Yeah, yeah. You knew already that deniers are WUWT are a weird mob. But did you know just how weird they are?
There's finally another WUWT article (archived here) by Bob Tisdale about the BoM alert for El Nino, which you might have read about here the other day. That isn't what I'm writing about. What I'm writing about is some of the comments in response.
This is the 21st article that Bob's written on the possibility of an El Nino this year (at least), but do you know what some of the riff raff are writing? Are they complaining that WUWT is obsessed by ENSO? Nope. Are they complaining that Bob Tisdale is trying to frighten the fake sceptics? Nope.
It's not WUWT or Bob Tisdale who they are complaining about. What the WUWT lot are claiming is that the BoM fortnightly ENSO updates are all a plot by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to frighten the pants off the dumb deniers at WUWT.
Hold on to your hats. Here comes the conspiracy brigade - over ENSO would you believe!
nicholas tesdorf decides it's all an evil plot:
November 19, 2014 at 5:07 pm
The BOM ‘Alert’ is more likely a way of diverting public attention from ‘The Pause’ and other conflicting data. It also fills in time for the Warmistas until the firebugs get the bushfire season underway.
hunter obviously doesn't live in eastern Australia and doesn't know anyone who does. He probably doesn't live in California either. He does think an ENSO announcement is designed to scare people, however:
November 19, 2014 at 8:57 pmAn “alert” for a friggin’ El Nino? As if it is a storm or tornado, and not a multi-month to year plus natural phenomenon. It is annoying how everything under control of climate freaks and kooks is described in alarmist or scary terms.
November 20, 2014 at 4:12 am(Curiously it seems that Anthony has stopped showing the CO2 levels. Getting too obvious p'raps?)
BoM trying to scare people into worrying over climate yet again
especially with fire season upon us
funny is the rain we are getting finally on a fair part of east coast n qld
PS
Mods /Anth**y/ anyone..
what happened to the Co2 meter that used to be on the sidebar?
I liked getting a chuckle as it rose and temps did not.
Joel O'Bryan calls the fortnightly ENSO update "weather alarmism"
November 19, 2014 at 9:05 pm
Weather alarmism is a where the Climate Alarmists are headed. They haven’t gotten the public’s attention with the deceitful Climate Change “alarmism”, so now go with Weather alarmism.
Greg Holmes, who would fail a spelling test, thinks our prestigious, world class, official weather bureau is "dodgy":
November 20, 2014 at 3:11 am
Not sure I would trust anything coming from the BOM in Australia. They have been subject to various enquireies over the legitimasy of there reporting in recent years. Dodgy outfit?
Come on all you science deniers out there, tell us these crazy comments are just anomalous anomalies at WUWT!
These comments are anomalies measured against a 30 second average.
ReplyDeleteIs this the next stage of climate change denial: the ostriches are going to demand everybody else has their head in the sand too?
ReplyDeleteWow, Your whole website is about insulting people, lighten up. People who disagree with you are entitled to their opinion. It's because of our liberal laws of freedom of speech, that allow YOU to posit your opinions, just like them. Don't be so smug and mean about others, one day your opinion may be shut down. And you won't like that.
ReplyDeleteJohn
Didn't see anything in the post about shutting down WUWT opinions; why suggest Sou's might be shut down?
DeleteMore useful might be to defend one of the WUWT opinions with facts.
Ok, I understand. "Deniers", "weird mob", " riff raff", "fake skeptics", "dumb deniers", "crazy comments ", are all meant to further the discussion on the theory of Catastrophic global warming. Sorry.
Deleteso you consider conspiracy theories "disagreements"?
Deletecabc
I don't believe you, John. You are not sorry at all.
DeleteAnd following what cabc asks, I take it from what you wrote and what you didn't write, that you seriously think that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology provides its ENSO wrap-up for the sole purpose of scaring the scaredy cats at WUWT.
I asked deniers to "tell us these crazy comments are just anomalous anomalies at WUWT!" - it seems they won't or can't :(
The nuttery continues...
So, now you will criticize what I DIDN'T write. LOL. I believe in the Royal Society's motto "nullius in verba". My comment wasn't about the science, it was about your meanness, and attacks on anyone that disagrees with you.
DeleteJohn
The difference, John, is that I support what I write with evidence. I don't simply sulk and wail "you're a meanie" when I write about something I disagree with. When I ridicule the eminently ridiculable, the ridiculous is exposed for all to see.
DeleteWhat do you do? You complain that I'm being mean. You don't say why or how or even disagree with anything I've written. You just sulk like a sook and complain that I'm being mean and suggest HW will be "shut down".
I don't attack "anyone that disagrees" with me. There are lots of people who disagree with me on many different things and I respect their point of view. I find different points of view valuable and will often change my mind about things as a result.
I only "attack" those things that are fake and false, mostly when it comes to climate. And I support my "attack" with evidence.
HotWhopper is all about demolishing disinformation. The disinformation you probably don't want to see demolished. Tough!
Insulting you with facts, John? We can't have that...
DeleteIt also has to be remembered---or in the case of the Watties, learned----that BOM has been issuing ENSO diagnostics for some years now.
DeleteThe archive of BOM ENSO diagnostics goes back to 2005....naturally, we have to wait for the slow ones to catch on.
In the current format. But BoM has been reporting ENSO on the internet from when it's first web pages show up on the WayBack Machine. This is from 1997:
Deletehttp://web.archive.org/web/19970125144424/http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/
Oh, and I must add this for people who think BoM gets it wrong. From July 1997, about the super-El Nino (though they didn't call it that):
DeleteThe Head of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, Mr Bill Kininmonth, said today that the El Nino event continued to strengthen during June. "The central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean became warmer, and the trade winds across most of the tropical Pacific are much weaker than normal. Also, the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a measure of the cross-Pacific atmospheric pressure gradient, remains strongly negative" he said. The SOI for June was -24 following the -22 in May. "These data indicate the
event is the strongest since the episode of 1982/83, a period of widespread drought in eastern Australia", he said.
Stop that retro fear-mongering, Sou!
DeleteYou wish. Nice threat.
DeleteYeah, attacking the Wutters with facts! Shame on your facty things Sou! The Wutter demands ignorance for us all.
DeleteThe temptation to manipulate current data to support past predictions is impossible I guess.
ReplyDeleteJohn. ... being overly mean and insulting is her shtick. It helps her avoid true debate and she must feel like it gives her viewpoint more credibility. If you aren't convinced of CAGW then you are a "denier" and must be on Exxon's payroll. She comes off as a pathetic stalker of Watts almost like he stood her up at Prom or something.
ReplyDeleteCAGW, the theory that doesn't exist
DeleteFace it, you are a denier. Denier, denier, denier, denier....
DeleteIn reality, Sou 'comes off' as Watts' cognitive therapist.
DeleteIt looks as if the sock-puppet John/Donald (same person I think) is seriously put out that anyone would find their ENSO conspiracy nuttery nutty. Even to the extent of making threats to shut down HotWhopper.
ReplyDeleteThis is in line with the notions some people have of free speech. It's only free to some people. People who have the oddest of ideas, which John/Donald agrees with.
In the weird world of the denier known as John/Donald, WUWT is allowed the freedom of speech to misrepresent science and defame scientists. Anyone who calls them on it needs to be "shut down".
And heaven forbid anyone regarding as ridiculous the idea that "ENSO is a BoM plot". My goodness. It's as if I've blasphemed one of the sacred tenets of denialism.
LOL, I don't know who "Donald" is. And, LOL I would never threaten to shut down others opinions, my comment was about EVERYONE'S right to express an opinion, even yours, please reread it. Why must you insult me.
DeleteJohn
You threatened that HotWhopper would be shut down, John. I expect that's because you don't like dumb denialisms being shown up for what they are.
DeleteBTW you probably wouldn't feel insulted if you saw the ridiculous written about in the article as ridiculous. The normal audience of HW doesn't feel insulted. The only other person who probably feels insulted is Donald, who seems to be a conspiracy nutter too.
Apologies if I mistook you for Donald. Deniers all look the same. It's hard to tell them apart :)
Lady, You have a problem. BYE.
DeleteJohn
That's the most powerful, articulate, intelligent response John can come up with?
Delete(Do I also detect shades of an MCP? What a surprise (not).)
this mob are playing the 'why can't we all get along' meme .... cognitive dissonance much
DeleteJohn, I don't get it. You believe in everyone's right to express an opinion. Everyone here agrees with you. That includes the right to mock foolish opinions. If you think the WUWT opinions are *not* foolish, defend them with facts.
Delete"...one day your opinion may be shut down. And you won't like that."
DeleteNo-one else talked about shutting down anything till this appeared. Is that a threat? I don't know. As it came out of John's thoughts unbidden I think it is fair to say it represents a subliminal wish to suppress criticism and opposition. Perhaps a period of meditative self-reflection is needed by John.
"You believe in everyone's right to express an opinion." - No, this John does not. But he is too yellow to say it.
DeleteDo I also detect shades of an MCP?
DeleteSou, surely you meant to say "shades of an aging MCP"? :)
I don't feel as charitable as you all today. As I look at Anthony Watts, I don't see someone seeking truth with honest debate. I see a sociopath whose bread and butter is slandering good and well meaning academic climate scientist for his own obscure reasons.
DeleteThe warming rate from 1860-1880, from 1910-40 and from 1975 to 1998 are not statistically significantly different from each other.
ReplyDeleteThat being the case, it is difficult to see how CO2 influenced the latter period of natural warming. I see no evidence of that.
And you're personal ignorance has what, exactly, to do with conspiracy theories about BoM and its ENSO updates?
DeleteStay on topic, please. There are other articles about temperature trends here that you can comment on if you want to. Use the search box up top or the blog archive in the sidebar.
"you're [sic] personal ignorance"
DeleteOh? And what ignorance might that be? From Professor Phil Jones, University of East Anglia:
[Q] BBC - “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?”
[A] Phil Jones, University of East Anglia - ”Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different. I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other."
Perhaps it is you that is ignorant.
My comment was on topic in fact. It's designed to draw out your own weird theories on ENSO.... and climate change in general.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out exactly which responses to the article match your description of "What the WUWT lot are claiming is that the BoM fortnightly ENSO updates are all a plot by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to frighten the pants off the dumb deniers at WUWT."
I do not find the word "frighten" on the page. I do find a couple of instances of the word "scare", however that does not necessarily mean the same as "frighten".
Neither do I find the word "plot" or any suggestion of a "plot"
Are you just bored and try to pick anything you can from the WUWT website? You appear positively obsessed with it.
The NOAA tells us that "ENSO - neutral conditions continue.", so perhaps the BOM is reaching somewhat?
Deletehttp://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
BoM also says that current conditions are ENSO neutral. You are probably being confused by the alert (a 70% chance that an El Nino will develop in the near future) with current conditions.
DeleteLooks as if we have another sock puppet using different identities. It is quite confusing. Anyway, trends can be similar but if not for CO2 warming then the temperature would be much lower than it is today.
DeleteIf I crash while driving at 100 kph it will have a different effect to if I crash at 10 kph. It doesn't matter whether I was accelerating at 10 meters/sec/sec both times, the higher speed is what makes the difference, not the rate of speed change.
Same with temperature. It can warm at 0.2 degrees a decade for a bit. Then it can cool at 0.2 degrees a decade for a bit. What's happening now though is that global temperatures are rising and rising and rising more. There's virtually no let up. That's why it's referred to as global warming. As long as we keep adding CO2 to the air it will keep on warming up, ice will keep on melting, seas will keep on rising, heat waves will keep getting worse etc etc.
This is simple arithmetic and basic physics. There's nothing fancy about it.
@Backsliding Matti Ressler
Delete"It's designed to draw out your own weird theories on ENSO..."
It is designed? You have designer posts to a blog? I think that is more a reflection of your rather over-inflated rating of your skills.
As far as I know Sou has never promoted any of her theories, weird or sensible, about ENSO. She has only reported the basic science of ENSO. (Correct me Sou if you do have some weird theories about ENSO I have missed). So Backslider, why do you say that? Do you think it makes your view have more import if you do a bit of made up mud-slinging first? News for you - it doesn't.
Matti Ressler has been trolling climate science articles at The Conversation. He is scientifically illiterate but tries to cover it up by copying and pasting truck loads of tripe from the climate crank blogs. The bulk of his comment above for example is a repeat of what he copied and pasted to the TC comment thread today.
DeleteHe is a Greenhouse Effect denier and I am guessing he thinks all the other "skeptics" are also although he would be too clueless to know. Today after claiming no climate impact from CO2, he advised me to read Judith Curry's blog - so I cited her paper with Nic Lewis which gives a TCR range for doubling CO2 which has an uncertainty range similar to that of the IPCC.
He then declared my comment was off-topic even though he had been making all sorts of pseudo-science claims about CO2. :-)
Unfortunately the moderators removed all the comments because they were actually off-topic (the article was about hayfever, pollen and climate change). I say unfortunately because it was actually quite funny in a car crash sort of way.
He also heavily trolled an article by Kevin Trenberth where he accused Kevin of claiming the "missing heat" was in the "tropical hotspot" confusing his denier memes. He then claimed the LLovel et al paper on the abyssal ocean proved the "missing heat" was not in the "deep ocean" even though it was pointed out to him numerous times that the abyssal ocean referred to below 2000m and relied on the heat content estimates from the Argo floats to make that calculation.
His scientific malapropisms could make Matti quite the legend.
I probably should not find it quite as funny given Matti is an obvious victim of Dunning-Kruger. But his relentless trolling of climate scientists at TC despite being entirely clueless makes his behaviour hard to excuse.
Aha, another revisionist, probably paid _or_ too numbskulled to get paid for the lies. Lies they are, because Ressler knows well the follow-up on that significance story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510 .
DeleteSo not only is there warming, it is even statistically significant on a time scale of a mere 16 years. That's how fast this climate detonation is going.
Price tag for climate revisionist Ressler the usual: flood or burn and get laughed at when it cries.
"trends can be similar but if not for CO2 warming then the temperature would be much lower than it is today"
DeleteHow can you show that? When the rates of warming are not statistically significant between the warming between 1975 and 1998 and the late 1800's, then you are unable to show a "signature" which *might* tell us that CO2 has had an influence.
Essentially, you have zero evidence. The null hypothesis is that all the warming has been natural.
CO2 levels continue to escalate exponentially, yet we have had zero warming since 1998.
"Matti Ressler has been trolling climate science articles at The Conversation"
DeleteYou sir are the troll. You have zero interest in discussing science. You also clearly have a poor self image, finding the need to denigrate people in any way you can imagine, fabricating lies in the process, for example:
"He is a Greenhouse Effect denier"
This is a lie. Let's see if you can explain how the greenhouse effect works. I bet not.
You continue to make nonsense statements saying things I have never said. They are based upon your own asumptions which are based on your own lack of understanding.
Please show to the World where "the missing heat has been found between zero and 2000 meters. You cannot. Nor can you explain how it supposedly got there, since it definitely has not been detect in the first 300 nor the first 700 meters. C'mon, show us.
@Backslider
DeleteAre you really saying that cherry picking two short periods of records trumps the complete record? Or have I misunderstood? I cannot believe you could be that daft but I cannot see what else you could mean.
And FYI CO2 levels are not rising exponentially. Another giveaway that you are using long sciency sounding words that you do not understand.
Backslider thinks there's been no warming since 1998. I don't know where he lives - in a cave with no links to the outside world? That can't be it. He's posting here so he must have somewhere come across evidence of surface temperatures rising, ocean heat accumulating, ice melting, sea levels rising. None of that would be happening unless the world was getting warmer.
DeleteHis comments indicate he suffers an extreme case of denial, as well as a lack of mathematical skills (confusing rates of increase with absolute increase) and scientific prowess (not understanding or accepting the greenhouse effect).
"You continue to make nonsense statements saying things I have never said."
Delete"...you have zero interest in discussing science."
Well, I have quoted you directly and asked you to clarify and in effect invited you to discuss "science". Result - zilch. So you have not shown much interest in discussing.
Seems to me you just want a platform to inflict your views on everybody with no intention of changing what you think.
Oh, and yes I can describe the greenhouse effect. i expect MikeH can too. You are not on a denier website here.
"Ressler knows well the follow-up on that significance story"
DeleteHa ha, you are funny. From the article:
"But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real"."
Phil Jones commented on statistical significance for the period between 1975 and 1998, then extended that to 2009, saying "all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other".
That's 4 period:
1. 1860 to 1880
2. 1910 to 1940
3. 1975 to 1998
4. 1975 to 2009
Considering that since 1998 there has been zero statistically significant warming it is impossible to say that the warming rate increased.
You Mr Kampen are confused. There is nothing in the article you linked to which compares the warming rates between the four periods. Nothing.
Perhaps you should take the time to look at the warming rates for the four periods and then come back and tell us all that indeed, the rates of warming indeed are not statistically significantly different from each other.
All climate scientists agree that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998.
@Backslider
DeleteGo on. I dare you. Explain why you think CO2 levels are rising exponentially.
Prove you want a "science" discussion.
Backslider/Matti Ressler asks: How can you show that?
DeleteThat's what the science shows. Something has been causing the world to heat up. (It hasn't stopped getting hotter. That's just your denial talking. Sometimes the oceans get hotter faster, sometimes the surface gets hotter more quickly, sometimes it's the air up higher in the troposphere. The earth as a whole is getting hotter all the time. Ice is melting and oceans are expanding from more ice and more heat. Temperatures are rising. The last three months have been the hottest ever recorded in the instrumental era.)
It's mostly because of all the extra CO2. The sun has sent a bit less energy - not more, our way so it's not the sun. Volcanoes have been cooling the earth a tad, as have aerosols so it's not them that's making it hotter. If the only things acting on climate were the sun and volcanoes and aerosols, it would be cooler than it was in the 1950s. As it is it's much hotter than it was back then. The thing that's causing the earth to keep heating up is the extra greenhouse gases we keep pouring into the air.
I really don't get why you don't know that. Everyone else does. And it's not as if you've not read any information on the subject, obviously.
Is it your religion that prevents you from accepting facts about the world you live in or something else? Serious question.
"Backslider thinks there's been no warming since 1998. I don't know where he lives - in a cave with no links to the outside world?"
DeleteWell, I certainly am not on whatever you are on. You may take the time to try and refute these prominent climate scientists (there are many others):
"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing." - James Hansen (the father of "global warming").
"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has" - Dr Phil Jones, University of East Anglia.
"Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried." - Dr Phil Jones, University of East Anglia.
It's now 18+ years.
"Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend." - Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
"Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." - Kevin Trenberth
" [Q] BBC – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”." - Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBackslider, can you explain to me what you understand by significantly different or statistically significant? I won't spoil your answer by explaining what statisticians, mathematicians and scientists understand by the term. It will help to understand your argument if you could explain.
DeleteIt's impossible to carry out a meaningful discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between a rate of change and an absolute change. Or someone who thinks that the earth heats up by magic. Or someone who refuses to face up to the fact, despite multiple lines of evidence staring him in the face, that the earth is still getting hotter.
DeleteHe can't even read the BoM ENSO tracker in the side bar. There's no chance that he'll understand the greenhouse effect or any climate science.
"Go on. I dare you. Explain why you think CO2 levels are rising exponentially. Prove you want a "science" discussion."
DeleteI'm sorry, what I meant to say was "Human emissions of C=2 continue to rise exponentially"
Atmospheric CO2 levels are governed by Henry's Law, not human emissions. Human emissions account for only 3-4% of total CO2 emissions, the remainder being natural emissions from the biosphere. This number is within the bounds of natural variation in emissions from the biosphere, so they really do not have any significant impact upon the levels of atmospheric CO2.
"Or someone who refuses to face up to the fact, despite multiple lines of evidence staring him in the face, that the earth is still getting hotter."
DeleteI'm sorry, but I would rather believe the scientists I quoted (and many others) rather than alarmists like you who continue the squark "we are all gonna fry".
Please show to the world a statistically significant rise in surface temperatures since 1998, from published science rather than your own ranting.
You people are very practiced in ad hominem, however your lack of science is telling.
Backslider - if you're going to quote mine you really need to learn how to do it properly. This isn't WUWT.
DeleteMost of those quotes are from years ago. They aren't recent. As well as that you've taken them out of context, which is what deniers do. Just like you hide the sources. But that won't save you. We know your deceptive tricks. We've seen them all before lots of times. They are amateurish and fool no-one.
I wouldn't mind betting you don't even know where your quotes come from. You've probably just copied slabs from some other denier blog or other.
This is what's been happening in recent years, since you last stocked up on your denialisms.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/whats-happened-to-global-warming-in.html#charts.
And this is what's been happening just these past few weeks:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/getting-hotter-much-too-hot-for-wuwt.html
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/in-case-you-missed-it-uah-for-october.html
And this is what's happening elsewhere:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/unstoppable-meltdown-in-antarctica-and.html
@Backsider
DeleteI picked one of your quotes by James Hansen and searched for it. Sure enough it is a distorted version and out of context. So you just lifted some lame denier spun meme and pasted it without engaging your brain first. Here is one debunk of it:
A simple check of the original source demonstrates the clumsy manner in which Watt’s has cherry picked the quote to turn it into a “money quote” about stalled global temperatures. Here is the sentence in context (relevant quote underlined):
See
"http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/tag/global-climate-change/"
for full details.
It is too tedious to look at the rest.
"Backslider, can you explain to me what you understand by significantly different or statistically significant?"
DeleteStatistical significance tell scientists and statissticians whether the null hypothesis can be rejected.
For example, we know that the warming in the ate 1800's was purely natural. If we could show that the warming rate between 1975 and 1998 was statistically significantly different from the warming rate in the late 1800's, then we could postulate a possible "forcing" on the climate.
Because they are not statistically significantly different, the null hypothesis holds true. That is, the warming between 1975 and 1998 also was natural. There is no "signature" for CO2.
"I picked one of your quotes by James Hansen and searched for it. Sure enough it is a distorted version and out of context."
DeleteNonsense. That you do not understand it is not my problem. Nothing else in Hansen's paper contradicts what he said. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.
That's a fact sonny, who is the denier?
"This is what's been happening in recent years"
DeleteSorry, but you will need to link to published science, not your own blog.
Then you need to make a relevant point about each thing you would like me to look at.
But you keep claiming that you don't believe Dr Hansen and Dr Jones and all the other climate scientists in the world. You claim that the world isn't warming when the work of all these scientists shows that it is and continues to do so and it's being caused by CO2.
DeleteWhat you'd "rather believe" is beside the point. The fact is global warming is real and happening now.
Here is a paper by James Hansen - tell the truth now. Would you really rather believe what he says here?
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/PNAS-2012-Hansen-1205276109.pdf
“Climate dice,” describing the chance of unusually warm or cool seasons, have become more and more “loaded” in the past 30 y, coincident with rapid global warming. The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased. An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (3Ļ) warmer than the climatology of the 1951–1980 base period. This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth’s surface during the base period, now typically covers about 10% of the land area. It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small. We discuss practical implications of this substantial, growing, climate change.
And here's an interesting paper coauthored by your favoured Dr Jones, which is independent validation of modern global warming.
Do you still "prefer to believe them"? Or are you fickle and only want to "believe" your misleading mined quotes, taken out of context.
I missed the link to Phil Jones' paper. Here it is:
Deletehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50425/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50425/full
Backslider, the articles I linked to are all about published science, with full explanation and links to the source data and scientific papers.
DeleteYou are not just a denier, you are a bone lazy denier who can't think for himself, refuse to follow links, can't understand simple articles, refuse to look at straightforward charts of data from scientific sources, and then expect to be spoon fed as well.
Any more nonsense from you will end up where it belongs. If you want to discuss science, feel free to do so. If you all you can do is spout denialist crap, it will be shifted to the HotWhoppery if I can be bothered.
Ha ha. Backslider is a greenhouse effect denier (assuming he even knows what the greenhouse effect is).
DeleteBackslider: For example, we know that the warming in the ate 1800's was purely natural. If we could show that the warming rate between 1975 and 1998 was statistically significantly different from the warming rate in the late 1800's, then we could postulate a possible "forcing" on the climate.
Because they are not statistically significantly different, the null hypothesis holds true. That is, the warming between 1975 and 1998 also was natural. There is no "signature" for CO2.
That shows he's both a greenhouse effect denier and a user of logical fallacies. (A caused B therefore C could not cause B.)
He's a chemistry denier as well. He doesn't agree that burning gigatonnes of fossil fuel each year has increased atmospheric CO2 by 43%. He doesn't even know that burning hydrocarbons releases CO2 and H2O and uses up oxygen. He wrote:
Backslider: Atmospheric CO2 levels are governed by Henry's Law, not human emissions. Human emissions account for only 3-4% of total CO2 emissions, the remainder being natural emissions from the biosphere. This number is within the bounds of natural variation in emissions from the biosphere, so they really do not have any significant impact upon the levels of atmospheric CO2.
What a nutter!
@Backslider
DeleteNonsense. That you do not understand it is not my problem.
The fact you do not understand it is your problem. The fact you just copy Watts nonsense without investigating is your problem
"As can be seen Watts has merely lifted a single sentence to mischaracterise the paper. Hansen and Ruedy do provide the appropriate context, highlighting the fact that “the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998″.
That's a fact sonny, who is the denier?
Er, clearly you are the denier. And don't call me sonny. I realise it is a lame attempt to be condescending but it is innapropriate.
Let0s just look, Mr Kampen at exactly what Phil Jones was talking about in the second BBC article.
DeleteThe first was a period from 1995 to 2009, a period for which he said there was no statistically significant warming. Let's look at that:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2010/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2010/trend
We can see a very slight rise in the trend, but it's not statistically significant.
He then goes on to say that adding a year changed that. Let's look at that also:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2011/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2011/trend
We can see the trend line is steeper, which Phil Jones regards as "statistically significant warming".
Let's now take that to 2014:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2015/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2015/trend
Here we see that now the trend line is again not statistically significant.
You see, 2010 was a warm year, so if you plot the graph till then the trend will appear steeper, however as we can see, since then temperatures have dropped again.
None of this has anything to do with Phil Jones comments regarding the statistical significance of warming trends in the 1800's, early 20th century and 1975 to 1998. The article is in fact about this comment:
[Q] BBC – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”." - Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
Give it a rest, backslider. You're hogging the blog with your vain protest at global warming. It isn't going away any time soon. (Come back when your ice age cometh.)
DeleteIn the meantime, go and read some proper climate science - like the Phil Jones paper or the James Hansen paper I linked to above - or a book on statistics.
"The fact you just copy Watts nonsense"
DeleteUntrue. I rarely visit that website and have never once copied anything from there. I would not be surprised however if you find the same quotes that I use over there. They are quotes from highly respected climate scientists, you should accept them.
"the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998"
That is untrue. 1998 was clearly the warmest year, no matter which data set you look at. The current trend is flat, as noted by Hansen. To say that it is not flat and that it is rising leaves you with the unenviable task of providing us all with the data to show this.
You deny what all leading climate scientists, whether "warmist" or "skeptic" are telling us. Who is the "denier"?
"Give it a rest, backslider."
DeleteRight. I show that you are wrong and this is your response.
Why am I not surprised?
"Backslider is a greenhouse effect denier"
DeleteNo, I am not.
It is you who are in error. You believe that "the greenhouse effect" causes "global warming".
Any climate scientist will tell you that global warming is NATURAL. While we have many scientists proclaiming the human CO2 emissions are AMPLIFYING this NATURAL warming none have been able to show the "signature" for CO2 forcing. None.
A "signature" for CO2 is nowhere to be found in the data.
This is my point, which is a very valid one and which at least one person here understood.
Are YOU able to show that signature? If you think you can, I am all ears.
CO2 levels are rising slightly _faster_ than exponentially. Which given the logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and forcing, means that CO2 forcings are increasing slightly faster than linearly. The warming train is accelerating...
DeleteTo test, plot the log of CO2 levels over time. An exponential increase would show a linear trend (slope determined by the scale of that exponent) in a log plot - the log of CO2 levels shows a statistically significant upward curve in the log plot, indicating faster than exponential growth. Tamino discussed this here and also here, with some quite clear graphs.
"You are not just a denier, you are a bone lazy denier who can't think for himself, refuse to follow links".
DeleteNonsense. I am not going to follow links when you have made zero comment as to exactly which point you are making that supposedly proves I am a "denier" or am wrong.
Please try harder. Name calling gets you nowhere. Try some science, try to put together a good argument.
"The warming train is accelerating"
DeleteNo it's not. You are a climate science denier. All leading climate scientists recognise that the trend is currently flat.
Prove where you got your mined quotes from, backslider. Give us a link to your source. Not a live link, mind you, because it's undoubtedly from a denier website.
DeleteYou keep insisting on "believing" your mis-interpretation of some denier's quote-mined stuff, but you refuse to accept what those same scientists themselves write in the literature. You've not even acknowledged the links I gave you. Are you in such utter and complete denial? (No. Don't bother answering that, it's quite clear that you are.)
BTW - here are the 15 warmest years on record, in order from coolest to warmest, for GISTemp, HadCRUT and UAH. The 2014 is the average of this year to date (needless to say):
2008
2004
2001
2011
2012
2006
2009
2013
2003
1998
2002
2007
2005
2010
2014
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
2008
2011
2001
2004
2012
2007
2013
2002
2009
2006
2003
1998
2005
2010
2014
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html
1991
2001
2004
2011
2012
2003
2006
2007
2009
2002
2013
2005
2014
2010
1998
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
@Backslider - Just one primary fingerprint of increased GHGs is a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere due to heat trapping, which is what we observe. If the cause of recent warming were increased insolation, we would see both troposphere and stratosphere warming. Another is the observation of reduced IR to space at GHG frequencies, specifically CO2, H2O (feedback), CH4, etc., just as predicted (Harries et al 2001), definitive empirical evidence of an increased radiative greenhouse effect, about the clearest signature possible.
DeleteYou are talking through your hat.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete@Backslider - Trends too short for statistical significance are just that, insignificant, short term noise.
DeleteThe 'flat trend' from 1997 for RSS is -0.012 ±0.199 °C/decade (2Ļ) [using ARMA(1,1) noise as per Foster and Rahmstorf 2011], meaning that it has a 95% chance of being between -0.211 and 0.187 °C/decade. The long term RSS trend is 0.125 °C/decade, which lies within those bounds, and therefore the long term warming trend has _not_ been rejected by the short term data.
You are making noise about noise.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete@Backslider - Please take careful note that the changes in the last decade are far too short for statistical significance in trend identification, and that the term "net climate forcing" includes solar and volcanic influences, which have been negative recently and subtracting from anthropogenic forcings.
DeleteAgain, you are talking through your hat.
Backslider gave me this: "Statistical significance tell scientists and statissticians whether the null hypothesis can be rejected.
DeleteFor example, we know that the warming in the ate 1800's was purely natural. If we could show that the warming rate between 1975 and 1998 was statistically significantly different from the warming rate in the late 1800's, then we could postulate a possible "forcing" on the climate.
Because they are not statistically significantly different, the null hypothesis holds true. That is, the warming between 1975 and 1998 also was natural. There is no "signature" for CO2."
I suspected you didn't really know. Statistical significance is an indicator, and has come to be used as, a way of judging whether a hypothesis is reliably supported by the evidence. By stating that warming in XXXX and warming in YYYY are not statistically significantly different tells you nothing about the cause of the warming, just that the data behaves similarly.
Likewise no warming is different to no statistically significant warming. Warming is still going on.
Good post Catmando. When I read Backslider's post I could not really understand what his point was as he did not explain himself and it is very difficult to make sense of nonsense. Similarly he and Donald claimed natural variation should "speed up" but I could make no sense of that and they declined to explain.
DeleteIt is sure a lot easier to debate some one if you delete their rebuttals.
DeleteWhat's difficult is when they don't make any rebuttal, though it gets awfully tedious seeing the same comment repeated over and over and over again until it ends up in the HotWhoppery.
DeleteOf course, it's more difficult again when some Richard makes no contribution of any substance whatsoever - either on or off topic, let alone a rebuttal. (Shades of WUWT.)
... but you search the web trying to denigrate with personal attacks. People who lack any science background always descend into personal attacks.
ReplyDelete... the surest sign that you lack any scientific evidence to refute what I have printed is your feeble attempt at character assassination. As a lecturer I had top evaluations ... (Me: Oh, I's so impressed now). ... and your tactics are the perfect example of the type of commentaries that have defiled the scientific process.
Someone said these things on the internetS. Guess Who?
It's from an A+++ Wanking Denier who wrote a self published "book" a true nutjob whom posts regularly at WTFUWT?
First name rhymes with James
Middle initial rhymes with A.
Last name rhymes with Steele
Oh, the irony is just killing me.
Huh?
DeleteOh - are you referring to these articles by any chance? You think that pointing out disinformation and providing evidence to show what is wrong and why, is the same as "denigration with personal attacks". Nope, you'll get that sort of thing at WUWT, not so much here at HW. This site exists to demolish disinformation.
DeleteJim Steele, climate change and the sixth major extinction event
Jim Steele, another WUWT science denier, gets it wrong about Kivalina
Living Dangerously: Jim Steele denies Texas warming
Jim Steele at WUWT pushes for pseudo-science, not science, in schools
Jim Steele, greenhouse effect denier, gets up to his tricks in the Arctic
No.
DeleteI'm referring to one utter nutter named James A. Steele whom posted the above comments under his own self published "book" at Amazon (in reply to two one star reviews), the same type of name calling and ad hominem attacks that he is currently engaged in against you over at WTFUWT? as of about an hour ago.
You've really struck a nerve over there, keep up the good work.
Oh - sorry Everett. And thanks for the heads up. It explains the recent small number of denialist visitors, probably.
DeleteBelow is a link to the article that Jim is upset about from the look of it - though I've not read all that he's written today.
It includes several comments by Camille Parmesan's partner, that don't quite explain Jim's personal vendetta against her, but do put it into some context.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/jim-steele-at-wuwt-pushes-for-pseudo.html
Perhaps what upset Jim more than anything was my suggestion that he could do quite a lot of good if he stuck to his own area of expertise. He wouldn't come across as a fool if he stayed away from rejecting the vast body of knowledge about climate science, where he doesn't do so well. (I don't expect him to take any notice of what I say, but I believe his professional colleagues have suggested the same thing to him. He's chosen to ignore their excellent advice).
"Perhaps what upset Jim more than anything was my suggestion that he could do quite a lot of good if he stuck to his own area of expertise."
DeleteInteresting. So what then is your own area of expertise?
You mean apart from demolishing disinformation about climate and reporting what the science says? It's not relevant.
DeleteJim, on the other hand, if he wanted to, could offer some useful tips based on his hands on experience. By his account, he once helped restore some degraded land and waterways. I know people who'd find that quite useful information. Landcare groups, for example.
Much more useful than telling farmers in Landcare not to worry about the next record drought and the next massive wildfire because it wasn't Jim's fault and anyway he doesn't believe in climate science.
"It's not relevant."
DeleteRIght, so you don't in fact have any qualifications in the climate science field, yet feel you are equipped for "demolishing disinformation about climate and reporting"? Interesting.
I see that Jim Steel is a highly qualified scientist in the field he was writing about. Just because you do not agree with his views does not make him a wanking denier.
Perhaps you should take a course in communication, then another in understanding how scientific dialog works.
Name calling only shows a lack of self esteem and proves nothing. You have already called me "ignorant" without showing any basis for such an assuption.
By the way. Why did you not also chastise Everett for posting off topic?
DeleteJim Steele is in the business of selling his pseudo-science crap to climate science deniers as his vanity published book.
DeleteHe's not a "highly qualified scientist" at all. He was a manager of some field station - part time. That's about it. He arranged bird-watching and flower collecting tours. He's not published any research to my knowledge. He's most certainly not got any expertise in climate science - which you should have guessed by now. He's got nothing but a big chip on his shoulder and a burning desire to reject climate science. If he was simply repeating the science then that would be one thing and I wouldn't take issue. Instead what he does is reject science and show off his ignorance in the process. (He also tells lots of big fat porkies - more than your average denier.)
What you'll read here, by contrast, is what the published science shows. This is a pro-science blog, not an anti-science or pseudo-science blog like WUWT.
I've enough of a science background to understand much of the science. I don't attempt to write on topics I don't understand - unlike Jim Steele. I also know my limits, unlike Jim Steele, which is why I provide links to the material that I draw upon. HW attracts scientists and science lovers. It doesn't attract science deniers so much, except when some misogynistic thread on some science denying blog sends a few curious people this way.
Oh, and thanks for the suggestion re continuing ed. I am thinking of taking (another) course in communication. There's an interesting course starting next March being run by Queensland Uni. You might be interested yourself, The Backslider.
Speaking of self esteem and knowing nothing, have you any comment on the subject of BoM giving out ENSO updates to scare the pants of WUWT-ers? Are you ready yet to show us that you aren't ignorant about everything, or are you hiding your light under a bushel for the time being?
"There's an interesting course starting next March being run by Queensland Uni."
DeleteAt least you do have a sense of humour, I'll give you that.
I have commented on the WUWT thread.
"Are you ready yet to show us that you aren't ignorant about everything".
You have yet to show what you think I am ignorant about.
Your own words betrayed you up top. Don't tell me you are not just ignorant about climate science, but you didn't even understand what my comment referred to. Now that would be what I call really ignorant.
DeleteBy your comment you reject the greenhouse effect. You reject some elementary science that's been known about for almost 200 years. You confuse a similarity of temperature trends (not the same trend, mind you) with the levels that surface temperatures have reached so far, with CO2-forced warming.
Way back in the 1880s, people in country towns in Australia, knew more than you know in 2014.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/flashback-to-1884-few-hundredths-of.html
Look, there's nothing wrong with being ignorant about stuff. There's an awful lot I don't know. What is quite shameful is being wilfully ignorant. Knowingly rejecting science because it spoils your personal image of the world or because you think it might conflict with your politics or religion or something.
If you frequent climate science websites as I'm guessing you do, based on your silly comments, then it means that you are deliberately turning your back on knowledge. That's wilful ignorance and it's not something to be proud of.
"By your comment you reject the greenhouse effect."
DeleteNonsense. That only displays your own ignorance. I have not made a single statement which rejects the greenhouse effect.
When you can actually discuss science, without all the bullshit ad hominem, then please try.
If Matti Ressler needs any example of his ignorance: how about the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 150 years?
DeleteHenry's Law it isn't. If you believe it is, go ahead, show with a calculation how Henry's Law explains a 120 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2.
If you cannot, apologise for even making that suggestion.
To those who don't want to hold their breath: Matti Ressler will have to calculate that the oceans have heated by more than 5 degrees in the last 150 years (a doubling of partial pressure of CO2 requires a 16 K increase in temperature).
Doubling the partial pressure from a16K temperature change cited on Wikipedia applies only to PCO2(aq) in the ocean and not to PCO2(g) in the atmosphere if you read the paper it references. These two reservoirs have dramatically different amounts of CO2 and thus would require different amounts of changes in temperature to double their partial pressure.
DeleteWikipedia link?
DeleteWikipedia paper reference?
TIA
Many denialists rubbish models that scientists use. Here is a set of videos showing a mechanical Fourier Analysis machine built by Albert Michelson of Michelson and Morley fame. Their experiment proved that there was no 'Aether'. This of course led Einstein to then postulate his theory of Relativity.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAsM30MAHLg&feature=youtu.be
Our modern super computers and concomitant model systems are far better than this.
Even the denialati can watch this beautiful machine do its thing, and I am sure if viewed often enough they will start to understand something! Bert
Can you show us a climate model which has not failed?
DeleteIt's not so much rubbishing models, but rather placing model output above empirical evidence. Models are only a tool to help scientist see where they need to look for things they wish to determine empirically. We don't say "the climate model output is X, thus X is a fact". That is nonsense.
Backslitherer you are pathetic! All climate models predict within the error bars. Bert
Delete"Backslitherer you are pathetic!"
DeleteWhy the ad hominem? Of course all climate models predict. Did I say anything to the contrary? No. The problem is that those predictions have been woefully wrong.... something like 97% (the magic number)
No, calling you pathetic is not an ad hom. That's simple name-calling. It's an insult if you will, and well-deserved.
Delete"Of course all climate models predict."
Delete"Can you show us a climate model which has not failed?"
Are those two statements mutually exclusive? I think they are.
Typical muddled thinking making binary pronouncements on whether things succeed or fail, are correct or not and putting impossibly high standards of proof on science. Strangely Backslider backtracks on his absolutes and says something almost sensible about models. I guess consistency is not one of his strengths.
"Did I say anything to the contrary?"
Delete@Backsider Yes, I think you did. See above.
those predictions have been woefully wrong.... something like 97%
A meaningless comment without qualification or context. Did you mean 97% failed? If so you need to say what the criteria for wrong are. Or did you mean they were on average 97% out in their predictions? What, precipitation, temperature, wind speed, snow cover, ice melt ...? Again you need to be more informative. Then it might be possible to discuss something. Perhaps you could clarify?
Of course in my experience deniers never try to help discussion progress well because that brings them up hard against facts. Obviously not something they like dealing with.
An ad hominem argument starts with denigrating someone, then claiming that their personal qualities make their arguments about a topic incorrect. This is a logical fallacy, insult->dismissal. No actual evaluation of the original assertion is made, hence the fallacy.
DeleteOn the other hand, evaluating an argument, finding it lacking, and from that inferring qualities of the presenter, is simply a judgement call, argument->evaluation->rejection->insult. Whether or not you agree with the judgement about the presenter, it is not a fallacious dismissal, as there is an actual evaluation.
@Backslider/Matti Ressler - your arguments as presented here (and elsewhere) are appallingly wrong. Based on that, I judge that you don't know what you're talking about.
The BacksliderNovember 21, 2014 at 7:07 PM - .... With the error bars, remember?
DeleteEven the 'dumbest' model, Arrhenius 1904, predicted rather exactly what we've seen since and nothing at all suggests reality will suddenly quit moving along that dead simple piece of physics.
I THINK THAT THEH DENIERS NEED TO LEARN SCIENCE AND STOP POSTING LIIES.
ReplyDeleteHERE IN PORT MOSBY WE KNOW WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS AND WE ARE SUFFERING.
PLEASE HELP US AND LISTEN TO THE SCIENCES.
Who exactly denies that the climate changes?
DeleteThe climate has always changed and always will. Get used to it, adapt.
so you say the climate has always changed, yet you deny it is chaning.
Deletemakes no sense.
cabc
From above: "He is a Greenhouse Effect denier ..."
Delete@Backslider alias Ratti Messler
Without getting into semantics it looks like you deny the climate changes, using the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase.
Or do you deny you are a denier of that description?
I think he means that climate is only allowed to change if it doesn't threaten fossil fuel industry profits. So today he says 'adapt'. Bangladeshis (for instance) should start growing gills.
Delete"so you say the climate has always changed, yet you deny it is chaning."
DeleteNonsense. I have never, ever said that the climate is not changing. All of my discussion here has pointed to and recognised climate change.
Did your mother drop you on your head backslitherer? Or are you a self made idiot! Bert
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how you people claim to want to engage in a real dialog about the facts. .... yet when backslider presented you with a coherent objection with the current ghg model forcings based on the differences between warming periods that started before co2 was a factor. .... not one of you smartie pants stepped up. I guess name calling is about as technical as you get here. You come by it naturally since your leader who gets paid by the green energy lobby pretty much just hurls insults to.
ReplyDelete"... with the current ghg model forcings based on the differences between warming periods that started before co2 was a factor."
DeleteSounds like a strawman borne from ignorance to me.
CO2 was always a factor, of course, too, it having been a GHG with variations in concentration throughout earth's history.
What roughly is climate sensitivity to such concentration changes is completely know. What climate sensitivity there is exactly is less well known, feedbacks et cetera. Which should sound alarming because there is quite a range of feedback possibilities leading to global temp rise of 10° C or so with doubling of CO2 concentrations.
And this we know from, among others, paleo evidence.
Which also suggests a sea level 10-15 metres higher than now at present concentrations, well guess what: the ice all over the planet is beginning to catch up to achieve. Give it 1000-2000 years at most (2/3's of the Greenland ice sheet will go, for instance, compare last interglacial).
@Donald
DeleteI am not sure that was what Backslider was saying. If I understand him right he says CO2 is/was never a factor. And he starts at 1880.
When do you think CO2 started being a factor? I would have said from the start of the industrial revolution in around 1760?
Jammy..... the IPCC scientists believe that anthropogenic co2 increases began influencing the climate after 1950. Don't take my word for it. .... look it up for yourself. Backslider was making the point that if co2 forced temperature as much as the models predict then you would expect those natural warming cycles to start "gaining speed" as the levels of CO2 increase..... but they didn't.
Delete"When do you think CO2 started being a factor? I would have said from the start of the industrial revolution in around 1760?"
DeleteThat is your own childish opinion. Warmist scientists believe it (human emissions) only became a factor after the 1950's
In 1760 the earth was still in the grip of The Little Ice Age. Scientists regard 1850 as the start point of the current warming. The warming in the late 1800's is regarded as perfectly natural. If you think otherwise, then please provide the peer reviewed science to back it up.
"I am not sure that was what Backslider was saying."
DeleteThis is the only sensible thing you have said. Perhaps if you would engage in discussion rather than ad hominem, then you may understand.
Donald Dean is wrong, which is no surprise. He is confusing the fact that since the 1950s CO2 has dominated the warming with the fact that CO2 has been influencing the warming for much, much longer. Certainly since humans started burning fossil fuels from the industrial revolution onwards. Others say it's started before then, with changing land use - agriculture and deforestation.
Delete" Backslider was making the point that if co2 forced temperature as much as the models predict then you would expect those natural warming cycles to start "gaining speed" as the levels of CO2 increase..... but they didn't."
DeleteThank you Donald. At least somebody here comprehends something which I have stated so simply.
From others here I have been called a "denier", "ignorant", "dropped on your head", "greenhouse effect denier" etc.
These are classic examples from people who know very little, have very low self esteem and feel the need to go along with a popular meme so that they feel they fit in, because they cannot fit in anywhere else in society.
Oh, I don't want to insult backslider. He said the same as Donald Dean and so was wrong as well, which is also no surprise.
DeleteWell, I've never made the claim that Donald claims "you people" made (I find mockery more fun and neither more nor less productive), but buried in the tone trolling whinge, Donald implies interest in a reasonable question.
DeleteBackslider concludes that CO2 can't be much of a factor in current warming, because it wasn't much of a factor in past warming of similar magnitude.
Okay, setting aside the fact that I personally agree with cRR Kampen that that is a total strawman, I'll weigh in on what I see is a much more significant problem - the logical flaw that falls under the wide class of "false dilemma". Backslider only considers CO2 forcing in these periods - since the rates were similar, the forcing must be similar; since there is a lot more CO2 now, the forcing must be relatively weak.
But Backslider fails to consider what was happening with every other climate forcing in those periods. What was the sun doing? What about decadal scale forcings like AMO, IPO, PDO etc? What effect were land-use changes having, or volcanic eruptions? Backslider doesn't consider any of these. But it is worth noting that absent CO2 forcing, these other forcings would have taken our temperatures over the last 20 or so years one downward trend (hence the occasional estimate that CO2 is responsible for more than 100% of warming), rather than the shallow warming trend we have seen. So, the question back at Backslider is what were all those other forcings doing at those times. And if he doesn't know, his conclusion is meaningless.
Hitting a target requires precision in four dimensions. Backslider thinks he hit a home run with this one. But while his bat and the ball both crossed home plate, he actually swung low, inside the pitch and a week after the game finished. But other than that, its a real zinger...
Sou - I think a comment of mine that belongs here has gone into the inspamerator by mistake - cheers, FD.
Delete"Jammy..... the IPCC scientists believe that anthropogenic co2 increases began influencing the climate after 1950. Don't take my word for it. .... look it up for yourself"
DeleteI have looked it up, and did not see any "IPCC" scientists claiming this. I did find a lot of climate scientists pointing out that since 1950 most natural forcings have been negative, whereas before that time there were some that were likely positive (in particular solar). Or, in other words, if we would take the periods 1901-1950 and 1950-2000, some of the increase in the first period may be due to natural factors, whereas in the latter period it is likely exclusively anthropogenic.
@Backslider
Delete"This is the only sensible thing you have said. Perhaps if you would engage in discussion rather than ad hominem, then you may understand."
@Backslider
I don't think I have ad-hominended you. Unless you can show me where apology please. (Quotes from other people are not my ad hominem. That was an attempt at a discussion..)
That is your own childish opinion. Warmist scientists believe it (human emissions) only became a factor after the 1950's
Followed instantly by another condescending ad-hominem. Once more and I will ad-hominem you.
It is not an opinion or childish. It is recognised that CO2 started rising as a result of the industrial revolution. If it had an effect in the 1950s it had an effect then. Just because we cannot discern that effect because it was small at that time does not mean it was not there or was not a factor. Do you think the effect of CO2 switches on and off to fit what you want to think? Or do you believe it is always off?
@Donald Dean
DeleteSee Marco's post.
I don't need to look it up Donald. I am enough of a scientist to know that if CO2 had an effect in the 1950s it had an effect in the 1760s. Even more I know that it has had an effect for the last 4 billion years or so of earth's existence. Or the last 14 billion years or so since the universe came into being. That's physics Donald.
...the models predict then you would expect those natural warming cycles to start "gaining speed" as the levels of CO2 increase..... but they didn't.
DeleteWhy would you expect natural warming cycles to gain speed? Is that what you meant to say?
@Backslider
Delete"Backslider concludes that CO2 can't be much of a factor in current warming, because it wasn't much of a factor in past warming of similar magnitude."
Ah, now I understand why you were so desperate to mock my point that CO2 started rising from 1760. Because your whole shaky edifice comes crashing down if you concede that.
Try science next time. Not desperate attempts to misrepresent what people are saying in good faith. I think you might have been guilty of ad-hominem tactics there.
Sou, I was rather amused to see your comment about BOM calling the 1997/98 El Nino, citing - of all people - WIlliam Kinninmonth.
ReplyDeleteKinninmonth of course has gone on to be an AGW denier of some prominence (due to his status as former head of the National Climate Centre at BOM), and is quoted on the Skeptical Science website as saying (in 2009) "In light of the recent global temperature record it is appropriate to ask ... why 1998 remains the warmest year in the record and why global average temperatures have persisted at about the same value (0.4oC above the 1961-1990 average) since 1997."
Looks like he forgot the significance of his own El Nino announcement back in 1997. Mind you, in the intervening period he was a member of the Lavoisier Group and SPPI - clearly, membership of these groups has a deleterious effect on memory and cognition.
Yes, is ironic the word?
DeleteSorry about your comments, too, Frank. I've no idea why Google singles yours out. It's weird.
You are all sheep with no ability to think independently. ... maybe worse than the sheep at WUWT. You have this moron now trying to claim that there has been no pause or hiatus in her Pat n Chip post. Are you serious? There have been countless climate scientists trying to figure out which natural cycle has had so much influence on temperature that it has almost completely negated the effects of CO2. The recent focus on ocean cycles is their number one suspect for hiding the heat that hasn't shown up in the surface temperatures. .... and you are going to claim that the warming hasn't nearly stopped since 1998!!!! I'm not sure even your sheep will swallow that one Sou. And if your rants couldn't get any funnier you use a surface temperature chart that starts in 1880 to try and support your claim that the surface warming hasn't slowed since 1998. 90% of your chart is meaningless. You are pathetic.
ReplyDelete@Donald Dean
DeleteDo you realise how similar your post looks compared to hundreds of others seen on countless blogs. But you think you are an independent thinker? More a case of severe Dunning Kruger as you have blinded yourself to understanding what is being said. Though strangely your post has all the relevant details.
In a nutshell the earth is still warming. The surface temperature has not gone up as much as predicted. As you correctly surmised possibly/probably the heat has gone into the oceans.
And there is no negation of the effects of CO2.
Clearer now? You can stop frothing with indignation.
Is that what fake sceptics call denial these days? "Independent thinking". I suppose it's as useful euphemism for science deniers as "skeptic" is.
DeleteDonald Dean is back denying this:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/whats-happened-to-global-warming-in.html#charts
Are deniers really that deluded or are they just pretending to be dumb.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteCuriously Donald chastises Sou for claiming that surface temperatures have risen since 1998 by claiming that surface temperatures have risen since 1998. Genius!
DeleteDonald engages in a "real discussion about the facts" by insulting Sou and her readership as "pathetica", "sheep", "moron". Nullius in verba, they say, but in this case, the verba demonstrate Donald's interest in a real conversation - nullius.
Jammy. ... if your fearless leader wasn't being disingenuous she would tell it how it is rather than deceiving you. The truth is... it hasn't warmed much if at all since 1998. However 1998 was was a very warm year ... so using that year can be misleading. Which is why Sou uses 1996 because it was much cooler. Instead of denying the pause she should just make sure her readers understand that 1998 was an anomaly. Instead of speaking truth she distorts it in the same way Watts has done. Sou is the hypocrite of hypocrites.
DeleteFrank I would love for someone to address backsliders objection to ghg model forcings and how it relates to the natural warming cycles of the past. ... I even went out of my way to explain his questions to Jammy. I really don't like to have insult ridden dialog. ... it seems Sou's boundless hypocracies bring out the worst in me.
DeleteWrong again, Donald. I used 1996 because Craig Rucker of CFACT and other deniers at WUWT used it. I explained why I picked that year in the original article as well as the later one.
Deletehttp://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/whats-that-about-16-years-since-1996.html
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/whats-happened-to-global-warming-in.html
And warming hasn't just occurred on the surface. The oceans have warmed and the ice is melting. You accuse me of stuff but you keep making up stuff about what I write. You did it before and you're doing it again now. That's called misrepresentation.
@Donald
Delete"...she would tell it how it is rather than deceiving you."
And so says the independent thinker. You are being as condescending as Backslider. Sou is deceiving me? You went out of your way to explain to me? (Gee, thanks!) You think "we" do not know 1998 was an extra hot year? Sou is our leader? Get a grip.
How about addressing what I said to you to help you understand what Sou was saying. And I notice Sou has kindly repeated in her last post above?
Jammy. ... help me understand again. ... not sure what issues you think I am confused about. The fact is. ... Sou is eluding that there is no pause. Do you agree with that? Feel free to ask me a specific question and I will respond so we can make some progress.
DeleteI'm eluding? Huh?
DeleteIn any case, do read what I write and stop misrepresenting what I say, Donald. That's at least the third time you've done that. Just stop it.
What I'm saying is that earth continues to build up heat. I've shown you the data.
The surface hasn't warmed at the same rate in recent years but earth has continued to build up heat as shown by all the evidence collected. Ice is melting, oceans are expanding, sea levels are rising, the oceans are warming, the surface remains hot. Even the surface is hotter this year so far than any year recorded to date.
@Donald Dean
DeleteGlad to help Donald. Though I think Sou's patience is running out. Not surprisingly as you have gratuitously insulted her from a position of misunderstanding.
You appear to be confused at the difference between global warming and the surface temperature rise. The (whole) earth can gain heat. There can be temperature rises. Do not confuse heat and temperature. Or ocean temperature rise and surface temperature rise.
And you appear to confuse elude and allude. Though that could have been a double typo.
Jammy. ... nobody says the effects of ghgs turn on or off. Greenhouse gasses allow us to survive on this planet. Without them the diurnal temperature range of the planet would be huge. What skeptics claim... is that the rate of temperature increases is far below what the models forcast based on co2 levels. Yes co2 levels have naturally fluctuated over time however other than a 10 year blip around 1940 the co2 levels didn't steadily increase until after the 1950's
ReplyDelete@Donald Dean
DeleteBoth you and Backslider said that anthropogenic CO2 rise was not a factor until the 1950s. I said that CO2 has been rising since the 1760s. If CO2 was not a factor then then there must be a means to switch its effects off. Physics again Donald.
Weasel words like "steadily increase" do not change that. Or "naturally fluctuated". Just look at any graph of CO2 rise. Probably best not to get one from a denier site - they tend to distort graphs.
"The BacksliderNovember 22, 2014 at 3:46 AM
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator."
Oh, I see. I prove you wrong so you remove my comments.
You Sou are a true climate science denier if ever I saw one.
As I promised earlier, your denialist comments have been moved to the HotWhoppery, The Backslider. You can gaze on them there and feel all warm and fuzzy that your name is still in print somewhere on the Internet.
Deletethe HotWhoppery
"As I promised earlier, your denialist comments have been moved to the HotWhoppery"
DeleteOh? And what exactly have I "denied"?
I can see, looking at your Hotwhoppery it is the place where comments that really show how wrong you are reside.
Thank you for the resource!
To start out with, you have denied that the rise in CO2 over the last century+ is due to anthropogenic emissions.
Delete@Backscratcher
DeleteIn summary:
I said
"... CO2 has been rising since the 1760s."
So you said:
Show us all just one peer reviewed paper that tells us that anthropogenic CO2 was a factor accelerating natural warming since that time.
Not sure what that is called as a debating tactic. Gross misrepresentation I think. Moving the goalposts? Using a non-sequitur. Moving the target?
Whatever it was you showed you did not understand anything being said and your intention was not to understand better but just to be facetiously argumentative and unpleasant.
@Blackglider
Delete"...completely removed my comment which showed how completely wrong you are."
Oh dear. The desperation of someone who has been completely debunked!
I await patiently for you Jammy to show us the peer reviewed science which shows that all global warming has been caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions since 1760.
Just distorting what I said even more just makes you look even more desperate. You might say something this stupid but do not project that onto anyone else.
Oh, just an opinion on the sock puppetry:
ReplyDelete"Teh Backscatter" = Teh Smokey
"Donald Duck" ~ Just another WTFUWT? moderator doing the sock puppetry
#2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scatology
The faux CO2 argument (null hypothesis) is a clear giveaway.
Sou,
In my previous reference to WTFUWT? "an hour ago" should be "six hours ago" (I always love rubbernecking the train wreck that is WTFUWT?, just hadn't updated that page for like five hours, so, in other words, the lying Steele post does indeed predate all sock puppetry you all now see before you).
Denying Deniers in Denial
Ok Jammy you provide the co2 graph you would like me to look at. ... and I will.
ReplyDelete@Donald Dean
DeleteInitial reaction: You must be joking. Find your own.
Second reaction: Oh gosh, he really is clueless about climate science if he has not checked out a CO2 graph. And you should always try and help a person who is genuinely enquiring.
I don't think I can post an image here. The Scripps Institute is a good source of information. Or search in Google images. This one is OK:
CO2 graph
Or would you accept this graph from nasa? http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
DeleteThat is the same graph I think. What is your point?
DeleteIgnore last post. Not sure what went wrong.
DeleteThat graph goes back thousands of years. Not so useful for looking at 1760 onwards.
My point is. ... the co2 levels had bounced around under 300 ppm for a long time until 1950. Now we are close to 400 ppm. Do you think that the warming cycles should start to look different from the ones that took place before we had so much co2?
DeleteCO2 1ka - recent past Law Dome ice core
DeleteCO2 Holocene, AR4.
Jolly hockey sticks!
Well, Donald, your point was wrong wasn't it. CO2 has been increasing since industrialisation, it hasn't been "bouncing around 300 ppm" for a long time. It's been rising as we (and our parents and grandparents etc) have been pouring waste gases into the air.
DeleteHere's another chart for you - only from 1840 this time.
http://hotwhopper.com/Charts/lawdomeML.png
BTW - what "warming cycles" are you talking about? It's the *amount* of atmospheric CO2 that causes global warming. And it's a hellava lot warmer now with a lot more CO2 than it was in 1950 or 1850.
DeleteIf we could take CO2 out of the air and dropped it back to 300 ppm, then global surface temperatures would also drop eventually.
You have unusual ideas about CO2 (and unusual ideas about temperature and energy and heat as well).
@Donald Dean
DeleteWell, first we were talking about CO2 rising from about 1760. So, CO2 levels had bounced around under 300ppm for a long time until 1760. Will you finally accept that? Hint: That is what your graph shows.
What do you mean by warming cycles? Do you mean an event such as El Nino? Or natural variation? Then no, I do not think so. At any rate not after you remove the CO2 forcing. Perhaps you can be a bit more precise in what you mean. What do you think?
OK, slight correction.
DeleteCO2 levels bounced around under 300 ppm until around 1910. They have been rising since 1760 or so.
I guess I need Jammy or Sou to explain to me how the earth can gain heat without rising temperatures when temperature is a function of heat. Or if you could explain to me how the earth could warm but somehow that warmer earth would not radiate it's heat to the surface... causing elevated surface temperatures. ???
ReplyDeleteWater has a very large heat capacity. Way more than air. More than 90% of the extra heat being stored on earth goes into heating the oceans.
Deletehttp://theconversation.com/southern-oceans-heating-up-faster-than-scientists-realised-32627
http://omp.gso.uri.edu/ompweb/doee/science/physical/chtemp6.htm
Small factoid I read today:
Delete"Here is an amazing fact. The 2.5MJ needed to evaporate 1 kg of water is equivalent to the kinetic energy of (1 kg of water) moving at ... 7 times the speed of sound."
Sort of related to Sou's heat capacity post.
Donald: If you don't understand that the Earth system's *heat* content can increase, without the temperature of a specific component warming up, then you need to study more and post less. As Sou points out, most excess heat goes into the ocean; it's measurable and been measured. ENSO, the topic of this thread, basically involves shifting the partitioning of heating between the atmosphere and ocean. A small percentage change in how well the ocean takes up heat and releases it at the surface makes a big difference to air temperature.
DeleteOcean heat content, 0-2000m layer.
DeleteThere it is! That not-missing energy!
It - it's a heat sink, Jim!
But not a perpetual removal machine. Energy is conserved.
Pl.... that is a stretch. Ok let's assume that the sun that warms the land. ... the co2 traps the heat at record pace but we don't see that in the observations so..... what must be happening is somehow the heat that should have raised land temperatures is somehow transported to the oceans. Now the problem with measuring ocean heat is complex partly due to the oceans fluidity and actually because it's heat storing capacity is so large that it can store a ton of heat without even raising the water temperature one hundredth of a degree. Now maybe you are right and the heat has just been somehow ushered to the depths of the ocean. .... where this was not the case in the 1980's and 1990's when we did see the surface temperatures rising. ... but doesn't it seem a little funny to you that the heat just happened to all go to a place where measuring it is next to impossible? ???
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Donald
Delete"...it's measurable and been measured. "
"There it is! That not-missing energy!"
followed by the assertion
"... but doesn't it seem a little funny to you that the heat just happened to all go to a place where measuring it is next to impossible? ??? "
Well, you could question the accuracy or validity of the measurements and give reasons or cite studies. But to just flatly contradict their existence when evidence has been put in front of you? That is just perverse.
Donald says "that is a stretch". No, it isn't. Ocean heat content is measurable and has been rising as expected. A quick google search will provide you with lots of cites. Start with, e.g., papers by Levitus.
DeleteIf you don't trust thermometers on profiling floats, and other ship-deployed instruments, then use sea level rise as an "integrating thermometer". Surprise ... sea level is rising at the rate you'd expect from ocean warming and *measured* loss of ice from glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets.
As for how heat gets into the ocean, your comment indicates you don't have a clue. So, as I said, time to study.
If John, Donald and Backslider want to reset the tone of the discussion here, they could return to the topic of the post: stupid comments about ENSO and BoM at WUWT. Which one(s) to defend, with science?
ReplyDeleteWhat a train wreck this thread is. The copy-pasta-from-denier-sites fake skeptics like 'The Backslider' and 'Donald Dean' don't even realise how they are being manipulated by clever contrarian scientists with an agenda/axe to grind like Richard Lindzen. For instance, that loaded question put to Phil Jones by the BBC in 2009 was in fact originally constructed by Lindzen, who did the maths and found there was no statistically significant warming from 1995 to then. Don't believe me? Lubos Motl had a great little brag about it here:
ReplyDeletehttp://motls.blogspot.ie/2010/03/insignificant-warming-trends-why-1995.html
Here's a clue AGW deniers: if changing the start or end point by just a few years makes a marked difference to the slope of the trend line, you are cherry-picking to get a pre-determined answer just like Lindzen, Watts, and Motl were.
And the deniers don't really understand what 'statistically significant' means either. It means by being significant at the 95% confidence level, that there is only a 1 in 20 chance that whatever happened could have happened by pure chance. So, how far off being statistically significant was it from 1995 - 2009? In fact, it was significant at a confidence level of ~94.2%, which is why it only took one more year to make it 'statistically significant'. So that's how far out on a limb the deniers have to go to hold onto their denial. In the real world that most of us rational people inhabit, the difference between 94.2% and 95% is not going to save our collective bacon in the long run, is it?
Time wasting, that's all these 144 comments (at the time of writing) is about. Time wasting. It's what the AGW deniers/fake skeptics excel at, and not much else do they excel at.
I can make it statistically significant without waiting a year. Just do it at the 90% confidence level. :)
DeleteMetzo.... the trend should be well past merely being significant with co2 levels approaching 400
Delete@Donald Dean
DeleteMerely being significant?
Let me guess. Significant at the 101% significance level?
Perhaps Donald you could show your calculations that show what being past significant would be at a CO2 level of 400? Please show all working and reasoning for full marks.
@Donald: This display of ignorance isn't helping your cause; you've been at Sou's pages before, many opportunities to learn, that you've passed up on.
DeleteYou want a strong correlation because CO2 is above 400 ppm? Do a correlation through the ice ages (the CO2 plot you wanted us to look at, with values of 180-280 ppm until "recently", now about 400). Doubling CO2, at "equilibrium", gives about 3 C rise.
Words. The AGW deniers seem to have so much trouble comprehending just a few simple words like these:
DeleteAnd the deniers don't really understand what 'statistically significant' means either. It means by being significant at the 95% confidence level, that there is only a 1 in 20 chance that whatever happened could have happened by pure chance.
So, to spell it out, that means that with all the excess CO2 mankind has been putting into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, that there's only a 1 in 20 chance that CO2 *isn't* the cause of the majority of the warming since 1750. Because according to basic physics, it *has to be* the cause. Nothing else we know of could cause such a build-up of heat.
And, BTW, the excess heat hasn't just suddenly, 'somehow' gone into the deep ocean as you allude to above:
so..... what must be happening is somehow the heat that should have raised land temperatures is somehow transported to the oceans.
Rather, around 90% of the excess heat has *always* gone into the oceans. And then, sooner or later, an El NiƱo event helps bring it to the surface, and... BAM! The surface temperature 'escalator' ratches up another level:
The Escalator
I am not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp. .... but.... when we had surface temperature rises in the 80's and 90's the oceans were warming then...... and subsequently we have seen co2 levels rise, yet the surface temperatures didn't. ... so what changed?
DeleteThere were a number of things different, Donald including the less active sun, more active low-level volcanic activity and different ocean-atmosphere interactions, such as the tendency to a more La Nina-like ocean (and "cool" phase of the PDO and/or IPO).
DeleteHere's some reading to get you started. (Google and Google scholar can be quite useful if you have some idea of what you are looking for.)
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/gavin-schmidt-co-have-been-reconciling.html
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/warming-pacific-drives-global-temperatures.html
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/11/thanks-volcanoes-earth-cooler-expected-due-recent-eruptions
And there's more in the edition of Nature shown below:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/focus/slowdown-global-warm/index.html
Happy reading.
I have read countless articles about what other factors scientists guess may be causing the differences. .... and they don't know. ..... so it's funny for you to pretend that you do. If you look at these studies objectively there is no way you reach the conclusions you have.... Especially if you have a science background. And I am not picking on the scientists because in most cases they are using the best data they have . ... it's just that they are forced to make leaps that they would never take if they had a more complete data set.
DeleteJammy and PL when a trend is significant at the scientifically accepted level it only means the trend is very likely not a chance occurrence. As co2 increases would you expect the trends to more easily reach the significant level? This is more directed to PL as I am sure by the posts that Jammy has no clue.
ReplyDeleteI haven't been following the signficant discussion :) What is it that Donald testing?
DeleteNick Stokes has a nice post about significance and trends, which might help him - or not. Here is a quote:
Scientists don't spend a lot of time worrying about whether trends are "significant". There's good reason for that.
Significance tests can't prove anything. They seek to disprove a null hypothesis. And the question of whether the temperature trend was zero is of little interest. No-one expects that it would have been. So the question of disproving that is not important to them. And I can't imagine why skeptics think it is important to disprove that the trend was zero.
And a bit more further on:
Anyway, Willis' example above illustrates what is wrong with equating no warming with no significant warming. It's quite possible for warming exactly in line with AGW predictions to be sytatistically insignificant, because of the number of observations and their noisiness. Now a theory can't do better than get it right. So in this post, I'll show how, under various measures of significance, various trends do not become significant until sustained for quite a lot of years. That's not because there's any doubt about whether they are happening.
You can find out what Nick's done (and read the full article) here:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/significant-warming.html
Like the rest of us, Jammy is having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. A cynic might suggest that you are deliberately obtuse, so you can sound hurt when people "misunderstand" you, or so you can back off your implied claims when they are made to look foolish. Learn enough science so you can talk precisely about what you claim to want to know.
Delete"Significance" depends on the number of independent samples of the process being tested, compared with the "noise" associated with excluded processes. If annual-averaged global surface temp (GST) can vary from year to year by ~0.2 deg C (http://tinyurl.com/kmu6l3x), then for a trend to be significant, the expected GST rise for the process you are studying has to be above this value (roughly, and depending on what level of significance you want). If you can reduce the "noise" by using physics or empirical models (e.g., http://tinyurl.com/7oe5znl) then you can get significance over a smaller time interval.
For a given rise rate in CO2, the transient rise in GST (not equilibrium, since we're looking at short time scales) will decrease slightly as T goes roughly as log(CO2).
Tamino (aka grant Foster) also explains significance in tedious but critical detail (http://tamino.wordpress.com/). Worth working through his many posts if you're serious about wanting to know how to interpret statistical significance.
DeletePL .... I am well aware of what it means to be statistically significant. You may want to read my posts a little more carefully. I think Jammy needs the lesson on ss by his or her posts.
DeleteDonald: I've read your posts carefully. That's hard to do: it's not clear in general what you want people to tell you. You asked "As co2 increases would you expect the trends to more easily reach the significant level?" It's a vague question, so I have to guess what you claim to want to know, and so I gave a longer answer than you'd need if the question was well-posed. Then you respond as though you've been treated badly. Rather than complain, improve the quality of your posts.
DeleteNow, read some papers on ocean heat variability and trends.
@Donald Dean talking about significance and trends
Delete"" ...as I am sure by the posts that Jammy has no clue."
Dunning Kruger run riot! LOL
Degrees in statistics:
Jammy Dodger: 1
Donald Dean: 0
For an intro to the role of oceans in excess heat uptake, see http://tinyurl.com/mzgjmpc. Then read the more formal science papers cited therein.
DeleteBasically, get off the blogs, and read.
To everyone except Donald Dean who really has no clue and is a rude little prick. (Apologies to everyone if DD reappears because of this post.)
DeleteAs co2 increases would you expect the trends to more easily reach the significant level?
As PL points out this is another poorly framed question from a statistical illiteratus, so consequently there are at least three ways of answering it.
1. No. Over any similar time interval, all other things being equal, then the probability of reaching the significance level is the same.
2. Possibly slightly. As CO2 goes up and temperature goes up then the noise might, only might, be less in proportion to the signal. Hence the significance will be more prominent.
3, Yes. If over time and CO2 level going up the temperature rises the probability of seeing significance will increase. In other words the longer the time interval the more sure you can be of your data.
This is why the escalator is so apt though deniers do not get its significance. (Pun intended).
The Escalator
Warming trends should reach statistical significance much sooner as co2 increases since the warming should take place more and more rapidly. It was a yes or no question. Funny to hear you go on and on about being obtuse. Still waiting for you to prove my objections wrong.
ReplyDeleteDonald, your first sentence isn't a question, it's a statement. Are you wanting other people to test your hypothesis or are you just writing it as a belief statement.
DeleteThe fact you keep repeating yourself suggests you want someone else to do some work on your behalf.
If I may make a suggestion: Rather than repeat yourself like a broken record and have people respond to whatever they read you saying in any particular comment, and since you're the person who is making this claim, could you write up a "proof" in the style of Tamino - or point readers to a proof that someone else has written.
Either that or clarify whether you are making a statement about something you think you know, or asking the opinion of other people to a hypothesis you are entertaining but don't know how to test and want others to test it for you.
You've kept raising the point in one form or another, so it strikes me that you are seeking advice from stats experts and aren't sure how to go about it. The one suggestion I would make is to be nice. If you want something from someone else and aren't in a position to use brute force, then being nice will work better than being not so nice.
Of course, Jammy or PL may have brought up sufficient points for you to come to a conclusion one way or another already. Then all you need to is thank them for their time and effort.
Donald: So, when you said "CO2 increases", did you mean "when the rate of CO2 increase increases"? That's a different question than what you asked. You see why it's important to say what you mean, rather than floundering around.
DeleteWhy should the trend increase with increasing CO2?
ReplyDeleteYes that amused me. If that was the case then it would fatally contradict a favourite denier meme that CO2 is saturated so the temperature rise will slow down. I guess deniers will always pick what suits them at that moment to fit their made up facts.
DeleteSou..... I don't need advice. I posed the question many posts ago and PL misread my post and somehow thought I was asking about statistical significance. I was not. There are some people on here that I may disagree with but I think they are probably pretty sharp individuals. ... like PL. Then there is Jammy. In any event. ... my point was very simple. ... it was just that when looking at warming trends. ... one would expect that over time (since co2 will be continuing to rise) warming trends should reach statistical significance sooner (since things eventually will be getting hotter and getting hotter quicker) a pretty simple fact that I wanted agreement on ...so I could use it to make a point. However there are people who probably are just looking to disagree with anything I say. ... even the most basic and mundane claim. I am definitely not looking for Jammy to respond to this. My attempt to have a discussion with posters here was hijacked by that nit wit.
ReplyDeleteI'd say you meant that you don't want advice. Whether you need it or not is a different issue.
DeleteAs for mandating who can or cannot participate in the discussion here, that's my call not anyone else's.
You didn't get the agreement you wanted. That doesn't mean that you can't make whatever point you want to make, just that not everyone will agree with it.