“Natural variability from decade to decade can be 0.2 C.”
If you say so, JimD!
So that covers about 1.2 degrees rise since 1950?
Comment on The 50-50 argument by thisisnotgoodtogo
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Jim D
I am saying yes, use 60 years or centuries, but not shorter than 30 years. Decadal natural variations are similar to the expected CO2 signal, making this a tough scale to decipher anything on. It has led to a lot of arguments about decadal noise that do nothing to address the long view, and actually distract from it. We have a long-term record and there is no reason to focus on short periods, especially one of multiple pauses in the longer record that just happens to be the most recent, but is not statistically different.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Mike Jonas
Agreed. We must first understand the natural climate. See also my above comment August 24, 2014 at 6:49 pm.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by vukcevic
Thanks Jones
i promise I won’t not use no double negatives
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Mike Jonas
“Attribution can only be assigned once one understands the system, then make a comparison with the results in hand. First things first. Understand the system, in this case, the climate system. Then one can begin to ascribe components to the observation. The IPPC mandate was totally idiotic. The cart way before the horse.”
Exactly.
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Pekka Pirilä
Tony,
If 1 degree leads to 7 ppm rise, how many degrees the oceans must warm to raise concentration by 120 ppm?
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Mike Jonas
Probably the word “idio tic”.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Jim D
thisisnogood, it is a 0.2 C amplitude of noise around a long-term mean, so your 1.2 C is several standard deviations and would require an explanation, just as 0.7 C is in reality. Lovejoy went into this, saying for century scales 0.8 C is four standard deviations, making it improbably a natural variation with something like 99.9% certainty.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by mosomoso
Put me down for (b).
Really people, you don’t want permanent glacial advance. You don’t even want a permanent 17th century. Brrr.
Admittedly, warmer isn’t good for everyone – California’s drought of the Medieval Warming is kinda terrifing – but you’re bound to have these warm patches in your holocene. Just don’t take them for granted.
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by willard (@nevaudit)
In response to alcheson, his belief is duly noted.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by DayHay
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1905/to:1956/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1957/to:2008
one of these is no CO2, one is all CO2, totally obvious and plenty of data to promote any and all attribution claims…../sarc
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
I said aCO2 leading the way. The contribution of CO2 may in fact be greater than 100% and aerosols act to reduce the effective contribution to the 100% evel.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Howard
Markus: Thanks for the link. FYI I Hacked onto the server for access to all his files. I’m taking Moshers advise and will be reading more. No wonder Science of Doom calls him the Great Ramanathan.
TTFN
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by cwon14
It’s never about “knowing” but the political expediency of believing what fills the agenda. In the case of the Washington Post its a foregone conclusion, 100% statism, 100% of the time.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rud Istvan
Having only just gotten to this most interesting and thought provoking post, a meta analysis comment on the extensive comments. Attribution seems to be a real ‘litmus test’. It brought out expected perspectives from all of the expected usual commenters, at least as I mentally categorize them without having done a large research study on same. Which itself suggests how much ‘momentum’ and how little the rational approach ‘conclusions follow from facts, and when facts change so should conclusions’ (to paraphrase IIRC Keynes) enters the dialog even at ClimateEtc. Rather like Mann on hockey sticks or EPA on carbon pollution endangerment findings. One suspects none of this will move Gavin an iota cause if it did he might be expelled from the church of warmunism. Besides, he is probably too busy further homogenizing the 1930’s down and the ‘pause’ up, changing temperature facts to fit his conclusion rather than vice versa.
Put differently, attribution proves to be a good experimental method to show how much of the climate debate is political rather than scientific in any Feynman sense. Politics involves vested interests, belief systems, and Weltanschauen, all immune in the short run to facts. But not in the long run, since facts are stubborn things that do not go away easily once revealed. Like the pause, the warming from 1910 to 1940, and Climatereason’s longer qualitative historical perspectives.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Bob Ludwick
@ James Cross
“Obviously something in the middle range is the most likely but this is largely a judgment call based more on common sense than hard science.”
Actually, until there is some empirical evidence that the climate is doing something outside its range over the the last 2-3k years, it is not obvious that the range of human influence is more than academically different from zero.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Steven Mosher
whats worse Matthew is that willard tries to get you to specify which part
of barts assertion is false
“seems to come down to the old “uncertainty = ignorance” fallacy. No argumentation, no quantification.”
Bart argues
1. That her entire position comes down to ‘uncertainty = ignorance”
That’s false.
2 That she makes no argument.
That’s false.
Then willard focuses on the ‘quantification’ issue.
Here we a case where Judith has done some quantification. Clearly not as much quantification as the IPCC, but clearly some. The minute she puts the range’s down she is quantifying. Now we may take issue with her quantification. We may call it wrong, imprecise, lacking, unclear, not well thought out, not complete, we can use many words to describe it.
No quantification, however is false.
Then you will see willard shift downstream to the “on going conversation”
and here he would try to find one area where there was no quantification.
one can do this with any dialogue. In this way he avoids calling Bart to account for the very kind of argumentation that he calls others to account for.
The IPCC account of attribution, NG’s account, Bart’s account, gavin’s account, Judith’s account, are all short on rigor, transparency, repeatability, and traceability. tweeting about the topic is part of the problem.
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Steven Mosher
” In other words, you’ve just transposed the lukewarm gambit (usually applied to climate sensitivity) to the attribution problem. Am I right?”
there is no transposition. They are variables in the same damn equation you, dolt.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by climatereason
Jeff Glassman
Very interesting response. I would be intrigued to hear JimD’s reaction to it (and Webby’s) Hopefully Judith will also see it.
I am doubtful about the ice core records for co2 values. They seem to have been at similar levels to today in the recent past but it is difficult to explore this aspect without people invoking Ernst Beck.
tonyb
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Steven Mosher
“A good rule of thumb is: don’t trust anything less than 30 years when it comes to climate change factors, otherwise you are just looking at irrelevant noise.”
so when a volcano supresses temperatures for a couple years you are looking at noise?
if the climate warmed by 3C next year, we would think nothing of it?
or if it cooled by 10 C that would just be noise.
noise is choice. that is, you see weird data and assume it is noise.
others see weird data and try to explain it.
The fundamental issue is that on its face you cant tell how to respond.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
