Oh for crying out loud. Go look at the most recent Scafetta papers which use a 30 year time scale for the correlations, and then look at the backcasted estimates. Then make your wager.
David. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > > One out of every 20 time series show spurious correlation at the 95% > significance level ( and even more if you let me choose how to adjust, > smooth, truncate, or detrend the data). > > Causal mechanisms leading to successful prediction are the hallmark of > science. > > Correlations are good motivators to look for causal explanation but > correlation should not be confused for causality. > > Who would like to wager that the correlation that Eugene comes up with > will not depend on detrending, smoothing, truncation of data, or some > other manipulation to acheive it's purported statistical significance? > > Sent from a limited typing keyboard > > On Jun 29, 2009, at 4:56, Margaret Leinen <[email protected] > > wrote: > > > Eugene, Can you provide reference(s) for the sunspot work: "the > > strong > > influence of sunspots has been clearly shown over the last 4 warming/ > > cooling > > cycles, and there are thousands of similar cycles shown in the proxy > > record > > but no sunspot data to go with it. So the best data and perfect > > correlation > > for 4 events we have is sunspots." -- especially for the perfect > > correlation. You may have done this in earlier posts as I know that > > you > > have mentioned it before, but I have not been able to find a > > reference in > > your earlier contributions. Margaret > > -- > > Margaret Leinen, PhD. > > Climate Response Fund > > 119 S. Columbus Street > > Alexandria, VA 22314 > > 202-415-6545 > > > > > > > >> From: "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> > >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:06:34 -0400 > >> To: <[email protected]>, 'Ken Caldeira' > >> <[email protected]>, 'Dan Whaley' < > [email protected] > >> > > >> Cc: 'Geoengineering' <[email protected]> > >> Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism > >> > >> Mike, what do you plan to explain and teach? What is known for sure? > >> Certainly CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is causing some global > >> warming > >> based on reasonable hypothesis, BUT HOW MUCH? And if you produce a > >> big > >> number or high percentage then you are as bad as the deniers. The > >> honest > >> position is that everything we think we know about climate science, > >> none of > >> which has been subject to rigorous test, suggests that CO2 plays a > >> role and > >> is causing some of the warming but not all because the strong > >> influence of > >> sunspots has been clearly shown over the last 4 warming/cooling > >> cycles, and > >> there are thousands of similar cycles shown in the proxy record but > >> no > >> sunspot data to go with it. So the best data and perfect > >> correlation for 4 > >> events we have is sunspots. The best qualitative science we have is > >> greenhouse effects, There are other cloud, ocean current effects, > >> etc. etc. > >> > >> If you simply take the opposing position you are as bad as the > >> deniers. Take > >> the position that the science is not well established, it is > >> qualitative, > >> and we simply do not know enough to be quantitative. However the > >> proxy > >> record of 540 million years says it will get warmer and in the not > >> too > >> distant future we will need to control the temperature EVEN IF WE > >> STOP > >> INPUTTING ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 TOMORROW. > >> > >> Knee jerk reactions are not useful. > >> > >> -gene > >> > >> _____ > >> > >> From: [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken > >> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:17 AM > >> To: Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley > >> Cc: Geoengineering > >> Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism > >> > >> > >> Ken, et al.---It takes a bit of patience, but we simply have to > >> address > >> these types of claims. I have offered comments on a couple of > >> these. See: > >> > >> > http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_critique > >> _of_robinson_etal/ > >> > >> > http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_on_lindz > >> en/ > >> > >> MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. > >> Karl, 2003: > >> Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, > >> Bulletin of the > >> American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723. > >> > >> MacCracken, M. C., 2003: Uncertainties: How little do we really > >> understand, > >> pp. 63-70 in Bridging the Gap Between Science and Society: The > >> Relationship > >> Between Policy and Research in National Laboratories, Universities, > >> Government, and Industry, November 1-2, 2003, Rice University, > >> Houston TX, > >> 287 pp. > >> > >> And realclimate.org does a lot of clearing up of things. Plus then > >> there is > >> the Santer et al. article on Douglass et al. and lost of others as > >> well. It > >> takes time (and time away from real research) and is frustrating at > >> times, > >> but simply has to be done. I am very surprised that there was now a > >> response > >> trying to address the concerns (especially with Tom Wigley and Barrie > >> Pittock being in Australia and being real slayers of myths, etc.). > >> > >> But old criticisms keep popping up (and I mean really old ones, > >> like that > >> there can be no CO2 effect because the bands are saturated-a myth > >> explained > >> by Arrenihius and clearly demonstrated in Manabe's modeling of over > >> 40 years > >> ago-but up comes the myth again, and again, and again. > >> > >> We just have to keep explaining in clearer and clearer ways, not > >> reverting > >> to the authority or numbers doing the IPCC reports types of > >> arguments. > >> Explain, teach, explain. > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >> > >> On 6/28/09 4:35 AM, "Ken Caldeira" < > [email protected] > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> That something like this would be published in The Wall Street > >> Journal > >> indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that it is > >> what you > >> believe that counts, not empirical confrontation with experience. > >> > >> Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but > >> is now > >> drowning in a sea of medievalism. > >> > >> Reality has become just another special interest group. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html#printMode > >> > >> The Climate Change Climate Change > >> The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere. > >> > >> By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL > >> > >> Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure > >> him > >> on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration > >> proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change > >> legislation. > >> > >> If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member > >> of > >> the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares > >> to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing > >> to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing > >> number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again > >> doubt the science of human-caused global warming. > >> [POTOMAC WATCH] Associated Press > >> > >> Steve Fielding > >> > >> Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic > >> majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system > >> through Congress is because the global warming tide is again > >> shifting. > >> It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the > >> media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who > >> disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the > >> scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan > >> and > >> even, if less reported, the U.S. > >> > >> In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document > >> challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where > >> President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of > >> the population believes humans play a role. In France, President > >> Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new > >> ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was > >> among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the > >> geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new > >> government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap- > >> and-trade program. > >> > >> The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma > >> Sen. > >> Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the > >> U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate > >> summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to > >> receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement > >> last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her > >> nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical > >> chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made > >> warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar > >> Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new > >> religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will > >> Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its > >> position > >> that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have > >> refused to run the physicists' open letter.) > >> > >> The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The > >> inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined > >> since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed > >> research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, > >> hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial > >> crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would > >> require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon. > >> > >> Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. > >> Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he > >> published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" > >> underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its > >> fifth > >> printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian > >> columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly > >> pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, > >> including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and > >> beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have > >> shown a > >> sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning > >> scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day. > >> > >> The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, > >> elected > >> like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting > >> his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to > >> delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to > >> get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so > >> easily swayed. > >> > >> Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the > >> renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., > >> attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate > >> skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special > >> assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the > >> Obama > >> team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't. > >> > >> This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for > >> the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green > >> science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament > >> breaks for the winter. > >> > >> Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to > >> the > >> cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in > >> light > >> of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through > >> her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about > >> the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any > >> indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage > >> on > >> the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone. > >> > >> Write to [email protected] > >> > >> > >> ----- > >> > >> Much of the detail quoted in the article comes from a 250 page report > >> posted by the senate minority... > >> > >> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View > >> < > http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8 > >> 3947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9> > >> &FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
