Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Real Climate Temperature “Trend” Article Gets It Wrong (Like So Many Do)
Everything that can go wrong with a time series analysis has gone wrong with the post “Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?” at Real Climate. So many classic mistakes are made that I hesitate to show them all. But it’ll be worth it to do so. Be sure to read to the end where I ascribe blame.
The model is not the data
Here is the author’s Figure 2, which is the “HadCRUT4 hybrid data, which have the most sophisticated method to fill data gaps in the Arctic with the help of satellites”. Keep that “data gaps” phrase in the back of your mind; for now, let it pass.
The caption reads “Global temperature 1998 to present” and (from Fig. 1) “monthly values (crosses), 12-months running mean (red line) and linear trend line with uncertainty (blue)”.
Supposing no error or misunderstandings in the data (for now), those light gray crosses are the temperatures. They are the most important part of this plot. But you can’t tell because the data has, in effect, been replaced by a model. Two models, actually, both of which because they are so boldly and vividly colored take on vastly more importance than mere reality.
The data happened, the models did not. That blue line did not occur; neither has the red line anything to do with reality. These are fictions; fantasies; phantasms. The red line claims nothing; no words are devoted to it except to announce its presence; it is a mystery why it is even there. It is a distraction, a visual lie. Well, fib. There is no reason in the world to condense reality in this fashion. We already know how reality happened.
more
Real Climate Temperature “Trend” Article Gets It Wrong (Like So Many Do) | William M. Briggs
Everything that can go wrong with a time series analysis has gone wrong with the post “Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?” at Real Climate. So many classic mistakes are made that I hesitate to show them all. But it’ll be worth it to do so. Be sure to read to the end where I ascribe blame.
The model is not the data
Here is the author’s Figure 2, which is the “HadCRUT4 hybrid data, which have the most sophisticated method to fill data gaps in the Arctic with the help of satellites”. Keep that “data gaps” phrase in the back of your mind; for now, let it pass.
The caption reads “Global temperature 1998 to present” and (from Fig. 1) “monthly values (crosses), 12-months running mean (red line) and linear trend line with uncertainty (blue)”.
Supposing no error or misunderstandings in the data (for now), those light gray crosses are the temperatures. They are the most important part of this plot. But you can’t tell because the data has, in effect, been replaced by a model. Two models, actually, both of which because they are so boldly and vividly colored take on vastly more importance than mere reality.
The data happened, the models did not. That blue line did not occur; neither has the red line anything to do with reality. These are fictions; fantasies; phantasms. The red line claims nothing; no words are devoted to it except to announce its presence; it is a mystery why it is even there. It is a distraction, a visual lie. Well, fib. There is no reason in the world to condense reality in this fashion. We already know how reality happened.
more
Real Climate Temperature “Trend” Article Gets It Wrong (Like So Many Do) | William M. Briggs
What are the chances that an accelerated spreading of the Pacific rift and the butterfly effect of that extra heat is to set up just North America for massive cooling and because that Atlantic is not spreading that fast she will only see the UK get buried and the rest will not see any ill effects (less flooding perhaps) at all? I'm sure Europe and Asia can feed an extra 400M people because we planted the wrong crops.
strange your self-proclaimed 'statistician to the stars' didn't address the meat of the article... the change point analysis focus. Of course, your "stats guy" (err... McIntyre's stats guy, right) has been wrong several times over and had to eat his blogging humble pie, right Locutus?). In any case, let's look forward to your now "blogging stats guy" formally challenging the Cowtan&Way publications that support their position on "gap filling hybridization"... the earliest of those have been out now for some time (over a year) and in just a short time have been cited several times over now. As an example, what's your guy waiting for, hey Locutus?
if you want to have a C&P of dueling stats guys Locutus, try this one... this statistician writing on the "pause that's not" and the very article your guy presumes to call out... of course, this guy (Grant Foster aka Tamino) actually publishes in relation to climate science... your guy, not so much, hey Locutus?
profound taxi, profound!
Tourette's DuhSleeper! :mrgreen: The guy who shouts Bullshyte for NO REASON!
step up and check your Tourette's!!! :mrgreen: You stated you had NO REASON for making your claim... that you needed NO REASON for making your claim. And you're the guy throwing down a fuzzy bunny! You refuse to take my challenge to state why you're doing what you're doing... well, other than for being the loyal clubhouseBRO lapdog you are!
step up and check your Tourette's!!! :mrgreen: You stated you had NO REASON for making your claim... that you needed NO REASON for making your claim. And you're the guy throwing down a fuzzy bunny! You refuse to take my challenge to state why you're doing what you're doing... well, other than for being the loyal clubhouseBRO lapdog you are!
Were you ever in Machu Picchu......Yes or No!
And you can posts all the charts an graph you want nobody looks at them anymore
And you can posts all the charts an graph you want nobody looks at them anymore
Take mine Liar
Were you ever in Machu Picchu......Yes or No!
And you can posts all the charts an graph you want nobody looks at them anymore
Were you ever in Machu Picchu......Yes or No!
And you can posts all the charts an graph you want nobody looks at them anymore
oh my... I leave for the day and you stop posting! I, I, I.... validate you... I validate your presence here! if I wasn't here you'd have no posting contribution whatsoever. This way you get to keep up your Tourette's shouting Bullshyte for, as you've self acknowledged, NO REASON... while dropping your furry pink bunny safety blankee!
Can Climate Science be any more Ridiculous?
Let’s simply state what the First Law of Thermodynamics is. From Wiki:
“Does it pass energy as work, heat, or with matter, into the sphere or planet?“
Consider the passive steel shell around the internally heated sphere, the so-called steel greenhouse.
1. Does the passive steel shell do work on the sphere? No, it doesn’t touch the sphere, or at most, simply rests upon the sphere’s surface.
2. Does the passive steel shell send heat to the sphere? No, it’s passive firstly, and secondly, it’s cooler. It has no heat to send to the sphere. Therefore, it sends no heat to the sphere.
3. Does the passive steel shell pass matter into the sphere? No, there’s no exchange of matter.
Therefore, the shell does not cause the sphere to heat up beyond the heat input that the sphere is internally provided. QED.
The same goes for a gas around a planet, in the context of the sophistically-named “radiative greenhouse effect” of climate pseudoscience.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is all you need to debunk climate alarm, and its sophistical greenhouse effect.
Comical, really.
Read more
Let’s simply state what the First Law of Thermodynamics is. From Wiki:
First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.
So whether you’re talking of a steel shell around a heated sphere, or a gas around a planet, or a component of a gas around a planet, ask yourself the question:
“Does it pass energy as work, heat, or with matter, into the sphere or planet?“
Consider the passive steel shell around the internally heated sphere, the so-called steel greenhouse.
1. Does the passive steel shell do work on the sphere? No, it doesn’t touch the sphere, or at most, simply rests upon the sphere’s surface.
2. Does the passive steel shell send heat to the sphere? No, it’s passive firstly, and secondly, it’s cooler. It has no heat to send to the sphere. Therefore, it sends no heat to the sphere.
3. Does the passive steel shell pass matter into the sphere? No, there’s no exchange of matter.
Therefore, the shell does not cause the sphere to heat up beyond the heat input that the sphere is internally provided. QED.
The same goes for a gas around a planet, in the context of the sophistically-named “radiative greenhouse effect” of climate pseudoscience.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is all you need to debunk climate alarm, and its sophistical greenhouse effect.
Comical, really.
Read more
geezaz! There's denier blogs... and then there's those SkyDragon idiots at Principa who presume to refute the Greenhouse Effect! This Locutus, is a new low... even for you!
JunkScience.com @JunkScience EPA chief wants to 'DEPOLITICIZE' climate change, apparently by SILENCING DISSENT. http://wapo.st/1I2U26t
mental masturbation :lol:
as I recall your go-to C&P stable of blogs and twitter feeds, effectively, presents what you're labeling "DISSENT"; it represents nothing more than, typically, unsubstantiated claims put forward on denier blogs... to you, Blog Science Rules! To you, denier bloggers aren't required to formally challenge existing published science... to you, denier bloggers aren't required to formally publish their blog claims in legitimate journals. To you, denier bloggers who have never published anything, who do no actual scientific work/research... these are your "DISSENTING" sources. And you presume to speak of legitimizing your representations of "DISSENT"???
Steve Goddard @SteveSGoddard Mike's "nature trick would not have survived peer review in any journal I would publish in" @MichaelEMann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk