Sometime back there was quite a literature about sunspot correlations with economic activity So far as I recollect, its intent was to warn about infering causality from correlation I used to ask my students whether the clouds were hurrying by because the trees were tickling their tummies ? or was it just that the trees were waving goodbye to the passing clouds ? Sometimes they got the point Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> To: "Margaret Leinen" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Mike MacCracken" <[email protected]>; "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]>; "Dan Whaley" <[email protected]>; "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 7:11 PM Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
> > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.93/2205 - Release Date: 06/27/09 05:53:00 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
