[InfiniteNow]

Relevance?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Were you [InfiniteNow] actually suggesting that the IPCC report was not political in nature? After several reputable scientists removed their names form the report given the text of the "summary"?

As you’re making a claim – and an interesting one, of which a reader such as myself would very much like to know more – you need to back it up with links or references. This is not merely an observation and suggestion, but a site rule.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Relevance?

I give up.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by CraigD

As you’re making a claim – and an interesting one, of which a reader such as myself would very much like to know more – you need to back it up with links or references. This is not merely an observation and suggestion, but a site rule.

Not to presume this is the particular instance of an IPCC official resigning that Bio referred to, but this is an instance of such a matter.

- Prometheus: Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC Archives

Originally Posted by Chris Landsea

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
...
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record. ...

[InfiniteNow]

Craig,

Just to head this off a bit... There were some scientists who wished their name to be removed from the first publication of the IPCC. They had very special interests and decided that the conclusions of the IPCC didn't reflect their own personal interests.

Regardless if BC can share a link in support of his claim, it still does NOTHING to discredit the data, the conclusions, nor the next several reports with updated information which were released after these "scientists" requested their name not be included on the first output.

Beware the rabbit's hole.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain contrary data, but I'm growing quite annoyed at unsupported positions, denialist tactics, and trollish behavior where valid data and extremely well supported positions are ignored. BC hasn't yet shown a willingness to move beyond the game playing. His response to your request will be very telling, but still does zero to negate the mountains of evidence in support of the position he seems to be opposing.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Not to presume this is the particular instance of an IPCC official resigning that Bio referred to, but this is an instance of such a matter.

See post 275.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

...BC hasn't yet shown a willingness to move beyond the game playing. ...

I asked you three separate times to use the model that you posted earlier to explain the anomaly in the relationship between modeled CO2 forcing and temperature for the period 1998-2008. You continue to contend that that question is somehow inexplicit

You have not only refused to answer the question, but you rely on insults to defend yourself.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I asked you three separate times to use the model that you posted earlier to explain the anomaly in the relationship between modeled CO2 forcing and temperature for the period 1998-2008. You continue to contend that that question is somehow inexplicit

You have not only refused to answer the question, but you rely on insults to defend yourself.

The models purpose is not explain what you've asked. It's as if you're asking me to explain how a study on caloric intake in mice predicted what great apes prefer for dinner.

You have yet to show where my data is false, and you're now "playing games" by trying to get me to use the data for something it was not intended.

There is no insult there. It's an accurate summation of what you are doing in this thread.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

..you're now "playing games" by trying to get me to use the data for something it was not intended....

I am trying to get you to answer a question. And you are avoiding it.

It is pretty easy to show that CO2 and temperature are correlated from 1960 to 1990. They seem to. It is the OTHER time periods that show other trends. The point it not that your data is wrong, it is that your data is incomplete.

This is identical to the approach adopted by other entities, including (unfortunately) even some of the folks at NASA, but certainly IPCC.

I am asking for the FOURTH time to see if you can extrapolate your model to the time period 1998-2008, or explain WHY this question is somehow inapplicable!!!!!

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I am asking for the FOURTH time to see if you can extrapolate your model to the time period 1998-2008, or explain WHY this question is somehow inapplicable!!!!!

I've answered your question already. Would you like me to perhaps address your question using a different model, because that would be applicable.


And, out of curiosity... What exactly do we gain by arbitrarily adjusting the endpoints of our graphs to start at 1998? Is it perchance that 1998 was one of the hottest years on record, and you want to show that... relative to that very warm year... the temperature hasn't risen dramatically since then?

It's important to know why you wish me to arbitrarily choose a different maximum on such a short time scale. I sense academic dishonesty coming, which is why I've been pushing back on you so hard. If you are truly interested in furthering knowledge, then be clear why you are making your request, or better yet, offer your own data to support the postion you are arguing (per site rules).


I assume you are going to suggest that 1998 was "the last year to warm," another argument already debunked:


It hasn't warmed since 1998

1998 was an unusually hot year as it featured the strongest El Nino of the century. In fact, from Jan to May, 2007 is tied with 1998 as hottest year on record. The WMO reported in August that January and April 2007 were the hottest on record.

However, when determining trends, you don't pick one month or year out of isolation - particularly if that year features a short term weather anomaly like El Nino. By this method, based on the fact that 2005 was .17°C hotter than 2000, you could conclude that the rate of global warming doubled from 2000 to 2005.


5 year moving average
When considering long term climate trends, you need to filter out short term weather anomalies like El Nino or volcanic eruptions - an easy way is to plot a 5 year average. This shows the trend hasn't reversed at all.

Line of best fit

While a 5 year average is visually compelling, a more rigorous statistical method to determine any trend is to apply a line of best fit to the data.

In this case, a line of best fit calculates the temperature trend is 0.16°C per decade from 1998 until July 2007. This is a close match to the temperature trend over the last 30 years (0.15°C from 1975 to 2007). So even starting from 1998, we find the planet is still warming at the same rate.

Emphasis mine.


Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2005 Summation

Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

So, my question (again, based on my unmatchable ignorance) is how does the "model" explain the "observed" data for the temperature plateau period 1998 through 2008?

Also, as I've now shown, your use of the word plateau is an invalid linguistic representation of the temperature observations being made.



.