No statistically significant warming since 1995
Eric Gisin
Unlike green scientists, he answers criticism in the comments.
Great comment about leftist religion in Avatar from Anon Cosmologist.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-statistically-significant-warming.html
Friday, December 25, 2009 ...
Because there has been some confusion - and maybe deliberate confusion - among some (alarmist)
commenters about the non-existence of a statistically significant warming trend since 1995, i.e. in
the last fifteen years, let me dedicate a full article to this issue.
[rest at URL]
JohnM
> From the awarding winning science blog of Lubos Motl.
> Unlike green scientists, he answers criticism in the comments.
No he doesn't. He rejects any comment that contains evidence he is in
error. I know - I've tried several times to post comment on one of his
glaring errors. In the end I put it up here on alt. g-w
> Great comment about leftist religion in Avatar from Anon Cosmologist.
>
> http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-statistically-significant-warmin...
>
> Friday, December 25, 2009 ...
>
> Because there has been some confusion - and maybe deliberate confusion - among some (alarmist)
> commenters about the non-existence of a statistically significant warming trend since 1995, i.e. in
> the last fifteen years, let me dedicate a full article to this issue.
I've just had a look at this and left a comment explaining to him
where his analysis has gone a little astray. We'll see if he ignores
this one.
Interestingly, the mistake he makes is quite usual among statistics
users. These are dangerous techniques when they fall into the wrong
hands.
JohnM
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> Wohoooo... did you tell Roger?
I expect he knows it.
> But ok, so this is a secret, you don't have to enlighten us.
> From my view it looks like you have nothing but hot air.
Read my comment on Motl's blog if you want to know. If he rejects it
don't worry. I'll make sure it's aired here on alt.g-w
richp
> From the awarding winning science blog of Lubos Motl.
> Unlike green scientists, he answers criticism in the comments.
> Great comment about leftist religion in Avatar from Anon Cosmologist.
>
>
> Friday, December 25, 2009 ...
>
> Because there has been some confusion - and maybe deliberate confusion - among some (alarmist)
> commenters about the non-existence of a statistically significant warming trend since 1995, i.e. in
> the last fifteen years, let me dedicate a full article to this issue.
>
> [rest at URL]
One look at the chart that you are has forced me to make the
conclusion that you indeed are a mathematical fucking idiot. Look at
1998 you fool
Sam Wormley
> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
Joern Abatz
> I've just had a look at this and left a comment explaining to him where
> his analysis has gone a little astray. We'll see if he ignores this one.
>
> Interestingly, the mistake he makes is quite usual among statistics users.
> These are dangerous techniques when they fall into the wrong hands.
> In the end I put it up here on alt. g-w
Why are you talking about what you wrote, and not just post it here.
Go ahead, enlighten us.
Joern
alanm...@yahoo.com
His reply was posted to the December 25 "Motl's Blogspot".
http://motls.blogspot.com/search/label/climate
It reads:
John Morgan
"Why not start from 1996. Let me guess why. Perhaps the result is not
as clearcut. In fact there may be significance at the 0.05 level -
which by the way is the level at which most people start to look up,
not 0.01 that you have used
In any case the essential first step in regression is for the analyst
to re-assure him/herself that the model used (t = a + bx + ϵ ,where ϵ
is a random normal variable of mean zero and finite variance) is the
correct one. You did not do this, did you? Neither do any
meterologists anlysing global tempratures as far as I can see. So
calculation of standard error and confidence intervals is
inappropriate and therefore your result is void.
You might have better luck with a non-parametric method such as
Kendall's Robust Line Fit, although a statistically significant,
positive slope wont fit your agenda quite as well, even if it shows
you doing science properly. Possibly you should next consider
confining your attention to Zen-like questions as,"How long is a piece
of string" and leave empirical science to those whose 'metier' it is.
"
Of course, Motl's test was assuming that the weather change was
linear. and that the yearly
changes in temperature were independently distributed. John
Morgan's proposal to use "Kendall's Robust Line Fit". would apply if
the changes in temperature were both linear and non-normally
distributed. Just how does JohnM think temperature "errors' are
both linear and non-normal? Does he admit that temperature
fluctuations might follow a 60 year PDO sinewave, and that skeptics
ofdangerous AGW are correct when they say that temperature increases
are overestimated by starting from the bottom of a sine trough ?
If yearly temperature differences are NOT independent- ie colder
than normal years are much less likely than average years to be
followed by a warmer than average year, then a much large sample
would be needed to determine that a trend is significant.
I agree with John Morgan that temperatures do not follow a linear
model with difference distrbuted NORMALLy; I figure temperatures are
more likely to follow a HURST distribution.
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/537/1/documents/2003HSJHurst.pdf
Basically, that implies that you need a whole hell of a lot more data
before you can rule on statistically significant trends.
With a standard deviation of 1, and a normal distribution, in a time
series of 100 years,
the error of the estimate would be 1/(SQRT 100) = 0.1
For a Hurst coefficient of 0.75, similar to what Hurst himself
measured in determining the frequency distribution of flood and
drought years, the error of the estimate would be
1/ SQRT (100^0.5) = 0.316.
You'd need a sample size of 10,000 to get the same level of
significance as with an independent, normally distributed sample of
100.
- A. McIntire
I M @ good guy
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>Statistics can be dangerous?
>Wohoooo... did you tell Roger?
>
>But ok, so this is a secret, you don't have to enlighten us.
>From my view it looks like you have nothing but hot air.
Is there a sulfur smell?
Climate Realist
.> Why are you talking about what you wrote, and not just
.> post it here. Go ahead, enlighten us.
Alarmists do NOT share information with non-believers. After all, it
might be used to prove the alarmists wrong.
JohnM's purpose is to make your life as difficult as possible. He is
hoping to impress people with his logorrhea, knowing that 99% of
people will never check up on his reference. If somebody does check
his reference, and finds it pathologically stupid, then JohnM will
say, "ha ha ha, I wasted your time, I knew that all along".
To show people what I mean, I will paste JohnM's comment here, and for
the hard of hearing, I will translate if from stupidese/windbagian
into plain english. My translation will be in angle brackets << like
this >>.
---------------------------------------
John Morgan
Why not start from 1996. Let me guess why. Perhaps the result is not
as clearcut. In fact there may be significance at the 0.05 level -
which by the way is the level at which most people start to look up,
not 0.01 that you have used
<< why didn't JohnM actually do the test that he suggests himself (it
is simple enough), then he could tell us if the result was
significant. Rather than hint that PERHAPS it MIGHT not be as clearcut
(but it might be). There MAY be significance (but there might NOT be).
So the overall purpose of this paragraph appears to be to confuse the
issue as much as possible. >>
In any case the essential first step in regression is for the analyst
to re-assure him/herself that the model used (t = a + bx + ϵ ,where ϵ
is a random normal variable of mean zero and finite variance) is the
correct one. You did not do this, did you? Neither do any
meterologists anlysing global tempratures as far as I can see. So
calculation of standard error and confidence intervals is
inappropriate and therefore your result is void.
<< Some statistical guidelines cut and pasted from a web site. Note
that JohnM has never given this advice to his close friend and fellow
Alarmist "Roger Regression Coppock". Perhaps Roger would like to know
that his regressions are NOT valid, because they are based on
incorrect assumptions. Roger's results are VOID. >>
You might have better luck with a non-parametric method such as
Kendall's Robust Line Fit, although a statistically significant,
positive slope wont fit your agenda quite as well, even if it shows
you doing science properly. Possibly you should next consider
confining your attention to Zen-like questions as,"How long is a piece
of string" and leave empirical science to those whose 'metier' it is.
<< I found the name of this statistical test on a web site, and I am
going to use it so that people will think that I know what I am
talking about, and that I am brilliant. If anybody asks me about it, I
will tell them to do their own homework, it is not my job to educate
the ignorant. I will imply that it gives a positive slope, but who
knows what result it really does give, probably a negative slope (must
hide the decline). Finally I will finish with some lofty sounding put-
downs (What is the sound of one JohnM crapping? and don't give up your
day job). >>
Surfer
<er...@nospammail.net> wrote:
>
>http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-statistically-significant-warming.html
>
Yes. The temperature plot he uses shows no significant warming since
1995.
But here is a plot of global lower troposphere temperature anomaly
from 1979 to 2009.
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/0709tlt_bar.jpg
This shows that since 1995 the fluctuations now lie almost entirely
ABOVE the zero axis, whereas several decades ago they were evenly
balanced above and below the axis.
This suggests that AGW has merely been hidden since 1995 by natural
fluctuations.
There is also evidence of warming from indicators other than
temperature.
Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing:
(See graph at right)
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Larger image here
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn
The global sea level is rising:
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water
due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice.
The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows:
1870 - 1990 1.7 mm/year
1990 - 2009 3.3 mm/year
Giant Antarctic glacier is thinning
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm
Note: It you let a glass of ice cold water containing ice cubes warm up,
the water will stay at approximately zero degrees until all the ice melts.
So warming doesn't necessarily show itself as a steady increase
in temperature.
Sam Wormley
>
> Why not start 5000 years ago, or 12000 years ago?
>
> Decline -0.5 �C
> http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/v5000.png
>
> Decline -0.3 �C
> http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/vtrendz.png
>
> No warming insight. DOT.
Look at 200,000 years and, in particular, the last 150 years:
> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
>
>> Ref:http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/30103
>> The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change
>> Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder
>> 2007 Icon Books
>> 256pp �9.99/$15.95 pb
>
>> "For scientists, the archetypal romantic hero is the unappreciated pioneer working long
>> hours while being scorned for his unorthodox, but ultimately correct, ideas. Galileo is
>> the defining case, though picking just from the field of earth science, Svante Arrhenius,
>> Milutin Milankovitch, Louis Agassiz, Guy Callendar and Alfred Wegener all endured their
>> time in the wilderness before their ideas were finally vindicated. It is unsurprising then
>> that many lone researchers who find their ideas criticized by the scientific establishment
>> like to portray themselves in this light".
>
>> "The authors would do well to consider that the criticism they have received is not due to
>> the implications of their ideas, but to their track record of dubious and premature
>> claims. The sad thing is that their underlying idea may have some merit, but a credible
>> theory is unlikely to emerge from under the weight of this embarrassing bunk".
>
>> Apr 3, 2008
>> Do cosmic rays cause climate change?
>> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33645
>
>> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a major
>> report in 2007 saying that most of the Earth's warming over the last
>> 50 years has been manmade. However some researchers believe that the
>> observed temperature changes could instead be caused primarily by
>> variations in natural phenomena -- including changes to the flux of
>> galactic cosmic rays striking the Earth's atmosphere.
>> Now, two particle physicists in the UK claim to have shown that there
>> is little evidence that variations in the cosmic ray flux affect
>> Earth's climate -- although a group in the Ukraine believes that such
>> a link can explain long-term temperature trends.
>
>> Cosmic rays and clouds
>
>> The idea that cosmic rays -- high-energy particles that bombard Earth
>> from space -- could be affecting the Earth's climate was put forward
>> by physicist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute
>> in Copenhagen and colleagues in the late 1990s. Svensmark found that
>> variations in global cloud cover at altitudes of up to 3 km, as
>> revealed by satellite data from 1983 onwards, correlated neatly with
>> the incident cosmic ray flux measured by neutron counters located
>> around the world. Furthermore these variations matched changes in
>> sunspot activity, which varies on an 11-year cycle, with the peak in
>> sunspot activity, which occurred around 1990, corresponding to a
>> minimum in incident cosmic rays and coverage of low clouds.
>> Svensmark and colleagues proposed that greater sunspot activity,
>> which causes the Sun to emit larger numbers of charged particles (the
>> solar wind), decreases the flux of cosmic rays reaching the Earth
>> from elsewhere in our galaxy because the solar wind's increased
>> magnetic field deflects more of them away from our planet. Because,
>> he claims, these cosmic rays ionize the atmosphere and water droplets
>> then condense on the ions, a decrease in the cosmic ray flux will
>> lead to a reduction in cloud cover. Lower cloud cover, he says, will
>> then, on balance, cause the Earth to heat up.
>
>> Significant uncertainties
>
>> However, significant uncertainties in Svensmark's theory have meant
>> that the IPCC did not include cosmic rays as a possible cause of
>> climate change in their report issued last year.
>
>> Now, new research by Terry Sloan of the University of Lancaster and
>> Arnold Wolfendale of the University of Durham has cast further doubt
>> on the link between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover (Environ. Res.
>> Lett. 3 024001 ). The pair says that the observed correlation between
>> cosmic rays and cloud cover does not imply that variations in the
>> former cause changes in the latter. They came to this conclusion
>> after looking for correlations between the two observables beyond the
>> simple global averaged data from the sunspot cycle.
>
>> No such correlation
>
>> The first of two such correlations they looked for was that between
>> cosmic ray flux and cloud cover at different magnetic latitudes.
>> Galactic cosmic rays are also deflected by the Earth's own magnetic
>> field, but this deflection is lower at the poles than it is at the
>> equator, so it is at the former that the full effect of changes to
>> the solar wind is felt and hence the \u201cdip\u201d in cosmic ray
>> flux at the time of the solar maximum is more pronounced here. Sloan
>> and Wolfendale looked to see if there was a corresponding variation
>> in the cloud cover dip across magnetic latitudes but found none. They
>> also looked to see if sudden bursts or reductions in the cosmic ray
>> flux, which do occur throughout a solar cycle, were accompanied by
>> increases or decreases in low cloud cover. Again they found no such
>> correlation.
>
>> By performing a statistical analysis on their first correlation, the
>> UK researchers concluded that no more than 23% of the reduction in
>> global low cloud cover at the time of the 1990 solar maximum was
>> caused by the lower cosmic ray flux, pointing out that there are all
>> sorts of other effects that could have been to blame instead. They
>> believe their analysis can be used by climatologists to put an upper
>> limit on the impact of cosmic rays on global warming. \u201cWe have
>> shown that Svensmark has no ground on which to challenge the
>> IPCC,\u201d says Sloan.
>> Direct connection?
>
>> However, Sloan and Wolfendale are not the only physicists to have
>> recently turned their attention to the cosmic ray hypothesis. Vitaliy
>> Rusov of the National Polytechnic University in Odessa, Ukraine and
>> colleagues do not agree with the IPCC's view that man is to blame for
>> the recent warming. To prove their point, they looked for a direct
>> connection between cosmic ray flux and temperature.
>
>> The team constructed a model of the Earth's climate in which the only
>> significant inputs were variations in the Sun's power output and
>> changes to the galactic cosmic ray flux (arXiv: 803.2765 ). They
>> found that the model's predicted evolution of Earth's surface
>> temperature over the last 700,000 years agrees well with proxy
>> temperature data taken from Antarctic ice cores (arXiv: 0803.2766 ).
>> Rusov agrees that Svensmark's cosmic ray ionization mechanism cannot
>> fully account for the observed correlation between cosmic ray flux
>> and cloud cover, as Sloan and Wolfendale have demonstrated. But he
>> believes that a small but direct link between cosmic rays and clouds
>> could itself trigger a mechanism which causes further, and greater,
>> changes in cloud cover.
>
I M @ good guy
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:01:50 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
><er...@nospammail.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-statistically-significant-warming.html
>>
>Yes. The temperature plot he uses shows no significant warming since
>1995.
>
>But here is a plot of global lower troposphere temperature anomaly
>from 1979 to 2009.
>http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/0709tlt_bar.jpg
>
>This shows that since 1995 the fluctuations now lie almost entirely
>ABOVE the zero axis, whereas several decades ago they were evenly
>balanced above and below the axis.
>This suggests that AGW has merely been hidden since 1995 by natural
>fluctuations.
Or that it was colder than "normal" for the last
few hundred years.
>There is also evidence of warming from indicators other than
>temperature.
>
>Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing:
>(See graph at right)
>http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
>Larger image here
>http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn
Is, was, will be, wait and see, this year
may be a hum-dinger winter, my only question
is about the Arctic air always coming down
across Canada and the Great Lakes, or do
I just miss seeing the other places where
it comes down.
>The global sea level is rising:
>http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
>
>Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water
>due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice.
>The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows:
>
>1870 - 1990 1.7 mm/year
>1990 - 2009 3.3 mm/year
Have you done any calculations on what
depth the water would have to warm to for
expansion to be a noticeable factor, melting
ice absorbs heat, so it should cool the ocean
it flows into.
>Giant Antarctic glacier is thinning
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm
>
>
> Note: It you let a glass of ice cold water containing ice cubes warm up,
> the water will stay at approximately zero degrees until all the ice melts.
> So warming doesn't necessarily show itself as a steady increase
> in temperature.
Right, but don't count on Antarctica to
melt much, it hardly ever gets up to 0 C,
I can easily see that the Arctic sea ice had
a problem for a while, but that can change
real quick, way too quick for people that
like warm weather as much as I do.
Bill Ward
>> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
>> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
That graph ends in 2005.
I M @ good guy
Why does he reference an upload, and it even
looks like a bogus graph, it bears a copyright notice
by who, the met, with a graph plotted in F units,
come on.
No way has there been 1.4 degrees anomaly
except possibly for a couple of months in 1997
or 1998.
The long range forecast for the eastern half
of the US looks bad, if that rotates around to
eastern Europe, look out, they need to stock
up on fire wood (oops, maybe they aren't allowed
to cut trees).
Sirius
You failed to inform Roger Coppock of this dangerous technique.
Rob Dekker
"Eric Gisin" <er...@nospammail.net> wrote in message
news:hh87fu$roj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I respect Motl a lot, since he pointed out the flaws in the Lindzen paper.
So without negative bias, I'd say that he is correct in pointing out :
"Only the 72% confidence interval for the slope touches zero. It means that
the probability that the underlying slope is negative equals 1/2 of the
rest, i.e. a substantial 14%."
Now, 14% is still a very low probability (of temperatures being flat or
negative).
But it is also not negligable.
Still, it would be good to do the same calculation over a longer period of
accurate, correlated data recording. Say from 1979 till present.
I wonder what the probability of negative slope is over that period, as
compared to the probability over similar (30 year) periods over the past
10,000 years or so.
Rob
Rob Dekker
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:6d8gj5h20ruv1o4g6...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
> "alanm...@yahoo.com" <alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 27, 2:06 pm, Joern Abatz <for-spam-o...@abatz.de> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:25:55 -0800, JohnM wrote:
>> > > I've just had a look at this and left a comment explaining to him
>> > > where
>> > > his analysis has gone a little astray. We'll see if he ignores this
>> > > one.
>> >
>> > > Interestingly, the mistake he makes is quite usual among statistics
>> > > users.
>> > > These are dangerous techniques when they fall into the wrong hands.
>> > > In the end I put it up here on alt. g-w
>> >
>> > Why are you talking about what you wrote, and not just post it here.
>> > Go ahead, enlighten us.
>> >
>> > Joern
>>
>>
>>
>> His reply was posted to the December 25 "Motl's Blogspot".
>>
>> http://motls.blogspot.com/search/label/climate
>>
>> It reads:
>>
>> John Morgan
>> "Why not start from 1996.
>
>
> Decline -0.5 �C
> http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/v5000.png
>
> Decline -0.3 �C
> http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/vtrendz.png
>
> No warming insight. DOT.
Another way of looking at the Vostok data sets is here :
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
"As Wallace Broecker likes to say, the Earth's climate system is "an angry
beast" and one that we should not be poking with sticks, which of course is
exactly what we are doing with all our carbon dioxide and other GTG
emissions. We don't know exactly when or how "the beast" will react, but we
do know that it eventually will. It's not a matter of whether, it's only a
matter of when and how. Those of us who live in geographcal regions
affected by the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation should be especially
aware of how sensitive this part of "the beast's" anatomy is to poking and
prodding. "
Rob
Sam Wormley
>
> Classical Sam W�rmle void argument.
> You have no clue of what you're talking about.
> BTW, I also have no clue of what you are talking, but that's no surprise
> with all your void and muddled claims.
Hey Peter: Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
Did you look at this research Peter? 200,000 years Peter!
>>> Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are
>>> unique within the past 200,000 years.
>>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
>>
>>> Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie,
>>> Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander
>>> P. Wolfec
>>
>>> Abstract
>>> The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains
>>> largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we
>>> present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the
>>> past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on
>>> recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest
>>> stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early
>>> Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e)
>>> were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or
>>> exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
>>> past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature,
>>> lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In
>>> recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern
>>> and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
>>
>>> Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
>>
>>> "There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the
>>> climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to
>>> do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem
>>> has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different
>>> from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
Sam Wormley
Produce data!
Sam Wormley
Cite Data.
Sam Wormley
>
> Even GISS uses a baseline from 1951-1980.
Cite data!
JohnM
wrote:
Err... Kendall's works just fine with normally distributed data. The
point is that it also works with non-normal, heteroscedastic data as
well.
The linearity issue is a red herring. Fitting a regression is done for
purposes of interpolation and sometimes for prediction. It is never
done with the idea of demonstrating linearity.
Departure from linearity will only reduce the power and give non-
significant results.
Does he admit that temperature
> fluctuations might follow a 60 year PDO sinewave, and that skeptics
> ofdangerous AGW are correct when they say that temperature increases
> are overestimated by starting from the bottom of a sine trough ?
Strawman. The discussion is about whether there has been no
significant warming since 1997. There is no hint anywhere that the
result is to be interpreted in a certain way.
> If yearly temperature differences are NOT independent- ie colder
> than normal years are much less likely than average years to be
> followed by a warmer than average year, then a much large sample
> would be needed to determine that a trend is significant.
Indeed. That is why most analyses take 30-year periods as a minimum
> I agree with John Morgan that temperatures do not follow a linear
> model with difference distrbuted NORMALLy; I figure temperatures are
> more likely to follow a HURST distribution.
>
> http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/537/1/documents/2003HSJHurst.pdf
>
> Basically, that implies that you need a whole hell of a lot more data
> before you can rule on statistically significant trends.
>
> With a standard deviation of 1, and a normal distribution, in a time
> series of 100 years,
> the error of the estimate would be 1/(SQRT 100) = 0.1
>
> For a Hurst coefficient of 0.75, similar to what Hurst himself
> measured in determining the frequency distribution of flood and
> drought years, the error of the estimate would be
> 1/ SQRT (100^0.5) = 0.316.
> You'd need a sample size of 10,000 to get the same level of
> significance as with an independent, normally distributed sample of
> 100.
Why mess with such involved methods when the question that needs
answering right now is: Has there been significant warming since 1997?
Application of a non-parametric test of association between
temperature figures and date for the period 1997 to 2009 will indicate
whether it's game on, or not.
JohnM
> "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
>
> "As Wallace Broecker likes to say, the Earth's climate system is "an angry
> beast" and one that we should not be poking with sticks, which of course is
> exactly what we are doing with all our carbon dioxide and other GTG
> emissions. We don't know exactly when or how "the beast" will react, but we
> do know that it eventually will. It's not a matter of whether, it's only a
> matter of when and how. Those of us who live in geographcal regions
> affected by the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation should be especially
> aware of how sensitive this part of "the beast's" anatomy is to poking and
> prodding. "
Quite so. I've been saying as much for years, but it's all "deaf ears"
on this NG.
Sam Wormley
You sure do have trouble casting doubt on global climate change,
Peter. You really should be taking this seriously, making a
"scientific" argument showing why climatologists (in your opinion)
are wrong. That would be too much research and work, eh Peter!
You don't like these papers? Show why they are wrong!
Claudius Denk
> On 12/28/09 9:57 AM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>
>
> >> On 12/27/09 11:21 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:59:51 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >>>>> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
>
> >>> That graph ends in 2005.
>
> >> Produce data!
>
> > Shut up, imposter!
>
> You sure do have trouble casting doubt on global climate change,
> Peter. You really should be taking this seriously, making a
> "scientific" argument showing why climatologists (in your opinion)
> are wrong. That would be too much research and work, eh Peter!
>
> You don't like these papers? Show why they are wrong!
You first, show why they are right!
JohnM
> On Dec 28, 10:06 am, Joern Abatz <for-spam-o...@abatz.de> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:25:55 -0800, JohnM wrote:
> > > I've just had a look at this and left a comment explaining to him where
> > > his analysis has gone a little astray. We'll see if he ignores this one.
>
> > > Interestingly, the mistake he makes is quite usual among statistics users.
> > > These are dangerous techniques when they fall into the wrong hands.
> > > In the end I put it up here on alt. g-w
>
> > Why are you talking about what you wrote, and not just post it here.
> > Go ahead, enlighten us.
> .> Why are you talking about what you wrote, and not just
> .> post it here. Go ahead, enlighten us.
>
> Alarmists do NOT share information with non-believers. After all, it
> might be used to prove the alarmists wrong.
>
> JohnM's purpose is to make your life as difficult as possible. He is
> hoping to impress people with his logorrhea, knowing that 99% of
> people will never check up on his reference. If somebody does check
> his reference, and finds it pathologically stupid, then JohnM will
> say, "ha ha ha, I wasted your time, I knew that all along".
>
> To show people what I mean, I will paste JohnM's comment here, and for
> the hard of hearing, I will translate if from stupidese/windbagian
> into plain english. My translation will be in angle brackets << like
> this >>.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> John Morgan
> Why not start from 1996. Let me guess why. Perhaps the result is not
> as clearcut. In fact there may be significance at the 0.05 level -
> which by the way is the level at which most people start to look up,
> not 0.01 that you have used
>
> << why didn't JohnM actually do the test that he suggests himself
Because any result will be as void as Motl's result you silly twerp.
I'm not going to waste time analysing hopelessly flawed data.
(it
> is simple enough), then he could tell us if the result was
> significant. Rather than hint that PERHAPS it MIGHT not be as clearcut
> (but it might be). There MAY be significance (but there might NOT be).
> So the overall purpose of this paragraph appears to be to confuse the
> issue as much as possible. >>
>
> In any case the essential first step in regression is for the analyst
> to re-assure him/herself that the model used (t = a + bx + ϵ ,where ϵ
> is a random normal variable of mean zero and finite variance) is the
> correct one. You did not do this, did you? Neither do any
> meterologists anlysing global tempratures as far as I can see. So
> calculation of standard error and confidence intervals is
> inappropriate and therefore your result is void.
>
> << Some statistical guidelines cut and pasted from a web site.
Must have been a pretty crappy website - they couldn't even spell
'meteorologist', 'analysing' or 'temperature' and failed to use Greek
letters for two parameters in the equation.
<marked as sarcasm or otherwise it will go straight over Mr Fuckwit
Realist's head>
Note
> that JohnM has never given this advice to his close friend and fellow
> Alarmist "Roger Regression Coppock".
Then you don't read this NG very closely. I'm already on record here
saying that parametric linear regression of global temperatures is
inappropriate.
Perhaps Roger would like to know
> that his regressions are NOT valid, because they are based on
> incorrect assumptions. Roger's results are VOID. >>
The problem is like that of the 'hockey stick' The result will still
stand, even when more appropriate statistics are used. I forget which
statistician said there are three levels of significance - 'not
obvious'. 'obvious' and 'blindingly obvious'. The increase in
temperature since 1880 to 2009 is the latter, so no testing is needed.
> You might have better luck with a non-parametric method such as
> Kendall's Robust Line Fit, although a statistically significant,
> positive slope wont fit your agenda quite as well, even if it shows
> you doing science properly. Possibly you should next consider
> confining your attention to Zen-like questions as,"How long is a piece
> of string" and leave empirical science to those whose 'metier' it is.
>
> << I found the name of this statistical test on a web site, and I am
> going to use it so that people will think that I know what I am
> talking about, and that I am brilliant.
Can you let me have the URL, please. Hopefully it will come with a
plug in that allows one to perform the regression without having to do
more than type in the data.
If anybody asks me about it, I
> will tell them to do their own homework, it is not my job to educate
> the ignorant.
Oh, go on, do me that one little favour... pretty please. I really
don't want to have to slug it out on paper, especially with 180 data
points => 16,110 slopes to calculate. That's assuming I can find un-
massaged data - to substitute for the "adjusted" data Motl worked
with.
I will imply that it gives a positive slope, but who
> knows what result it really does give, probably a negative slope (must
> hide the decline). Finally I will finish with some lofty sounding put-
> downs
It's an 'in' joke, dummy. Motl made his reputation by performing
baffling mathematical juggling within 'string theory'.
I'd better tell everyone that it's a cosmological theory, or Mr
Fuckwit Realist will think its to do with tying parcels and start
asking Petey Mulebaiter about it.
(What is the sound of one JohnM crapping?
I'd have given 8/10 for that had it been original.
and don't give up your
> day job).
That one always earns 0/10. Do try to work on something original, but
please make sure it isn't in science.
I M @ good guy
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>You overlooked the 1850-1900 average base line.
>
>Even GISS uses a baseline from 1951-1980.
No doubt, the 1960s and 1970s were cold,
with lots of snow cover.
But inept scientists can only relate to one cause.
CO2 causes everything.
Ouroboros Rex
> From the awarding winning science blog of Lubos Motl.
...insane denialist liar. Who's he want to kill this week? lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On Dec 28, 10:06 am, Joern Abatz <for-spam-o...@abatz.de> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:25:55 -0800, JohnM wrote:
>>> I've just had a look at this and left a comment explaining to him
>>> where his analysis has gone a little astray. We'll see if he
>>> ignores this one.
>>
>>> Interestingly, the mistake he makes is quite usual among statistics
>>> users. These are dangerous techniques when they fall into the wrong
>>> hands.
>>> In the end I put it up here on alt. g-w
>>
>> Why are you talking about what you wrote, and not just post it here.
>> Go ahead, enlighten us.
>>
>
> .> Why are you talking about what you wrote, and not just
> .> post it here. Go ahead, enlighten us.
>
> Alarmists do NOT share information with non-believers. After all, it
> might be used to prove the alarmists wrong.
>
> JohnM's purpose is to make your life as difficult as possible. He is
> hoping to impress people with his logorrhea, knowing that 99% of
> people will never check up on his reference. If somebody does check
> his reference, and finds it pathologically stupid, then JohnM will
> say, "ha ha ha, I wasted your time, I knew that all along".
>
> To show people what I mean, I will paste JohnM's comment here, and for
> the hard of hearing, I will translate if from stupidese/windbagian
> into plain english. My translation will be in angle brackets << like
> this >>.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> John Morgan
> Why not start from 1996. Let me guess why. Perhaps the result is not
> as clearcut. In fact there may be significance at the 0.05 level -
> which by the way is the level at which most people start to look up,
> not 0.01 that you have used
>
> is simple enough), then he could tell us if the result was
> significant. Rather than hint that PERHAPS it MIGHT not be as clearcut
> (but it might be). There MAY be significance (but there might NOT be).
> So the overall purpose of this paragraph appears to be to confuse the
> issue as much as possible. >>
>
> In any case the essential first step in regression is for the analyst
> is a random normal variable of mean zero and finite variance) is the
> correct one. You did not do this, did you? Neither do any
> meterologists anlysing global tempratures as far as I can see. So
> calculation of standard error and confidence intervals is
> inappropriate and therefore your result is void.
>
> that JohnM has never given this advice to his close friend and fellow
> that his regressions are NOT valid, because they are based on
> incorrect assumptions. Roger's results are VOID. >>
>
> Kendall's Robust Line Fit, although a statistically significant,
> positive slope wont fit your agenda quite as well, even if it shows
> you doing science properly. Possibly you should next consider
> confining your attention to Zen-like questions as,"How long is a piece
> of string" and leave empirical science to those whose 'metier' it is.
>
> << I found the name of this statistical test on a web site, and I am
> going to use it so that people will think that I know what I am
> will tell them to do their own homework, it is not my job to educate
> knows what result it really does give, probably a negative slope (must
> hide the decline). Finally I will finish with some lofty sounding put-
> day job). >>
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
Fail.
I M @ good guy
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>There is no reference to clathrates and microcracks, distorting measurement at
>increasing depths, where the pressure becomes too high to extract an intact
>core.
>The result is, what you see there, a steady flattening line backwards in time
>due to eluviation, decompression, microcracks and rapid de-clathrating.
>You will never get an intact icecore from very deep, high pressure levels.
>
>Very unscientific AGW demonstration, neglecting basic physical laws.
Enough of this serious baloney, we need to
have fun before the _rapidly_ approaching END;
Did John really say start with 1996, why not!
http://www.kissyoutube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI&feature=player_embedded
Eric Gisin
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-statistically-significant-warming.html
"JohnM" <john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d424b085-7f59-4ac7...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 7:01 pm, "Eric Gisin" <er...@nospammail.net> wrote:
> From the awarding winning science blog of Lubos Motl.
> Unlike green scientists, he answers criticism in the comments.
No he doesn't. He rejects any comment that contains evidence he is in
error. I know - I've tried several times to post comment on one of his
glaring errors. In the end I put it up here on alt. g-w
> Great comment about leftist religion in Avatar from Anon Cosmologist.
>
> http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-statistically-significant-warmin...
>
> Friday, December 25, 2009 ...
>
> Because there has been some confusion - and maybe deliberate confusion - among some (alarmist)
> commenters about the non-existence of a statistically significant warming trend since 1995, i.e.
> in
> the last fifteen years, let me dedicate a full article to this issue.
I've just had a look at this and left a comment explaining to him
JohnM
> Lubos called you an idiot. He does that alot. Good enough for me.
Taking other peoples opinions at face value, rather than trying to
form your own would be the hallmark of a first rate denier. Thanks for
revealing yourself so openly.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-statistically-significant-warmin...
>
> "JohnM" <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
OG
> On Dec 27, 7:01 pm, "Eric Gisin" <er...@nospammail.net> wrote:
>> From the awarding winning science blog of Lubos Motl.
>> Unlike green scientists, he answers criticism in the comments.
>
> No he doesn't. He rejects any comment that contains evidence he is in
> error. I know - I've tried several times to post comment on one of his
> glaring errors. In the end I put it up here on alt. g-w
>
He also has no interest in examining how robust his claim is. Not very
scientific.
He also misquotes what you have said. Not very credible
He also deletes any posts that point out the previous two traits. Not
very honourable.
OG
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
news:PK2dnV8N3ZHQB6XW...@giganews.com...
He has no interest in any period other than the 15 year period. As he says
"Because 1995 is about the earliest time such that the trend from that time
to today is statistically insignificant - and therefore, one can find that
15 years is the time scale at which a detectable climate change in the
future should be considered non-existent."
Cherrypicking data again.
JohnM
He also seems to have a rather nasty streak, posting messages about
how "greens" should be rounded up and executed. That's taking the
climate debate a bit too far IMO.
JohnM
wrote:
Running away to another thread is a common denialist dodge. I see Mr
Realist is no different to the others.
Climate Realist
>
> - Show quoted text -
.> Running away to another thread is a common denialist dodge.
.> I see Mr Realist is no different to the others.
I have not run away.
After seeing the massive drubbing that you got from Lubos Motl, I
didn't think that it was fair to point out even more of your faults.
Androcles
"Climate Realist" <climate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e5e8fe8-76a5-489e...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
Bigots and dorks like Morgan deserve all the drubbing you give them,
that's what usenet is for. Don't ever be worried about fairness,
the jerk won't cut you any slack.
JohnM
> "Climate Realist" <climate.real...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> .> I see Mr Realist is no different to the others.
>
> I have not run away.
>
> After seeing the massive drubbing that you got from Lubos Motl,
If you were up to date you would notice that in the exchange on data
analysis with Motl, having painted himself into a corner, he has
wisely not responded to my most recent comment.
> I
> didn't think that it was fair to point out even more of your faults.
In other words, you couldn't find anything wrong with my post.
> ===============================================
> Bigots and dorks like Morgan deserve all the drubbing you give them,
> that's what usenet is for. Don't ever be worried about fairness,
> the jerk won't cut you any slack.
If you're looking for bigots, try Motl or Muhlbauer, who threaten
physical violence against those who disagree with them. If you're
looking for dorks, try a mirror.
JohnM
> .> I see Mr Realist is no different to the others.
If you were up to date you would notice that in the exchange on data
analysis with Motl, having painted himself into a corner, he has
wisely not responded to my most recent comment.
> I
> didn't think that it was fair to point out even more of your faults.
In other words, you couldn't find anything wrong with my post.
Androcles
=================================================
You are obviously more concerned with flaming others than
you are with discussing climate, physics or meteorology. That
turns the mirror toward you.
Some simple facts about climate.
Negative feedback:
1) Sun heats ocean.
2) Ocean evaporates and forms clouds.
3) Clouds reflect sunlight into space, reduce evaporation.
If you doubt it, feel the sunlight on your skin when a cloud
obscures the sun.
4) Less cloud forms, more heat is absorbed, more cloud forms,
less heat is absorbed; Earth's temperature remains constant.
If it gets warmer, it will cool. If it gets cooler, it will warm.
Positive feedback:
5) Snow falls on land and polar ice fields.
6) Snow/ice reflects sunlight into space, reduces heat absorption.
Water absorbs sunlight, increases energy intake. Ice reflects
sunlight, reduces energy intake. If you doubt it, take a swim
in the Gulf of Mexico and another in the Arctic Ocean.
7) Earth cools as it radiates heat to space, more snow falls,
more sunlight is reflected, result is an Ice Age. The colder
it is, the colder it will get. The warmer it is, the warmer
it will get.
Changing the balance:
8) Earth's orbit is elliptical.
9) Sunlight obeys the inverse square law.
10) Earth is tilted.
11) More sunlight reaches Earth at perihelion than at aphelion.
12) Earth's Great White Spot, Antarctica, reflects sunlight at
aphelion (Southern summer). Result, positive feedback
predominates, Ice Age.
13) Earth precesses. Earth's Great White Spot reflects sunlight
at perihelion (Northern summer). But Earth's Great White Spot
has no sunlight to reflect and the Northern Wet Spot (the Arctic
Ocean) has even more sunlight to melt its ice cap than it had
when it faced the Sun at aphelion. Water absorbs far more heat
than ice. Result: more sunlight absorbed, positive feedback,
global warming.
14) But it is offset by more cloud, see negative feedback above.
Overall result - a small change in temperature as a function of
precession.
15) CO2 levels rise as a consequence of a warmer planet, not as
the cause. Why? Because with more heat we have more thunderstorms
and more lightning and more forest fires, plants grow faster in a
richer CO2 atmosphere and the world gets greener instead of whiter.
Green is the good colour, white is the bad colour. Plants are green
because green absorbs sunlight. This is the rainforest effect.
16) Far more strange gases are vented to atmosphere by
volcanoes than by man. See "Carbon cycle".
It's been that way for at least 3 billion years; homo neanderthalensis
is alive and well and arrogant enough to say he causes it. He is,
of course, an idiot who thinks he can "combat" the quite natural
temperature cycle of a couple of degrees. Nature doesn't care if he
builds cities along the coast or birds build nests in trees, the rule is
ADAPT OR DIE.
So when your coastal cities are flooded as they will be and you have
no control over that, move inland or go and live in Greenland. You
can fight for control of land, homo neanderthalensis is a territorial
animal and the fittest survive. Nuke the opposition and pass your own
genes on.
Rob Dekker
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:-ZSdnYU3YPDDSqXW...@mchsi.com...
> On 12/28/09 9:57 AM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>> Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/27/09 11:21 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:59:51 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
>>>>
>>>> That graph ends in 2005.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Produce data!
>>
>> Shut up, imposter!
>
> You sure do have trouble casting doubt on global climate change,
> Peter. You really should be taking this seriously, making a
> "scientific" argument showing why climatologists (in your opinion)
> are wrong. That would be too much research and work, eh Peter!
>
> You don't like these papers? Show why they are wrong!
>
>
Peter does not look at scientific papers.
He does not understand scientific papers.
Actually, Peter does not understand science at all.
The only response you could expect from him is that you don't have any clue
about science, and that you should explain it to him.
Which is exactly the response we get from your average science denier on
this News Group.
That's how science deniers work, and it's annoying but a fact.
Rob
JohnM
> "JohnM" <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
<snip... anyone want to read it they can back up one post>
> So when your coastal cities are flooded as they will be and you have
> no control over that, move inland or go and live in Greenland. You
> can fight for control of land, homo neanderthalensis is a territorial
> animal and the fittest survive. Nuke the opposition and pass your own
> genes on.
As a humanist I consider the time is ripe to try and overcome this
overriding
flaw in Darwinian-type evolution and impose on nature a set of our
own,
uniquely-human rules about descent. We conquered space - we can
conquer
our own innate, animal nature by striving to understand and then deal
with it,
using a brain which organic evolution by DNA created for us. Let's
declare
natural selection dead once and for all.
Androcles
On Jan 1, 2:50 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
> "JohnM" <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
<snip... anyone want to read it they can back up one post>
<unsnip... anyone want to read it they can do it here>
So when your coastal cities are flooded as they will be and you have
no control over that, move inland or go and live in Greenland. You
can fight for control of land, homo neanderthalensis is a territorial
animal and the fittest survive. Nuke the opposition and pass your own
genes on.
<snip... anyone want to read Morgan they can back up one post>
(oops, nothing left to respond to).
This snipping is fun, isn't it?
JohnM
On Jan 1, 2:50 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
<snip... anyone want to read it they can back up one post>
> So when your coastal cities are flooded as they will be and you have
> no control over that, move inland or go and live in Greenland. You
> can fight for control of land, homo neanderthalensis is a territorial
> animal and the fittest survive. Nuke the opposition and pass your own
> genes on.
As a humanist I consider the time is ripe to try and overcome this
Androcles
On Jan 3, 1:40 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
On Jan 1, 2:50 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
<snip... anyone want to read it they can back up one post>
<snip... anyone want to read Morgan can back up one post>
<unsnip... anyone want to read it they can do it here>
This snipping is fun, isn't it?
So when your coastal cities are flooded as they will be and you have
JohnM
> "JohnM" <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:5bcd7362-fb7e-45b9...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 1, 2:50 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
<various irrelevant words, punctuation, paragraphs and bits of words
snipped>
> I'm a strange man.
> I's been that way for years; an idiot who doesn't care if he
> DIES.
> This snipping is fun, isn't it?
Why yes, it definitely is.
Androcles
> I'm a strange man.
> I's been that way for years; an idiot who doesn't care if he
> DIES.
Cool. I agree you are an idiot and I don't care if you die either.
In fact to me you are already as good as dead.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Sam Wormley
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:59:51 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
>>> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
>
> That graph ends in 2005.
>
Bill--Don't read this article... It's just alarmist bullshit,
right?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Climate-change-far-worse-than-thought-before/articleshow/5406955.cms
I M @ good guy
wrote:
The statement that CO2 is the main GHG
"warming the atmosphere" is the dumbest
thing ever written, simply because GHGs
cool the atmosphere, and water is a far
better GHG, and water exists in concentrations
many times more than CO2.
And you have a degree in physics?
Sam Wormley
Most are not in agreement with you, as the data indicate that
CO2 is the major driver in this instance.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 1/3/10 10:19 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:51:56 -0600, Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/27/09 11:21 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:59:51 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
>>>>>> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
>>>>
>>>> That graph ends in 2005.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill--Don't read this article... It's just alarmist bullshit,
>>> right?
>>>
>>> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Climate-change-far-worse-than-thought-before/articleshow/5406955.cms
>>
>>
>> The statement that CO2 is the main GHG
>> "warming the atmosphere" is the dumbest
>> thing ever written, simply because GHGs
>> cool the atmosphere, and water is a far
>> better GHG, and water exists in concentrations
>> many times more than CO2.
>>
>> And you have a degree in physics?
>
>
> Most are not in agreement with you,
Can't you be more specific, just what could
they possibly disagree with, certainly not the
obvious FACT that Infra-Red radiation by GHGs
is what cools the atmosphere?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/565b2e42f08493ad
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5044de81066bb738
Did you forget what GHGs do? "Radiate" ! "Radiate
Infra-Red" ! Radiate energy to space. What cools the atmosphere,
answer: the same thing that cools the surface, IR radiation to space,
and what radiates Infra-Red that are gases in the atmosphere?
Look at everything from both sides, consider every
possibility, neglecting possible advances in understanding
holds back progress.
> as the data indicate that
> CO2 is the major driver in this instance.
Doing what? Cooling the atmosphere?
Do you realize it would be blasphemy in the
church of Anthropogenic Global Warming if
you said CO2 cools the atmosphere?
Ok, I searched gagale and bingo, and
found almost nothing on the science of
Infra-Red radiation to space by GreenHouse
Gases, so I am ready to admit, I am the only
person on Earth that understands that GHGs
do 99 percent of the cooling of the atmosphere,
and LWIR from the surface cools the part of the
surface that is not cooled by water evaporating,
and wind and convection.
What sorry sack the climate industry is,
unable to simply provide the basic mechanism
that cools the atmosphere.
Obviously outhouse rumors, gossip, and
parroting of literature has replaced science
in the climate industry.
I repeat, I challenge anybody to proffer
any process or mechanism that cools the
atmosphere as it is warmed by the sun,
radiation from and contact with the surface.
mrbawana2u
>[duh,duh,duh,flush]
> Let's declare
> natural selection dead once and for all.
Long live parasites like JohnMoron.