Gene, You never responded to Margaret's question (or perhaps I missed it).
Tom. +++++++++++++++++++ Eugene I. Gordon wrote: > This is all very interesting but we all know that correlation doesn't infer > but does suggest causality. It should be sensible. However, do we forget > global warming and anthropogenic CO2 as simply an interesting correlation? > If there is some technical sense to the correlation it takes on a higher > significance. It is also true that the Maunder Minimum was a prolonged > period of no sunspots and apparently led to what turned out to be a > disastrous prolonged cooling. That was a particularly significant > correlation. There were also shorter correlations in about 1850 and 1960 and > current. I think the correlation has been perfect for a very limited number > of events for which there is data. > > It is also true that global warmings and coolings have been recorded for > hundreds of thousands of years in ice core data and also in pacific mud > deposits. The core record is similar to the temperature change record of the > last 1000 years. Since the related CO2 data trails the temperature; > something else has got to be going on and sunspots are as good a possibility > as anything I know. > > What I find so strange is that I would expect that such a strong correlation > would lead to a strong research activity to see if the causal aspects could > be established. I am not aware of such research except maybe some in Denmark > on clouds. That tells me that truth, understanding and science are not the > issue. It can tell you whatever you like. To each his own. > > For my taste sunspots are important. > > -gene > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Read [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Read > Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:46 AM > To: Ken Caldeira; Margaret Leinen > Cc: Eugene I. Gordon; Mike MacCracken; Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley; > Geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism > > 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&FileSt >>>> ore_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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
