Jul 29, 2008 at 11:22 am #1444997Christopher ChupkaMember
That is one of the funniest things I have seen in a long time.Jul 29, 2008 at 12:43 pm #1445006W I S N E R !BPL Member
I love it!!!!
Great post Dean…Jul 30, 2008 at 11:37 pm #1445224Michael GardnerMember
ARRRRGH!!Aug 10, 2008 at 3:14 am #1446479
>Oh, bull$hit, Rog! :-) You engage in character assassination every time you endorse Scenario A: baselessly calling 90% of the world's climate scientists dishonest liars.
Can you point to any post I've made in this entire 9 page thread where I have 'endorsed' the straw man scenario you colorfully paint? – No.
Quite a few pages ago, you cited Mann et al 1998 and their dodgy bristlecone studies as support for his infamous 'hockey stick' graph which did so much to get the world in a panic over warming.
Then, without any prompting from me, you said that Mann et al had detractors such as Steve Macintyre and Ross McKittrick 2005C who showed that Mann's statistical techniques were wrong and the hockey stick could not be supported. You then said that M&M had in turn been 'debunked' by Ammann and Wahl 2005.
Now it turns out that Amman and Wahl have been engaging in what can only be described as a fraudulent deception. Or perhaps it's just gross incompetence. Their paper relied on 'supplimentary information' and it has taken three years of persistence on the part of Steve Macintyre to force it's publication. It reveals the unsupportable statistical methods by which Amman and Wahl kept the Mann et al fallacy alive.
And so another key support has been pulled from under the AGW house of cards.
We discussed diffent smoothing methods for graphs some pages ago and you agreed that the poster who put up that graph readily admitted it's shortcomings (not that the AGW camp don't do their own cherrypicking). The way you have dispensed with the context and brought it up again here smacks of grandstanding for those who have not read the rest of the thread. This is pretty typical of the way AGW protagonists try to rubbish people who disagree with them. It's tedious and I won't bother responding to more of it.
Here's another graph of the last 10 years, including Mauna Loa Co2 data. The temperature has been flat for a decade and is currently falling.
Atmospheric Co2 is levelling out in response.Aug 12, 2008 at 4:21 pm #1446826
"Can you point to any post I've made in this entire 9 page thread where I have 'endorsed' the straw man scenario you colorfully paint?"
Uh, yes. I recall at least three references in this thread, and one in the industrialized civilization thread. Here's one from the first page:
“Very few climatologists are in the pay of oil companies, compared with the estimated 3.2 billion dollar global warming gravy train funding the research of the 'pro global warming camp'. If you want a research grant these days in climatology, you have to pay lip service to the 'truth' of global warming or be left out in the cold.”
I will not allow you the victory of wasting my time by hunting for them all to quote them to you. Nor will I point out all of your references to the "agenda" or "official storyline," etc.
"The way you have dispensed with the context and brought it up again here smacks of grandstanding"
Hilarious hypocrisy coming from the man who keeps bringing up Al Gore and the IPCC out of context so that he can rant for a while. :-)
You sort of prove a couple of my points with your graph, though. First, no one has stated that CO2 is the ONLY factor affecting global climate. So, if other factors are forcing cooling the temperature average may level or dip. Let's see what your graph looks like in another decade. I’m surprised that you need to be taught this basic point. :-) Second, your graph starts in 1998. The classic cherry-pick. Again. Right after I pointed out how flawed the technique is. Thus all the flat-ish regression lines on your graph. Also, the vertical axis covers all of, what, 5 degrees centigrade? Such a wide scale on a graph covering only a decade makes everything look more flat to someone who doesn’t know better.
Anyway, I know that you are going to keep posting such stuff alongside your "empirical examples", but you aren't going to fool people like me and skots.
I'm in the middle of studying for my boards, so I will defer looking up the hockeystick buffoonery for the nonce. But "gross deception"? Shall we discuss Patrick Michaels and his intentional misrepresentation of Hanson's data during his 1998 congressional testimony? Now THAT'S gross deception. Then Michael Crichton ran with it:
Hmm. I always thought he was a damned poor science fiction writer, anyway.
Later, Rog. Big hug.
P.S. If we ever do meet face to face, be it in some pub or at Mont Blanc, we have to have a gentlemen's agreement about NOT bringing up climate change. Or at least not until we're both thoroughly p1ssed. Okay?
P.P.S. I am TRULY willing to let the debate rest until we can check more data in 2018. Just don't call me out by name next time! :-)
P.P.P.S. Since I started this damned thread, is there a way for me to CLOSE it? Please! Some moderator! Close it!Aug 12, 2008 at 5:41 pm #1446838George MatthewsBPL Member
The Dog Days Of Summer in Virginia?
High 88 (104 2007)
Low 65 (57 2002)
High 87 (101 1930)
Low 64 (57 1975)
High 89 (100 1900)
Low 66 (58 2002)
High 83 (102 1900)
Low 63 (54 1974)
Last Friday through Monday have been absolutely wonderful days this year.
Cool mornings. Sunny, warm days. Cool nights.
I could walk for miles and miles and miles.
The original words for historical context…
Oh! Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny
(The Virginia Minstrels, No. 14)
On de floating scow ob ole Virginny,
I've worked from day to day,
Raking among de oyster beds,
To me it was but play;
But now I'm old and feeble,
An' my bones are getting sore,
Den carry me back to ole Virginny
To ole Virginny shore.
Den carry me back to ole Virginny
To ole Virginny shore,
Oh, carry me back to ole Virginny,
To ole Virginny shore.
Oh, I wish dat I was young again,
Den I'd lead a different life,
I'd save my money and buy a farm,
And take Dinah for my wife;
But now old age, he holds me tight,
And I cannot love any more,
Oh, carry me back to ole Virginny,
To ole Virginny shore.
When I am dead and gone to roost,
Lay de old tambo by my side,
Let de possum and coon to my funeral go,
For dey are my only pride;
Den in soft repose, I'll take my sleep,
An' I'll dream for ever more,
Dat you're carrying me back to ole Virginny,
To ole Virginny shore.
Explanation in case you
miss the train I'm onAug 13, 2008 at 4:26 am #1446891
>no one has stated that CO2 is the ONLY factor affecting global climate. So, if other factors are forcing cooling the temperature average may level or dip.
Lol. So you're admitting Co2 isn't as strong a climate forcing as 'other factors'. Yet the IPCC (Who you hold up as the primary authority on matters climatic) don't even include these 'other factors' in their AR4 report.
So we can safely disregard the "95% certainty" they have about manmade co2 being the cause of climate change then.
Lets remember at this point that co2 makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere, and mans contributioon to the 0.038% is much smaller. And that the atmosphere is several orders of magnitude lighter than the oceans, which absorb the heat from the sun the atmosphere so readily gives up to space.
The real big climate forcing factors are the sun, the water vapour, the clouds, and the oceans. Co2 is a red herring latched onto by policy makers so they can tax the a&se off us for taking cheap flights to climb in the alps.
>I know that you are going to keep posting such stuff alongside your "empirical examples", but you aren't going to fool people like me and skots.
I'm not trying to fool you, I'm trying, with gradual success, to get you to see that co2 is a relatively unimportant gas in the climatic system.
>Thus all the flat-ish regression lines on your graph. Also, the vertical axis covers all of, what, 5 degrees centigrade?
A horizontal line looks horizontal no matter what vertical scale you use. What happened to global warming? 5C represents around a third of the range the earth sits within on long term historical and geological scales.
Now we know the 'runaway exponentially increasing co2 scenario' is a load of hogwash, there really insn't anything much to see here, apart from the interest of looking at how the climate ticks.Aug 14, 2008 at 3:28 pm #1447131
Decade has had fewest 90-degree days since 1930
By Tom Skilling
August 13, 2008
August is the wettest and often the muggiest month of the year. Yet, summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century's opening decade. There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That's by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.
This summer's highest reading to date has been just 91 degrees. That's unusual. Since 1928, only one year—2000—has failed to record a higher warm-season temperature by Aug. 13.Aug 17, 2008 at 3:02 am #1447387
"Lol. So you're admitting Co2 isn't as strong a climate forcing as 'other factors'. Yet the IPCC (Who you hold up as the primary authority on matters climatic) don't even include these 'other factors' in their AR4 report."
Rog, you are truly starting to offend me with the way you misrepresent what I have said. No kidding. Pardon me for calling a spade a spade, but you are being annoying. Don't try to claim that you were just trying to get my goat again, either.
Show me where I have held up the IPCC as my primary authority. Hmm? Where? I showed you where you had endorsed Scenario A, after all, despite your denials. (I know, I know- deny it enough and people will believe you.)
YOU, Rog, keep bringing up the IPCC, apparently because it is your little pet target, and you love to rant about it. So stop blaming me for bringing it up. I have been avoiding discussing the IPCC to date because I get greater gratification from discussing primary sources. But since YOU did bring it up, I will note that the IPCC reports are possibly the most intensively peer-reviewed scientific documents in existence and your insistence that it is some mechanism of deception on the part of governments is puerile conspiracy-ism. The reports are full of equivocations that try to express the scientific uncertainty in their findings. The reports use plain language such as "probably" and "almost certainly" so that it is readable by non-scientists, but they do define those terms as approximate percentages for anyone who cares to look it up. (See page 27 of the AR4 report.) The report specifically points out climate variables that HAVEN'T changed. These compare very favorably with the theology-like certainty presented by your skeptic camp, as well as seeming much more scientific. The skeptics, after all, seem to start with a conclusion then try to find random bits of data to support it.
But I understand why you must attack the IPCC report. It is, after all, very damning against your position.
On the subject of scientific uncertainty, I would like to point out for other readers a common political strategy- Those who wish to undermine the strength of global warming theory often try to present any scientific finding in which there is uncertainty as fatally flawed. This is not true. ALL scientific findings deal with uncertainty. There is uncertainty involved in merely taking a measurement! However, the skeptics present such uncertainty as overwhelming, which it is not. Political forces then try to appear rational and fair by "encouraging discussion" in which both scientists and skeptics are misleadingly given equal weight. They then present a picture of a lack of scientific consensus, based upon their artificially produced appearance of discord in the scientific community. Obviously, this is a successful political strategy. (Because, Lord knows, their scientific strategy sucks…)
In fact, scientific consensus about this issue is staggering, and any lack of consensus is absolutely blown out of proportion by people like Rog who, you will note, still can't name a reputable scientific organization that will back him. :-) If there was really any huge discord or lack of consensus, he would produce such an organization. Instead, the best he can do is rant about some sort of scientific conspiracy to get grant money. Amusing.
My "admission" that other factors force climate is old hat, Rog. I have said several times that CO2 isn't the only factor forcing climate. Yes, to reassure you, the Earth gets a lot of it's heat from the sun. WOW! Run with that admission, Rog. Milk it for all you can get! But there is no solar activity that is covariant with current climate warming, so your solar arguments are very weak. On the other hand, CO2 is covariant with warming. Greenhouse gasses DO have an effect no matter how much you try to trivialize or dismiss them, they are significant, and human activity is affecting them. I reiterate my 10-year challenge. How much do you want to bet? Pick a figure, Rog! I'm happy to take your money. (Put it in Euros, please. The dollar sucks, currently…)
"A horizontal line looks horizontal no matter what vertical scale you use"
True. And a non-horizontal line, like the one you presented, WILL look horizontal if you choose a large enough scale. (Or start it in a carefully selected spot, like 1998).) Your scale is huge and starts in 1998, and thus makes that non-horizontal line look horizontal. It is thus misleading. QED.
You just keep bleating your same weak arguments and trying, as you have essentially admitted, to present empiricism as fact.
And the TRUTH, despite your declarations to the contrary, is that the IPCC does mention other climate forcings in their most recent consensus statement. See chapter 2, specifically section 2.4:
Much of the chapter dwells on CO2 and other GHGs, since the paper is about climate CHANGE and they need to discuss it in depth to support their conclusion, but it also mentions cloud albedo, solar irradiance, etc. Specifically, figure 2.4. You could argue that figure 2.5 deals with this subject as well, by way of showing that models of only natural forcings do not explain current warming.
So, has your check from Exxon arrived yet?Aug 17, 2008 at 6:06 am #1447392
> Show me where I have held up the IPCC as my primary authority. Hmm? Where?
Every time you have made the argument from authority. You have frequently cited the 'vast number of the worlds scientists' whose work is cited by the IPCC in their reports. You frequently cite the august organuisations who support the position of the IPCC.
> I will note that the IPCC reports are possibly the most intensively peer-reviewed scientific documents in existence
You are exactly wrong Dean. The IPCC reports have not been through any peer review process. They are the result of the work of 67 lead authors, only 5 of whom are independent, and the final editing was not done by scientists at all, but by policy makers. They are not peer reviewed by anyone.
> The reports use plain language such as "probably" and "almost certainly" so that it is readable by non-scientists, but they do define those terms as approximate percentages for anyone who cares to look it up.
This is the whole point Dean. The IPCC tries to sound like it's 'almost certain' that man made co2 is about to fry us all, and gives us a figure of '95% certainty' that the man made co2 is responsible for around 1.7 watts/m^2 of extra heat on the planetary surface. The problem is they either disregard or don't include or admit a 'low level of scientific understanding' of the very factors which are now overcoming the dreaded co2 and causing the earth's temperature to fall while the output of co2 from man made sources continiues to escalate.
>But there is no solar activity that is covariant with current climate warming
Indeed. At the moment the lack of solar activity is covariant with a currently dropping temperature. ;-)
> On the other hand, CO2 is covariant with warming.
The graph above shows not. Co2 is increasing while temperatures are falling. On decadal timescales over the C20th co2 output is reasonably covariant with temperature, but always lagging behind, which shows it to be an effect, not a cause of warming. This point is reinforced by the fact that the rate of increase of atmospheric co2 has started to level out five years after the global temperature stopped increasing at the rate it had been 1900-2000 ten years ago and levelled out on the average for the last ten years.
> So, has your check from Exxon arrived yet?
Oh dear, they must have not noticed my debunking of the co2-warming myth. But then, there are thousands of reasonably intelligent individuals like myself out there, who are willing to use logic and reason to assess the truth of things, rather than relying on the authority of organisations with agendas driven by funding imperatives .
> I reiterate my 10-year challenge. How much do you want to bet?
Blimey, I missed this. You bet I want a bet. What are the terms you propose?Aug 17, 2008 at 6:59 am #1447395mark henleyMember
Thanks …… keep up the great debunking …. there are a lot of us out here that see the truth.
I mean … has there been an explosion of Phytoplankton that I don't know about?
I remember quite clearly during the 70's when the exact same data was being used to claim that we were going into another ice age.Aug 25, 2008 at 12:13 pm #1448466
Sorry for my tardiness, Rog. I was out having a life for a change. And, I'm about to have a life for a few more weeks, shortly.
> "Every time you have made the argument from authority. You have frequently cited the 'vast number of the worlds scientists' whose work is cited by the IPCC in their reports."
True. The vast majority of world scientists agree with the IPCC. I'm proud of you for finally making the admission that you are in a fringe minority, Rog. ;-)
> "They are the result of the work of 67 lead authors, only 5 of whom are independent, and the final editing was not done by scientists at all, but by policy makers. They are not peer reviewed by anyone."
I'm curious about what you mean by 'independent.' If you mean climatologists who do not work for some government agency or academic institution, I would say that you would be hard-pressed to find many, and that 5% is probably representative. The report was based on all peer-reviewed literature. Further, it was peer reviewed by the HUNDREDS of scientific bodies that endorsed it.
Non-scientists edited the *synthesis report* to keep it readable by non-scientists. Read the full text, Rog.
> "The IPCC tries to sound like it's 'almost certain' that man made co2 is about to fry us all,"
This merely proves to me that you haven't actually read the statement- not surprising, actually, since most true believers never bother to read the things that they rant against. If anything, I would bet that you have read only the synthesis report. But even then, that is simply not what the synthesis report says. What the synthesis report says is "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations." (Recall that 'very likely' means >90% certainty.) The full text of the report discussed possible effects of increasing warming, as is only appropriate, but nobody discusses 'frying' anything. And EVERY STEP of the way they discuss probability. Probability is the language of science, Rog. You cannot escape it, despite your fondness for fiat pronouncements. :-) But again, most importantly, you should read the full text, not just the synthesis report. The 'Physical Sciences Basis' alone is 940 pages.
And YOU are again using the argument that if anything other than CO2 affects temperatures, then CO2 does not affect temperatures. That is a spurious argument. Other forcings exist, and are very likely (get it? :-) causing the statistically inconsequential shallower rise in HadCRUT that you are so obsessed with.
Just like I said.
And when these other forcings average out shortly, temperatures will resume the same steeper CO2-forced rise.
> "The graph above shows not."
The graph above is a misleading piece of crap, Rog. It tries to make much of what is a short-term trend that is absolutely dwarfed by the long-term reality. And, it is a short-term trend that is exaggerated by the dishonest practice of trending temperatures from 1998. End of story. Not much more to say.
> "…relying on the authority of organisations [sic] with agendas driven by funding imperatives."
Such as Exxon?
I am just so very amused every time you mention financial incentives in climate debate. It's a losing argument, Rog. I reiterate that you look ridiculous when you do it. You really need to stop honking that horn. :-)
> "You bet I want a bet. What are the terms you propose?"
Tough one. How do we decide who wins? You have repeatedly demonstrated that you think you are smarter than 95% of climatologists, so we cannot just see what the consensus is in 10 years, can we? And if I post the data showing the temperature rise ten years hence, you will just produce cherry-picked data concerning cooling trends in Outer Mongolian produce refrigerators in 2016 or some such, and claim victory. :-) Hmm. I'll have to ponder this one and get back to you.
I may be a while…
But in all honesty, it is impossible to debate with someone who won't face facts, so I've only been playing around on this thread for a while now. And, to be honest, goading you. But, what the heck- everybody needs a hobby, right?
Enjoy the warm Leeds weather, Rog. Pick up a good local vintage! :-)Aug 26, 2008 at 1:58 pm #1448639
Come on Dean,
you claim that you offered a wager (though I never saw it in any of your posts), now it's time to show it's not a case of "all mouth and no trousers".
It's easy. If after an agreed time period, the global average temperature according to a majority of the accepted indices is higher than the 2005 peak you win. If it's lower, I win. This should be acceptable to you. After all, you are the one who keeps banging on about the longterm upward trend in temperatures and saying the 18 month old downturn is just a blip. ;-)
How much do you want to bet?
What timescale do you want to run it over?Aug 27, 2008 at 5:53 pm #1448879George MatthewsBPL Member
Bet a hundred (bet a hundred) bet a thousand (BET A STACK)
Bet a million (put yo' money where yo' mouth is)
Bet a hundred (bet a hundred) bet a thousand (BET A STACK)
Bet a million (put yo' money where yo' mouth is)Sep 15, 2008 at 4:34 am #1451160
Oh, boy, it's GREAT to be back. Rog, I was out having a life, and it was GREAT! I'll tell you all about it over that pint, someday…
Well, which indices would you propose? My concern is that in 10 years you'll whip out some aberrent cherry-picked southern hemisphere data and claim it as an "accepted index."
And we can't just pick a date and say that if the average is greater than 2005, etc., etc., because, for reasons that I have exhaustively expounded upon, comparing any two years is pretty meaningless. (Being, as it is, a comparison more of weather than of climate.) If our end year has a good sized volcanic eruption then you will win even if average temperatures are otherwise way up.
So, we COULD say something like "if a regression line from 2005 to 2020 (to pick round numbers) is sloping up, then Dean wins," but the problem with THAT is that you will pull out some odd regression anaylsis that twists the data. It is probably even problematic to specify the regression beforehand, because any single technique will have possible errors, but this is probably our best option.
And you would have to foreswear claiming that the data doesn't count because it is caused by sunspots/aliens/Atlantis or whatever. Actually, darn, that's a tough one, isn't it? What if some other temporary forcing pops up? For instance, though it is unlikely, what if solar activity spikes? Likewise the megavolcano thing. Would that invalidate the bet? Hmm.
I suppose that there should be an escape clause for meteor impacts, nuclear winters, the sun going nova, etc. Actually, no, I take that back- if the world starts sprouting mushroom clouds I will immediately post you the check. :-)
So first, name some indices and date ranges BEFOREHAND, and if we can agree on the regression, well, game on! We should make the number of indices odd, so that there cannot be a tie. GISS and HadCRUT global averages and… what? Or did you have something else in mind? And what are your thoughts on accounting for other forcings? Or do you want to just keep it strictly about temperature averages? (If you do, I'll have to look into other forcings for a bit before I can take a bet covering such a short period of time.) What do we do if one of the index organizations stops collecting data, or collects it in a new way?
Oh, and, name a figure. So I can start planning my purchases… :-)
I propose we bet at least $1000, which is, what, about 8 Euro? Perhaps 6 guineas? :-) A guinea is 1₤ 5d, right? The poor dollar isn't doing very well nowadays… Could we agree on a judge to hold the money? Or even just agree on a judge? It'll be hard to find a neutral party that we both trust with 2 large. And, what if he dies? I would propose my scrupulously honest engineering roommate from college, but I doubt that you would trust him.
And, since neither one of us knows what our financial situation is going to be like a decade or more from now, if you want to keep it a gentlemen's bet of $1, or a pint, or whatever, I'll concur.
Frankly, I'm all for ANYTHING that will result in this thread's death, at this point. You HAVE to PROMISE me that once the bet is made we will both walk away from this thread, Rog. Seriously. No "empirical examples"- nothing!
I'll be working on my proposals for the bet. Talk to you later…Sep 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm #1451191
Ok Dean, whenever you are ready.
All 4 of the major indices: Giss, HadCrut, UAH and RSS are averaged by http://www.woodfortrees.org which would keep it simple. Still, I guess there's no guarantee the site will still be there in the distant future you envisage for the bet deadline.
I'm not surprised you wish this thread would die, all the evidence is going against the grossly wrong assumptions made by the warmista, and the chickens are flying south to roost in what's left of the warmth.
I'll be posting more anecdotes, fascinating facts, and contrary scientific evidence as I fancy, so if not doing so is a condition of your bet, forget it. :-)
Here's the latest graph.Sep 15, 2008 at 7:00 pm #1451228s kMember
I hope things are going well on the Isle of Fantasy!
>I'll be posting more anecdotes, fascinating facts, and contrary scientific evidence as I fancy,
It's the "scientific evidence" that we're waiting for, and at the current (30 year climate trend)rate of disappearance,I fear that the entire polar ice cap will melt before that hard,hard,head of yours softens to rational.
Hey, Dean, have you found out how much funding Rog's after-market numbers changers, woodfortrees, receives from Heartland?
A couple of climate bets.
I'll bet that the current decade, 2000-2009, will be the warmest of the global land-ocean HadCrut3v or GISS records.
I'll bet that the thirty year global land-ocean mean temperature will rise in eighty per-cent of the next five, ten, or fifteen years,. HadCrut3v or GISS.
A couple of weather bets.
Despite the growing list of your anecdotal protestations of cool, I'll bet that the 2008 global land-ocean temperature will finish in the top twelve, all time dozen, of HadCrut3v or GISS records.
This last one is nothing but a coin toss, but
I'll bet that the second half of 2008 will be warmer than the first half. Global land-ocean HadCrut3v or GISS.
A BPL subscription or product equal seems apropos, what do you think?Sep 16, 2008 at 12:56 am #1451255Ray CramptonMember
@rcramptonLocale: Creedmoor, NC
I'm going to look at an ice core sample and tell you the temperature of Seattle Washington with accuracy of 0.1 degrees C in 1903.
I don't even know how to measure the "average" temperature of Seattle at noon on Sept 20, 2008 using lab grade instruments.
But, please, I've spent a lot of time on this and I'd appreciate your accepting my data for global average temperatures to 0.1 degrees C accuracy over the last 5 million years. I think my techniques and methods are clearly able to resolve this level of precision.
Note: Dean, I laughed my butt off. Particularly because I think you carefully started your data after the period of the embargo act of Thomas Jefferson which Econ 101 would say caused a rise in the number of pirates. I respectfully request you look at the period of 1800-1820 carefully to see if your correlation holds. After all, we are scientists and therefore subject to peer review.
Maybe you are funded by an anti-piracy group – or a pro-piracy group?Sep 16, 2008 at 2:01 pm #1451317
>I'll bet that the current decade, 2000-2009, will be the warmest of the global land-ocean HadCrut3v or GISS records.
So you like betting on certainties. Fine, but not very sporting, I won't bother.
>I'll bet that the thirty year global land-ocean mean temperature will rise in eighty per-cent of the next five, ten, or fifteen years,. HadCrut3v or GISS.
More interesting, though I'm suspicious of your rejection of the satellite data. Why is it that in the space age, you'd rather rely on the data which has very patchy world coverage and is constantly changing the temperatures of the past using questionable and secret algorithyms?
Found any evidence to contradict the evidence that rises in co2 lag behind rises in temperature and are therefore an effect rather than a primary cause yet?
After market number changers? What is your evidence for this calumny against the woodfortrees website owner? And your evidence that he has any connection with the american group Dean obsesses about?
Or is it all just throwaway rhetoric?
Anyway, just to please you, here the hadcrut graph from 1978 via the woodfortrees site, so now show me the discrepancy between this and the official hadcrut record to support your allegation of number changing.Sep 17, 2008 at 5:39 am #1451375s kMember
Good Morning, Rog,
> So you like betting on certainties. Fine, but not very sporting, I won't bother.
Yes, certainty is conducive to good bets! I wouldn't take that bet either, but there is a slight possibility that this decade 2000- 2009 will not be the warmest, at least on the HadCrut record. If the bottom fell out and we had a couple of chilly years, like we had pre-WW1, the spoils would be all yours! The cold temps around 1910- 1912 are certainly warmer than those during the Maunder Minimum. I thought you had suggested that we would soon be in the throes of the shivering temperatures of a minimum. It's still a couple of years away? Just wait and see? No problem, Rog, let's wait while the glaciers that suckle millions of lives along the great rivers from the Himalyas waste away? Wait, while ocean side villages in the arctic fall, from their melting permafrost underpinnings, into the thawed waters of the Arctic. Let's wait and watch, while arctic species fall one by one into extinction. You're not threatened though, eh, Rog? So it's okay? Okay to mock the polar bear while human induced warming forces the species to adapt to an environment that changes at speeds that challenge the bear's evolutionary adaptive abilities. Hey, why don't we sign on to an arctic cruise, and lay wagers on which of the emaciated bears that are waiting for ice formation will be healthy enough to reproduce this year. I'm sure they're all tagged, identification will be easy! And we can go back next year and calculate our winnings! We'll just deny our responsibility in the carnage.
>More interesting, though I'm suspicious of your rejection of the satellite data. Why is it that in the space age, you'd rather rely on the data which has very patchy world coverage and is constantly changing the temperatures of the past using questionable and secret algorithyms?
No suspicion necessary. My attempt is to keep it simple. Although certainties around HadCrut and GISS are higher, and the record is longer.
>Found any evidence to contradict the evidence that rises in co2 lag behind rises in temperature and are therefore an effect rather than a primary cause yet?
It's the physics, Rog, and it's not very complicated. CO2's radiative effect is well known and understood. I've challenged you before to find documentation of its non-radiative effect. It's sixth grade science! Lead-follow, follow-lead, is a rouse. Is your denial based on this elementary confusion. Read a physics book!
>After market number changers? What is your evidence for this calumny against the woodfortrees website owner? And your evidence that he has any connection with the american group Dean obsesses about?
I'm referring to your tendency to post graphs like the one above, of HadCrut data charted by another entity. I have pointed out errors in the presentations before. The HadCrut data is usually available in HadCrut graphs, skip the re-representation. I understand that this is not always possible.
What about the other two wagers?
All in fun and cause, Rog!Sep 22, 2008 at 1:54 pm #1451894
I guess polar bears survived previous big melting events by migrating. Those events were pretty sudden too, so I just don't accept the unprecedented rate of change argument. I can't find much data on the net about average polar bear body weight. maybe you can point to some respectable sources and spare us the emotive rhetoric. perhaps you could include relevent information which helps us seperate the effect of temperatures on polar bear body weight from other factors such as overfishing having a detrimental effect on polar bear prey populations.
I see from the data that the arctic ice hasn't receded as much this year as it did last year though… despite the scaremongering of the warmista telling us of an impending complete melt.
Last year Antarctic sea ice reached it's greatest extent since records began…. Funny how the warmista seem to be ignoring the southern hemisphere when they talk about 'global' warming.
Looks like we're all in for another chilly winter this year too. Sea temperatures which support the northern hemisphere's winter temps have been continuing to fall.
We reached the top of the curve somewhere between 18 months and 5 years ago, depending on whose data series you believe most representative of the global average temperature.
My prediction is that temperatures will continue to drop as they have been doing for the last 18 months for another year or two, followed by a brief renaissance of warmth before the real chill descends.
Just for fun, I'll go with your last wager if you'll agree to run it over mid feb 2008 to mid feb 2009 to even out the deepest part of the last big la Nina. At least we'll know by mid march 2009 who is buying the BPL subs next year. :-)Oct 2, 2008 at 3:17 am #1452962Paul ClarkMember
Google Alerts pointed me here and I need to lay this one to rest before it goes any further.
As is stated on the home page, woodfortrees.org receives no funding from anyone at all, it's entirely an individual private endeavour.
I try to ensure the site faithfully represents the original sources. If you believe otherwise, please let me know and I will do my utmost to rectify this, but if you are concerned, please go to the original sources data which is quoted on the 'credits' page.
Bear in mind that our graphs are routinely used by people on both sides of the debate, which was the intention. I have my own (moderate) views but that is irrelevant to the facts WFT tries to present.
Developer, woodfortrees.orgOct 2, 2008 at 9:19 am #1452993
thanks for dropping by to clarify that, I have found the http://www.woodfortrees.org site very useful for thinking around the issues through the ability to display the series in relation to each other and with various filters running: it's invaluable.
It's a shame that those on the other side of the debate seem to assume that someone who is providing a resource which enables ordinary folk to get a handle on the data must be biased against their preferred view.
While you are here, let me give you my wishlist for additional series. :-)
Proxy co2 reconstruction. The one done by the scandinavian scientists (reported on by Anthony Watts) on treeline pines looks very promising.
Southern/northern hemisphere satellite data seperated, so we can compare with hadcru.
Polar bear population and hearing sensitivity. Only kidding. :-)
Oh, and what are you doing gadding around the net checking up on us when the graphs stop at the end of June?? Also only kidding. :o)
Keep up the good work.
Rog tallblokeOct 3, 2008 at 12:38 am #1453083Paul ClarkMember
Thanks for that. Do you have references for some of those datasets? I'd be particularly interested in cloud albedo because I have a hunch that is going to be pretty important…
Which data did you think stopped at June? PMOD only comes out in bursts (and I updated it yesterday) but everything else should be current at least until August and over the next few days we should start to get the September results (SSN is already in, expect UAH/RSS soon). It's all captured from the master data sources at 3am each day so I'm at the mercy of their release schedules, really.
PaulOct 3, 2008 at 3:42 am #1453087
If I plot UAH from 2007 with no other filters or options, this is what I get:
Which seems to go to june.
I'll try to find out about albedo data.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.