Most of them are drongo mumbling over and over, unable to parse the response he got to any given question.
What do you think causes the NV you are attempting to quantify, drongo? Or does it have to remain unknowable so that your conception of climate remains intact?
Fabulous informative reading on this October thread.
Near pissed myself page 5 #64 when the bangled wonko
linked to Watts crap thinking its a valid way to critique
Tamino. Funny as anything.
Thanks to all contributers for very enjoyable read.
Some recommended reading for Doltoids to help them understand [and discard their denial long enough to get them to make an estimate between 0 and 1c per century] that the climate has always changed.
V A Dergachev et al:
"Thus, the analysis of the numerous varieties of proxy climatic records is indicative of the high variability of the Holocene climate. Furthermore, paleoclimate records reveal the presence of fairly regular patterns of major global climate changes."
"It can still be maintained that recent changes in climate are still within the long-term natural range of the climate system, if viewed on centennial time scales."
Nah, I'll pass. You've shown no ability to know what it is you're reading, so how could you possibly know whether what you are recommending is worth it?
Try getting someone who has demonstrated an ability to comprehend the written word to vouch for it.
# spangled drongo....yes, 'climate has always changed'...who knew? Since you did not personally observe any of this, I would have thought it wasn't provably the case anyway [chuckle, that's a joke that'll never lose currency as long as you squawk]
There has long been a great deal of interest in why and how climate changes, did you miss it? Pointing out that climate always changes does not really explore the issue, but that's not your intention is it? The intention is to suggest we cannot do anything about ACO2 and AGW because it's just more of the usual...sorry, drongo, your personal ignorance does not define the state of science and attribution.
Now, given climate variability, when was the last time the human species was pushing seven billion souls and occupying most of the climate and ecological zones of the planet, when climate changed dramatically? Should there be a little interest in and perhaps concern over the implications? The apparent centennial mean volatility of climate would place some demands on the resilience of human systems, don't you think? And what about changes that are even greater and faster?
Those links you just posted, have you looked at them in the light of ones I have drawn your attention to? I'll also remind you that despite the claimed variability of climate on the arbitary 100 year scale, lagging slower indicators from the cryosphere big glaciers and ice caps, are now in the anthropocene shrinking to extents not seen for 1600 to 5000 years...does that tell you anything? Puncak Jaya, gone soon. Look at the organics revealed by Baffin islands shrinking ice fields: even the centennial volatility of the sub-arctic is not masking the reversion to the mid-Holocene conditions..and the orbital forcing state- the NV-- does not explain it, old chap.
But there won't be any pennies dropping with you, will there.
Spangly should follow his own advice and *DO SOME READING*.
Spangly's first link says,
"The general state of Earth’s climate is controlled by the balance of energy on Earth received from the sun and the amount of energy released back to space....Causes of climate change involve any process that can alter this global energy balance. "
Do you understand what that is saying, Spangly?
Unfortunately, that article goes on to say,
"Recent observations suggest that cosmic rays coupled with solar activity mayplay a key role in climate change. Satellite data have revealed a surprising correlation between cos-mic ray intensity and the fraction of Earth covered by low clouds " (ie, Svensmark.).
Unfortunately, this group of authors' critical thinking has suffered a failure/ Svensmark is rubbish.
But now it seems that after a week of being asked to nominate a number between 0 and 1 as their considered opinion of average centennial Nat Var they are incapable of even roughly quantifying its existence.
Could it be that Doltoids also deny Nat Var?
Do they inconceivably believe that the past Holocene has been Mann-gled into an endless hockey stick handle?
Even using the lie of starting from 1950 instead of 1955, there is no statistically significant cooling from 1950 to 1976. The trend in HADCRUT4 for that period was -0.014±0.072℃, i.e. far too small to be statistically significant.
But as we all know, Stupid olD man is a data denier and will deny this data.
A little more light reading for Doltoids on the known unknowns, before making a momentous decision:
"Cloud cover is a “major climate driver” but nobody really knows what changes cloud cover.
Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid-1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid-1980s and late-1990s
(ref. Pinker, R. T., B. Zhang, and E. G. Dutton (2005), Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science, 308(5723), 850– 854.)
Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 Watts/sq metre).
So, changes to cloud cover alone could be responsible for all the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age but nobody knows the factors that control changes to cloud cover.”
#12, #13...stupid rhetoric, ignoring the replies you have demanded. All this behaviour proves is that you do not understand the material in front of you. Linking to 'Goddard' is a yardstick of your incompetence..which you had already established several years ago with your self-humiliating breath-holding about Cleveland Point.
Climate-scale changes all have causes.
Paranoid ideation by 'Goddard' is his cry for help. The scientific community is conspiring against him, for thirty years....tragicomedy. Endorsed by astrologer Tallbloke.
Need better deniers, and deniers need better mental health care.
I deduce from his last post that Spangled Drongo
- agrees there has been significant modern warming
- has decided cloud cover is somehow involved
- trusts the serially-wrong non-expert Steven Goddard to write anything sensible.
#16...if there is an increase in SW radiation at the surface because of a reduction in net cloud cover, then that same net cloud cover change will see that energy escape as LW...
It ain't cloudiness, and Pinker herself pinged the idiot Monckton for drawing untenable conclusions from her paper....and in 2015 , you'll find that Monckton has abandoned his claims on that score.
#20. You are projecting again, spangled troll. You've been exposed as clueless every time you post, #16 being the latest example. You post defunct talking points thrown up by your buddies years ago, unaware they have been mole-whacked.
Give it away. I know you're ineducable, but you're also really childish and boring. When did you think you could demand answers while never giving any in return? Most kids grow out of that behavior, if they even display it at all
Poor CoNcrete, I don't think he's feeling too statistically significant himself lately. Low self-esteem is one of the main reasons for joining a cult.
The two important questions that have a huge bearing on GW, AGW, CAGW [that Doltoids prefer to disguise as CC for obvious, embarrassing {to them} reasons] that I have sought to get answers from Doltoids on are; 1/ Do you have any personal observations of SLR? and 2/ What is your estimate of average centennial Nat Var over the Holocene?
Interestingly, these simple, basic questions have proved to be too hot for them to handle.
No, and you do not have any of SL fall. Tidal, weather and seasonal noise is too great for you to personally observe background SLR in your lifetime, Drongo. All you've seen are king tides...which do not tell you about, at their frequency of recurrence, about SL in your lifetime. You'd need a thousand years of tidal obs to detect SL movement statistically from just king tides.
I have plenty of observations of shore line changes...and they have all been retreats, unless they involve reclamation work and sea wall construction.
2/ What is your estimate of average centennial Nat Var over the Holocene?
This remains a foolish question, a red herring. The presence of 'significant' centennial variation in the past says nothing axiomatically about the nature and causes of the present GAT rise. It is no secret that periods 4000 years to 7000 were likely often a little warmer. It is no secret that you ignore error margins in these estimates as well.
Single points of observation will show more variation than regions , hemispheres and globes full of observations. The work you cite chooses too few observation points to make global extrapolations from, and they have been chosen because of their high variability. Good faith attempts to clarify global temperature range of the Holocene sample more palaeo data over a greater latitudinal range. You ignore this work.
Still fails to answer the SIMPLEST questions on what physical processes are at work in the weather systems of planet Earth, preferring to make up a fiction about others and complain about the fiction he created.
THIS is why your ideas are worthless: they aren't even grounded in any knowledge WHATSOEVER.
Dwrongo has struggled to detail his understanding of the actual import of natural variation (as he does with any question of science put to him) so I'm just going to point him to a lesson:
I somehow didn't think you would have any personal obs for lots of reasons but mainly because it hasn't been happening.
Might I remind you that around the Moreton Bay area I have up to 70 year records for SL stability and SL fall at the times of good weather king tides [normal BP] but none for SLR.
Still waiting for answers to 2/, although Nick seems to be saying that although it happened significantly up to ~ 1950, it can't possibly happen any more.
Can you bear it?
BTW, nicky, that 15 year period was nominated by CoNc.
Pay attention !
So, burn, can you answer these two simple questions that I have been asking you Doltoids for ages?
1/ Do you have any personal observations of SLR?
2/ What is your estimate of average centennial Nat Var over the Holocene?
Dwrongo, I will happily and with relish answer your two questions, if you go back over the last several years and answer the many hundreds of questions that I have put to you and which you have to date assiduously avoided.
Only Stupid olD men think our personal obs are any use for determining global averages - apart from their preferred global average temperature that is.
#39...drongo, there is a wee problem for you. You claim to have useful personal observations about SL, such as that there has been no rise, and thus none elsewhere.
Others have consistently noted that, given the full details of your 'techniques' that you have kindly supplied, you cannot have any useful observations about SL.
You seem unaware that your disclosure of your methodology debunks your claim for its utility.
That's all that we have ever been trying to tell you.
Pay attention!
Re NV: this claim of yours-
"Still waiting for answers to 2/, although Nick seems to be saying that although it happened significantly up to ~ 1950, it can’t possibly happen any more"
-is not actually confirmed by anything I've written...so you seem to be having the usual comprehension problems. Don't make shit up old man.
Can you bear it? Indeed. You are struggling as usual.
.BTW, nicky, that 15 year period was nominated by CoNc
Yes, and is a 15 year period going to produce a statistically significant claim about climate? CoN talked of sixty.
Why does the WMO cite 30 years? Why do climate scientist look to attribution over centuries and millenia? Are they making overarching claims about the climate and change just based on 15 years?
NIck's already mentioned it but it bears repeating.
Dwrongo, if - as you claim - you have a handle on the centenial variation in the global temperature record you should also have a handle on the minimum interval of time required in order to identify with 95% confidence any anthropogenic signal emerging from the short-term noise ( your "Nat Var", sic).
Can you explain what is the last century's short-term statistical variability, how you determined it, and what it implies for the length of the minimum period of data required in order to see the longer term anthropogenic effects?
And rather than running from the question in your usual fashion, why don't you instead cultivate some contents for that scrophulous slough of shrivelled parchment that serves as a surrogate for your scrotum, and engage with some actual science.
That's the way, burn, keep puffing yourself up like that and you might eventually stumble on some grain of truth you can use.
If you could ever recognise it, that is.
The only SLR that is true SLR is increases in normal barometric pressure king tides. Rises in mean sea level [which is what a tide gauge mostly records often as a result of extreme cyclonic storm surge] don't mean anything if normal BP high water levels don't increase.
Doltoids don't get that.
Now, have you personally observed any increase in [normal BP] high water in your lifetimes?
And what is your reasonable estimate of centennial Nat Var?
Bearing in mind the legendary extreme weather of past centuries plus all the paleo data to back it up.
Now, have you personally observed any increase in [normal BP] high water in your lifetimes?
Stop it, you're being really, really stupid.
Your observations fail simple qualitative and quantitative tests. You did not observe the BP at each tide with any accuracy. You have not noted any other weather conditions per observation, and you have not accounted for shoreline and bay floor change vis Raby Bay and other interventions along the coast. And one spot proves nothing much on its own.
You are the only one here who fails to understand how you are fooling yourself. Make an effort to rejoin reality.
"The only SLR that is true SLR is increases in normal barometric pressure king tides."
Forgive me my scepticism, but...who says this? What research is this assertion based on?
Another few questions that puzzle me:
Are king tide maximums globally uniform?
If not, then how does "measuring" king tides in one location tell you anything about global sea levels?
Define "measuring", exactly?
Nick on #31
" good faith " " clarify "
These terms leapt out at me as
2 great features of science and
what deniers avoid .
Instead they act to an agenda and obscure.
Thats what i see anyhow.
Stupid Drongo has been asking us to do his homework for him for a month now, with scores of posts claiming that an obviously-bullshit estimate of "natural" variability is somehow more useful than no estimate at all.
Anyway, torn between a disinclination to redo others' bad work and the futile hope that SD might just STFU, I finally got around to rerunning Philip Lloyd's estimate, but correcting for the dismally stupid error I described here, et seq.
As expected, this halves the calculated variability from Lloyd's bogus 0.98 C/cent to a more credible 0.49 C/cent. Further corrections for various lesser methodological boners brings it down to 0.38 C/cent. Since we have gone up a bit over 1 C in the last hundred years we are running at nearly triple the "natural" variation seen over the last ~10,000 years.
With its foundational flaws that make it of borderline utility (as Chris has commented on), I would suggest that 0.38 is very much an upper boundary figure, and adding more proxies and more rigour would likely reduce it somewhat further, so take that as "no greater than 0.38". But despite all that, with this approach nudging towards 3 standard deviations off "Nat Var", we can be >99% confident that the warming we have seen over the last hundred years is not natural.
Time to STFU about "Nat Var", Drongo. That argument is not your friend.
drongo has been fooling himself that internal variabilty, which is big weather noise /ENSO and vulcanism mediated, is the same as the 'variabilty' that forcing change brings...typically he's hamstrung by his cherry-picking, ignoring habits...
Bah, those undescribed links were supposed to be on my notepad. Still, they may be of interest to some.
On to the point of my post, the other thing to note FrankD that natural variability is variability around a mean, so over time it simply fluctuates around that mean with approximately 50% of the excursions occurring above the mean and 50% below. I did a breakdown of the modern global temperature record a few months back and from memory the 2SD variability was around 0.3 °C, which would be around ± 0.15 °C about the mean.
It's from this noise that Dwrongo needs to sort natural from anthropogenic. It's telling that he never answered my questions about the nature of the contemproary variability in the context of identifying a warming signal: if he had, he might have twigged to the issues raised by FrabkD and that are inherent in the data, as I've just described.
That's as long as there is no change to the suite of forcings of course - Dwrongo desperately wants human CO2 emissions to not be a real forcing, despite the fact that it's creating a consistent rapid warming trajectory and magnitude of the sort not seen for many milions of years.
The results will be the eventual elimination of the genetic legacies of his sort - of those who are manufacturing this ecological assault in the first place - but it will be a pyrrhic victory because most of the people and the species who are innocent of the damage are the ones who will suffer the most.
#58...Intelligent responses are welcome, drongo. Yours is not one. You've got two answers to one of your questions...now, will you address them...or run away?
I'm not even going to bother watching anything that is adorned with the garbage introduction that your clip has, Dwrongo, but that video is rather revealing with respect to your rabid anti-intellectual Dunning-Krugerism.
Still, it's interesting that you've harped on about natural variability as much as you have, because after my last post I had a niggling feeling that the figure I got from the GISStemp data was similar to something I'd read elsewhere. It turns out that it was several somethings, and Huber and Knutti were the first I found in my folder, and then the earlier Swanson, Sugihara and Tsonis paper. This in turn reminded me that I had read a summary of the material eslewhere, and low and behold in my bookmarks:
Over the modern period if the warming trend was merely "natural variability" one would expect an increase of no more than ~0.15 °C, with ~0.2 °C at most. And it would not trend consistently up, as the last half century has.
Face it Dwrongo, you're wrong. Again. FrankD patiently explained to you why Lloyd's screed is completely bogus, and it's a damning indictment of your blickered obdurateness that you ignore your dismantling. Which is par for the course really, like so many other times...
Those with enquiring minds never stop learning, this is one reason why we engage here for the links provided by reliable others can expand on our own individual sum of knowledge.
Those such as you on the other hand get stuck in a rut, which in your case leads to the digging of a hole.
Drongo's whine that using proper mathematical techniques is a result of Marxist PC "educayshun" reminds me of Stephen Colbert's observation that reality has a well-known liberal bias. Fucking Nature, not conforming to Drongos truthiness...
As an aside, Lloyd doesn't know the difference between oxygen and deuterium, getting it wrong several times in a few paragraphs. What a carefully crafted paper - where else would you publish it than in one of the lowest-impact environmental journal in the world...somehow I doubt this latest will lift E&E much....
Aren't Doltoids great wit' da love talk?
What about dropping your daks and showin' us your gear?
You're all waffle and no answers.
IOW, full of it.
Go on, have a stab.
Somewhere between zero and one.
Stupid olD man will never understand:
Temps have always warmed and cooled, except for the last 60 years when the only STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT change was warming.
Sorry Doltoids, the multi choicer @ #90 should have had a decimal point in front of each degree c.
Poor CoNcrete is a bit thick. He has to keep mumbling over and over to CoNvince himself.
How about a Nat Vat estimate CoNc?
Hey, we're up to 500 comments for October.
Most of them are drongo mumbling over and over, unable to parse the response he got to any given question.
What do you think causes the NV you are attempting to quantify, drongo? Or does it have to remain unknowable so that your conception of climate remains intact?
Fabulous informative reading on this October thread.
Near pissed myself page 5 #64 when the bangled wonko
linked to Watts crap thinking its a valid way to critique
Tamino. Funny as anything.
Thanks to all contributers for very enjoyable read.
Stupid olD man doesn't understand what STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT means.
"Stupid olD man will never understand"
Because it is ideologically inimical to spanky's politics
"Aren’t Doltoids great wit’ da love talk?"
Irony. Doesn't mean "made of iron".
Some recommended reading for Doltoids to help them understand [and discard their denial long enough to get them to make an estimate between 0 and 1c per century] that the climate has always changed.
V A Dergachev et al:
"Thus, the analysis of the numerous varieties of proxy climatic records is indicative of the high variability of the Holocene climate. Furthermore, paleoclimate records reveal the presence of fairly regular patterns of major global climate changes."
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/255672041_Natural_climate_varia…
Battarbee and Binney:
"It can still be maintained that recent changes in climate are still within the long-term natural range of the climate system, if viewed on centennial time scales."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.516/pdf
"Some recommended reading"
From you?
Nah, I'll pass. You've shown no ability to know what it is you're reading, so how could you possibly know whether what you are recommending is worth it?
Try getting someone who has demonstrated an ability to comprehend the written word to vouch for it.
# spangled drongo....yes, 'climate has always changed'...who knew? Since you did not personally observe any of this, I would have thought it wasn't provably the case anyway [chuckle, that's a joke that'll never lose currency as long as you squawk]
There has long been a great deal of interest in why and how climate changes, did you miss it? Pointing out that climate always changes does not really explore the issue, but that's not your intention is it? The intention is to suggest we cannot do anything about ACO2 and AGW because it's just more of the usual...sorry, drongo, your personal ignorance does not define the state of science and attribution.
Now, given climate variability, when was the last time the human species was pushing seven billion souls and occupying most of the climate and ecological zones of the planet, when climate changed dramatically? Should there be a little interest in and perhaps concern over the implications? The apparent centennial mean volatility of climate would place some demands on the resilience of human systems, don't you think? And what about changes that are even greater and faster?
Those links you just posted, have you looked at them in the light of ones I have drawn your attention to? I'll also remind you that despite the claimed variability of climate on the arbitary 100 year scale, lagging slower indicators from the cryosphere big glaciers and ice caps, are now in the anthropocene shrinking to extents not seen for 1600 to 5000 years...does that tell you anything? Puncak Jaya, gone soon. Look at the organics revealed by Baffin islands shrinking ice fields: even the centennial volatility of the sub-arctic is not masking the reversion to the mid-Holocene conditions..and the orbital forcing state- the NV-- does not explain it, old chap.
But there won't be any pennies dropping with you, will there.
#6 your first link reproduces a graphic from Mann et al 1999....what would they know, eh, drongo
Yes, though dated, it agrees remarkably well with more modern results.
Spangly should follow his own advice and *DO SOME READING*.
Spangly's first link says,
"The general state of Earth’s climate is controlled by the balance of energy on Earth received from the sun and the amount of energy released back to space....Causes of climate change involve any process that can alter this global energy balance. "
Do you understand what that is saying, Spangly?
Unfortunately, that article goes on to say,
"Recent observations suggest that cosmic rays coupled with solar activity mayplay a key role in climate change. Satellite data have revealed a surprising correlation between cos-mic ray intensity and the fraction of Earth covered by low clouds " (ie, Svensmark.).
Unfortunately, this group of authors' critical thinking has suffered a failure/ Svensmark is rubbish.
Doltoids deny data. We know that.
But now it seems that after a week of being asked to nominate a number between 0 and 1 as their considered opinion of average centennial Nat Var they are incapable of even roughly quantifying its existence.
Could it be that Doltoids also deny Nat Var?
Do they inconceivably believe that the past Holocene has been Mann-gled into an endless hockey stick handle?
Could they be so mindlessly brainwashed?
Say it isn't so.
So what about an answer, Doltoids, one way or the other. Yes, No?
Does Nat Var exist?
As in; Does climate change naturally?
As in; and how much per century d'ya reckon is a reasonable estimate?
Up OR down?
Those that opt for "Haven't a Clue" are also welcome to participate by not answering the question.
e.g. denying temps have always warmed and cooled, except for the last 60 years when the only STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT change was warming.
Yeah that's data denial.
Even using the lie of starting from 1950 instead of 1955, there is no statistically significant cooling from 1950 to 1976. The trend in HADCRUT4 for that period was -0.014±0.072℃, i.e. far too small to be statistically significant.
But as we all know, Stupid olD man is a data denier and will deny this data.
A little more light reading for Doltoids on the known unknowns, before making a momentous decision:
"Cloud cover is a “major climate driver” but nobody really knows what changes cloud cover.
Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid-1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid-1980s and late-1990s
(ref. Pinker, R. T., B. Zhang, and E. G. Dutton (2005), Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science, 308(5723), 850– 854.)
Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 Watts/sq metre).
So, changes to cloud cover alone could be responsible for all the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age but nobody knows the factors that control changes to cloud cover.”
And would NASA do this:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/nasa-has-known-since-197…
#12, #13...stupid rhetoric, ignoring the replies you have demanded. All this behaviour proves is that you do not understand the material in front of you. Linking to 'Goddard' is a yardstick of your incompetence..which you had already established several years ago with your self-humiliating breath-holding about Cleveland Point.
Climate-scale changes all have causes.
Paranoid ideation by 'Goddard' is his cry for help. The scientific community is conspiring against him, for thirty years....tragicomedy. Endorsed by astrologer Tallbloke.
Need better deniers, and deniers need better mental health care.
I deduce from his last post that Spangled Drongo
- agrees there has been significant modern warming
- has decided cloud cover is somehow involved
- trusts the serially-wrong non-expert Steven Goddard to write anything sensible.
#16...if there is an increase in SW radiation at the surface because of a reduction in net cloud cover, then that same net cloud cover change will see that energy escape as LW...
It ain't cloudiness, and Pinker herself pinged the idiot Monckton for drawing untenable conclusions from her paper....and in 2015 , you'll find that Monckton has abandoned his claims on that score.
Still no answers, Doltoids?
Your "Haven't a Clue" option is starting to show.
#20. You are projecting again, spangled troll. You've been exposed as clueless every time you post, #16 being the latest example. You post defunct talking points thrown up by your buddies years ago, unaware they have been mole-whacked.
Give it away. I know you're ineducable, but you're also really childish and boring. When did you think you could demand answers while never giving any in return? Most kids grow out of that behavior, if they even display it at all
But there was no statistically significant global warming from 1985 to 1999 (UAH and RSS).
Why do Stupid olD men bother trying to explain something that they think never happened? A consequence of being stupid no doubt.
"But as we all know, Stupid olD man is a data denier and will deny this data."
Remember, spanky doesn't do data, only cherries.
"Do you understand what that is saying, Spangly?"
Of course not. BishopPrick Montford told him to quote it and he did like the obedient little puppy he is.
"Does Nat Var exist?"
Does CO2 exist?
"– has decided cloud cover is somehow involved"
Hmm. Is a cloudy day warmer or colder than a clear day, given the same dawn temperature?
And is it warmer or colder on a cloudy night than a clear night, given the same sunset temperature?
All spanky knows is that clouds vary.
He's personally observed it!
"It ain’t cloudiness, and Pinker herself pinged the idiot Monckton for drawing untenable conclusions from her paper"
Not to mention the bug-eyed monkfish, despite knowing her quite well, thought she was a he...
Poor CoNcrete, I don't think he's feeling too statistically significant himself lately. Low self-esteem is one of the main reasons for joining a cult.
The two important questions that have a huge bearing on GW, AGW, CAGW [that Doltoids prefer to disguise as CC for obvious, embarrassing {to them} reasons] that I have sought to get answers from Doltoids on are; 1/ Do you have any personal observations of SLR? and 2/ What is your estimate of average centennial Nat Var over the Holocene?
Interestingly, these simple, basic questions have proved to be too hot for them to handle.
Basic question too hot for Stupid olD man to handle:
What does "statistically significant" mean?
1/ Do you have any personal observations of SLR?
No, and you do not have any of SL fall. Tidal, weather and seasonal noise is too great for you to personally observe background SLR in your lifetime, Drongo. All you've seen are king tides...which do not tell you about, at their frequency of recurrence, about SL in your lifetime. You'd need a thousand years of tidal obs to detect SL movement statistically from just king tides.
I have plenty of observations of shore line changes...and they have all been retreats, unless they involve reclamation work and sea wall construction.
2/ What is your estimate of average centennial Nat Var over the Holocene?
This remains a foolish question, a red herring. The presence of 'significant' centennial variation in the past says nothing axiomatically about the nature and causes of the present GAT rise. It is no secret that periods 4000 years to 7000 were likely often a little warmer. It is no secret that you ignore error margins in these estimates as well.
Single points of observation will show more variation than regions , hemispheres and globes full of observations. The work you cite chooses too few observation points to make global extrapolations from, and they have been chosen because of their high variability. Good faith attempts to clarify global temperature range of the Holocene sample more palaeo data over a greater latitudinal range. You ignore this work.
"spangled drongo
November 9, 2015 "
Still fails to answer the SIMPLEST questions on what physical processes are at work in the weather systems of planet Earth, preferring to make up a fiction about others and complain about the fiction he created.
THIS is why your ideas are worthless: they aren't even grounded in any knowledge WHATSOEVER.
"But there was no statistically significant global warming from 1985 to 1999 (UAH and RSS)."
Poor CoNcrete is somewhat statistically challenged. Both UAH and RSS have more warming than the Bakers over that period:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1985/to:1999/trend/plot/giste…
"Poor CoNcrete is somewhat statistically challenged."
Poor spanky thinks that that is what is going on.
It's a poor deluded old man dribbling into his wheaties, wondering what "statistically significant" means, and presuming it doesn't mean anything.
"Both UAH and RSS have more warming than the Bakers over that period:"
So they show a lot of warming?
So no cooling.
Is this what you're trying to say now, or are you getting really confused now?
15 years of a satellite metric. Think about it Drongo...you're funny.
Dwrongo has struggled to detail his understanding of the actual import of natural variation (as he does with any question of science put to him) so I'm just going to point him to a lesson:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-gre…
Let's see if he can identify the relevant points...
Dwrongo, so you're back on sea level rise.
Tell us, what's your standardisation protocol for your observations?
Thanks, Nick for your [part] honest answer to 1/.
I somehow didn't think you would have any personal obs for lots of reasons but mainly because it hasn't been happening.
Might I remind you that around the Moreton Bay area I have up to 70 year records for SL stability and SL fall at the times of good weather king tides [normal BP] but none for SLR.
Still waiting for answers to 2/, although Nick seems to be saying that although it happened significantly up to ~ 1950, it can't possibly happen any more.
Can you bear it?
BTW, nicky, that 15 year period was nominated by CoNc.
Pay attention !
So, burn, can you answer these two simple questions that I have been asking you Doltoids for ages?
1/ Do you have any personal observations of SLR?
2/ What is your estimate of average centennial Nat Var over the Holocene?
Dwrongo, I will happily and with relish answer your two questions, if you go back over the last several years and answer the many hundreds of questions that I have put to you and which you have to date assiduously avoided.
Only Stupid olD men think our personal obs are any use for determining global averages - apart from their preferred global average temperature that is.
#39...drongo, there is a wee problem for you. You claim to have useful personal observations about SL, such as that there has been no rise, and thus none elsewhere.
Others have consistently noted that, given the full details of your 'techniques' that you have kindly supplied, you cannot have any useful observations about SL.
You seem unaware that your disclosure of your methodology debunks your claim for its utility.
That's all that we have ever been trying to tell you.
Pay attention!
Re NV: this claim of yours-
"Still waiting for answers to 2/, although Nick seems to be saying that although it happened significantly up to ~ 1950, it can’t possibly happen any more"
-is not actually confirmed by anything I've written...so you seem to be having the usual comprehension problems. Don't make shit up old man.
Can you bear it? Indeed. You are struggling as usual.
.BTW, nicky, that 15 year period was nominated by CoNc
Yes, and is a 15 year period going to produce a statistically significant claim about climate? CoN talked of sixty.
Why does the WMO cite 30 years? Why do climate scientist look to attribution over centuries and millenia? Are they making overarching claims about the climate and change just based on 15 years?
UAH trend 1985-1999: 0.228±0.308℃/decade ⇒ not statistically significant
RSS trend 1985-1999: 0.292±0.295℃/decade ⇒ not statistically significant
Stupid olD man wouldn't know what statistical significance was even if it bit him on the bum.
You just can't make up irony like this.
NIck's already mentioned it but it bears repeating.
Dwrongo, if - as you claim - you have a handle on the centenial variation in the global temperature record you should also have a handle on the minimum interval of time required in order to identify with 95% confidence any anthropogenic signal emerging from the short-term noise ( your "Nat Var", sic).
Can you explain what is the last century's short-term statistical variability, how you determined it, and what it implies for the length of the minimum period of data required in order to see the longer term anthropogenic effects?
And rather than running from the question in your usual fashion, why don't you instead cultivate some contents for that scrophulous slough of shrivelled parchment that serves as a surrogate for your scrotum, and engage with some actual science.
"And rather than running from the question in your usual fashion"
Since it's either that or indicate he doesn't have a clue, he'll keep with his "formula".
"I somehow didn’t think you would have any personal obs"
Neither do you, spanky.
Neither do you.
That's the way, burn, keep puffing yourself up like that and you might eventually stumble on some grain of truth you can use.
If you could ever recognise it, that is.
The only SLR that is true SLR is increases in normal barometric pressure king tides. Rises in mean sea level [which is what a tide gauge mostly records often as a result of extreme cyclonic storm surge] don't mean anything if normal BP high water levels don't increase.
Doltoids don't get that.
Now, have you personally observed any increase in [normal BP] high water in your lifetimes?
And what is your reasonable estimate of centennial Nat Var?
Bearing in mind the legendary extreme weather of past centuries plus all the paleo data to back it up.
Now, have you personally observed any increase in [normal BP] high water in your lifetimes?
Stop it, you're being really, really stupid.
Your observations fail simple qualitative and quantitative tests. You did not observe the BP at each tide with any accuracy. You have not noted any other weather conditions per observation, and you have not accounted for shoreline and bay floor change vis Raby Bay and other interventions along the coast. And one spot proves nothing much on its own.
You are the only one here who fails to understand how you are fooling yourself. Make an effort to rejoin reality.
"That’s the way, burn, keep puffing yourself up like that and you might eventually stumble on some grain of truth you can use."
More idiotic projection.
Tiresome.
"The only SLR that is true SLR is increases in normal barometric pressure king tides."
Forgive me my scepticism, but...who says this? What research is this assertion based on?
Another few questions that puzzle me:
Are king tide maximums globally uniform?
If not, then how does "measuring" king tides in one location tell you anything about global sea levels?
Define "measuring", exactly?
Nick on #31
" good faith " " clarify "
These terms leapt out at me as
2 great features of science and
what deniers avoid .
Instead they act to an agenda and obscure.
Thats what i see anyhow.
Stupid Drongo has been asking us to do his homework for him for a month now, with scores of posts claiming that an obviously-bullshit estimate of "natural" variability is somehow more useful than no estimate at all.
Anyway, torn between a disinclination to redo others' bad work and the futile hope that SD might just STFU, I finally got around to rerunning Philip Lloyd's estimate, but correcting for the dismally stupid error I described here, et seq.
As expected, this halves the calculated variability from Lloyd's bogus 0.98 C/cent to a more credible 0.49 C/cent. Further corrections for various lesser methodological boners brings it down to 0.38 C/cent. Since we have gone up a bit over 1 C in the last hundred years we are running at nearly triple the "natural" variation seen over the last ~10,000 years.
With its foundational flaws that make it of borderline utility (as Chris has commented on), I would suggest that 0.38 is very much an upper boundary figure, and adding more proxies and more rigour would likely reduce it somewhat further, so take that as "no greater than 0.38". But despite all that, with this approach nudging towards 3 standard deviations off "Nat Var", we can be >99% confident that the warming we have seen over the last hundred years is not natural.
Time to STFU about "Nat Var", Drongo. That argument is not your friend.
Homework done for you. You're welcome.
#53, thanks Frank
drongo has been fooling himself that internal variabilty, which is big weather noise /ENSO and vulcanism mediated, is the same as the 'variabilty' that forcing change brings...typically he's hamstrung by his cherry-picking, ignoring habits...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/07/pakistan-high-court-…
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-hot-moth-butterfly-species-differently.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151007033227.htm
Bah, those undescribed links were supposed to be on my notepad. Still, they may be of interest to some.
On to the point of my post, the other thing to note FrankD that natural variability is variability around a mean, so over time it simply fluctuates around that mean with approximately 50% of the excursions occurring above the mean and 50% below. I did a breakdown of the modern global temperature record a few months back and from memory the 2SD variability was around 0.3 °C, which would be around ± 0.15 °C about the mean.
It's from this noise that Dwrongo needs to sort natural from anthropogenic. It's telling that he never answered my questions about the nature of the contemproary variability in the context of identifying a warming signal: if he had, he might have twigged to the issues raised by FrabkD and that are inherent in the data, as I've just described.
That's as long as there is no change to the suite of forcings of course - Dwrongo desperately wants human CO2 emissions to not be a real forcing, despite the fact that it's creating a consistent rapid warming trajectory and magnitude of the sort not seen for many milions of years.
The results will be the eventual elimination of the genetic legacies of his sort - of those who are manufacturing this ecological assault in the first place - but it will be a pyrrhic victory because most of the people and the species who are innocent of the damage are the ones who will suffer the most.
'scuse typos!
What wonderful deduction, burn, Frank et al. Did you Doltoids learn your stuff at this school:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
#58...Intelligent responses are welcome, drongo. Yours is not one. You've got two answers to one of your questions...now, will you address them...or run away?
I'm not even going to bother watching anything that is adorned with the garbage introduction that your clip has, Dwrongo, but that video is rather revealing with respect to your rabid anti-intellectual Dunning-Krugerism.
Still, it's interesting that you've harped on about natural variability as much as you have, because after my last post I had a niggling feeling that the figure I got from the GISStemp data was similar to something I'd read elsewhere. It turns out that it was several somethings, and Huber and Knutti were the first I found in my folder, and then the earlier Swanson, Sugihara and Tsonis paper. This in turn reminded me that I had read a summary of the material eslewhere, and low and behold in my bookmarks:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/internal-variability.htm
Over the modern period if the warming trend was merely "natural variability" one would expect an increase of no more than ~0.15 °C, with ~0.2 °C at most. And it would not trend consistently up, as the last half century has.
Face it Dwrongo, you're wrong. Again. FrankD patiently explained to you why Lloyd's screed is completely bogus, and it's a damning indictment of your blickered obdurateness that you ignore your dismantling. Which is par for the course really, like so many other times...
"Did you Doltoids learn your stuff at this school:"
Yup.
Did you GO to school?
Ever?
And I mean apart from casing out your next victim.
This moron's "Nat Var" is merely another way of saying "It's changed as much as this before man existed, therefore it can't be us!".
Absolutely no different.
Cackling drongo evacuated this guano:
Those with enquiring minds never stop learning, this is one reason why we engage here for the links provided by reliable others can expand on our own individual sum of knowledge.
Those such as you on the other hand get stuck in a rut, which in your case leads to the digging of a hole.
Drongo's whine that using proper mathematical techniques is a result of Marxist PC "educayshun" reminds me of Stephen Colbert's observation that reality has a well-known liberal bias. Fucking Nature, not conforming to Drongos truthiness...
As an aside, Lloyd doesn't know the difference between oxygen and deuterium, getting it wrong several times in a few paragraphs. What a carefully crafted paper - where else would you publish it than in one of the lowest-impact environmental journal in the world...somehow I doubt this latest will lift E&E much....
I notice Dwrongo has disappeared. I wonder if the statistics were scaring him?
A shame really, because I wanted him to explain why it's not warming:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/october-a-scorcher/
Exploring Rabbet holes maybe, having worn his brains out digging his own.