Australian Politics Forum - Why is climate science so resilient?

LawfoolNeutral

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #15 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 10:21pm

Note: Can't post links because my account is new.

lee wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 8:28pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 7:04pm:

Lees is losing it! Blithering away about null hypothesis again!

Been through this, Lees.

If you think AGW is true then:

H1: temperatures since mid 1800s have been increasing

H0: temperatures have not increased.

Given the temperatures HAVE increased significantly H0 is rejected and H1 accepted.

Your hypothesis?

You really know how distort data. Are you sure your not a climate scientist?

Is this global warming or merely regional warming.

Remember NOAA 1997 - 62.45ºF. NOAA 2016 - 58.69ºF. According to NOAA is has cooled. Wink

Speaking of manipulating data, please don't cherry pick. Your argument is based on selective observation, a logical fallacy.

To rebut your quote more fully, on the home page of NOAA
"Earth had 2nd warmest february season and year to date on record"

"February 2017’s average global temperature was 1.76 degrees F above the 20th-century average of 53.9 degrees, according to scientists from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. This was the second warmest February in the 1880-2017 record, behind 2016."

The references to global records heat records falling month by are all over the NOAA site. Just go look. NOAA also provide data confirming AGW, see the NASA site you linked to.

As for your request for peer reviewed papers, perhaps you should read the links in this thread more thoroughly.

See footnote 1, on NASA climates, scientific consensus, web site.

If some of these quotes don't indicate a null hypothesis for AGW, I doubt anything will convince you.

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

Back to top

IP Logged

LawfoolNeutral

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #16 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 10:30pm

lee wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 3:36pm:

"Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming "

There you go again cherry picking, that is the title of the article. See the footnotes.

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 43639 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #17 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 4:35am Great posts, LawFool, but Lees has an emotional need to deny to himself that AGW exists. However, apart from Booby and the Mechanic I think the rest here accept AGW.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 43639
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #18 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:03am

Also, AGW is not the null hypothesis but the alternative hypothesis.

The null hypothesis would be that temperatures are constant ± natural variation.

The mechanism is known, as shown by the IR spectrum as measured by satellite:

CO2 v temperature:

Does not look like a logarithmic relationship, linear is more like it.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:24am by Jovial Monk »

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

LawfoolNeutral New Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #19 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:13am I thought that a null hypothesis was the commonly accepted hypothesis. In this case pro AGW. At this point isn't the burden of proof resting with "deniers"?
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 131541 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #20 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:15am LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:13am: I thought that a null hypothesis was the commonly accepted hypothesis. In this case pro AGW. At this point isn't the burden of proof resting with "deniers"? No.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 43639
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #21 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:32am

LawfoolNeutral wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:13am:

I thought that a null hypothesis was the commonly accepted hypothesis. In this case pro AGW.

At this point isn't the burden of proof resting with "deniers"?

The null hypothesis is that temperatures are constant. This is then tested with data and as we know it will be found that temperatures have increased. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected and the alternative hypothesis, AGW, is accepted.

Deniers do not have an alternative theory so cannot replace AGW with something else.

AGW is supported by many streams of evidence: spectrometry which shows the mechanism, temperature etc measurements going back over 100 years + proxies from when reliable instruments weren’t around, the melting of sea ice at both poles, the retreat of glaciers incl the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. In Australia AGW is causing the southern half of the continent to warm and dry. Even Antarctica is losing net ice.

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

LawfoolNeutral New Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #22 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:36am I've learned something today. I stand corrected.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 43639 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #23 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:50am Learning is good.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 43639
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #24 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 10:13am

Arctic sea ice maximum extent for 2017 is a record low.

Quote:

Arctic winter sees record low sea-ice cover
By Tim Ellis, KUAC - Fairbanks - March 22, 2017

Ice floes float in Baffin Bay between Canada and Greenland above the Arctic circle on July 10, 2008. A new paper from Arizona State University physicists proposes using sea water pumps to facilitate more ice formation in the Arctic. (Photo by Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)
It’s been a chilly winter here in the Interior and elsewhere around the state. But for the Arctic Ocean, it’s been one long warm spell. That’s led to another record-low year for formation of Arctic winter sea-ice cover.

Experts with the National Snow and Ice Data Center say formation of sea ice around the Arctic Ocean probably petered out about two weeks ago. On Wednesday, they finally declared that the extent of sea-ice cover on the Arctic Ocean has grown as much as it’s going to this year.

Mark Serreze is a senior research scientist with the Snow and Ice Data Center.

“What we have now is what we call the lowest maximum on record,” Serreze said.

Serreze said well-above-average warmth over the Arctic Ocean since fall has led to well-below-average sea-ice formation. So much so that the center declared this year’s Arctic sea-ice maximum extent was the lowest in 38 years, since satellite monitoring began.

“Part of what’s going on is it was so darn warm this winter over the Arctic Ocean, especially out on the Atlantic side,” Serreze said.

Center officials say the sea ice probably reached its maximum extent on March 7th, when it covered about 5-and-a-half-million square miles of the Arctic Ocean, including portions of the Bering Sea that lie south of the Arctic Circle. That’s about 470,000 square miles less than the 38-year average. And it’s about 37,000 square miles less than the 2015 maximum extent, the previous record-setting low. 2016 set the third-lowest maximum extent on record.

“This is the third year we’ve seen these extreme low values of sea ice,” Serreze said.

The center said it’s been a warm fall and winter for the Arctic Ocean, with temperatures averaging 4-and-a-half-degrees Fahrenheit above the norm. The air over the Chukchi Sea northwest of Alaska and the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia was even warmer, averaging around 9 degrees above the norm.

“And so that prevented sea ice from growing, in part,” Serreze said. “And it’s looks like we’ve probably got a lot of very thin ice about there.”

Serreze said Arctic sea ice is already beginning to melt and recede, setting the stage for a very low sea-ice minimum extent that the center will declare in September.

“So we’re starting the melt season in a deep hole right now,” Serreze said. “And we’ll see how things work out this spring and summer, but I’m expecting we’re going to have a very, very low September extent.”

Serreze said seasonal weather conditions around the Arctic will determine whether the minimum sea-ice extent will set another record. He said the minimum is the more important and telling metric.

“That’s the one that really matters in the end,” Serreze said. “And what we’re seeing is that September extent is going down quite quickly right now.”

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/03/22/arctic-winter-sees-record-low-sea-ice-cov...

Why does this matter? It matters because it radically increases warming: The Arctic Ocean is the site of the fastest warming.

When the polar oceans are covered by ice any sunlight that hits them is reflected into space. With the ice largely gone sunlight hits dark ocean and is absorbed.

Deniers like to talk about a “pause” or “hiatus” in AGW. The dataset used to demonstrate this, the GISS dataset does not include the poles. Add warming in the poles and the “pause” disappears.

The Arctic warming weakens the Jet Stream which has implications for local weather for places below the Arctic Circle.

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 80285 Proud pre-1850's NO Voter Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #25 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 10:17am Well - we've been experiencing hot humid weather here for months now - I reckon that Dark Planet has flung the Earth out of alignment... Ohio (got a lass friend there) has been cold as an Eskimo's arse hanging over an ice long drop ...
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16422
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #26 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 10:36am

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:03am:

Also, AGW is not the null hypothesis but the alternative hypothesis.

Not quite. it is AN alternative hypothesis.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:03am:

he null hypothesis would be that temperatures are constant ± natural variation.

Yes. But natural variation has not been established by the AGW'ers. It is not something decided over short time spans of 30 odds years, your top graph. Or even 44 years as your bottom graphic.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:03am:

Does not look like a logarithmic relationship, linear is more like it.

yep. Because you are looking at a small time scale.

For the SCIENCE -

"It is interesting that the radiative forcing, i.e., the change in the radiation energy flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) or at the tropopause, caused by some greenhouse gases has a logarithmic dependency on the concentrations of these gases."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022466/pdf

And many others.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 131541 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #27 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 10:42am Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:32am: In Australia AGW is causing the southern half of the continent to warm and dry. That's one theory, yes.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 43639 Gender:	Re: Why is climate science so resilient? Reply #28 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 10:52am It is a very well supported theory, Greg, with many many lines of evidence supporting it. I notice you have not put alternative theories up. Is that because you don’t have any?
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 43639
Gender: male

Re: Why is climate science so resilient?
Reply #29 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 10:59am

lee wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 10:36am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:03am:

Also, AGW is not the null hypothesis but the alternative hypothesis.

Not quite. it is AN alternative hypothesis.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:03am:

he null hypothesis would be that temperatures are constant ± natural variation.

Yes. But natural variation has not been established by the AGW'ers. It is not something decided over short time spans of 30 odds years, your top graph. Or even 44 years as your bottom graphic.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 9:03am:

Does not look like a logarithmic relationship, linear is more like it.

yep. Because you are looking at a small time scale.

For the SCIENCE -

"It is interesting that the radiative forcing, i.e., the change in the radiation energy flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) or at the tropopause, caused by some greenhouse gases has a logarithmic dependency on the concentrations of these gases."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022466/pdf

And many others.

Since there is warming then the null hypothesis is no warming.

I do not think there is any reliable evidence that CO2 is already absorbing as much IR as it is ever going to. Sounds total rubbish to me. The greater the concentration of CO2 the more CO2 atoms there are meaning that less IR escapes to space. As deniers keep on telling me Grin

CO2 is a trace gas (which somehow does not stop it being “plant food” Cheesy

) so I doubt it has reached maximum warming potential yet.

It is the new position deniers have taken up (JoNova and others) but I don’t think there is much in it.

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged