On 1/24/10 9:51 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:
We've reaching a tipping point: many are investigating IPCC claims and
citations and turning plenty
of green lies and "activist science".

Climate of suspicion
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/463269a.html

"No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors
will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts.
Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues
such as climate change according to their personal values (see page
296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely
to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions.
And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People
have more trust in experts — and scientists — when they sense that the
speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus
do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when
communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should
be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a
respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they
share something in common with that other side.



The real holes in climate science
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were
several controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly
indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty
laundry from the public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the
incident provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any
active field of inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding
of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key
uncertainties' that complicate climate science.



2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...by-jim-hansen/

If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold?

"The magnitude of monthly temperature anomalies is typically 1.5 to 2
times greater than the magnitude of seasonal anomalies. So it is not yet
quite so easy to see global warming if one’s figure of merit is monthly
mean temperature. And, of course, daily weather fluctuations are much
larger than the impact of the global warming trend. The bottom line is
this: there is no global cooling trend. For the time being, until
humanity brings its greenhouse gas emissions under control, we can
expect each decade to be warmer than the preceding one. Weather
fluctuations certainly exceed local temperature changes over the past
half century. But the perceptive person should be able to see that
climate is warming on decadal time scales".

See:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...by-jim-hansen/


References:
Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface
air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345�13372.
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of
surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30997�31022.
Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D.
Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United
States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106,
23947�23963.
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina�Elizade,
2006: Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14288�14293.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 1/24/10 9:51 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:

2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...by-jim-hansen/


such stupidity so widespread.

google "Weak Law of Large Numbers"

such a small average change with huge variance is meaningless.

Global Warming is a farce.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:10:54 -0600, "mary" wrote:


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 1/24/10 9:51 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:

2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...by-jim-hansen/


such stupidity so widespread.

google "Weak Law of Large Numbers"

such a small average change with huge variance is meaningless.

Start extract

The year 2005 is 0.061°C warmer than 1998 in our analysis. So how
certain are we that 2005 was warmer than 1998? Given the standard
deviation of ~0.025°C for the estimated error, we can estimate the
probability that 1998 was warmer than 2005 as follows. The chance that
1998 is 0.025°C warmer than our estimated value is about (1 – 0.68)/2
= 0.16. The chance that 2005 is 0.025°C cooler than our estimate is
also 0.16. The probability of both of these is ~0.03 (3 percent).
Integrating over the tail of the distribution and accounting for the
2005-1998 temperature difference being 0.61°C alters the estimate in
opposite directions. For the moment let us just say that the chance
that 1998 is warmer than 2005, given our temperature analysis, is at
most no more than about 10 percent. Therefore, we can say with a
reasonable degree of confidence that 2005 is the warmest year in the
period of instrumental data.

End extract

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:42:10 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

Surfer wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:10:54 -0600, "mary" wrote:


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 1/24/10 9:51 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:

2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...by-jim-hansen/


such stupidity so widespread.

google "Weak Law of Large Numbers"

such a small average change with huge variance is meaningless.

Start extract

The year 2005 is 0.061°C warmer than 1998 in our analysis. So how
certain are we that 2005 was warmer than 1998? Given the standard
deviation of ~0.025°C for the estimated error, we can estimate the
probability that 1998 was warmer than 2005 as follows. The chance that
1998 is 0.025°C warmer than our estimated value is about (1 – 0.68)/2
= 0.16. The chance that 2005 is 0.025°C cooler than our estimate is
also 0.16. The probability of both of these is ~0.03 (3 percent).
Integrating over the tail of the distribution and accounting for the
2005-1998 temperature difference being 0.61°C alters the estimate in
opposite directions. For the moment let us just say that the chance
that 1998 is warmer than 2005, given our temperature analysis, is at
most no more than about 10 percent. Therefore, we can say with a
reasonable degree of confidence that 2005 is the warmest year in the
period of instrumental data.

End extract


All based on models.

No. The above is calculated from temperature measurements.

Full article at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...by-jim-hansen/


http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-14.PDF
(Page 774)

Stashed away, at the very end of a rather unread IPCC chapter, you can find
the following:


"In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate
research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

"... we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability
distribution of the system’s future possible states ..."

That is no doubt true.

But if the future possible states include disaster, then its probably
best not to tempt fate.

On 25 Jan, 05:09, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/24/10 9:51 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:

We've reaching a tipping point: many are investigating IPCC claims and
citations and turning plenty
of green lies and "activist science".

Climate of suspicion
Â* Â*http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../463269a..html

"No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors
will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts.
Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues
such as climate change according to their personal values (see page
296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely
to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions.
And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People
have more trust in experts — and scientists — when they sense that the
speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus
do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when
communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should
be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a
respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they
share something in common with that other side.

The real holes in climate science
Â* Â*http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
Â* Â*http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were
several controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly
indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty
laundry from the public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the
incident provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any
active field of inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding
of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key
uncertainties' that complicate climate science.

2009 temperatures by Jim Hansenhttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatur...

If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold?

"The magnitude of monthly temperature anomalies is typically 1.5 to 2
times greater than the magnitude of seasonal anomalies. So it is not yet
quite so easy to see global warming if one’s figure of merit is monthly
mean temperature. And, of course, daily weather fluctuations are much
larger than the impact of the global warming trend. The bottom line is
this: there is no global cooling trend. For the time being, until
humanity brings its greenhouse gas emissions under control, we can
expect each decade to be warmer than the preceding one. Weather
fluctuations certainly exceed local temperature changes over the past
half century. But the perceptive person should be able to see that
climate is warming on decadal time scales".

See:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...009-temperatur....

References:
Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface
air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345�13372.
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of
surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30997�31022.
Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D.
Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United
States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106,
23947�23963.
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina�Elizade,
2006: Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14288�14293.

"Empirical evidence"?

Chortle chortle. Surely you need a computer model to know how people
react?

On Jan 25, 3:41*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:42:10 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

Surfer wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:10:54 -0600, "mary" wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 1/24/10 9:51 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:

2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...009-temperatur...

such stupidity so widespread.

google "Weak Law of Large Numbers"

such a small average change *with huge variance is meaningless.

Start extract

The year 2005 is 0.061°C warmer than 1998 in our analysis. So how
certain are we that 2005 was warmer than 1998? Given the standard
deviation of ~0.025°C for the estimated error, we can estimate the
probability that 1998 was warmer than 2005 as follows. The chance that
1998 is 0.025°C warmer than our estimated value is about (1 – 0.68)/2
= 0.16. The chance that 2005 is 0.025°C cooler than our estimate is
also 0.16. The probability of both of these is ~0.03 (3 percent).
Integrating over the tail of the distribution and accounting for the
2005-1998 temperature difference being 0.61°C alters the estimate in
opposite directions. For the moment let us just say that the chance
that 1998 is warmer than 2005, given our temperature analysis, is at
most no more than about 10 percent. Therefore, we can say with a
reasonable degree of confidence that 2005 is the warmest year in the
period of instrumental data.

End extract

All based on models.

No. The above is calculated from temperature measurements.

Refurbished by models.





Full article at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...009-temperatur...

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-14.PDF
(Page 774)

Stashed away, at the very end of a rather unread IPCC chapter, you can find
the following:

"In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate
research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

"... we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability
distribution of the system’s future possible states ..."

That is no doubt true.

But if the future possible states include disaster, then its probably
best not to tempt fate.

I give a damn on possible future states, magically predicted by some frisky
wannabe scientists, godlike fiddling around with computer models and causing
huge economic and public damage to the whole world

What evidence do you have that reducing the burning of fossil fuels
and reducing deforestation, for example, would lead to 'huge economic
damage' and 'huge public damage' (whatever that means)?

-tg



just to fill their
wallets.

History always faced disasters and it always will do.
But none of them was even big enough to destroy Earth.
Nor will a few centigrade of climate change do.

The only thing to do is to dismiss persuaded and memorized fears and see the
reality as it is and as it has always been.

On Jan 25, 8:17*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
tg wrote:
On Jan 25, 3:41*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:42:10 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

Surfer wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:10:54 -0600, "mary" wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 1/24/10 9:51 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:

2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...009-temperatur...

such stupidity so widespread.

google "Weak Law of Large Numbers"

such a small average change *with huge variance is meaningless.

Start extract

The year 2005 is 0.061°C warmer than 1998 in our analysis. So how
certain are we that 2005 was warmer than 1998? Given the standard
deviation of ~0.025°C for the estimated error, we can estimate the
probability that 1998 was warmer than 2005 as follows. The chance that
1998 is 0.025°C warmer than our estimated value is about (1 – 0.68)/2
= 0.16. The chance that 2005 is 0.025°C cooler than our estimate is
also 0.16. The probability of both of these is ~0.03 (3 percent)..
Integrating over the tail of the distribution and accounting for the
2005-1998 temperature difference being 0.61°C alters the estimate in
opposite directions. For the moment let us just say that the chance
that 1998 is warmer than 2005, given our temperature analysis, is at
most no more than about 10 percent. Therefore, we can say with a
reasonable degree of confidence that 2005 is the warmest year in the
period of instrumental data.

End extract

All based on models.

No. The above is calculated from temperature measurements.

Refurbished by models.

Full article at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...009-temperatur...

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-14.PDF
(Page 774)

Stashed away, at the very end of a rather unread IPCC chapter, you can find
the following:

"In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate
research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

"... we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability
distribution of the system’s future possible states ..."

That is no doubt true.

But if the future possible states include disaster, then its probably
best not to tempt fate.

I give a damn on possible future states, magically predicted by some frisky
wannabe scientists, godlike fiddling around with computer models and causing
huge economic and public damage to the whole world

What evidence do you have that reducing the burning of fossil fuels
and reducing deforestation, for example, would lead to 'huge economic
damage' and 'huge public damage' (whatever that means)?

-tg

Just take off your blinders and look around.

Wow.

I now have proof that the climate is changing due to human activity:

"Just Take Off Your Blinders And Look Around"

Which is the Muehlbauer Standard.

Kool!

-tg




just to fill their
wallets.

And that's the real reason.

History always faced disasters and it always will do.
But none of them was even big enough to destroy Earth.
Nor will a few centigrade of climate change do.

The only thing to do is to dismiss persuaded and memorized fears and see the
reality as it is and as it has always been.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:09:49 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 1/24/10 9:51 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:
We've reaching a tipping point: many are investigating IPCC claims and
citations and turning plenty
of green lies and "activist science".

Climate of suspicion
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/463269a.html

"No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors
will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts.
Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues
such as climate change according to their personal values (see page
296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely
to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions.
And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People
have more trust in experts — and scientists — when they sense that the
speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus
do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when
communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should
be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a
respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they
share something in common with that other side.



The real holes in climate science
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were
several controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly
indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty
laundry from the public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the
incident provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any
active field of inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding
of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key
uncertainties' that complicate climate science.



2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...by-jim-hansen/

If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold?

"The magnitude of monthly temperature anomalies is typically 1.5 to 2
times greater than the magnitude of seasonal anomalies. So it is not yet
quite so easy to see global warming if one’s figure of merit is monthly
mean temperature. And, of course, daily weather fluctuations are much
larger than the impact of the global warming trend. The bottom line is
this: there is no global cooling trend. For the time being, until
humanity brings its greenhouse gas emissions under control, we can
expect each decade to be warmer than the preceding one. Weather
fluctuations certainly exceed local temperature changes over the past
half century. But the perceptive person should be able to see that
climate is warming on decadal time scales".

See:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...by-jim-hansen/


References:
Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface
air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372.
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of
surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30997-31022.
Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D.
Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United
States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106,
23947-23963.
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade,
2006: Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14288-14293.


Gee, glad to see you only reference unbiased nutcases.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:55 +1030, Surfer wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:10:54 -0600, "mary" wrote:


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 1/24/10 9:51 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:

2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...by-jim-hansen/


such stupidity so widespread.

google "Weak Law of Large Numbers"

such a small average change with huge variance is meaningless.

Start extract

The year 2005 is 0.061°C warmer than 1998 in our analysis. So how
certain are we that 2005 was warmer than 1998? Given the standard
deviation of ~0.025°C for the estimated error, we can estimate the
probability that 1998 was warmer than 2005 as follows. The chance that
1998 is 0.025°C warmer than our estimated value is about (1 – 0.68)/2
= 0.16. The chance that 2005 is 0.025°C cooler than our estimate is
also 0.16. The probability of both of these is ~0.03 (3 percent).
Integrating over the tail of the distribution and accounting for the
2005-1998 temperature difference being 0.61°C alters the estimate in
opposite directions. For the moment let us just say that the chance
that 1998 is warmer than 2005, given our temperature analysis, is at
most no more than about 10 percent. Therefore, we can say with a
reasonable degree of confidence that 2005 is the warmest year in the
period of instrumental data.

End extract


Too bad there were not many instruments
in the 1930s, it is time to ignore "estimates" by
a has-been.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), tg
wrote:

On Jan 25, 3:41Â*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:42:10 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

Surfer wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:10:54 -0600, "mary" wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 1/24/10 9:51 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:

2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...009-temperatur...

such stupidity so widespread.

google "Weak Law of Large Numbers"

such a small average change Â*with huge variance is meaningless.

Start extract

The year 2005 is 0.061°C warmer than 1998 in our analysis. So how
certain are we that 2005 was warmer than 1998? Given the standard
deviation of ~0.025°C for the estimated error, we can estimate the
probability that 1998 was warmer than 2005 as follows. The chance that
1998 is 0.025°C warmer than our estimated value is about (1 – 0.68)/2
= 0.16. The chance that 2005 is 0.025°C cooler than our estimate is
also 0.16. The probability of both of these is ~0.03 (3 percent).
Integrating over the tail of the distribution and accounting for the
2005-1998 temperature difference being 0.61°C alters the estimate in
opposite directions. For the moment let us just say that the chance
that 1998 is warmer than 2005, given our temperature analysis, is at
most no more than about 10 percent. Therefore, we can say with a
reasonable degree of confidence that 2005 is the warmest year in the
period of instrumental data.

End extract

All based on models.

No. The above is calculated from temperature measurements.

Refurbished by models.





Full article at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...009-temperatur...

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-14.PDF
(Page 774)

Stashed away, at the very end of a rather unread IPCC chapter, you can find
the following:

"In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate
research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

"... we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability
distribution of the system’s future possible states ..."

That is no doubt true.

But if the future possible states include disaster, then its probably
best not to tempt fate.

I give a damn on possible future states, magically predicted by some frisky
wannabe scientists, godlike fiddling around with computer models and causing
huge economic and public damage to the whole world

What evidence do you have that reducing the burning of fossil fuels
and reducing deforestation, for example, would lead to 'huge economic
damage' and 'huge public damage' (whatever that means)?

-tg


Are you that clueless, the amount of deforestation
has diminish a lot, but there is no fuel that could be used
to replace fossil fuel, do you support the major nutcase
thoughts of shutting down coal-fired power plants that
provide power to industry at very low rates?

With more snow and cold on the way, any thought
of not having fossil fuel to keep warm would be insane.