Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

Recommended Posts

The warmies are now claiming we should only use warm weather events as evidence and ignore cold ones as we now have to look at the ratios. Lol, so we now have missing heat content that remains AWOL and now we can only accept weather events that support the warming agenda. Stop the world I want to get off as the lunatics have finally taken over the asylum.Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explains a lot about whats happening in solar cycle 24(if you get bored switch to the last 10 minuets for questions }and its effect on us.http://t.co/ptfiZ7LrXK

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the climate getting more extreme?

 

As is often asserted by a vast army of commentators, a warmer climate means more extreme weather. The corollary is quite clear: in a warming climate we should expect seriously cold spells, as well as scorching heatwaves as our planet struggles to keep up with pace of change. On the face of it, this is a reasonable thing to think and to expect. More heat, more moisture, more peculiar weather patterns.

 

Observations also seem to corroberate this idea. We've seen arguably the hottest year for Australia, and some lethal cold in America. These weather events certainly seem to confirm it. Also, we see that more and more heat-records are broken year in and year out. A consequence of this is that such fluctuations, since the quantity of them is apparently increasing, must be determinable from the climate record - the mean of any series is not stable enough to absorb outliers, for instance.

 

Let's have look shall we?

 

Here's HadCrut4,

 

post-5986-0-68091300-1389605693_thumb.pn

 

Clearly, we've been warming; so, essentially, we can test the assertion that a warmer world means more extreme climate. One way of doing this is to see if the climate record fluctuates a lot, and by how much. Essentially, you measure the distance the temperature record appears away from the trend line. However, HadCrut4 is not as simple as that. This series contains trends within trends. We can see this is we simply detrend using a normal linear trend,

 

post-5986-0-83477000-1389606017_thumb.pnpost-5986-0-40067200-1389606041_thumb.pn

 

So, what to do? Well, we need to create a line to fit the HadCrut4 series in a much tighter way. There are zillions of methods of doing this, some complicated, some quite easy. I will use the easily available polynomial regression. Unfortunately, because of the trends within trends we have to use quite a high order to capture the qualities of the series. Here's the polynomial regression of order nine,

 

post-5986-0-08036000-1389606272_thumb.pn

 

This, it seems to me captures the qualitative nature of the series; it captures it's ups and it's downs quite nicely. Quantitatively it is also a better fit - as it should be - as shown clearly by the r2 scores on both the linear trend and the polynomial trend. Now, of course, we have a model of the temperature series we can subtract that polynomial from the actual data series to gives a series where there are no trends, nor trends within trends - effectively, the random noise of climate fluctuation. Here it is,

 

post-5986-0-23751100-1389606662_thumb.pn

 

I've added a linear trend to the result to check whether we really have removed any trace of trend. Whilst there are numbers - not zeroes - this is an artefact of floating point computation which often never reports zero but reports very small values either side of it. It is also, perhaps, the product of Guassian Elimination which is the algorithm used to compute the regression which is known to be sometimes numerically unstable particularly with floating point arithmetic. Anyway these numbers are sufficiently small that they might as well be zero, and rounding to, say, 10 decimal places effectively makes them zero. I could have done that, but you chaps might as well know the problems with semi-numerical computational analysis.

 

Interestingly the r2 value is also (more or less) zero - indicating that there is no correlation between a linear trend and the resulting series. This is what we want: we have effectively removed the trend, and the trends within trends leaving effectively noise - the fluctuation of the climate.

 

Now we can have a good close look at it. First things first, let's draw a graph. Here it is,

 

post-5986-0-20850000-1389607259_thumb.pn

 

The standard deviation is a measure of how much a series disperses from the average; which is ideal for us who want to test the assertion.

 

Well, it seems to me, that the hypothesis that the climate will fluctuate more wildly given a warming climate is completely falsifiable, and, here, it is falsified. It simply isn't borne out by simple observation. Indeed, the complete opposite is true. Empirical evidence only shows that a warming climate makes the climate more stable.

 

That's not to say other observations about the weather are incorrect, but it puts them in their place. Quantities of record heat temperatures, and a lack of quantity of record cold climate are purely because the trend of the climate is up. This is a mathematical consequence of an upward trend - of course you expect an increasing frequency of warmer records if the climate warms(!!) - and certainly not evidence of the major physical changes of warmer climate - and the subsequent nightmare, going to hell, we're all going to burn catastrophists take on things.

 

This analysis shows that warming up the world makes things more stable - at least in the short time frames of the temperature record.

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the climate getting more extreme?

 

As is often asserted by a vast army of commentators, a warmer climate means more extreme weather. The corollary is quite clear: in a warming climate we should expect seriously cold spells, as well as scorching heatwaves as our planet struggles to keep up with pace of change. On the face of it, this is a reasonable thing to think and to expect. More heat, more moisture, more peculiar weather patterns.

 

Observations also seem to corroberate this idea. We've seen arguably the hottest year for Australia, and some lethal cold in America. These weather events certainly seem to confirm it. Also, we see that more and more heat-records are broken year in and year out. A consequence of this is that such fluctuations, since the quantity of them is apparently increasing, must be determinable from the climate record - the mean of any series is not stable enough to absorb outliers, for instance.

 

Let's have look shall we?

 

Here's HadCrut4,

 

Posted Imagehadcrut4.png

 

Clearly, we've been warming; so, essentially, we can test the assertion that a warmer world means more extreme climate. One way of doing this is to see if the climate record fluctuates a lot, and by how much. Essentially, you measure the distance the temperature record appears away from the trend line. However, HadCrut4 is not as simple as that. This series contains trends within trends. We can see this is we simply detrend using a normal linear trend,

 

Posted Imagehadcrut4_linear_trend.pngPosted Imagehadcrut4_detrended.png

 

So, what to do? Well, we need to create a line to fit the HadCrut4 series in a much tighter way. There are zillions of methods of doing this, some complicated, some quite easy. I will use the easily available polynomial regression. Unfortunately, because of the trends within trends we have to use quite a high order to capture the qualities of the series. Here's the polynomial regression of order nine,

 

Posted Imagehadcrut4_poly.png

 

This, it seems to me captures the qualitative nature of the series; it captures it's ups and it's downs quite nicely. Quantitatively it is also a better fit - as it should be - as shown clearly by the r2 scores on both the linear trend and the polynomial trend. Now, of course, we have a model of the temperature series we can subtract that polynomial from the actual data series to gives a series where there are no trends, nor trends within trends - effectively, the random noise of climate fluctuation. Here it is,

 

Posted Imagehadcrut4_poly_detrend.png

 

I've added a linear trend to the result to check whether we really have removed any trace of trend. Whilst there are numbers - not zeroes - this is an artefact of floating point computation which often never reports zero but reports very small values either side of it. It is also, perhaps, the product of Guassian Elimination which is the algorithm used to compute the regression which is known to be sometimes numerically unstable particularly with floating point arithmetic. Anyway these numbers are sufficiently small that they might as well be zero, and rounding to, say, 10 decimal places effectively makes them zero. I could have done that, but you chaps might as well know the problems with semi-numerical computational analysis.

 

Interestingly the r2 value is also (more or less) zero - indicating that there is no correlation between a linear trend and the resulting series. This is what we want: we have effectively removed the trend, and the trends within trends leaving effectively noise - the fluctuation of the climate.

 

Now we can have a good close look at it. First things first, let's draw a graph. Here it is,

 

Posted Imagehadcrut4_30yr_stdev.png

 

The standard deviation is a measure of how much a series disperses from the average; which is ideal for us who want to test the assertion.

 

Well, it seems to me, that the hypothesis that the climate will fluctuate more wildly given a warming climate is completely falsifiable, and, here, it is falsified. It simply isn't borne out by simple observation. Indeed, the complete opposite is true. Empirical evidence only shows that a warming climate makes the climate more stable.

 

That's not to say other observations about the weather are incorrect, but it puts them in their place. Quantities of record heat temperatures, and a lack of quantity of record cold climate are purely because the trend of the climate is up. This is a mathematical consequence of an upward trend - of course you expect an increasing frequency of warmer records if the climate warms(!!) - and certainly not evidence of the major physical changes of warmer climate - and the subsequent nightmare, going to hell, we're all going to burn catastrophists take on things.

 

This analysis shows that warming up the world makes things more stable - at least in the short time frames of the temperature record.

 

I love a bit of DIY science.  Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errata:

 

My spreadsheet skills aren't as good as they should be (read the row, not the x ordinal!)

 

The final graph on my last post should be,

 

post-5986-0-46499300-1389612568_thumb.pn

 

Bugger!

 

*******

 

Also, it's worth noting the relationship between the 30 year linear trend and the 30 year standard deviation. Here it is,

 

post-5986-0-38573400-1389612630_thumb.pn

 

From this - and I haven't conducted significance testing (because I didn't set out the hypothesis before I started) - this is at least an interesting correlation: higher standard deviations are associated with lower temperature trends leading to the suggestion of the original post that warmer global climate trends lead to more global climate stability, contrary to some existing assertions.

 

However, that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is if you compare 30 year standard deviations to 30 year average (mean). Take a look at this one,

 

post-5986-0-78611600-1389613287_thumb.pn

 

Wow! I can only open the floor for suggestions to this one!!!

 

(Looks suspiciously like a skew-t chart)

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

knocker, on 14 Jan 2014 - 13:29, said:

Dana Nuccitelli with his recent article in the Guardian has upset the potty lord so much that he has taken to print in the usual place and screaming law suits. Oh the irony of that. I won't bore you with the article you know where to find it.

 

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/1/14/cue-popcorn.htmlhttp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/peter-sinclair-gets-climate-pinnochio-of-the-day-award/ 

 

 

He made up fake numbers for every line in his graph, didn’t normalize the non-existent Lindzen forecast. and used the wrong Hansen scenario.

Hansen’s forecast was a complete disaster, and the claimed Lindzen forecast is a fraud constructed by Nuttercelli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why they wish to discredit LindzenThey have him marked as dangerous enemy since 1989!http://www.fortfreedom.org/s46.htm 

 

 

Professor Lindzen cited many problems with the temperaturerecords, an example being the representation of the Atlantic Oceanwith only four island measurement sites.  Urbanization also createsproblems in interpreting the temperature record, he said.  There isthe problem of making corrections for the greater inherent warmingover cities--in moving weather stations from a city to an outlyingairport, for example. "The trouble with many of these records," he said, "is that thecorrections are of the order of the effects, and most of us know thatwhen we're in that boat we need a long series and great care to derivea meaningful signal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watts writes only:From the “settled science†department. It seems even Dr. Kevin Trenberth is now admitting to the cyclic influences of the AMO and PDO on global climate. Neither “carbon†nor “carbon dioxide†is mentioned in this article that cites Trenberth as saying: “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,â€

This is significant, as it represents a coming to terms with “the pause†not only by Nature, but by Trenberth too.- Followed by a lengthy quote from Nature.I find it curious this can provoke a foam flecked piece such as linked above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Without seeing the program if it just covers the drop of of cycle 24 and the next cycle and likely impact without tying inprevious strength of past cycles and the impacts on warming then its a misleading piece of journalism in my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KL says.

Well you could blow me down with a feather

 

Or maybe the Solar Wind?

 

So poetic license or a dismishing of solar influence? Mind you given the downturn in solar wind strength perhaps a feather would have a greater effect!!

Edited by jonboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old Gray "cry" Wolf says in t'other thread that the UK is the biggest contributor to rising temps, allegedly caused by a gas. I'm doing my bit to contribute by carelessly filling up my Range Rover daily and reciting posts from the Manmade thread. Every little helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old Gray "cry" Wolf says in t'other thread that the UK is the biggest contributor to rising temps, allegedly caused by a gas. I'm doing my bit to contribute by carelessly filling up my Range Rover daily and reciting posts from the Manmade thread. Every little helps!

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The global warming industry astro-turfers know no bounds, and must keep half a dozen threads live with endless links to obscure [it's worse than we thought!] stories.I do sometimes wonder how many jobs are dependent on coming up with all the endless [it's worse than we thought!] reports based on speculation the [it's worse than we thought!] dependent researchers have cobbled together on a daily basis.Eventually the message must get through it stopped warming 20 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The global warming industry astro-turfers know no bounds, and must keep half a dozen threads live with endless links to obscure [it's worse than we thought!] stories.I do sometimes wonder how many jobs are dependent on coming up with all the endless [it's worse than we thought!] reports based on speculation the [it's worse than we thought!] dependent researchers have cobbled together on a daily basis.Eventually the message must get through it stopped warming 20 years ago.

Umfortunately it won't four as the goalposts will continually ne moved to fit the doctrine. Now we see figures of 2030 when catastrophic warming will resume but in the meantime on planet earth sane people are questioning the alleged consensus, and awkward questions aren't being addressed. Still that won't stop the war machine down at scaremonger central who will continue to draft irresponsible unsubstantiated dross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Streisand effect demonstrated.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus/



 

 

While processing the press release for the special issue “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impactsâ€, we read through the general conclusions paper published on 16 Dec 2013. We were alarmed by the authors’ second implication stating “This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC projectâ€. Before the journal was launched, we had a long discussion regarding its topics. The aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines. PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate sceptics. In addition to our doubts about the scientific content of PRP, we also received information about potential misconduct during the review process. Copernicus Publications cannot risk losing its excellent reputation in the scientific community. We therefore wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of PRP and decided today to cease the publication. This decision must come as a surprise for you, but under the given circumstances we were forced to react.

So - evidence that there is little need for alarm is so alarming that they closed down the journal which published it! Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling 

 

It seems now that everyone is qualified to have an opinion on global warming. In a recent column, theology professor Susan Thistlethwaite explained that “frigid weather†was an “example of the kind of violent and abrupt climate change that results from global warming.†Sometimes, I just feel so stupid. I thought cold weather was attributable to the annual phenomenon known as “winter.†The good professor also claimed that cold weather in the United States is a punishment sent by God for “our sinful failure to take care of the Creation.â€

 

 

David Deming is a geophysicist, professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, and the author of “Black & White: Politically Incorrect Essays on Politics, Culture, Science, Religion, Energy and Environment†(CreateSpace, 2011).

 

Rather America-centric admittedly.But at the same time because part of Australia has been hot that's supposed to be evidence of global warming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do we now have a consensus of what's weather is also climate now, because if we don't then why the hell are some on t'other thread linking the Aussie heat with climate when it was only t'other week when the same people were calling Americas record cold spell just weather. So can we have clarification on this, is it a case of climate is anything warm and wet whilst weather is anything cold. 

Edited by Sceptical Inquirer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems SI can't tell the difference between a 3 day cold snap and an 18 month  extreme climate event( that includes warmest ever recorded winter and record warmest year that included the record highest temp ever recorded on the continent) that shows no sign of stopping ( early warnings already out for the sheep farmers to expect nino conditions in the NW of the country later in the year)?

 

In the U.S. Four linked us to an Article that has Misleaders linking a cold December to 'proof' that global cooling is here and yet in Ozz their misleaders are saying 18 months of 'weather' do not give any indication as to AGW???

 

SI says it's this thread that does such yet there are his folk making monkeys of themselves in the global media ( and not just these threads)...... such fun eh? Exactly the point you making Sceptical a 3 day cold snap?LOL Grey Wolf needs to look at the weather forecast for the USA !Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems SI can't tell the difference between a 3 day cold snap and an 18 month  extreme climate event( that includes warmest ever recorded winter and record warmest year that included the record highest temp ever recorded on the continent) that shows no sign of stopping ( early warnings already out for the sheep farmers to expect nino conditions in the NW of the country later in the year)?

 

In the U.S. Four linked us to an Article that has Misleaders linking a cold December to 'proof' that global cooling is here and yet in Ozz their misleaders are saying 18 months of 'weather' do not give any indication as to AGW???

 

SI says it's this thread that does such yet there are his folk making monkeys of themselves in the global media ( and not just these threads)...... such fun eh? Exactly the point you making Sceptical a 3 day cold snap?LOL Grey Wolf needs to look at the weather forecast for the USA !Posted Image

Indeed Keith, GW and his followers on t'other thread seem to forget that the likes of Chile, Argentina, have also recorded record cold spells over the last few years and what North America experienced wasn't a 3 day snap, try telling that to anyone who lives there. Still we now know that as long as it's warm and wet weather then that will be climate and everything else just weather. The lunatics have not only taken over the asylum but now they are governing the world.

Edited by Sceptical Inquirer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...