Global Warming and the Null Hypothesis...

[Billy_Bob]

One of the main problems, which causes the debate to cease, is the use of generic terms which include subsets of other items which may or may not be root causes.

Lets take the Term "Global Warming". The term insinuates that the earth is warming but what it does not do is determine what the individual or cumulative causes are for it. For the purposes of this thread this term is not acceptable as it fails to identify whether the cause in warming is attributed to man or attributed to natural process.

As you can see the choice of terms is ambiguous and leaves open the problems of misinterpretation or outright deceitful misdirection.

Natural Variation = Processes which are natural and occur without mans influence.

Natural Forcing = Specific definable processes which triggers warming or cooling.

Man Created Forcing = The specific contribution which results in warming or cooling. (Also known as Anthropogenic Forcing) and may enhance/mute natural ones

Land Use Induced = Changes in local areas which are due to the lands use. (roads, buildings, etc which result in the Urban Heat Island or other potential changes from the natural state of the area)

Pollution = Man created products which cause harm to the natural environment. Naturally occurring gasses and those items which occur through the natural cycles of the earth are not considered pollutants. (CO2 can be both but be prepared to show how you determined what was naturally caused and what is man created.) [Negative impacts on health do not occur below 6,000ppm - United States Navy determination on long term submarine operations].

Consensus = Is not a scientific term and alludes to the possibility that there is no other meaning, process or reason for what we observe. It is inherently anti-science and political (mob rule).

With the majority of the troublesome terms well defined lets try this one with a fresh look and understanding of the terms.

The IPCC makes the claim that all of the warming post 1950 is man caused due to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. So lets see just what the natural process was prior to 1950 and compare it to that time span.

Lets define the most recent natural rate of warming which I will do in my next post and then we will try to hash this out.. This is where the Null Hypothesis comes in..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I wish I could claim this work but I can not. It is a culmination of papers I have read and presentations I have seen or been a part of. Several persons and institutions are included in the presentation of the material below. I apologize in advance if I miss attribution to specific individuals. I will make every attempt to properly attribute sources.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

Source;Midtroposheric Warming-Dr.J Christy

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise. In other words Natural Variation IS the cause of both rates of warming. The problem alarmist have now is determining what man is supposed to be responsible for.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Null Hypothesis states " a system can nullify a hypothesis by simple addition of items or removal of items, one at a time, and observing the reactions of the system to that change."

The last 17 years and 11 Months of no warming while CO2 has steadily increased is the ultimate show of this process. CO2 has been added but no offsetting Temperature increase has been seen.

The Null Hypothesis has rendered the CO2 boogie man a straw man and irrelevant.


This is just the beginning of the problems with Anthropogenic Global Warming. Mother Nature has shown the premise false all by herself and now we wait for the next thirty years during a cooling cycle as the temperature drops predictably.

 

[IanC]

while on the whole I agree with your premise, the issue of CO2 and land use are unique to our present circumstance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is not entirely valid. mind you, the idea of natural variation being affected to some degree by manmade changes is a lot more defensible than Trenberth's declaration that the Null Hypothesis was now flipped to anthropogenic causes controlling the climate and natural variation being a trivial factor. I suppose the 30+ reasons put forth for 'the pause' refute Trenberth quite nicely.

 

[Crick]

One of the main problems, which causes the debate to cease, is the use of generic terms which include subsets of other items which may or may not be root causes.

Lets take the Term "Global Warming". The term insinuates that the earth is warming but what it does not do is determine what the individual or cumulative causes are for it. For the purposes of this thread this term is not acceptable as it fails to identify whether the cause in warming is attributed to man or attributed to natural process.

As you can see the choice of terms is ambiguous and leaves open the problems of misinterpretation or outright deceitful misdirection.

Natural Variation = Processes which are natural and occur without mans influence.

Natural Forcing = Specific definable processes which triggers warming or cooling.

Man Created Forcing = The specific contribution which results in warming or cooling. (Also known as Anthropogenic Forcing) and may enhance/mute natural ones

Land Use Induced = Changes in local areas which are due to the lands use. (roads, buildings, etc which result in the Urban Heat Island or other potential changes from the natural state of the area)

Pollution = Man created products which cause harm to the natural environment. Naturally occurring gasses and those items which occur through the natural cycles of the earth are not considered pollutants. (CO2 can be both but be prepared to show how you determined what was naturally caused and what is man created.) [Negative impacts on health do not occur below 6,000ppm - United States Navy determination on long term submarine operations].

Consensus = Is not a scientific term and alludes to the possibility that there is no other meaning, process or reason for what we observe. It is inherently anti-science and political (mob rule).

With the majority of the troublesome terms well defined lets try this one with a fresh look and understanding of the terms.

The IPCC makes the claim that all of the warming post 1950 is man caused due to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. So lets see just what the natural process was prior to 1950 and compare it to that time span.

Lets define the most recent natural rate of warming which I will do in my next post and then we will try to hash this out.. This is where the Null Hypothesis comes in..

That's why, when the cause is pertinent to the discussion, I use the term "anthropogenic global warming".

I'd also like to point out that one of the larger effects of land use changes is the reduction in plants, a natural sink for CO2.

The definition you give for consensus is bullshit. Your contention that is unscientific, anti-science and mob rule eliminates the possibility that you were making any attempt at having an objective discussion. Try this one instead.

1.majority of opinion:

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

 

[SSDD]

That's why, when the cause is pertinent to the discussion, I use the term "anthropogenic global warming".

I'd also like to point out that one of the larger effects of land use changes is the reduction in plants, a natural sink for CO2.

The definition you give for consensus is bullshit. Your contention that is unscientific, anti-science and mob rule eliminates the possibility that you were making any attempt at having an objective discussion. Try this one instead.

1.majority of opinion:

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

The problem is that no anthropogenic fingerprint can be teased out of the natural noise....even if it is real, it is indistinguishable from natural variation which still leaves you with nothing.

 

[Crick]

That is most certainly not the opinion of the experts in the field.

 

[Billy_Bob]

One of the main problems, which causes the debate to cease, is the use of generic terms which include subsets of other items which may or may not be root causes.

Lets take the Term "Global Warming". The term insinuates that the earth is warming but what it does not do is determine what the individual or cumulative causes are for it. For the purposes of this thread this term is not acceptable as it fails to identify whether the cause in warming is attributed to man or attributed to natural process.

As you can see the choice of terms is ambiguous and leaves open the problems of misinterpretation or outright deceitful misdirection.

Natural Variation = Processes which are natural and occur without mans influence.

Natural Forcing = Specific definable processes which triggers warming or cooling.

Man Created Forcing = The specific contribution which results in warming or cooling. (Also known as Anthropogenic Forcing) and may enhance/mute natural ones

Land Use Induced = Changes in local areas which are due to the lands use. (roads, buildings, etc which result in the Urban Heat Island or other potential changes from the natural state of the area)

Pollution = Man created products which cause harm to the natural environment. Naturally occurring gasses and those items which occur through the natural cycles of the earth are not considered pollutants. (CO2 can be both but be prepared to show how you determined what was naturally caused and what is man created.) [Negative impacts on health do not occur below 6,000ppm - United States Navy determination on long term submarine operations].

Consensus = Is not a scientific term and alludes to the possibility that there is no other meaning, process or reason for what we observe. It is inherently anti-science and political (mob rule).

With the majority of the troublesome terms well defined lets try this one with a fresh look and understanding of the terms.

The IPCC makes the claim that all of the warming post 1950 is man caused due to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. So lets see just what the natural process was prior to 1950 and compare it to that time span.

Lets define the most recent natural rate of warming which I will do in my next post and then we will try to hash this out.. This is where the Null Hypothesis comes in..

That's why, when the cause is pertinent to the discussion, I use the term "anthropogenic global warming".

I'd also like to point out that one of the larger effects of land use changes is the reduction in plants, a natural sink for CO2.

The definition you give for consensus is bullshit. Your contention that is unscientific, anti-science and mob rule eliminates the possibility that you were making any attempt at having an objective discussion. Try this one instead.

1.majority of opinion:

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

The primary Problem with 'consensus' is science is by its very nature skeptical and thus 'consensus' has no bearing on the current state. Just like the days of old, consensus said the world was flat... Just like then they were wrong as they are now. The false security of the so called 'consensus' is purely political.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That's why, when the cause is pertinent to the discussion, I use the term "anthropogenic global warming".

I'd also like to point out that one of the larger effects of land use changes is the reduction in plants, a natural sink for CO2.

The definition you give for consensus is bullshit. Your contention that is unscientific, anti-science and mob rule eliminates the possibility that you were making any attempt at having an objective discussion. Try this one instead.

1.majority of opinion:

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

The problem is that no anthropogenic fingerprint can be teased out of the natural noise....even if it is real, it is indistinguishable from natural variation which still leaves you with nothing.

My favorite question these days to warmists is: How did you stop natural variation? And secondly, please show how you separated natural variation from human caused. Thirdly, What was the net result in the active system. Show your work!

 

[Billy_Bob]

That is most certainly not the opinion of the experts in the field.

I am an expert in this field! You were saying?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature

As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the miniscule temperature effects shown above arise from the extreme economic efforts of those participating nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions. Thus the outcomes in terms of controlling temperature can only ever be marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.

The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile[6].

I was reading this article this morning and looking at the citations to support it when i realized that everything the US EPA is doing is for show and the destruction of the US economic system. Its not a new revelation, but it shed light on the Obama dream of structural and fundamental change of the US. In order for the people to accept a communist style leadership and control you must destroy the capitalist system. You must make it fail and collapse. The new EPA regulations are exactly the driver needed to complete the collapse.

We either fight back or knell and kiss the masters ring... I AM AN AMERICAN AND BOW TO NO ONE!

This article shows the irrelevance of CO2 in the global system and the percentage of CO2 we could actually affect and that the warming is less than 0.4 deg C out to 1000PPM. It amazes me how ill informed most Americans are about what their government is doing to them.

 

[Crick]

WHACK job.

 

[Old Rocks]

Complete and utter whack job. Expert in the field of being a fool.

Your assinine rant in post #11 demonstates what a completely silly ass you are.

 

[Billy_Bob]

WHACK job.

I see you have a one word vocabulary... care to explain yourself or are you having trouble with words in general?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Complete and utter whack job. Expert in the field of being a fool.

Your assinine rant in post #11 demonstates what a completely silly ass you are.

And your Doctorate is in what field? What my post demonstrates is I have a brain and can think for myself about what idiots in my government are doing to harm us. Does the sand taste good or is your head there because you think, if you cant see them they wont eat you? Good dodo bird... OH wait they are extinct!

 

[RollingThunder]

That is most certainly not the opinion of the experts in the field.

I am an expert in this field! You were saying?

LOLOL. YOU ARE A DELUSIONAL NUTJOB.

And a tragic victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That is most certainly not the opinion of the experts in the field.

I am an expert in this field! You were saying?

LOLOL. YOU ARE A DELUSIONAL NUTJOB.

And a tragic victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Predictable behavior from left wing loons.. You can not dispute the facts presented so you go for the adhominem attack of the poster or individual.

Try debating the facts instead of showing how bad your facts are and that you are unwilling to debate them like Micheal Mann or Al Gore... their facts cant stand up to any scrutiny.. that is why they will not debate them.

 

[RollingThunder]

That is most certainly not the opinion of the experts in the field.

I am an expert in this field! You were saying?

LOLOL. YOU ARE A DELUSIONAL NUTJOB.

And a tragic victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Predictable behavior from left wing loons.. You can not dispute the facts presented so you go for the adhominem attack of the poster or individual.

Try debating the facts instead of showing how bad your facts are and that you are unwilling to debate them like Micheal Mann or Al Gore... their facts cant stand up to any scrutiny.. that is why they will not debate them.

You have no 'facts'. There is no longer any scientific debate over the reality of AGW. You're a delusional denier cult wacko arrogantly imagining that you are smarter and know more than the professional scientists who've studied this matter for decades. You are a joke but you're just too stupid to realize it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I wish I could claim this work but I can not. It is a culmination of papers I have read and presentations I have seen or been a part of. Several persons and institutions are included in the presentation of the material below. I apologize in advance if I miss attribution to specific individuals. I will make every attempt to properly attribute sources.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

Source;Midtroposheric Warming-Dr.J Christy

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise. In other words Natural Variation IS the cause of both rates of warming. The problem alarmist have now is determining what man is supposed to be responsible for.

Welcome to the forum -- I see you've met the peanut gallery. We gotz to tred lightly here with the Christy interpretation above. Mostly because of the juvenile level of discussion that our "warmer bench" understands.

What Christy did was to present the "trend" or derivative of the temperature record using 20 year intervals. Here's where I need more.
The warming power of CO2 in logarithmic, so it decreases with increasing concentration. And we expect you would need an exponential increase in CO2 over time to produce a linear increase in the raw temp anomaly. What I see -- is a fairly constant rate of temp increase over the period from pre-industrial to present. With an interesting Sinusoidal component sitting on top of that.

Off the top of my head -- I can't say that you WOULD'NT get a fairly linear rate of increase given the actual historical CO2 curve. You would have to curve fit that and then apply the logarithmic forcing function for CO2 to find out IF it was a linear result.

The catastrophic predictions have nothing to do anthro forcing. There is general agreement that a doubling of CO2 will give you about a 1degC at the surface. Where their "theory" (per your definitions) goes off the rails is that the projected 3 to 8degC rise by 2100 all depends on ill-conceived and mushy Magic Numbers that are invented to portray the climate system as unstable to even MILD forcings. A premise that I ain't buying.

So it matters little to me about anthro CO2 actually. Other than it's effects have been fantasized out of proportion whilst Climate Science has basically ignored the more important issue of HOW THE CLIMATE RESPONDS to changes in input stimulus and WHY... At the same time, NATURAL forcings -- both positive and negative have been ignored or PURPOSELY under represented..

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW:

A lot has been written about 60 yr period natural variations. A number of conjectures there to explain the "sinewave" sitting on the trend data. One of the more common is "center of solar mass" which gyrates with the pull of the local planets. A little hard to accept intuititively, but the same 60 year cycles show up in more ancient historical proxy data..