temperature. But even if this last year was the hottest on record, the temperature increase due to AGW is 1 or 2 degrees, so that in and of itself, doesn’t seem like a reasonable explanation.
Also, there have been many huge fires in the past, like the record 1974-75 fires which burned by far the largest land-area, and occurred during what appears to be some of the wettest years in Australian history (see decile maps). Or the 1851 fires which were among the largest – were obviously pre-AGW.
Anyway, I’d love to get an expert take on this.
Re #387 nigelj said Killian @382
I never said said there was a consensus that nuclear power be banned on this website.
And I never said you did.
You literally can’t seem to read simple english
You got this completely backwards and will NEVER figure it out.
yet you feel free to throw abuse at all and sundry on this website.
Lie. Truth is not abuse. Calling you what you are is not abuse. Noting your lies is not abuse. Noting that you don’t understand what you read is not abuse. You are simply contemptibly inadequate.
Dunning Kruger perhaps?
Yes. You suffer from it, believing yourself above your betters when you have, even to this moment, never added a single original thought to this forum, never made a post where your thoughts added to this site in any way, yet do make major errors of cognition, analysis, comprehension on a daily basis.
You do not belong here.
The key word WRT D-K is “illusory”: You have the illusion/delusion you add something here, yet literally have never done so a single time. I *am* superior to you in every aspect WRT issues of climate, energy, resources, and a gargantuam compared to you WRT sustainability/regenerative systems. There is no illusion here. It’s fact. But, then, even Victor makes you look small.
“Only Killian is whining and complaining about it currently”….”Two more words you do not understand. I mention it infrequently. ”
Pointless pedantry.
No, again showing your utter inability to function here usefully.
Personally I think
No, you don’t.
your simplicity ideas
There it is again. Whose, you damned fool?
fail on multiple grounds.
So you claim to judge an entire way of thinking, ways of life, lifestyles, cultures, etc., even though you have zero understanding of them?
Fool, ask yourself, who cares what a dog thinks about astrophysics? And, yes, you’re the dog in that analogy.
Like I said it seems like its the moderators job to give everyone fair space.
No, they have zero obligation to do so, but you arguing FOR False Equivalence confirms once again you are a faux supporter of solutions.
Nope. If was wanting to embarrass you and score points, I would have said ‘Killian’ is being arrogant to suggest nuclear power be banned. I didn’t.
Slither, rather, try to, out of your own words. Who, then, exhibited the “hight of arrogance?” The words themselves? What a joke you are.
I just said its arrogant for nuclear power to be banned.
And it’s not a human or humans who would do that, eh? Fool. And how is it arrogant in any sense to ban a topic that is not considered germane? So, you claim I am arrogant when I merely support the standing rules. Then, when show you do not understand the context, and are shown to have reacted out of personal bias rather than rational thought, you don’t admit the mistake, you try to pull a Trump and claim you never said what you said.
Blech.
I’m strong on freedom of speech
Your a charlatan who can’t man up to his mistakes. (I had typed errors, but errors are something we do with things we already know. You know nothing, so can only make mistakes.) You’re an idiot savante w/o the savant.
#392, CC Hollley–
Indeed, it’s easy to plot Solar activity versus temperature and verify what you said.
Like this:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from/mean:13/plot/pmod/offset:-1360/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/scale:0.005/mean:13
Red is temp, blue is sunspot numbers, green is the actual PMOD composite index of solar radiation (but it only goes back to ’79). I think even Victor’s eyeball would find little correlation between temperature and the other two. (This is not a proper test, of course, but is quite indicative.)
388 MA Rodger says:
Victor the Troll,
You describe in another place what you call “the all important distinction I’ve made between a purely statistical correlation and a meaningful one.” Given that correlation is in its entirety “purely statistical,” perhaps you could set out for the amusement of all here what you mean by this alternative “meaningful one.”
V: In general terms, a correlation can be understood very simply as a systematic relation between two sets of data. A statistical correlation is a special case, in which the data are analyzed using statistical methods. But not all correlations need be statistical. For example, it’s common knowledge that the time of day is correlated with the position of the sun — no need for either a scattergram or the calculation of a correlation coefficient.
The scattergrams offered by Grumbine, BPL and yourself appear to display a long-term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, but, as I’ve demonstrated, those displays, while technically conforming to the statistical definition of a correlation, are nevertheless misleading. In order to demonstrate the difference as clearly as I can, I will go over my reasoning one more time, only in more detail.
Consider the following scattergram, provided in an essay by Barton Paul Levenson. This one is particularly useful as it covers the entire period from 1880 through 2007: https://bartonlevenson.com/MyHTML2.gif And yes, the distribution of data points along a lower left to upper right diagonal over such a large portion of the graph does look convincing.
http://www.doktorgee.worldzonepro.com/Scattergram%20by%20Barton%20Paul%20Levenson%20–%20with%20dates.jpg
However, when we add dates to Bart’s graph, as I’ve done just below, the true nature of the “correlation” becomes evident: http://www.doktorgee.worldzonepro.com/Scattergram%20by%20Barton%20Paul%20Levenson%20–%20with%20dates.jpg
As we can see from examining the dates provided under the graph, the 20 year period within which the diagonal appears takes a disproportionately large amount of space by comparison with the preceding 100 years. The reason for this discrepancy is the fact that CO2 levels rose relatively slightly during most of the earlier period. Note for example the vertical alignment over a roughly 10 year period at the 310 ppm position — indicating that CO2 levels hardly changed at all during that time. (1937-1947 according to Bart’s chart, during which the levels varied by no more than .2 ppm — see his essay at https://bartonlevenson.com/Correlation.html ).
As indicated in my breakdown of the dates, the diagonal signalling correlation doesn’t begin until roughly 1979 and continues until 1998, only 20 years later. Prior to 1979, the data is either jumbled or relatively flat — after 1998, the data on Bart’s graph looks relatively flat. We get a closer look thanks to the more detailed scattergram provided by Danley Wolfe, which I referenced in an earlier post: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?resize=515%2C377 Clearly, there is no sign of correlation during the dates covered in this graph, 1999 through 2015.
A clearer representation of the overall picture is provided by another scattergram compiled by Wolfe, covering the period during which CO2 levels were measured from the Mauna Loa station, beginning in 1959:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/clip_image0062.jpg
The full relation between the data and the dates is evident from this display. According to this graph, which includes ALL the relevant information, the ONLY period where we see evidence of a correlation dates from the “mid 1970’s” through the “late 1990’s.” Before and after that relatively brief period, there is no sign of correlation.
Thus: the scattergrams presented by Grumbine, Bart and yourself, while statistically consistent with a correlation, are nevertheless misleading, as the correlation supported by your statistics represents only a relatively brief time period. There is in fact NO evidence supporting a long-term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. QED!
re: 398. Goodness what rubbish. For the umpteenth time, you have cherry picked data. That is not even close to good statistical analysis.
Read and learn (look that latter word up because it is apparent you have done little if any learning about science):
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
Killian @396 delivers a page of ad hominems and wild claims. Notice when I criticise his comments in a mostly polite, fair minded and fact based way he always resorts to arrogant, ad hominem attacks against me (and plenty of other people) and pedantry about definitions of words, and who said what when?
That’s because I’m right in my criticisms of his commentary, in the main, and he has no answers other than to shift the goal posts to some trivial issue about whether arrogant was the right word to use, and attack me personally.