You’re arguing that the data proves there is no global warming. Fine, we’ll accept that, for the moment, so what do you propose we do? It doesn’t matter how good your data is, if you don’t do anything with it.
Again, there are benefits (and obvious ones at that) for doing things to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases even if there is no such thing as global warming. Given that fact, why should intelligent people care if there’s global warming or not, if we benefit from pretending that it does exist? Surely someone who’s put as much effort as you have into disputing the reasoning which says there is global warming must have a reason for doing so. What is it, then? And what do you propose we do? Do you suggest that we continue along our current path and work to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, or simply abandon it altogether?
What has been the “cost” of the increased CO2, assuming the change from 277 ppm in 1770 to 380 ppm today, is due to man? Dollars, lives lost, effects on vegetation, AIQ, etc.
There are so many mistakes in your posts that it is honestly hard to respond to them all.
First of all, you have completely without justification taken a 2-sigma limit about the zero-point rather than the average of this set of data. As I noted, this zero-point is a completely arbitrary convention. In this case, I think the zero-point is something like the average of the data over the period from 1960 to 1990. It is meaningless to talk about 2-sigma limits when you haven’t centered them about the average of the data.
Second of all, I don’t know what this proves anyway. The only point we are making in regards to 1998 being an anomaly is that if you use it as your starting point and then do your trend analysis in the stupidest possible way (e.g., by connecting the start and end temperatures rather than doing a least squares fit) then you are biasing your results. Besides which, as intention points out, 10 years isn’t really enough time to get an accurate handle on the trend.
Well, if the point is that one cannot prove purely from statistical analysis of temperature data that we are definitely responsible for the current warming, I would not disagree with that. However, scientists do more than statistically analyze the data. They actually study the various forcings that cause the change in temperatures, look at the patterns of the temperature change, etc., etc.
The earth’s climate system as a whole doesn’t just warm or cool for no reason (outside of a small amount of internal variability). Rather, if it warms of cools, there has to be a cause. We understand, at least to a reasonable degree, what has caused such changes in the past. And, on the basis of this, we understand that the changes that are occurring now can’t be explained by any known natural forcings. We also know that the strength of the forcing from the known increase in greenhouse gas concentrations ought to be causing such a warming.
Now you are making no sense what so ever. Why does Hadley use the 0.00C reference point, the same one I used for that analysis? I think you are grasping at straws in order to change the 0.00C datum point to bias the data to make it say what you want it to say.
You haven’t shown any analysis or data indicating the negative impact of atmospheric CO2 on anything, so I really have nothing to answer. I did do an analysis of atmospheric CO2 concentration versus world population. I think it is pretty obvious it hasn’t affected population, plus the degree to which it is a direct relationship (r=0.996) brings up some interesting questions.
Again, you refuse to answer my questions. Let me try this again, slowly. If you are correct, and there is no effect from greenhouse gases, so what? Why should we care? We’ll get to the harder stuff in a bit, when you answer that question.
Okay, let’s try to explain this to you one more time. The zero point in those graphs is entirely a matter of convention. The convention used by Hadley, which is clearly noted in the Wikipedia link you gave here, and is also that adopted by the IPCC is to set the zero to the average value of the data over the period from 1961 to 1990. There is nothing magical about this zero point. It is merely the mean value from 1961 to 1990 and nothing more.
So, the only thing that you showed in the figure you linked to in post #96 is that temperature in 1998 is a little bit closer to the mean temperature over the period 1961 to 1990 than the temperature in 1911, which is hardly a surprising result.
Let’s make this even simplier. If the 0.00C datum point is allowed to float, then the period of time selected determines the datum point and analysis basis. Every analyses of global temperature anomalies would set its own datum point making direct comparisons implausible or requiring analysis based on t-means, population proportions, etc.
Ergo, I leave you the following graph of the Hadley data from 1987 through 2006. You will notice that it leads to the same conclusion as the Hadley data using the 0.00C datum point for the 1998 anomaly. I am sure you could pick another arbitrary time period to come up with a different result with a variable datum point.
Sure, when you answer the questions I posed to you before this. Remember those? Here, I’ll repost them so you don’t have to trouble yourself looking for them.
Yes, unless we want to stop world population growth, the fundamental cause of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. Plus, the reason to keep CO2 at some arbitrary level, like the 1900 AD level, is not at all apparent from a scientific viewpoint. Now where is the hard stuff and analyses?
CO2 ppm = 265.54 + 0.017006 x World Population millions [ r=0.997, LS 1744 AD - 2004 AD ]
This original discussion started because you tried to argue that 1911 was more of a cold outlier than 1998 was a warm outlier. However, instead of comparing to an average that, at the very least, included both of these years, you used the average from 1961 to 1990, which biased your result. If you use as the baseline the average computed for any continuous string of years of the instrumental record that includes both 1911 and 1998, you would find that 1998 is more of an outlier, for whatever it is worth (which isn’t much because, as I noted, this was basically irrelevant to the subject at hand anyway).
There is more to science than just measuring correlations between things like this. One can actually come up with mechanistic descriptions of the world. The mechanistic description tells us that population, while an important factor, doesn’t have to be the determining one. Most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere has come from the burning of fossil fuels (with a fair bit lesser contribution from land use changes).
And, there are plenty of options we have for reducing the burning of fossil fuels: We can implement conservation measures (hybrid vehicles, more efficient lighting, …), we can switch to other energy sources, we can capture and sequester the CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels at major point sources such as power plants, …
You’ll get them when you can demonstrate that there is harm from society acting as if there is global warming. So far, all you’ve done is state that you don’t believe that global warming is real.
Well, Canada has spent about 3 billion dollars on Kyoto to date, most of it to set up a bureaucracy to handle all of the legal and bureaucratic nonsense that comes along with carbon regulation.
Since nothing is produced by the spending of this money on bureaucrats (as opposed to, say, spending it on cleaning up the water or the air), I’d call that a harm from society acting as if there is global warming. The harm is wasted money, money that could be used to actually do something useful.
In Europe, to take another example, the carbon regulation has greatly increased the cost of electricity in some regions. In Germany, for example, consumers and businesses have seen a 25% to 60% rise in the electricity rates. Since the same amount of electricity is produced, but the cost is larger, this has a negative impact on all levels of the German economy, as well as making Germany less competitive in the international markets. Again, this is a harm to society.
While there may be benefits as well (e.g, jobs for Canadian bureaucrats), there is also harm.
So … you ready to bring on the hard stuff and the analyses as promised, now that the harm has been demonstrated?
Except that 1998-2007 has a trend of +0.0044°C per decade. I’m not sure where you get +0.09°C/decade.
A back-of-the-envelope regression of the temperature anomalies relative to 1998 of 1997-2006 inclusive yields…
A regression coefficient of +0.00044
An explained sum of squares of 0.0003
The trend is +0.0044°C per decade (note that because this time period is exactly ten years, that conveniently fits with our b)
t[sub]s[/sub]=0.08 (calculating P at this point is like asking a Bavarian if he likes Pabst Blue Ribbon)
I think you may have mistaken my +0.09°C in post #91, and confused 1990-2006 with 1998-2007. No worries. There’s got to be a mathematical equivalent to Guadere’s Law.
We’ve used that 3 times, I suspect we agree. Now we need a new catch phrase. I suggest: Isn’t Rancor a stupid name for a Star Wars creature?
I had to work in a warming pun. And now it works twice as well – I believe global warming is occurring and I used “hot,” while you don’t and you used “not hot.”
I agree completely! An understanding of the notion that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence was missing from the OP, however.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. You have noticed how much the OP wants to talk about the year 17,000 BCE on? Who are we to stop him??
Do you think that if Canada decided that they were going to spend $3 billion to clean up air and water this would come without a bureacratic increase? Even if Canda decides to simply pass new regulations to force businesses to spend $3 billion to do it, there’s going to be a bureacratic increase. Got to hire more inspectors to make sure that companies are in compliance with the new regulations. Got to test and certify new equipment to make sure it does what the manufacturer claims. Of course, a country could just forego all that and take it on the “honor system” that everybody’s doing what they’re supposed to, but if you think that’s a good idea, then I’ve got some Chinese made toothpaste for you.
It’s a harm to society if the Germans simply roll over and take it (like US automakers did when gas prices spiked in the 1970s). If the Germans react positively, and look at ways to be more efficient, they’ll soon see an economic boom, like the Japanese did in the 1970s, when they shelled out billions of dollars to switch their industry over to more energy efficient equipment. If the Germans successfully switch over to more efficient methods before their competitors do, they’ll have an economic advantage over their competitors as energy costs continue their inevitable rise.
Name one thing that doesn’t have a negative to go along with it’s positive.
