The other Beck

Dick

WTF is #496? Why do you want me to look up Realclimate? (I assume that is what you are asking me to do) If it is because you think that it should not be used as a source of evidence, then I agree with you 100%. So what's the issue here?

At post #495 I agreed with you. I said that left wing political organisations are NOT valid sources of evidence, and that we should not reference work that has either an actual or perceived conflict of interest for having received funding from ideological or industry sources - to which I might add that we should also not reference the opinions of bloggers as if they are facts - and you respond with some meaningless drivel.

So come on Dick. How about you address the issue?

I have made the commitment, and if you have any scientific integrity you (and others) will do the same. If you want to discuss science, let's all of us stop using opinion sites and ideologically driven organisations as if they are valid sources of unbiased information.

I will set the example. I promise to only ever reference legitimate sources of scientific information to support my arguments. That means exactly what I said at #495. Peer reviewed journals and legitimate, reputable, publically funded organisations such as universities, NOAA and (in Australia) CSIRO and BOM.

If I link to anything else, I will clearly state in my link what it is and provide the applicable caveats that it is not a valid source of scientific evidence.

Now over to you (and to everyone else who wishes to be taken seriously). How about you provide a similar undertaking?

Ian in 484,

Your post explains why Hansen, Gore and the team behave the way they do. Thanks for the info

Skip in 460,

Great post good to see you are back in top form after the child birth. However your posts would carry more weight if you did not reduce the legitimacy and validity of science to a show of hands.

keep on believing.

I have no idea what "show of hands" has to do with my post in 460.

Skip - that explains why the author name sounds familiar. I scanned the discussion at the time but it clearly did not register properly with me. I've just had another look at those comments - I remember being entertained by the notion of 'random cycles'.

The fact is, they are claiming that there are cycles of variation which overides CO2 forcing, including from 2000 onwards.

Not on my reading of it. Please quote the paragraph where they state this (the pdf crashes both Internet Explorer and Firefox when I try to download it, although I do get a large part of the paper). I did not see any reference to any long-term cycles that could have come together to cause the last 30 years of warming.

You've still not suggested any possible cycles other than the relatively short-term ocean cycles, and no evidence to support the notion that these come together once every few thousand years to produce the kind of warming we are currently experiencing.

Mandas just blew Gingerbaker out of the water.

BTW, anyone following the Curry blog about Gavin's recanting "the science is settled" after he claimed it was?

Skip in 503,

Its not difficult, in post 460 you resurrect you abilities to psycho analyse people via remote sensing and launch into a detailed and lengthy gobble dee gook hit piece on why Richard is a denier.

Sadly you still cannot grasp the obvious flaw in your thinking when you reject a paper which thoroughly dismantles your faith right before your very eyes because you have more papers that show your faith is a worthy pursuit.

My mind drifts back to that study which shows the models are over estimating AGW by up to 400% and your response was "i cannot comment on this study at this time" and as if by magic the study is wished away never to be talked of again.

You've still not suggested any possible cycles other than the relatively short-term ocean cycles, and no evidence to support the notion that these come together once every few thousand years to produce the kind of warming we are currently experiencing.

They explain that in the paper. Try and get a copy of it.

Sadly you still cannot grasp the obvious flaw in your thinking when you reject a paper which thoroughly dismantles your faith right before your very eyes --Crakar

Lets get you on the record for all time so I can beat you with it later without mercy, Crakar.

Do you agree with Richard's interpretation of the Tsonis article?

Exactly.

They explain that in the paper. Try and get a copy of it. --Richard

This from the guy that posted two different papers by the same author team and didn't even realize it.

#506: "BTW, anyone following the Curry blog about Gavin's recanting "the science is settled" after he claimed it was?"

Ahahahahaha hahaha haha ha ha haha ha

Tallbloke (at Curry's blog):

"To set the record straight:

Because I was an ad hoc member of the invite committee I got an email asking my advice on who to invite in lieu of Gavin Schmidt and some other prominent people who had declined. The organisers inadvertantly included Gavin's response on that email, and when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren't there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin's response. This made it's way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.

I would just stress at this point that what I said constitutes my opinion and not what Gavin said verbatim. However I would also like to say that Gavin's complaint to the New Scientist does not include any praisee of the passage in his original response which gave rise to my brief summary. I therefore reject Gavin's claim that I 'made stuff up', and respectfully suggest that we can lay this one to rest if in a spirit of openness Gavin simply reproduces his response so people can see for themselves what he said.

If I am assailed by accusations that I have wrongfully maligned Gavin with my brief summary comment I may feel obliged to defend myself with a closer paraphrase."

Gavin's email (reposted on Curry's blog by Gavin calling Tallbloke's bluff):

"Thanks for the invitation. However, I'm a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important 'conflicts' that are perceived in the science are 'conflicts' in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No 'conflict resolution' is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.

You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific 'controversies'."

McIntyre (again at Curry's):

"I can confirm that Fred Pearce read Gavin's email to the organizers declining the invitation to the conference, because I (by chance) happened to be sitting with Pearce when he was provided with a copy of Gavin's email and observed him reading it carefully."

But not carefully enough to see that nowhere did Gavin say "the science is settled"

But then the truth is never the point in this sort of thing anyway is it?

(oh, and it seems Tallbloke had to change his story in the wake of McIntyre's post: "I got Fred to read it out loud to Steve and Ross. So he couldn't make notes at the same time. And we had a couple of beers, which may be why he didn't remember it very clearly later.")

I had a look at the CO2âscienceâ link that RW posted, paying special attention to the chapter on extinction. Firstly there seems to be a bias in the papers towards those that show a positive effect of warming. Why , for example did they not refer to the following papers (among many similar)?

Global warming and biodiversity: Evidence of climate-linked amphibian declines in Italy D'Amen & Bombi (2009) BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 142, pp. 3060-3067
Abstract: â¦We used spatial patterns of recent amphibian declines in Italy to test hypotheses pertaining to three potential, nonexclusive factors: climate change. habitat alteration, and high levels of incident solar radiationâ¦Our results suggest that while multiple factors have contributed to declines, climate change has been a major cause of population disappearances. We identified a common pattern of disappearances in areas that have been especially affected by climatic shiftsâ¦

Climate change effects on an endemic-rich edaphic flora: resurveying Robert H. Whittaker's Siskiyou sites (Oregon, USA) Damschen et al. (2010) ECOLOGY Volume: 91 Pages: 3609-3619
Abstract: Species with relatively narrow niches, such as plants restricted (endemic) to particular soils, may be especially vulnerable to extinction under a changing climate due to the enhanced difficulty they face in migrating to suitable new sites. To test for community-level effects of climate change⦠we resampled as closely as possible 108 sites originally studied by ecologist Robert H. Whittaker from 1949 to 1951 ⦠We found sharp declines in herb cover and richness on both serpentine and diorite soils. Declines were strongest in species of northern biogeographic affinity, species endemic to the region (in serpentine communities only), and species endemic to serpentine soils. Consistent with climatic warming, herb communities have shifted from 1949-1951 to 2007 to more closely resemble communities found on xeric (warm, dry) south-facing slopes. The changes found in the Siskiyou herb flora suggest that biotas rich in narrowly distributed endemics may be particularly susceptible to the effects of a warming climate.

Experimental warming transforms multiple predator effects in a grassland food web. Barton & Schmitz (2008) Ecology Letters Volume: 12 Pages: 1317-1325
Abstract: This experimental study tests new theory for multiple predator effects on communities by using warming to alter predator habitat use and hence direct and indirect interactions in a grassland food web ... Experimental warming further offers insight into how climate change might alter direct and indirect effects... Warming strengthened the single predator effects. It also caused the spider species to overlap lower in the vegetation canopy. Consistent with predictions, the system was transformed into an intraguild predation system with the consequent extinction of one spider species. The results portend climate caused loss of predator diversity with important consequences for food web structure and function.

Secondly, I had a closer look at some of the papers, the first referred to is Holzinger et al. I had a look at the papers citing it and other papers by the authors.

Holzinger doesnât seem to have any other papers herself, however her co-authors have another paper:

Intraseasonal climate and habitat-specific variability controls the flowering phenology of high alpine plant species Hulber et al (2010) FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY Volume: 24 pp: 245-252

Abstract: â¦Temperature was the overwhelming trigger of flowering phenology for all species. Its synchronizing effect was strongest at or shortly after flowering indicating the particular importance of phenological control of pollination. To some extent, this pattern masks the common trend of decreasing phenological responses to climatic changes from the beginning to the end of the growing season for lowland species. No carry-over effects were detected. As expected, the impact of photoperiod was weaker for snowbed species than for species inhabiting sites with early melting snow cover, while for temperature the reverse pattern was observed.
Our findings provide strong evidence that alpine plants will respond quickly and directly to increasing temperature without considerable compensation due to photoperiodic control of phenology.

Sounds kinda positive, however the final author on both this paper & the one cited by CO2âscienceâ has another one:

What happens when alpine plants are exposed to a lowland climate? Friedmann & Grabherr (2009) Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Oesterreich Volume: 146 Pages: 159-170

Abstract: Individualistic growth response was responsible for enhanced competition, whereby in most cases the winners and losers were not expected. Climate change Will certainly lead to new configurations in alpine plant communities; however, we conclude that predictions of winners and losers derived from current behaviour will be probably misleading.

âNew configurations in alpine plant communities. Winners AND Losersâ¦â

Other papers that cite Holzmann et al include (my comments in brackets):
Plant health and global change - some implications for landscape management Pautasso et al. (2010) BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS Volume: 85 Pages: 729-755

Abstract: Global change will affect plant health at the genetic, individual, population and landscape level ⦠Indirect effects include ⦠(iii) the introduction of new invasive species

(i.e. new species a threat to plant health)

Plant species' range shifts in mountainous areas-all uphill from here? Frei et al. (2010) BOTANICA HELVETICA Volume: 120 Pages: 117-128

Abstract: Data from the beginning of the 20th century of both the upper and lower range limits of plants of the European Alps were updated a century later and analyzed in order to identify common trends and deviating patterns of shifts at opposing ends of species' ranges. At the upper limit, there was a strong trend towards an increase in species richness per summit, including 33 species that were recorded for the first time on any of the investigated summit areas. The species experienced a consistent upward shift exceeding 100 elevational meters, and 49 out of the 125 investigated species shifted upwards to a present altitude which is higher than any reported occurrence in the region one century ago. The response at the lower range limit was more heterogeneous and suggests species-specific differences in responsiveness and response patterns. With this approach of the combined analysis of upper and lower range limits along elevational gradients, it is possible to identify candidate species that might not keep pace with climate change, and thus, might face an increased risk of extinction with continued global warming.

(âit is possible to identify candidate species that might not keep pace with climate change, and thus, might face an increased risk of extinctionâ)

Biodiversity gains and losses: Evidence for homogenisation of Scottish alpine vegetation Britton et al. (2010) BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 142 Pages: 1728-1739

Abstract: ⦠Change was assessed over a 20-40 years period using a variety of metrics ... Species richness increased in most habitats, while diversity at the plot scale and beta-diversity declined, resulting in increased homogeneity of vegetation. This occurred in closed alpine communities over a 20-40 years period, implying that these communities are considerably more dynamic than previously thought. Key northern and alpine species declined while lowland generalist species increased. This change was consistent with predicted impacts of climate changeâ¦

(âKey northern and alpine species declinedâ, âwhile diversity at the plot scale and beta-diversity declinedâ what increased? âlowland generalist speciesâ. This paper is effectively stating that Scottish alpine vegetation is becoming lowland vegetation that, whilst being more species rich, will be rich in species found everywhere else in the lowlands to the detriment of those species that are unique to upland ecosystems.)

OK, letâs look at another of the CO2âscienceâ citations:

Rapid range expansion and community reorganization in response to warming LeRoux & McGeogh (2008) GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY Volume: Pages: 2950-2962

What CO2Science said: âThe work of these South African researchers revealed that between 1966 and 2006, there was âa rapid expansion in altitudinal range,â with species expanding their upper-elevation boundaries by an average of 70 meters. And because, as they described it, âthe observed upslope expansion was not matched by a similar change in lower range boundaries,â they emphasized the fact that âthe flora of Marion Island has undergone range expansion rather than a range shift.â In addition, they appropriately noted that âthe expansion of species distributions along their cooler boundaries in response to rising temperatures appears to be a consistent biological consequence of recent climate warming,â citing references to several other studies that have observed the same type of response.â

What they neglected to mention from the abstract: âHowever, less than half of the species in the flora were responsible for the expansion trend, demonstrating that the global fingerprint of warming may be driven by a highly responsive subset of the species pool⦠both species- and community-level changes have occurred in the flora of Marion Island over a relatively short period of rapid warming, demonstrating the sensitivity of high latitude communities to climate change.â
So a small sub-set of the total flora expand, and the study demonstrates the sensitivity of high altitude communities. Take another look at the Britton et al paper to see what this actually means.

So, in summary. CO2âscienceâ have cherrypicked papers that bolster their argument, ignoring counterexamples completely. Where papers support their argument in one direction (e.g. biodiversity increases in montane ecosystems) they neglect to fully explain the implications (said increase will be of detriment to certain, restricted range species). Where papers explicitly state the implications (as LeRoux & McGeogh do in their Abstract) they neglect to mention the fact.

So, the piece RW links to in refutation of the statements: âmany species of plants and animals will not be able to migrate poleward in latitude or upward in elevation rapidly enough to avoid extinction,â âcontinued business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions threaten many ecosystemsâ and âlife in alpine regions ... is similarly in danger of being pushed off the planet.â Uses research that actually reinforces those statements.

Isnât blog science great? Cherrypicking, misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the work of real scientists and no peer review to pick these distortions up and send them back where they belong.

Thanks for all that legwork, Chris, but aren't you concerned that Snowman and/or Mlax might find it all "boring"?

Why , for example did they not refer to the following papers (among many similar)?

Chris, the climate changes, is there ANY evidence linking any of those changes to CO2 emissions? No.

Those populations of amphibians survived the MWP, the RWP, glaciations for the past 200,000 years. Human encroachment into their ranges is the problem for these organisms. So why not advocate a reduction in human numbers to protect the environment?

Richard,
You miss the point. The piece you linked to falls down on various levels, in just the one section I looked at I identified:
1) bias in the selection of references,
2)misinterpretation of the substansive science behind the papers they did reference and
3)mirepresentation of at least one of those papers.

This has nothing to do with the science itself or the policy implications of the same. I should add that the website of CO2"science" shows the same distortion of the literature that the linked piece evidences.

skip,
They may find it boring if they bother to read it, I doubt they'll get past the first few lines though. And I seriously doubt they'll check the literature to see whether I'm telling the truth or not, but then that's a common theme - quote without reading, pontificate without understanding. Oh, and fall back (or move on) to standard memes once a position becomes untenable.

"Those populations of amphibians survived the MWP"

Which wasn't global in extent.

Think of "Migration".

"Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services

Look up that organization."

And if they'd been getting hosting from Amazon (like, say, Wikileaks did), it would show that RC is paid for by Amazon???

I'm afraid you'll need to do better to show that RC is *paid for* by EMS.

PS what about your mate who told congress his payments from fossil fuels was about 3% then later admitted it was about 40%..?

> if you are so smart let's see if you can show us all what climate or weather events have changed in the past 50 years because of CO2

Every single one that depends on temperature has changed because of CO2, RW.

Every single one.

"If Wow really thinks humans caused the drought that proceeded the dust bowl, then no, he is wrong."

Not caused, influenced.

As to his:

"Oh, dear, but this one doesn't it's FLAT

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut3…"

Problem here is that the trend isn't flat. It's up. Below 0.4 at the beginning, above 0.4 at the end.

UP.

Not flat.

Up.

Oopsie doopsie.

"A good example of human causes of drought is the Great Midwest Dustbowl. Some americans have history lessons on it.

Wow, you really hold up to your name. You are a nice example of a True Believer. All storms are because of us, unbelievable."

See, dick, this is your problem, you read what you want to read, not what is there.

This is called cognitive dissonance. Or stupidity. Take your pick.

As to

"You dont understand the difference between THEORY and reality."

You don't understand that reality doesn't have a range, it has a real number, not a range. That number is somewhere within is 2-4.5C per doubling. And in REALITY, it will be a number between those two.

You said we didn't know what the sensitivity was. Except that we do. 2-4.5C per doubling of CO2.

We know this because of models and because of the paleoclimate measures of temperature and the major constituents of the earth's atmosphere, the gross circulation of the oceans and the trends of the solar output as it matures through the main sequence.

You said we don't know.

Except we do.

"So much for 2010 being the hottest on record, using the ACTUAL data"

Uh, how do you know Tony has used ACTUAL data? Do you have the methods they put on it, the quality control (GIGO) and what data they discarded (and why)?

Come along, be skeptical.

PS if RW would like to prove that all storms in the last 50 years were NOT caused by AGW (and please don't use inference, since this is what the climate science does when it attributes changes in weather to climate and how we know that AGW is real).

But the "impact" on weather systems is presumptive, not reducible to perfect understanding--at least with our current technology.

Richard gets off on this idea that because we can't pinpoint the exact relationship between any particular weather system and AGW that this somehow disproves AGW.

Its one of his many, many straw men.

RW @508

You've still not suggested any possible cycles other than the relatively short-term ocean cycles, and no evidence to support the notion that these come together once every few thousand years to produce the kind of warming we are currently experiencing.

They explain that in the paper. Try and get a copy of it.

Why should I believe you? Besides, it was your explanation so you should be able to put it in your own words.

Wow wow thats a lot of posts.

In 524 you lambast RW because he wants to know if weather systems can be linked to AGW, apparently this is not an important issue to you rather we are to assume/guess/speculate or pretend that they are so we can then run around in ever decreasing circles screaming the sky is falling.

You call this a strawman!!!! either AGW is driving the weather systems or they are not, how do we know if AGw is driving these systems? At present there is not one shred of evidence that says they are but according to you we dont need to know because we have faith.

You are just another idiot in the long line of true believers.

Sorry in the last post i forgot the word "Skip" as in

Skip In 524 you lambast RW because.....

Hey Mandas GET THAT BONG OUT OF YOUR MOUTH, whilst driving to work this morning they said on the radio that an Australian study confirms cannibas use can bring on mental psychosis.

This news does explain a lot about you Mandas and judging by your most recent posts i would say you are in the advanced stages of mental decay so please stop before you become a dribbling incoherent embarrassment.

crakar

Looks like you know as much about smoking pot as you do about climate science:

".....Hey Mandas GET THAT BONG OUT OF YOUR MOUTH..."

You don't put a bong in your mouth, you put your mouth (or lips) inside the bong.

Is there anything you EVER get right?

Dick

At post #506 you said this in response to my post about using valid sources of information:

"...Mandas just blew Gingerbaker out of the water...."

I think mandas just blew EVERYONE out of the water who think opinion equals fact and that skepticism need only be applied to one side of the argument.

So - what about addressing the issue Dick? Are you prepared to make an undertaking that you will only link to valid sources of information and will critically evaluation everything before you try and use them to support your argument? What about you crakar?

Or is it too difficult to do real science and actually read and understand what you are linking too?

crakar

Its a pity you didn't read my post #501 - and the dozens of times I have tried to get you to do some real reading and real science - before you idiotic post #528. Because once again, you have relied on a media report for your opinion, without actually checking to see if the report was correct.

I think the media report you are referring to is this one (although you don't strike me as being intellectual enough to listen to ABC RN):

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3132596.htm

Even on the basis of that report, I am fascinated how you drew the conclusion you did. It gets even worse if you actually read the study itself, which is here:

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/68/2/138

Yeah - once again you manage to prove how ignorant you are just by opening your mnouth.

Wow, I don't know where to start with your misinformation.

Which wasn't global in extent.

Evidence for the MWP being world wide is in the CO2Science MWP database. You may not like the funding that is accused, but the peer reviwed papers is the evidence. If you do not wish to check that I can post papers.

Every single one that depends on temperature has changed because of CO2, RW.

Every single one.

So there were no storms prior to industrialization. I said show, you didnt.

You said we don't know.

Except we do.

Tell that to Schwartz because he says we don't know.

PS if RW would like to prove that all storms in the last 50 years were NOT caused by AGW

This shows you have no clue how science works. The onus is on the person who presents the positive position to provide the evidence. Science doesn't work disproving theories, it works on proving theories.

I guess it is safe to say you think the science is settled.

Oops = wrong study link

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/archgenpsychiatry.201…

Dick

".....This shows you have no clue how science works. The onus is on the person who presents the positive position to provide the evidence. Science doesn't work disproving theories, it works on proving theories....."

Nice one Dick. This is where you get a chance to follow your own advice.

You have said - repeatedly - that the observed increase in mean and minimum temperatures are the result of natural variation, and that these natural variations overwhelm any CO2 signal.

Ok Dick - evidence please!!! (or STFU)

RS:

This paper provides an update to an earlier work that showed a foreshadowing of such
46 climate shifts in the time evolution of major Northern Hemispheric atmospheric and
47 oceanic modes of variability [Tsonis et al. 2007]. In that paper, it was hypothesized
48 that certain aspects of the climate system behave in a manner analagous to that of syn49
chronized chaotic dynamical systems [Bocaletti et al. 2002]. Specifically, it was shown
50 that when these modes of climate variability are synchronized, and the coupling between
51 those modes simultaneously increases, the climate system becomes unstable and appears
52 to be thrown into a new state. This chain of events is identical to that found in regime
53 transitions in synchronized chaotic dynamical systems [Pecora et al. 1997]. This new
54 state is marked by a break in the global mean temperature trend and in the character of
55 ENSO variability. Synchronization followed by an increase in coupling coincided with all
56 the major climate shifts of the 20th century, and was also shown to mark climate shifts in
57 coupled ocean-atmosphere simulations. While in the observations such breaks in temper58
ature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing, those breaks result in significant departures from that warming
60 over time periods spanning multiple decades.

evidence please!!! (or STFU)

The null hypothesis is that natural mechanisms drive the universe, including what happens on this planet.

But you insist on ignoring reference I post.

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all…

Gotta ask you there Dick.

Do you agree with the cut and paste you just provided?

".....The null hypothesis is that natural mechanisms drive the universe, including what happens on this planet...."

Mindlessly mouthing 'null hypothesis' has to be the greatest steaming pile of pseudo-scientific gobbledegook I have ever read Dick.

You have made a claim - now show us the evidence.

And since you repeatedly link to the same paper and the same quote over and over again, then you must obviously agree that your natural variation is 'clearly superimposed on a century time-scale warming' (why have you been saying there isn't one?), and that warming is 'presumably due to anthropgenic forcing'.

So I guess you haven given up on being a denier. Goodonya Dick!

How about cutting and pasting so poorly that the line numbers in the galley proofs are still there. So much for putting it in "your own words".

Richard (Wakefield), I would say this: Since you're the man who's about to "bring down AGW" I think you should show enough comprehension of a source that you can at least flatter R. Simons with an intelligent paraphrase.

When the opposition's level of pedantic childish comments falls as low as what is evident in 529 then you know they have nothing left......well except faith of course.

Do you agree with the cut and paste you just provided?

I agree with the evidence. Question is, do you accept these authors' premise? You don't. Which makes you the denier.

'presumably due to anthropgenic forcing'

Operative word 'presumably'.

When are you going to accept, there is an increase in the average of the yearly mean, that's your "warming", but in no way assumes that CO2 is the cause.

And you are making another logical falicy. Just because a 100% natural mechanism is not known does not preclude that natural processes exist. Otherwise Mendle would have to have been rejcted because he did not know about DNA.

The null hypothesis is crutial in science, it's the basis of all experimentation. Just because it inconviences you to apply to AGW does not make it irrelevent.

Is the default position that CO2 is causing the changes in temps?

Dick

".....I agree with the evidence. Question is, do you accept these authors' premise? You don't. Which makes you the denier...."

Ummmm no. I think the authors may well be correct. It is you who disagrees with them. Therefore, by your own admission, it is you who is the denier. Or do you agree with this statement from the paper:

".....Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies (c.f. Roe [2009]). If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability...."

So - who's the denier now?

Dick

You have no idea about statistics, and I sincerely wish you would stop using the phrase 'null hypothesis' when you have absolutely no idea what it means or the context in which it should be applied. You show your ignorance of this repeatedly.

"....And you are making another logical falicy. Just because a 100% natural mechanism is not known does not preclude that natural processes exist....."

That is just creationist crap. You are the one claiming that observed changes in climate are caused by natural variability. But - as you continue to admit - you have no idea what those variations are, nor do you have any evidence to support your thesis. You cannot draw a conclusion unless you have the evidence and you have done the analysis. You have neither.

You need to take careful note here Dick.

You have conducted a basic statistical treatment of some met station data from Canada â and if you are telling the truth â from some other locations as well. But â that is ALL you have done. You have taken someoneâs numbers, run them through a spreadsheet and produced some graphs of the results. But you have done NO analysis of what you have found, because the underpinning data is not available to you.

You just donât get it do you? Even if your treatment is 100% accurate , it proves or disproves nothing, and you have done no research at all which would allow you to draw any conclusions. Have you compared your data with known climate variabilities such as ENSO, AMO, AO or NAO to determine whether their signals are evident? Have you isolated changes in solar activity? Have you looked at the possibility for UHI?

We all know that the answers to those â and hundreds of other questions â is an unequivocal no. You have done no real analysis, yet you draw conclusions which are not supported by your data. Why is that?

It may come as a shock to you, but I have done similar statistical treatments to met station data from Australia and I have emailed the results of a few stations to Coby. In the process, I showed my results to others and prepared a short âguest postâ. Interestingly, the data from my home town â Adelaide â shows a clear increase in Tmax, Tmin, Tmean, and the number of hot days/nights, and a decline in the number of cold days/nights. My treatment shows similar results for quite a few other stations as well â including one of cobyâs favourite location names â Wagga Wagga.

In my comments I sent to coby I summarised by stating that I would decline from drawing any conclusions, because I just didnât have the evidence to support anything. I had done exactly the same thing as you â produced graphs of met office data. But I had no evidence nor had I done any analysis to determine what the causes of my observed changes are. It might be UHI â I donât know, I havenât done the analysis. It might be changes to station siting â I donât know I havenât done the analysis. Is there a long term cyclical trend? I donât know â I havenât done the analysis. What about ENSO? I donât know â I havenât done the analysis.

And guess what Dick? You havenât either.

Thatâs the huge difference between you and me. I have a science education, and I understand my limitations as far as statistical analysis goes, and the limitations on drawing conclusions from limited data. You...... donât.

Thatâs why no-one here will take you seriously. And why no climate scientist will take your results seriously. They are nothing more than a bunch of pretty graphs, and there is absolutely NO evidence to support any of the conclusions that you have drawn. We have told you that over and over and over again, but you refuse to listen. Why donât you take them to your local university and ask a REAL scientist and REAL statistician if it is valid to draw the conclusions that you have. I can tell you without any fear of contradiction, that they will tell you that you canât.

Who knows â you may be right. BUT, and hereâs the big BUT, your conclusions are unsupported by any evidence or analysis whatsoever. And there are only two possible reasons why you continue to ignore advice and pretend that your findings are anything more than just a bunch of pretty graphs. Either you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, or you are completely unethical and twist science in order to support a political viewpoint.

Which is it Dick?

RW: "While in the observations such breaks in temperature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing, . . ." (formatting corrected).
They are saying that the cycles are superimposed on the long-term warming trend, you are claiming that they cause the long-term warming trend. Do you not understand the difference?

RW @542

The null hypothesis is crutial in science, it's the basis of all experimentation.

Where did this idea come from? The null hypothesis is used in statistical testing, not in designing experiments.

mandas @544

You have conducted a basic statistical treatment of some met station data from Canada

Has he? I've only seen part of his videos because I find that a poor way to present data and I have a slow connection, but I've seen no evidence that he's done anything more than tabulations and graphs of some data.

RW channeling Mandas:

"No - it's NOT ok to use the work of organisations or individuals which receive funding from left-wing political lobby groups.

From WhoIs:

Domain ID:D105219760-LROR
Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Last Updated On:13-Jan-2011 00:25:24 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Nov-2015 16:39:03 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Active Registrar, Inc. (R1709-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:ACTR1011142017
Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services

Look up that organization.

The sloppy typing is because I'm not used to this small keyboard on my new laptop."

A perfect example of how you are completely full of shit, RW, and Mandas flubbed one.

RealClimate is "a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists." They donate their time for free.

Environmental Media Services, "founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign, hosts their website for them, footing the bill for a whopping $30.00 - $40.00 per year.

Is it actually your contention that RealClimate represents as biased a source of information as Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change?

Is it your contention that scientists working pro bono in the public interest are potentially as equivalently biased as multinational fossil fuel companies acting surreptitiously behind the scenes to protect billions of dollars of profit?

Are you actually that stupid or truly that dishonest?

If RealClimate is your poster child for a poisoned data source influenced by a "left-wing organization", then you really really do need to STFU about left-wing data corruption.

And Mandas, there IS a difference between groups acting for the public good, and corporations protecting profits. One is NOT automatically equivalent to the other because they happen to be on opposite sides of the political aisle.

ginger

In what way did I 'flub one'?

Did I suggest that Realclimate was the same as an industry lobby group? The answer to that is no.

What I said - and what I wil not retract - is that it is NOT acceptable to use opinion as if it is fact, nor is it acceptable to reference work that comes from ideological organisations.

And ginger - you should understand - that if you want to use any data from sites such as Realclimate (or Wattsupwiththat or any other website discussing science, you MUST read and understand the papers that the work is based on first. And the work is not based on proper peer reviewed or work of similar standard, then it is NOT a valid source of evidence, and you must indicate as such when you reference it.

The reference and the evidence is the underpinning papers; it is NOT the thread or discussion of the thread on a website - no matter who is writing it or what site it is. This is important, because the unpublished information on a website has not been checked for validity.

I don't care what website it comes from or who is doing the post. Opinion is not fact, and un-reviewed work is just that.

I have to agree with Mandas on this, Ginger, although your point is thoroughly well taken: there is no moral equivalency between RC and Wattsup or CO2pseudoscience.

Nonetheless I use RC as a reference but not a source.

Yap.

Nonetheless I use RC as a reference but not a source.--Skip after feeding a baby and only half awake and not on the top of his game.

This was poorly worded and I apologize to all.

I use RC as a *resource* but not a *reference OR a source*.

"What I said - and what I wil not retract - is that it is NOT acceptable to use opinion as if it is fact"

Fair enough. though RC has a lot of fact and very little opinion in its content from the authors.

"nor is it acceptable to reference work that comes from ideological organisations."

So you won't agree to listen to NASA?!?!?!

The work doesn't come from their hosting provider any more than I'm speaking for Google.

"When are you going to accept, there is an increase in the average of the yearly mean, that's your "warming", but in no way assumes that CO2 is the cause."

Indeed it doesn't. No assumption is made.

However, without the influence of CO2 increases overwhelmingly due to human actions, no such warming is possible.

A boiling pot of water in no way assumes you're using a Halogen Hob. But when you've got a Halogen hob turned on, drawing current and glowing whilst the pot sits on top of it and no microwave magnetron pointing at the pot, you're going to have to draw the conclusion that the water is being boiled by that halogen hob.

I do know where you get your pack of lies, Dick.

"Evidence for the MWP being world wide is in the CO2Science MWP database. "

Which evidence doesn't show a global warming period. What it shows is regional changes that no more show a global mean rise than pushing down on a waterbed and noting that another area of the waterbed rises proves there's more water in the waterbed when you push it.

"So there were no storms prior to industrialization. I said show, you didnt."

No, you asked which storms in the last 50 years were created by AGW. You didn't say what created them before that 50 year period.

"Tell that to Schwartz because he says we don't know."

Why should I tell him? I'm telling you.

We know.

"The onus is on the person who presents the positive position to provide the evidence."

This shows you that you don't know how logic works.

You've made the statement that AGW doesn't happen and has had nothing to do with the weather for the last 50 years and that it doesn't show any climate trend. It is for you to prove your position right.

Except you can't and you know you can't. So all you do is deny evidence and squawk "You have to prove your case" which is impossible to do to a denier because they will deny anything.

"I guess it is safe to say you think the science is settled."

See. Deniers are the ones saying that the science is settled.

Funny how they keep claiming it's the IPCC.

"The null hypothesis is that natural mechanisms drive the universe, including what happens on this planet."

And the natural result of combustion of a hydrocarbon in an oxygen rich atmosphere is the production of CO2. Which has the natural result of retaining more heat in an atmosphere like Earth's. Which has the natural result of global warming.

AGW is natural.

The natural result of burning fossil fuels by humans.

"In 524 you lambast RW because he wants to know if weather systems can be linked to AGW,"

Except I didn't. I told him they WERE linked to AGW. Try reading. Get a grown up to help.

"either AGW is driving the weather systems or they are not,"

They are.

"how do we know if AGw is driving these systems?"

The evidence.

"At present there is not one shred of evidence that says they are but according to you we dont need to know because we have faith."

No, according to the climate scientists there is plenty of evidence you and dick are busy going "lalala can't hear you" over.

The evidence is there and it's clear.

But according to you, it doesn't exist therefore there's only faith that AGW is real.

AGW is a natural result of humans burning fossil fuels.

"But the "impact" on weather systems is presumptive, not reducible to perfect understanding--at least with our current technology."

So is the entirety of science.

We see things fall down and presume the law of gravity.

We see things blow up and presume exothermic chemical reaction.

We can absolutely measure that the earth is retaining more heat. We can absolutely measure that the earth is radiating less in CO2 absorption bands. We can absolutely measure that there is more energy in the earth's atmosphere that is expressed as weather.

Therefore, absent any proof that this extra energy did NOT affect that weather event, every weather event has been significantly changed by AGW.

If someone wants to make the positive statement that the extra energy had no effect, they can prove their case.

ou have no idea about statistics, and I sincerely wish you would stop using the phrase 'null hypothesis' when you have absolutely no idea what it means or the context in which it should be applied. You show your ignorance of this repeatedly.

I will not stop using it, mostly because you demanded I do.

"The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

"The null hypothesis is the proposition that implies no effect or no relationship between phenomena."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/g/Null-Hypothesis-Defin…

So I'm using the term correctly. You have not stated what the default position is. The Null Hypothesis means that there is NO RELATIONSHIP between CO2 and climate events by default. That means the onus is on YOUR side to provide the evidence there is a relationship.

To be able to do that you must provide evidence that ONLY CO2 emissions is the explanation for said changes. There is none. There is none, because natural mechanisms can also produce the effects seen, since such events occured in the past without CO2 being the cause.

But you have done NO analysis of what you have found, because the underpinning data is not available to you.

What the hell is "underpinning data"? You mean what is "homogenized" by those trying to show there is CO2 induced warming?

We can absolutely measure that the earth is retaining more heat. We can absolutely measure that the earth is radiating less in CO2 absorption bands. We can absolutely measure that there is more energy in the earth's atmosphere that is expressed as weather.

That is completely false. The energy budget of the planet has not been balanced. Even the ClimateGate people admit that.

Besides, assume that is correct. How do you know this "retained heat" is not returning to the normal state from one of lost heat previous during the LIA? We are returning to the more normal state of warmer climate.

You are claiming the glass is half full, where empty is good and full is bad. I'm claiming the glass is half empty, and empty is bad, while full is good.

The evidence is there and it's clear.

So clear only you see it. I don't see any physical evidence, no observed evidence, no easured effects that show any trend being from CO2.

Not computer models, not hypothesis. Those are not evidence. Show me a graph of changes in rainfall, or changes in heatwaves. Go ahead, show us. You won't find them because it's not happening. There is no increase anywhere on the planet of increased heatwaves.

Wow:
It is for you to prove your position right.

cdnsurfacemps.wordpress.com

I show that TMax is not increasing, there is no increase in heatwaves.

Wakefield lies again:

I show that TMax is not increasing

Wakefield, 13 or so cherry picked stations from Canada do not show that AGW is not happening. I have shown that I found 6 sites (chosen at random but you will probably accuse me of lying) that disproves your assertion that "all stations in Canada show decreasing Tmax". That is a down right lie.

Your Australian nonsense is disproved by the link I have posted frequently, have you read it, can you understand what simple graphs show?

You are both dishonest and stupid.

"I show that TMax is not increasing, there is no increase in heatwaves."

Temperature is increasing.

Go to NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

One of the signatures of CO2's effect (as opposed to "the sun does it") is that nighttime temperatures rise quicker than the daytime temperatures.

Should be kind of obvious that if nights are warming quicker when the sun doesn't shine (since the earth's body constitutes an SPF of over 9000), it cannot be the sun doing it.

Hehehe. Looky here:

"So clear only you see it."

Compare and contrast with:

"I don't see any physical evidence, no observed evidence, no easured effects that show any trend being from CO2."

Hehehehehe.

Go read the IPCC reports, plenty of observed evidence, it's only not missing because you deny it exists.

"That is completely false. The energy budget of the planet has not been balanced. Even the ClimateGate people admit that."

Uh, that's what I said: the earth's atmosphere is out of balance.

Duh.

"How do you know this "retained heat" is not returning to the normal state from one of lost heat previous during the LIA?"

Because the LIA was not a normal state. We're in a cooling phase of the Milankovich cycle.

Plus, aren't you assuming here? You're assuming that the 86% correlation between CO2 levels (driven upwards by human emissions) is just a fluke. Please prove that assertion.

"I'm claiming the glass is half empty, and empty is bad, while full is good."

No, you're claiming that CO2 cannot have the effects it demonstrates in the laboratory where all confounding factors can be accounted for.

You're doing so because you're of the firm belief that AGW is false. You are anti-science. Working from your desired outcome (AGW is false) to a rationalisation that will make that outcome true. This is religion, not science.

"The null hypothesis is the proposition that implies no effect or no relationship between phenomena."

And that is proven: CO2 blocks IR radiation. It's been known about since Fourier worked in the early 1800's.

Prove that CO2 doesn't have the effect physics says it does.

THAT is the null hypothesis.

"Hypothesis means that there is NO RELATIONSHIP between CO2 and climate events by default. That means the onus is on YOUR side to provide the evidence there is a relationship."

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

Also http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Now prove the causation wrong and the correlation lies.

mandas said:

"

ginger
In what way did I 'flub one'?
...Did I suggest that Realclimate was the same as an industry lobby group? The answer to that is no."

mandas, at 501 you referenced 495 where you agreed with RW that any left-wing group was to be held equivalent to an industry lobby group:

"you are 100% correct there Dick. No - it's NOT ok to use the work of organisations or individuals which receive funding from left-wing political lobby groups.

None of us should put any credence on any work which has been produced from an organisation where there may be a conflict of interest in the results - right wing, left wing, industry funded, etc."

At 501 you again agree with Richard that RealClimate should be held as inherently biased as an industry-backed group:

"If it is because you think that it [RealClimate] should not be used as a sourc of evidence, then I agree with you 100%. So what's the issue here?"

Nobody - least of all me - is arguing against the necessity of peer-reviewed evidence-based research as the bedrock of scientific epistemics. Your "...The reference and the evidence is the underpinning papers..." is preaching to the choir.

But too easily aspersing RealClimate as an information source as inherently unreliable as the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in order to put a rhetorical ass-whipping on RW is unacceptable.

It is also denigrating to the millions of interested laymen who do not have access or understanding of the original source material [a population which includes me, btw] who nonetheless want an Internet source of reliable, relevant information as well as references, and explanatory exposition on these issues.

Heck, 99.995% of the population can not understand the original source material at all. Without interpretation it is meaningless to them. Sites such as RealClimate are positively essential to the public understanding of the issues, crucial to the national conversation, and absolutely undeserving of needless association with sites like the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

The correct reply to RW re internet bias would have not been your quick polemical pounce, at RealClimate's expense, but - just like a scientific proof source - to start with a demand for and then an examination of specific evidence.

Wakefield's supposed 'evidence' was a poorly-conceived Internet hatchet job by some ass who has since taken down his web pages, insinuating that RealClimate was 'paid for" by a left-wing group. Another spaghetti-on-the-wall strategy by RW, whose assertion, instead of being taken to task for its filthy calumny, was instead conceded.

Gingerbaker RC won't come close to being a 'science blog', it was bought and paid for by left-wing interests who make money litigating on behalf of AGW. Should the role's be reversed you woul be all over RC for influenced bias. RS wasn't even nominated for science blog of the year, but WUWT was. Visits to RC are down, while WUWT continues to grow. RC is a joke, expecially now with Gavin's gaffe with "unsettled science".

Mandas fell into the trap, and you are paying for it.

Stop rubbishing Real Climate. Just because morons like you can overwhelm a junk site like wattsuphisbutt does not in any way mean that it is scientific. It is dishonest, libelous, junk and a magnet for morons like you.

Any intelligent person should be able to see that it is content and accuracy that matters. You, however, are so stupid that you cannot make any distinction based on knowledge and intelligence.

You are dishonest, stupid and scientifically challenged.

Temperature is increasing.

Go to NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

One of the signatures of CO2's effect (as opposed to "the sun does it") is that nighttime temperatures rise quicker than the daytime temperatures.

Should be kind of obvious that if nights are warming quicker when the sun doesn't shine (since the earth's body constitutes an SPF of over 9000), it cannot be the sun doing it.

You have it backwards. Nighttime isn't heating up, it's losing less heat after the sun goes down.

What is the value that is increasing? It's the AVERAGE of the YEARLY MEANS. That is not a measurement, but a calculation. What is it that is being measured which gives the average?

Ignore Ian, he hasn't shown one station on the planet that has had a recent increase in summer TMax compared to the early 1900's.

Fact is, I have shown that heat waves HAVE NOT increased anywhere on the planet compared to the 1900's.

Ian, RC wasn't even nominated for science blog of the year, WUWT was. Tells the story right there. The fact that you defend RC is telling on your true motives, a True Believer to the end. So who's dishonest? Right... The more you spew your ignorant rants the bigger the shit you pile on yourself.

Now prove the causation wrong and the correlation lies.

What is wrong with that data is the error of measurements are not included. They are presented a fact when they are not. The CO2 data is a mix of two different measurements, Mona Loa from the mid 1950's and prior baced on proxy and poor readings (the original topic of this tread). It is also missing the range of measurements of he average temperature. Different datasets produce different results. The temperature data prior to the 1950' is sloppy, and sporatic. If the 1300 stations in Canada, only some 20 have data prior tothe 1920's. Most of the tropics has no data prior to WWII. So we have no idea what has happened in those locations. That means one would have to look at specific stations with a long as series of records as possible, which are few and I have done. Tmax is not increasing, and there is no inceasing heatwaves. That is fact. Explain how CO2 doesnt increase TMax in the summer.

I'm still waiting for your evidence in changes in the weather due to CO2.

I'm also still waiting for you to afirm if the null hypothesis is that our CO2 is causing Tavg to increase. And if the 'science is settled'.

You have it backwards. Nighttime isn't heating up, it's losing less heat after the sun goes down.

Another top ten-er for All Time Most Inane Wakefield Arguments.

Wakefield lies again and again:

Ignore Ian, he hasn't shown one station on the planet that has had a recent increase in summer TMax compared to the early 1900's.

Firstly, going back to 1900 has got nothing to do with AGW. The effects of increased CO2 only became statistically apparent over the past 50 years. Therefore, it is during the last 50 years or so we should be looking for an AGW signal.

Coby has copies of the data I produced on the 6 Canadian Stations I looked at. I hope that he and mandas are preparing a rigorous rebuttal to Wakefield's nonsense.

Also, the Australian data show that he is lying about what is happening in Australia.

Why is this continual and consistent liar allowed to pollute a so called science site? Science is about honesty and accuracy, both of which are distinctly lacking in Wakefield's nonsense postings.

"Another top ten-er for All Time Most Inane Wakefield Arguments."

Its amusing when his word salad sidles up to an actual understanding of the science.

Firstly, going back to 1900 has got nothing to do with AGW. The effects of increased CO2 only became statistically apparent over the past 50 years. Therefore, it is during the last 50 years or so we should be looking for an AGW signal.

Ian, your cherry picking a time frame won't save you. When viewed from the 1900's, which WOW also referenced with his link of CO2 vs temps, and today's TMax is LOWER now than then, how can you make the claim today is hotter than in history? How is it since heat waves were more numerous in the 1930's than today, how can you claim we hotter now than at the beginning of the industrial revolution?

You people need to get your stories straight. Either the increase in average temp from 1800-1945 was from AGW or it wasn't so which is it?

I even showed that your short time frame turns to a negative trend when viewed from 1900.
http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/time-frame-perils/

Skip, how can nighttime heat up when there is no heat source? Or are you claiming that nighttime temps don't drop when the sun goes down?

Skip, how can nighttime heat up when there is no heat source? Or are you claiming that nighttime temps don't drop when the sun goes down?

Just keep posting, Richard. This is right up there with the Earth-as-ball-of-ice silliness you posted before.

I will not bother explaining this to you. Assuming you actually do not understand the inapplicability of your point to the issue of AGW, you are irretrievably obtuse.

If you really do understand and are just using this as a smoke screen, then you're just being a jerk. Its not worth a response either way.

The Truth About Climate Change Open Letter

http://www.co2science.org/education/truthalerts/v14/TruthAboutClimateCh…

Signed by:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
John Boring, University of Virginia
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University1
Will Happer, Princeton University2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado1
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1

1 - Emeritus or Retired
2 - Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Endorsed by:

Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Richard Becherer, University of Connecticut1
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D'Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Terry Donze, Geophysicist1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC
Dick Flygare, QEP Resources
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates
Steve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of America
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1
Art Horn, Meteorologist
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute
Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Rene Rogers, Litton Electron Devices1
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.
Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org

Richard:

Do you agree with the stated positions of each of the people on that list?

It is funny to see how often the deniers contradict each other. One of their big things is "argument from authority". It is a big No No.

However, it only works when the argument is from honest, well respected and hard earned authority. That type of authority is to be scorned. However, dishonest, slime ball, junk science authority is to be praised and great lists of such people made and distributed to all other deniers.

Luckily, intelligent people see through this nonsense and realize that people like Wakefield are dishonest slime balls who know nothing about science and how it is conducted.

A joke. The usual suspects of non-scientists/non climate specialists with the increasingly discredited Richard Lindzen the plumb of the bowl.

Because you just copied and pasted, Richard, you didn't even notice the number of footnotes for "Emeritus or Retired" (20) or the number of climate scientists (2), the number of NAS members (2).

Look at the specialties--meteorology, geology, mining engineering, nuclear and on and on.

Its a joke, Richard.

These are the most impressive looking names they could come up with.

Notice, however, that even these guys didn't solicit *your* signature.

Dick

"....But too easily aspersing RealClimate as an information source as inherently unreliable as the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in order to put a rhetorical ass-whipping on RW is unacceptable....."

Ginger, it would appear you are as unable to read as Dick. I NEVER said Realclimate was as inherently unreliable as any of those idiotic sites. I said - as skip tried to also point out to you - that Realclimate is a very useful resource but the opinions - and they ARE opinions posted in the threads - are NOT legitimate references for scientific arguments. They are not now nor will they ever be. You may read them as a layman if you want to try and understand something, but if you need evidence in order to support a scientific argument, you MUST use a proper paper from a peer reviewed journal or a report from a reputable organisation which has properly been reviewed for content.

It would appear from your remarks that you do not have a tertiary education in science, otherwise you would not be trying to make the case that you are. If you had such an education, and you tried to use ANY weblog as a reference source , your supervisor or lecturer would either tell you to take it out or mark you down. If you want to use it here, then you should make it VERY clear that you are referencing an opinion, NOT evidence, because it isn't.

I am trying to make this point as politely as I possibly can, but there is just no other way to say it ginger. You are wrong. End of argument.

Dick

You are an idiot and your cherry picking is so unethical it beggars the imagination.

â...."The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position...â

Did you read further than the first sentence of that wikipedia link you provided? Forgetting for a moment that wikipedia is NOT a valid reference for anything and only someone with no credibility would try and use it to prove a point, how about you read down to the information below. So familiar? Oh yes â exactly what IPF has been trying to say to you, and which suggests very strongly that you DONâT have any clue what you are talking about. But why is that a surprise?

â.....RS wasn't even nominated for science blog of the year, but WUWT was. Visits to RC are down, while WUWT continues to grow. RC is a joke, expecially now with Gavin's gaffe with "unsettled science".......Mandas fell into the trap, and you are paying for it.....â

So are you saying that if enough people believe something, then it must be true huh? Does that mean you believe in god there Dick? And what trap did I fall into Dick? Was it the one where I said that ANY blog is not a legitimate reference source for scientific argument? Wow â looks like you got me there! I will tell everyone at the university that they no longer have to reference peer reviewed journals anymore. Weblogs are now acceptable. (on second thoughts, I donât want to get laughed out of the place, so maybe not)

â....Fact is, I have shown that heat waves HAVE NOT increased anywhere on the planet compared to the 1900's.....â

No you havenât. That is probably the greatest lie you have told to date Dick, and demonstrates that you have zero credibility on ANYTHING.

â....What the hell is "underpinning data"?....â

If you donât know that, then why are we even bothering to try and discuss science with you. You donât understand statistics â yet you try and conduct a statistical analysis. You donât understand science â yet you try and argue a scientific position. You lie, you obfuscate, and you exaggerate about anything and everything you have ever done or tried to do.

You have not even attempted to address the legitimate arguments I have made about the lack of evidence in your observations for all of your claims. Why is that? Donât bother â I know the answer. Itâs because you canât.

So go ahead, keep making your idiotic claims, referencing material that contradicts you and using illegitimate sources as 'references' to support your ideologically driven position. It will not make a scintilla of difference, because you are exactly like the creationists that you like to proudly proclaim you took down. Because just like those creationists, evidence and reason are immaterial. You may have thought you took then down, but have they come around to your way of thinking? Of course not! Because just like you, they will NEVER change, because they are religious and science and reason are an anathema to them.

mandas, I have to disagree with you and support Ginger in this discussion. You are only considering what is right from an academic viewpoint. I agree that references to RC should never be used in an academic paper or any paper submitted for publication in the scientific literature.

However, I see nothing wrong with lay persons referring to it in blog discussions or in face to face meetings.

There is no way that RC can be compared to climatefraudit, wattsuphisbutt and similar dishonest sites.

RC has been around for long enough for its veracity and honesty to be unquestioned. The same cannot be said of the other sites I mentioned since they have been around long enough for intelligent people to see that they are dishonest and lack any scientific rigor.

Lay persons often have difficulty accessing scientific papers so I see nothing wrong with people using information from RC about these papers. The people at RC probably are co-authors or were part of the review team of some of the papers anyway (the good ones that is not the junk that sometimes gets discussed). The integrity and knowledge of the RC contributors is well acknowledged so why should anyone not want to refer to that site.

I realize that it is not good form for academics to do so but where do you draw the line? In my view it should be acceptable for high school students to use RC as a major source, first or second year college students OK to use some but not all cites based on RC, senior undergraduates and graduate students (thesis) it would not be acceptable.

Remember, it is reputation that counts, that is why RC is a good site and the others I mentioned are junk.

It bothers me that by telling people that they can't use RC for cites it will give more ammunition to the deniers that the good science sites are not to be trusted.

Ian

The problem with using weblogs such as Realclimate is not that they are unreliable etc - they probably are very reliable. However, if you allow people on one side of the debate to use a weblog as a reference source, then by definition you have to allow the other side to do likewise.

How many times have you seen deniers like Dick and crakar linking to wattsupmybutt or jonova with the claim that "don't attempt to discredit the source, discredit the science", and we have to spend time trying to take down an opinion that has no credibility whatsoever? I have - on many occasions - simply ignored idiotic papers from the SPPI because you and I know they are crap. However, if I were to then link to something that Michael Mann had written on Realclimate I would simply be destroying my own argument and my own credibility in the process. Crakar or Dick could - with perfect justification - claim that it is hypocritical for me to criticise their opinion based sources while relying on one of my own.

Realclimate even make it quite clear that that the site is a 'commentary site' and that the posts do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the organisations for which they work. The posts are not reviewed, apart from by respondents to the threads and by the moderators.

You are correct in saying that there is nothing wrong in using it as a resource for information, or in using the opinions expressed on the site in some form of lay discussion. I would also agree that is acceptable to use a Realclimate post (or any other weblog) if the author in question is also the author of the relevant paper, and he/she is explaining some information or responding to questions about the paper. That is just perfectly normal and legitimate practice.

But when you try to make the point about reputation you get into dangerous ground. Dick made the point above about the growing popularity of wattsupmybutt and he can therefore make a legitimate argument about its reputation as well. Like it or not, watts has a VERY good reputation within the denial community. Realclimate may have a very good reputation among the scientifically literate, but so what? The climate debate has always been the scientifically literate on one side and the illiterate on the other. Pitting one side's (claimed) reputable weblog against the other's is a pointless exercise.

That is why I will continue to stress this point. By all means, go to Realclimate or Skepticalscience and have a read and use the posts there to expand you own knowledge. But the posts there are not, never were, and never will be evidence (except as I suggested above). You need to use the underpinning papers and reports for that.

However, if you still wish to cite weblogs to suport your case, at least caveat the cite with something that makes it plain what you are citing (eg the opinion of a climate scientist and NOT evidence).

Do you agree with the stated positions of each of the people on that list?

Yes, I agree with the content of that letter.

Mandas, I used raw data from Environment Canada, so explain how that isn't "underpinned data." There is no formal definition of such.

mandas we do not care what people such as Wakefield and other deniers say about climatefraudit and wattsuphisbutt because intelligent people know how dishonest these places are. Do not give the deniers the satisfaction of thinking that their sites are the equivalent of RC, Skeptical Science and other genuine science sites where accurate, honest and valuable information is stored and exchanged. You play into their hands if you suggest that people should not refer to sites as RC. Heck, anyone writing reports for Government or corporate clients refer to such sites and sources all the time. Do not let your academic values cloud your judgment in this matter.

We should take every opportunity to support RC, Skeptical Science etc. and call climatefraudit and wattsuphisbutt for what they are, cesspits of dishonest and libelous garbage.

Only then will intelligent people find information and report on it as they should.

â....Fact is, I have shown that heat waves HAVE NOT increased anywhere on the planet compared to the 1900's.....â

No you havenât. That is probably the greatest lie you have told to date Dick, and demonstrates that you have zero credibility on ANYTHING.

So show me a location on the planet where heat waves have increased since 1900. You tried to claim Au data did, but when I checked it didn't. So prove me wrong by finding heatwave increases.

RC has been around for long enough for its veracity and honesty to be unquestioned.

Wow, for someone who claims I lie, you just posted a huge lie.

Ian

I'm just going to disagree with you on this one. But that's ok, we don't have to agree on everything. At least we both agree Dick is a lying arsehole with no integrity.

"....Do not give the deniers the satisfaction of thinking that their sites are the equivalent of RC, Skeptical Science and other genuine science sites where accurate, honest and valuable information is stored and exchanged....."

It isn't me who is giving them the satisfaction of thinking that - they already do so. But at least if I only ever link to peer reviewed work or reports from credible organisations I allow myself the luxury of criticising crakar and Dick when they link to something other than science.

Quite frankly, it makes my job a hell of a lot easier.

Ian claims RC is an "honest" blog.

But this is how they operate:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100075232/realclimate…

RW @570

Fact is, I have shown that heat waves HAVE NOT increased anywhere on the planet compared to the 1900's.

No, you have not. To even demonstrate it for the sites you selected, you have to do the statistics. Playing around with Excel and SQL does not cut the mustard. You need to use, as a null hypothesis, the assumption that Tmax is increasing in line with global (or regional) temperatures, then demonstrate that your data differ significantly from the null hypothesis (cue for agitated statement to the effect that that is everyone else's null hypothesis, not yours, thus demonstrating that you do not know what is meant by 'null hypothesis').

OK,RS. I'll provide you with the raw data and YOU do this stats you claim I'm not doing right. Show how I'm wrong. Chris tried and failed. Maybe you can succeed where he didn't?

James Dellingpole!! Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

You mean this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

Dick links to someone with even less credibility than himself.

I have been reading the little spat amongst the choir boys with interest and i have to say i agree with Mandas.

FUCK, SAYING THAT HURT.

OK,RS. I'll provide you with the raw data and YOU do this stats you claim I'm not doing right. Show how I'm wrong. Chris tried and failed. Maybe you can succeed where he didn't?

I'm not claiming you are doing the statistics wrong. I am saying that you have not done the bare minimum of statistics needed to support your views. It's your claim. You need to justify it. I have suggested a possible starting point but if you feel your claims do not warrant your putting in the effort, so be it.

Had a few minutes, so I thought I would check up on who those people were who supposedly signed that letter that Dick wrote about at #579. Here's what I found - and the disciplines of the people concerned (reading down the list):

Geophysicist
Professor of Marketing
Applied Mathematics
???? â canât find this guy
Retired Exxon-Mobil executive
Physicist
Geologist
Mechanical Engineer
Nuclear Physicist
Geologist
Mathematician and Quantum Physicist
Physicist

I then gave up in disgust. Are there ANY atmospheric scientists or oceanographers on the list?

Given that my field of expertise is wildlife science I guess I could be considered expert enough as well.

To WoooooooooooooW,

Your are an idiot..........

Lets play your stupid little game and only look at the past 50 years for an AGW signal. So we know that from 1960 to present CO2 has increased regardless of its source by 73.5ppm.

1960 to 1970 316.19 to 325.13 (9ppm)
1970 to 1980 325.13 to 338.29 (13ppm)
1980 to 1990 338.29 to 354.21 (16ppm)
1990 to 2000 354.21 to 369.62 (15ppm)
2000 to 2010 369.62 to 389.69 (20ppm)

Now you claim that the rise in co2 (as shown above) is the sole or at least major cause of the temp rise seen during this period, however the largest rise of 20ppm has been during a period when the temps have virually remained stable. Can you explain how CO2 can cause the temp to rise for a period and then not cause the temp to rise for a period?

I expect you will pull out the old chestnut "aw gee shucks thats just variability (weather)". If so then could you explain how the weather worked in conjunction with AGW (1970 to 200) and then worked in opposition with AGW (1960 to 1970 and 2000 to 2010).

By the way the CO2 measurements since 1900 in comparison with the temps show that the majority of temp rise occurred before 1950 when CO2 levels were so low they would have made little difference however the second half of the century saw an increase in co2 levels and yet the temp rise was lower than the previous 50 years. Care to explain that.

We need to keep track of how many times Crakar makes the same nonsensical argument. We've seen this one in various forms approximately a dozen times or more.

The answers are obvious:

The issue is not the rise per decade but the *overall concentration*. That has been progressively *higher* in every decade since 1950 (obviously), which means the absolute effect of CO2 (and other GHGs, which are also increasing) is higher in each successive time period.

"The temperature rise" of the early 20th century has *not* been attributed primarily to CO2, which simply states the obvious truism (one lost on Richard) that other factors can affect climate.

This is why we need "The Crakar Box" Coby. Our guy has run out of arguments so he'll recycle the same ones over and over . . . and over . . . . and over . . . .

A Crakar box.....what an intriguing idea Skip, i think it is worthy of further discussion but first lets look at my nonsensical argument and your absurd...no faith based response.

Firstly i separated it into decades because i thought that would be the right thing to do and for no other reason and you are right the overall concentration is important.

Agreed the pre 1950 temp rises and falls are not based on CO2 levels but on natural variations.

But the nothing Skip.......just a cheap shot and nothing more, You failed to explain as always why CO2 can increase temps when it feels like it and you failed to explain why more CO2 has led to less warming. Do you honestly a simple cheap shot is all that is needed to maintain your rusted on religious faith?

Pathetic response Skip, absolutely pathetic.

You failed to explain as always why CO2 can increase temps when it feels like it

Because this is not the nature of increased temps I am claiming AGW explains.

How about you explain why you are always convinced by inane arguments?

you failed to explain why more CO2 has led to less warming.

Less compared to what? You're hiding behind the vagaries of language again.

The Crakar Box might seem like a cheap shot but its based on your history of using the same failed arguments again and again and again. Its almost as if you think the idea is to find a disputant on this forum who hasn't directly heard them from you yet and see if you can dig a barb in. Hence the need for a Crakar Box.

Here's a word of advice (friendlier than you might assume), Crakar:

If its an argument either you or I can understand, the odds are the pros have already thought of it and have a simple answer. In your case, it means recognizing that that simple answer hasn't changed since the last time you used the simple argument 4 weeks ago.

"You failed to explain as always why CO2 can increase temps when it feels like it "

It doesn't feel anything. It has no choice. This isn't your religion where feelings and desires are all the magic woo you need, this is science where there are merely actions, reactions and consequences.

"you failed to explain why more CO2 has led to less warming."

Because more CO2 hasn't led to less warming. Without the CO2 the cooling would have been more extreme.

Your are an idiot..........

Lets play your stupid little game and only look at the past 50 years for an AGW signal.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

Oh look, there's a signal.

It's just that, unlike cracker-ass here believes, there is more than CO2 in the planetary system. Funny how denidiots like cracker-ass here complain that the IPCC and "warmists" think that CO2 is the only effect when they are clearly the ones that believe this is the case.

(PS you are crap at maths too, since your intervals are varied to produce your desired outcome, clear evidence of your faith-based anti-science foundations)

"Wow, for someone who claims I lie, you just posted a huge lie."

That too is a lie. OK, if you want to be pedantic, *idiots* will question Realclimate, as will people who deny any problem for political and religious reasons, like RW here.

"So show me a location on the planet where heat waves have increased since 1900."

Why?

AGW isn't about heatwaves, it's about temperatures rising.

Here is the evidence:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Of course, you have previously shown a problem with working out that an upward trend is not flat, so this may still not work, so here's a hint to help: don't tilt your monitor to make the graph go down.

"However, if you allow people on one side of the debate to use a weblog as a reference source, then by definition you have to allow the other side to do likewise."

Bullcrap.

If China tortures a citizen, do we in all fairness have to torture one ourselves???

We only have to have equivalently accurate weblogs on both sides.

WTFUWT is not a science weblog it's a party political broadcast weblog. CA is not about science, it's about its owners' own beliefs, a frottage site.

RC shows the science.

"Skip, how can nighttime heat up when there is no heat source? Or are you claiming that nighttime temps don't drop when the sun goes down?"

Oh dear. Well at least RW has shown how completely full of BS he is.

Night time temperature trends are rising.

It had been thought that at least a putative adult would not have to have this explained to him.

Seems we overestimated your intelligence.

Now that you've been educated on nighttime temp increases, please explain why CO2 isn't the cause and what you believe is.

"Now prove the causation wrong and the correlation lies.

What is wrong with that data is the error of measurements are not included."

That doesn't make any sense. The correlation exists. The error bars don't change that, no matter how much you hope.

"The CO2 data is a mix of two different measurements,"

No, it's measuring CO2 concentrations.

"Mona Loa from the mid 1950's and prior baced on proxy and poor readings (the original topic of this tread)."

A positive statement that needs proof. Oddly enough the satellite measurements agree with this change. It is also comensurate with the amount of CO2 we humans have burned (you can ask Texaco et al how much oil they've sold: unless someone stockpiles it all, that stuff has been burned).

"It is also missing the range of measurements of he average temperature."

Still doesn't change the correlation.

"Different datasets produce different results."

Nope, they produce the same result: CO2 rise is correlated with warming to an extremely high degree.

"The temperature data prior to the 1950' is sloppy, and sporatic"

Another positive statement that needs proof. Not very good at this, are you?

"If the 1300 stations in Canada, only some 20 have data prior tothe 1920's."

So? They still measure the temperature. The correlation still exists.

"Most of the tropics has no data prior to WWII. So we have no idea what has happened in those locations."

Yes we do.

"That means one would have to look at specific stations with a long as series of records as possible, which are few and I have done."

No, you haven't.

"Tmax is not increasing, and there is no inceasing heatwaves."

Tmax isn't temperature. Why do you insist on using an incorrect measurement of temperature?

"That is fact."

Yes, all your stuff being made up is a fact.

"Explain how CO2 doesnt increase TMax in the summer."

Because the signature of CO2 warming is a greater increase in nighttime temperatures, a greater increase over the poles in summer and these facts have been observed, neither of which have anything to do with Tmax in the summer.

Explain why temperature averages are going up, CO2 is going up and the sun is cooler than before if CO2 isn't causing temperature increases.

"Most of the tropics has no data prior to WWII. So we have no idea what has happened in those locations"

Not true. There's lots of records. Paper records. If you want to increase the quantity and quality of data available, you could spend a few hours a week helping to digitise the available information. It's tedious and I, at least, sometimes find it difficult - but it's something a non-scientist can do to help out.

Because more CO2 hasn't led to less warming. Without the CO2 the cooling would have been more extreme

How do you know that? Provide a peer reviewed paper to support that premise.

adead provide the links to this data.

Do you really think that in the jungles of Africa in the 1900's people kept temperature records?

"The temperature data prior to the 1950' is sloppy, and sporatic"

Another positive statement that needs proof. Not very good at this, are you?

The proof is in the data. Station counts peaked in Canada in the 1980s, and has dropped since. There are no more than 22 stations in all of Canada with data starting in 1900.

Go here and you will see the fragmented state of the data.

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/europe.htm

Pick any location you want. Select a different continent on the left.

Ausie data here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/

It shows a graph of the range of years for each station. The coverage is pathetic.

"Station counts peaked in Canada in the 1980s, and has dropped since."

You DO know that the world isn't just Canada, don't you?

And, no, you have to prove that the data prior to the 50's is sloppy and that whatever you attribute sporadic as affects the data.

"The coverage is pathetic."

Why does the coverage deserve "pathetic" and how does this affect the results so as to invalidate them? The graph

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

shows the error bars (green) and the trend is still definitively upward.

You have asserted an awful lot as fact when it is merely opinion.

"How do you know that?"

Because the cooling is understood. E.g. post war Europe and continental USA created a lot of dirty aerosols. Clean air acts in the 70's reduced these aerosols.

If you want to see the peer reviewed papers, see the references in the science handily collected for you at

http://www.ipcc.ch

RW in comment #613:

"Do you really think that in the jungles of Africa in the 1900's people kept temperature records?"

RW in comment #315:

"The point is Alaska has been warmer than today, during the MWP and the RWP."

Did Eskimos in the 14th century keep temperature records?

It seems that RW's ability to understand temperature recording depends on whether it fits his ideology or not.

What is also strange with RW is that he's hot on including error bars. Oh, sorry, he's not:

http://cdnsurfacetemps.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/figure1.jpg

I can't see the error bars there! He's just hot on OTHER PEOPLE putting error bars on their graphs. Not him.

Tmax isn't temperature. Why do you insist on using an incorrect measurement of temperature?

Please explain how the highest temperature of the day is "an incorrect measurement of temperature"?

Anyone else agree with Wow on that statement?

I can't see the error bars there! He's just hot on OTHER PEOPLE putting error bars on their graphs. Not him.

Not provided by Environment Canada, see example of the actual data here:

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/hourlydata_e.html?timefr…

And if you cared to look at what I presented I show the full range of temps, including averages and standard deviations.

Wakefield shows his ignorance (and lack of respect for other posters) once again:

adead (are you disrespectful on purpose because someone shows up your errors?) provide the links to this (sic) data.

Do you really think that in the jungles of Africa in the 1900's people kept temperature records?

If you bothered to check into something first you would find that there are lots of people active in doing just what adelady is describing.

One of the biggest projects is the project where volunteers are digitizing Royal Naval log records of surface sea temperatures. There are literally millions of data points which give the lie to your quoted statements.

Since you need practice at searching for useful (not dishonest information which your searches only seem to turn up) I will not provide a link but will say that links to this project are very easy to find. So go and crawl back under the rock where you spent time when you should have been getting an education.

Did Eskimos in the 14th century keep temperature records?

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/HoloceneClimate+Optimum10-d/CleggHuF…

There is no daily data from the 1900's in the tropics so we can count the number of hot days. Proxy data like this can only tell us the averages within a range, but not what actually happened on various days. So with out daily data going back far enough there is no way of knowing if in a region of missing records that there are more heat wave days.

Ian, that is now. How long has this been going on? How many records from Afria go back to 1900?

"So with out daily data going back far enough there is no way of knowing if in a region of missing records that there are more heat wave days."

So what? More heat wave days is irrelevant to AGW and you're not even measuring them correctly anyhow.

Because the cooling is understood. E.g. post war Europe and continental USA created a lot of dirty aerosols. Clean air acts in the 70's reduced these aerosols.

The role of aerosols is not understood.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-90903-2010-JA.pdf

"Please explain how the highest temperature of the day is "an incorrect measurement of temperature"?"

Because my body temperature is not defined by the 102F fever I had three months ago. The temperature of my room is not found by measuring the temperature of the fire that is warming it.

Did you REALLY need to be told this? A preschooler would have as good a grasp of science as you've displayed.

So what? More heat wave days is irrelevant to AGW and you're not even measuring them correctly anyhow.

And how would YOU measure them?

The number of heat wave days is VITAL because the claim from AGW is more people are going to die from hotter temps because of AGW.

"The role of aerosols is not understood."

The role of aerosols is understood.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/

Do you just come out with these Jovian pronouncements because you're hoping like hell nobody will call you on it? Or did you just find that your preacher did the same thing and it seems to work in Church, so you figured it would work in science too?

"And how would YOU measure them?"

By using the definition rather than just seeing what the maximum summer temperature was on a day like you did.

But again, why measure Tmax? you get about 0.3% of the data volume you get if you use all the daily data, not the hottest day. Since you have such a fear of sparse and limited data, I am amazed you haven't dropped a couple of bricks at the idea of dropping 99.7% of the data you DO have.

"Ian, that is now"

The "that" being "digitising the records that we have". Just because we're only now digitising the data doesn't prove the data didn't exist. Rather the opposite, in fact.

All global warming in the past 50 years, the period in which the IPCC say most warming occurred because of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, happened between 1977 and 1998. This is exactly the same period as the last warm El Niño dominated Pacific decadal mode. In the instrumental record, the trajectory of global surface temperature mirrors the Pacific Ocean states. Cool to the late 1970âs, warm to 1998 and cool since. Sea surface temperature is negatively correlated to marine stratiform cloud. Multiple satellite data sources show that over most of the period of warming there was planetary cooling in the infrared band where greenhouse gases were expected to result in warming â and strong planetary warming as a result of less cloud reflecting less sunlight back into space. As a testable hypothesis, the current cool La Niña mode of the Pacific decadal pattern will lead to increased cloud cover and global cooling over another decade or three. After that, in a chaotic climate, it is anyoneâs guess.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/

"All global warming in the past 50 years, the period in which the IPCC say most warming occurred because of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, happened between 1977 and 1998."

Wrong.

You (yet again) are promoting the idea of someone who has ignored the errors and believes that CO2 is the only driver of climate.

PS since climate is chaotic, this means a small forcing can make a big difference.

A forcing like, for example, CO2 from human fossil fuel burning.

You can't say "CO2 has no effect" *and* "climate is chaotic" at the same time. One contraindicates the other.

Plus, why are you posting about someone who says that there HAS been warming when you also post about how there has been cooling?!?!

Are you two people? Do you believe in 10 impossible things before breakfast?

More Wakefield nonsense:

Ian, that is now. How long has this been going on? How many records from Afria go back to 1900?

Well class (grade 6 class somewhere in Southern Ontario), I have checked over your homework assignment on finding out about the use of ship's logs to determine historical sea surface temperatures.

Johnny, your report on the 900 logs from East India Company records is very good but doesn't really cover the whole sea surface so I will give you a B- for your efforts.

Tommy, you have unearthed some valuable information about the China Sea but again that is not global, however, I will give you a B+ for your extra efforts in tracking down these hard to find Chinese data.

Harry, you have done an excellent job. The Royal Naval data are the most comprehensive and go back further than most. You get an A+ for your efforts, well done.

And you, Tricky Dicky, what on earth does Tmax in a small area of Canada have to do with the assignment? You get an other F for your poor quality of work. You will have to smarten up by the end of term or you will be repeating Grade 6 for the third time.

Plus, why are you posting about someone who says that there HAS been warming when you also post about how there has been cooling?!?!

Wow, get it straight. The average of the yearly mean temps is increasing. Summer TMax, the highest temps of the year, is either flat or decreasing (summers unchanged or cooling). Winter temps are increasing (TMin is increasing) making winters less cold and lengthening the growing season.

Those two together is driving the average of the yearly mean higher.

This is why your use of the word "warming" is meaningless without knowing what is actually changing in the year's range of temps.

So how is it you would measure summer temps? I see you avoided answering that question.

"Wow, get it straight."

I did. You're the one screwed up trying to find ad-hoc justifications of your preferred result.

"The average of the yearly mean temps is increasing. ...Winter temps are increasing (TMin is increasing) making winters less cold and lengthening the growing season.

Those two together is driving the average of the yearly mean higher."

And these two are the result of global warming from CO2.

Why do you resist the inevitable conclusion supported by the data?

"So how is it you would measure summer temps? I see you avoided answering that question."

How could I answer that question when you never asked it?

I answered the question you DID ask. I see you avoided reading it.

Ian, none of that data is in climate models, nor is available for analysis, yet. If anything, research into that dataset shows nothing unusual happening today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4449527.ece

RW in post 635:
"Winter temps are increasing (TMin is increasing) making winters less cold and lengthening the growing season."

And RW in post 570:
"Nighttime isn't heating up, it's losing less heat after the sun goes down."

So how can winter temps be increasing when the sun isn't getting hotter because of earth being in a winter?

"Ian, none of that data is in climate models"

How do you know this?

Answer: you don't.

Back to preacher-like pronouncements.

Go look at a dataset, kid.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Why are your data sources journalists and newspapers where there is plenty of science institutes that will give you the data (the RC link being a simple one-stop-shop linking to those places).

More Wakefield lies:

Ian, none of that (sic) data is in climate models

Why don't you read about this data set?

International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set

You are so ignorant that you don't even know the difference between climate models and reconstructions of past climate using actual data.

You are so ignorant I don't think you even made it to Grade 6.

Following as a interested observer, but this one is seared in my mind for all time and will never be forgotten:

How do you know that? Provide a peer reviewed paper to support that premise. -- Richard, T.O. Beck Thread #616

If that was your answer, you didn't answer the question.

First, if you care to look at the data I presented I have done ALL the year range, I have also done summer full range. I have also used the top 10% of summer temps, counted the number of days above a threashold for heat waves, I have done record high temps for each year, as well as the top temp for the year. So regardless of what you think I have done, I have done what is required to show that the summers in Canada have been cooling.

If you think that is all still wrong, download the data and SHOW me where I went wrong. Ian hasn't been able to it, Chris couldnt do it, Skip hasnt, none here has. they have just complained that I didn't to "proper" statistics, but no one here has SHOWN me wrong.

(expecting Ian's claim I'm lying, though he never proves it)

Ian, none of that data is in climate models"

How do you know this?

Answer: you don't.

Because those documents are only now being interpreted.

Wakefield shows his ignorance again. He does not understand the difference between plots of climate data over various periods of time e.g. GISS, HadCrut, RMS etc. and climate models where physical properties are fed into a computer and run to see how they model past, present or future climate.

As for a previous comment from him, it is very hard to decide between his ignorance and his dishonesty. Both are at the extreme end of the scales, making interpretation of his rubbish very hard.

Go and learn some science and statistics then come back and have a rational discussion. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with some one as dishonest, stupid and irrational as Wakefield.

So regardless of what you think I have done, I have done what is required to show that the summers in Canada have been cooling.

To have the slightest chance of convincing anyone, what is absolutely required is a P value. I have been saying words to this effect for weeks now and you haven't taken the slightest bit of notice.

If you think that is all still wrong, download the data and SHOW me where I went wrong. Ian hasn't been able to it, Chris couldnt do it, Skip hasnt, none here has.

Because whether your record of Tmax in the blah, blah, and ba-blah stations in Southern Canada is accurate has never been the issue, Richard. (And Ian *has* shown that some stations defy your trend; your only response is they are "too short". But they defy your trend.)

You tell yourself otherwise, over and over and over and over . . . because this is what a self-deceived person needs: his Alamo argument, the last ditch: "No matter what else, my Tmax graphs are right."

Richard, no one gives a shit about your Tmax graphs. No one is threatened by them.

By the way, I saw you quoting Judith again. Whatever her position on El Nino and 20th century warming . . . what has she said about your *conclusions* from your data? How's the conversation with Tsonis going?

"Your own time" means never, doesn't it?

More lies from Wakefield:

If you think that is all still wrong, download the data and SHOW me where I went wrong. Ian hasn't been able to it, Chris couldnt do it, Skip hasnt, none here has. they have just complained that I didn't to "proper" statistics, but no one here has SHOWN me wrong.

The reason you are wrong is that you are cherry picking a very small set of a sub set of global data.

When are you going to learn that cherry picking is dishonest and shows that you know nothing about how real science is conducted?

There are a number of papers that show that you are wrong, heck you even cited once as proof that you are right (the Zhang paper you quoted way back at the start of your rantings). This paper does confirm that you are correct about Southern Ontario but wrong about the rest of Canada.

There has been an update on that work, covering the whole of the Earth. Surprise, surprise it does not support your nonsense:

http://www.hadobs.org/

Again, this paper shows that you are correct about Southern Ontario but wrong about the rest of the world.

When are you going to admit that you are wrong? How many papers do we have to quote and how many hours and hours of refuting your nonsense (get the hint Coby?) will it take to show how wrong and dishonest you are?

To have the slightest chance of convincing anyone, what is absolutely required is a P value. I have been saying words to this effect for weeks now and you haven't taken the slightest bit of notice.

No it's not "absolutely" required, it's one possible test. So I did a P-value test station 4333 (Ottawa) july number of days over 30C, the P-value is near zero. That good enough for you? You finally convinced there is something to my analysis? I've done R2, 95% Confidence, is there any other hoops you want me to go through? You finaly convinced I'm doing this right?

If not, download some data and do your tests yourself to prove me wrong. Otherwise, all you are doing is finding excuses not to accept that summers in Canada are cooling. This must be a real threat to your belief.

The reason you are wrong is that you are cherry picking a very small set of a sub set of global data.

That must have been very had for you to admit that I'm right about Canada after all your claims I was lying.

As for the rest of the world, I have been getting tha data too and posted it. No increases in Tmax so far.

I will test data from that link. Would be nice if they used tab delimited instead of space delimited.

"You finally convinced there is something to my analysis? I've done R2, 95% Confidence, is there any other hoops you want me to go through?"
Yup and the 95% confidence intervals include positive slopes.

Skip

I think we have a winner in the "stupidist comment ever made by a denier". I wager you will NEVER be able to top this one from Dick.

At post #611, Adelady said this:

"......Not true. There's lots of records. Paper records. If you want to increase the quantity and quality of data available, you could spend a few hours a week helping to digitise the available information....."

To which Dick replied (at #613)

".....adead (sic) provide the links to this data....."

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Another lie from Wakefield:

That must have been very had for you to admit that I'm right about Canada after all your claims I was lying.

Read what I said again (I assume that you can understand some simple words at least). I said that I agreed that Southern Ontario, which is a very small part of Canada which is an even smaller part of the globe, is not showing increasing Tmax. This is confirmed by the two papers I referred you to, you did read them didn't you?.

Were you just being stupid or were you using your usual dishonest tactics by distorting what I said?

You are a very despicable person, do you treat everyone you meet in this manner i.e. lying about what they said and did?

Given that there are now over 1700 posts dedicated to the greatest exponent of the Dunning-Kruger effect in the history of mankind, I will belatedly take the advice of Mlax on one issue at least.

I will no longer feed the troll.

I will respond to others, but it is pointless trying to speak to an uneducated moron who doesn't even possess sufficient integrity to be prepared to admit that he could possibly be wrong.

Dick - just like every other creationist - is so convinced that he is right that no amount of evidence will persuade him otherwise.

Goodbye Dick

No it's not "absolutely" required, it's one possible test. So I did a P-value test station 4333 (Ottawa) july number of days over 30C, the P-value is near zero. That good enough for you? You finally convinced there is something to my analysis? I've done R2, 95% Confidence, is there any other hoops you want me to go through?

The P value is not a test; it is the result of a test. In your Ottawa test, I do not understand what comparison you are making. July days over 30C in 2010 with those in 1910? July days over 30C with those in August? What was your null hypothesis (presumably that there was no treatment effect or that the slope of the regression was zero)?

I seem to remember that from way back that you claim the regression of annual maximum temperature against year is not significantly different from zero. Given the variability of the data, this is an entirely expected conclusion. What you need to show is that it is significantly different from the relationship that would be obtained if changes in Tmax were commensurate with changes in annual average temperatures. It is this point that you seem to be completely unable to grasp.

Ok that exchange was so bizarre I didn't get it. Thanks for pointing it out, Mandas.

Hilarious.

In the mean time I hope its clear you're speaking for yourself. I fully intend to --maybe not *feed*--the troll, but definitely goad it and watch it thrash and spit.

WOW,

In 604 you said "Because more CO2 hasn't led to less warming. Without the CO2 the cooling would have been more extreme."

In 607 you said "AGW isn't about heatwaves, it's about temperatures rising."

In 616 you said "Because the cooling is understood. E.g. post war Europe and continental USA created a lot of dirty aerosols. Clean air acts in the 70's reduced these aerosols."

So in summary what you are saying is that in a perfect world the the temps would have remained relatively flat but we saw a cooling trend up to the 70's due to aerosols (616) and a warming after that due to AGW (607).

Then you say the last ten years would have been more extreme if it was not for CO2 (604). Can you tell me what is the cause of this cooling that would have been more extreme without CO2?

skip

Yeah, I'm speaking for myself. If you wish to keep poking the monkey, go ahead.

Maybe I will jump in between wow and crakar on the issue that crakar seems to want to discuss - again. On second thoughts, why bother? It is just going over the same issue we have been over so many times before.

How about you come up with something new crakar?

Obviously I can't link to "the data" because it's not yet digitised. But here's the link for anyone lacking a hobby.

http://www.data-rescue-at-home.org/

And you're all very welcome to that radiosonde data. I thought the copying of the station data was difficult to read at times. But I lack the patience,the persistence and the magnifying glass needed to work with some of those dreadful radiosonde sheets.

July days over 30C in 2010 with those in 1910? July days over 30C with those in August? What was your null hypothesis (presumably that there was no treatment effect or that the slope of the regression was zero)?

I used years as one variable set, number of days for the other set and did a T-test.

In 607 you said "AGW isn't about heatwaves, it's about temperatures rising."

A rather oxymoronic statement, besides being wrong. One of the major predictions of AGW is more heat deaths due to more heat waves. The "Russian" heat wave was used this year as an example of AGW, so was France's 2003 heat wave. So wow is completely wrong about heat waves, it's one of the core predictions.

2008 science blog awards:

http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/

WUWT won, ten times the votes of RC. And their visits are down since then, while WUWT is up.

Proving what?

No, please, Richard. Tell me in your own words. (I intend to record them . . . )

Skip,

I think this proves that many, many more people not only read WUWT than RC but they also believe RC to be full of shit (as opposed to WUWT).

This means that a majority of people who take an interest in this sort of thing are what you would call deniers, so it appears that you are in the minority and therefore the consensus is that AGW is crap and you are the denier by still maintaining a belief.

I used years as one variable set, number of days for the other set and did a T-test.

Huh? This reads as though you used the set of years as one sample and the set of (number of days with temperature higher than a specific value) as the other sample, then used a t-test to compare the two (the T-test is a different, rarely-used test). Surely this is not what you mean?

The alternative interpretation is that you had year as the independent variable and (number of days with temperature above some certain value) as the dependent variable. I don't how you obtained a value for the standard error from this or which specific pair-wise comparison you made.

. . . a majority of people who take an interest in this sort of thing are what you would call deniers, so it appears that you are in the minority and therefore the consensus is that AGW is crap and you are the denier by still maintaining a belief. Crakar above

Consensus, what is it? Well it is a group of people that agree with each other. Nothing more nothing less, if there is a consensus does this mean we automatically assume they are right? Of course not, science is not done by a show of hands is it. -- Crakar, Hockey Stick Open Thread

Crakar, you are out of your league with me. I inherited enough of my grandmother's (bless her patriotic, food-and-rubber-rationing, Nazi-defeating heart) to remember enough of your self-contradictory bullshit that I will nail you every time.

I would tell you to give up, but its a diversionary pleasure for me so stay at it.

Re 658: There's also this site http://www.oldweather.org/ recovering temperature data from WWI Royal Navy vessels.

@#653
Mandas, I hope you mean that and stick to it. And I hope the others will soon follow your example.
I had always enjoyed popping into this site every couple of weeks or so, but since RW showed up it's been completely hijacked and has turned into something that uncomfortably resembles the utter nonsense that goes on at Delingpole's blog. [Not your fault - such 'debate' often quickly reaches the level of the lowest common denominator]
Maybe Coby could also use this example as an opportunity to take on board some comments that you guys have made recently, such as moderating clearly ridiculous commentary (from either side) to a separate area where such debunked nonsense can reside. Then you guys could use your debating skills to address some actual science, rather than the tosh you've been faced with in the past 2 - 3 months.

Good luck and I hope this site quickly recovers some of its past glories,
Mlax

. . . I hope this site quickly recovers some of its past glories . . .

Before you take your next two-week hiatus, Mlax, would you be so kind as to give an example of the previous glory this site has enjoyed?

I ask on behalf of myself and any other preening faux-intellectual striving for greater things. The contrast should be educational.

"In 607 you said "AGW isn't about heatwaves, it's about temperatures rising."

A rather oxymoronic statement, besides being wrong"

Care you point out where that is wrong? Of course you can't so you'll waffle.

"The "Russian" heat wave was used this year as an example of AGW, so was France's 2003 heat wave."

A rather moronic statement as well as being wrong.

It was an example of what AGW can bring. Not an example of AGW, nor any form of concrete proof of AGW, since one event is weather, many events averaged becomes climate.

"So in summary what you are saying ..."

...is nothing like your strawman statement.

"we saw a cooling trend up to the 70's due to aerosols (616) and a warming after that due to AGW (607)."

Nearly.

We saw a cooling trend due to aerosols overwhelming the effects of CO2 increases which, being cumulative whilst aerosols are not (and said aerosols being cut back whilst CO2 production increased), became more visible.

"Then you say the last ten years would have been more extreme if it was not for CO2 (604)."

Yes. We're at a severe and long Maunder Minimum.

You see, unlike you and Dick, AGW science uses all known forcings, not just CO2.

"Can you tell me what is the cause of this cooling that would have been more extreme without CO2?"

Just did.

"642 If that was your answer, you didn't answer the question."

No, I answered the question you asked.

"First, if you care to look at the data I presented I have done ALL the year range,"

First, if you look at this graph:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

it uses all the data for all stations available.

You, on the other hand use a very sparse and unrepresentative dataset and pick one day out (the one with highest Tmax).

Secondly, you have already admitted that temperatures are increasing yet still insist that Tmax is decreasing. If this is so, then you yourself have admitted that Tmax is no measure of temperature for trend analysis.

Yet you still insist on using it.

Why? Because all the data would show you wrong?

"Because those documents are only now being interpreted."

That doesn't mean they haven't been used. There is plenty of data back to before the 1900s. You know this because you insist on these temperature records when you insist that the MWP is global and warmer than today.

Anything to do with PaulinMI. He seemed like a rational contrarian with whom you guys had honest debates.
I think there was a poster called Vernon with whom you guys had good discussions also? Iâm not putting him in the same camp as PaulinMI, but at least the debates were entertaining and if there was disagreement, the arguments didnât go on for hundreds or even thousands of posts, as has happened since RW showed up.
Plus, late in 2010, Coby put up a guest post by his father. While a lot of comments were gratuitously inflammatory and abusive (I am not the only flagrant asshole who visits this blogsite obviously), it was an opportunity for educated minds with a contrarian position to put up some considered opinions, which were then hotly debated. I thought Coby was going to use this as an example for the future, i.e. try to get expert guest posters to pass comment on research and have the debate follow accordingly, and based hopefully on a fair amount of researched opinion.
Maybe I am harking back to halcyon days that didnât exist, but I sure had the impression that there was a wider range of topics discussed, and across a wider range of posters, than what Iâve observed in the past 2 â 3 months. In his post #645, R Simons says, in response to RW: âI have been saying words to this effect for weeks now and you haven't taken the slightest bit of noticeâ. These words could actually act as the new tagline for this site. You might enjoy goading one individual, but thereâs not much in it for me or others like me.
Anyway, you guys are the dedicated contributors to this site. You can and will decide how you want the site to progress, and if you want it totally hijacked by one personâs denialist input. Iâm sure Iâll dip back in again in another fortnight or so, and maybe Iâll see things have changed, but like I say, thatâs totally up to you guys.

"You might enjoy goading one individual, but thereâs not much in it for me or others like me."

Why then not call for RW to get blocked? Why blame EVERYONE ELSE for his obstinacy?

Oh, and for cracker-ass et al, here's what the climate looks like when you don't include anthropogenic sources of CO2e:

http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/g…

Oh, and if RW wants to see Tmax records increasing:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/record-highs-lows.jpg

though that isn't used as a proof of AGW, unlike RW's cherry blossoming of Canadian Tmax used as a "proof" CO2 has no effect on the weather...

The alternative interpretation is that you had year as the independent variable and (number of days with temperature above some certain value) as the dependent variable. I don't how you obtained a value for the standard error from this or which specific pair-wise comparison you made.

Yes, that is what I did.

T-Test gives the P-value: http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/stats.htm

I used years as one variable set, number of days for the other set and did a T-test.

I just realized what you probably did. You entered the year and Tmax into your favourite data base, selected the two columns then hit 't-test'.

Congratulations! You have discovered that the numbers 1900 to 2000 are significantly different from the numbers 25 to 35 (or whatever the actual numbers were).

If this is not correct, please explain clearly what you did. Of course, it needs to be consonant with the quote at the start of this comment.

I take it you accounted for the "spurious correlation problem"?

RW: I did not see your #677 until after I posted #678. Looking at your reference, it is obvious that in fact you did test the difference between years and Tmax. Remember, the t-test examines the difference between a pair of values, in your case the mean of the year value (1950 or something like that) and the mean of the Tmax value (about 30).

The Dunning-Kruger effect at its finest.

With regards to the climate sensitivity of temperature to CO2, even Roy Spencer agrees that pre-feedback values are 1 degree per doubling.

However, currently the greenhouse effect produces 33C of warming of which 66% is from H20 and about 25% from CO2.

This would indicate that H2O would produce the same level of feedback:

for every 25 of CO2, 66 of H2O. 2.64 extra from H2O.

Unless there's some reason why we are currently in a special case.

I have to say I agree with Mlax here. I had started to work out how well the mean summer Tmax at Meunster correlated with RW's favourite metric of highest annual Tmax (or highest summer Tmax - if they are any different). But what's the point? I've already demonstrated that both annual and summer Tmax had an upward trend ( http://canadatemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post.html ) and that though Tmax did not have a significant trend either way, bootstrap analysis suggested the general trend was up ( http://canadatemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/summers-are-cooling-richard-wak… ) and this is characterised by RW claiming I'd "tried and failed" to show how he was wrong (note the past tense).

Now we see that RW is comparing year with temperature using T-tests is there any point in looking at whether his metrics reflect reality if his stats don't even reflect basic competence?

I may get back to the mean summer Tmax calculations, I only need to work out the best way to deal with missing values, work out the mean summer Tmax for each year and compare it to the highest Tmax but I don't think I can be arsed in all honesty.

It was an example of what AGW can bring. Not an example of AGW, nor any form of concrete proof of AGW, since one event is weather, many events averaged becomes climate.

Then I expect you to correct your side every time they use those two as examples of AGW happening right now, because that is exactly what is being done.

Also, you are contradicting yourself. Now you are saying more heatwaves are coming. So which is it.

"Then I expect you to correct your side every time they use those two as examples of AGW happening right now, because that is exactly what is being done."

Evidence, please (though this would be a first for you).

"Also, you are contradicting yourself. Now you are saying more heatwaves are coming. "

Nope, those graphs are saying that the high temperature records being broken is outpacing the number of low temperature records.

That isn't the same as your proposition where you look at the maximum temperature recorded at a very few sites for a year and try some woo magic on it.

Looking at your reference, it is obvious that in fact you did test the difference between years and Tmax. Remember, the t-test examines the difference between a pair of values, in your case the mean of the year value (1950 or something like that) and the mean of the Tmax value (about 30).

First off, no, I used number of days above 30C not TMax. Second, the T-test allows for a RANGE of values in Excel, which I did.

See this for an example of how Excel does T-Test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlfLnx8sh-o

I've already demonstrated that both annual and summer Tmax had an upward trend

That is just false. You did not prove anything other than your pathetic attempt to analyze the data.

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/the-agw-faithful-take-o…

t-test examines the difference between a pair of values, in your case the mean of the year value (1950 or something like that) and the mean of the Tmax value (about 30). R. Simons

Before Richard takes it down I have to see this for myself . . .

Hilariously spotted, R. Simons.

I notice you still have produced no evidence of anyone supporting the AGW science with a weather event being proof.

PS why do you keep changing what you say you do? Tmax is not "days over 30C", nor did your graph show number of days over 30C.

Is the reason why deniers like you dick have so many contradictory ideas? So that you can swap around them when you are shown completely and utterly wrong?

"That is just false."

How do you know that it is false? Again, you are acting like a preacher in church not a scientist.

"He is all over me claiming he can do a better analysis of the highest TMax data than I have done here."

Is RW on his own vanity site.

"First off, no, I used number of days above 30C not TMax."

Is Dick here.

First off, no, I used number of days above 30C not TMax. Second, the T-test allows for a RANGE of values in Excel, which I did.

OK, so you determined that the mean of the year value was significantly different from the mean of the number of days per year greater than 30C. As far as I can see, your procedure was correct for making a completely nonsensical comparison.

It does not matter if Excel allowed you to use a range of values, the t-test (not T-test) is strictly a pair-wise comparison test. It only allows you to compare two means.

You need to face up to the fact that you are completely out of your depth here and should take at least a couple of basic statistics courses.

PS why do you keep changing what you say you do? Tmax is not "days over 30C", nor did your graph show number of days over 30C.

You are obviously confused on what I have done. Spend time reading my blog and understand what I have shown before you make more of a fool of yourself.

You need to face up to the fact that you are completely out of your depth here and should take at least a couple of basic statistics courses.

I did EXACTLY what was done in that video. So it was wrong? You asked me to get the P-value, which is obtained by doing a t-test on the x and y values. That p-value was near zero, and now you are claiming I did what you asked wrong?

So you show me how YOU would do the p-value using Excel.

I'm either in a phantasmagorical dream or simply have not followed this discussion.

Richard W., we are talking about the significance of a trend line, right?

skip, as far as I can make out he's found that the mean of the years 190x to 200x (about 1950) is significantly different to the mean of the number of days over 30C during the years 190x - 200x. (~20-25 at a guess, I see no numbers to confirm this).

Check the video posted at #685

What he should be doing is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEkTf3diECs

Richard W., we are talking about the significance of a trend line, right?

No, significance of a trend is R2.

Chris, are you blind? I did regression (you know those straight lines through the plots), I included R2 and Correlation Coefficient, and the 95% confidence. So what in that video have I NOT done?

RW @692

I did EXACTLY what was done in that video. So it was wrong?

Using the t-test is what was wrong, completely and utterly wrong. The t-test was originally developed by Gosset so he could compare samples of barley in the Guinness plant in Dublin. It is specifically for comparing two samples (e.g. malting techniques, or barley varieties) with each other, or for comparing a single sample with a standard of some kind. You do not have this. You could validly use the test for comparing, say, Tmax for 1900-1910 versus Tmax for 2000-2010. Notice that both sets of data are samples of Tmax. What you actually did was to compare the numbers 1900-2000 with the numbers 0-30 (or whatever the range of number of days/year over 30C happens to be) and, not surprisingly, determined that they are different.

You asked me to get the P-value, which is obtained by doing a t-test on the x and y values.

Why do you think this gives you a valid P-value? A t-test is done on two samples of x. Check out Wikipedia or here for a more complete description of what a t-test actually does.

All of you who are harping about my inability to do "proper" statistics, and I have mentioned this before, are making a fundemental error of assumption.

You are all assuming that the data, temperature vs time, should follow a linear trend. All these processes you are asking for assumes the data has some kind of linear correlation.

But it's not. When events follow an undulating pattern, like a sine wave, then over a short period linear trends are meaningless. As the undulating trend continues, those linear values change (which is why when you choose a different time frame you get different results).

If we were able to get several thousand years of daily data, the over all linear trend would be flat.

The question is, what is happening now vs some period in the past. That is the assumed meaning when one says it is getting hotter now because of AGW. Since when? If you look back to 1900, then no, the hotter days, the number of days inside the defined heat wave threshold, are higher in the 1920-1930s than today. More record highs are before 1950, and of a higher temp than today.

No matter how you all claim I'm not doing the math correctly, those are the facts.

It is clear, this fact is a serious threat to your understanding of AGW, otherwise why all the fuss?

If you think I'm wrong, download the data yourself and PROVE IT!

Chris: the problem with calculating the significance of the regression is that showing that the slope of the line is not significantly different from zero does not help his argument. What he needs to show is that the slope is significantly different from the slope that would be obtained if Tmax was increasing at the rate to be expected from generally increasing temperatures.

If you look back to 1900, then no, the hotter days, the number of days inside the defined heat wave threshold, are higher in the 1920-1930s than today.

This is your (modified) claim. You have failed to demonstrate it. This is something you could actually test using a t-test (two samples, 1920-1940 and 1990-2010).

Skip in 665,

Is that the best you could come back with? Maybe Mlax was right and you are nothing more than a preening peacock.

I wonder what Mlax thinks of *you*, Crakar.

Maybe you should ask him.

I love how for you a "show of hands" of scientists means nothing. A show of hands of every Wattsian hanger-on with internet means AGW is contradicting a consensus. Brilliant, Crakar.

My best, little as it might be, has always been more than enough for you.

Richard S / Chris

I have been attempting to follow the criticisms you have been making of Dick's statistical treatment (its not analysis), and even coming from my limited statistical competency I am confused by some of the discussions. Maybe you guys know more about it than me, so I would appreciate your advice.

Firstly, why is a 't' test even being discussed? From my understanding it is completely irrelevant - but maybe I have it wrong.

An R2 test (once again from my perspective) only helps understand the 'goodness' of the fit of a linear regression. It does not give the statistical significance of the trend. If you want that you need to do a 'Z' test. But please enlighten me if I am wrong so I can learn.

Whenever you do a linear regression, you should also plot the residuals to determine whether a linear regression is the most appropriate trend 'line'. Do you agree?

As I have repeatedly said, statistics are not my forte and I always seek the assistance of a real statistician to analyse any data I gather - but statistics (actually biometrics) was part of my undergraduate degree so I at least understand (I hope!) the basic concepts.

If you guys know more or can correct me I would be grateful to learn.

Wow,

In 670, sorry but that is not correct. According to the IPCC the only effects the sun has on climate is variations in the TSI which as we all know is very small. So it cannot be maunder conditions as you say so i suggest you try and come up with something else.

Skip in 703,

I forgot you yanks dont get sarcasm, let me make it simple for you.

You accept the IPCC version of AGW based on a show of hands and nothing more, so if we apply the same logic to RC/WATTS then WATTS must be right and RC wrong.

Sarcasm Skip, look the word up in a dictionary.

By the way i have no interest in learning what Mlax thinks of me the same way i have no interest in what you, Mandas, woooooooooow or any body thinks of me.

If you really want to know then ask him yourself.

This example of Crakar Logic will be immortalized for all time.

You accept the IPCC version of AGW based on a show of hands and nothing more, so if we apply the same logic to RC/WATTS then WATTS must be right and RC wrong.

Thursday, February 10th, 2011 Anne Jolis, The Wall Street Journal:

"The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the projectâs initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. âIn the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,â atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. âSo we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.â

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. "

Keep the bullshit going Skip, the fact is more people like reading/blogging on WUWT than they do at any other site.

You can draw your own conclusions from that.

What he needs to show is that the slope is significantly different from the slope that would be obtained if Tmax was increasing at the rate to be expected from generally increasing temperatures.

And what would be "expected"? You are assuming that "generally increasing temperaures" is expected, how so?

This is your (modified) claim. You have failed to demonstrate it. This is something you could actually test using a t-test (two samples, 1920-1940 and 1990-2010).

Why just that range? It's 84 vs 78 for that range. Now how about this, 1900-1950 number of days above 30C = 278. 1960-2010 = 202.

crakar

".....Keep the bullshit going Skip, the fact is more people like reading/blogging on WUWT than they do at any other site.....You can draw your own conclusions from that...."

More people in the US watch Fox news that any other news service. I think that's a pretty good explanation.

More people in the US believe in a literal Biblical creation than in materialistic evolution.

According to Crakar, they must be right.

skip

I think we are onto something here.

Fox News viewers. Creationists. Wattsupwiththat readers.

See the similarities?

"And what would be "expected"? You are assuming that "generally increasing temperaures" is expected, how so?"

Because you are trying to refute the IPCC position, you have to show that YOUR theory shows something THEIR theory doesn't cover.

This is called "science".

So, what would the GCM output of, say, the NASA GISS Model E have for your increasing Tmax, however you're now deciding to use it, give as its slope and the error of that slope and compare with your slope and its error.

If they are within 2 standard deviations of each other, then you have not shown the NASA model wrong.

"According to the IPCC the only effects the sun has on climate is variations in the TSI which as we all know is very small."

Really, cracker-ass?

TSI at earth radius is about 1400W/m2.

Variation between sunspot high and sunspot low activity: 0.1%.

"So it cannot be maunder conditions as you say so i suggest you try and come up with something else."

And, despite being in such a low maunder minimumm, not seen since the 1800s, our temperature is still a good 0.8C warmer than it was the last time the sun was so active.

So why can't the maunder minimum be the reason why the last 10 years has seem little increase (though it HAS increased)?

You complain "it's impossible" but you haven't given anything other than your hope it is so.

"You accept the IPCC version of AGW based on a show of hands and nothing more"

Nope, based on evidence and science.

You discredit it based on a show of hands from people who don't want to change and nothing more. But projection is always the problem with deniers.

"You are all assuming that the data, temperature vs time, should follow a linear trend."

No, you're doing that. BPL uses, for example, ln(CO2) to test if the expected logarithmic relationship science proposes applies to the measurements (called proving your science).

"If you think I'm wrong, download the data yourself and PROVE IT!"

You're doing the wrong science. Downloading the data doesn't prove anything other than you're using the wrong maths and the wrong science.

AGW is increasing temperatures with increasing CO2.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

If you disagree with the correlation, download the data yourself and show us where it went wrong.

"You are obviously confused on what I have done."

Yes, nobody understanding you is obviously not your fault.

"Spend time reading my blog and understand what I have shown"

I have. You're doing a Nahle. He too multiplied numbers and extracted figures and used WRONG MATHS to get to a result and then insisted that everyone who disagreed with him to do the multiplication out. He hopefully knew that this was a complete red herring and that it wasn't the multiplication that was wrong but using the wrong maths was wrong.

However, you can never tell. Idiots like nahle and yourself will believe anything convenient to your case.

Because you are trying to refute the IPCC position, you have to show that YOUR theory shows something THEIR theory doesn't cover.

you really have no clue what is happening here do you. I'm testing the hypothesis of AGW that temperatures in summers will increase because of increasing CO2.

I've shown that premise is false.

I have been asked what alternative I'm proposing, and have been consistent. My position is the Null Hypothesis rules first.

You're doing the wrong science. Downloading the data doesn't prove anything other than you're using the wrong maths and the wrong science.

AGW is increasing temperatures with increasing CO2.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

If you disagree with the correlation, download the data yourself and show us where it went wrong.

Nice contradiction. Telling me downloading data proves nothing, then tell me to download the data to prove something! LOL!

Don't tell me I'm using wrong science, wrong math. SHOW ME! Your words mean nothing.

How would YOU measure heat wave trends?

"you really have no clue what is happening here do you."

Well my suspicion is that you are talking bollocks and KNOW you're talking bollocks.

"I'm testing the hypothesis of AGW that temperatures in summers will increase because of increasing CO2."

That isn't the result of the climate science in the face of human fossil fuel combustion.

Said before, say it again, even though you already know this and are trying like hell to avoid it:

1) you aren't getting summer temperatures

2) temperature averages rising is the signal of AGW

point #2 is really important because summer maximum temperatures can go up for ANY global warming, anthropogenic or not.

"I've shown that premise is false."

No, you've shown that when you pick out the wrong information and select carefully vetted stations and ignore any errors in your measurements, that your incorrect premise is false.

Now try testing the one of AGW.

"My position is the Null Hypothesis rules first."

Null means "nothing".

But if "nothing" is happening, then the temperatures will not increase.

Therefore if it can be shown temperatures ARE increasing, then the null hypothesis is incorrect.

Here you go:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Rising temperatures.

Null hypothesis annulled.

WRONG MATHS

If you're so damn smart, SHOW ME WHAT IS THE RIGHT MATHS TO USE!

"Telling me downloading data proves nothing, then tell me to download the data to prove something!"

Downloading the data of how many times barry ate sprouts and working out whether it correlates with CO2 will not prove anything.

Downloading the data of how temperatures have changed over the years and comparing against CO2 measures for the same period WILL prove something.

"If you're so damn smart, SHOW ME WHAT IS THE RIGHT MATHS TO USE!"

You've been shown many times. Chris S and RS have done so.

If you need to go further:

http://www.ipcc.ch

Of course you've never bothered to look before because it would disprove your religious belief that AGW is false.

PS "How would YOU measure heat wave trends?"

Is a prime example of "WRONG MATHS". Climate science says that higher CO2 gives higher temperatures. Measuring heatwaves or heatwave trends (heatwaves being a badly defined term scientifically anyway) doesn't help prove anything for or against AGW.

"My position is the Null Hypothesis rules first."

Null means "nothing".

But if "nothing" is happening, then the temperatures will not increase.

Therefore if it can be shown temperatures ARE increasing, then the null hypothesis is incorrect.

ROTFL!!!!

Well, whew, let me compose myself after reading that. Now I understand you completely. YOU HAVE NO CLUE HOW SCIENCE WORKS!

Look up the definition of the Null Hypothesis.

Yes, Dick, I KNOW you don't know how science works.

"Look up the definition of the Null Hypothesis."

You have to define your null hypothesis. You can't just say "it's the null hypothesis" because that cannot produce any prediction that can be tested, a requirement for popperian science.

See. I TOLD you you didn't know how science works.

You've been shown many times. Chris S and RS have done so.

No they have not. The have NOT said I used wrong maths. Do you even know what standard deviation, linear regression, or R2 means? The have ADMITTED I have used those correctly, the just wanted me to go further, which I did. If anything, Chris used "wrong maths" by applying an incorrect polynomial to the data. Do you know what a polynomial is?

PS "How would YOU measure heat wave trends?"

Is a prime example of "WRONG MATHS". Climate science says that higher CO2 gives higher temperatures. Measuring heatwaves or heatwave trends (heatwaves being a badly defined term scientifically anyway) doesn't help prove anything for or against AGW.

Then how come the AGW community continuously claims AGW will produce more heat waves? Do you know where that average temperature comes from? Explain it.

See. I TOLD you you didn't know how science works.

In other words you have no clue what the Null Hypothesis is, thought so. Before you make moe of a fool of youself, read the definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

If I don't understand how sciece works, how come I got published?
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

"No they have not. The have NOT said I used wrong maths."

Oh dear. Sorry RS, skip and Chris, he doesn't know when you write what you mean. This:

"Why do you think this gives you a valid P-value? A t-test is done on two samples of x. Check out Wikipedia or here for a more complete description of what a t-test actually does."

Is WRONG MATHS.

Sheesh you're thicker than a mile of lard.

"Then how come the AGW community continuously claims AGW will produce more heat waves?"

Because it will?

Doesn't mean you can disprove or prove it with heatwaves because "heatwave" means something different for someone in Canada compared to someone in Soweto.

Now, why would more heatwaves been a result, Dick?

Answer that question.

Why would more heatwaves be a result of AGW.

"If I don't understand how sciece works, how come I got published?"

Because your papers are crap but get published?

"In other words you have no clue what the Null Hypothesis is, thought so."

You missed a bit: state the null hypothesis. Not tautologically as "the null hypothesis" but state the null.

Which you've never managed to do, with all your paper-publishing-fu.

You have no clue as to science.

"If I don't understand how sciece works, how come I got published?"

Oh and where? that link wasn't to Nature or similar, it was a blogpost.

Heck, if that's your standard of "published", *I'VE* been published!

Oh and where? that link wasn't to Nature or similar, it was a blogpost.

Oh, you are an idiot. You obviously can't read.

Wakefield, J. R. (1988), "The geology of 'Gentryâs Tiny Mystery'", Journal of Geological Education 36: 161â175, http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm .

Wakefield, J. R., 1987â88, "Gentryâs Tiny Mystery - unsupported by geology," Creation/Evolution, v. 22, p. 13â33.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium_halos

You missed a bit: state the null hypothesis. Not tautologically as "the null hypothesis" but state the null.

You are blind. Search this page for Null Hypothesis and you will see I have stated it several times, right Skip.

Yeah, a comic print of the same level as E&E that printed Gerlich and Tscheuschner (who managed to "prove" that blankets don't work).

So, still failing to answer the questions?

1) Why would more heatwaves be a result of AGW.

2) You have to define your null hypothesis.

It even says to do that in the wiki link you laughably thought was necessary for *my* benefit (hint: read it yourself, you're missing quite a lot).

Why would more heatwaves be a result of AGW.

Because that is what the AGW community claims. Have you not heard that? Google: more heat waves expected

I have shown the p-value, its near zero. I see nothing from you on how you would do it. Is that because you don't know how?

Wow, you are just an ignorant prick. My paper was a landmark case against creationism. Gentry's work was used all over the place, until I published my analysis of he geology, with, if you cared to read, help from a number of geologists, including well known Brent Darlymple. BTW, I have no formal training in geology, I taught myself what I needed to know to do that paper.

Get upt speed on AGW, seems you don't even know what your side predicts. Until you do, we are done.

"Search this page for Null Hypothesis and you will see I have stated it several times, right Skip."

Come along, you can't even remember it yourself?!?!

You've variously had:

1) The null hypothesis is NOT CO2 causes all climate change.

2) The null hypothesis is all climate change is normal

(number 2 being really funny because you changed the hypothesis in the same paragraph!)

3) the null hypothesis is that the current behaviour in the climate is no different than in the past when humans were not around.

4) Phenomenon 1: Climate changes. Phenomenon 2: CO2 is increasing because of our CO2. The Null Hypothesis says THERE IS NO RELATION BY DEFAULT.

5) The null hypothesis is you cannot link TWO events together one causing the other without evidence.

6) The fact is that the ânull hypothesisâ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system

(which is actually a factual lie, natural variability cannot explain what we see)

7) The null hypothesis is that natural mechanisms drive the universe.

8) The null hypothesis is the proposition that implies no effect or no relationship between phenomena.

So which is your null hypothesis? RS even asked you once in your specific t-test:

"July days over 30C in 2010 with those in 1910? July days over 30C with those in August? What was your null hypothesis...?"

Which you were unable to answer:

"I used years as one variable set, number of days for the other set and did a T-test."

"Why would more heatwaves be a result of AGW.

Because that is what the AGW community claims"

Wrong.

See, I keep telling you you don't understand science, but you keep thinking you do.

No, the reason why more heatwaves would be a result of AGW is NOT because that's what the AGW community claims.

Would you like to try again?

Spatio-temporal chaos

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/

"BTW, I have no formal training in geology, I taught myself what I needed to know to do that paper."

Yup, like I said, your paper is printed in a comic, is crap and you don't know science.

Mandas @704 Firstly, why is a 't' test even being discussed? From my understanding it is completely irrelevant - but maybe I have it wrong.

You are quite correct, it is (almost) completely irrelevant, but it is a test RW wrongly used. He could use it to compare Tmax or whatever determined in two different blocks of years, e.g. 1891-1910 versus 1991-2010, provided that the distributions were reasonably close to normal.

Wow @714 Because you are trying to refute the IPCC position, you have to show that YOUR theory shows something THEIR theory doesn't cover.
[ ]
So, what would the GCM output of, say, the NASA GISS Model E have for your increasing Tmax, however you're now deciding to use it, give as its slope and the error of that slope and compare with your slope and its error.

If they are within 2 standard deviations of each other, then you have not shown the NASA model wrong.

This is basically what Iâve been trying to get through to him, but he seems determined not to understand.

RW@719 you really have no clue what is happening here do you. I'm testing the hypothesis of AGW that temperatures in summers will increase because of increasing CO2.

I've shown that premise is false.

If indeed this is what youâre testing, then your null hypothesis would be that temperatures in summers will increase because of increasing CO2. The basic principle behind hypothesis testing is that you assume something is true, then go on to demonstrate that, given that assumption, the actual results were unlikely to have happened just by chance. At no point have I seen you actually make that test and therefore you have not shown the claim to be false.

RW @727 No they have not. They have NOT said I used wrong maths. Do you even know what standard deviation, linear regression, or R2 means? They have ADMITTED I have used those correctly, they just wanted me to go further, which I did.

Absolute rubbish, BS, poppycock, twaddle, nincompoopery, garbage, bunkum, balderdash, nonsense. Do I make myself clear? You followed a recipe correctly, but used entirely inappropriate data and therefore the maths was used completely incorrectly. It is like trying to make a cake by following a recipe for concrete.

I am not a statistician but I know enough to recognize when someone like you is drowning in a sea of incomprehension, even if you yourself do not realize it. Go and talk to a statistician but take along a flask of something for when they start to have conniptions.

streamofconsciousnessbollocks, Dick.

Global anomaly averages remove spacial and temporal noise to a large extent, using a 30 year period reduces the noise even further so the signal of any trend (which is NOT spatio-temporal chaos, hence the term TRENT) is clearly visible.

Would you like to try AGAIN?

RW @735 I have shown the p-value, its near zero.

Yes, indeed you do seem to have shown that the numbers 19xx to 20xx are significantly different from the numbers 2x to 4x. So what?

From the IPCC:
+++
New results corroborate those given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates will cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.
+++

But he's never read what he is railing against.

Wow, you obviously do not understand that all 8 are the same thing.

You are quite correct, it is (almost) completely irrelevant, but it is a test RW wrongly used. He could use it to compare Tmax or whatever determined in two different blocks of years, e.g. 1891-1910 versus 1991-2010, provided that the distributions were reasonably close to normal.

The distributions are NOT close to normal. Hence it is a meaningless measure, which you asked for.

There were some 70 more hot days 1900-1950 as there was 1960-2010. In other words, cooler now than in the past.

then your null hypothesis would be that temperatures in summers will increase because of increasing CO2

Absolutely not. The Null Hypothesis is there is NO relationship between two measures. AGW hypothesis says there is a relationship, which the data shows is false.

You followed a recipe correctly, but used entirely inappropriate data and therefore the maths was used completely incorrectly. It is like trying to make a cake by following a recipe for concrete.

Right, the raw temperature data is "inappropriate". Right, getting the top 10% of anomalies from several stations is "inappropriate". Right, counting the number of heat wave days is "inappropriate".

Where do you think your average temperature data comes from?

This must be such a threat to your belief that you are grasping at straws. Download the data yourself and PROVE ME WRONG. Not one of you is willing to do that.

Yes, indeed you do seem to have shown that the numbers 19xx to 20xx are significantly different from the numbers 2x to 4x. So what?

Then SHOW me what you want, because you are not clear at all.

From the IPCC

Argument from authority. Means nothing. The IPCC was set up for the only purpose of promoting the faith as a vehicle to destroy the capitalist system.

Wow, tell us, what should be done to stop AGW?

Search this page for Null Hypothesis and you will see I have stated it several times, right Skip. Richard W.

Don't drag me into this, pal.

Argument from authority. Means nothing. Richard W.

RC wasn't even nominated for science blog of the year, WUWT was. Richard W.

Epic buffoonery.

Richard W: You really have no idea what R. Simons is talking about, do you?

Absolutely no remote, microscopic, ghost of an idea. You would stop posting NOW if you had even a clue.

How about this for an idea: Send the above exchange to Judith Curry and ask her for her assessment of the merits of your case. (And maybe you should offer *her* a flask of the elixir of her choice.)

In *fact*, I think you ought to send this off to *Anthony Watts*.

RW @747

Absolutely not. The Null Hypothesis is there is NO relationship between two measures. AGW hypothesis says there is a relationship, which the data shows is false.

It has still not penetrated into your noggin just what is meant by a null hypothesis. Talk to a statistician.

Right, the raw temperature data is "inappropriate". Right, getting the top 10% of anomalies from several stations is "inappropriate". Right, counting the number of heat wave days is "inappropriate".

Are you really this obtuse or are you just enjoying yourself? You used the t-test to determine that the mean of the year number (1901, 1902, etc) was different from the mean number of heat wave days per year (15, 19, whatever). It is no more useful than determining that the average IQ is different from the average number of pets per household.

Talk to a statistician.

RW @748

Yes, indeed you do seem to have shown that the numbers 19xx to 20xx are significantly different from the numbers 2x to 4x. So what?

Then SHOW me what you want, because you are not clear at all.

Does this imply that you feel that this is a reasonable thing to determine?

Phone a local university and arrange to talk to a statistician.

It has still not penetrated into your noggin just what is meant by a null hypothesis. Talk to a statistician.

The null hypothesis is there is no relationship between two parameters of measured values.

You used the t-test to determine that the mean of the year number (1901, 1902, etc) was different from the mean number of heat wave days per year (15, 19, whatever). It is no more useful than determining that the average IQ is different from the average number of pets per household.

I asked what YOU would do instead. So let's see it, specifically what values would you plug into the t-test.

Does this imply that you feel that this is a reasonable thing to determine?

No I don't think the t-test is going to change that there was more heatwaves, hotter temps in the early 1900's than today. It's YOU who is demanding ever more hoops. If you think I'm wrong, YOU PROVE IT. This is no different than what I have done professionally for decades. I'm not wrong, so I have no need to consult anyone.

Well, it appears all of you who think I'm wrong to do your bit to prove you're right.

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/dataset

Interview with Tsonis:

http://carbonpurging.com/blogs/mjewett/2009/04/01/exclusive-interview-w…

" If the overall warming is due to anthropogenic sources (and not some unknown very low-frequency feature of our climate system), then a break will indicate that at this point the natural variability signal is stronger than the anthropogenic signal.

CP: Do you agree that average global temperatures have continued to increase since 2001?

AT: No. In fact it appears that the (average) global temperature has at least leveled off if not decreasing."

RW, Did you miss this part:

"CP: In your expert opinion, would you agree that the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere via anthropogenic sources contributes to the increase in average global temperature?

AT: Yes."

or this link? http://carbonpurging.com/blogs/mjewett/2009/04/01/global-warming-is-not…

mandas @ 583

mandas while I appreciate all you do here dealing with the usual gang of lunatics who, I must say, keep spouting such unrequited garbage I can no longer believe they are arguing in good faith, you have got to learn and tone it down and refrain from getting personal when your hackles are raised.

I don't need to be told that I don't know how to read, or don't have a scientific background, or need a dressing down from my supervisor because I happen to find it important to defend RealClimate from unwarranted aspersions. OK?

I said it was a valuable source of information, which is pretty much an understatement. Please note that it also meets your demands for peer-reviewed journal reports it as has these little intertube linky things which bring you to lots of chewy examples rather presto, which does sound suspiciously like "...legitimate references for scientific arguments" as the site is chock full of goodness *other* than opinion pieces. The site even satisfies your demand for "data" from another post with links to databases.

Although one must ask where one would draw the line between your definition of non kosher "opinion" and scientific reports, meta-analyses, reviews, processed vs raw data, modeling,etc and whether raw or even partially cooked data should even legitimately be used in the adavanced academic institution that is ScienceBlogs when trading insults with scientific morons.

Look, my point, again, is that while I know that you "...NEVER said Realclimate was as inherently unreliable as any of those idiotic sites..." I also did not see you defending it from RW's disgusting charges that it is politically poisoned. Indeed, you agreed with him that it was not a good source of information. On this I maintain you made a misstep. That's all.

As for my scientific qualifications, they are not what dreams of an appearance in Stockholm dressed in a tuxedo are made. I have a B.S. in Biology with some graduate courses taken, eight years doing pure research mostly in biochemical pharmacology in filarial worms. I am a coauthor on one published study, way down the line on about 4 others. None of them amounted to hill of beans in the scheme of even small things. And it was all a long time ago.

That said, I still know that heat just doesn't fucking disappear, which puts me ahead of at least two frequent posters at this blog.

Peace out.

"CP: In your expert opinion, would you agree that the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere via anthropogenic sources contributes to the increase in average global temperature?

AT: Yes.

Did you miss the part where he said AGW has stopped. I never said CO2 has no ability to absorb energy. The question is what is the degree of the climate's sensitivity to that? Schwartz doesnt know, but says it's smaller than th IPCC claims.

ginger

".....I don't need to be told that I don't know how to read, or don't have a scientific background, or need a dressing down from my supervisor because I happen to find it important to defend RealClimate from unwarranted aspersions. OK?...."

If you think I am casting 'unwarranted aspersions' on Realclimate then either I haven't made myself clear, or you DON'T know how to read. Certainly everything you are saying is contrary to what I intended in my posts, so maybe it is my fault for not making myself clear. So let me try again.

".....Please note that it also meets your demands for peer-reviewed journal reports....."

No it doesn't.

"...it as has these little intertube linky things which bring you to lots of chewy examples rather presto, which does sound suspiciously like "...legitimate references for scientific arguments"..."

Yes - and the papers on the end of these 'little intertube linky things' can be used as evidence. BUT, before doing so, you should at least read them and have a basic understanding of them 'less they actually say the opposite of what you claim and actually take down the argument you are trying to make. People like Dick and crakar are very fond of linking to studies which are discussed on denialist sites, and they virtually NEVER read the papers. But rest assured, I will, and if I find that the paper does not say what they think it does (which is usually the case), I will take great delight in pointing that out to them.

Realclimate may be a useful source of information, but it is not and it never will be a valid reference for science evidence. Yes - it does usually provide links to peer reviewed journal articles. And it is these journal articles which can and should be used as evidence - NOT the opinion thread which is on the website.

".... I also did not see you defending it from RW's disgusting charges that it is politically poisoned...."

Interestingly enough, I don't always respond to Dick's crap. Sometimes its just not worth the effort.

".....Indeed, you agreed with him that it was not a good source of information. On this I maintain you made a misstep. That's all....."

No I didn't. I will say it once again. It is an EXCELLENT source of information. But it should not be used as reference for evidence. There is a critical difference here. Note the difference is between INFORMATION and EVIDENCE.

".... I have a B.S. in Biology with some graduate courses taken, eight years doing pure research mostly in biochemical pharmacology in filarial worms. I am a coauthor on one published study, way down the line on about 4 others...."

Then I am not sure why you are arguing the way you are. Surely you know the difference between something that gives you good pointers and can be useful in expanding your knowledge, and something that can be used as a reference source of legitimate evidence. What do you think would have happened if you referenced a weblog in your peer-reviewed paper?

Maybe it IS my fault, and I have not made myself clear before. Okay then, let me try once again.

Realclimate is an excellent website full of very useful tips, knowledge and opinions from real experts in the field who know what they are talking about. It is far and away superior to just about any other site, and idiotic sites such as wattsupmybutt etc do not in any way compare to the quality of information which is provided on Realclimate.

Anyone who reads Realclimate will learn a lot about the climate and climate change, and will come away from the experience better off for having read the threads on the site. It is probably one of the best sites explaining and debating climate science, and it often takes down denialists with real, expert opinion.

But - and this is the point that I have been trying to make but which appears to have been lost - it should NOT be used as evidence, because it is NOT evidence. It is opinion. It may be excellent, expert opinion, but it is still opinion.

I have not nor have I ever agreed with Dick that it was not a good source of information. I will say it AGAIN. It is an excellent source of information, and the papers that it links to are excellent sources of evidence. But there is a difference between information and evidence. If you want to use EVIDENCE to bolster an argument, you should link to a proper, peer-reviewed or similar article, paper, or report.

You know that, because it would have been drummed into you during your university education. Therefore I can only surmise that you have misunderstood me. I hope this clarifies it.

RW in 757:
Perhaps you forgot what you said in post 30 here:

"Also an obvious fact is that changing CO2 levels will affect climate.

It's not now, so what evidence is there it will in the future and that change *WILL* be bad and not over all good."

You claimed CO2 was not affecting climate. If you'd bothered to read that link I also included in my last message, you would've also found this:

'Swanson and Tsonis do not call their proposed find "cooling". Only climate change and global warming deniers have started calling this a global cooling. Swanson and Tsonis conclude, "If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades. Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing." They also say that it is speculative to presume global average temperatures will remain near current levels; that any shifts would be in addition to a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing; and that future warming may be larger than previously thought.'(bold mine)

and that future warming may be larger than previously thought.'

I am amazed when you people quote something like this, turning the words "may be" into "will be". Do you understand what "may be" means? Go buy a lottary ticket, you "may be" a winner. But "will" you? Not likely.

"may be"s are not evidence, it's speculative opinion which does not belong in science.

RC is such a grea source that it's readership is dropping, and WUWT had 10 times the visits.

It will be interesting to see what happens with it when Congress kills the climate arm of NASA.

You really don't read the links, do you? You just look for a little cherry to pick. Of particular interest is the use of the word 'rapid' with 'warming' and the statement that their results don't contradict global warming.

'Tsonis and Swanson specify that their results are not at all contradictory with the idea of a long-term average global warming trend; rather, they are attempting to describe the climate's internal variability that everyone is already aware of.

The bloggers and news agencies frequently get the information all wrong, while failing to do their own actual fact checking or research. Note the frequently peppered words "may", "might", and "possible". Swanson and Tsonis continue to state that their unproven findings will lead to "rapid warming" commencing. That's right. Manmade global warming, according to the professors, will return.'

RW @752

The null hypothesis is there is no relationship between two parameters of measured values.

Letâs give it one more try. Empty your mind of everything you think you know about the null hypothesis, in particular forgetting the fixation on null = nothing. Start from scratch. Clear everything out.

OK?

Suppose you have some data that you wish to use to test a hypothesis. For example, you wish to confirm that a die is biased to give more â6âs than expected by chance.

Start by making the contrary assumption, in this case, that the die is not biased. You then proceed to calculate the probability of getting the observed result (or more extreme) if this assumption is correct. With the example of a biased die, you would assume that the probability of getting a â6â is 1/6. Suppose you rolled the die 28 times and observed 9 â6âs, compared with the expectation of 28/6 = 4.67 (donât worry about it being a value that is unattainable in practice). The probability of getting 9 or more (i.e. farther from the expectation) â6âs (P) is 0.033.This is less than 5% and you would conclude that this result was unlikely to have occurred just by chance and you accept that the die was probably biased.

The contrary assumption you made at the beginning is referred to as the null hypothesis. In this example, we are said to have rejected the null hypothesis.

Now suppose that you wish to show that the die is not biased. How could you do that?

The answer is that you canât. The problem is not stated sufficiently clearly for you to come up with a contrary assumption. You could make a different claim, for example that a â6â does not occur twice as frequently as any other number. Your contrary assumption is now that the die is biased so that a â6â comes up 2/7 of the time and each other number occurs in 1/7 of throws. The null hypothesis is this contrary assumption, that the die is biased towards getting a â6â twice as frequently as any other number. Suppose that in 28 throws there were 4 â6âs compared with the expectation of 28*2/7 = 8. The probability of getting 4 or fewer (farther from the expectation) â6âs on 28 throws is 0.065. This is more than 5% and so we are unable to reject the null hypothesis and accept that the die may be biased to give a â6â twice as frequently as any other number.

An important point is that you can never demonstrate that your null hypothesis is correct. The best you can hope for is to fail to show that it is wrong. However, with a sufficiently large sample you may decide that, even if it is wrong, it is by so little that it makes no practical difference.

This basic concept is always a troublesome one for students as most feel it is the opposite of what they would intuitively expect.

Now think about your claim and what contrary assumption you could use as your null hypothesis.

RW @752

I asked what YOU would do instead. So let's see it, specifically what values would you plug into the t-test.

I would not use a t-test. On an earlier thread you were given advice by myself and other people that you ignored. You need to talk to a statistician.

No I don't think the t-test is going to change that there was more heatwaves, hotter temps in the early 1900's than today. It's YOU who is demanding ever more hoops. If you think I'm wrong, YOU PROVE IT.

How is it possible for you to so persistently fail to see the point? What you have done is to show that the numbers 1901, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, . . . 1998, 1999, 2000 are different from the numbers 35, 32, 41, 37, 36, 38, 38, 40, . . . etc (or whatever the actual values for Tmax or heat wave days are). Correcting this is not 'jumping through a hoop'. It is correcting complete garbage.

This is no different than what I have done professionally for decades.

I shudder to think of the consequences.

I'm not wrong, so I have no need to consult anyone.

You really must talk to a statistician. But you won't, because as a self-taught polymath you are very well acquainted with matters mathematical, you understand equations, both the simple and quadratical. About binomial theorem you're teeming with a lot o' news, with many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse. You're very good at integral and differential calculus but climatic science is really just your best.

RW @761

It will be interesting to see what happens with it when Congress kills the climate arm of NASA.

The 2020s will still be warmer than the 1990s.

R. Simons your forbearance with this fool is beyond commendable. But we need to remember that

I'm not wrong, so I have no need to consult anyone. Richard W.

This is another Wakefield gem that I am going to try the next time a peer reviewer critiques my analysis.

Do you understand what "may be" means? Go buy a lottary ticket, you "may be" a winner. But "will" you? Not likely . . . "may be"s are not evidence . . .

To be so dim as to conceive of this argument is sorry enough, to be dim enough to actually post it is tragic.

No one is saying that Tsonis's "maybe" is a "will be". The point is that "superimposed" does *not* mean permanently "overwhelmed", which is what you have been trying to torture that research into meaning ever since you so stupidly cited it weeks ago.

It is very simple, Richard: You have at best a slightly above average IQ. You are *not* intelligent enough to attempt your own independent analysis of climate. I'm no Einstein myself, to be sure, but then again I'm not the one claiming to take down a scientific consensus with a spreadsheet. (Nor have I conducted a difference of means test between the numerical values of years and some other arbitrarily chosen unit.)

When R. Simons beseeches you to

Empty your mind of everything you think you know . . .

it is obvious that said evacuation will be swift and easy enough.

Richard Wakefield, you simply need to do yourself the favor of recognizing that

(a) you're not very clever in the first place
(b) your arguments and analysis are sophomoric
(c) you have said and done so many utterly stupid things that no redemption is possible
(d) you can still live a happy and rewarding life if you give up on this delusion of being a climate science hero

You are making a fool of yourself. This is the legacy an otherwise decent man who served honorably in a prestigious profession is leaving for his grandchildren

That's right. Manmade global warming, according to the professors, will return.'

Speculative nonsense. "will" in describing the future of the climate is nonsense since the future of the climate is unpredicable. See the Curry threat on chaos.

Now think about your claim and what contrary assumption you could use as your null hypothesis.

Thats CO2 makes the global temperature rise.

I would not use a t-test. On an earlier thread you were given advice by myself and other people that you ignored. You need to talk to a statistician.

You asked for the p-value, obtained using a t-test. Why then did you ask for it.

I shudder to think of the consequences.

How about a 6 figure salary, and very satusfied customers.

The 2020s will still be warmer than the 1990s.

You willing to bet on it? How about a year's salary? Make sure to define what "warmer" means.

If you think I'm wrong, YOU PROVE IT. You go see a statistician, I don't need to.

You go see a statistician, I don't need to. --Richard W.

Also priceless.

If you guys think I'm wrong, and have not done proper math, then have a view of this and go make the same comments on that presentation.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/12/david-archibald-on-climate-and-en…

Do you all have the balls to face us with your accusations there? Bet none of you do.

I knew we were only minutes from being Wattsed . . .

Inasmuch as it appears on Watts, I already have an insight into its quality.

But show me where in his analysis he conducted a difference of means test in which one of the ratio level variables was the numeric value of calender year, and yes Richard, I will balls up and tell him that that is exactly--exactly--as stupid as when you did it.

Funny how Wakefield keeps on posting nonsense. We don't need more of his nonsense, he showed us exactly how ignorant of science, climate science, statistics, honesty, logical thinking skills etc. a long time ago.

Coby, why do you allow denier spamming nonsense from the likes of despicable people like Wakefield?

Ease up, Ian.

The poor sap's feelings are clearly hurt and despite all I'd rather it not come to that.

The pipers will still play Amazing Grace at Richard's funeral--because he was a fireman--not because of anything he contributed to climate science.

But show me where in his analysis he conducted a difference of means test in which one of the ratio level variables was the numeric value of calender year, and yes Richard, I will balls up and tell him that that is exactly--exactly--as stupid as when you did it.

I'll be looking for your comments. Ian, you got the balls to go there and tell Archibald he is a liar?

Wakefield, I will not waste my time rebutting the nonsense put up at wattsuphisbutt. It is not a science site even though ignorant people like you think it is.

I only got as far as the first couple of pages on his powerpoint and I had to give up. It is a sorry state that our education system is turning out people who think that anything on that web site has got anything to do with honesty or science. It tells us all we need to know about you that you worship at the high altar of watts' smelly butt.

Oh for Chrissakes Richard, you're just falling to pieces now.

*I* made the comment, not Ian.

Archibald might well be a liar; it doesn't matter. The point is that you committed a statistical sin so egregious I wouldn't have tolerated it from one of my undergrads.

Jesus H. Curry . . . how can you remain so deluded?

Richard, you're a good man who has served honorably in a good profession. Will you please for the love of God stop doing this to yourself?

Wakefield, I will not waste my time rebutting the nonsense put up at wattsuphisbutt

Of course you won't you're too chicken shit to do so. Can't handle the same abuse you unload on me, eh?

Skip, don't see you posting there yet, you chicken shit too?

Wakefield, everyone except for you deniers knows that watts just posts rubbish. Do you remember the post about CO2 falling out as dry ice at the South Pole? Do you think that could actually happen or has ever happened?

watts is one of the most dishonest posters out there. He is as bad as Curry who should be ashamed of the way she is behaving since she used to be a scientist.

As I said previously, the fact that you worship at wattsbutt tells us all we need to know about you and your knowledge of science.

And that is why WUWT has won the best science blog, likely to win this year's. Your cherrished RC wasn't even nominated. That's gotta hurt.

Skip, don't see you posting there yet, you chicken shit too?

This is really your argument?

Really?

Your statistical incompetence is somehow saved by a post on Watts?

Is this what you really, really think, Richard?

Have you run this by Judith yet?

RW @768

You asked for the p-value, obtained using a t-test.

I'm sure I did not ask for a P value obtained using a t-test. Link please.

You go see a statistician, I don't need to.

I've taught statistics to undergraduate students in agriculture/natural resources programs for several years, and was the person they came to for help when someone else was teaching the courses. I'm not a statistician but my knowledge is more than adequate for that level. BTW, the level you need is covered by the Ontario high school math curriculum so you don't even need to visit a university - just go to your local high school.

RW @770

Do you all have the balls to face us with your accusations there? Bet none of you do.

My first thought on seeing this - "My Dad is bigger than your Dad!"

I went and took a look. I saw the first section is called 'Is the World warming?'. Did you notice he never actually showed a graph of global temperature for the last 100 years? Now I wonder why that is? Did you notice that graph of temperatures reconstructed from the Greenland ice core actually seems to come from Antarctica (Google images for 'borehole temperatures greenland' and check the graphs that look most like the one he shows). Did you notice that most of the data and graphs are unattributed? Do you trust him? Why?

And that is why WUWT has won the best science blog, likely to win this year's.

Selected by scientists or Joe off the street who thinks a heavy snowfall is a sure sign that it's getting colder and that the sun goes round the Earth?

RW @767

Now think about your claim and what contrary assumption you could use as your null hypothesis.

Thats CO2 makes the global temperature rise.

Great! We're making progress. Your null hypothesis needs to be that global temperatures (and therefore Tmax) are increasing. Now think about how you could find reasonable values for the 'predicted' Tmax, then consider how you would test to compare your observed Tmax with the 'predicted' values. What test(s) would be appropriate?

I'm sure I did not ask for a P value obtained using a t-test. Link please

I'm begining to wonder if you know what YOU are talking about. The P-value *IS* obtained using the T-test. How else is it done?

What test(s) would be appropriate?

Plot TMax vs CO2 level? Do you think that would show something different? It won't do you know why? Do you know what such a graph would look like? I do without plotting it.

RW @784

I'm sure I did not ask for a P value obtained using a t-test. Link please

I'm begining to wonder if you know what YOU are talking about. The P-value *IS* obtained using the T-test. How else is it done?

For starters, binomial distribution, t-test, Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, Chi-squared, Tukey's, Cochrane Q, z-test, F-test (from analysis of variance, that ties in with regression) and Poisson distribution will all give you P values. Some of these are not appropriate for your situation.

What test(s) would be appropriate?

Plot TMax vs CO2 level? Do you think that would show something different? It won't do you know why? Do you know what such a graph would look like? I do without plotting it.

That is not a test. A test is something which yields a probability of getting your observed results by chance. Try again.

Simmons, as usual you are evasive. Explain EXACTLY what you would do. Better DO IT AND SHOW ME! But you can't because you have no clue how.

Simmons, as usual you are evasive.

At least I got a laugh from that.

Your methodological ineptitude regarding the t-test is an amusing side-bar, Richard. Your "theory" changes so much that constructing a "contrarian" hypothesis as per R. Simons' explanation is indeed a fool's errand.

Nonetheless, what R. Simons is demonstrating in statistical parlance is what everyone (especially blueshift, Chris et al) have been trying to tell you for months: Your Canadian station data do not "falsify" AGW. Of course they do not *demonstrate* it--said demonstration is established by multiple other indicators--as you have been told again and again.

This will all bounce off you, of course, because as you've told us:

I'm not wrong, so I have no need to consult anyone.

Posts 711, 712 &713.

I think we can all agree that yanks are as thick as pig shit.

Ian (and others)

"......Wakefield, I will not waste my time rebutting the nonsense put up at wattsuphisbutt. It is not a science site even though ignorant people like you think it is....."

I have a solution to this problem. See my post #758. You just have to set standards.

I'd mind my tongue were I you, Crakar.

The pig-shit thickest of your Yankee cousins are in fact the core your denialist constituency.

Skip,

So Americans are as thick as pig shit because most believe in God among other absurdities (magic bullet theory, Saddam had nukes etc)and most are deniers?

So i should watch my tongue, why is that?

OK skip disagree with this.

Somewhere amongst the 791 posts above RW challenged WOW to show him one example of where CO2 has had an effect in climate/weather. Obviously WOW could not produce one example so WOW simply stated CO2 in an omni potent force that effects ALL WEATHER, pathetic i know.

Anyway this study or reanalysis if you like shows there is no trend in weather/climate for over 100 years.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/full

So if CO2 has had no effect on weather/climate up until now does this mean AGW is crap, care to disagree?

crakar

Let me respond to #792 on behalf of skip....woof!.

Does CO2 affect weather? Are you really asking that? You appear to be grossly overcomplicating this really simle concept.

We all know CO2 affects temperature - even the most ardent denier agrees with that. And - try to follow me here - temperature is an element of climate.

Therefore, since CO2 affects temperature, and temperature is an element of climate, then CO2 affects climate.

Anything else?

Mandas,

Thankyou for responding on behalf of Skip (the term is YAP by the way, yap implies a very little dog dancing around your feet whereas woof implies a big dog on a lead).

Unfortunately (as always) you failed to grasp the logic behind my post, have another read and try again.

Here's a tip, we were discussing changes in climate from increased CO2.

Therefore, since CO2 affects temperature, and temperature is an element of climate, then CO2 affects climate.

How so, with specific examples of such affects.

RW,

Mandas will hide behind an earlier statement he made about responding to your posts.

But lets look at what he said a bit closer, we all know the suns affects on temperature if it was not for the sun the Earth would be a lifeless ball of ice floating in complete darkness, even the most ardent believer would not deny that, and try and follow me here.

Heat creates temperature and temperature is an element of climate and since the Sun is the only source of heat then the sun drives the climate.

Any other questions?

RW @786

Simmons, as usual you are evasive. Explain EXACTLY what you would do. Better DO IT AND SHOW ME! But you can't because you have no clue how.

Oy! Don't confuse me with that Richard Simmons guy ;-)

Typical response! As soon as you can't understand something, you start flinging around allegations of bad faith. I was not trying to be evasive - I was trying to get you to think.

Months ago (and more recently) I agreed with someone (can't remember whom) that performing a regression of Tmax (etc) on year would be suitable, but pointed out that the slope of the regression should be compared not with zero but with the expected value if Tmax increased in line with global average temperatures.

I also suggested that, to use all of the data, you could do an analysis of variance with stations and years as main effects and extracting a linear contrast from the year effect. Given the likely shape of the relationship, a quadratic effect might also be significant.

The trouble is, you were so blind to the possibility that your analysis was not perfect that you did not even notice these suggestions (and various others from other contributors).

crakar

"....Here's a tip, we were discussing changes in climate from increased CO2....."

Yeah - and what part of increasing temperature doesn't register in your tiny, deformed ganglia as a change in climate? I will make it really, really simple for you crakar.

Increasing temperatures = change in climate.

AND, increasing temperatures is caused by increased CO2. Get it now?

And remember - skip is the small dog (yap) and I am the big dog (woof).

Months ago (and more recently) I agreed with someone (can't remember whom) that performing a regression of Tmax (etc) on year would be suitable . . . R. Simons

I believe it was bluemax, if anyone gives a shit.

Yap . . . woof . . . howl.

sorry, *blueshift*.

I just spent 2 hours feeding and changing twins . . .

"Therefore, since CO2 affects temperature, and temperature is an element of climate, then CO2 affects climate.

How so, with specific examples of such affects."

CO2 traps far IR but not near IR.

Sun produces more energy in the near IR and the earth produces energy in the far IR.

Trapping energy in an envelope reduces energy loss.

If energy loss < energy in, the system warms.

And temperature differences drive climate movement whilst mere temperature changes precipitation and ice formation (glaciers) which themselves will change climate.

That should be

"If energy loss less than energy in, the system warms."

"Great! We're making progress. Your null hypothesis needs to be that global temperatures (and therefore Tmax) are increasing."

Tmax increasing depends on more than just temperature baselines. Cloud cover, sea/land winds causing warm or cold air intrusion and recent precipitation all factor into Tmax, which makes the correlation much harder to find unless you account for all those factors.

Tmax is also a very limited set.

Since Dick here thinks that the temperature data is wrong because there's so little data, one wonders why he's so set on throwing away 99.7% of his data and THEN concluding there's enough?

The reason why Dick is doing this is because he can cherry pick more stations to "prove" his point; which in any case is not proven, since failing a null test refute merely means the null test hasn't been refuted, NOT that the null proposition is true (making his asinine insistence that I don't know what the null hypothesis is even more idiotic since that's in the first paragraphs of his wiki link to the explanation of the null hypothesis).

"Do you all have the balls to face us with your accusations there? Bet none of you do."

Watts defends Gerlich & Tscheuschner even though they managed to prove that thermal insulation doesn't work.

Just because you'll find a horde of True Believers who "know" that AGW is a scam ('because, it is, right?') on WTFUWT, your insistence that we go there to rebut your idiocy shows YOU are the chickenshit.

"Now think about your claim and what contrary assumption you could use as your null hypothesis.

Thats CO2 makes the global temperature rise."

Which is shown statistically to be true here:

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

(note you've been shown this many times before but never acknowledged. chicken?)

skip:
"(a) you're not very clever in the first place"

You do him little credit. He's smart enough to counter creationists on a subject where they are not subject masters and where they have only been studying the problem for a few years.

Of course, he's dumb enough to then think this means he can move against climate scientists in a subject they ARE masters of and have been studying for nearly 200 years.

"Did you miss the part where he said AGW has stopped."

AGW hasn't stopped. CO2 still blocks IR and we're still pushing out more and more CO2.

"I never said CO2 has no ability to absorb energy."

When you state that Tmax is cooling you are saying that CO2 cannot absorb energy.

"The question is what is the degree of the climate's sensitivity to that? Schwartz doesnt know, but says it's smaller than th IPCC claims."

Schwartz is wrong. But I have to ask, why do you believe one scientist when there are scores who say different? Because you like what he says?

Even Roy Spencer keeps moving his estimation up and is now at 1.5C per doubling.

Given that our current feedback is 66 parts H2O's effect and 25 parts CO2's effect, you will have to prove that this sensitivity (3.64 C per doubling) no longer holds.

"CP: Do you agree that average global temperatures have continued to increase since 2001?"

Me: There's no answer to that statement because you cannot determine a global temperature trend in that short a time.

It's a trap.

As to this:
"From the IPCC

Argument from authority. Means nothing. "

What an arse. Get your head out of your rectum.

That was produced in response to YOUR statement:

#735: "Because that is what the AGW community claims"

When I post what "the AGW community claims", YOU post "argument from authority"?!??!?!!

You truly DO NOT WANT to know what the hell you're talking about because you are convincing yourself that everything is fine.

Not only idiotic but cowardly.

"The null hypothesis is there is no relationship between two parameters of measured values."

Here is the test of a relationship between global temperature and global CO2:

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

Therefore the null hypothesis is found invalid.

"Right, the raw temperature data is "inappropriate"."

These people http://www.surfacestations.org/ seem to think that the raw station data is inappropriate.

"Right, getting the top 10% of anomalies from several stations is "inappropriate". "

This guy on post # seems to think that throwing away data invalidates any measure in post 349:

"So rather than ask you to explain how a sparse inaccurate data set can lead you to accept AGW as the culprit but then ignore another data set based on its sparseness"

"Download the data yourself and PROVE ME WRONG."

But you're using bad data. Downloading it won't make it the right data. But it's all the data you have, isn't it.

And download the GISS dataset and PROVE THEM WRONG. Heck, you won't even go to their site.

Wow @803

Tmax increasing depends on more than just temperature baselines.

You're quite right, of course. The comments about annual Tmax being a poor measure are also correct, but I've been ignoring that as others have been making the point. Of course, there are situations in which the temperature extremes are important, for example in determining the range of various organisms - it only takes an hour or two at extreme temperatures to do in many organisms - but in general it is not a good statistic.

I suspect it is all a waste of time, but I find it an interesting challenge to try to sort out his profound statistical problems.

"I suspect it is all a waste of time, but I find it an interesting challenge to try to sort out his profound statistical problems."

I suspect that my statement earlier:

You truly DO NOT WANT to know what the hell you're talking about because you are convincing yourself that everything is fine.

Is Dick's problem with statistics.

Since proper stats would convince him that his thesis is incorrect, he ignores proper statistics, instead insisting that someone come along and calculate the p-test on his data his way and see that the numbers come out the way he wants them to.

I don't know if it's possible to do such a search on Deltoid, but Nahle did the exact same thing. He calculated Tdot (the rate of change per unit time) from CO2 absorption and then stated that only one second of that occurs. When pointed out to him that that Tdot is additional heating each second, he insisted that it wasn't and that anyone who said he was wrong should show him in his calculation for Tdot that he was incorrect.

The problem being his formula, not his calculation of that formula, this means that he could always ignore any errors.

Note too that Nahle got applauded on WTFUWT and has had several papers published. One of which implies that GCRs are the result but mixes causality and the motion of the solar wind to do so. Either GCRs are tachyons or Nahle is, again, wrong.

Dick is "doing a Nahle".

And ignoring the problem because to face it would be to face the fact they have it wrong.

I also suggested that, to use all of the data, you could do an analysis of variance with stations and years as main effects and extracting a linear contrast from the year effect. Given the likely shape of the relationship, a quadratic effect might also be significant.

I did that when I used 19 stations as anomalies and looked at all the data. It was still dropping.

"I did that when I used 19 stations"

Hmmm. There are more than 19 stations in Canada.

Why didn't you include them?

There are also 364 other temperature figures for each one you used from that station.

Why didn't you include them?

Canada is only 1.4% of the surface of the earth, so there's 70x more data available than even just in Canda.

Why didn't you include them?

The AGW science results also indicate that nighttime temperatures will rise quicker, you ignored 100% of them.

Why did you do that?

Plus, have you downloaded the data as Chris S did in post 682 and prove him wrong?

"I've already demonstrated that both annual and summer Tmax had an upward trend ( http://canadatemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post.html )"

If your test cannot decide what it is saying, you haven't designed the test correctly.

but in general it is not a good statistic.

RS, what *IS* a "good statistic"? Average? What is physically happening to increase the average?

You don't read too good, Dick.

You've been given the answers before but didn't listen.

PS I note that you've accepted that CO2 and temperatures are linked and that the increase in CO2 has caused a significant measurable rising temperature trend.

I note that you've accepted that CO2 and temperatures are linked and that the increase in CO2 has caused a significant measurable rising temperature trend.

Caveat to this: Richard's position on this is contingent on day and mood. He used to tell us CO2 had no effect on temperature.

Well, he's not refudiated BPL's work nor shown where it's wrong and he's stated his null hypothesis: two events are not linked. Since that work shows CO2 and temperature ARE linked, the null hypothesis is shown false.

He's not been able to show this logical chain incorrect and remained silent on it.

"I did that when I used 19 stations"

Hmmm. There are more than 19 stations in Canada.

Why didn't you include them?

You do have a hard time reading don't you. Do you think I just arbitrarily picked 19? Or do you not think there was some fundamental reason that restricted the list to 19?

Yes it was. There are only 19 stations in all of Canada that has clean records past 1920. And I stated so on that post.

But you're using bad data. Downloading it won't make it the right data. But it's all the data you have, isn't it.

Please explain how measured daily temperature data from Environment Canada is "bad data"?

Since that work shows CO2 and temperature ARE linked, the null hypothesis is shown false.

Nope:

Bye, J., K. Fraedrich, E. Kirk, S. Schubert, and X. Zhu (2011), Random walk lengths of about 30 years in global climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2010GL046333, in press. (accepted 7 February 2011)

Herman, B.M. M.A. Brunke, R.A. Pielke Sr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2010: Global and hemispheric lower tropospheric temperature trends. Remote Sensing, 2, 2561-2570; doi:10.3390/rs2112561

Is Global Warming Real?
Analysis of Structural Time Series Models of
Global and Hemispheric Temperatures.
Terence C. Mills, Ph.D.,
Department of Economics, Loughborough University, Ashby Road, Loughborough, Leics, U.K.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract
The last two decades has seen a major research focus on modelling trends in time series, although little consensus has emerged, particularly when temperature records are analysed. This paper considers fitting a flexible model, known as the structural model, to global hemispheric temperature series for the period 1850 to 2009 with the intention of assessing whether a global warming signal can be detected from the trend component of the model. For all three series this trend component is found to be a simple driftless random walk, so that all trend movements are attributed to natural variation and the optimal forecast of the long term trend is the current estimate of the trend, thus ruling out continued global warming and, indeed, global cooling. Polynomial trend functions, being special cases of the general structural model, are found to be statistically invalid, implying that to establish a significant warming signal in the temperature record, some other form of nonlinear trend must be considered.

http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange112.html

Since I know you don't even understand what this article is saying, Richard, I will ask you a thoroughly embarrassing question:

How does it falsify AGW?

Maybe you could run a t-test on the data yourself?

What will the response be?

"If you have a problem with the article, why don't you email the author?"

"You AGW faithful cannot accept the truth."

"Wouldn't it be nice to grow more vegetables in Canada?"

"sorry, *blueshift*.

I just spent 2 hours feeding and changing twins . . ."

No skin off my nose. Honestly I'm not sure whether R. Simons was referring to my earlier comments or not. I am sure that he has a better grasp of statistics than I do so I've been trying to stay out of the way.

How does it falsify AGW?

He did the very stat tests you claim I havn't done and concluded that there is no AGW signal in the temperature data, it can all be attributed to random variation. Just as I have been saying all along. And you can't complain about "bad math".

What paper is Wakefield referring to? He lists three and they all appear to be in the junk class. Why does some one professing to be a scientist (all be it a "self taught" one) refer to a paper by an economist who is talking rubbish.

Random walks in deed, the only random walk is the drunken stupor of people like Wakefield and the other deniers when they try to understand climate science. This is a science blog not a place for drunks to wander around in random fashion.

He did the very stat tests you claim I havn't done . . .

Which were those? Enlighten me.

Mandas in 798,

Yep Mandas your the big dog and big dogs drop big turds.

Ian everything to you is junk unless it from the High Priests of the AGW Faith.

Skip, you have a hard time reading, or maybe you didn't read it to the end.

"Interestingly, the two traditional statistics for testing whether a time series contains a random walk component or is better characterised as stationary fluctuations around a linear trend â the ADF test, which has the random walk as the null, and the KPSS test, which has the linear trend as the null â both reject their respective nulls for global temperatures at the 1% level of significance, thus adding to the uncertainty concerning the stochastic process driving temperatures.

Richard, I wonder if you realize that this new angle you are taking is at odds with your proffessed findings.

This latest straw you have grasped finds NO SIGNAL in the temperature data. You have gone on over three threads spanning over 2000 comments about how you have identified three signals in the data: warming overall (or as you prefer to put it, less colding overall), rising winter temperatures and falling summer temperature. How does a paper that says that *nothing* is happening help your position??

And please note, what you said in #824: "it can all be attributed to random variation. Just as I have been saying all along." is patently false. You have flip-flopped repeatedly as convenient for the argument du jour between "we are returning to normal after the LIA" and "its mystical natural cycles" and "the sun is driving climate change" and back again (three mutually exclusive propositions BTW). Hardly "random, like I always said!"

Wakefield whined:

Ian everything to you is junk unless it from the High Priests of the AGW Faith.

No, that just shows he is ignorant of good science. I call a paper junk when it shows obvious faults in its scientific accuracy and/or honesty. Most papers Wakefield cites fall into one or other of these categories. It just goes to show that deniers do not have the scientific skills to separate junk from real science. That is why he is laughed at on this forum, he refuses to learn.

RW @811

I also suggested that, to use all of the data, you could do an analysis of variance with stations and years as main effects and extracting a linear contrast from the year effect. Given the likely shape of the relationship, a quadratic effect might also be significant.

I did that when I used 19 stations as anomalies and looked at all the data. It was still dropping.

Given that less than a week ago you thought that only a t-test could give you a P value I do not believe you. What were the mean square values, degrees of freedom and F values?

Oh dear seems that Wakefield and Mills did not read the fine print on the use of ADF tests:

One word of caution: The adf.test function essentially detrends your data before testing for stationarity. If your data contains a strong trend, you might be very surprised to learn it is "mean reverting" when it is obvously moving upward or downward.

http://quanttrader.info/public/testForCoint.html

I wonder if Wakefield understands what "detrends" means. Should we take pity on this poor D-K suffering fool? Nay, it's more fun watching him stagger around in a drunken random walk.

RW @814
"RS, what *IS* a "good statistic"? Average? What is physically happening to increase the average?"

In this context, I was merely meaning one that is useful. If you are interested in rice pollination, it could be days above 35C during the flowering period. If you are trying to grow tomatoes, it could be number of frost-free days, but if you are a polar bear in Churchill it would be time of freeze-up. Average global temperature is one that gives a good all-round indication of the energy being gained by Earth while being relatively easy to determine.

Ian says:
'What paper is Wakefield referring to? He lists three and they all appear to be in the junk class. Why does some one professing to be a scientist (all be it a "self taught" one) refer to a paper by an economist who is talking rubbish.'

The papers came from WUWT - see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/14/pielk-sr-on-the-30-year-random-wa… . Scroll down about 8 comments (mikep) for the third one.

No, that just shows he is ignorant of good science. I call a paper junk when it shows obvious faults in its scientific accuracy and/or honesty

And that is ANYTHING that does not sport the Faith.

Average global temperature is one that gives a good all-round indication of the energy being gained by Earth while being relatively easy to determine.

During which times of the year?

Given that less than a week ago you thought that only a t-test could give you a P value I do not believe you.

It does not surpise me that you do not believe in the facts. Prove there are more than 19 stations with complete data before 1920. You will have to download all the data, like I did.

What were the mean square values, degrees of freedom and F values?

Then when you have all that data, then you can SHOW ME what should be done with that data. I'm not jumping through hoops for you just so you can put up more hoops. PROVE ME WRONG!

Couldn't resist this one. Why bother with a thermometer when you've got a lake with records back to 1816?

"Lake Champlain failed to freeze over six times during the thirteen decades 1816-1945. In the decade 1996 - 2005 it also failed to freeze six times. That's an impressive trend." The graphic here is pretty impressive too. http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/02/lake-champlain.html

6 times in 130 years v. 6 times in 10 years.
4.6% v. 60%.

Temperatures, percentages, ratios, trends. Pah!

That does it for me, Adelady has proven AGW is real because of the amount of times a pond has frozen. Coby can you turn off the lights on your way out?

Settle down crakar. Your mental health state appears to be in a particularly parlous state today.

Miss out last night did you?

What is it with you and sex Mandas?

By the way has the thought that you have been duped ever cross your mind?

I know i have tried to show you the error of your ways with examples of AL Gore living the high life whilst he tries to stop you and of course the bull shit from Tim "i have shares in geo thermal" Flannery.

But what would you say if the two biggest chicken littles in our government bought beach front multi million dollar mansions even though they told you AGW would destroy it all through sea level rises?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

Now i know you will scoff because it is on Bolters blog and completely ignore the fact that it is accurate however deep down you will know you have been duped once again and that is all that matters to me.

RW,

Have a look at this and let me know what you think

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/the_inf…

Cheers

Crakar

That's OK for them - so long as they've bought because it's currently a nice place to live. If they bought as an investment for the benefit of their great-grandchildren's families, I'd question their sanity.

Anyone ever heard of make hay while the sun shines?

Crakar

Thanks for that link to Andrew Bolt. I feel so stupid now!! You have proved your case.

Hey everyone â AGW is a fraud. Crakar has the evidence.

Kevin Rudd and Greg Combet have bought waterfront properties. That is so conclusive I donât know how anyone can be a believer anymore. All that time I was reading and referencing peer reviewed studies when all the scientists were just scamming us in a massive global conspiracy to fraudulently obtain research grants and to make money on the property market and investing in âgreenâ industries which will only ever survive with massive subsidies of our taxation dollars. Bastards!!!

Thank you so much crakar. You have removed my blinkers and I can see clearly now. Its a miracle!

6 times in 130 years v. 6 times in 10 years.

Since feezing happens in the winter, this shows that winters are getting less cold, as I have said it was. But this tells us nothing about summers.

Crakar, yes i'm aware of that problem with the data. I did a test using a lot of stations, then took out stations that were in rural areas, and there appeared to be a difference on the warm side. I didn't publish the result on the blog as it was just a rough curiousity. This link is a nice example of that, thanks. Adds to the biasing of the data.

hank you so much crakar. You have removed my blinkers and I can see clearly now. Its a miracle!

If you can come around, anyone can.

RW @838

What were the mean square values, degrees of freedom and F values?

Then when you have all that data, then you can SHOW ME what should be done with that data. I'm not jumping through hoops for you just so you can put up more hoops. PROVE ME WRONG!

If you had done the analysis you claimed to have done, these numbers would be at hand - it's only a dozen numbers and would add a lot to your credibility.

The earlier part of that comment bears no relationship to what I wrote - presumably you lost track of where you were.

Richard, could you kindly address in a substantive way my comment at #830?

Thank you.

No, no, no Adelaidy you cant simply magic this away with "well everyone knows AGW wont cause the SL to rise for 100 years".

Essentially KRudd has bought a house that will be built on swamp land in just a few decades from now which in effect means it is useless property now as we speak and yet he paid over 3 mil for it. Not to mention it will be blown over by all the extra and extreme cyclones.

Adelaidy if you had that kind of cash (and for all i know you do) would you buy that house? Would YOU Adelaidy buy that house knowing what you know about Sl rise?

Allow me to try to provide some assistance, Coby:

[Mills] did the very stat tests you claim I havn't done and concluded that there is no AGW signal in the temperature data, it can all be attributed to random variation. --Richard W.

Richard then listed the "sciency" part of the paper: " . . . random walk component . . . .stationary fluctuations around a linear trend . . . . ADF test . . . . stochastic process . . . ."

Not that he has any clue what any of this means:

Then when you have all that data, then you can SHOW ME what should be done with that data. --Richard W.

Setting aside for a moment the fundamental methodological problems with Mills' argument, he at least looked at mean temperatures, not Tmax.

But when Richard lifted this off Watts, it looked sciency (well spotted JerryG) so he thought it was a vindication of his own silly analysis. Stung by the humiliation over the t-test blunder spotted by R. Simons, Richard W. went fishing for something sciency as a retaliatory strike. Its consistency with his earlier claims/analyses was immaterial.

(This, Coby, is the honest answer to your question, whether Richard elects to give you one or not.)

crakar, I don't have that kind of money so I can't be certain. What I _have_ said to my (adult) children is that it's perfectly OK to buy seafront or riverfront property if you want to have a holiday house for 20 years or so.

But! Do not expect it to retain or to improve its value as an investment. If you can't afford to write off the costs as 15-20 years of holiday accommodation paid in advance (plus all those issues of convenience and so on) then buy property elsewhere and rent riverside or seaside holiday accommodation.

"Since feezing happens in the winter, this shows that winters are getting less cold, as I have said it was. But this tells us nothing about summers."

It DOES tell us about temperatures.

They're rising.

"I did a test using a lot of stations, then took out stations that were in rural areas, and there appeared to be a difference on the warm side."

So you did the OPPOSITE of what Anthony Watts insists needs to be done?

Wowser!

""Average global temperature is one that gives a good all-round indication of the energy being gained by Earth while being relatively easy to determine."

During which times of the year?"

During the times of the year that is within that year.

Duh.

""I call a paper junk when it shows obvious faults in its scientific accuracy and/or honesty"

And that is ANYTHING that does not sport the Faith."

No, that's ANYTHING that supports the FAITH that AGW is bunkum, PLUS anything that has scientific factually incorrect evidence within it.

You know, faults.

"Since that work shows CO2 and temperature ARE linked, the null hypothesis is shown false.

Nope:

...some long winded BS about a structural model..."

GIGO, isn't it?

Go on, if it's not possible to determine a signal, then you should be able to show that by getting the GISS temperature data and doing the work yourself.

You haven't, he hasn't and neither of you can, so you both faff about with random phrases to hide the incline in temperatures.

"Please explain how measured daily temperature data from Environment Canada is "bad data"?"

What Quality Control have you made?

What siting criteria did you use to select the 19?

Is Canada in summer indicative of the temperature of the whole globe?

Of course, the last is the killer for you, since Canada isn't the world, and you won't answer the second since your cherry picking algorithm has already been shown to be unavoidable:

http://canadatemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post.html

When you're trying to find the average income of the Canadian, do you go around and ask all the CEO's of the top 100 companies on the Candadian Stock exchange?

Unfortunately, you probably do.

"Essentially KRudd has bought a house that will be built on swamp land in just a few decades from now which in effect means it is useless property now as we speak and yet he paid over 3 mil for it."

This is proof AGW is false?!?!?!?!

Please show me how the physics is affected by the property KRudd purchases.

Is KRudd your God?!?!

and in 843, we have an E&E (political research organisation) printing an SPPI (political libertatrian QUANGO) paper on how station numbers can affect results.

And one reason why the number of stations and the temperature are correlated is that as we industrialised, we increased CO2 output and added MORE weather stations (keeping the old ones).

Therefore this correlation has a clear causation: CO2 output increased with time, weather stations increase with time.

The alternate hypothesis that weather stations affect the temperature is seriously magic-woo-land.

What makes it even worse is that after Dick throws out the records from some stations, the temperature should decrease worldwide!

Truly that paper displays everything that is wrong with the anti-science of the denialist mind.

"Heat creates temperature and temperature is an element of climate and since the Sun is the only source of heat then the sun drives the climate."

Here is another classic denier myth in action.

Problem #1: The sun is cooler now than it's been for more than 80 years, yet we are warmer than we have ever been since thermometers were created. If The Sun Did It were true, then we should be about 1C cooler than we are.

Problem #2: heat has to transport from warmer to colder object. Therefore what is stopping the earth cooling to the temperature balance at 1AU from our sun, about 250K? Greenhouse gasses impede the flow of energy from the earth system into space, keeping the earth insulated and keeping it warmer than it otherwise would be. Increase the greenhouse gasses, we increase the insulation. And, just like putting a higher TOG duvet on the bed, it keeps the earth even warmer.

Problem 3: If the sun being the source of heat is the ONLY thing that matters, the earth would heat up to approximately 6000K.

"Hint: In no other science is the default position we cause the observed events. Only in climate science is the null hypothesis that all events have natural mechanisms rejected."

Hint, that null hypothesis WAS tested and refuted by the data.

hint: only in climate denial is the null hypothesis never defeated, in all other branches of science, once you've excluded the null hypothesis, you accept the positive one.

Coby, do you agree that he has shown that AGW is not in the numbers?

Wow, do you agree with the analysis in that paper that showed there was no AGW signal in the temperature data? He is the 'right maths'.

Oh, and flooding the thread with many long posts does not make AGW correct. You have not provided anything to support AGW.

What Quality Control have you made?

EC does their own quality control.

What siting criteria did you use to select the 19?

You have a hard time reading don't you. I already explained that.

"Since feezing happens in the winter, this shows that winters are getting less cold, as I have said it was. But this tells us nothing about summers."

It DOES tell us about temperatures.

They're rising.

Only in the winter. It's getting less cold, a good thing.

What siting criteria did you use to select the 19?

Wakefield obviously missed my post #833:

One word of caution: The adf.test function essentially detrends your data before testing for stationarity. If your data contains a strong trend, you might be very surprised to learn it is "mean reverting" when it is obvously moving upward or downward.

That is why I called the Mills paper junk. And since you claim to have used the same method, ADF (though I think this is another of your lies) your results are junk too.

"Only in the winter. It's getting less cold, a good thing."

No, it's getting hotter overall.

See here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Peak temperature depends more strongly on unimpeded sunlight and a lack of moisture to hide the energy.

And, no, getting warmer in winter is NOT a good thing.

Because without cold winters, the ice shelves melt (20m flooding ring a bell, dick?) and people reliant on meltwater flow (e.g. China) will have massive drought.

Maybe YOU don't care about other people, though.

"Wow, do you agree with the analysis in that paper that showed there was no AGW signal in the temperature data? He is the 'right maths'."

As well as Ian's comment repeat (since Dick don't read so good), that paper you didn't write also was merely curve fitting.

We have a causation AND a correlation (and, happily enough for science, in the right order) whereas this bozo you love has no causation.

So yes, it IS bad maths.

Is Canada in summer indicative of the temperature of the whole globe?

I notice you didn't answer that, Dick.

"You have not provided anything to support AGW.

Posted by: Richard Wakefield | February 15, 2011 6:15 AM"

Uh, again:

temperature graph:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

correlation with CO2:
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

Causation:
http://www.ipcc.ch

Setting aside for a moment the fundamental methodological problems with Mills' argument,

Explain the problems.

What siting criteria did you use to select the 19?

THEY WERE THE ONLY STAIONS WITH COMPLETE RECORDS GOING BACK BEFORE 1920!

Got it now for the forth time?

So go somewhere where they have records before 1920.

You know, like somewhere NOT Canada.

Why, before 1920? So that you could exclude data from other stations like Chris used where a trend is upward?

""Setting aside for a moment the fundamental methodological problems with Mills' argument,"

Explain the problems."

He's curve fitting. You can get any answer you like from curve fitting. See how he gets no trend from a line that is obviously trending upwards, for example.

Skip, I just spotted another one for your hall of shame.
"Oh, and flooding the thread with many long posts does not make AGW correct." #862

Richard W.,

"What were the mean square values, degrees of freedom and F values?

Then when you have all that data, then you can SHOW ME what should be done with that data. I'm not jumping through hoops for you just so you can put up more hoops. PROVE ME WRONG!"

Well you claimed to have done the Analysis of Variance. If you really had done an ANOVA then you would have all of this already. Of course you had no idea what you were saying when you claimed to have done the analysis of variance because you treat terminology like a game of Mad Libs.

"Why, before 1920? So that you could exclude data from other stations like Chris used where a trend is upward?"

I used one of Wakefield's 19 sites, he gave me a choice of a few as I recall & I chose Meunster.

Oh, OK.

Seems like Dick may be doing a time period cherry pick, then, in much the same way as the minefield question to Dr Jones re statistically significant warming trend.

Oh, and flooding the thread with many long posts does not make AGW correct.

Yes, blue, I did see that and got an equally good laugh.

Setting aside for a moment the fundamental methodological problems with Mills' argument . . .

Explain the problems --Richard

Wow and Ian already hit part of it, but how could I respond in Wakefield fashion? How about:

"Mills is an economist, who are heartless capitalists by ideology and training, I won't listen to anything from them."

Here's another possibility:

"You obviously haven't read enough about this. Google it."

Here's a tried and true:

"If you have a problem with the article, why don't you email the author?"

Let's throw a few ultra non-sequiters in for good measure:

"You just can't face the fact that you're wrong because you're one of the Watts-believing, denialist faithful."

"My mother-in-law talks a lot about statistics. She said the analysis is no good. Case closed."

And thus I win the argument, Wakefield style!

RW: "Coby, do you agree that he has shown that AGW is not in the numbers?"

No. He is also not addressing any question of attribution (the A in AGW).

Now answer my questions BEFORE I let you change the subject: this new paper you are touting is directly at odds with your proffessed findings. He finds NO signal in the data. You find warming overall, rising winter temps, falling summer temps. You can't both be right. What do you believe?

This latest straw you have grasped finds NO SIGNAL in the temperature data. You have gone on over three threads spanning over 2000 comments about how you have identified three signals in the data: warming overall (or as you prefer to put it, less colding overall), rising winter temperatures and falling summer temperature. How does a paper that says that *nothing* is happening help your position??

I have not come across it before, but my reading of it is that the adf test looks at the degree of autocorrelation in time series data, which can be independent of the trend.

RW - is this correct? Presumably you know as you claim to have used this test! Anyone else?

Skip: ". . . how could I respond in Wakefield fashion?
You forgot 'ARE YOU BLIND?'

What entertains me is that, as far as I can recall, he has never admitted to any doubt on any matter at all. It must be nice to have so much self-confidence, even if it makes life difficult for those around you.

I have watched RW run rings around you lot now for a while and have found it to be quite entertaining.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surfa…

This link is for RW, thankfully Mandas and co wont read this because SPPI is devils territory and not even holy water could protect them.

Well I see that Watts and D'Aleo still have not figured out the difference between actual temperatures and anomalies despite being shown over and over again their mistakes.
I guess some people just don't want to learn. Maybe they were also "self taught"?

For one of the rigorous debunkings see here:

http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/ghcn-high-alt-high-lat-rural/

I like your style IPF, you dismiss Watts and Daleo as amateurs and link to "rhinohide" as proof of your position.

In fact i dont care what rhinoass thinks why dont you explain to me in your own words why the temp data is adjusted so much? especially the temps pre 1950 and why they are adjusted DOWNWARD 50 years after the measurement was taken.

crakar if you want to understand science why don't you do what every other intelligent person has done and go and get an education?

You uneducated deniers are a waste of everyone's time. Get lost.

I have watched RW run rings to avoid looking at his idiocies and I've found it highly informative of the denialist screed.

But crackers will see what he likes to see.

Apparently both think that choosing

a) 19 stations
b) only in Canada
c) only in summer
d) only Tmax

will be able to disprove GLOBAL warming.

Meanwhile, RS still remains puzzled why Dick has run a test that proves that years increase monotonically whilst the limited dataset picked doesn't monotonically increase in line with the years and thinks that this is somehow important or novel.

crackers also doesn't like the GISS temperature dataset because it's sparse since it selects stations

a) in the tens of thousands
b) across the globe
c) for all seasons
d) for the daily average temperature rather than the noisier maximum

which to crackers is obviously much sparser than Dick's selection.

Another highly informative look at the denialist screed.

"why dont you explain to me in your own words why the temp data is adjusted so much?"

Here is someone you might be interested in listening to about why you need to adjust your data:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Yes, that's right, Anthony Watts thinks that you have to perform quality control and adjust for known effects when you take weather measurements and use them for climate trend determination.

"especially the temps pre 1950 and why they are adjusted DOWNWARD 50 years after the measurement was taken."

The only adjustment I know of was to a US only dataset that reduced the figure of the 1938 temperature by less than 0.02C in a downward direction.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic_Temperature_Change.html

has some data trends from EC.

Looks like it's a warming trend to me...

Just thought I would pop back in here to drop this link from Realclimate (yes - I do read the posts there!):

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/from-blog-to-scie…

All of those who were critical of my stance on evidence vs opinion on weblogs may wish to read what Realclimate has to say on the issue.

Thanks Mandas.

I don't read RC enough precisely because I spend so much time tracking down the bullshit posted by the likes of Richard W.

it also reminds me of something a denier once told me in reference to the McLean, De Freitas, & Carter, (2009) article that allegedly disproved any significant anthropogenic effect in tropospheric temperature:

He didn't understand the article or its critiques, but declared that (a) because its peer reviewed, it should be regarded as a disproof of the AGW hypothesis. If, however, (b) it was shown to be flawed, that only proved the peer review process was unreliable, and thus not to be trusted vis-a-vis any consensus regarding AGW.

The essential moral of his story was that even if AGW denial was wrong it was right.

This is what we're dealing with . . . . speaking of which, what happened to Richard?

Dick's probably gone to get some ego stroking from CA or WTF. His failures have been pointed out to him so often that he's beginning to see them and so he needs some polly-wanna-cracker-filler from the other egos in the echo chamber to hide his decline.

It *might* be that Dick has shown that a region of Canada hasn't seen any warming trend and his REAL problem is that he WANTS to use that to prove that the globe isn't warming either, or that this disproves AGW.

But more likely he's proven that his test cannot prove anything about the climate, just like three years temperature data can't prove anything about the climate.

The AGW claim is that summers are hotter today than in history. To test that one has to use records as long as possible to capture what summers were like in the early 1900s which had hotter summers than today. I shouldn't need to explain that one cannot use stations who's data is too short to capture those years.

Apparently both think that choosing

a) 19 stations
b) only in Canada
c) only in summer
d) only Tmax

will be able to disprove GLOBAL warming.

Not just 19 stations. Not just in Canada, but I now have global data (though it is short). Not just summers (though the AGW claim is summer heat waves should be increasning, this shows it's not. And not just TMax. Number of hot days too is dropping. But you are clear, you are not interested in this data, only what you can deliberately misepresent.

Coby, I'll be emailing Miller tomorrow. Then we will get clarification.

IS 2010 THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER?

"Dr. James Hansen of NASAâs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has announced that
2010 was the âhottest year on recordâ â by 0.01 degrees. His claim has been widely touted in
the press as strong evidence that the climate is rapidly heating â due to human generated CO2
emissions. Dr. Hansen has also stated :
"I would not be surprised if most or all groups found that 2010 was tied for the
warmest year."
But most groups do not support his claim. The other independent source of surface
temperatures HadCRUT, shows 2010 cooler than 1998."

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/the_hot…

Yawn.

Richard repeats his same mantras (AGW predicts more heatwaves; they haven't been found in some locations, therefore AGW is wrong; 2010 was not the hottest year . . .

Richard, you are being completely dishonest and evasive. You linked us to the Mills paper because you were embarrassed about your utterly incompetent t-test bungle identified by R. Simons. You tried to fight science with something that looked "sciency".

Coby spotted the utter contradiction between his work and yours. Emailing him isn't going to save your ass now.

By the way, how'd the conversation with Judith go? Remember, I said any email from her you would *never* publicizes. I'm correct, aren't I?

"IS 2010 THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER?"

Given it's a severely cooler sun, why isn't it the coolest year ever, dick?

"Not just 19 stations. Not just in Canada, but I now have global data"

Hmmm. Why then did you scream "THE ONLY ONES WITH A RECORD BEFORE 1920"?

And you still haven't shown what you get, just stated you see fewer hot days. Despite AGW being increasing global average temperatures.

How very sad and limited of you.

"The AGW claim is that summers are hotter today than in history."

No, Dick, YOU claim AGW claims that.

AGW claims that average global temperatures will rise.

And the number of record hot days in the USA, for example, is up:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/record-highs-lows.jpg

So you still prattle on about a falsity (AGW does NOT claim summers hotter today than in history, it claims global average temperatures will rise), but even that false proposition is itself contra-indicated by the data.

Maybe Dick would like to show where he gets his claims of what AGW claims from.

So go somewhere where they have records before 1920.

You know, like somewhere NOT Canada.

Boy, you are dense arn't you. I have already explained that I DID use stations from around that world, and that FEW of them have data before 1970. Go read my station posts from around the world.

Why, before 1920? So that you could exclude data from other stations like Chris used where a trend is upward?

Dense is an understatement. Have you looked at ANYTHING from my blog? You couldn't have. The stations which Chris chose one were where there is data prior to 1920.

Wow, you are way out of your league here. You are making accusations, which if you cared to read my blog would know have already been answered long ago. Get with the program.

"The AGW claim is that summers are hotter today than in history."

No, Dick, YOU claim AGW claims that.

Wow, I'm surprised. I'm surprised that you are so ignorant about your own belief's claims. I'm also surprised that you cannot read. I explained where the claim of more heatwaves comes from

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/more-heat-waves-expecte…

Read up before you make more of a fool of yourself.

"Boy, you are dense arn't you. I have already explained that I DID use stations from around that world"

Then why did you say you used only 19 stations from Canada in this thread?

"and that FEW of them have data before 1970."

Odd. You can get a LOT more data than that from http://www.hadobs.org/

Plenty of data before 2970 there.

"Wow, you are way out of your league here."

Well if it's the "league of making stuff up and changing my mind part way through, then back again, then off in a tangent", yes, you are far in advance of me in that respect.

However, you fail you state why you continue to use the wrong measure to disprove something that AGW doesn't say in a way that cannot prove it happening.

As RS said, you've managed to prove that each year goes up whilst temperatures will go up and down. Hardly proof of anything.

If you think it's all wrong and that the entire globe is cooling, then show why this graph:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

is wrong.

"Wow, I'm surprised. I'm surprised that you are so ignorant about your own belief's claims."

I'm not surprised you are ignorant of the claims of AGW because when you're sent to this site:

http:/www.ippcc.ch

you say "it's appeal to authority, I'm not going to read it".

Lets go again to your sources:

âScientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research say global warming will bring about more frequent and more intense heat waves in the United States and Europe.â

Note: no quote, just a report of what this reporter says.

And why would global warming bring about more frequent and intense heat waves in US and Europe?

I've asked you before, and you answered with "because they say so" which is wrong. You then tried to use hippie new-age crystal lay line language to respond.

And you continue to say you're looking at Tmax but either that's the hottest temperature in summer in which case, you've thrown away 99.7% of your data, OR it's on season's temperature for each day in 3 months, which isn't going to give you the number of heatwaves.

You flail about like an octopus with eplilepsy and make about as much sense.

By the way, dick, still having problem with post 469:

The non increase in temps since 2000 can be seen here:

Oh, dear, but this one doesn't it's FLAT

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut3…

The world couldn't have done both, so ONE of them MUST be wrong.

Poor attempt to cherry pick.

Posted by: Richard Wakefield | February 4, 2011 12:38 PM
+++++++++

The reason why it doesn't make sense is that YOU stated "non increase in temps since 2000", so why is that MY cherry picking?

And look at the trend. It's inclined upward.

Wow you obviously did not read the links to AGW side claiming more heat waves

âScientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research say global warming will bring about more frequent and more intense heat waves in the United States and Europe.â

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-04zzo.html

Yet another heartbreaking example of Richard's lack of understanding.

Your data from the past do not falsify a prediction about the future, Richard.

I know you have no idea what I'm talking about. Whatever.

It looks like the climate skeptical Mike Tyson, master of t-tests and the self-confounding citation, has decided to ignore Coby's question and moonlight as a free speech advocate.

And you still fail to answer a rather simple question, Dick.

Why would heatwaves get more frequent?

(you are also neither measuring nor counting heatwiaves in any case)