Death knell for AGW

[Walter]

Here's the link for the article. It cites where the "phony" graph is from.
Articles: Global Warming Melts Away

Ding, ding, ding went the bell.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

I am not going to waste time on the ravings of an aircraft engineer (retired) walter. Hs graphs are all either false of misconstrued. Every one of them and his conclusions absurd. Here is a link to a site that will explain global sea ice and the great loss of that. In both hemispheres.

History of Arctic (and Antarctic) Sea Ice, Part 1 | Open Mind

And this will do foe his deliberately misleading claim of cooling for the nine years since 2002. He has simply picked 2002, btw, because it was a very hot year and a favourite of climate denial cherrypickers as a deceptive startin point. There has indeed been warming since then, 2005 and 2007 were much warmer than 2002. But, scientists who say that the warming for the period is not statistically significant, also say that there was warming. The period was not long enough to call the arming trend significant.

They DO say that the decade from 2000 was the warmest in the record and THAT is significant.

I will respond to any particular claim that you make but I am not going to deal with every point in a delusional denier`s fantasy.

Now practise spelling bad again.

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)

 

[EagleSmack]

Now practise spelling bad again.

Looks like you're leading "practice" today.

 

[CDNBear]

Looks like you're leading "practice" today.

I was going to say that yesterday. But figured I'd leave it alone until he figured out how to use the quote function.

 

[EagleSmack]

I bet he wishes he could use the editing function now.

Now practise spelling bad again.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Possibly you smart alecs could try browsing a dictionary. Practise is correct.

 

[CDNBear]

Possibly you smart alecs could try browsing a dictionary. Practise is correct.

Ummm...

I am not going to waste time on the ravings of an aircraft engineer (retired) walter. Hs graphs are all either false of misconstrued. Every one of them and his conclusions absurd. Here is a link to a site that will explain global sea ice and the great loss of that. In both hemispheres.

And this will do foe his deliberately misleading claim of cooling for the nine years since 2002. He has simply picked 2002, btw, because it was a very hot year and a favourite of climate denial cherrypickers as a deceptive startin point. There has indeed been warming since then, 2005 and 2007 were much warmer than 2002. But, scientists who say that the warming for the period is not statistically significant, also say that there was warming. The period was not long enough to call the arming trend significant.

Now practise spelling bad again.

Carry on.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

That is rather pitiful, bear. Do you want battles of nitpicking? Have you nothing of substance to say on the topic.

And practise is correct.

 

[CDNBear]

That is rather pitiful, bear.

That's a proper noun, and I agree, it is rather pitiful to point out someones spelling, when your post is littered with spelling errors, yet here you are.

Do you want battles of nitpicking?

No, I just like pointing out irony.

Have you nothing of substance to say on the topic.

I take it that was supposed to have a question mark at the end of it, and yes, I did have something of substance to say, here. Although I'm not sure how you came up with the assumptions in the post I was replying to.

And practise is correct.

Can you point out where I said anything to the contrary?

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Your calling that "something of substance" on this topic shows only that you are not up to speed with it.

And, I made no comment about anyone's spelling. There could be reasons for errors in that and I much prefer to have substantive converstaion about the question at issue.

One reason, in my case, at the moment, is that I am having a great deal of difficulty with this computer; freezing and hanging. I responded and posted because I wanted the discussion to continue. Not that I wanted to make supercilious commentary.

 

[CDNBear]

Your calling that "something of substance" on this topic shows only that you are not up to speed with it.

The fact that I wasn't given much to reply to aside...

And, I made no comment about anyone's spelling.

Your dishonesty negates the validity of your previous observation...

Now practise spelling bad again.

There could be reasons for errors in that and I much prefer to have substantive converstaion about the question at issue.

Is that whey the post that I replied to in my link was filled with assumption?

One reason, in my case, at the moment, is that I am having a great deal of difficulty with this computer; freezing and hanging.

Maybe Walter was having the same issue.

Not that I wanted to make supercilious commentary.

Yet in the post I replied to in my link, and your posted reply to Walter, you do just that.

Interesting, you aren't even aware you make supercilious comments.

Just sayin' dude.

 

[captain morgan]

That is rather pitiful, bear. Do you want battles of nitpicking? Have you nothing of substance to say on the topic.

Lemme give it a try

I am not going to waste time on the ravings of an aircraft engineer (retired) walter. Hs graphs are all either false of misconstrued. Every one of them and his conclusions absurd. Here is a link to a site that will explain global sea ice and the great loss of that. In both hemispheres.

History of Arctic (and Antarctic) Sea Ice, Part 1 | Open Mind

My interpretation of the above is that you won't waste your time considering alternate opinion... If memory serves, we recently had a discussion on the issue of exactly who were 'experts' in this field that is arguably in it's infancy.

Regardless, while you dismiss Walter's contributions from a 'raving aircraft engineer (retired)', you have little compunction in relying on a blog site for the definitive and expert analysis on this issue. I do realize that it is called 'Open Mind', but reading a bit through the contents, it's pretty clear that this site is comprised of true believers and no amount of dissent will be posted for discussion.

That said, if the strategy is to question the author(s) or foundation of the ideas, perhaps it's a good idea to rebut the position with a more credible source.

And this will do foe his deliberately misleading claim of cooling for the nine years since 2002. He has simply picked 2002, btw, because it was a very hot year and a favourite of climate denial cherrypickers as a deceptive startin point. There has indeed been warming since then, 2005 and 2007 were much warmer than 2002. But, scientists who say that the warming for the period is not statistically significant, also say that there was warming. The period was not long enough to call the arming trend significant.

Nothing misleading about it; if 2002 is the point that was chosen to measure a trend, then so be it. It sounds to me like you are simply not happy that the trends are not being realized in the fashion that you wish.

They DO say that the decade from 2000 was the warmest in the record and THAT is significant.

On record, eh?

My question is this: How long has the 'record' been kept, how accurate was it kept and considering that we are really looking at geologic-style time frames, how is such a short period relevant?

I will respond to any particular claim that you make but I am not going to deal with every point in a delusional denier`s fantasy.

... And there we have it folks; it's clear that you won't 'deal' with any comment, theory or observation that is not parallel with your preconceived ideals.

How scientific of you.

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)

Many things correlate with temp. Don't delude yourself in believing that CO2 is some magical weather vane that is the end-all-be-all.

 

[Tonington]

I don't know more about that "graph" other than it came from that comedy publication. It is phony, obviously but I need to know what they are claiming and where they got it from. It looks like something Anthony Watts dreamed up.

Actually, the data looks fine. The problem with that graph is that the y-axis scale makes it hard to see the actual change. Eyeballing, the temperature change over that time series appears to be close to a full degree of increased temperature, which is consistent with what has happened with the global average over the given period of time.

It's poor practice to create a graphic like that. Most of the range in the y-axis is unused. A better graph would have ranged between +/- 2°C for the anomalies. Since they don't actually post the actual trend, the coarse range makes it more difficult to see what is actually happening.

Now at American Thinker, they submit that choosing a sensible scale like that would be alarmist. But in reality, if the actual trend was given, then it doesn't actually matter what the scale is. The trend value wouldn't change, obviously. It's the data that determines the trend value not the scale of the axis. Further, their justification for choosing the +/- 8°C range is pure bunkum. They chose two sites on the globe, where the variability is high. But the data in the graph is for global temperature, which has has far less variability.

Par for the course unfortunately. We deserve better skeptics.

 

[DaSleeper]

My favorite Chart..........;-)

 

[Walter]

Looks like you're leading "practice" today.

In English usage, outside the US, practice is the noun and practise is the verb. So, you're both right. Bt i'm still wondering what kind of spelling errors i made. "Bad spelers of the world untie."

 

[Tonington]

Actually, the data looks fine. The problem with that graph is that the y-axis scale makes it hard to see the actual change. Eyeballing, the temperature change over that time series appears to be close to a full degree of increased temperature, which is consistent with what has happened with the global average over the given period of time.

It's poor practice to create a graphic like that. Most of the range in the y-axis is unused. A better graph would have ranged between +/- 2°C for the anomalies. Since they don't actually post the actual trend, the coarse range makes it more difficult to see what is actually happening.

Now at American Thinker, they submit that choosing a sensible scale like that would be alarmist. But in reality, if the actual trend was given, then it doesn't actually matter what the scale is. The trend value wouldn't change, obviously. It's the data that determines the trend value not the scale of the axis. Further, their justification for choosing the +/- 8°C range is pure bunkum. They chose two sites on the globe, where the variability is high. But the data in the graph is for global temperature, which has has far less variability.

Par for the course unfortunately. We deserve better skeptics.

Do you have a problem with this Walter that you care to discuss? I'm content that the Walter mark of disapproval. Though I would be interested to hear what you feel is wrong with the scientific conventions for displaying figures.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

That is the point, Tonington. Since I am not a statistician, I did not feel like trying to explain it, It is, though, a common feature of the denialist constructions to stretch the 'y' axis.

2002 was, as I wrote, chosen because it was one of the warmer years. That falsifies the trend.

I said nothing about Walter's spelling. If anyone cares to look at that rating procedure, It would be obvious that I was poking fun at him for the string of "bads."

Why I would not waste time on that site by the retired aircraft engineer is simply that every one of his claims is absurd and contrary to what every scientist in this world says. Even Fred Singer would be embarrasses to think he agree with any of it. It seems to come straight from the lunatic Lord (Monckton).

I will happily, as I wrote, try to respond as well as I can to anything critical or not critical. That exercise with that non scientist would be foolish.

 

[L Gilbert]

In this case, groups like the IPCC failed miserably in their use and reliance on peer review. As a self appointed authority, mandated by the UN no less, they made numerous critical errors in the area of 'peer review'. Also, one of the signature scientific groups that the UN/IPCC relied upon was East Anglia University and we all recall what transpired at that research facility.

Yep. Public opinion being what it is....... ignorant. "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations." -Wiki

In part, the above events acts to severely undermine any strength that is associated with 'peer review'

I agree, but it is only in public opinion. And there are no better checks and balances on scientific research than the critiques of other researchers. At least none that I have heard about.

I still get a kick out of the 'denial' label... It is indeed highly theatrical.

Is there a better term?

Regardless, I certainly do not 'deny' that any living organization (incl humanity) has some form of impact on the climate (however marginal that may be), but the basis of my 'denial' is founded in the millions of years of history that exemplified dramatic swings in the climate record that resulted in kilometer-thick sheets of ice covering continents to lush tropical-like vegetation in the same area millenia earlier (or later).

I agree there are cycles. But as I posted before, with links, the cycle this time has had an extended warming period. What is the reason this warming period has been longer than the others over the past hundreds of thousands of years? Do you have any idea? (I mean based upon evidence.)

 

[CDNBear]

I said nothing about Walter's spelling.

*Clears throat*...

Now practise spelling bad again.

If anyone cares to look at that rating procedure, It would be obvious that I was poking fun at him for the string of "bads."

Ahhh yes, because spelling has so much to do with it... :roll:

I will happily, as I wrote, try to respond as well as I can to anything critical or not critical.

How about questions, do you respond to them?

 

[L Gilbert]

There are only a handful of climatologists participating in the scam. As for "Climarte Scientists" there is no specified field of study, a climate scientist could a be dentist who writes a paper and has other dentists review it and can then be submitted to the IPCC.

Physical Meteorologists study the properties of the atmosphere, the transmission of light, sound and radio waves, and the factors that affect the formation of weather.
Meteorologists study the atmosphere and weather.
Synoptic Meteorologists develop new tools for forecasting weather.
Atmospheric Scientists study weather, ozone, climate change and pollution of the atmosphere.
Operational Meteorologists forecast the weather.
Climatologists study climates.
Dentists study dentistry.