Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Steven Mosher

February 2, 2014, 1:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by DocMartyn

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by Generalissimo Skippy

$

0

0

vuk.

Yes.

But notice that we can have an argument about solar forcing. Today its close to 1361. What about the past? Well, we can argu about estimates, and its clear that in doing so we are subjecting ourselves to empirical test.

contrast that with unicorns. When skeptics argue that it could “something else” that causes the changes, they are pointing at a mere logical possibility. It could be unicorns.

I counter that its not unicorns, but rather unicorns ^2,

you see the difference between proposing a explanation that can be examined versus proposing an explanation which merely takes advantage of the problem of induction.

---

Comment on Open thread by DocMartyn

February 2, 2014, 1:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

≪ Previous: Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Closed Mind has a point for once, it is difficult to work out when a slope changes in noisy data.
I had a more honest go than Tamatio

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/Howlongdoesthepauseneedtobetoachievesignificance_zps87256f2c.png

I detrended the 1965-2001 and calculated the SD.

I detrended the 2001-2014 and calculated the SD.

I plotted the the whole 1965-2014, with the 1965-2001 trend removed. he CI are +/- 0.75 SD’s. The area above/below the CI is 22.3% of the distribution, so when the top CI of one slope crosses the bottom CI of the second, then the chances of them being part of the same population is (22.3)^2, or <5%.
Starting in 2001, with the big spike 1998-2000 removed, you get a tight SD.
I guesstimate, that of the monthly temperature variance doesn't change much, that we could be in a position to statistically state that the 1965-2001 and the 2001-22 temperature populations are different.
So we need about 21 years to state with confidence, that the 1965-2001 slope has been arrested.
This is of course based on the postulate that we have linear trends, which we know is garbage, but is OK for 'Climate Science'.

Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

February 2, 2014, 1:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by Generalissimo Skippy

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by DocMartyn

$

0

0

Skippy, I’m afraid I can’t share your enthusiasm for Tsonis. I don’t see his work having any more predictive value than a naive extrapolation of the OLS in the linked chart, although it is a lot fancier.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend

What Tsonis does reminds me of stock market charting, which I see as no better at predicting than reading tea leaves.

But you may not be as big of a sap as I used to think. Your following sentence is loaded with hedges.

“Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication.”

Comment on Open thread by Generalissimo Skippy

February 2, 2014, 1:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

$

0

0

Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Steven Mosher

February 2, 2014, 1:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Generalissimo Skippy

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by Generalissimo Skippy

$

0

0

manacker.

we will never know what dunnit it.

What we have are explanations. I explain climate change by positing the existence of entities called forcings. This positing is no different than the positing of things called electrons, atoms, quarks, you name it.

The test of a system of posits is does it make sense of the past observations we have and does it help us to predict future observations. It will never do so perfectly. EVEN IF IT DID, there is still the possiblity that some other system of posits could explain the facts better or more simply. It could be unicorns.

So, pointing out that we will never know, isnt really an objection that is unique to climate science. It haunts all knowing. What we have in the end is the best explanation, one that is LESS WRONG, than all the others.

To replace this you need one that works better.

The sun dunnit doesnt work.

Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Generalissimo Skippy

February 2, 2014, 1:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by DocMartyn

≪ Previous: Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Let’s see – distinguished atmospheric physicist on one hand and Max the okie on the other. No contest. You are as big a sap as I imagine.

But it is far from just Tsonis.

Let me Google that for you – http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=Interdedcal+Pacific+Oscillation+surface+temperature

Comment on Open thread by DocMartyn

February 2, 2014, 1:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Bob Droege

≪ Previous: Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Generalissimo Skippy

$

0

0

“While it did defend for many years the segregationist leaders of the South”

You are a fool.

The Democrats were the party of segregation and the KKK was part of the Democrat Party.
Just look up which party kept blocking the various Civil Rights Bills.

You are such an ignorant wuss Josh.

Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Bob Droege

February 2, 2014, 1:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Generalissimo Skippy

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by DocMartyn

$

0

0

My pick is “da Pause” is ready for retirement.

If the warming trend from 1950 to 2014 is greater than the trend from 1950 to whenever it is said “da Pause” starts, then there is no pause.

If about 90% of the years average temperature are above the value of the continustion of the trend that existed at the time of the start of “da Pause” then there is no pause. See Tamino.

As for using models to predict with good confidence how our climate will develop based on projections of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, well there is no other way to do it.

---

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Generalissimo Skippy

February 3, 2014, 1:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by curryja

≪ Previous: Comment on What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? by Bob Droege

$

0

0

And I note it is still there – this is just not worth my time – even if I do still have a foot being dressed every day.

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by curryja

February 3, 2014, 1:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Generalissimo Skippy

$

0

0

Don, I appreciate your defense but this then leads to retaliatory escalation, which i am trying to calm down

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer

February 3, 2014, 1:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by curryja

$

0

0

Skippy makes a point I’ve made before to Mosher.

Regardless of any criticism of sunspot counting in the more distant past it is indisputable that sunspot number dropped like a lead balloon over the past two cycles. The way we count sunspots did not change since 1990. It wasn’t “pencil whipped” downward in the past two cycles. So we are left with still more correlation between sunspot count and global average temperature. The pause coincides with low sunspot activity.

How about that. Mosher doesn’t have the capacity to understand this I guess.

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

February 3, 2014, 1:19 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer

$

0

0

IPCC writes:

Overall we conclude that there is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due the larger differences between sea-ice simulations from CMIP5 models and to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.

Translation:

- The Antarctic sea ice is growing (last time we said it was not changing)
- We don’t know why
- Our models missed it completely

Max

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer

February 3, 2014, 1:22 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

$

0

0

How many solar physicists in the world, Mosher?

How many agree with Lief?

You have to do better than one solar physicist so desperate for attention the main outlet for his ideas are blog comments on wattsupwiththat.com

ROFL

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

February 3, 2014, 1:25 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer

$

0

0

Philip Haddad

It’s nice to conjecture about why Antarctic sea ice is expanding while Arctic sea ice is shrinking.

I’d say it points away from global warming (because the trend is obviously not global) and hence from the effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases.

More likely than not, both trends can be attributed largely to local or regional natural causes, which are not yet fully understood.

I know that answer is not very satisfying to many, but it is unfortunately the most likely answer.

Max

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer

February 3, 2014, 1:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Bad Andrew

≪ Previous: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

$

0

0

Here’s more:

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS573&q=modern+solar+maximum

Link after link after link from NASA and universities galore confirming the the modern solar maximum.

I encourage everyone to do the search and verify for themselves.

---

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Bad Andrew

February 3, 2014, 1:30 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer

$

0

0

“pencil whippings” vs. Steven “Adjustment” Mosher.

Who to believe?

Andrew

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

February 3, 2014, 1:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by timg56

≪ Previous: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Bad Andrew

$

0

0

Judith Curry

Notwithstanding the simulations by climate models that reproduce the decline in Arctic sea ice, more convincing arguments regarding causes of sea ice variations requires understanding and ability to simulate sea ice variations in both hemispheres.

Very logical conclusion.

Until we know what is causing the Antarctic sea ice to expand, we cannot understand what is causing the Arctic sea ice to shrink (regardless of what our models may say).

Max

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by timg56

February 3, 2014, 1:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

$

0

0

Max,

Also an O’s fan, which until 2 years ago, was as tough as being a Skin’s fan. As for the Pat’s – as with Payton Manning, it is hard not to like Tom Brady, unless you are a fan of a team he’s administering a beating to.

As a Redskins fan even I am not completely sure it is Snyder’s fault. I suspect it is in large part, if just some of the stories are true. But on the other hand there is no doubt he loves the team as a true fan. Prhaps he needs to hire good people and step back.

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

February 3, 2014, 1:40 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by timg56

$

0

0

darrylb

The monthly sea ice record shows large seasonal swings both in the north and the south.

Adding the two together shows very little seasonal swing and hardly any long-term (i.e. since 1979) trend.

You write:

The challenge is find out how much of the perturbation is internal (which has always been happening) and how much is external (imbalance of energy flux)

Indeed!

And, unfortunately, that’s exactly where the IPCC models have failed (by their own admission).

And our hostess is right in writing that if the models do not understand growing sea ice in the Antarctic, they can also not explain shrinking sea ice in the Arctic.

A dilemma.

Max

Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by Steven Mosher

February 3, 2014, 1:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by angech

≪ Previous: Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker

$

0

0

and lets draw Judiths conclusion.

when internal variability is uncertain then attribution which depends on it is
uncertain.

Now, whether that argument really really holds is debateable.

but calling her anti science for making it is a longer stretch than the argument she makes.
calling her position contradictory is also a longer stretch than her argument.

Bottom line

The chapter on attribution is not very clearly argued or documented.
and its not clearly squared with the rest of the document.

more work. less posing required