Well, the joke was so bad that Obama might use it in his next State of the Union. But the analogy really fails in a couple of ways. First, Einstein thought about this stuff because there were known problems with traditional physics when the ether was falsified. People working on dark energy now don’t have to be daring, since everyone recognizes there is a hole. Second, Einstein made specific predictions, and when they were verified, the physics community came over with remarkable speed
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Well, the joke was so bad that Obama might use it in his next State of the Union. But the analogy really fails in a couple of ways. First, Einstein thought about this stuff because there were known problems with traditional physics when the ether was falsified. People working on dark energy now don’t have to be daring, since everyone recognizes there is a hole. Second, Einstein made specific predictions, and when they were verified, the physics community came over with remarkable speed
[/QUOTE]
No accounting for taste, I suppose. But, again, it wasn’t supposed to be an analogy…it was merely supposed to demonstrate how science works. I can see by the fact that both my joke AND point aren’t being understood though, so I’m just going to drop the whole thing.
If I were going for an analogous comparison I’d go with Evolution. You had a theory that was attacked by skeptics, some non-zero number of which had vested interests (in this case religious ones) in attacking the theory simply because of what the theory said, instead of based on it’s pure merits. As I said though, it was harder to work Darwin into the joke so I rejected that…plus, there is the fact that I wasn’t going for an analogy but making a different point. One that I don’t seem to be able to convey and have it understood, sadly. That’s what I get for drive by posts while I’m traveling about I guess.
Well, as I know the history of this too, I have to say that we are really pass beyond that level also. Denier types already discredited themselves many times over among experts, academics and even most science reporters. (Many, until recently, had also doubts on the matter but most now are more skeptic about the “skeptics” as the most serious reporters got burned many times by following the denier’s say so’s)
So what is left? Precisely the terrain already claimed by creationists: the public arena and they also continue with efforts to claim that there is a controversy where there is virtually none.
Continental drift is an example of scientists rejecting a hypothesis that turned out to be true. Evolution for the most part is an example of a bunch of yahoos who knew little of the subject rejecting a new hypothesis that turned out to be true - so I suppose I have to agree it is a better example of the current situation.
But the claim isn’t merely that 2011 was cooler than 1998; it’s that 2011 and 2010 and 2009 and 2008 and 2007 and 2006 and 2005 and 2004 and 2003 and 2002 and 2001 and 2000 and 1999 were as cool as – or, by a statistically significant difference, cooler than – 1998. Are we in for another decade of that holding true? Another two decades? Another three?
I know GIGO’s latest moved-goalpost prediction; I’m curious as to your first – and, with luck, only – goalpost: how long, if ever, until a tenth of a degree shows up?
To be fair, I’m trying to compensate for that; the above claim is based on the UN’s WMO figures, which in turn are based on the HADCRU dataset and the NCDC dataset and the NASA dataset.
If 1998 was an anomalous spike, then we can throw it out and compare the years 1999 through 2011 among each other and compare 1989 through 1997 to that number, (checking to see whether either had a slope and which direction), and then to 1979 through 1988, 1969 through 1978, etc.
All the chatter about “moved goalposts” looks more like a personal feud than an actual contribution to this thread.
Who is saying that there is a statically significant difference, cooler than 1998?
As there is no one that seriously reports this significant cooling I have to conclude that you are really clueless even after so many examples and information that was given to you.
Right, the UN does base the IPCC report on those, and has it has been pointed before the secretary has said that deniers are wrong in thinking that there is a cooling going on.
a) Temperature increased about 1°C in the 20th century.
b) CO2 has increased from pre-industrial levels.
c) CO2 increase caises temperature increase.
d) Humans have onctributed to the CO2 increase.
The dispute is
a) How accurately we can measure global temperature, especially in the sea and the southern hemisphere.
b) The importance of CO2 in the warming.
c) The importance of forcings in temperature, especially considering the long-term stability of climate.
d) The reliance on models and how much they work in th past.
e) The exact temperature increase in the 30’s that happened without high CO2
f) How bad a higher temperature really is and if it can be better.
g) The gigantic ammount of corrections to the actual observations.
and, to me, more important
GW, even if what “warmists” say is true, is less important than access to clean water and vaccination. The money that is needed can be used much better to help more people, and it puts damper on the development of poor countries like mine.
As pointed out before, scientists do not rely just on models.
Not very relevant as then the solar cycles were still driving the climate more.
As most corrections the deniers have complained about were imaginary or properly made as the BEST survey found, I have to ask here where are you getting this from.
Even Lomborg gave up on that last one.
The point here is that even the champions the deniers bring to the discussion are not really even agreeing with what the narratives that are coming from them, and this is because there are no easy pickings and there is no consistency on the things that they claim will minimize or counteract the warming and the problems that will come from an increase of 3 degrees.
The theory of climate change is older than the theory of general relativity. Svente Arrhenius, back at the end of the 19th century, determined that the gases which surrounded the Earth acted like - well like any other matter - absorbing and re-emitting energy which tried to pass through it, and further - like any other matter - the rate at which materials absorb and release this energy varies.
For example, if you have a steel plate and a copper plate and you place them over a fire, the steel plate will take longer to warm, but also longer to cool than the copper plate.
Based on the rate of absorption and release, the temperature of a plate will stabilize if it is left over a steadily burning flame. But if you change the material of the plate, it will raise or decrease in temperature dependent on what material it is that you are replacing it with.
Arrhenius realized that as human kind burnt more coal and other fossil fuels, it would change the makeup of our atmosphere and, subsequently should change the level at which the temperature would stabilize. On average, air with more CO2 should be warmer.
Sure, but afaik, anthropogenic global warming is a relatively knew theory wrt the current theory. It doesn’t go back to the 19th century, at least I didn’t think it did…not in it’s current form.
As pointed before, its current from comes from more than 60 years ago, the trouble was that until then the proponents of the old theory thought that 1)nature could absorb virtually all CO2 released with no problems, 2)humanity would never produce insane amounts of CO2 and 3)Most of the heat would escape to space anyhow.
Ooops, the data showed around the 50’s that those ideas were not correct and so it was that by the 70’s most scientists predicted that warming was coming, regardless of what the popular media said claiming that an ice age was coming, so we are headed for a lot of trouble before the end of the 21st century if nothing is done.
Yeah, I have seen you post that before. But that’s not the 19th century…that’s the 20th century. The current theory isn’t over a hundred years old, it’s, what? 60 years old?
That said, you are right…not exactly still having that new car smell at this point.
The point I was making was that individual years don’t tell you much about how much warming has occurred. Also, according to the BEST study, the warming between 1998 and 2010 is in fact statistically significant (2.11 to 3.57 C per century). True, that is for land areas only, but it is in line with what we expect (more warming over land).
It is also worth noting that natural influences have had a cooling tendency recently due to low solar activity (which has actually been declining since the 1950s) and a switch to more frequent La Ninas, plus increased aerosols from China and India, which has obscured some, if not most, of the warming recently.
Just a nit, the theory is still the one from the 19th century, what I mentioned there were educated assumptions that modified the main theory and made most of the consensus until the 70’s to be doubtful that we were headed for trouble, in other words, the old theory was still there, what was dropped in the 50’s-70’s was the idea that other factors would prevent us from changing the temperature and then the climate.
Larry Gonick also touched on this on his last Cartoon History Of the Modern World book:
If people kept using coal and oil at the rates they had in the very late 19th century
“Arrhenius calculated humanity may cook itself in 3,000 years”
61 stations can account for all the world?
Only 1 in south america, 2 in the whole Pacific ocean 8plus 2 btween NZ and Oz, 1 or 2 in the Atlantic, 3 in Africa.
Of course there are forcings.
The page states basic science, nothing interesting or new or devastating.
In other news, Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
Reading comprehension sweetie pie. I never said only.
High forcings point out to unstable systems.
I never said only.
The models presented have an interesting match up to: 1860, 1960, 1988-1995, sea level starts in 1990, artic ice goes to 1900 and observation to 1950.
From commenter Greg:
*Here is one for you straight from the IPCC, Chapter 8, page 596:
“The number of degrees of freedom in the tuneable parameters is less than the number of degrees of freedom in the observational constraints used in model evaluation.”*
And from the same letter:
“Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.”
commenter jimdk (my bolding)
Well, here is NASA telling us there is no meaningful comparison of models to observed global temp change"The analysis by Hansen et al. (2005), as well as other recent studies (see, e.g., the reviews by Ramaswamy et al. 2001; Kopp et al. 2005b; Lean et al. 2005; Loeb and Manalo-Smith 2005; Lohmann and Feichter 2005; Pilewskie et al. 2005; Bates et al. 2006; Penner et al. 2006), indicates that the current uncertainties
in the TSI and aerosol forcings are so large that they preclude meaningful climate model evaluation by comparison with observed global temperature change.
These uncertainties must be reduced significantly for uncertainty in climate sensitivity to be adequately constrained (Schwartz 2004). Helping to address this challenging objective is the main purpose of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glory mission, a remote sensing Earth-orbiting observatory"
So the sun stopped working?
Is the sun no longer the main driver of the Earth’s climate.
2/3 of polar bears? Are warmists still going on with the false polar bear holocaust?
Increased heat-realted death and no mention of decrease of cold-related deaths?
Reduced water supply in New Mexico??? Really? Is that a key factor?
BEST used more sources and stations, they still confirmed that the adjustments made by early researchers were nicely done.
[QUOTE=Skeptical Science]
Response: Re tropospheric warming, I recommend reading Satellite show little to no warming in the troposphere. The argument over “prediction” vs “projection” is semantics. Kevin Trenberth is merely saying we don’t know with certainty what future emissions will be so we make predictions based on various emission scenarios.
[/QUOTE]
No source there in the link,
In any case it is the Goddard institute that has been looking at the issues reported there and what they say is not what you claim.
So, is it our own personal statement that the result of one station is good enough for all south America?
It’s your own link. Do I need to link to your own link?
You didn’t read, did you? You simply searched you pet site with a couple of keywords.
I don’t claim, Kevin E. Trenberth does.
So, instead of answering my quote you produce another, with a different topic. This is a common tactic of yours
Is there a chart that shows good temp coverage 100 years ago?
This means: I can’t answer your points.
You don’t get to change MY point or decide that waht you said didn’t happen.
Ají: Water access and vaccination are more important than GW
GIGO: Even Lomborg gave up on that last one.
Ají: Lomborg said in 2009 and 2011 that water, vitamins, micronutrients, and education are much. much better investments than GW (return of $170 vs $3 from a $10 investment)
[You try to counter with]
GIGO: He says 100 billion could solve GW.
Sure, but it doesn’t counter the point and shows that you provided a factually incorrect statement and tried to cover it up.
But, again, it wasn’t supposed to be an analogy…it was merely supposed to demonstrate how science works. I can see by the fact that both my joke AND point aren’t being understood though, so I’m just going to drop the whole thing.
Man, even the new car smell thing fell flat.