[ExI] climategate again

[Alfio Puglisi]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> You don't get a 0.98 correlation
> between the results of complex, non-trivial transformations of data
>
> We only know that somehow the
> output they got was almost perfectly correlated with GISS but we do
> not know how this unusual effect was achieved. Certainly, it could not
> have been achieved by independent processing of available data.
>

When you analyze data that is measuring the same thing (surface
temperature), and mostly the same temperature stations, it's easy to get the
same results.




> ------------------
> > I am no professional of the field, just have a basic understanding of
> > physics. I base my position on several things:
> >
> > 1) temperature is not the only relevant data. We have widespread glacier
> > retreat, sea level rise, arctic sea ice loss.
>
> ### Glacier retreat started long before CO2 started going up. Arctic
> ice loss : see here
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/
> ,
>

What's that? An analysis of re-freezing speed after sea ice minimums? What
does it mean? The author doesn't come to any conclusion.
This picture of tells you what happened in the last 30 arctic summers:

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png




> the sea level has been going up for 13 000 years until very recently
> (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sea_level_temp_1Please don't
> post40ky.gif <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif>),
> then
> dropped, now increased 8 inches in a linear fashion since 1880. What
> do you think does all this have to do with CO2?
>

Well, what's causing the rise since 1880? Your "very recently" is actually
7,000 years ago.
You can't see it clearly in your graph, because it's too compressed. Try
these two for a better picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png

So, what has thrown out a balance that has lasted for 7,000 years?



## And which global warming do you

> mean - the one in 1934? 1880? 1998? The planet has been warming and
> cooling all the time, out of step with CO2, which is the important
> issue here.
>

Out of step? This is not the case, and it's very easy to show: you can plot
the two curves almost one over the other, like in the first graph of this
page:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html



> ------------------------
> >
> > 2) basic physics tells us that Earth's energy budget must balance. We can
> > easily measure the input (solar), and verify that it's approximately
> > constant. Since we are changing the properties of the output (greenhouse
> > gases will redirect part of the outgoing radiation downward), internal
> > temperature must rise to compensate. It's about as inevitable as putting
> a
> > coat on, and feeling warmer.
>
> ### No, Alfio, the Earth is not "basic physics", and it does not have
> to obey your notions. You need to read up on aerosols, water vapor,
> cloud cover and a lot of other things before you can say what the
> Earth "must" do.
>

If you want to falsify conservation of energy, let me know when you make
some progress.



> >
> > 3) Attribution: there is now 30% more CO2 than before industrial times.
> We
> > know CO2 greenhouse gas properties. Any conjecture that rejects global
> > warming must show where the extra energy trapped by CO2 went. And it's no
> > easy task.
> >
> ### No, all we need to show is the poor correlation between recent CO2
> rise and global temperatures, and this has been shown very clearly.
>

The graph I linked above from skepticalscience.com will show the "poor
correlation" in the proper context.

If you prefer numerical results, you will be pleased to know that
correlation between CO2 and temperature is something like 0.87.
Here is a simple demonstration using linear regression:
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html



> Rafal
>

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091202/5f9759eb/attachment.html>