Wanna bet?

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Lausten » Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:15 pm

But the principle of what CO2 does, can be demonstrated. Sure, it’s only one part of the equation. But you said “CO2 theory” and it wasn’t clear what you meant. What you explained agrees with what I’ve heard, so we aren’t in disagreement on the point of the presence of CO2 causes warming. It may be complicated, but it is not a “tangled mess”.

I’ve also heard that AGW has and will have more of an effect on the middle latitudes, and less on the tropics or poles. Again though, you bring up maximums without explaining why that’s important. 80 year old maximums don’t inform us about accumulated heat.

I would need more information to determine what you are saying about Arctic Ocean heat ventilation, so I’ll pass on that one for now.

Homogenization is also a science, where an expert in that field is needed. When that’s the case, I rely on explanations of methods and indications that they show their work so it can be repeated. And have the methods been monitored and peer reviewed. Given these two articles, why do you think the methods are flawed?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:33 pm

Lausten wrote:
I would need more information to determine what you are saying about Arctic Ocean heat ventilation, so I’ll pass on that one for now.
All the links were provided to the peer reviewed papers showing ventilation.
Lausten wrote: you bring up maximums without explaining why that’s important. 80 year old maximums don’t inform us about accumulated heat.

If minimum temperatures rise because heat was retained by asphalt, but mid day convection carries away that heat and maximum temperature never rise above past maximums, then there has been no accumulation of heat, even though the minimum temperature biases the average upward. If you are concerned about heat stress on the biosphere or drought stress on the landscape then you must look at maximum temperatures. That too is undeniable science and basic physics.
Lausten wrote: Homogenization is also a science, where an expert in that field is needed. When that’s the case, I rely on explanations of methods and indications that they show their work so it can be repeated. And have the methods been monitored and peer reviewed. Given these two articles, why do you think the methods are flawed?
Again you fail to understand the mechanics of homogenization. No matter how repeatable statistical methods are, as argued in your links, there is still a very arbitrary decision that is not testable and therefore not scientific. Homogenization adjusts data because one site shows a different short term trend than another. Microclimate differences happen all the time and there is o justification to eliminate those differences. The justificaation offered is those differences are just noise. Is warming in the Arctic and cooling in Antarctica just noise? Should we average the diffeernt trends? Or homogenize the 2 so Antarctic loks like the Arctic?

The Cuyamaca adjustments were made despite the data having been quality controlled. I asked you what you thought about the Cuyamaca homogenization example. Right or wrong, expert or not, you and I can discuss what the data tells us. But you choose to dodge it altogether and that is why we fail to have meaningful discussions. I'll again post the graphs from the data.

Here are the graphs of raw and quality controlled data downloaded from the US Historical Climate Network in 2011. It agrees with several other experts that show a warming trend since 1970 but agree there was little warming in California since 1940. Those temperature oscillations are also in accordance with the effects of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that warms and cools California as described by climate experts in the peer reviewed paper Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change 1900–2001 You link to the Skeptical Science website which is a CO2 global warming advocacy site and does not reveal all the other competing explanations presented in the scientific literature. Because you do not read the scientific literature and only selected websites, you would not be aware of all the compeeing issues.

Image

Other published papers (Shen (2011)The twentieth century contiguous US temperature changes indicated by daily data and higher statistical moments) by other climate experts use quality controlled average temperature for the entire USA and also show an oscillating temperature trend that correlates with the PDO. Here i compare their published graph with my graph for the PDO.

Image

I had documented the Cuyamaca data set in my book. But since its publication the old homogenized graph from 2011 has been replaced by a new homogenized graph in 2015. Homogenization methods eliminated an oscillating pattern of climate change and metamorphosed it into a linear pattern of rising temperatures that fit expectations of CO2 theory.

Image

You should also question the reasons for recently adjusting ocean temperatures upwards. Because ocean surface temperature measurements were sparse and limited to bucket measurements from boats or from measurement of engine intake water, climate scientists rightfully created the multi trillion dollar ARGO observing program. But that state of the art data suggested less warming than the bucket data. So ocean ARGO temperatures were adjusted upwards last year to match the flawed system that ARGO was designed to improve. Why would that make sense just because a couple of experts thought it was valid? And there was a consensus among several climate oceanographers in 2012 that the ARGO data showed no surface warming since 2003. Which experts do you choose to believe? At there very lest there is a debate and the science is not settled!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Lausten » Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:15 pm

JIm Steele wrote:
Lausten wrote:
I would need more information to determine what you are saying about Arctic Ocean heat ventilation, so I’ll pass on that one for now.
All the links were provided to the peer reviewed papers showing ventilation.
Links you provided. Ample reasons have been provided for not trusting you as an expert. Just because I can't explain it to your satisfaction doesn't mean those reasons aren't worth considering. You started with a right/wrong conversation and refuse to accept anything else. You can't agree on the definition of a word like "consensus". You can't agree on methodology. There's no basis for a debate.
JIm Steele wrote:
Lausten wrote: you bring up maximums without explaining why that’s important. 80 year old maximums don’t inform us about accumulated heat.
If minimum temperatures rise because heat was retained by asphalt, but mid day convection carries away that heat and maximum temperature never rise above past maximums, then there has been no accumulation of heat, even though the minimum temperature biases the average upward. If you are concerned about heat stress on the biosphere or drought stress on the landscape then you must look at maximum temperatures. That too is undeniable science and basic physics.
No it's not. You just ignored air currents that introduce warm and cool air. I think we're done here.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:30 pm

Lausten wrote: Links you provided. Ample reasons have been provided for not trusting you as an expert.
Typical Lausten! You can into this thread launching personal attacks and you leave doing the same. I mistakenly believed you were seeking an honest discussion, but clearly that was not the case.

I give you a sincere reply backed up by peer reviewed science but Lausten again dodges any and all contrary evidence and just launches more personal attack. The links are to experts, but Lausten tries to demean the science by demeaning me the messenger.

You are really a very dishonest and hateful man Lausten. But you do not smell your own stink.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Lausten » Thu Aug 25, 2016 6:51 pm

JIm Steele wrote:
Lausten wrote: Links you provided. Ample reasons have been provided for not trusting you as an expert.
Typical Lausten! You can into this thread launching personal attacks and you leave doing the same. I mistakenly believed you were seeking an honest discussion, but clearly that was not the case.

I give you a sincere reply backed up by peer reviewed science but Lausten again dodges any and all contrary evidence and just launches more personal attack. The links are to experts, but Lausten tries to demean the science by demeaning me the messenger.

You are really a very dishonest and hateful man Lausten. But you do not smell your own stink.
It is not dishonest to say "I don't know enough about that to comment". Dishonest is saying that if I don't read your links and come to a conclusion, then there's something wrong with me. Climate is one of the most complex systems we have to deal with, expecting me to respond to everything you say in a thorough and well research manner is ridiculous. We all have to choose what avenues to pursue, and given the amount of time you spend whining, I choose not to put much trust in you.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:30 pm

It is dishonest to hide behind your lack of understanding by sniping ,"Ample reasons have been provided for not trusting you as an expert" when every thing I have seriously written is backed up in the peer review literature.

Its dishonest to ask me a question and then if I dont agree with your exptectations, you dodge the issue by sniping "you dont put much trust in me"

Why would you ask me questions in the first place? Perhaps it is just another of your hateful games.

And I never expect you to respond "in a thorough and well researched manner" It has always been clear you can not. Although you admit your shortcomings you will still pretend to be capable of judging my scientific merits vs others, based on what? What you dont understand. And despite all your shortcomings and ignorance of the content you still sniped " you could buy this book and find out he has no real argument." You are one of the most dishonest people have witnessed, and there are many hiding in anonymity of the internet.

Now what I did say
I asked you what you thought about the Cuyamaca homogenization example. Right or wrong, expert or not, you and I can discuss what the data tells us. But you choose to dodge it altogether and that is why we fail to have meaningful discussions.
And again you proved my point.

The evidence from the research is there. The links are there so you can check my story if you wish. You could comment on the factual graphs presented, but you are afraid to let any doubts about global warming be entertained. Instead in your hateful and dishonest ways, you again attack me personally for sincerely sharing accurate information. You are really a pathetic piece of work.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Lausten » Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:14 pm

JIm Steele wrote:It is dishonest to hide behind your lack of understanding by sniping ,"Ample reasons have been provided for not trusting you as an expert" when every thing I have seriously written is backed up in the peer review literature.
What do you mean "backed up"? You are constantly disagreeing with peer review literature too, so, What does that mean to you? "Peer reviewed" does not mean "right", or agreed upon or decided. And try to control yourself, it's getting so old.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:55 pm

I'm dome dealing with your ignorant hateful dishonest crap Lausten. Go read some peer reviewed science and educate yourself! I will not waste any more time answering your deceitful questions.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

Halsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Halsu » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:36 am

I'll go through your article, just for fun.

1. You ask "how much of the global warming trend is due to heat ventilating from a cooling Arctic ocean???". The answer is "probably none".

First of all, the arctic ocean is not cooling. It's warming. So your question is moot.

Yes, 1993 was warmer than 2011, but that's just year-to-year variation. Compared to the average (and rising) trend, 1993 was a warm anomaly, 2011 was a cool one.

Image

Second, some of the warming is probably due to thinner ice - heat ventilating through thinner ice from the warming ocean - but compared to other factors, i find it quite likely that the effect is minuscule.

2. Your question: "So how much of the recent warming trend is due to the virtual reality of homogenized data???" Answer: pretty likely "none".

Homogenization of the data is a mandatory step when doing global temperature series. It's not about fudging the data, it's about trying to make it consistent in a less than perfect world. If there's a sharp jump in a station's data, but not in the ones surrounding it, chances are that the jump is not due to a real change in climate but rather due to change in the way that station measures temperature. Perhaps the equipment was changed, station moved, or, the nearby environment changed (let's say due to construction, to please those obsessed with UHI effect). Such jumps thus need to be eliminated. As far as i know, the homogenization algorithms basically make the running averages before and after the jump meet, by rising or lowering the before and after series, creating a more plausible record for said station. I find it very unlikely that the adjustments have any artificial bias. Here's an analysis of the adjustment algorithm:


3. See above, with the addition that concentrating on just the eastern USA, less than 1% of the surface area of the earth could probably be considered cherry picking. Yes, it seems the homogenization increases the warming trend there. But we could very likely find other regions in the globe where it does the opposite...


4. ...and we do, right away. It's kind of funny that you do not like the raw data anymore when homogenization LOWERS the warming trend. Which is the case here. The SNOTEL data in the western USA mountain range is not homogenized. The article you cite concludes (we can take it for the face value for now), that when homogenized, the warming trend in the mountains is no longer higher than that of the surrounding lower altitude stations.

I'd say this argument is in FAVOR of the homogenization, not against it. An example case where homogenizing reduces the warming trend. Oh, and of course we must remember that we're again talking about a fraction of a percentage of the global temperature record here.


5. You say: "As an example, below is a graph I created from the US Historical Climate Network Cuyamaca weather station in southern California; a station that never altered its location or instrumentation. "

Really? The station still uses the same instrumentation as in 1900, the beginning of your graph? Are you sure?


6. No. The paper only asserts that "northeast Pacific coastal sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and land-based surface air temperatures (SATs) display multidecadal variations associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation". So, the area in question is the coast line of northeast pacific, NOT "western North America".

This said, even that is somewhat questionable, the results of the paper may well be artificial, result of data selection rather than actual real life phenomena. There's a comment paper that suggests this to be the case: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/52/E5605.full

As the paper you linked to is the odd one out, an anomaly (most papers conclude that warming is due to human effect), i find it much more likely that the Abatzoglou et al. paper is right.


7. The UHI effect is real, but it does not affect the global warming trend in any meaningful way. Sure, the temperatures measured at a weather station at an airport may be higher than temperatures measured on a rural station - but that has no effect on the trend.

Let me explain with rough example: In time period X, rural station goes from 22 to 24 degrees, airport goes from 27 to 29 degrees. Due to UHI, airport is five degrees warmer than rural. But the CHANGE is the exact same in both: 2 degrees. And it's all about change. As far as global temperature anomaly is concerned, both stations give the exact same result.

And before you say that the artificial warming comes from moving rural stations to airports... that's exactly what the homogenization adjustments are compensating for.


8. The answer to your question “how much of the warming trend is due to population effects that remove vegetation??” is twofold. The major impact from deforestation is due to it's effect on the CO2, and i recall this to be about 10% of the AGW effect. So that would be in the order of 0.02 degrees celcius of warming per decade or so. Then there's the direct effect you refer to with your link. I'd reason that it is unlikely to affect the weather stations much, but it may have some discernable effect on satellite records. How much, i do not know - but i find it pretty likely to be a small fraction compared to the deforestation's CO2 effect.


9. I think i'll leave the satellite records alone for now - we'll see what 2016 will look like in them, right? :D


10. The tree ring divergence issue is rather well known, but it does not really relate to current warming as shown by thermometers and satellite measurements at all. What it does affect is the historical reconstructions of temperature - specifically, it casts some doubt in the tree ring data's ability to work as a proxy for possible pre-industrial temperatures higher than those of the mid 1900's - if such temperatures had existed, they might not be detectable from tree rings alone.
How about a bet, SweetPea?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 71#p359571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ***** Bet version 2: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 55#p378255" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...if interested, read both versions!!

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:38 pm

Halsu,

I appreciate your point by point disagreements. Due to other commitments it will take a about a week or two before I can respond and show you where I think you are wrong.

That said our bet will go down to the wire.

As the satellite data experts at UAH have reported
Through the first eight months of the year, 2016 seems to be racing toward what might be its place in history — as the second warmest year in the satellite temperature record. But just by a little bit, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “While global average temperatures peaked higher this year than they did in 1998, temperatures fell faster this spring and summer to levels that are cooler than they were at this same time of year in 1998. We had three months this year that were warmer than their 1998 counterparts, and five that were cooler. There is really no reliable way of predicting what the next four months will do, compared to those same months in 1998.”
Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

Halsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Halsu » Fri Sep 02, 2016 12:55 pm

JIm Steele wrote:As the satellite data experts at UAH have reported
Yep, it will be interesting. The UAH data available so far at woodfortrees is about 0.1 degrees warmer in 2016 for the first seven months of the year:

#Time series (uah) from 1978.92 to 2016.58
#Selected data from 1998
#Selected data up to 1998.52
1998 0.471
1998.08 0.651
1998.17 0.421
1998.25 0.663
1998.33 0.562
1998.42 0.507
1998.5 0.44
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 7
#Mean: 0.530714

#Time series (uah) from 1978.92 to 2016.58
#Selected data from 2016
2016 0.616
2016.08 0.899
2016.17 0.85
2016.25 0.761
2016.33 0.551
2016.42 0.366
2016.5 0.445
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 7
#Mean: 0.641143

Edit: interestingly, when looking at the above numbers, i see only two months that were warmer in 1998, the rest were cooler. Hmm...


1998 (BLUE) kept on falling after that, resulting in the whole year being 0.2 degrees cooler than 2016 has been so far.

But i think 2016 (PURPLE) is not very likely to do the same as the climate is warmer now and the big drop from the peak has already occurred. I think the temperatures are likely to pretty much stay where they are now for the rest of the year, perhaps dropping a bit below it but not much. We are about in the trend line right now - just like the end of 1998 was, and unless something unexpected happens, i assume the post El Nino curve will follow roughly the same pattern.

Image
How about a bet, SweetPea?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 71#p359571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ***** Bet version 2: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 55#p378255" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...if interested, read both versions!!

Halsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Halsu » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:05 am

Still looks like a record year in the making...

Image

...still waiting for your comments on my point-by-point, BTW.
How about a bet, SweetPea?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 71#p359571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ***** Bet version 2: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 55#p378255" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...if interested, read both versions!!

Halsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Halsu » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:40 am

And still going strong towards the record... pretty much exactly as i anticipated earlier.

Image
How about a bet, SweetPea?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 71#p359571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ***** Bet version 2: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 55#p378255" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...if interested, read both versions!!

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35082
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Gord » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:20 pm

Hi Halsu, how're ya doin'? :wave:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:17 pm

Indeed it looks like I will lose our bet and 2016 will be the warmest year in satellite history. I expected a more rapid drop in temperatures as witnessed after 1998 and 2010.

Image

I will gladly pay in January when results are final. Nonetheless since this years weather is "exactly" as yoo expected Halsu I'd be curious what you expect for 2017. Another record? If so why?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

Halsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Halsu » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:38 pm

Gord wrote:Hi Halsu, how're ya doin'? :wave:
I'm fine, thanks for asking :-)
How about a bet, SweetPea?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 71#p359571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ***** Bet version 2: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 55#p378255" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...if interested, read both versions!!

Halsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Halsu » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:50 pm

JIm Steele wrote:Indeed it looks like I will lose our bet and 2016 will be the warmest year in satellite history. I expected a more rapid drop in temperatures as witnessed after 1998 and 2010.

Image

I will gladly pay in January when results are final. Nonetheless since this years weather is "exactly" as yoo expected Halsu I'd be curious what you expect for 2017. Another record? If so why?
I too thought the drop might have been a little steeper, as we're now in a La Nina state of the ENSO cycle. But not much though. As far as next year goes, i's a bit of a coin toss, the prediction is for La Nina conditions, but just ever so slightly (55% for the winter). My guess is that next year will be a pretty regular year in the late 2010's, perhaps in the 0.3 to 0.4 degree anomaly range in the UAH satellite record. But i have not that much confidence in this given the current data.

This said, even a perfectly regular year would rank 4th in the satellite record, topped only by the three latest strong El Nino years, 1998, 2010 And 2016.

But as far as bets go, i could bet that the arctic sea ice will be completely gone in the autumn minimum for the first time ever, within the next five years...
How about a bet, SweetPea?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 71#p359571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ***** Bet version 2: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 55#p378255" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...if interested, read both versions!!

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by gorgeous » Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:21 pm

[ytube][/ytube]
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35082
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Gord » Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:26 am

Dana Carvey's hands are too big.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by gorgeous » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:06 pm

for what?
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35082
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Gord » Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:42 pm

To impersonate Trump.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by robinson » Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:01 pm

Halsu wrote: But as far as bets go, i could bet that the arctic sea ice will be completely gone in the autumn minimum for the first time ever, within the next five years...
I will bet you any amount of money that you are wrong, and even that ice will increase to levels not seen in the sat record.
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

Halsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Halsu » Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:55 am

robinson wrote:
Halsu wrote: But as far as bets go, i could bet that the arctic sea ice will be completely gone in the autumn minimum for the first time ever, within the next five years...
I will bet you any amount of money that you are wrong, and even that ice will increase to levels not seen in the sat record.
Okay. How about a hundred bucks for the bet i suggest?

Your bet idea about ice levels rising to unseen levels deserves it's own bet. Another hundred for that - i don't wanna make you too poor ;-) ?
How about a bet, SweetPea?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 71#p359571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ***** Bet version 2: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 55#p378255" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...if interested, read both versions!!

Halsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Halsu » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:11 pm

JIm Steele wrote:Indeed it looks like I will lose our bet and 2016 will be the warmest year in satellite history.
The results are in, it was a close call in the end, but 2016 is indeed the warmest yer on record on UAH:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/ wrote:The 38 years in the satellite record, ranked from warmest to coolest (and ignoring statistical uncertainty) are:

RANK YEAR deg.C.
01 2016 +0.50
02 1998 +0.48
03 2010 +0.34
04 2015 +0.26
05 2002 +0.22
06 2005 +0.20
07 2003 +0.19
08 2014 +0.18
09 2007 +0.16
10 2013 +0.13
How about a bet, SweetPea?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 71#p359571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ***** Bet version 2: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 55#p378255" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...if interested, read both versions!!

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:23 am

Halsu wrote: The results are in, it was a close call in the end, but 2016 is indeed the warmest yer on record on UAH:
Indeed it was a close one and in fact so close, 1998 was statistically not significantly different from 2016. Furthermore .02 C increase in 18 years equals 0.001 C per year, thus if that rate of warming continues, the global average would rise by .085 degrees by the year 2100. Looks like a warming hiatus for sure, and far, far below model predictions. If the winds had not removed the thick insulating ice Arctic ice, allowing heat to ventilate out of the ocean, the average would be much lower. ANd perhaps a cooling trend. So what does this tells us about the effects of CO2???

Nonetheless I lost the bet. Tell me where to send my check. If you wish to keep your address private email me at jsteele@sfsu.edu
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:55 am

Hey JS: I'll pay you $100 if you pass a class in statistics on how to find the slope of a graph that zig zags.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:48 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hey JS: I'll pay you $100 if you pass a class in statistics on how to find the slope of a graph that zig zags.
All you do is make personal attacks but Pyrrho allows such a culture.

Nonetheless if you have something meaningful to say, then be specific, attack the argument not the arguer.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:48 am

I'd think offering $100 to advance your education would be nothing but a good thing? Some point this year compared to some point last year----and AGW is disproven as a major concern? ==== I don't think so. Is it statistics, or you? What is the slope of the graph over the last 50 years?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:30 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I'd think offering $100 to advance your education would be nothing but a good thing? Some point this year compared to some point last year----and AGW is disproven as a major concern? ==== I don't think so. Is it statistics, or you? What is the slope of the graph over the last 50 years?
More psychobabble.It has been clear over several posts you do not have any statistical background. I suggest you invest to improve your own skills,

So Bobbo show us your superior statistical analyses that explains why a statistically insignificant difference in peak warmth between 1998 and 2016 tells us the earth has warmed since 1998? Why do the warmunistas hype this difference as proof that it is caused by CO2.

In an essay What Does NOAA’s Warmest Year Tell Us About Climate Sensitivity to CO2?

http://landscapesandcycles.net/what-doe ... t-co2.html

I discussed how ventilating heat from the Arctic has raised temperatures and that it has biased the average. THe essay links to evidence in the peer reviewed literature. Halsu tried to counter those observations with a strawman argument by introducing his own graph and falsely fabricating that I was merely comparing two years on his graph, plus ignored all the other supporting evidence to deny the physics that heat is ventilating from the Arctic. I wrote:

Consider the greatest warmth anomalies are over the Arctic Ocean because more heat is ventilating through thinner ice. Before the Arctic Oscillation removed thick insulating sea ice, air temperatures were declining. Read Kahl, J., et al., (1993) Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years. Nature 361, 335 – 337.

Image

FIg. 1 NOAA's 2014 Temperature Anomalies


After subfreezing winds removed thick ice, then air temperatures rose. Read Rigor, I.G., J.M. Wallace, and R.L. Colony (2002), Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation, J. Climate, v. 15, no. 18, pp. 2648 – 2668. They concluded “it can be inferred that at least part of the warming that has been observed is due to the heat released during the increased production of new ice, and the increased flux of heat to the atmosphere through the larger area of thin ice.”


CO2 advocates suggest CO2 leads to “Arctic amplification” arguing dark open oceans absorb more heat. But the latest estimates show the upper 700 meter of the Arctic Ocean are cooling (see illustration below), which again supports the notion ventilating heat raised air temperatures. Read Wunsch, C., and P. Heimbach, (2014) Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean, J. Phys. Oceanogr., http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-13-096.1.


So how much of the global warming trend is due to heat ventilating from a cooling Arctic ocean???

Image


Fig. 2 Change in top 700 meters of Ocean Heat Content between 1993 and 2011


Obviously Halsu did not read the paper because the Harvard MIT analyses of reduced Arctic Ocean heat compared two decadal states (10 year average) NOT two isolated years.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Pyrrho » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:54 am

JIm Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hey JS: I'll pay you $100 if you pass a class in statistics on how to find the slope of a graph that zig zags.
All you do is make personal attacks but Pyrrho allows such a culture.

Nonetheless if you have something meaningful to say, then be specific, attack the argument not the arguer.
Given the increase in personal attacks lately, I will no longer be allowing much latitude in that regard.

Climate change is what's important, not the relative perceived failings of the people discussing it.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:05 am

Pyrrho: you are quite right. Lets get the momentum changed to actual science..... or our best regurgitation of it. THAT--applies to all of us, or at least, myself.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:53 am

Here is another graph using NODC data showing Arctic Ocean cooling but for 0-2000 meter depths

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:50 am

JS: is the Arctic Ocean from 0 to 2000 meters a measure of global anything or just a cherry picked part of the whole?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:56 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:JS: is the Arctic Ocean from 0 to 2000 meters a measure of global anything or just a cherry picked part of the whole?
Please bobbo, you are not discussing the science but just trying to deflect the evidence by calling it "cherry picked". You are being silly and certainly know the Arctic is not a measure of the whole globe. But it does impact the global average.

You also know by the posts above and others before and the links to peer reviewed evidence I provided, (evidence that you have attacked) that my argument is:

1. The global average temperature is a chimera of temperature changes from different regions of the earth that are averaged together. Attribution for the causes of a change in the average must account for changes in each region averaged. Statistics demands that an average can only have meaning if it averages together the units from the same "population". That is the rule!! Warming due to rising CO2 and warming from ventilated heat stored in the ocean are units of temperature from different populations. In order to average together CO2 warming in other regions with CO2 warming in the Arctic, we must first subtract temperatures that were the result of ventilation of stored heat.

2. The greatest degree of warming in any region of the globe has been observed in the Arctic, and that warming biases the average upward. The large degree of warming is far beyond what is possible just due rising CO2, and has been shown to be at least in part due to ventilating heat.

3. There was no warming Arctic air temperatures in the 1980s and early 90s , instead a cooling trend that lasted until freezing winds blew thick ice into the Atlantic and raised air temperatures. Advocates of AGW argue that warming air temperatures removed the ice but that was not observed. Skeptics argue the removal of the ice caused air temperatures to warm. That was observed.

4. Advocates of AGW argue that removal of sea ice removes albedo which allows the water to absorb more sunlight and warm. If true then Arctic ocean temperatures should be increasing since 1995 with increasing ice loss . That is not observed.

5. Skeptics argue the loss of insulating ice warmed the air as it ventilated from the ocean. That predicts ocean cooling. That is being observed.

The Effect on Global Average Temperature

A. If we subtract the ventilating heat, then the Arctic does not bias the global warming average upward and thus any warming of the global temperature due to CO2 is much less than current graphs suggest and the trend would be lower.

B. Ventilating heat effects data at land stations, radiosondes and satellites.

C. Cowtan's first paper that argued there was no warming hiatus used "infilled" (imaginary) temperatures extrapolated from the sparse Arctic stations. Simply by adding Arctic heat they erased the hiatus and created a warming trend, revealing how Arctic temperatures powerfully effect the global trend.

First we do not know, or can we ever know, if such infilling is valid. It not can never be proven.

Second even if the higher Arctic temperatures were valid, they were measuring ventilated ocean heat to argue the CO2 warming had not paused. They broke the most basic rules of statistics by averaging "apples and oranges." Their so-called studies. suggesting no pause are based on bad science. That's why over 40 different professional published papers had provided various dynamics to explain the pause.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:35 am

and sea level is still rising, ice coverage is shrinking, average temps are going up.

Here and there, it zig zags around. Either co2 is a green house gas or it isn't. Scientists know you can't say the one, then deny its effect by cherry picking.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Halsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Halsu » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:05 pm

JIm Steele wrote:Indeed it was a close one and in fact so close, 1998 was statistically not significantly different from 2016.
Yep. 1998 was a really anomalous year, pretty unlike anything else we've seen, especially in the satellite record. At the current pace of warming, it will take another 15 years before most years are warmer than 1998, and maybe 30 years or so before all future years will be warmer than 1998. In other words, it's very much possible that the cooler years even around 2040 or so will be below 1998.

1998 was a perfect storm of sorts. Everything else in the satellite record (including 2016) falls pretty much within +/- 0,2 degrees celcius from the warming trend, but 1998 shoots out to something like +0,4 or so:

Image

Another reason for the closeness is the timing of the El Nino - the buildup to the 2016 peak temperatures happened largely in 2015. Which is a big reason why 2015 ranks number two in the hottest years. If the El Nino had happened a few months later, 2015 wouldn't have been as hot - but 2016 would have been even hotter.
Furthermore .02 C increase in 18 years equals 0.001 C per year, thus if that rate of warming continues, the global average would rise by .085 degrees by the year 2100.
No, no, no. You do not calculate the warming trend by comparing the peaks, which are extremely dependent on the random variation. Bets like this are fun and interesting, but they do not really work for estimating the rate of warming. We need to actually calculate the trend using all the data, or examine a running average average over multiple years or something similar to get the climate signal from the noise.
Looks like a warming hiatus for sure, and far, far below model predictions.
Nope, it's neither a hiatus, or below predictions. In fact, 2016 was well above the trend line predicted by models.
If the winds had not removed the thick insulating ice Arctic ice, allowing heat to ventilate out of the ocean, the average would be much lower. ANd perhaps a cooling trend. So what does this tells us about the effects of CO2???
The loss of arctic ice is the result of global warming. Winds of course affect single years, but not the overall trend.
Nonetheless I lost the bet. Tell me where to send my check. If you wish to keep your address private email me at jsteele@sfsu.edu
Could you please send it to the Skeptics Society? It would go to a good cause, and i think you could even deduct it in your taxes...
How about a bet, SweetPea?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 71#p359571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ***** Bet version 2: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 55#p378255" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...if interested, read both versions!!

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by robinson » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:52 pm

Image

Image
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by robinson » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:54 pm

Because then planet warms and cools with out human influence, the theory of global warming is needed to know if current warming is human influenced, and how much is due to humans.

That, and how much the future will change, is the important issue.

As well as getting accurate data for temperature and changes.

It's a very important issue.
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:19 pm

Halsu wrote:The loss of arctic ice is the result of global warming. Winds of course affect single years, but not the overall trend.
First the check will be mailed later this week to the Skeptics Society

Second You simply assert that global warming ( natural or anthropogenic?) caused the loss of sea ice, yet you provide no evidence and fail to address the evidence to the contrary. Empty assertions have no place in science. Again the evidence shows 1) before the ice loss Arctic air temperatures were cooling. 2) A change in the wind direction driven by the Arctic Oscillation, caused freezing winds to push thick Arctic ice into the warmer Atlantic and 3) the Arctic ocean is losing heat due to ventilation. If your words and assertions are to have any meaning and relevance you must refute those 3 pieces of evidence. Otherwise to simply argue CO2 was rising or temperatures were rising amounts to meaningless banter.

Additionally there is more evidence to support my assertion that natural cycles drove the loss of Arctic ice. There was a large loss of Arctic ice around the 1930s when CO2 was low and ice was thicker due to centuries of the Little Ice Age cold. That period of melting is associated with ocean oscillations that drove warm Atlantic water into the Arctic melting ice from below. Fishery data reporting an incursion of warm water fish supports this poleward transport of warm water as a driver of melting ice, and reveal a similar invasion of southern waters. Read Bengstonn 2004 "The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism"

Finally there are several ways to measure trends in temperature change and inferring the cause is not a simple matter. For example the recent evolution of the warm blob has been attributed to a stagnant warm pressure system and decreased winds the reduced heat ventilation. That warming had nothing to do with radiative heating from greenhouse gases. A warming global average is a function of 1) the recent balance of incoming and outgoing heat 2) the retention of heat on the earth's surface due to UHI and,or lost vegetation that increases minimum temperatures and 3) ventilation of ocean heat that has been stored below the ocean surface. The peak warming in 1998 and 2016 are driven by releases of stored heat via El Nino. If , as CO2 theory would argue, increased CO2 should increase the amount of heat stored in the ocean. Ventilation events that release thatheat should cause 1998 to be warmer than 2016. However despite the compounding effects of similar El Nino ventilation plus less Arctic ice ventilating more heat, there was no statistically significant difference in temperatures, suggesting no warming over the past 18 years. Without relying on empty assertions, please explain the dynamics that would cause peak wawrming to be the same DESPITE rising CO2.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:and sea level is still rising, ice coverage is shrinking, average temps are going up.

Here and there, it zig zags around. Either co2 is a green house gas or it isn't. Scientists know you can't say the one, then deny its effect by cherry picking.
Bobbo again you fail, or simply refuse to discuss scientific evidence, preferring to engage in a thinnly veiled personal attack suggesting I am dishonestly "cherry picking". I gave you a long list of evidence and numbered them to make it easy to address any of my claims. Please address those facts. Repeating the undeniable fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is totally irrelevant to the argument. And please provide an alternative explanatin to why Arctic Ocean temperatures have declined.

And for the umpteenth time, no one has ever argued that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. The debate, as seen throughout the peer reviewed literature, is about how sensitive is climate to rising CO2? And to answer that question we must account for the effects of natural climate change. Ironically, those warmunistas who blame every warm event on CO2 are cherry picking one possible cause of warming over a number of alternative natural explanations.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wanna bet?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:32 am

Well, as always, in a vacuum, you sound quite reasonable.

..................but how is sea level rise not scientific evidence?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?