1) Mr Keenan says that there is “no basis” for the claim that the increase in global temperatures since the late 1800s is too large to be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. He goes on to argue that this is because we haven’t used the right statistical model.
However, the claim that the increase in global warming is larger than could be explained by natural variability has a clear and well understood grounding in fundamental physics and chemistry. There is very high confidence (using the IPCC’s definition) that the global average net effect of human activities since 1850 has been one of warming. The basis for this claim is not, and never has been, the sole use of statistical models to emulate a global temperature trend. Instead it is based on hundreds of years of scientific advancement, supported by the development of high-quality observations and computational modeling.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
Recent Comments
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Billyjack on COP29 Preview
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Tel on COP29 Preview
- Robertvd on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- GW on A Giant Eyesore
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
It’s an appeal to their CO2 god Ahrrenius.
oops! Arrhenius.
And he thought a degree or so would be good for mankind, as did Callendar. You don’t hear much about that, do you?
Arrhenius Law tells us a decrease in concentarion of CO 2 by half or a doubling would be equivilant to changes in temperature of -1.5 C or +1.6 C. Based on more recent data, this is a bit on the high side of CO 2 alone. Let’s use basic physics to establish the theoretical temperature increase from doubling CO 2 levels from 280 ppmv, which were in 1900, to 560 ppmv, which they are projected to be 2100. Since the relationship is logarithmic, CO 2 will have to double again, to 1120 ppmv for an other 0.7 C to results.
From what I read at http://www.bishop-hill.net/
However, the claim that the increase in global warming is larger than could be explained by natural variability … is not the argument, it is the choice of statistical model alone that has been called into question.
I am confused why anyone would look for a linear trend in temperature data, do they expect that temperatures are going to keep going up in more or less a straight line?
Just looking at the data you can clearly see signs of cycles (around 60 year for example).
I fitted the sum of 2 cosine to hadcrut4 global mean from woodfortrees
http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/global-temperature-rise-do-cycles-or-straight-lines-fit-best-may-2013/
The fit found periods of 64 and 305 years. And if there are cycles in temperature data then temperatures will go down some time won’t they. I wonder when that will happen.
What causes the cycles – who knows. But cycles tend to make you think of things that go round and round.
At the rest of going off topic, a related thing which confuses me is climate sensitivity and the fuss about recent papers suggesting lower values.
Roughly speaking climate sensitivity is the change in temperature for a doubling of CO2
The implication is not only do changing CO2 levels actually change global temperatures but CO2 levels are the dominant mechanism of global temperature change.
Still more the definition means there is a single fixed value for climate sensitivity for all time.
Now if CO2 does not control temperatures, you can still define anything you like. But climate sensitivity has no relation to anything that happens in the real world.
And any predictions made using climate sensitivity will be rubbish.
So why are people talking about it?
Translation: if we waffle on enough as vaguely as possible hopefully enough idiots will assume we know what we are talking about. Imagine if a drug company tried to justify its product by reference to the history of science as opposed to statistical analysis of its drug trials…