Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2013 - 02:45pm PT
|
Ed H: "The limit to this agreement has to do with the "uncertainties" we assign to the measurements and propagates through these analyses to provide a measure of the "goodness" of the comparison of the data to our theory. In Chiloe's up thread case, he arrives at a set of parameters which have an uncertainty range determined by the combined uncertainties of the data he is combining, and the ability of his model to fit that data. It also provides an overall metric of how good his hypothesis does in fitting the data."
HUH??
It is longwinded. Also unclear.
How about this:
The word "uncertainty" can have a specific meaning in the context of scientific research. It means that the result (of a model or experiment) cannot be given an exact, precise value. However, the result lies within a small, known range of values.
Sorta like when weather forecasts predicts a "high" temperature of 56 degrees for tomorrow and everyone knows that this forecast high is not going to be exactly 56 degrees but close to 56 degrees, within a range from say 50-60 degrees. It won't be 32 degrees. It won't be 98 degrees. That is an informal example of a range of uncertainty.
But the word uncertainty also can mean, simply, unknown.
As in, when asked what will you wear tomorrow, and the answer is, "I'm uncertain." In this case "uncertain" gives no indication of any range of possibilities.
Ed's complaint is that, either deliberately or through misunderstanding, some writers and bloggers will see the word "uncertainty" in its scientific context "we're sure of what is happening but uncertain of the exact details" and (as sketch does, just upthread) try to present the word as being used in the sense of "we have no idea what is happening."
Does that sound clearer?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 16, 2013 - 06:58pm PT
|
wilbeer, don't be a fool. The Chief stuck his finger in a lake and declared there was no drought.
Hey The Chief--come back here and tell us again how there's plenty of water in the lakes you visit!
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2013 - 11:40pm PT
|
It was good that Ed and Chiloe could "collude" over a few beers the other day then formulate posts that seem to include a middle ground in the climate wars, specifically acknowledgement of what they refer to as the "pause" and theorizing over its cause. This is a good start, though the values of TSI over the satellite period may not be indicative of the true range of variation of the variable star we orbit about. The reliance on just the Enso in Chiloes graphs is simplistic since the PDO, NAO, and AMO likewise have profound effects on climate, and the value ascribed to volcanic aerosols seems suspect since we've been absent any large eruptions in two decades. So, let's see what Mr. Svalgaard has to say about long term variation of solar activity in the review paper linked below. Here is an interesting quote in the abstract-" we simply do not know with any degree of confidence how the variable star, our Sun, has varied over the past 400 years, not to say over much longer time scales before that".
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
If you made it through this paper you are now informed to the extent of the unknowns involving our suns variations and its effect on our climate. The value or "uncertainty" as to the long term range of variation in TSI is unknown. The .01 value advanced by the IPCC is a guesstimate based on non calibrated and discontinuous data from a series of satellites over the last thirty years, data that has a much higher range of variability that the TSI value.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 01:20am PT
|
Now why would would a variation of TSI that has never been measured, or been witnessed in the modern instrument age, show up in their statistical analysis Ed? Furthermore their is dispute of the "certainty" of the values entered into the analyses. I intentionally didn't mention the evil word CO2, thinking you guys might be coming out of your caves and beginning to "see the light" of the real world beyond. No cigar, it's CO2 all the way to the bottom of your abyss. Oh well, i hope you guys don't mistake the weather in the coming decade and freeze to death.
EDIT: Just for the satellite age, a period of unusually high activity, and even that is controversial. A grand minimum has never been measured by modern instruments, nor have the other associated activity levels during such a period (solar magnetism, solar wind speed and pressure, values of other spectrum of radiation). Don't throw out your winter clothes just yet.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 08:28am PT
|
It was good that Ed and Chiloe could "collude" over a few beers the other day then formulate posts that seem to include a middle ground in the climate wars, specifically acknowledgement of what they refer to as the "pause" and theorizing over its cause.
Hah, the few beers were real but after that Rick's lost in his fantasyland of conspiracies and pseudoscience. Ed and I are not colluding types, whatever posts we make are our own thoughts. Mine was inspired by Rick asking me about Svalgaard; I answered with an analysis that, as noted above above, I had originally done two years ago for a book.
Acknowledging the rise in surface temperature indexes has paused is not "a middle ground in the climate wars" either, except in Rick's imagination. Scientists have been writing about that for several years; I don't know a single one who denies that in the last decade or so, SAT indexes have slowed their rise -- it's right there in the data. What to make of that is a different question.
A few pages back I posted this compact summary of recent research on this topic, all of which Rick apparently forgot to read. Don't think he can or will this time either, but the post reflects some work by me because I actually did read and think about these references. So I'll post it again.
The Cato graph showed trends instead of temperatures because they want to emphasize that trends in the surface air indexes have been relatively flat in recent years. This is true as far as it goes, but leaves out a whole lot of recent research showing that:
1. The "pause" in surface temperature rise largely vanishes if we control for ENSO, volcanic and solar variations (Foster & Rahmstorf 2011) -- which as Ed has pointed out, the models never claimed to predict.
2. ENSO effects in particular suggest that more heat is being cycled into the oceans. And sure enough, ocean heat content and sea level have continued to rise (Balmaseda et al. 2013).
3. The seasonal and geographic pattern of surface temperatures is consistent with this ENSO effect (Kosaka & Xie 2013 [or see this summary in Science]).
4. The surface temperature indexes not only overlook the deep ocean, they also tend to over-represent ENSO-affected regions, and under-represent regions with less ENSO impact -- most notably the Arctic, where surface temperatures have risen most steeply. Add the Arctic back in, and surface temperatures are still rising (Cowtan & Way 2013).
Points 1-4 above are drawn from peer-reviewed papers within the past two years, all previously cited on this thread.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 08:46am PT
|
The reliance on just the Enso in Chiloes graphs is simplistic since the PDO, NAO, and AMO likewise have profound effects on climate,
If Rick read real science instead of pseudoscience bloggers he would know that many people have tested for PDO, NAO and AMO effects (including Foster & Rahmstorf). Even I tested for AMO effects in my simple model, and found that including the AMO index actually strengthens the estimated effect of CO2.
and the value ascribed to volcanic aerosols seems suspect since we've been absent any large eruptions in two decades.
Not just tens of thousands of scientists but satellites and volcano-observers worldwide are part of Rick's vast conspiracy.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 11:47am PT
|
Do you get paid by the post or by the word, for spreading the conspiracy here on the Taco?
I'm still waiting for my check from Al Gore, dammit! If he doesn't answer all my letters soon I'm gonna accept that great business offer from the widow of General Osfinko.
Ah well. There's a good new post on this topic at Realclimate today,
The global temperature jigsaw
Since 1998 the global temperature has risen more slowly than before. Given the many explanations for colder temperatures discussed in the media and scientific literature (La Niņa, heat uptake of the oceans, arctic data gap, etc.) one could jokingly ask why no new ice age is here yet. This fails to recognize, however, that the various ingredients are small and not simply additive. Here is a small overview and attempt to explain how the different pieces of the puzzle fit together.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 12:24pm PT
|
Well Chiloe, and all other weather wackos claiming that the 2013 sea ice recovery was just thin first year ice with no increase in volume
Rick's lost in his fantasyland. More reality-based folks may recall how Chief got so flummoxed because I posted this graphic back in early September, showing the clear 1-year increase in volume (in context with its nonlinear decadal decline).
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
|
Then, more than a month ago (Nov 10), I updated my volume graphic using the final September data.
Why sea ice volume is back in the news now: The Cryosat research team has independently confirmed the earlier conclusions (not the numerical estimates themselves -- those aren't comparable) of the PIOMAS research team.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 12:40pm PT
|
If the effects are at best minor players Ed, then how do you explain the collapse of the thermosphere during the minimum of cycle 23/24. There is no way the climatology community has identified, explained, and assigned the effect and values of all solar processes responsible for climate change on Earth. Svalgaard, who Chiloe claims to have no problems with his research, clearly states that in his upcoming 2014 paper i linked on the last page.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 12:59pm PT
|
There is no way the climatology community has identified, explained, and assigned the effect and values of all solar processes responsible for climate change on Earth. Svalgaard, who Chiloe claims to have no problems with his research, clearly states that in his upcoming 2014 paper i linked on the last page.
Svalgaard argues persuasively that there is much solar scientists don't know about historical solar activity. At the same time he has clearly stated, at least in what I've seen, that changes in solar activity cannot explain the recent climate warming (as other scientists have also concluded). I've seen a few of Svalgaard's interventions on denialist blogs that were devoted to whacking down unfounded claims of this sort; he takes a lot of flak for that from the faithful.
Svalgaard also states that (contrary to the "modern maximum" belief) solar activity today is about what it was a century ago.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 02:03pm PT
|
Incidentally, the statistical modeling approach that worked so well for NOAA surface temperatures, as described above, seems to work (with substantially similar conclusions) for other global temperature indexes too. Below is a version modeling the UAH lower-troposphere (satellite-based) series.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 02:12pm PT
|
Its pathetic how you twist what Svalgaard says to fit your agenda Chiloe. For instance a century ago the sun was in maximum activity and the temps rose globally to nearly todays high. What about the thermosphere collapse- how does that fit into your narrative as written into scripture of the church of Climatology CO2 supreme? You know, the religion you foster to insure your continuing paychecks from the climate/industrial complex
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 02:22pm PT
|
Its pathetic how you twist what Svalgaard says to fit your agenda Chiloe.
Who is being pathetic here, Rick? You can find links to Svalgaard's research including the Powerpoint for last week's AGU presentation:
http://www.leif.org/research/
Slide 16 of that AGU presentation is labeled "Conclusions."
Bullet point 4 among his conclusions states exactly this:
Solar activity is at present down to that of a century ago He makes similar points elsewhere, such as the presentation at Nagoya last year on "The long-term variation of solar activity."
the religion you foster to insure your continuing paychecks from the climate/industrial complex
Nope, you made that one up too.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 02:35pm PT
|
What about the thermosphere collapse- how does that fit into your narrative as written into scripture of the church of Climatology CO2 supreme?
I would think that upper atmosphere collapses go with less radiation leaving earths surface than was happening before CO2 additions. We know that the atmosphere's thickness varies with solar activity also.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 05:28pm PT
|
Our science-haters are gonna hate on this too, but I thought it was a fun idea:
The calendar and the people are for real.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 17, 2013 - 05:48pm PT
|
Road Trip, enjoying life and emitting tons of C02 into your atmosphere...
Nice bike the chief.
Now let me get this straight--you're the short fat one on the right, am I correct?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!