June 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

« Euthanize and euphemize | Main | Bondage »

Apr 05, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David Wharton

This story erodes two opposed narratives: (1) that everything the Kochs touch is thereby corrupted, and (2) that anthropogenic global warming is a scam.

Preston Earle

If we want to talk about public policies (like control of CO2 emissions, for example), shouldn't we be talking about anthropogenic global warming, not just "global warming" in general. Unless this observed temperature increase has been caused by CO2 increases, it would be futile (not to say stupid) to think we could reverse it by controlling CO2. I don't see "anthropogenic" mentioned in either of the linked articles.

Ed Cone

That would be the part of his Congressional testimony with the bold-face references to "human-caused warming."

Preston Earle

Thanks for checking, Ed. (I'd just searched for "anthropomorphic".) I've just realized that Dr. Mueller is the same fellow I wrote about several years ago. I've been reading his book Physics for Future Presidents and find it very interesting. I've finished the first two sections and haven't gotten to the Global Warming section (V) yet. From what I've read so far, I heartily recommend it.

polifrog

Hmm. A reboot of global temperature data analysis based on independent data (not sourced from the three previous sources), replicable software code, and a high number of temperature reading stations.

It seems climate-gate was taken under advisement by more assiduous AGW scientists than Mann, however making claims based on a preliminary assessment of 2% of the data harkens back to the worst of climate-gate itself.

The fact is that there was little disagreement that there has been a rise in temperature. The real leap of faith by warmists is their contention that the rise in temperature is caused by increases in atmospheric CO2, that the increase in CO2 is the result of man and that the recent changes in temperature are bizarre. In short they argue an increase in CO2 causes an increase in global warmth.

Warmists assiduously ignore the impact of the sun's changing output and that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is dependent on the sun's output. They ignore that increases in global warmth increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That is a causality question.

There is also the question of why the sun, the source of nearly all heat on Earth, is being relegated to a side thought by warmists. This approach by warmists strikes me as odd when one contrasts the changes to CO2 if man were to be removed from the equation to the changes to CO2 if the Sun were to be removed from the equation.

Defining reality by way of statistical analysis and offering statically suggested solutions while ignoring observational reality leave us all worse off whether such solutions come via AGW or Keynes.

Dave Ribar

Polly:

Solar output hasn't been ignored; it's been carefully measured and found not to have changed substantially in the last 30 years. But that's only the observations of the National Academy of Sciences.

Rising temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations observed since 1978 are particularly noteworthy because the rates of increase are so high and because, during the same period, the energy reaching the Earth from the Sun has been measured precisely by satellites. These measurements indicate that the Sun’s output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.

Dave Ribar

Polly:

How do you square "The fact is that there was little disagreement that there has been a rise in temperature" with writing about "The Global Warming that Wasn't."

Out

bubba

"How do you square 'The fact is that there was little disagreement that there has been a rise in temperature' "


Well Dave, unfortunatly the evidence shows that little statement and the subsequent NAS statement is that both are demonstrably wrong.

However, if you insert "among AGW charlatans and cheerleaders" after "disagreement" in your excerpted statement, you would undoubtedly be correct, and the need for your "How do you square....." snark would be eliminated.


Dave Ribar

A couple-month, El-Nino-induced dip in a series with many such dips introduced by ... a dip. Apparently, the great cooling has begun.

JustCorbly

Weather isn't climate.

polifrog
How do you square "The fact is that there was little disagreement that there has been a rise in temperature" with writing about "The Global Warming that Wasn't."

A rise in temperature over a century, for example, and the crushing of the "Mann" hockey stick are indicative of two different time scales.

Post content:

* Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing

* There has been no global warming since 1995

Crowing over the flattening of right end of Mann's hockey stick graph was the intent of the post, not a lack of warming over the past 100 years.

Thanks for the link.


bubba


"A couple-month, El-Nino-induced dip in a series with many such dips introduced by ... a dip. Apparently, the great cooling has begun."

Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave! Apparently statistical analysis is not your strong point, is it, Dave? Otherwise, you would have manned up and given the more accurate assesment of Dr. Spencer's findings.

Note to readers of this thread: this is not the first time Good old dave has tried this type of an excuse.

Andrew Brod

Yeah, Dave sucks at stats.

polifrog

You link to a clearly disingenuous use of time frame to push an agenda.

The sun has not been in a state of stasis over thirty years, but has in fact kept with its 11 year cycle. Note, however, the greater rate of temperature increases correlate with increases in solar activity on an 11 year cycle.

Clearly the sun's impact is being felt, but 11 year cycles are of very short and do not reflect the general increase in global temperature over time.

For that we need a longer time frame.

Sunspot count records give a longer time frame (400 years) from which to view the sun's activity and during which we accept that there has been a general rise in global temperature. Note that the sun has been in an agitated state since 1900 and to a lesser degree prior to that as well. It is conceivable that the longterm observable general rise in global temperature during the 1900's is a result of the planet reacting to sun's agitated state, a state of heightened activity that is clearly visible in the above graph.

Yes, there are cycles within cycles, only the shortest of which can be detected by satellite.

And for the sake of clarity I link a longer term radio carbon based graph of the sun's activity graph found at fullwiki but seen more clearly here. The most modern dates are on the left.

Abner

Either we don't want to do any more harm than already done,
or we don't want to admit culpability at all.

Attempts at consious clearing either way.

Abner

Either way it's too late and/or not possible to do anything about.

polifrog
Yeah, Dave sucks at stats.

During my schooling I hustled cars in a successful effort to avoid school loans. During that period I purchased the cars that I would "flip" from individuals. There were, however, occasions in which I dealt with dealers. I preferred the individuals to the dealers as the dealers knew their craft and were able to present their data, sorry inventory, such that questionable areas were minimized.

Just as an individual requires trust to do business with a dealer who knows far more about their product than the individual and who's motives are not aligned with the individual, we all require a trust in academia who know far more about their specific fields than most. Unfortunately academia's motives are not always in alignment with society's resulting in an erosion of trust. AKA, political bias.

Roch101

True, because we know those weasily academics will benefit from promoting untruths by... uh, wait, how's that go again?

Dave Dobson

I think poli just said that a lifetime of learning, studying, and teaching statistics makes you less qualified to discuss statistical matters than your average basement-dwelling blog addict.

Oh, and the solar thing is a total red herring, but I probably shouldn't talk about it, being a clearly unqualified academic in the geosciences.

Grant

Mmmmkay.

polifrog

Deny it if you choose, but academia is not as respected or trusted as it once was. Academic perspectives are viewed with suspicion. The credentials of all academics have been weakened. I offered up the pervasiveness of political bias within academia as a reason.

Unqualified to speak? No, not on the individual level. There is no expectation of diversity on the individual level, however, there should be such an expectation of academia as a whole. This is an expectation that I would think all academics would support as it would bring lost respect back to hard earned credentials through the embrace of divercity of thought. Unfortunately few academics believe that there is a problem with homogeneity in academia, most going so far as to assume the diverse thoughts of others to be the product of a nonacademic. This loss in perspective results in comments like this:

Oh, and the solar thing is a total red herring, but I probably shouldn't talk about it, being a clearly unqualified academic in the geosciences.

Unargued, declarative, arrogant, close minded and as a result open to all the criticisms previously leveled.

polifrog
True, because we know those weasily academics will benefit from promoting untruths by... uh, wait, how's that go again?

Well twisted, but I do not believe that there is any promoting of untruths. That would be unethical.

It is the belief of certain perspectives by which access to exclusivity is more easily gained through that belief than non belief that calls into question the motives of academia as a whole.

Again, this is not an attack on individual achievement, but rather a criticism of the lack of diversity across the all of academia that results in reduced stature of individual academics.

If I call your statements into question it is not a result of "you" but rather your profession.

Like an attorney or a used car dealer.

bubba

"Yeah, Dave sucks at stats."

When the stats don't fit his pre-coceived notion of "the way it ought to be", he most certainly does. Perhaps he knows better, but he continues to mis-represent what the statistics actually represent. He's been busted for such behavior numerous times.

It's a character fault he shares with you. Imagine that!

bubba

"I preferred the individuals to the dealers as the dealers knew their craft and were able to present their data, sorry inventory, such that questionable areas were minimized."

Academmics like Ribar, Brod, and the "global warming" frauds/hucksters/tunnel visionaries are the functional equivalents of used car dealers when it comes to the manipulation of statistics and the perversion of science to fit their worldviews.

Roch101

"It is the belief of certain perspectives by which access to exclusivity is more easily gained through that belief than non belief that calls into question the motives of academia as a whole." -- Polifrog

That was a hard sentence to parse, but since it seemed to be an answer to my question, I put some effort into it. Am I correct in thinking you perceive academics to be subverting the truth to this thing you call "access to exclusivity?"

Ishmael

Academics can distort facts but if you are a Corporate goon you have instant credibility! You don't even have to quote facts - all you have to do is strew money on the ground and any bullcrap you promote is gospel.
Which brings me to the Corporatist's creed: "Fence in the best and poison the rest."

Ed Cone

A well-known scientist who entered the climate debate as a skeptic did research with his Koch money and then testified to Congress that the climate data is actually pretty damn good.

And an anonymous blogger, known here for inventing definitions of famous economic theories and propagating fantasies about the Iraq war that even GW Bush dropped by 2006, rambles on about his distrust of pointy-heads.

Which one of these items seems more worthy of discussion, and which one are people spending their energy discussing?

Thomas

We do get caught up in our little skirmishes, don't we?

Dave Ribar

Polly:

The chart that you linked to shows cycles in solar activity and a correlation of those cycles with surface temperatures but no upward trend in solar output. The caption states, "Satellite observations show no increasing trend in solar output. The 11-year solar cycle is evident, but this cannot be driving the overall increase in global average temperatures." You accuse the "warmists" of ignoring the evidence regarding solar output, yet you seem to have willfully ignored the plain language of your own source.

Bob,

There's a reason why researchers generally look at five year averages of temperatures rather than one month results--the month to month variability wipes out almost all of the signal in the underlying series.

Besides being highly variable, there are two good reasons for temperatures dipping right now. The first, as mentioned is El Nino (see this graph from NASA); you'll see that the temperature cycle has pronounced dips in El Nino years.

The second is a statistical artifact known as regression to the mean. 2010 was a record high year for temperatures. Although there has been an upward trend in temperatures, the temperatures for 2010 were substantially above the trend (were far into the high end of the statistical distribution). The chances that those unusually high temperatures would be repeated in the following year are relatively small. Suppose that you happened to randomly meet Shaquille O'Neal on the sidewalk, the chances are extremely high that the next person that you would meet would be shorter.

Polly & Bob:

The National Research Council and the other National Academies are independent, non-partisan and highly prestigious groups. We're not talking about the Sierra Club or the National Resources Defense Council on the one hand or the Manhatten Institute or Heritage Institue on the other. The National Academies' findings aren't gospel but do represent rigorous, independent thought and review. You've impugned them, but the only evidence that you offer is that they have reached a different conclusion than yours.

polifrog
Am I correct in thinking you perceive academics to be subverting the truth to this thing you call "access to exclusivity?"

Yes. But I believe academics see themselves as being truthful. They discount the fact that that truth stems from their belief in an agreed upon perspective that is reinforced by like thinking peers. Group think. Herd mentality. Mob politics. Mine is not an accusation of deliberate deception; but instead a bias rooted in majority status.

Campus conservatives sense the perspective of academia and as any conservative student knows, good grades are far more important than conveying personal perspective. This is the reality of being a political minority.

And much like being part a racial minority in which the majority scoffs at minority complaints of bias and abuse at the hands of the majority, conservative complaints of bias and abuse at the hands of the liberal majority within academia are derided as nonexistent by the academic liberal majority. Perhaps one has to be conservative to recognize what amounts to "academic racism" in academia today.

Turning back to Ed's post. How else can one explain Dave Ribar's (clearly intelligent and well credentialed) earlier deceptive use of statistics by which he disputed the impact of solar activity on global climate by pointing to a 30 year study? I truly do not believe it was deliberate, but rather the result of chasing preconceived notions.

Roch101

Ayn Rand said contradictions do not exist. When confronted with what appears to be a contradiction, check your premises. One is wrong.

When you simultaneously describe academics as seeking access to exclusivity and joining the herd, you create a contradiction. Your thinking is broken.

polifrog

Dave Ribar,

You accuse the "warmists" of ignoring the evidence regarding solar output, yet you seem to have willfully ignored the plain language of your own source.

Not true. I did not dispute the contention that over 30 years solar output, if averaged, was essentially flat. What I pointed out is that within that average there was solar variation around an 11 year cycle that shows up in recorded global temperature readings as "bumps" in the trend in the referenced graph.

I suggested that this is evidence of changes in solar activity imparting changes in global temperature readings but I did not point to the graph as evidence that the sun was responsible for long term global temperature change. It would be irresponsible to point to a 30 year time frame to make the case for or against long term trends.

To answer the larger question of possible correlation between the Sun's output and the general rise in global temperature I point to not one, but two longterm graphs of solar activity drawn from not one, but two different methods of data collection. One graph relies on sunspot count over centuries of observation while the other relies on carbon dating.

It is from these graphs that I draw a connection between solar activity and a general long term rise in global temperature.

In short, you did not read my comment.

polifrog

Roch 101:

When you simultaneously describe academics as seeking access to exclusivity and joining the herd, you create a contradiction. Your thinking is broken.

This would be true only if observing a single group. I am, however, observing one group within a larger group.

Thus, academics join an exclusive herd of like thinkers, a small subset within a larger more diverse population.

No contradiction, thus your application of Rand is poor.

Roch101

Ah, an exclusive herd. I see. I'm curious, on what do you base your opinions? Is it, as someone asked previously, anything other than that the heard/exclusive subset, depending, disagree with you?

Dave Ribar

Polly:

What is "deceptive" about citing an independent, scientific body that explicitly rejected your contention based exactly on that 30-year period? The chart you supplied showed the five-year moving average of ground temperatures increasing by just over half a degree over that period with no trend change in your hypothesized forcing variable.

Along the same lines, the link that you provided about solar variability indicates that it helps to explain pre-industrial warming but, at best, only some of the early post-industrial warming.

BTW, the link also refutes your contention that warmists, in this case the NAS, have ignored solar variability. The NAS published a book-length analysis on Solar Influences on Global Change that explicitly acknowledges a role for solar variability. Far from being ignored, the NAS is aware of the evidence but found that anthropogenic climate change is a more likely explanation.

Preston Earle

I wonder if we're not getting a little ahead of ourselves on this matter. By emphasizing "Koch-funded" and "climate-change skeptic", we may be missing a point. Dr. Muller has said that climate-change caused by CO2 is uncertain but not impossible. He believes it is prudent to do a number of things to mitigate the risks. He outlines his recommendations, which you can see here, in his book. These probably won't please a lot of climate-change activists. If you think Dr. Muller's opinion is important, perhaps you should buy his book and read his full opinion, not just one little segment.

I don't know why "Koch-funded" is at all relevant. It would be more accurate to say "Gates/Getty/government-funded."

bubba

"The National Academies' findings aren't gospel but do represent rigorous, independent thought and review. You've impugned them, but the only evidence that you offer is that they have reached a different conclusion than yours."

Blah blah, woof woof.

The evidence says they (and you, et al) are wrong. No "if"s, no "and"s, no "but"s. Just wrong.

bubba

"I don't know why "Koch-funded" is at all relevant."

It enables the excuse for partisan prevarication on a cherished worldview agenda item, which is particularly valuable to distract attention away from the evidence that said agenda item is bogus.

Grant

They discount the fact that that truth stems from their belief in an agreed upon perspective that is reinforced by like thinking peers.

Hmmm. Sounds a lot like Some Relativistic Pointy-headed Philosopher Who Obviously Hasn't Sold a Used Honda Who's Not Worth Listening To.

Ed Cone

Preston, Koch money funds client-change denial efforts, and it is a major enabler of this project, so findings that support the case for climate change might seem to have an extra bit of credibility in some circles.

Although for people who see this only through the lenses of politics and belief, the existence of beachfront property in Raleigh would prove nothing.

Grant

Koch money funds client-change denial efforts

Strategically. And that's empirically verifiable.

bubba

"Dr. Muller has said that climate-change caused by CO2 is uncertain but not impossible."

He also said this, Preston:

"The Berkeley data are marked as preliminary because they do not include treatments for the reduction of systematic bias…The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary results don’t yet address many of the known biases. When they do, it is possible that the corrections could bring our current agreement into disagreement."


Isn't it amazing that none of the warmist "experts" above thought it convenient to mention that?

Here's what Pielke Sr. thinks about Muller's testimoney:

"In his testimony Richard Muller.....indicated that he used 2% of the available surface stations that measure temperatures in the BEST assessment of long-term trends. It is important to realize that the sampling is still biased if a preponderance of his data sources comes from a subset of actual landscape types. The sampling will necessarily be skewed towards those sites."

Thomas

"It is important to realize that the sampling is still biased if a preponderance of his data sources comes from a subset of actual landscape types. The sampling will necessarily be skewed towards those sites."

And it could be skewed either way, or not at all.

polifrog
What is "deceptive" about citing an independent, scientific body that explicitly rejected your contention based exactly on that 30-year period? The chart you supplied showed the five-year moving average of ground temperatures increasing by just over half a degree over that period with no trend change in your hypothesized forcing variable.

I see in the 30 year graph corroboration with my contention that solar forcing exists. However, I recognize that there is a larger trend in temperature rise not reflected in solar activity over the 30 year period represented in the graph.

To find a source for the longterm forcing exhibited in the 30 year graph one needs to look at a longterm graph. I offered two, both of which showed longterm solar cycles that are too large to be captured with a 30 year range.

Yet you discount the existence of those longterm cycles of solar forcing based on a 30 year range.

Sometimes analogies work best.

Imagine a graph of temperature change during the month of April. It would show a general rise in temperature over the thirty days. Within that general rise in temperature a day/night cycle in temperature would also be visible being that "solar forcing" during the day would be greater than "solar forcing" at night.

Does the "solar forcing" due to day/night show up on the graph of temperature? Yes.
Does the "solar forcing" due to day/night explain the general rise in temperature during the month of April? No.

Here is where a graph over a longer span of time is required (for this analogy 10 years). Over a ten year range a second cycle becomes apparent, a seasonal "solar forcing" that is only evident over a ten year span but only shows up as a mysterious general rise in temperature on the April graph with an range of 30 days.

This longer 10 year range explains the general trend of temperature rise evident on the April 30 day range.

Within the context of this analogy you argue that changes in "solar forcing" do not explain the general rise in temperature over the month of April because the day/night cycle does not result in higher temperatures over that period. In effect you discount the existence of seasons based on a thirty day observation.

Discounting the existence of a cycle that is too large to be captured by the graph referenced is disingenuous.

Counsilor, is that you?

EC and the Pointyheads unite to resolve the Polifrog problem once and for all.

Andrew Brod

Preston's latest comment makes good sense as regards risk and certainty. I can't speak for "climate-change activists," but Muller's risk orientation places him squarely in the scientific consensus among economists and others who are trying to devise policy responses to climate change. Let's continue to do research and amass more evidence, pro and con, but given the evidence amassed so far, it'd be crazy to do nothing in the meantime. This isn't about proof, but about figuratively buying insurance to address risks. As I've noted, "there's no scientific evidence that my house will catch on fire next week, but I think I'll buy homeowner's insurance anyway."

Ed Cone

"given the evidence amassed so far, it'd be crazy to do nothing in the meantime."

This was the thrust of an Economist package I linked to some time ago. Made sense to me, drove some readers into a frenzy.

Andrew Brod

Yeah, that happens. When I made that case in the 2007 N&R column I linked to above, it led to such stupidity as this. Talk about missing the point.

Grant

talk about missing the point

You must admit, though, that maple trees possess no means of locomotion necessary for migration.

Andrew Brod

Okay, you got me on that.

The comments to this entry are closed.