Update: see below.
Update 2: Damn, Tamino critiques my post and wins, forces humiliating retraction from me (you can clearly see I've put a question mark at the end of the title now). I now admit I don't know if the trendline by "ThingsBreak" was a case of wishful thinking or not. I suspected it was, but after reading Tamino's post I'm not so sure. More below.
Update 3: Turns out this Tamino guy has authored a book on statistics. He proved I was out of my depth on the trendline issue, and suitably damaged my claim of a bogus one. Well done Tamino.
I tried to make an honest recontruction of that trend line; unfortunatley my only tool was Excel 2007 and the functions in it are limited.
I've read several of Tamino's posts over the years and been generally disappointed with them; also had my comments not approved by moderation. This particular post was quite good, though, and educational for me.
==========
This is curious. A new Greg Laden article on ScienceBlogs.com:
Update 2: Damn, Tamino critiques my post and wins, forces humiliating retraction from me (you can clearly see I've put a question mark at the end of the title now). I now admit I don't know if the trendline by "ThingsBreak" was a case of wishful thinking or not. I suspected it was, but after reading Tamino's post I'm not so sure. More below.
Update 3: Turns out this Tamino guy has authored a book on statistics. He proved I was out of my depth on the trendline issue, and suitably damaged my claim of a bogus one. Well done Tamino.
I tried to make an honest recontruction of that trend line; unfortunatley my only tool was Excel 2007 and the functions in it are limited.
I've read several of Tamino's posts over the years and been generally disappointed with them; also had my comments not approved by moderation. This particular post was quite good, though, and educational for me.
==========
This is curious. A new Greg Laden article on ScienceBlogs.com:
..where Laden argues cold doesn't mean lack of global warming, has an odd graph in it. Look at the red trendline:
It's not clear how this red line was obtained. The red line is not described on the poster's page. The graph comes from, what Laden describes as, "climate communicator" ThingsBreak. What on earth is a "climate communicator"?!
It seems to be some type of smoothed moving average. Five year spline perhaps?
Problem is, the red line is roughly in the middle of the blue line, except at the end. At the end, the red line is not in the middle at all, but is down at the beginning, and up at the end, of that final 10 year period. It's shooting right up at the end!
Problem is, the red line is roughly in the middle of the blue line, except at the end. At the end, the red line is not in the middle at all, but is down at the beginning, and up at the end, of that final 10 year period. It's shooting right up at the end!
How can that be? I therefore find this line to be completely made up, and a case of wishful thinking. Update: Tamino shows me it may not be so arbitrary (see Update 2 below).
I plugged the raw data into Excel and tried to replicate this trendline (my worksheet here). This is what I got with a sixth order polynomial trendline:
November temp anomaly vs year. Y-axis units in hundredths of a degree C.
It's a bit different to Laden's. But it still didn't look right either, so I drew what I thought was a fair line, manually, here:
See how different my moving average trendline is in the last few years compared to Laden's graph?
Another curious thing, why use the month of November to show how things are still getting warmer? Why not use December for (a random) example? I guess 'cause December's curve isn't as scary and doesn't fit the global warming narrative, which has to see temps go up, up, up, never down.
Why not use the annual graph, which still looks pretty "scary" in my opinion? All the adjustments and tweaks govt money can buy, hey?!
GHCN J - D (annual) global temp vs year. Y-axis in degrees C.
Then he uses an interactive sea ice graph (see here) to show "Arctic amplification" but chooses to leave off the years 2012 and 2013, using the justification that denialists will try to use it as evidence of a recovery.
Laden says:
Why not just put all the data out there and let people decide for themselves? Instead of trying to guide their every thought the way you want?
Then we move on to those inconvenient, pesky last two years of 2012 and 2013, which the denialists keep putting in Laden's face.
Laden says:
Notice that the last chart only goes through 2011. One thing that happened last year, for the 2013 melt season, is that a lot of science denialists such as my tweety friend (see above) went on and on and on about how Arctic sea ice had “recovered” in 2013.Yes, evil denialists will try to use facts to prove stuff! He continues:
Well, when you don't actually show the recovery from September this year, even though the data is available at the time of printing the article (Dec 14), then yes it's hard to see the recovery.Notice that when we look at the march of melt and formation of Arctic sea ice for 2013, it looks like one of the worst years of the worst. Yet climate science denialists called this a recovery.
Why not just put all the data out there and let people decide for themselves? Instead of trying to guide their every thought the way you want?
Then we move on to those inconvenient, pesky last two years of 2012 and 2013, which the denialists keep putting in Laden's face.
Here's an updated version I made from the interactive, which shows the recovery Laden omits:
To side track the reader from seeing the Arctic ice recovery he omits the recovery period from September to December and says just look at the rate of melt. It's melting really fast compared to the other years. Just forget about the equally fast recovery I omitted, to stop evil denialists denying.
Laden continues:
====================
Update: Laden replies to me in Twitter. I'm playing with the big boys now that I've joined Twitter. I suppose I could get sued for slander or something. Just as well my post is factual!
The Twitter conversation started with Tom Nelson:
https://twitter.com/tan123/status/412114639166529537Laden continues:
If we remove that year [2012] from consideration, we can see that Arctic sea ice has been melting more and more with every year...Well yeah, I guess. Once you start removing years you can show just about anything, if you want to. For real?!
====================
Update: Laden replies to me in Twitter. I'm playing with the big boys now that I've joined Twitter. I suppose I could get sued for slander or something. Just as well my post is factual!
The Twitter conversation started with Tom Nelson:
and here's Laden's reply to my tweets:
Art and convenience? It's really easy to go over to the interactive and just redo it. I did it in a few seconds.
Here's the picture where Laden sloppily erased the 2012 graph:
=======================
Update 2:
The
comment, and the concession, I left on Tamino's post after his critique:
Hey Tamino, good post. No excuses from me, but a retraction. After reading your post I take back my claim of "wishful thinking". I was out of my depth on statistical analysis and admit I based my beliefs mostly on a hunch. You therefore successfully defended the integrity of Laden's article.
I appreciate the time you took to critique my post, I've never heard of "Ramsdorf" etc before and learned a lot from your post.
And yet something still looks fishy about that trendline. There are limitations on any trendline based on stochastic data of limited length (including the sixth order polynomial as you mention).
I figure, again based on a hunch, that the longer the spline or smoothed period, and the shorter the data set, the more it doesn't take into account the effect of the end points of the data series, hence the (seemingly) unwarranted upward deflection at the end of the red trendline in that graph.
In the end only more data can resolve the issue; I guess the next few years will tell.
Tamino has a few words for your lack of understanding on smoothing. Mostly they are profane. You have an invitation to try and defend yourself.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the heads up. Oh boy, now I have to read and evaluate Tamino's post.
ReplyDeleteThe base problem is, of course, as Eli wrote a few days ago to you, that polynomial fits have serious problems at end points for obvious reasons, they have to go up or down there.
ReplyDeleteYes, thank you for pointing out the problem of the end points for polynomial fits, I admit that effect influenced me.
ReplyDeleteI appologise in advance for diverging off-topic but, elsewhere, you write:
ReplyDelete"Ever since I read R Rene's NASA Mooned America I have been convinced that we never went to the moon."
Let me guess, The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford was the first book you picked up on climate science, correct?
I'm just going to leave this excellent link here: www.clavius.org
You can thank me later.
Hi, I haven't read any book on climate. I have, however, studied physics and climate extensively. For example, I've concluded the greenhouse effect is a bogus production of free energy. (See Fallacy of Greenhouse Effect)
DeleteI'm perfectly happy forming my ideas from primary sources and article, not books. (Have read physics books though)
I've seen clavius's website and been disappointed. For me space radiation is the biggest problem.
E.g. Clavius' explanation on uneven shadows is partly good, although it's possible to get the shadows to go longer or shorter moving away from the light depending on where the light is positioned. You can get the shadows to get longer the closer you art to a light if the light is low.
http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html
For me uneven shadows not a stronger point; the videos, people being picked up by a wire, and "laminated photo on the surface of the moon" are stronger points.
If it's any consolation, most skeptics believe in the moon landings and chastise me for my beliefs. Thanks for the comment.
So why do you think the world's scientific community accepts the greenhouse effect while you don't? What about your argument do you think they don't understand?
DeleteMost skeptics, including Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, and all warmists believe in the greenhouse effect. I don't think they really get the idea that mutual radiation is cancelling, not adding. There's no warming from backradiation and it's not possible to get warmer through EMR trapping or slowing of any kind.
DeleteHuman blankets work by blocking convection, not EMR, so the analogy is false. Likewise, a real greenhouse gets hot due to convection blocking, there's no "EMR trapping" effect.
They don't understand that if an object is warmer is has more energy. If the earth is "33C" warmer, where does that energy come from? Tyndall's experiment doesn't prove a greenhouse effect as the gas target is water-cooled; of course a cooler object will absorb EMR from a warmer object. And, furthermore, the gas target tube doesn't heat the Leslie Cube heat source, so no obtaining energy for free.
Atmospheric window, one-way valve effect of longwave IR EMR "trapping", I've heard it all before: it doesn't work to boost temperature, the latter meaning extra energy.
Greenhouse gas cannot create energy, that's my argument in a nutshell.
"Greenhouse gas cannot create energy, that's my argument in a nutshell."
DeleteStrawman. Physics doesn't argue that greenhouse gasses create energy.
Doofus.
@Paul Clark 19 December 2013 04:39 wrote:
DeleteThere's no warming from backradiation
Does "backradiation" consist of photons?
Is your conclusion, then, that there photons have no energy to deposit in whatever absorbs them?
@David Appell said: Does "backradiation" consist of photons?
DeleteIn this case, and in most cases, the photon model for light is too limited. Better to consider the Poynting Vector, makes it easier for the light to cancel out.
You are clearly out of your depth here. Why do you even bother?
ReplyDeleteWith only Excel 2007 to evaluate trendlines I am out of my depth on that. I shouldn't have bothered with the bogus trendline issue.
DeleteHowever, there are still problems with using trendline for such limited stochastic data series. There are still problems caused by the end of the series. A low number of inflexion points can distort even the "Ramsdorfs" and the waldorfs at the ends, and I think that what happened.
And I was still right about Laden (or "ThingsBreak") using Nov data instead of Dec or the whole year for e.g. to accentuate that end point problem. And how Laden left off last two years for the Arctic ice, where he says there is evidence of "Arctic amplification", where I see nothing than a decline in sea ice which may be quite natural.
Thanks for the comment.
Who said the greenhouse effect creates energy? Every scientist I've met believes energy is conserved.
DeleteWhat do experiments and measurements say?
Thanks for the reply. I suspect energy is not conserved in the greenhouse effect as portrayed, and that both laws of thermodynamics are violated by it.
DeleteThe 1st law says you can't get energy for free. The 2nd law says heat can't move spontaneously from a cooler reservoir to a hotter one, which can be interpreted as: EMR from a cooler object will not warm a warmer object; hence the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the warmer ground with its "backradiation".
As for observations, there's a new paper (10 Dec 2013) through Jennifer Marohasy suggesting the outgoing longwave radiation from the earth doesn't substantiate the EMR "energy trapping" theory:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/12/agw-falsified-noaa-long-wave-radiation-data-incompatible-with-the-theory-of-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/
Paul,
DeleteThe focus on November is because we just had the warmest November on record. It is topical and interesting. If someone wanted to draw some sort of probabilistic argument from the observation, then they would have to acknowledge that this is just one of 12 possible monthly sets and make appropriate adjustments to their stats. But even if one of 12 datasets is going off the scale, that is cause for concern. This is obvious to anyone who does not have a cognitive bias on the issue. It's not like the December data are inconsistent with AGW.
Imagine 12 patients testing a new drug, One dies. The Big Pharma representative turns around and says: What's all the fuss, why are we talking about the 11th patient, who happened to die, when the 12th patient looks like he might pull through...
What you reveal in your post is a willingness to pontificate about things despite massive ignorance, and an eagerness to draw denialist conclusions even when the evidence points the other way. This is not true skepticism. This is the DK effect.
Paul: I guess I'm just fascinated by people like you, who have only a meager understanding of physics but are completely sure they are right and the entire world scientific community of very smart professionals for the last 200 years is wrong.
DeleteI just don't get it.
Paul wrote:
Delete"The 2nd law says heat can't move spontaneously from a cooler reservoir to a hotter one, which can be interpreted as: EMR from a cooler object will not warm a warmer object...."
Here is your crucial error. The 2nd law only applies to adiabatic systems, which the atmosphere is not.
Many other greenhouse deniers make the same error.
Well, he also felt that his crayon-drawn curve fitting is better than established statistical analysis, so what do you expect?
Delete@Craig McColl19 December 2013 08:01
DeleteI agree the data does look upward for Dec and for the annual average. Although the magnitude and duration of the temperature rise is small. So it's not a huge confirmation of the CO2 temp correlation.
@Paul Clark 20 December 2013 04:01
DeleteNo few months or single year are ever going to confirm the CO2-temp correlation. It's simply not true that average global temperature is a function of CO2 alone, but that
T=f(solar, CO2, manmade aerosols, other GHGs, volcanoes, black carbon, orbital ,...) * g(internal variability)
Paul Clark 19 December 2013 04:39 wrote:
DeleteThey don't understand that if an object is warmer is has more energy.
S-E-R-I-O-U-S-E-L-Y???
You think Lindzen, Spencer, and everyone else does not understand the definition of temperature?
Yes, I really think the oversight is that basic and that stupid.
Delete@David Appell19 December 2013 13:44
DeleteWhy is the atmosphere not adiabatic? It exchanges heat with the oceans and the land and emits EMR to space, but other than that it is a closed system. Earth's heat comes from the sun, therefore the atmosphere's exchange of energy with the surface is not significant in any long term.
There is a vertical temperature gradient averaging roughly 6.4C/km of altitude (normally called atmospheric lapse) but that only complicates the issue of the greenhouse effect.
Skeptic physicist Lubos Motl says that the greenhouse effect exists because the upper layers of the atmosphere are cooler than the lower ones and therefore absorb EMR, a la the Tyndall experiment. But that still doesn't resolve the issue of the cooler sky being able to warm the warmer ground with its backradiation, as per the 2nd law; it can't.
I don't think the vertical atmospheric lapse is adequately explained by the exchange of gravitational potential energy for heat energy. The top and the bottom should equalise in temperature eventually. In my opinion the huge atmospheric vertical electrical potential of millions of volts is responsible for the atmospheric lapse.
Paul Clark 21 December 2013 17:22 wrote:
Delete"Yes, I really think the oversight is that basic and that stupid."
This just proves how ridiculous deniers will go in order to keep up their denial. Coming from someone who misapplied the 2nd Law, you don't have much to stand on here.
Paul Clark wrote:
Delete"Why is the atmosphere not adiabatic? It exchanges heat with the oceans and the land and emits EMR to space, but other than that it is a closed system."
Because there is this thing called the sun that inputs a huge amount of energy into the atmosphere. And the atmosphere emits energy to space, to the oceans, and to land.
Really, this is physics 101.
OK, but I still contend that you can't add to the energy coming from the Sun by the greenhouse gas layer.
DeleteOK, but I still contend that you can't add to the energy coming from the Sun by the greenhouse gas layer.
DeleteWhy?
And who says energy is "added?"
Well, the Earth emits EMR to space as though it's at -18C, meanwhile the surface is at 15C, a 33C difference. This temperature boost is also an energy boost (surely it has to be) -- energy said to be created by the greenhouse gas layer.
DeleteSome greenhouse-effect-skeptics (so called "sky dragon slayers") say there is no 33C warming, that it's wrongly calculated. I disagree, I think there is a ~33C warming, but that a more creative explanation is required to explain it, other than the greenhouse effect.
In my opinion there is a 33C warming that potentially comes from two sources: 1) The solar wind coming from the Sun, sustaining a slight electrical current, and 2) the earth acting as a homopolar generator, generating its own current, and possibly free energy.
On the point 1) above, you may say that a circuit needs to be completed. Not in this case. I believe that there is a unidirectional electrical current coming from the Sun to the Earth. Why is the Sun positively charged +10,000,000 volts or higher by some estimates, after all these billions of years? My answer: charge creation, in contravention of law of Conservation of Charge.
Consider Jupiter and how it emits twice as much warmth to space as it receives from the Sun. The usual explanation is that the extra heat energy is due to gravitational contraction. After billions of years that explanation seems unlikely.
In my opinion there is local temperature regulation in both Jupiter and Earth, and all planets, sustained by the solar wind, or perhaps from free energy generation, the latter in contravention of the law of Conservation of Energy.
Paul Clark wrote:
DeleteThis temperature boost is also an energy boost (surely it has to be) -- energy said to be created by the greenhouse gas layer.
Have you ever studied any science, seriously? If so, how can you possibly think that all the world's generations of scientists have somehow missed your incredibly trivial argument that the greenhouse effect violates energy of conservation?
You think all the Nobel Laureates of the world, all the researchers at the best colleges and universities, all the PhDs and postdocs and everyone else, has somehow misunderstood this topic?
Is that honestly your position?
Or is there a chance that maybe you're misunderstood the physics?
In my opinion there is a 33C warming that potentially comes from two sources: 1) The solar wind coming from the Sun, sustaining a slight electrical current,
DeleteDoes the solar wind vary over a solar cycle?
If so, where does that variation appear in the surface temperature record?
Why is the Sun positively charged +10,000,000 volts or higher by some estimates
DeleteWhat estimates?
Does the solar wind vary over a solar cycle?
DeleteIf so, where does that variation appear in the surface temperature record?
True, no variation. There is a fairly constant electrical charge from top to bottom of atmosphere leading to very slight current. If it is not sustained by solar wind per se, then by, the huge electrical charge of the Sun/top to bottom atmosphere.
Why is the Sun positively charged +10,000,000 volts or higher by some estimates
I haven't seen it in gain prominence in conventional, or "peer review" circles. Unfortunately I can only offer paltry sources along the lines of the Electric Universe, and Velikovsky.
I've studies physics extensively including at undergraduate level, but my vocation does not cause me to keep up with the latest science or to read the latest journals. I may not have four degrees like you, but I'm happy with my grounding in physics.
I've never seen a description of the greenhouse effect in any formal physics textbook. There may be a "topical" entry or footnote in some books, but no justification for the physical basis of it.
This temperature boost is also an energy boost (surely it has to be) -- energy said to be created by the greenhouse gas layer.
You think all the Nobel Laureates of the world, all the researchers at the best colleges and universities, all the PhDs and postdocs and everyone else, has somehow misunderstood this topic?
Yes, that's how much contempt I have for the scientific establishment and their competence.
PS: You called the document Jennifer Mahoney linked to a "paper." It, by someone named Michael Hammer, is not peer reviewed or published anywhere -- it's little more than a blog post or a vanity press.
ReplyDeleteThought you'd say that. You're right it's not a paper in the sense of peer review. I'm happy with un-peer-reviewed stuff too.
DeleteHappy why? Because the "paper" is amateurish and not nearly of the quality you find in even bad journals? What's to be happy about that?
DeleteIf the paper ever passes peer review, let us know.
"Happy why?"
DeleteWell, he was also happy to believe that his crayon-generated and 6th degree polynomial curves fit the data better than a statistically rigorous smooth until tamino took him behind the toolshed.
And he smears the work of literally thousands of highly skilled engineers by proclaiming that his back-of-the-envelope calculations, uninformed by any expertise at all, proves that the moon landing was faked.
The only surprise here is that he actually admits that this post was wrong. This is an anomaly. Perhaps it's due to the christmas spirit ...
Craig: I really like your analogy to a Big Pharm drug trial.
ReplyDeleteIt's getting to the point where no data will ever convince deniers -- they will always try to invent a way to explain it away. It will be increasingly difficult as time keeps going by, but it will never really end.
Try using that blanket argument with one of those mylar space blankets.
ReplyDeleteSilver foil blankets work by reducing the emissivity.
DeleteIn my opinion there is local temperature regulation in both Jupiter and Earth, and all planets, sustained by the solar wind, or perhaps from free energy generation, the latter in contravention of the law of Conservation of Energy.
ReplyDeleteSo you think energy is not conserrved?
And you wonder why people here laugh at you??
Paul Clark wrote:
ReplyDeleteI've never seen a description of the greenhouse effect in any formal physics textbook.
Why would you expect to see it there? Is there some reason why you can't pick up a textbook on climate science?
Yes, that's how much contempt I have for the scientific establishment and their competence.
ReplyDeleteAnd what are your accomplishments in physics, or climate science?
PS: Do you have any idea how utterly pathetic your statement sounds?