My biggest peeve with Rush and all other radio hosts is that they all argue against global warming, and yet they ALL blindly accept that the Earth has warmed over the last 150 years.


At some time, you may have seen a graph that looks like this:





This graph ostensibly shows the "Global Average" temperature record since 1850.  However, based on the underlying data, this is neither "Global", nor is it an "Average".

This graph is on the IPCC website. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
On the very same page of the IPCC site is the "modified" data** from which the graph was derived.


To illustrate the main problem with this data, I'd like you to imagine a piece of graph paper.  Let's say that the entire sheet has 100 grid-squares.  Now imagine that I place numbers in sixteen(16) of those 100 squares. Then, in the remaining 84 squares, I write N.A. (not available). Now imagine that I ask you to calculate the average of all 100 squares. (If you can do this, please post your answer and how you arrived at it)


Now, on the IPCC site, you can download the file HadCRUT3.  If you open it, you will see a large volume of incomprehensible numbers.  The important thing to note is this:
     The number "-1.000e+30" represents a 5^o lat. x 5^o long. grid-square for which there is Zero data.  If you look at the data for January of 1850, you will notice that the IPCC has based their "Global", "Average" temperature for that month on data from less than 16% of the planet's surface.


The data becomes more geographically widespread as time goes on, but there is simply not nearly enough data to be statistically valid until about the 1930's or 40's.


One might say,"Well, so what?  At least we have good data from the 30's & 40's onward."  Aside from the fact that that isn't true (the data aren't good); the point is that if I told you that global temperatures had gotten warmer over the last five(5) years, a reasonable person would reply, "So? We've had 2 or 3 warm years. That doesn't make it a TREND."
How many years of data do you need to establish a statistically valid Trend?*** 10? 20? 50? More?


There are other problems with this data, but the gist is this:  if you need 150 years, or 100, or even 80 years worth of data to show a statistically significant TREND; the IPCC  does   not   have it , because the first 70 or 80 years of their data is statistical nonsense.


This data is taken from the work, in whole or in part, of one man - a Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University in the U.K..  This is THE SOURCE of all global warming claims made by the IPCC, Al Gore, and every other believer in global warming on Earth.


** To the best of my knowledge/ability, the "RAW" data is unobtainable.
*** There IS a way to figure this out. Sadly, I've forgotten how, and my time-series analysis textbook has gone missing.
****In addition, the IPCC's CO2 concentrations, and their sea-level data are likewise JUNK.

It's true that the data used to calculate the global average before 1940 was inadequate. But that really doesn't mean anything. You presumably don't have a problem with the data from around 1957 onward, and I can't imagine you rejecting the data from 1980 onward, when satellite measurements became available (and when warming has been fastest), so what's the issue? 50, or even 27, years are perfectly sufficient to establish a definite trend from, if one exists. All that's needed is enough time to allow the trend to overshadow any natural variability.


Of course, all that is entirely irrelevant anyway. Global warming theory does not depend on our knowledge of the temperature record. It is a physical theory, not a statistical one. We could be completely ignorant of global temperatures over the past century and still be able to say with a fair degree of certainty that anthropogenic global warming was real. The temperature record is not, as you claim, the source of all the IPCC's claims.

I guess that about all I can say right now, is that I disagree with pretty much every sentence in your reply.  

Basically, it is in no way possible to claim you can know with any certainty what natural variability is in either 20 or 40 years.  You can figure out an average, but it would be totally without context without more historical temperature data.

It is true that the theory is sound.  It may, in fact, be possible that the Earth is warming far more dramatically than even Al Gore would claim.  It is also possible that ALL of that warming is anthropogenic.

But there's just no reliable evidence that either of these things are so.


Believe what theories you like, but without DATA, without information, without evidence, it will remain a theory with zero proof.

Eyas wrote:
Basically, it is in no way possible to claim you can know with any certainty what natural variability is in either 20 or 40 years.  You can figure out an average, but it would be totally without context without more historical temperature data.

Climate scientists use a thirty year baseline to average anomalies. Since it has been established that this is sufficient to smooth out any natural variations. So I think 27-40 is more than enough time to determine a trend.

It is true that the theory is sound.  It may, in fact, be possible that the Earth is warming far more dramatically than even Al Gore would claim.  It is also possible that ALL of that warming is anthropogenic.

But there's just no reliable evidence that either of these things are so.

But there is though. What we have with GW theory is a solid physical theory with mounds of observational and experimental data supporting it. The physical properties of CO2 can and have been directly measured in laboratory experiments. The physics of the atmosphere are well understood and becoming more-so by the day as climate models become more and more reliable. Our data records are becoming more and more complete. And each advancement made seems only to strengthen the theory. One has only to look through the latest IPCC report to see this.

Believe what theories you like, but without DATA, without information, without evidence, it will remain a theory with zero proof.

To prove a theory in the scientific sense requires only that you show the theory to be logical and consistent with the facts. So for all intents and purposes, global warming theory can be considered proven science. 

I am enjoying the back and forth discussion about global warming.  Here is an article on the subject that is a bit dated, but one that I like because I think the author does a good job of explaining the complexity of this subject; and also how this is a relatively new field of science.  

Science can often do no better than predict with 50 % accuracy whether it will rain or be sunny tomorrow.  So, I remain a skeptic that science has all the answers on what's going on with our climate and how it will impact our long term future.

Of course, there is also a huge political agenda that colors much of what we read or hear about this subject.  So for me, there are still as many questions, as there are answers.


http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294

EnragedParrot wrote:

Eyas wrote:

Basically, it is in no way possible to claim you can know with any certainty what natural variability is in either 20 or 40 years.  You can figure out an average, but it would be totally without context without more historical temperature data.

Climate scientists use a thirty year baseline to average anomalies. Since it has been established that this is sufficient to smooth out any natural variations. So I think 27-40 is more than enough time to determine a trend.

It is true that the theory is sound.  It may, in fact, be possible that the Earth is warming far more dramatically than even Al Gore would claim.  It is also possible that ALL of that warming is anthropogenic.

But there's just no reliable evidence that either of these things are so.

But there is though. What we have with GW theory is a solid physical theory with mounds of observational and experimental data supporting it. The physical properties of CO2 can and have been directly measured in laboratory experiments. The physics of the atmosphere are well understood and becoming more-so by the day as climate models become more and more reliable. Our data records are becoming more and more complete. And each advancement made seems only to strengthen the theory. One has only to look through the latest IPCC report to see this.

Believe what theories you like, but without DATA, without information, without evidence, it will remain a theory with zero proof.

To prove a theory in the scientific sense requires only that you show the theory to be logical and consistent with the facts. So for all intents and purposes, global warming theory can be considered proven science.

You made 3 points.

The second one I agree with, I think you misunderstood what I meant.  I know that CO2 is plentiful and that it has a somewhat strong radiative forcing effect.  What I meant was simply that it's not proven what amount of CO2 (given other radiative forcing agents and other variables) would be required globally to cause what amount of warming.

The first one you depend on climate scientists who "believe" in global warming (BTW, not ALL do).  If you have an advanced degree in statistics, I will be glad to listen to your teaching - if not, relying on "Global Warmist" climatologists holds ZERO weight with me.  You may as well present an unlearned atheist's arguments on Catholic doctrine.

The third point is UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS.  If it were proven, it would be a scientific LAW and not a theory.  It is NOT akin to unprovable theories like evolution or relativity.  If you want to PROVE global warming, then PROVE it with substantial and reliable evidence.  Your simply TELLING me that it's scientific fact is about as convincing as misguided attempts to scientifically PROVE the existence of GOD.

Eyas wrote:
The second one I agree with, I think you misunderstood what I meant.  I know that CO2 is plentiful and that it has a somewhat strong radiative forcing effect.  What I meant was simply that it's not proven what amount of CO2 (given other radiative forcing agents and other variables) would be required globally to cause what amount of warming.

Let me make sure I understand you here. Are you saying that wile CO2 acts a greenhouse gas, there may be other, unknown, natural forcings that overwhelm the warming signal from the CO2, that would make the human contribution irrelevant?

The first one you depend on climate scientists who "believe" in global warming (BTW, not ALL do).  If you have an advanced degree in statistics, I will be glad to listen to your teaching - if not, relying on "Global Warmist" climatologists holds ZERO weight with me.  You may as well present an unlearned atheist's arguments on Catholic doctrine.

What you've just said here is that you'll only accept science from sources who do not accept global warming theory. This is ridiculous. In doing so you have dismissed offhand a very large portion of the scientific community. Global warmist climatologists (read: most climate scientists) are highly trained in statistical and analytical methods. If you they hold no weight with you, no one does.

The third point is UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS.  If it were proven, it would be a scientific LAW and not a theory.  It is NOT akin to unprovable theories like evolution or relativity.  If you want to PROVE global warming, then PROVE it with substantial and reliable evidence.  Your simply TELLING me that it's scientific fact is about as convincing as misguided attempts to scientifically PROVE the existence of GOD.

Proof is a property of mathematics, not science. To "prove" something in this context means to show that it is necessarily true. For example, if a=b and b=c then a necessarily equals c. This sort of proof is not to be found in science. To prove something in a scientific sense, as I said earlier, means to show that it is logical and consistent with the facts.


Also, a scientific law is not simply a theory that has been "proven" true. A scientific law is a formal statement describing a phenomenon and the conditions under which it occurs. It can usually be expressed in mathematical terms, such as Newton's law of universal gravitation (). 


No theory can ever become a law. A scientific theory is a model of how some part of the natural world works. It is a "thoroughly tested hypothesis". It can never be proven true in the mathematical sense. 

EnragedParrot wrote:Let me make sure I understand you here. Are you saying that wile CO2 acts a greenhouse gas, there may be other, unknown, natural forcings that overwhelm the warming signal from the CO2, that would make the human contribution irrelevant?

Yes! except that I would rely more on the many KNOWN natural forcings, in addition to the possibility that there are some as yet unknown factors.

I hate to break this to you, but "correlation is not causation".  This is a fundamental truth taught in nearly all statistics classes.

EnragedParrot wrote:What you've just said here is that you'll only accept science from sources who do not accept global warming theory. This is ridiculous. In doing so you have dismissed offhand a very large portion of the scientific community. Global warmist climatologists (read: most climate scientists) are highly trained in statistical and analytical methods. If you they hold no weight with you, no one does.

No, what I said was, If you can explain to me the statistics, I'll be ready to listen.  If an UNBIASED statistician explains it to me, I will listen.  

Also, I guess you didn't get the news: A recent study from 1993 -2003 found that, "of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category  (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no "consensus."

What I will NOT accept is an unqualified statement that the Earth has warmed 0.6^o C since 1850, when I know that the temperature data from early years are not reliable - UNLESS an unbiased Statistics Professor can explain to me how unreliable data can be made reliable.

The IPCC itself admits, though you have to dig for it, that their analysis has contains an error of +/-0.2^o C.  AND that "Annual values are approximately accurate to +/- 0.05°C (two standard errors) for the period
since 1951. They are about four times as uncertain during the 1850s, with the accuracy
improving gradually between 1860 and 1950 except for temporary deteriorations during
data-sparse, wartime intervals."

You're still convinced that a statistically reliable trends can be shown with 20 years of data, despite the statistical FACT that "shorter time series result in larger variabilities in the estimated trends."

EnragedParrot wrote:Proof is a property of mathematics, not science. To "prove" something in this context means to show that it is necessarily true. For example, if a=b and b=c then a necessarily equals c. This sort of proof is not to be found in science. To prove something in a scientific sense, as I said earlier, means to show that it is logical and consistent with the facts.

Something needs only be logical and consistent with the facts to be scientifically "proven".   Therefore, Global Warming is caused solely by variations in the intensity of Solar radiation.

Voila... PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT.

EnragedParrot wrote:
Climate scientists use a thirty year baseline to average anomalies. Since it has been established that this is sufficient to smooth out any natural variations. .

Um....natural variations are not smoothed out.  Natural and unnatural variation is the thing they are attempting to measure.  Furthermore, there is, as yet, no way to separate what amount of variation is natural and what amount is man-made.

EnragedParrot wrote:
So I think 27-40 is more than enough time to determine a trend.

Yes.  A trend can be shown in data for as few as three(3) years; but it will not be reliable as a predictor, or even statistically valid to show that temperatures have increased over anything more than those particular 3 years. It would be useless in terms of determining what temperatures have been over a longer period or whether temperatures are warmer or cooler than normal.  

Apparently you'd accept a trend over just three years.  Why not one month?  One week?  One afternoon?  The next fifteen minutes?

EnragedParrot wrote:
What we have with GW theory is a solid physical theory with mounds of observational and experimental data supporting it.

It is the statistical robustness of the observational data that is exactly what I question. And you've presented NOTHING that would answer to the specific issue that I raised.

EnragedParrot wrote:
The physical properties of CO2 can and have been directly measured in laboratory experiments.

Yes they have.

And so has the radiative forcing and atmospheric concentration of THE most potent greenhouse gas:  water vapor

And so has the radiative forcing of methane.

And of CFCs and the HFCs and other compounds which replaced CFCs - all of which do much less damage to stratospheric ozone - But are little different in their radiative forcing capacity which can be as much as ONE THOUSAND times more potent greenhouse gases than CO2

So is the effect of Particulate Matter on the greenhouse effect - it causes LESS solar energy to be absorbed in our atmosphere.  For the last 35 years we have been eliminating them to "clean" our air.

So is the effect of sulfur compounds in the atmosphere - they, too, allow LESS solar energy to be absorbed in our atmosphere.  For the last 35 years we have been eliminating sulfur to "clean" our air.

The measurement of Global CO2 concentrations takes place at ONE place and ONE place ONLY: the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii.  This was begun because Hawaii was considered one of the remotest places from BIASING LOCAL SOURCES of CO2.     The Problem: It is located 15 miles from the longest continuously erupting VOLCANO on the face of the planet.

EnragedParrot wrote:
The physics of the atmosphere are well understood

This is PATENTLY UNTRUE

EnragedParrot wrote:
and becoming more-so by the day as climate models become more and more reliable.

The computer climate models are widely acknowledged, even by Global Warmist Climatologists, to be THE WEAKEST part of the entire global warming evidence.

EnragedParrot wrote:
Our data records are becoming more and more complete.

This is exactly the problem that I'm trying to point out.  The problem is that however much better our data is today - we cannot improve the data from 1850 to the 1930s (unless you own a time machine); And the evidence of warming is just as dependent upon this crappy data as it is upon better modern data.


THAT'S MY POINT.

EnragedParrot wrote:
And each advancement made seems only to strengthen the theory.

This is also Patently Untrue.  Satellite measurements - which more fully encompass the entire globe than ANY number of ground thermometer readings - have shown COOLING at the same time that IPCC has claimed warming from it's piecemeal data.

EnragedParrot wrote:
One has only to look through the latest IPCC report to see this.

I have used - this whole time - NOTHING EXCEPT IPCC data.

I have used the data actually buried deep within the report, whereas YOU appear to only have read the Executive Summary - WHICH IS WRITTEN NOT BY SCIENTISTS, BUT BY POLITICIANS, EVEN BEFORE THE SCIENCE IS COMPLETED.

EnragedParrot wrote:
to prove a theory in the scientific sense requires only that you show the theory to be logical and consistent with the facts. So for all intents and purposes, global warming theory can be considered proven science.

[/quote]

This is absurd, given your statement that "proof" applies to math, but "PROOF" DOES NOT APPLY TO SCIENCE.
That's just jackassery.


To prove a scientific theory you need to show that the theory is consistent with ALL of the facts.  It must also EXCLUDE other reasonable explanations.


Again, it is the statistical robustness of the observational data that is exactly what I question. And you've presented NOTHING that would answer to the specific issues that I raised.

I'm done & will not be returning to this topic.

That is all.

Eyas wrote:

Yes! except that I would rely more on the many KNOWN natural forcings, in addition to the possibility that there are some as yet unknown factors.

How is it then, that climate models that include only natural forcings do not match the observed data? It is only when both natural and anthropogenic forcings are included that the models match reality.

I hate to break this to you, but "correlation is not causation". This is a fundamental truth taught in nearly all statistics classes.

No worries. I already knew that. As does every other GW theory proponent on the planet.

No, what I said was, If you can explain to me the statistics, I'll be ready to listen. If an UNBIASED statistician explains it to me, I will listen.

What I will NOT accept is an unqualified statement that the Earth has warmed 0.6o C since 1850, when I know that the temperature data from early years are not reliable - UNLESS an unbiased Statistics Professor can explain to me how unreliable data can be made reliable.

What is your definition of an "unbiased" statistician? And why would you expect a statistician to understand climate science better than climate scientists? It is also worth mentioned that a very large portion of climate science consists of statistical analysis. In a sense, most climate scientists are statisticians.

Also, what do you mean by "unreliable" data? The data is perfectly reliable. That our records aren't complete does not render the data useless. There is no such thing as perfect data, so scientists have developed methods of weighting data to reflect any uncertainty in it.

You're still convinced that a statistically reliable trends can be shown with 20 years of data, despite the statistical FACT that "shorter time series result in larger variabilities in the estimated trends."

No, I'm still convinced that statistically valid trends can be determined with over a century's worth of data. You forget that the direct surface temperature record isn't the only indicator of global temperature changes. Rising seas, melting glaciers, and changing precipitation patters all strongly suggest a changing climate as well.

Also, I guess you didn't get the news: A recent study from 1993 -2003 found that, "of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

I did get the news. It doesn't mean anything though. very few scientific papers ever state their position on an issue. I'm actually surprised such a small percentage were neutral.

Also of note is that the paper was published in Energy and Environment, a journal known for publishing substandard papers. (Not that that really tells us anything).

Something needs only be logical and consistent with the facts to be scientifically "proven". Therefore, Global Warming is caused solely by variations in the intensity of Solar radiation.

Voila... PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT.

[/quote]

The claim that variations in solar irradiance can and have affected climate is perfectly valid. However, to claim that the current warming is caused by solar variations is invalid because it does not fit with observed facts. Thus, it is not a proven scientific theory.