$100,000 to Whomever Can Show Temperature Series Aren't Just Random

Tim the plumber said:

The temperature between 1880 to 1950 cannot have been significantly effected by CO2 because if it was then we would be frying with todays levels. So that period of temperature increases must be natural.

The period 1950 to 1998 saw temperature increases, off and on. At this point the whole GW thing really got into gear. Since then the temperature has not increased.

I have answered your question I hope. Please answer mine; How long does the global temperature have to not go up for you to rule out the top half of the IPCC's predictions?

Click to expand...

Your answer had nothing to do with my question, which was crafted deliberately to make the point that the only reason people are focusing on 18 years but not any other period is that the only way to get a line of best fit showing no warming is 18 years...and only 18 years.







Your answer also has no support and makes no sense. You say "The temperature between 1880 to 1950 cannot have been significantly effected by CO2 because if it was then we would be frying with todays levels. So that period of temperature increases must be natural.".....

...but that is just you.....saying it. You're also throwing in undefined qualifier words like "significantly [a]ffected."



Which is why I tend to stay away from these threads. You want to disprove AGW? Go publish some peer-reviewed papers in the field. Until then you're just saying things in an internet forum, which isn't proof of anything.

Mr Person said:

Your answer had nothing to do with my question, which was crafted deliberately to make the point that the only reason people are focusing on 18 years but not any other period is that the only way to get a line of best fit showing no warming is 18 years...and only 18 years.

Click to expand...

Well, yes. Demonstrating the length of The Pause, one shows . . . . The Pause.

Mr Person said:

Your answer had nothing to do with my question, which was crafted deliberately to make the point that the only reason people are focusing on 18 years but not any other period is that the only way to get a line of best fit showing no warming is 18 years...and only 18 years.

Click to expand...

Yes, the pause in temperature increase has lasted 18 years.

That is a different statement to it has never changed. Well done.

Your answer also has no support and makes no sense. You say "The temperature between 1880 to 1950 cannot have been significantly effected by CO2 because if it was then we would be frying with todays levels. So that period of temperature increases must be natural.".....

...but that is just you.....saying it. You're also throwing in undefined qualifier words like "significantly [a]ffected."

Click to expand...

Well OK. The level of CO2 in the air was very similar to that pre 1750 at 1900. This is because we had not got serrious about using fossil fuels. After 1950 we really got to work digging huge amounts of coal in a very well automated way using big diggers.

So if the tiny amounts of CO2 which we released before 1950 had any effect then we would be boiling now. In the more sciencey way of speaking you need to consider the climate sensitivity to CO2. That is what does a doubling of CO2 do to the temperature. If the sensitivity is high enough that the increase from 1750 to 1900 mattered at all then we would have seen vast increases in temperature in the period 1950 till now. Does that work?

Which is why I tend to stay away from these threads. You want to disprove AGW? Go publish some peer-reviewed papers in the field. Until then you're just saying things in an internet forum, which isn't proof of anything.

Click to expand...

I am not at all able to disprove AGW. My science is not at all good enought to talk about the way IR light is absorbed and reflected.

I take the numbers out of the IPCC's reports. I am OK with using their data and their predictions.

I do not see anything that is at all concearning about them.

I have answered your question I hope. Please answer mine; How long does the global temperature have to not go up for you to rule out the top half of the IPCC's predictions?[2]

Jack Hays said:

Well, yes. Demonstrating the length of The Pause, one shows . . . . The Pause.

Click to expand...

I just want to make sure: You guys understand that nobody who published a peer-reviewed paper in the field ever took the position that each year is going to be hotter than the next, right?

AGW scientists are well aware of the fact that the climate has always changed without man's help. AGW scientists are well aware that if a twenty year cooling cycle starts, the overall temperature is probably going to be cooler for the next twenty years. And if they're right that the current contribution has been a 1.7 degree farenheight increase in average world temperature, then OF COURSE a cooling cycle could override that. 1.7 degrees isn't that much yet.

A "pause" doesn't mean AGW is wrong, unless you can prove that the "pause" is not the result of any such cycles.



The overall theory is still incomplete because we do not have the technological capability to observe all aspects of the global environment, nor model those aspects. We do not fully understand every last cycle that affects temperature in a given year. But precisely zero doubt has been cast on the heat-trapping effects of atmospheric C02, Methane, etc.




When you focus on just 18 years, you are playing a dishonest game. The only reason you picked 18 instead of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 200, or 1,000, is because it is 18 years - AND ONLY 18 YEARS - that lets you draw a line of best fit that suits your position.

Mr Person said:

I just want to make sure: You guys understand that nobody who published a peer-reviewed paper in the field ever took the position that each year is going to be hotter than the next, right?

AGW scientists are well aware of the fact that the climate has always changed without man's help. AGW scientists are well aware that if a twenty year cooling cycle starts, the overall temperature is probably going to be cooler for the next twenty years. And if they're right that the current contribution has been a 1.7 degree farenheight increase in average world temperature, then OF COURSE a cooling cycle could override that. 1.7 degrees isn't that much yet.

A "pause" doesn't mean AGW is wrong, unless you can prove that the "pause" is not the result of any such cycles.



The overall theory is still incomplete because we do not have the technological capability to observe all aspects of the global environment, nor model those aspects. We do not fully understand every last cycle that affects temperature in a given year. But precisely zero doubt has been cast on the heat-trapping effects of atmospheric C02, Methane, etc.




When you focus on just 18 years, you are playing a dishonest game. The only reason you picked 18 instead of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 200, or 1,000, is because it is 18 years - AND ONLY 18 YEARS - that lets you draw a line of best fit that suits your position.

Click to expand...

Consider two things.
One, if 18 years of very little warming is insufficient to define a trend,
then what does that say about the 22 year period that is the basis of the concept of AGW?
Two, an article in nature while trying to explain away the hiatus, does a good job in describing
why the pause is so out of place.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment

Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

Click to expand...

As cited, the models are based on the warming from 1978 to 1998 to continue at the same rate per decade.
One or two years, no big deal, one to two decades, the models need to be revisited.

Mr Person said:

I just want to make sure: You guys understand that nobody who published a peer-reviewed paper in the field ever took the position that each year is going to be hotter than the next, right?

AGW scientists are well aware of the fact that the climate has always changed without man's help. AGW scientists are well aware that if a twenty year cooling cycle starts, the overall temperature is probably going to be cooler for the next twenty years. And if they're right that the current contribution has been a 1.7 degree farenheight increase in average world temperature, then OF COURSE a cooling cycle could override that. 1.7 degrees isn't that much yet.

A "pause" doesn't mean AGW is wrong, unless you can prove that the "pause" is not the result of any such cycles.



The overall theory is still incomplete because we do not have the technological capability to observe all aspects of the global environment, nor model those aspects. We do not fully understand every last cycle that affects temperature in a given year. But precisely zero doubt has been cast on the heat-trapping effects of atmospheric C02, Methane, etc.




When you focus on just 18 years, you are playing a dishonest game. The only reason you picked 18 instead of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 200, or 1,000, is because it is 18 years - AND ONLY 18 YEARS - that lets you draw a line of best fit that suits your position.

Click to expand...

The problem is they do claim AGW greenhouse gasses have more of a forcing effect than all other effects combined. This means that the pause proves they are full of horse puckey about greenhouse gasses.

RAMOSS said:

What he isn't is an expert in science. He is an economists, not a scientist.

Click to expand...

If only the scientists would assume some economic reality, this might all go away..

Tim-

Any statistician can tell you that the data one spits out is only as good as the data that's put in. ANYONE with half a brain and paid attention in elementary math can tell you the same thing. We have a thread dedicated to evading a simple challenge where by all accounts, merely asks anyone to spot the statistical significance of randomness, or in this case, trendless data sets. Which, oddly enough, is intuitively graspable by even the most layman among us. Depending on your fault tolerance, (which by the way you set in advance as meaningful or insignificant) randomness is much easier to spot that non-randomness, (Obviously), but most of the members here are apparently unaware of this reality..

Probably the reason he made the test, insofar as he purports it to be, fairly easy, given the criterion for success. In other words, you only have to spot 100 out of the 1000 sets as none random.

Good luck!

As to AGW.. Look, you have the progressives on your side, and the UN, but thankfully most of us can spot a loser from far away. Comparing the science of AGW, I would say that it is about as reliable as the science of psychology. Correlations easy to spot, but rarely, if ever, do they reconcile to conclusions or predictable thresholds.


Tim-

Mr Person said:

I just want to make sure: You guys understand that nobody who published a peer-reviewed paper in the field ever took the position that each year is going to be hotter than the next, right?

AGW scientists are well aware of the fact that the climate has always changed without man's help. AGW scientists are well aware that if a twenty year cooling cycle starts, the overall temperature is probably going to be cooler for the next twenty years. And if they're right that the current contribution has been a 1.7 degree farenheight increase in average world temperature, then OF COURSE a cooling cycle could override that. 1.7 degrees isn't that much yet.

A "pause" doesn't mean AGW is wrong, unless you can prove that the "pause" is not the result of any such cycles.



The overall theory is still incomplete because we do not have the technological capability to observe all aspects of the global environment, nor model those aspects. We do not fully understand every last cycle that affects temperature in a given year. But precisely zero doubt has been cast on the heat-trapping effects of atmospheric C02, Methane, etc.




When you focus on just 18 years, you are playing a dishonest game. The only reason you picked 18 instead of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 200, or 1,000, is because it is 18 years - AND ONLY 18 YEARS - that lets you draw a line of best fit that suits your position.

Click to expand...

We draw the line at 18 years because that is where the line is. At the outset of The Pause Ben Santer said a twelve year pause would be necessary to call AGW into question. At the twelve year mark he amended his claim to fifteen years. At fifteen years he went silent.

Mr Person said:

I just want to make sure: You guys understand that nobody who published a peer-reviewed paper in the field ever took the position that each year is going to be hotter than the next, right?

Click to expand...

OK, I'll try to go slowly; Yes we understand that. The heating effect that the panic is all about says that there should be a 0.35 degree c rise per decade. That's not each year getting hotter but a fairly clear trend.

AGW scientists are well aware of the fact that the climate has always changed without man's help. AGW scientists are well aware that if a twenty year cooling cycle starts, the overall temperature is probably going to be cooler for the next twenty years. And if they're right that the current contribution has been a 1.7 degree farenheight increase in average world temperature, then OF COURSE a cooling cycle could override that. 1.7 degrees isn't that much yet.

Click to expand...

That would mean that natural variation is high. That would mean that there is nothing unusual in the warming between 1970 and 1998. So no panic.

A "pause" doesn't mean AGW is wrong, unless you can prove that the "pause" is not the result of any such cycles.

Click to expand...

Can you show that the warming is not the result of such natural changes? How confident are yu in that? How many millions of people are you OK about dying as a result of this?

The overall theory is still incomplete because we do not have the technological capability to observe all aspects of the global environment, nor model those aspects. We do not fully understand every last cycle that affects temperature in a given year. But precisely zero doubt has been cast on the heat-trapping effects of atmospheric C02, Methane, etc.

Click to expand...

Fine. How about the combined effect of those and water vapor? Can you tell me with confidence how they interplay? If it's just CO2 and methane then the IPCC says that there is nothing to worry about. They need an extra forcing from water vapor. That water vapor is likely to be fully doing anything it could do already they don't wish to consider.

When you focus on just 18 years, you are playing a dishonest game. The only reason you picked 18 instead of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 200, or 1,000, is because it is 18 years - AND ONLY 18 YEARS - that lets you draw a line of best fit that suits your position.

Click to expand...

We will happily take 3,000 years.

Jack Hays said:

We draw the line at 18 years because that is where the line is. At the outset of The Pause Ben Santer said a twelve year pause would be necessary to call AGW into question. At the twelve year mark he amended his claim to fifteen years. At fifteen years he went silent.

Click to expand...

Good point Jack, Ben Santer went further than that, they published a peer reviewed paper.
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-476.pdf

For all three observational TLT data sets, S/N ratios increase from roughly 1.0 for
10‐year trends to greater than 3.9 for 32‐year trends. Because S/N ratios are very low on the 10‐year timescale,
one cannot use such short observational records to make meaningful inferences about the presence or absence of
a slowly‐evolving anthropogenic warming signal.[30] On timescales longer than 17 years, the average
trends in RSS and UAH near‐global TLT data consistentlyexceed 95% of the unforced trends in the CMIP‐3 control
runs (Figure 6d), clearly indicating that the observed multi‐decadal warming of the lower troposphere is too large to be
explained by model estimates of natural internal variability.

Click to expand...

So 17 years or longer are necessary to show a trend, we are already vary close.

Mr Person said:

I just want to make sure: You guys understand that nobody who published a peer-reviewed paper in the field ever took the position that each year is going to be hotter than the next, right?

AGW scientists are well aware of the fact that the climate has always changed without man's help. AGW scientists are well aware that if a twenty year cooling cycle starts, the overall temperature is probably going to be cooler for the next twenty years. And if they're right that the current contribution has been a 1.7 degree farenheight increase in average world temperature, then OF COURSE a cooling cycle could override that. 1.7 degrees isn't that much yet.

A "pause" doesn't mean AGW is wrong, unless you can prove that the "pause" is not the result of any such cycles.



The overall theory is still incomplete because we do not have the technological capability to observe all aspects of the global environment, nor model those aspects. We do not fully understand every last cycle that affects temperature in a given year. But precisely zero doubt has been cast on the heat-trapping effects of atmospheric C02, Methane, etc.




When you focus on just 18 years, you are playing a dishonest game. The only reason you picked 18 instead of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 200, or 1,000, is because it is 18 years - AND ONLY 18 YEARS - that lets you draw a line of best fit that suits your position.

Click to expand...

[h=1]The robust Pause resists a robust el Niño Still no global warming at all for 18 years 9 months[/h] By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley The Christmas pantomime here in Paris is well int0 its two-week run. The Druids who had hoped that their gibbering incantations might begin to shorten the Pause during the United Necromancers’ pre-solstice prayer-group have been disappointed. Gaia has not heeded them. She continues to show no sign of the “fever”…
Continue reading →