The French Academy of Science

[AGWFacts]

On 31 Jan 2012 21:13:39 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:08:29 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:
>
> >> In a young science a scientific majority is not the proof that an
> >
> > What "young science?" The subject is climatology.
> >
> >> hypothesis is valid, unless there is some experimental evidence, which
> >> is not the case for many aspects of AWG.
> >
> > Huh? AGW is not science; no scientist says it is. Name a science
> > organization that dissagrees with the consensus.

> The French Academy of Science only could agree that they couldn't reach a
> consensus because of the uncertainties are too big for the science to be
> considered as settled. They expressed it in their cautious academic way.

You forgot to mention the fact that the French Academy of Science
agreed with the world-wide consensus that humans have caused and
are causing global warming, and that our CO2 pollution is the
chief cause. How did it happen that you failed to mention that
fact?

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has increased continuously
since the mid-nineteenth century, mainly due to industrial
acivities, from 280 ppm to 1870 to 388 ppm in 2009. The rate of
measured growth since 1970 is about 500 times faster than observed
on average over the last 5,000 years. Isotopic studies show that
this increase is more than half due to the burning of fossil
fuels, and the rest mainly due chiefly to deforestation, and the
smaller part due to the production of cement.

"....

"The direct effect of a change in concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere is understood: it results in an increase in the
infrared radiation emitted by the ground, estimated at 3.7 ą 0.1
Watts per square meter for a doubling of atmospheric CO2,
corresponding to an average warming at the surface estimated at
1.1 ą 0.2 ° C.

"About half of the CO2 produced by human activities that at some
point is released into the atmosphere and remains in the
atmosphere. The other half is absorbed by the oceans and the
biosphere: it takes about a century for this half to transfer back
into the atmosphere.

"....

"CONCLUSIONS

"1) Several independent indicators show an increase in
warming from 1975 to 2003.

"2) This increase is mainly due to the increase in
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"3) The increase in CO2 and, to a lesser extent, other greenhouse
gas emissions, is undoubtedly due to human activity.

"4) It is a threat to the climate and a threat to the oceans
due to the acidification process it causes."

"...."

Ooops! Damn it, the French Academy of Science agrees with the rest
of the world's scientists on the subect. Why did you state
otherwise? What did lying get you? In what way(s) was your
political or religious agenda furthered by lying?


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[Paul Aubrin]

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:10:54 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

>> The French Academy of Science only could agree that they couldn't reach
>> a consensus because of the uncertainties are too big for the science to
>> be considered as settled. They expressed it in their cautious academic
>> way.
>
> You forgot to mention the fact that the French Academy of Science agreed
> with the world-wide consensus that humans have caused and are causing
> global warming, and that our CO2 pollution is the chief cause. How did
> it happen that you failed to mention that fact?

I read the whole report. As any official report, it is carefully crafted
to be as vague as possible. But the only really clear consensus expressed
in it is that "much work is still to be done and uncertainties are great".

[Paul Aubrin]

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:10:54 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

> "CONCLUSIONS
>
> "1) Several independent indicators show an increase in warming from 1975
> to 2003.
>
> "2) This increase is mainly due to the increase in concentration of CO2
> in the atmosphere.
>
> "3) The increase in CO2 and, to a lesser extent, other greenhouse gas
> emissions, is undoubtedly due to human activity.
>
> "4) It is a threat to the climate and a threat to the oceans due to the
> acidification process it causes."

5. This increase induces feedbacks in the global climatic system whose
complexity implies to resort to models and tests allowing to validate
them.
Translation: The complexity of feedbacks is such that more tests are
required to validate them.

6. The mechanism which can play a role in the transmission and
amplification of solar forcing, and particularly, solar activity are
still not very well understood.
Translation: Solar activity could play a big role too, if it could be
better understood.

7. Big uncertainties remain relative to cloud modelling, sea ice and
polar ice, the atmosphere and ocean coupling, the evolution of the
biosphere and the carbon cycle dynamic.
Translation: big uncertainties still exist on nearly all the major
factors that could influence the climate.

etc.

First 4 points : we were told by the secretary of state to environment to
tell we agree with the global warming theory.
Next 4 points : note that the uncertainties make those conclusions not so
sure, thus, if later it appeared that CO2 had not the major climate
influence we are urged to tell, we would not be so much to blame.

[Earl Evleth]

On 3/02/12 20:13, in article 4f2c31e7$0$18261$426a...@news.free.fr, "Paul

Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

> I read the whole report.

Where is it available by web. You are not a reliable source of second hand
information.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Their latest statement is from Oct. 2010. Quote:

The following conclusions are presented in the report:

- Several independent indicators show an increase of warming from 1975
to 2003.
- This increase is mainly due to the increase in CO2 concentration in
the atmosphere
- The increase in CO2 and, to a lesser degree, of other greenhouse
gases, is unequivocally due to human activity.
- It constitutes a threat to the climate and, moreover, to oceans as a
result of the acidification process it generates.
- This increase drives retroactions of the global climate system, the
complexity of which requires the use of models and tests for the
purpose of validating them.
- The mechanisms which can play a role in the transmission and
amplification of solar forcing, and in particular, of solar activity,
are not yet well understood. Solar activity, which has slightly
decreased on average since 1975, cannot be dominant in the observed
warming during this period
- Important uncertainties remain in the modeling of clouds, the
evolution of marine ice and polar ice caps, ocean/atmosphere coupling,
the evolution of the biosphere and the dynamics of the carbon cycle
- The projections of climate change over the 30 to 50-year period are
only slightly affected by the uncertainty in the modeling of slow-
moving processes. These projections are particularly useful in meeting
current societal concerns, made worse by the predictable population
increase.
- Climate change can only by analyzed by long series of data, both
homogeneous and continuous, on a large scale. The major terrestrial
and spatial observation programs, must be maintained and developed and
their results made available to the international scientific
community.
- The interdisciplinary nature of the problems requires an even
greater involvement of the various scientific communities to further
the advances already achieved in the field of climatology and to open
new avenues for future research."

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/climate/report-of-the-french-academy-of-sciences-on-global-warming/


Sounds pretty mainstream climate science. Sounds like they say you're
pretty much either ignorant or lying.

[AGWFacts]

On 03 Feb 2012 19:13:43 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:10:54 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On 31 Jan 2012 21:13:39 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:08:29 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:
> > >
> > > >> In a young science a scientific majority is not the proof that an
> > > >
> > > > What "young science?" The subject is climatology.
> > > >
> > > >> hypothesis is valid, unless there is some experimental evidence, which
> > > >> is not the case for many aspects of AWG.
> > > >
> > > > Huh? AGW is not science; no scientist says it is. Name a science
> > > > organization that dissagrees with the consensus.
> >

> > > The French Academy of Science only could agree that they couldn't reach a
> > > consensus because of the uncertainties are too big for the science to be
> > > considered as settled. They expressed it in their cautious academic way.
> >
> > You forgot to mention the fact that the French Academy of Science
> > agreed with the world-wide consensus that humans have caused and
> > are causing global warming, and that our CO2 pollution is the
> > chief cause. How did it happen that you failed to mention that
> > fact?
> >

> I read the whole report.

Then you have no legitimate excuse for lying. So answer the
question. Why did you lie about what the Academy said? What did

[AGWFacts]

I have the .PDF file on my computer, pre-publication. If you want
a copy I will send it to you.

_Académie_des_sciences_ said the exact opposite of what Paul
Aubrin" claimed they said. He has refused to explain his behavior.

====== BEGIN QUOTING ======

====== END QUOTING ======

He lied. I am baffled over why he lied. What did he expect lying
would do for him?

[Paul Aubrin]

I personally posted the reference with the quote on uncertainties.
There were many comments when the report was published. Warmist
journalists reading the first few lines of the conclusion triumphed. But
if you read the whole conclusion, and the whole document, the consensus
is on uncertainties.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:53:29 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:42:12 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/02/12 20:13, in article 4f2c31e7$0$18261$426a...@news.free.fr,
>> "Paul Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> > I read the whole report.
>
>> Where is it available by web. You are not a reliable source of second
>> hand information.
>
> I have the .PDF file on my computer, pre-publication. If you want a copy
> I will send it to you.
>
> _Académie_des_sciences_ said the exact opposite of what Paul Aubrin"
> claimed they said. He has refused to explain his behavior.

You are cherry picking here. You translated only the first four points of
the conclusion leaving those that follow which insist on the
uncertainties. Those are not small uncertainties, read again:

[Paul Aubrin]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:48:42 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

>> > "CONCLUSIONS
>> >
>> > "1) Several independent indicators show an increase in warming from
>> > 1975 to 2003.
>> >
>> > "2) This increase is mainly due to the increase in concentration of
>> > CO2 in the atmosphere.
>> >
>> > "3) The increase in CO2 and, to a lesser extent, other greenhouse gas
>> > emissions, is undoubtedly due to human activity.
>> >
>> > "4) It is a threat to the climate and a threat to the oceans due to
>> > the acidification process it causes."
>> >
>> > "...."
>> >
>> > Ooops! Damn it, the French Academy of Science agrees with the rest of
>> > the world's scientists on the subect. Why did you state otherwise?
>> > What did lying get you? In what way(s) was your political or
>> > religious agenda furthered by lying?
>
>> I read the whole report.
>
> Then you have no legitimate excuse for lying. So answer the question.
> Why did you lie about what the Academy said? What did lying get you? In
> what way(s) was your political or religious agenda furthered by lying?

Please note that I just translated the part of the conclusion you just
artfully omitted to present to the group, read this part again, it far,
far away from an endorsement of your warmist's position:

[be...@iwaynet.net]

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

"The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to
rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
Thames in the 17th Century.

"Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data
was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the
University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the
rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."

"We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser,
director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see
convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become
clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications
for some scientists could be very serious.’



Scientists lying? Faking data? Say it ain't so, Sam, say it ain't so!

=====

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1lOG1Lq56


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

[Bill Snyder]

"The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in
the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely
damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to
mitigate anthropogenic global warming" - Wikipedia

Oh, yeah, they sound like a credible, unbiased source. Almost as
good as a Usenet kook, in fact.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Earl Evleth]

On 4/02/12 4:53, in article 8lapi7pvleetk51i4...@4ax.com,

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> I have the .PDF file on my computer, pre-publication. If you want
> a copy I will send it to you.
>
> _Académie_des_sciences_ said the exact opposite of what Paul
> Aubrin" claimed they said. He has refused to explain his behavior.

I'd like to see it since I am a retired CNRS scientists and I am
interested in what they have to say.

Note that while essentially all French scientists publish in English
official information must be in French. In my view French (once the
language diplomacy) often tends to be clearer than the English version
of a document. English has a lot of weasel out in it and writing
between the lines more often occurs than not. French is not my maternal
language but in learning it I came to recognize where it has its
strengths. My wife writes many of her publications in French, in the past
published a number of article in Le Monde and one book about prison
life at Clairvaux ("Lettres de Clairvaux"). She writes quite well, better
than any French person I personally know.

I am unaware of whether Aubin has published anything in any language or
that that is his real name.


The Academy entered the frag of global warming with a special,
unfortu!nately mostly secret meeting over Alègre's book which
had the provocative title "L'Imposture climatique". Historically
Alègre is a contrarian, The book's title and contents are
unscientific, containing factual errors.

Moreover: Le mercredi 7 avril 2010, 600 chercheurs en sciences du climat
ont publié un courrier de protestation contre, entre autres, l'ouvrage de
Claude Allègre[60], dans lequel ils relèvent de nombreuses erreurs
factuelles[61] et des dénigrements[62].

The Academie had a special meeting on this loose cannon

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/10/28/changement-climatique-l-aca
demie-des-sciences-refute-les-theses-d-allegre_1432349_3244.html

"Changement climatique : l'Académie des sciences réfute les thèses
d'Allègre"

After that incident he has been silent until recently when he published
an article on the op ed page of the notorious Wall Street Journal.
A total of 16 scientists signed this letter, most of whom were not climate
scientists. It in turn was refuted by a larger group of climate scientists
and I posted their comments on these pages.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/3/12 1:13 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> French Academy of Sciences...

From the web: >
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j9oNuf2f5wJV22Rs_YEqvRGcLHig?docId=CNG.bbdd6801f80cdbf0612fea94e8414607.3e1
> http://www.ambafrance-us.org/climate/report-of-the-french-academy-of-sciences-on-global-warming/

Original Report
> http://media.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/file/2010/35/0/Changement_climatique_octobre_2010_159350.pdf

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/3/12 10:48 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> ou are cherry picking here. You translated only the first four points of
> the conclusion leaving those that follow which insist on the
> uncertainties. Those are not small uncertainties, read again:

"Even if in this text lots of space is given to the arguments put
forward by climate change sceptics, I note that the document clearly
reaffirms the IPCC's broad conclusions," he told AFP.
Ref:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j9oNuf2f5wJV22Rs_YEqvRGcLHig?docId=CNG.bbdd6801f80cdbf0612fea94e8414607.3e1

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/4/12 12:05 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> Scientists lying? Faking data? Say it ain't so, Sam, say it ain't so!

Your bias is all in your mind, Ben! Learn some climate science basics.

> Global Warning Podcasts by Professor John Chiang
> http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Science/Environment/Global-Warming-Podcast/21917
>
> This lower division course introduces global warming as both a scientific and social issue. We will introduce the physical science that sets the stage for the problem, from the basic concepts of climate (carbon cycle, greenhouse effect, climate feedbacks) through to the climate model projections of future climate changes and their impacts. Social scientific perspectives will be integrated throughout, including the history of climate science, the geographical and political-economic implications of fossil fuels and industrial production, and the challenges posed to existing regulatory and governance systems by the current and prospective impacts of global warming. Several guest lecturers will give in-depth reviews of specific topical issues, potential examples being climate models, carbon sequestration, and impacts on public health. We aim to provide students with a solid understanding and information base with which to analyze and evaluate ongoing developments and (often heated) deba
tes surrounding global climate change.
>
> Podcast Website:
> http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425
>

[Paul Aubrin]

Don't believe the comments.
AGW omitted to translate half of the conclusion on purpose, and the
uncertainties introduced voluntarily in the second half completely
neutralise the first half.

The report is here:
http://knowtex.com/15453
The paragraphs of the conclusion that AGW omitted to translate are here:

5. This increase induces feedbacks in the global climatic system whose
complexity implies to resort to models and tests allowing to validate
them.

6. The mechanism which can play a role in the transmission and
amplification of solar forcing, and particularly, solar activity are still
not very well understood.

7. Big uncertainties remain relative to cloud modelling, sea ice and polar
ice, the atmosphere and ocean coupling, the evolution of the biosphere and
the carbon cycle dynamic.

The true conclusion of the report is: whatever happens later, you will
find nothing to blame us in this report.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/4/12 8:31 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:

>
> The report is here: http://knowtex.com/15453

One month later, here:
http://media.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/file/2010/35/0/Changement_climatique_octobre_2010_159350.pdf

> Le débat, ouvert à quelque 120 scientifiques français ou étrangers, dont des spécialistes extérieurs à l’Académie, a été organisé sous forme de contributions écrites suivies d’un débat oral qui a eu lieu le 20 septembre 2010.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:04:58 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 2/4/12 8:31 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>
>
>> The report is here: http://knowtex.com/15453
>
> One month later, here:
> http://media.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/file/2010/35/0/
Changement_climatique_octobre_2010_159350.pdf

It says:"Le débat, très riche et de haute tenue scientifique a porté sur
les méthodes de prévisions climatiques ; il a permis de
confronter les différents points de vue, de dégager des points
de convergence et d’identifier les divergences et incertitudes qui
persistent. Il est le point de départ d’une réflexion qui sera prolongée
ultérieurement.
Malgré les nouveaux outils d’investigations dont on dispose aujourd’hui
et malgré le volume considérable de données accumulées ces vingt
dernières années, il faut souligner que la Science ne peut répondre à
tout, qu’elle procède par étapes et qu’elle ne peut fournir à un
moment donné que l’interprétation de faits avérés et des
prévisions."

A quick translation:

"The very productive debate and of a high scientific level was about
climate prevision methods ; it permitted to confront the diverging point
of view, to find some points of convergence and to identify points of
divergence and persisting uncertainties. It will be the starting point of
a reflection effort that will go on later.

Despite the new tools of investigation that we can use nowadays, et
despite the considerable volume of data we accumulated those last twenty
years, we must underline that Science has not an answer to everything,
that it proceeds step by step and that it can provide at a given moment
only the interpretation of known facts and some previsions."

The debate had not the object to reach a consensus on the influence of
CO2 on climate, it was about climate prevision methods.
The debate could not reach a consensus, it permitted to confront the
various points of view and act the convergences and the divergences.
The science is not settled, science is only at a starting point.
Science has not the answer to every thing, it can only provide an
interpretation of known facts.

If you don't believe me, ask for a translation.

[Sam Wormley]

I'm not doubting you, Paul. It's always good to provide a link
to the original (which you did) when discussing content on USENET.

I don't think this reports casts any doubt on the fact that human
production of CO2 is driving this rapid global warming.

[Jim T.]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:05:36 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>

>"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
>inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
>the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
>
>"The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to
>rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
>Thames in the 17th Century.
>
>"Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data
>was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the
>University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the
>rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."
>
>"We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser,
>director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see
>convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become
>clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications
>for some scientists could be very serious.’

Fool or liar: which one are you?

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:45:21 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

> I'm not doubting you, Paul. It's always good to provide a link to the
> original (which you did) when discussing content on USENET.
>
> I don't think this reports casts any doubt on the fact that human
> production of CO2 is driving this rapid global warming.

You can think what you want. I just read what is written: no consensus, a
debate with convergence and divergence points.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/4/2012 2:10 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:05:36 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
> <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>> "Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data
>> was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the
>> University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the
>> rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."

>> Scientists lying? Faking data? Say it ain't so, Sam, say it ain't so!
>>
>> =====
>>
>> Read more:
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1lOG1Lq56

> "The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in
> the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely
> damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to
> mitigate anthropogenic global warming" - Wikipedia
>
> Oh, yeah, they sound like a credible, unbiased source. Almost as
> good as a Usenet kook, in fact.

Obviously, you need to return to grade school for remedial reading.
Somehow you seem to have missed that the article was in a newspaper (at
least as scientifically credible as the "Scientific American" articles
Wormley always quotes) and the information came from the Met office and

"University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit".

And since you value Wikipedia as a credible source:

"The Met Office (originally an abbreviation for Meteorological Office,
but now the official name in itself), is the United Kingdom's national
weather service, and a trading fund of the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills. Part of the Met Office headquarters at Exeter in
Devon is the Met Office College, which handles the training for internal
personnel and many forecasters from around the world. The current chief
executive is John Hirst. The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
Research and the National Meteorological Library and Archive are also
parts of the Met Office."

You aren't very good at this political propaganda job, are you?

[Bill Snyder]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:46:16 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 2/4/2012 2:10 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:05:36 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
>> <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>>> "Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data
>>> was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the
>>> University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the
>>> rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."
>
>>> Scientists lying? Faking data? Say it ain't so, Sam, say it ain't so!
>>>
>>> =====
>>>
>>> Read more:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1lOG1Lq56
>
>> "The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in
>> the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely
>> damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to
>> mitigate anthropogenic global warming" - Wikipedia
>>
>> Oh, yeah, they sound like a credible, unbiased source. Almost as
>> good as a Usenet kook, in fact.
>
>Obviously, you need to return to grade school for remedial reading.
>Somehow you seem to have missed that the article was in a newspaper (at
>least as scientifically credible as the "Scientific American" articles
>Wormley always quotes) and the information came from the Met office and
>"University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit".

No newspaper has any scientific credibility. And the data may or
may not have come from the CRU, but the claim that it shows an end
to the rising trend comes from the aforesaid lobbying and
propaganda outfit, the GWPF.

>
>And since you value Wikipedia as a credible source:
>
>"The Met Office (originally an abbreviation for Meteorological Office,
>but now the official name in itself), is the United Kingdom's national
>weather service, and a trading fund of the Department for Business,
>Innovation and Skills. Part of the Met Office headquarters at Exeter in
>Devon is the Met Office College, which handles the training for internal
>personnel and many forecasters from around the world. The current chief
>executive is John Hirst. The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
>Research and the National Meteorological Library and Archive are also
>parts of the Met Office."
>
>You aren't very good at this political propaganda job, are you?

You aren't very good at this "real life" stuff, huh?

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:48:42 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>

So. Embarassed silence from the cultists again.

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:05:36 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> "The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an
> inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
> the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

Note that none of the scientists at the MET Office said what David
Rose claimed they said. The MET Office stated the exact opposite.
Rose lied (again).

What the MET Office actually said:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/mail-on-sunday/

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:50:49 -0500, Jim T. <x@y.z> wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:05:36 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
> <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> >clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications
> >for some scientists could be very serious.’

> Fool or liar: which one are you?

He lied. See:

[Peter Webb]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:58kri7hufo8jva31j...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:05:36 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
> <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>> "The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an
>> inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
>> the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
>
> Note that none of the scientists at the MET Office said what David
> Rose claimed they said. The MET Office stated the exact opposite.
> Rose lied (again).
>
> What the MET Office actually said:
>
> http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/mail-on-sunday/
>
>

This isn't a matter of anybody's opinion; it is a matter of historical fact.

I don't know if the earth has or hasn't warmed for the past 15 years, I
would need to look up the average global temperatures for 2011 and 1996 and
see which was larger.

The earth clearly hasn't warmed in the past 13 years, everybody agrees that
2011 was cooler than 1998, but that is a completely different claim.

[Bill Snyder]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:18:56 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
>news:58kri7hufo8jva31j...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:05:36 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
>> <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an
>>> inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
>>> the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
>>
>> Note that none of the scientists at the MET Office said what David
>> Rose claimed they said. The MET Office stated the exact opposite.
>> Rose lied (again).
>>
>> What the MET Office actually said:
>>
>> http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/mail-on-sunday/
>>
>>
>
>This isn't a matter of anybody's opinion; it is a matter of historical fact.
>
>I don't know if the earth has or hasn't warmed for the past 15 years, I
>would need to look up the average global temperatures for 2011 and 1996 and
>see which was larger.
>
>The earth clearly hasn't warmed in the past 13 years, everybody agrees that
>2011 was cooler than 1998, but that is a completely different claim.

Sure, Webbie-poo, that's clear to all. That would be why the Met
said:

"[W]hat is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the
warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850."

Sorry, shit-bot, but you're busted again, just like your little
buddy.

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:18:56 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
>>news:58kri7hufo8jva31j...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:05:36 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
>>> <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>> "The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an
>>>> inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
>>>> the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
>>> Note that none of the scientists at the MET Office said what David
>>> Rose claimed they said. The MET Office stated the exact opposite.
>>> Rose lied (again).
>>> What the MET Office actually said:
>>> http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/mail-on-sunday/
>>This isn't a matter of anybody's opinion; it is a matter of historical fact.
>>
>>I don't know if the earth has or hasn't warmed for the past 15 years, I
>>would need to look up the average global temperatures for 2011 and 1996 and
>>see which was larger.

Heysoos! The guy claims he is "far from a statistics illiterate"
(surely the comparison is unfair to illiterates) but continues
the boneheaded idea of comparing a pair of points to check for a trend.
Apparently even the idea of finding the average of median of a number
of such comparisons to give the result *some* confience interval has
not yet occured to him, let alone using least squares.

>>The earth clearly hasn't warmed in the past 13 years, everybody agrees that
>>2011 was cooler than 1998, but that is a completely different claim.
> Sure, Webbie-poo, that's clear to all. That would be why the Met
> said:
> "[W]hat is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
> trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the
> warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850."
> Sorry, shit-bot, but you're busted again, just like your little buddy.

They cheated and used some year 10 stats that can't be checked easily
with Google keyword lookup.

This is in the "not fair" part of the lunkhead playbook.

--
[Statistics illiteracy 101:]
[You claimed] 1998 was a "3 sigma outlier". I want to see how
you calculated this; common sense would immediately indicate that this is
complete bullshit. Please, don't bother dumbing it down, despite your
implication of the contrary, I am far from being a "statistics illiterate".
-- Peter Webb <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com>, 1 Feb 2012 12:54 +1100

[Peter Webb]

"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:kkhsi7tob5vvki93f...@4ax.com...

Ummm ... how is that supposed to contradict the (observed fact) that the
earth cooled from 1998 to 2011?

In fact, the period described in the quote doesn't even include 1998 or
2011.

> Sorry, shit-bot, but you're busted again, just like your little
> buddy.
>

You do understand how dates work, right? Every successive year is numbered
one higher, and they go in sequential order. So 1998 was before 2000, and
2011 was after 2009? You get this, right?

[Peter Webb]

<k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message news:jgljlk$bs6$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org...

I have no idea who you are refering to; certainly not me, as I have made no
mention of a "trend" at all.

> Apparently even the idea of finding the average of median of a number
> of such comparisons to give the result *some* confience interval has
> not yet occured to him, let alone using least squares.
>

The statement that the earth cooled from 1998 to 2011 does not involve
"least squares". It involves substracting two numbers.

If a block of iron was at 20 degrees C at 4:00 pm and was at 15 degrees C at
6:00 pm, did it cool or warm between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm ?

If you think the answer involves "least squares", I would like to know how.

>>>The earth clearly hasn't warmed in the past 13 years, everybody agrees
>>>that
>>>2011 was cooler than 1998, but that is a completely different claim.
>> Sure, Webbie-poo, that's clear to all. That would be why the Met
>> said:
>> "[W]hat is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
>> trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the
>> warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850."
>> Sorry, shit-bot, but you're busted again, just like your little buddy.
>
> They cheated and used some year 10 stats that can't be checked easily
> with Google keyword lookup.
>
> This is in the "not fair" part of the lunkhead playbook.
>
> --
> [Statistics illiteracy 101:]
> [You claimed] 1998 was a "3 sigma outlier". I want to see how
> you calculated this; common sense would immediately indicate that this is
> complete bullshit. Please, don't bother dumbing it down, despite your
> implication of the contrary, I am far from being a "statistics
> illiterate".
> -- Peter Webb <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com>, 1 Feb 2012 12:54 +1100

Yeah, still waiting for the demonstration that 1998 was a "3 sigma outlier".

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 4:46 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
> The statement that the earth cooled from 1998 to 2011 does not involve
> "least squares". It involves substracting two numbers.

What is sad, Peter, is you have mistakenly concluded the earth is
globally cooling, and that is not the case!

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 4:40 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
> Ummm ... how is that supposed to contradict the (observed fact) that the
> earth cooled from 1998 to 2011?

What is sad, Peter, is you have mistakenly concluded the earth is
globally cooling, and that is not the case!

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg

[Richard Tobin]

In article <jglmme$95n$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Peter Webb <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The statement that the earth cooled from 1998 to 2011 does not involve
>"least squares". It involves substracting two numbers.

We don't have those two numbers. What we have is measurements that we
can use to estimate those numbers at various times. Using only the
estimates from the first and last years would be throwing away data.

-- Richard

[Peter Webb]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7eSdncJIOI_MF7PS...@mchsi.com...

Ummm ... where did I say that?

I don't even think it means anything in its present form, which is why I
would never have said it. How, exactly, do you determine if the earth *is*
or *is not* warming or cooling at some point in time?

I know what it means to say it has warmed or cooled since some previous
specified time, it means the temperature is higher/lower than at that
specified time.

Perhaps you can explain to me how you determine if the earth is currently
warming or cooling, what test answer this question?

[Peter Webb]

"Richard Tobin" <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:jgm2ct$1h9e$1...@matchbox.inf.ed.ac.uk...

> In article <jglmme$95n$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Peter Webb <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The statement that the earth cooled from 1998 to 2011 does not involve
>>"least squares". It involves substracting two numbers.
>
> We don't have those two numbers.

Yes we do. The average global temperatures in 1998 and 2011 are published.

> What we have is measurements that we
> can use to estimate those numbers at various times.

In 1998 and 2011, specifically.

> Using only the
> estimates from the first and last years would be throwing away data.
>
> -- Richard

A block of iron is at temperature 20 degrees C at 4:00 pm, and 15 degrees C
at 6:00 pm.

Did it warm or cool from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm?

[Earl Evleth]

On 4/02/12 18:24, in article 4f2d69e9$0$7220$426a...@news.free.fr, "Paul

Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

> If you don't believe me, ask for a translation.

The document I find on my own is the 2010 October report one

www.academie-sciences.fr/activite/rapport/rapport261010.pdf -

(this address is shorter than the one you posted but the
document is the same)

The conclusions are quite clear, starting out with the first three.

CONCLUSIONS 
€
Plusieurs indicateurs indépendants montrent une augmentation du réchauffemen
t climatique de 1975 à 2003. 

€
Cette augmentation est principalement due à l¹augmentation de la concentrati
on du CO2 dans l¹atmosphère. 

 
€
L¹augmentation de CO2 et, à un moindre degré, des autres gaz à effet de serr
e, est incontestablement due à l¹activité humaine.  

Does one really need to translate

"incontestablement due à l¹activité humaine"`

there is no wiggle room for you on that phrase.


Which boils down to there is global warming, it mainly due to CO2, and is
man-caused.

The French is direct not beating around the bush.

**
Some of the other conclusions really are pointing to work to be done.

€
Elle constitue une menace pour le climat et, de surcroît, pour les océans en
 raison du processus d¹acidification qu¹elle provoque. 


€
Cette augmentation entraîne des rétroactions du système climatique global,
 dont la complexité implique le recours aux modèles et aux tests permettant 
de les valider. 


€
Les mécanismes pouvant jouer un rôle dans la transmission et l¹amplification
 du forçage solaire et, en particulier, de l¹activité solaire ne sont pas en
core bien compris. L¹activité solaire, qui a légèrement décru en moyenne dep
uis 1975, ne peut être dominante dans le réchauffement observé sur cette pér
iode. 


€
Des incertitudes importantes demeurent sur la modélisation des nuages,
 l¹évolution des glaces marines et des calottes polaires, le couplage océan€
atmosphère, l¹évolution de la biosphère et la dynamique du cycle du carbone

€
Les projections de l¹évolution climatique sur 30 à 50 ans sont peu affectées
 par les incertitudes sur la modélisation des procesus à évolution lente. Ce
s projections sont particulièrement utiles pour répondre aux préoccupations 
sociétales actuelles, aggravées par l¹accroissement prévisible des populatio
ns. 

€
L¹évolution du climat ne peut être analysée que par de longues séries de don
nées, à grande échelle, homogènes et continues. Les grands programmes d¹obse
rvations internationaux, terrestres et spatiaux, doivent être maintenus et d
éveloppés, et leurs résultats mis à la libre disposition de la communauté sc
ientifique internationale. 

€
Le caractère interdisciplinaire des problèmes rencontrés impose d¹impliquer 
davantage encore les diverses communautés scientifiues pour poursuivre les a
vancées déjà réalisées dans le domaine de la climatologie et pour ouvrir de 
nouvelles pistes aux recheches futures. 

****

Generally in scientific papers I read the conclusions first. The golden
rule in writin,g is:

1) tell them what you are going to tell them

2) tell them

3) tell them what you told him``

reading conclusions first allows one to skip over the middle
or even not read the paper at all in detail. If is reviewing
20-30 papers a day one's time does not allow one to get caught
in useless details.

Finally, in a report like this one might well throw a few "oui, mais"
at the nitpickers. Reading the conclusions allows avoiding the blah blah.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:46:09 +0100, Earl Evleth wrote:

> On 4/02/12 18:24, in article 4f2d69e9$0$7220$426a...@news.free.fr,
> "Paul Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> If you don't believe me, ask for a translation.
>
> The document I find on my own is the 2010 October report one
>
> www.academie-sciences.fr/activite/rapport/rapport261010.pdf -
>
> (this address is shorter than the one you posted but the document is the
> same)
>
> The conclusions are quite clear, starting out with the first three.

The last conclusion are not bad too, and add a definitely mitigate the
first three with a dose of scepticism heavy enough for the document to
affirm everything and its opposite.

[Paul Aubrin]

Everybody in this group can see that you are not mistakenly using the
straw man fallacy. You obviously understand what you do. Sometimes you
understand some things.

[Peter Webb]

"Paul Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:4f2e9e20$0$17717$426a...@news.free.fr...

> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 07:56:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/12 4:40 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>> Ummm ... how is that supposed to contradict the (observed fact) that
>>> the earth cooled from 1998 to 2011?
>>
>> What is sad, Peter, is you have mistakenly concluded the earth is
>> globally cooling, and that is not the case!
>> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>
> Everybody in this group can see that you are not mistakenly using the
> straw man fallacy.

How?

> You obviously understand what you do. Sometimes you
> understand some things.
>
>

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The earth was cooler in 2011 than it was in 1998.

Nothing to do with least squares.

[Surfer]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 01:34:13 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>...How, exactly, do you determine if the earth *is*

>or *is not* warming or cooling at some point in time?
>
>I know what it means to say it has warmed or cooled since some previous
>specified time, it means the temperature is higher/lower than at that
>specified time.
>
>Perhaps you can explain to me how you determine if the earth is currently
>warming or cooling, what test answer this question?
>

Use satellite observations to check the radiation balance:

If the earth is absorbing more energy than it radiates, then it is
warming.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/missing-energy.html

"......Our data show that Earth has been accumulating heat in the
ocean at a rate of half a watt per square meter (10.8 square feet),
with no sign of a decline...."

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 02:35:45 +1100, Peter Webb wrote:

> "Paul Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:4f2e9e20$0$17717$426a...@news.free.fr...
>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 07:56:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/5/12 4:40 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>> Ummm ... how is that supposed to contradict the (observed fact) that
>>>> the earth cooled from 1998 to 2011?
>>>
>>> What is sad, Peter, is you have mistakenly concluded the earth is
>>> globally cooling, and that is not the case!
>>> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>>
>> Everybody in this group can see that you are not mistakenly using the
>> straw man fallacy.
>
> How?

My answer was to Sam Wormley.

>
>> You obviously understand what you do. Sometimes you understand some
>> things.
>>
>>
>>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> The earth was cooler in 2011 than it was in 1998.
>
> Nothing to do with least squares.

I agree with you from the beginning.

[Surfer]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 02:35:45 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
>The earth was cooler in 2011 than it was in 1998.
>

But it was warmer in 2011 than it was in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png

Those comparisons collectively carry more weight than the comparison
with 1998.

Also, the following graph shows that since 1979, the amount of Arctic
sea ice measured in September each year has been declining at an
average rate of 12% per decade.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/N_09_plot.png

And the rate appears to be accelerating.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:18:56 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
> news:58kri7hufo8jva31j...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:05:36 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
> > <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an
> >> inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
> >> the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
> >
> > Note that none of the scientists at the MET Office said what David
> > Rose claimed they said. The MET Office stated the exact opposite.
> > Rose lied (again).
> >
> > What the MET Office actually said:
> >
> > http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/mail-on-sunday/

> This isn't a matter of anybody's opinion; it is a matter of historical fact.

I know. It is a historical fact David Rose lied. It is a
historical fact the MET Office has consistantly reported the
facts. It is not a matter of opinion.

> I don't know if the earth has or hasn't warmed for the past 15 years,

You mean you are ignorant. Well, we knew that already.

> I would need to look up the average global temperatures for 2011 and 1996 and
> see which was larger.

Idiot. What the bloody fuck would that tell you? Moron.

> The earth clearly hasn't warmed in the past 13 years

Idiot.

>, everybody agrees that
> 2011 was cooler than 1998, but that is a completely different claim.

Idiot.

[Earl Evleth]

On 5/02/12 16:08, in article 4f2e9b6f$0$17717$426a...@news.free.fr, "Paul

Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

> The last conclusion are not bad too, and add a definitely mitigate the
> first three with a dose of scepticism heavy enough for the document to
> affirm everything and its opposite.

Absolute non-sense. You are reading what you wish into the conclusions.

Le caractère interdisciplinaire des problèmes rencontrés impose d¹impliquer 
davantage encore les diverses communautés scientifiues pour poursuivre les a
vancées déjà réalisées dans le domaine de la climatologie et pour ouvrir de 
nouvelles pistes aux recheches futures. 

Most science is open ended. Evolution is an established fact but
there is more worked always to be done. Climate research is even a
more difficult area because of the chaos factor.

This latter statement encourages the system to fund more reseach
which is always dear to the hearts of researchers.


Next you are the person who tried to misinform this group about the
CO2 measurement of the later 1930 and 1940s. These measurements
have impact now, are not even recognized as valid.

[Androcles]

"Surfer" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:kccti7hp7o1tgb19o...@4ax.com...

Which shows GW many be occurring but says nothing about AGW.
When are you cranks going to show evidence of AGW?

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 8:34 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7eSdncJIOI_MF7PS...@mchsi.com...
>> On 2/5/12 4:46 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>> The statement that the earth cooled from 1998 to 2011 does not involve
>>> "least squares". It involves substracting two numbers.
>>
>> What is sad, Peter, is you have mistakenly concluded the earth is
>> globally cooling, and that is not the case!
>>
>
> Ummm ... where did I say that?
>
> I don't even think it means anything in its present form, which is why I
> would never have said it. How, exactly, do you determine if the earth
> *is* or *is not* warming or cooling at some point in time?
>

Climatologists look at *thirty-years trends*.

Here are some graphic representations of the data:

> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig6-10b.png
> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg

[Marvin the Martian]

Yeah, yeah. "Drink the fucking Kool-Aide" You've spammed that a million
times.

Meanwhile, you're ignoring that CO2 went up and the mean average global
temperature didn't rise for the last 15 years. Seems you don't even have
a "correlation proves causation" fallacy as an argument since that's not
true anymore.

Physics wins, you and your non-science loses.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/12 8:34 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>
>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7eSdncJIOI_MF7PS...@mchsi.com...
>>> On 2/5/12 4:46 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>> The statement that the earth cooled from 1998 to 2011 does not involve
>>>> "least squares". It involves substracting two numbers.
>>>
>>> What is sad, Peter, is you have mistakenly concluded the earth is
>>> globally cooling, and that is not the case!
>>>
>>
>> Ummm ... where did I say that?
>>
>> I don't even think it means anything in its present form, which is why I
>> would never have said it. How, exactly, do you determine if the earth
>> *is* or *is not* warming or cooling at some point in time?
>>
>
> Climatologists look at *thirty-years trends*.

You keep repeating that like a religious mantra.

Since you can't do the math, 15 is half of 30 and if the last 50% of your
data points over a trend period don't follow the first 50%, your trend
is changing.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 1:05 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Yeah, yeah. "Drink the fucking Kool-Aide" You've spammed that a million
> times.
>
> Meanwhile, you're ignoring that CO2 went up and the mean average global
> temperature didn't rise for the last 15 years. Seems you don't even have
> a "correlation proves causation" fallacy as an argument since that's not
> true anymore.

Time will tell, Marvin. You keep forgetting Climatologists look
at *thirty-years trends*. And for good reason!

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 1:37 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/5/12 8:34 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sam Wormley"<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7eSdncJIOI_MF7PS...@mchsi.com...
>>>> On 2/5/12 4:46 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>>> The statement that the earth cooled from 1998 to 2011 does not involve
>>>>> "least squares". It involves substracting two numbers.
>>>>
>>>> What is sad, Peter, is you have mistakenly concluded the earth is
>>>> globally cooling, and that is not the case!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ummm ... where did I say that?
>>>
>>> I don't even think it means anything in its present form, which is why I
>>> would never have said it. How, exactly, do you determine if the earth
>>> *is* or *is not* warming or cooling at some point in time?
>>>
>>
>> Climatologists look at *thirty-years trends*.
>
> You keep repeating that like a religious mantra.
>

It's just a fact, jimp! Climatologists look at *thirty-years trends*.
That fact seems to get lost by climate change deniers.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/4/12 7:18 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> The earth clearly hasn't warmed in the past 13 years, everybody agrees
> that 2011 was cooler than 1998, but that is a completely different claim.
>

That even gets reported in the papers and misleads the public
about global warming.

> On the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, 16 scientists recently said there's no need for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now," they wrote without providing data.
>
> Not so, according to U.S. government records. In December, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that all 11 years of the 21st century so far (2001–2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:01:03 +0100, Earl Evleth
<evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> On 5/02/12 16:08, in article 4f2e9b6f$0$17717$426a...@news.free.fr, "Paul
> Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

> > The last conclusion are not bad too, and add a definitely mitigate the

> > first three with a dose of scepticism [sic] heavy enough for the document to

> > affirm everything and its opposite.

"Paul Aubrin" is still trying to make someone, some where, believe
he did not lie. LOL!

> Absolute non-sense. You are reading what you wish into the conclusions.

He is pretending to be this stupid. The French Academy of Science
said the exact opposite of what "Paul Aubrin" claimed they said.

> Le caractère interdisciplinaire des problèmes rencontrés impose d¹impliquer 
> davantage encore les diverses communautés scientifiues pour poursuivre les a
> vancées déjà réalisées dans le domaine de la climatologie et pour ouvrir de 
> nouvelles pistes aux recheches futures. 
>
> Most science is open ended. Evolution is an established fact but
> there is more worked always to be done. Climate research is even a
> more difficult area because of the chaos factor.
>
> This latter statement encourages the system to fund more reseach
> which is always dear to the hearts of researchers.
>
>
> Next you are the person who tried to misinform this group about the
> CO2 measurement of the later 1930 and 1940s. These measurements
> have impact now, are not even recognized as valid.

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is really sad is someone "far from statistical lunkhead" makes
a decision based on the raw difference of 2 numbers from a random sequence.
Like "outlier" I guess it will take a few more months of googling to
find out how to determine the confidence interval for such things.

But on a brighter note, according to some skeptics 1998 -- a 1 in 130 warm
year -- corresponds with the start of the next Ice Age.

Nature tries to fool you like that every now and then.

The part I liked was the ability to date the start of what is normally
thought to be a centuries-long process to the year. Give or take. :)

--
The post industrial period in the trend toward reglaciation began
circa fifteen years ago. With it has come heavy rain and snow and
and average global temps perhaps 5°C lower.
-- Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca>, Sun, 5 Feb 2012 09:42 -0800 (PST)

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

All hail the thirty-years trends.

Blessed be the thirty-years trends.

You ignore the part about 50% of your trend data being contray to trend
you are worshipping.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 3:48 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> All hail the thirty-years trends.
>
> Blessed be the thirty-years trends.
>
> You ignore the part about 50% of your trend data being contray to trend
> you are worshipping.
>
>

You keep forgetting Climatologists look at *thirty-years trends*

for good reason! Here are some graphic representations of the data:

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:51:03 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

> You keep forgetting Climatologists look at *thirty-years trends* for
> good reason! Here are some graphic representations of the data:

Congrats. You're an official (and offal) spammer having made the same
mindless cut and post three times already.

I find it funny as hell the way you think: when the data doesn't fit the
AGW hypothesis for 15 years, that doesn't debunk the hypothesis that was
formed over the 10 years from 1990 to 2000. Your hypothesis took only 10
years of a 30 year trend to "prove" while it takes more than 30 years to
debunk.

And in another 15 years after more cooling, you're going to say 50 year
trends.

That's not science, wormley.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 5:29 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> I find it funny as hell the way you think: when the data doesn't fit the
> AGW hypothesis for 15 years, that doesn't debunk the hypothesis that was
> formed over the 10 years from 1990 to 2000. Your hypothesis took only 10
> years of a 30 year trend to "prove" while it takes more than 30 years to
> debunk.

See how good a fit the fitted observables are to Hansen's 1981
predictions, Marvin.
> http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/1/6/9/7/0/5/1981cfobs-46485264070.jpeg

I pity you with your "blinders" on, Marvin.

AGW is happening, and you are grabbing at anything you can to
reenforce your denial.

> Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's
> energy balance
> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html
>
> The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>
> The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming
>
http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming
>
> Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

> The Last Great Global Warming
>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-last-great-global-warming

[Peter Webb]

"Surfer" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in message

news:pn8ti757uo67l39lp...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 01:34:13 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>...How, exactly, do you determine if the earth *is*
>>or *is not* warming or cooling at some point in time?
>>
>>I know what it means to say it has warmed or cooled since some previous
>>specified time, it means the temperature is higher/lower than at that
>>specified time.
>>
>>Perhaps you can explain to me how you determine if the earth is currently
>>warming or cooling, what test answer this question?
>>
>
> Use satellite observations to check the radiation balance:
>
> If the earth is absorbing more energy than it radiates, then it is
> warming.
>

Well, the earth warms and cools on a 24 hour cycle.

So that rather depends on the time of day.

[Peter Webb]

"Surfer" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in message

news:kccti7hp7o1tgb19o...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 02:35:45 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>The earth was cooler in 2011 than it was in 1998.
>>
>
> But it was warmer in 2011 than it was in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000.
> http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
>
> Those comparisons collectively carry more weight than the comparison
> with 1998.
>

ROFL.

Does temperature have mass?

And who msaid anything about weighing them?

> Also, the following graph shows that since 1979, the amount of Arctic
> sea ice measured in September each year has been declining at an
> average rate of 12% per decade.
> ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/N_09_plot.png
>
> And the rate appears to be accelerating.
>
>

Ummm ... we were discussing the temperatures in 1998 and 2011. Not the sea
ice in 1979.

[Peter Webb]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message

news:a4dti75277kvl45ec...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:18:56 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
>> news:58kri7hufo8jva31j...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:05:36 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
>> > <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an
>> >> inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data
>> >> showing
>> >> the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
>> >
>> > Note that none of the scientists at the MET Office said what David
>> > Rose claimed they said. The MET Office stated the exact opposite.
>> > Rose lied (again).
>> >
>> > What the MET Office actually said:
>> >
>> > http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/mail-on-sunday/
>
>> This isn't a matter of anybody's opinion; it is a matter of historical
>> fact.
>
> I know. It is a historical fact David Rose lied. It is a
> historical fact the MET Office has consistantly reported the
> facts. It is not a matter of opinion.
>

If you say so.

>> I don't know if the earth has or hasn't warmed for the past 15 years,
>
> You mean you are ignorant. Well, we knew that already.

Ignorant of the average global temperature in 1996 specifically.

>
>> I would need to look up the average global temperatures for 2011 and 1996
>> and
>> see which was larger.
>
> Idiot. What the bloody fuck would that tell you?

Which was larger, and hence whether the earth has warmed or cooled over that
period.

>Moron.
>
>> The earth clearly hasn't warmed in the past 13 years
>
> Idiot.
>
>>, everybody agrees that
>> 2011 was cooler than 1998, but that is a completely different claim.
>
> Idiot.
>

Not very articulate, are you?

Maybe you are unfamiliar with discussing scientific subjects?

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:45:55 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 2/5/12 5:29 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> I find it funny as hell the way you think: when the data doesn't fit
>> the AGW hypothesis for 15 years, that doesn't debunk the hypothesis
>> that was formed over the 10 years from 1990 to 2000. Your hypothesis
>> took only 10 years of a 30 year trend to "prove" while it takes more
>> than 30 years to debunk.
>
> See how good a fit the fitted observables are to Hansen's 1981
> predictions, Marvin.
>> http://images.sodahead.com/
profiles/0/0/2/1/6/9/7/0/5/1981cfobs-46485264070.jpeg

So, he predicted a 0.3 C increase from 1998 until now.

Well, that didn't happen. Hypothesis rejected.

> I pity you with your "blinders" on, Marvin.

Talk about blinders! Even the MET office is saying no warming over the
last 15 years.

> AGW is happening, and you are grabbing at anything you can to
> reenforce your denial.

There's been climate change, no proof it was caused by CO2, no proof that
the humans put the CO2 there, considerable evidence points to solar cycle
changes and considerable science says that the CO2 is an effect of
warming and not a cause.

And what do you have? A correlation proves causation argument and you're
pretending there was warming over the last 15 years.

You're no scientist. You're a political propagandist posing as a
scientist to fool and scare people into your political policies. You and
other frauds like you disgust me.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 7:09 PM, Peter Webb wrote:

>
> Well, the earth warms and cools on a 24 hour cycle.
>

Hey Peter, Climatologists use 30-year trends, not diurnal
or seasonal patterns.

[Peter Webb]

<k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message news:jgmtmd$dft$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org...

> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/5/12 4:46 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>> The statement that the earth cooled from 1998 to 2011 does not involve
>>> "least squares". It involves substracting two numbers.
>> What is sad, Peter, is you have mistakenly concluded the earth is
>> globally cooling, and that is not the case!
>
>
> What is really sad is someone "far from statistical lunkhead" makes
> a decision based on the raw difference of 2 numbers from a random
> sequence.

Now that is interesting indeed.

To even appropriately use the concept of "outlier" you have to assume the
data points are (as you put it) "random" (or more properly) "independent and
uncorrelated".

But a central thesis of your "science" is that global temperatures are not
independent; they are correlated over time.

If you believe that temperatures form a "random sequence" as you wrote
above, then you can certainly use these statistical concepts, but
unfortunately if they are random then they can't possibly be time
correlated, and hence cannot be even in part a function of CO2
concentration.

So you, do you believe that global temperatures form a "random sequence" as
you wrote above? Because if you do, you are in direct contradiction of one
of the tenets of climate "science".

> Like "outlier" I guess it will take a few more months of googling to
> find out how to determine the confidence interval for such things.
>

Still waiting for your calculation of how 1998 was a 3 sigma outlier.

> But on a brighter note, according to some skeptics 1998 -- a 1 in 130 warm
> year -- corresponds with the start of the next Ice Age.
>

Not me, though. I never said that. You should discuss this with whoever told
you it was true. I don't know if it is or not.

> Nature tries to fool you like that every now and then.
>
> The part I liked was the ability to date the start of what is normally
> thought to be a centuries-long process to the year. Give or take. :)
>

Like I said, you should have this conversation with whoever told you this.

Winning an imaginary conversation might make you happy, but its not telling
us you calculated that 1998 was a 3 sigma outlier.

> --
> The post industrial period in the trend toward reglaciation began
> circa fifteen years ago. With it has come heavy rain and snow and
> and average global temps perhaps 5°C lower.
> -- Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca>, Sun, 5 Feb 2012 09:42 -0800 (PST)

Well, bully for him.

Are you going to do the 3 sigma calculation for us?

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 7:21 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> There's been climate change, no proof it was caused by CO2, no proof that
> the humans put the CO2 there, considerable evidence points to solar cycle
> changes and considerable science says that the CO2 is an effect of
> warming and not a cause.

Your words are those of a person in denial about AGW.

Start with the CO2:

> CO2 and its effect on climate
> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
>
> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

>
> The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>

[Rocco]

On Feb 5, 8:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/12 7:21 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> > There's been climate change, no proof it was caused by CO2, no proof that
> > the humans put the CO2 there, considerable evidence points to solar cycle
> > changes and considerable science says that the CO2 is an effect of
> > warming and not a cause.
>
>    Your words are those of a person in denial about AGW.
>
>    Start with the CO2:

When the government starts telling me that the C02 that I exhale is
bad for the world, the next thing you know, they'll be banning my
farts because they contain methane!

I like farting. It attracts the chicks in the trailer park.

[Peter Webb]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:CbudnVZpqM41trLS...@mchsi.com...

Well, the rule I was given for working out whether the earth is warming or
cooling at any one time used satellite measurements.

A rather strange way of defining what is supposed to be a scientific
concept, by defining it in terms of specific human created measurement
device, but climate "science" is full of odd concepts.

However, accepting this definition, then global warming cannot be based on
30 year timeframes, as we did not have satellites which accurately measured
global temperatures 30 years ago.

Perhaps you should respond to the person who claimed that global warming was
a function of satellite measurements, which clearly cannot be true if a 30
year baseline is required?

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 7:31 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> To even appropriately use the concept of "outlier" you have to assume
> the data points are (as you put it) "random" (or more properly)
> "independent and uncorrelated".

Peter, read, Observed Climate Variability and Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.PDF

> A new record was set in all four series in 1998 (anomalies relative to 1961 to 1990 of CRU, 0.68°C; NCDC, 0.87°C; GISS, 0.58°C; and SHI, 0.58°C). 1998 was influenced by the strong 1997/98 El Niño; the warming influence of El Niño on global temperature is empirically well attested (e.g., Jones, 1994) and the physical causes are starting to be uncovered (Meehl et al., 1998). However, 1998 was considerably warmer than 1983, a year warmed by the comparable 1982/83 El Niño. In fact 1998 was between 0.34 and 0.54°C warmer than 1983 over land, depending on the temperature series used, though there was some offsetting cooling from volcanic aerosols from the 1982 El Chichon eruption in 1983. 1999 was globally much cooler than 1998, with an anomaly of 0.40°C in the CRU series, as it was cooled by the strongest La Niña since 1988/89. Despite its relative coolness, 1999 was still the fifth warmest year in the CRU record. Depending on the record used, 1999 was between 0.11°C and 0
.33°C warmer than the last comparable La Niña year, 1989. It is noteworthy, however, that north of 20°N, 1999 was nearly as warm as 1998. Mitigation of the warming trend in the early 1990s was short-lived and was mainly due to the cooling influence of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 (Parker et al., 1996), highlighted in the SAR. The ten warmest years in all four records have occurred after 1980, six or seven of them in the 1990s in each series.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 7:56 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> Well, the rule I was given for working out whether the earth is warming
> or cooling at any one time used satellite measurements.

Speaking of satellite measurements, Peter--

Despite scientific evidence regarding global warming, there were still
some scientists who said that this is just a hoax.

Their key argument was that *satellite measurements* showed no increase
of the atmosphere's temperature in the tropics; there were even signs of
cooling in those areas.

But they were wrong, and according to the Science journal, it seems that
the only reason why the satellites reported a cooling in the tropics was
because they had drifted in orbit.

After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears
and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found
that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of
temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly
reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false
cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations.

Now, after *the data has been corrected*, the conclusions are obvious:
the *temperature of the planet has increased*.

The measurements show an increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.56 degrees
Celsius) over the past 30 years, and the pace is expected to increase in
the next century.

[Rocco]

Yeah, sure! But some guy who writes for the National Post called
Lorne Gunter says that it's all a big conspiracy, and Peter Foster
(another journalist) agrees with him! Then there's how Lawrence
Solomon agrees!

They're all proven experts on climate science. The fact that they
have no credentials in the card game is irrelevant!

It's all about expertise! The expertise of how journalists who have
no credentials scream loudly in the virtually ignored right wing
media, about how those who study it full time are full of shit!

Why else would Canada's Conservative government still have limited,
but still existing policies on reducing greenhouse emissions that
refute the notions of the right wing crazy asses like the
aforementioned?

[kym]

On Feb 6, 1:00 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/12 7:31 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
>
> > To even appropriately use the concept of "outlier" you have to assume
> > the data points are (as you put it) "random" (or more properly)
> > "independent and uncorrelated".
>
>    Peter, read, Observed Climate Variability and Change
>      http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.PDF

....


With enough prodding you can probably get him to "prove" the year-to-
year temperature data is
not "independent and uncorrelated" -- IOW he will disprove his own
thesis that "nothing is going on and
there is no trend".

What a doofus. LOL.

--
[Statistics illiteracy 101:]
[You claimed] 1998 was a "3 sigma outlier". I want to see how
you calculated this; common sense would immediately indicate that this
is
complete bullshit. Please, don't bother dumbing it down, despite your
implication of the contrary, I am far from being a "statistics
illiterate".
-- Peter Webb <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com>, 1 Feb 2012 12:54 +1100

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:00:44 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 2/5/12 7:31 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>
>> To even appropriately use the concept of "outlier" you have to assume
>> the data points are (as you put it) "random" (or more properly)
>> "independent and uncorrelated".
>
> Peter, read, Observed Climate Variability and Change
> http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.PDF
>

>> A new record was set in all four series in 1998 (anomalies relative to 1961 to 1990 of CRU, 0.68°C; NCDC, 0.87°C; GISS, 0.58°C; and SHI, 0.58°C). 1998 was influenced by the strong 1997/98 El Nin?o; the warming influence of El Nin?o on global temperature is empirically well attested (e.g., Jones, 1994) and the physical causes are starting to be uncovered (Meehl et al., 1998). However, 1998 was considerably warmer than 1983, a year warmed by the comparable 1982/83 El Nin?o. In fact 1998 was between 0.34 and 0.54°C warmer than 1983 over land, depending on the temperature series used, though there was some offsetting cooling from volcanic aerosols from the 1982 El Chichon eruption in 1983. 1999 was globally much cooler than 1998, with an anomaly of 0.40°C in the CRU series, as it was cooled by the strongest La Nin?a since 1988/89. Despite its relative coolness, 1999 was still the fifth warmest year in the CRU record. Depending on the record used, 1999 was between 0.11°C and 0
>.33°C warmer than the last comparable La Nin?a year, 1989. It is noteworthy, however, that north of 20°N, 1999 was nearly as warm as 1998. Mitigation of the warming trend in the early 1990s was short-lived and was mainly due to the cooling influence of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 (Parker et al., 1996), highlighted in the SAR. The ten warmest years in all four records have occurred after 1980, six or seven of them in the 1990s in each series.

Do you have a particular page of paragraph in mind?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins383803.html

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
-- Albert Einstein

[Peter Webb]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:HK2dnerjgfWQqrLS...@mchsi.com...

So you claim that some idea that some unspecified person has is wrong?

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/5/12 8:26 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> So you claim that some idea that some unspecified person has is wrong?
>

What I want to convince you of, Peter, is that the earth is taking
in more energy that greenhouse gasses are giving up--resulting in
greenhouse gas driven global warming, in spite of a lower solar
output from 2005-2010.


> NASA - Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity
>
> Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity
> A new NASA study underscores the fact that greenhouse gases generated by human activity -- not changes in solar activity -- are the primary force driving global warming.
>
> The study offers an updated calculation of the Earth's energy imbalance, the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth's surface and the amount returned to space as heat. The researchers' calculations show that, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space.
>
> James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, led the research. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics published the study last December.
>
> A prolonged solar minimum left the sun's surface nearly free of sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae between 2005 and 2010. Total solar irradiance declined slightly as a result, but the Earth continued to absorb more energy than it emit throughout the minimum. An animation of a full solar cycle is available here. Credit: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio
> › Larger image | TIFF format Total solar irradiance, the amount of energy produced by the sun that reaches the top of each square meter of the Earth's atmosphere, typically declines by about a tenth of a percent during cyclical lulls in solar activity caused by shifts in the sun's magnetic field. Usually solar minimums occur about every eleven years and last a year or so, but the most recent minimum persisted more than two years longer than normal, making it the longest minimum recorded during the satellite era.
>
> Pinpointing the magnitude of Earth's energy imbalance is fundamental to climate science because it offers a direct measure of the state of the climate. Energy imbalance calculations also serve as the foundation for projections of future climate change. If the imbalance is positive and more energy enters the system than exits, Earth grows warmer. If the imbalance is negative, the planet grows cooler.
>
> Hansen's team concluded that Earth has absorbed more than half a watt more solar energy per square meter than it let off throughout the six year study period. The calculated value of the imbalance (0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter) is more than twice as much as the reduction in the amount of solar energy supplied to the planet between maximum and minimum solar activity (0.25 watts per square meter).
>
> "The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about the climate system, but it's worth noting because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming," Hansen said.
>
> According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the future.
>
> A graph of the sun's total solar irradiance shows that in recent years irradiance dipped to the lowest levels recorded during the satellite era. The resulting reduction in the amount of solar energy available to affect Earth's climate was about .25 watts per square meter, less than half of Earth's total energy imbalance. (Credit: NASA/James Hansen)
> › Larger image
>
> Climate scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth's energy imbalance for many years, but this newest estimate is an improvement over previous attempts because the scientists had access to better measurements of ocean temperature than researchers have had in the past.
>
> The improved measurements came from free-floating instruments that directly monitor the temperature, pressure and salinity of the upper ocean to a depth of 2,000 meters (6,560 feet). The network of instruments, known collectively as Argo, has grown dramatically in recent years since researchers first began deploying the floats a decade ago. Today, more than 3,400 Argo floats actively take measurements and provide data to the public, mostly within 24 hours.
>
> Hansen's analysis of the information collected by Argo, along with other ground-based and satellite data, show the upper ocean has absorbed 71 percent of the excess energy and the Southern Ocean, where there are few Argo floats, has absorbed 12 percent. The abyssal zone of the ocean, between about 3,000 and 6,000 meters (9,800 and 20,000 feet) below the surface, absorbed five percent, while ice absorbed eight percent and land four percent.
>
> Data collected by Argo floats, such as this one, helped Hansen's team improve the calculation of Earth's energy imbalance. Credit: Argo Project Office
> › Larger image The updated energy imbalance calculation has important implications for climate modeling. Its value, which is slightly lower than previous estimates, suggests that most climate models overestimate how readily heat mixes deeply into the ocean and significantly underestimates the cooling effect of small airborne particles called aerosols, which along with greenhouse gases and solar irradiance are critical factors in energy imbalance calculations.
>
> "Climate models simulate observed changes in global temperatures quite accurately, so if the models mix heat into the deep ocean too aggressively, it follows that they underestimate the magnitude of the aerosol cooling effect," Hansen said.
>
> Aerosols, which can either warm or cool the atmosphere depending on their composition and how they interact with clouds, are thought to have a net cooling effect. But estimates of their overall impact on climate are quite uncertain given how difficult it is to measure the distribution of the particles on a broad scale. The new study suggests that the overall cooling effect from aerosols could be about twice as strong as current climate models suggest, largely because few models account for how the particles affect clouds.
>
> A chart shows the global reach of the network of Argo floats. (Credit: Argo Project Office)
> › Larger image
>
> "Unfortunately, aerosols remain poorly measured from space," said Michael Mishchenko, a scientist also based at GISS and the project scientist for Glory, a satellite mission designed to measure aerosols in unprecedented detail that was lost after a launch failure in early 2011. "We must have a much better understanding of the global distribution of detailed aerosol properties in order to perfect calculations of Earth's energy imbalance," said Mishchenko.

[Earl Evleth]

On 5/02/12 22:09, in article 2trti754fdr3qrdmi...@4ax.com,

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> "Paul Aubrin" is still trying to make someone, some where, believe
> he did not lie. LOL!

What I found interesting in the report was that the Academie did not
play the normal game of "experts" in France, a little something for
everybody.


BUT

It sometimes happens that judges are extraordinarily critical of one
side or another in a legal suit. One person in our Parisian building is
constantly suing the building or other particulars in the building,
largely for obstructionist reasons. One suit recently backfired
and he was convicted not his defendants, he has to come up with about
90,000 euros in damages for them. The French have an expression 'l'arroseur
arrosé', which is a man hoisted with his own petard,

[Surfer]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 12:09:41 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>
>>>Perhaps you can explain to me how you determine if the earth is currently
>>>warming or cooling, what test answer this question?
>>>
>>
>> Use satellite observations to check the radiation balance:
>>
>> If the earth is absorbing more energy than it radiates, then it is
>> warming.
>>
>
>Well, the earth warms and cools on a 24 hour cycle.
>
>So that rather depends on the time of day.
>

It would also depend on the position of the earth in its orbit.

So to make a reliable comparision, they determine the total amounts of
energy absorbed and radiated during the course of a year.

[Peter Webb]

"Surfer" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in message

news:1rivi7tpmqdeomevu...@4ax.com...

And then, even if exactly as much is received as transmitted, the earth's
surface would be warming anyway, due to thermal transmission from the
earth's core and magma, as well as radioactive decay in the top of the
crust.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 18:08:15 -0000, "Androcles"

<H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:

>
> "Surfer" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in message

> news:kccti7hp7o1tgb19o...@4ax.com...
> | On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 02:35:45 +1100, "Peter Webb"

> | <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> |
> |
> | >
> | >The earth was cooler in 2011 than it was in 1998.
> | >
> |
> | But it was warmer in 2011 than it was in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000.
> |
> http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
> |
> | Those comparisons collectively carry more weight than the comparison
> | with 1998.
> |

> | Also, the following graph shows that since 1979, the amount of Arctic
> | sea ice measured in September each year has been declining at an
> | average rate of 12% per decade.
> | ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/N_09_plot.png
> |
> | And the rate appears to be accelerating.

> Which shows GW many be occurring but says nothing about AGW.
> When are you cranks going to show evidence of AGW?

Idiot.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:00:30 -0600, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/5/12 8:34 AM, Peter Webb wrote:

> > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > news:7eSdncJIOI_MF7PS...@mchsi.com...

> >> On 2/5/12 4:46 AM, Peter Webb wrote:

> >>> The statement that the earth cooled from 1998 to 2011 does not involve
> >>> "least squares". It involves substracting two numbers.

> >> What is sad, Peter, is you have mistakenly concluded the earth is
> >> globally cooling, and that is not the case!

> > Ummm ... where did I say that?
> >
> > I don't even think it means anything in its present form, which is why I

> > would never have said it. How, exactly, do you determine if the earth

> > *is* or *is not* warming or cooling at some point in time?

"Peter Webb" is pretending he does not know the answer so that
pro-science pepople will waste their time on him.

> Climatologists look at *thirty-years trends*.

More correctly, they look at time spans of about thirty years and
longer.

> Here are some graphic representations of the data:
>

> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig6-10b.png
> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg

"Peter Webb" and his cult don't accept the evidence: why even try
to once again, for the 20,000th time, produce it for them?

[AGWFacts]

That may indeed be the motivation behind "Paul Aubrin" here:
obstructionism---- the desire to waste the time of the defenders
of science and reason, for other reasons (occult, political,
greed). There are many Americans who sue people as a career, to
rob them of money and also to punish people.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/5/12 3:48 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> All hail the thirty-years trends.
>>
>> Blessed be the thirty-years trends.
>>
>> You ignore the part about 50% of your trend data being contray to trend
>> you are worshipping.
>>
>>
>
> You keep forgetting Climatologists look at *thirty-years trends*
> for good reason! Here are some graphic representations of the data:

Are you *REALLY* this stupid?

Do you actually not have a clue about statistics?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/5/12 5:29 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> I find it funny as hell the way you think: when the data doesn't fit the
>> AGW hypothesis for 15 years, that doesn't debunk the hypothesis that was
>> formed over the 10 years from 1990 to 2000. Your hypothesis took only 10
>> years of a 30 year trend to "prove" while it takes more than 30 years to
>> debunk.
>
> See how good a fit the fitted observables are to Hansen's 1981
> predictions, Marvin.
>> http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/1/6/9/7/0/5/1981cfobs-46485264070.jpeg
>

What a joke and steaming pile all at one time.

> I pity you with your "blinders" on, Marvin.

I pity you with your lack of adult skills and inablility to do statistics.

[Sam Wormley]

jimp, climate data is statistical and to be able to draw any
conclusions from the data you need a period of at least 30 years.
30 years *is the minimum value* so that any trends can be seen as
statistically significant when comparing year to year trends.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:01:03 +0100, Earl Evleth wrote:

> On 5/02/12 16:08, in article 4f2e9b6f$0$17717$426a...@news.free.fr,
> "Paul Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> The last conclusion are not bad too, and add a definitely mitigate the
>> first three with a dose of scepticism heavy enough for the document to
>> affirm everything and its opposite.
>
> Absolute non-sense. You are reading what you wish into the conclusions.

It is not nonsense, it is what was written in the report:

"The very productive debate and of a high scientific level was about
climate prevision methods ; it permitted to confront the diverging point
of view, to find some points of convergence and to identify points of
divergence and persisting uncertainties. It will be the starting point of
a reflection effort that will go on later."

The academicians mentioned "diverging point of view", thus they state
they couldn't reach a consensus. QED.

"Despite the new tools of investigation that we can use nowadays, et
despite the considerable volume of data we accumulated those last twenty
years, we must underline that Science has not an answer to everything,
that it proceeds step by step and that it can provide at a given moment
only the interpretation of known facts and some previsions."

Here they say they couldn't reach a consensus because uncertainties are
far too important. Thus, they state that the science is not settled.

I agree with them.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:09:11 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

>> Absolute non-sense. You are reading what you wish into the
>> conclusions.
>

> He is pretending to be this stupid. The French Academy of Science said
> the exact opposite of what "Paul Aubrin" claimed they said.

I just translated what the report of the Academy. It is quite clear,
although it is not exactly what you were told. Read it again, points of
divergence (no consensus), persisting uncertainties (science not settled):

"The very productive debate and of a high scientific level was about
climate prevision methods ; it permitted to confront the diverging point
of view, to find some points of convergence and to identify points of
divergence and persisting uncertainties. It will be the starting point of
a reflection effort that will go on later.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:07:13 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

>> Which shows GW many be occurring but says nothing about AGW.
>> When are you cranks going to show evidence of AGW?
>
> Idiot.

Translation: AGW is unable to provide a rational answer. So, each times
he is asked for evidence, he replies with foul words.
Where is the evidence of any positive feedback in the climate system ?
No positive feedbacks, no dangerous warming, just positive effects.

[hanson]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:q5GdnfZKitQgrq3S...@mchsi.com...

> On 2/6/12 1:47 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/5/12 3:48 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>

Jim wrote:
>>>> All hail the thirty-years trends.
>>>> Blessed be the thirty-years trends.
>>>> You ignore the part about 50% of your trend data being contray to trend

>>>> you are worshipping., Sam

>>>
Sam wrote:
>>> You keep forgetting Climatologists look at *thirty-years trends*
>>> for good reason! Here are some graphic representations of the data:
>>

Jim wrote:
>> Are you *REALLY* this stupid?
>> Do you actually not have a clue about statistics?
>>

.
Sam wrote:
Pennino, climate data is statistical and to be able to draw
any conclusions from the data you need..... <snip crap>
>
hanson wrote:
Sam, that is so true. And you globally warmed Enviro turds
and Green shits use these stats with a vengeance for your
pinko green agenda of lies... in full accordance with your
Green Bible that says:
>
6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
= we will be doing the right thing".
= -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion UN-gift.
>
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change
= provides equality in the world."
= -- Christine Stewart, Canada Enviro Minister.
>
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ...
= it only matters what people believe is true.
= -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace
>
2 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then ...
= make it up on the spot... for the mass-media today...
= the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
>
5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public
= by making things bigger and more dangerous
+ than they really are."
= --Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni, Halifax.
>
9 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
-- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but then hit the big time as a global warmer)
>
----------------- ergo: -----------------
>
= Greenism is the politics of Hysteria, Misanthropy & True lies.
== GW, AGW & CC is nothing but Green Pornography.
=== There is nothing filthier than an environmentalist.
==== There is nothing more corrupt then an enviro.
===== There is nothing more immoral then an enviro.
====== There is nothing more perverted then a Greenie
>
EPA grants <http://tinyurl.com/EPA-gives-Millions-to-China>
without congressional approval, to "educate" the Chinese
Green shits to promulgate AGW lies over there. Therefore:
>
=== - De-fund EPA - De-fund EPA - De-fund EPA ===
>
-- (EPA- & enviro employees will find other jobs) -- [1] --
>
De-fund EPA - De-fund EPA - De-fund EPA - De-fund EPA
>
to avoid that folks get irate against Greenies, like these 2 here:
>
Eric Gisin expressed his frustration, already years ago by saying:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.org.sierra-club/msg/5bf027613f44f4fa>
"Fucking Greens should be shot for making the world so stupid".
>
and Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> who wrote:
It's way past time to start hunting down environmentalists
like the rabid animals that they are.
in<news:2011083...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
PS:
[1] --- (EPA- & enviro employees will find other jobs)
>
... this [1] is what EPA-employees tell the victims
of their Green regulations, when they destroy jobs,
families & livelihoods, to save a weed or a bug:
"Affected parties of the regulations will find other jobs"
That count is now, in the US alone, some 25 million of
un/der-employed bread earners... all caused by the
fanaticism and GREED of those Green Enviro Nazis!
>
PS:
A family came back from vacations in Yosemite Nat.
Park, complaining about the high price they had to
pay to sleep in vermin infested, filthy Log Cabins.
Said one of the Govt. employees there, with full
conviction and great pride: "Isn't it wonderful that
Disneyland is not running this place. Wouldn't that
be a tragedy for the environment?"...
>
Even more grievous is the megalomania exhibited
by the general horde of Park employees who do
shut down the parks, that belong to the public, when
their funding is curtailed or stopped. Fuck Enviros.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Yep, you are clueless about statistics.

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

"Facts" has some problem remembering which side of the road he's driving on.
Just in the past week has labelled Muller's summary position of the BEST
results as "a lie" and also a simple method to show there have been
observed to be overall feedback of the positive type in the climate
system (using skeptics' own positions) "a lie".

Maybe he'll "help" the skeptics out, sometime, is what I'[m hoping these days.

[Peter Webb]

"kym" <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:450d1716-0798-470c...@3g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 6, 1:00 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/12 7:31 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
>
> > To even appropriately use the concept of "outlier" you have to assume
> > the data points are (as you put it) "random" (or more properly)
> > "independent and uncorrelated".
>
> Peter, read, Observed Climate Variability and Change
> http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.PDF
....


With enough prodding you can probably get him to "prove" the year-to-
year temperature data is
not "independent and uncorrelated" -- IOW he will disprove his own
thesis that "nothing is going on and
there is no trend".

____________________________________________
Who are you quoting?


What a doofus. LOL.
_____________________________________
Agreed. But as far as I can work out the only doofus who has said this is
you.

--
[Statistics illiteracy 101:]
[You claimed] 1998 was a "3 sigma outlier". I want to see how
you calculated this; common sense would immediately indicate that this
is
complete bullshit. Please, don't bother dumbing it down, despite your
implication of the contrary, I am far from being a "statistics
illiterate".
-- Peter Webb <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com>, 1 Feb 2012 12:54 +1100

__________________________________________

Good point. You claimed 1998 was a "3 sigma outlier". I want to see how you

calculated this; common sense would immediately indicate that this is
complete bullshit.

Why haven't you done this? Can't back up your own idiot claims?

[Sam Wormley]

Why, jimp, don't you articulate a statistical argument as to why
climatologist *don't need* data set of thirty years an longer!

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:54:34 -0800 (PST),
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2:30 pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:10:54 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:
> > > "CONCLUSIONS
> >
> > > "1) Several independent indicators show an increase in warming from 1975
> > > to 2003.
> >
> > > "2) This increase is mainly due to the increase in concentration of CO2
> > > in the atmosphere.
> >
> > > "3) The increase in CO2 and, to a lesser extent, other greenhouse gas
> > > emissions, is undoubtedly due to human activity.
> >
> > > "4) It is a threat to the climate and a threat to the oceans due to the
> > > acidification process it causes."

> > 5. This increase induces feedbacks in the global climatic system whose
> > complexity implies to resort to models and tests allowing to validate
> > them.
> > Translation: The complexity of feedbacks is such that more tests are
> > required to validate them.
> >
> > 6. The mechanism which can play a role in the transmission and
> > amplification of solar forcing, and particularly, solar activity are
> > still not very well understood.
> > Translation: Solar activity could play a big role too, if it could be
> > better understood.
> >
> > 7. Big uncertainties remain relative to cloud modelling, sea ice and
> > polar ice, the atmosphere and ocean coupling, the evolution of the
> > biosphere and the carbon cycle dynamic.
> > Translation: big uncertainties still exist on nearly all the major
> > factors that could influence the climate.
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > First 4 points : we were told by the secretary of state to environment to
> > tell we agree with the global warming theory.
> > Next 4 points : note that the uncertainties make those conclusions not so
> > sure, thus, if later it appeared that CO2 had not the major climate
> > influence we are urged to tell, we would not be so much to blame.

Note how the cultist "Paul Aubrin" is still falsely telling us
what the French Academy of Science wrote, instead of letting the
French Academy of Science tell us what the French Academy of
Science wrote.

The French Academy of Science stated the exact opposite of what
alarmist "Paul Aubrin" claimed they stated.

> Their latest statement is from Oct. 2010. Quote:
>
> The following conclusions are presented in the report:
>
> - Several independent indicators show an increase of warming from 1975
> to 2003.
>
> - This increase is mainly due to the increase in CO2 concentration in
> the atmosphere
>
> - The increase in CO2 and, to a lesser degree, of other greenhouse
> gases, is unequivocally due to human activity.
>
> - It constitutes a threat to the climate and, moreover, to oceans as a
> result of the acidification process it generates.
>
> - This increase drives retroactions of the global climate system, the
> complexity of which requires the use of models and tests for the
> purpose of validating them.
>
> - The mechanisms which can play a role in the transmission and
> amplification of solar forcing, and in particular, of solar activity,
> are not yet well understood. Solar activity, which has slightly
> decreased on average since 1975, cannot be dominant in the observed
> warming during this period
>
> - Important uncertainties remain in the modeling of clouds, the
> evolution of marine ice and polar ice caps, ocean/atmosphere coupling,
> the evolution of the biosphere and the dynamics of the carbon cycle
>
> - The projections of climate change over the 30 to 50-year period are
> only slightly affected by the uncertainty in the modeling of slow-
> moving processes. These projections are particularly useful in meeting
> current societal concerns, made worse by the predictable population
> increase.
>
> - Climate change can only by analyzed by long series of data, both
> homogeneous and continuous, on a large scale. The major terrestrial
> and spatial observation programs, must be maintained and developed and
> their results made available to the international scientific
> community.
>
> - The interdisciplinary nature of the problems requires an even
> greater involvement of the various scientific communities to further
> the advances already achieved in the field of climatology and to open
> new avenues for future research."
>
> http://www.ambafrance-us.org/climate/report-of-the-french-academy-of-sciences-on-global-warming/

This is exactly what the rest of the world's experts have stated
on the subject; it is also the exact opposite of what alarmist
"Paul Aubrin" claimed the Academy stated.

> Sounds pretty mainstream climate science. Sounds like they say you're
> pretty much either ignorant or lying.

Lying, obviously.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:40:03 -0800 (PST), kym
<kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 6, 8:48 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > You ignore the part about 50% of your trend data being contray to trend
> > you are worshipping.
>

> First of all, you have to understand that "trend" in scientific terms
> doesn't mean subtracting 2
> points and looking at the difference.
>
> It means (at the very least) finding a line that passes as close as
> possible to all the datapoints.
>
> Such a procedure has nice statistical properties. E.g. you can
> calculate what proportion of
> the datapoints actually are contrary to the trend. You don't need to
> guess. You don't need
> to "judge by eye".
>
> When someone quotes a trend as "90%" significant, they are saying
> roughly that 10% of the data
> are contrary to the (majority) trend.
>
> I have run these numbers innumerable times before to not result. But
> who am I not to cast
> more pearls before whatever.
>
> Taking the unsmoothed (said to be "a fiddle" by the ignoranti) LOTI
> monthly index perform the
> usual time-series corrections because of the high serial corr of the
> data (which usually end in under-estimating trends -- something that
> pleases the ignoranti) we find a trend line
>
> LOTI index = .006635 * date - 12.93
>
> (where "date" == year.fraction, taking into account the month)
>
> The warming rate of .6635C (the "beta") per century is less than other
> published results because of our very very conservative assumptions
> for the sake of the ignoranti.
>
> The relevant calc shows the "beta" value has a 90% confidence [.
> 00495,.00832] i.e. is not likely to be negative or 0 and the T-test
> for the model shows 6.47 at 1555 degrees of freedom. I.e. the
> probability
> the beta value despite showing .006635 is actually 0 is less than .
> 0000005
> and the probability the beta is negative despite showing as positive
> is also about .0000005.
>
> Furthermore, a Spearman test gives .942 that also (via relevant tables
> if you haven't memorised them by now) indicates a better than 99%
> confidence there is a positive trend.
>
> (The non-parametric Spearman test is considered more statistically
> robust than a T-test because
> it makes fewer assumptions about the underlying distribution of the
> data. In this case, however,
> the T-test assumptions are met very well in any case).
>
> So that would indicate "no very many" of the datapoints run contrary
> to the overall trend.

You are trying to educate someone who has insisted that physics is
not topical to the newsgroup sci.physics

The causation confidence is higher than 98% yet to the net.kooks
like jim here it's all still just one massive unsolvable mystery.

Meanwhile, the latest observations, reported by NASA three days
ago, show once again that Earth's increasing greenhouse gases are
causing Earth to retain more energy than it radiates back into
space.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 19:47:16 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

Your delition of the evidence won't make it go away, net.k00k

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:09:26 -0600, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/6/12 1:47 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> jimp, climate data is statistical and to be able to draw any
> conclusions from the data you need a period of at least 30 years.
> 30 years *is the minimum value* so that any trends can be seen as
> statistically significant when comparing year to year trends.

One can make successful predictions based on shorter time frames,
when:

1) Causation is fully understood (which in human-caused climate
change it is), and;

2) When correlation between causitive data sets (such as
atmospheric CO2 value and temperature value) is very high.

Successful predictions based upon just 20 years of this data can
be, and were, made. For example, in just 20 years the above data
sets showed that predictions made as far back at the 1930s were
correct.

[kym]

The "magical warming" from inside the earth that seems to effect the
surface layers of
the ocean more than deeper water?

<http://graphs.kymhorsell.com/ocean.html>

--
[Significance:]
It was cooler last year than it was in 1998 [1 in 130 year outlier].
-- "Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com>, 30 Jan 2012 16:29 +1100.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 19:47:16 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 2/5/12 3:48 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> >> All hail the thirty-years trends.
>> >> Blessed be the thirty-years trends.
>> >> You ignore the part about 50% of your trend data being contray to trend
>> >> you are worshipping.
>
>> > You keep forgetting Climatologists look at *thirty-years trends*
>> > for good reason! Here are some graphic representations of the data:
>
>> Are you *REALLY* this stupid? Do you actually not have a clue about statistics?
>
> Your delition of the evidence won't make it go away, net.k00k

1) I know how to spell "deletion" while you have no clue how to use a
dictionary.

2) There was no evidence to delete; you are an idiot if you think there
was.

3) The use of puerile terms like "net.k00k" shows you are an idiot.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>

> You are trying to educate someone who has insisted that physics is
> not topical to the newsgroup sci.physics

You are a babbling troll too stupid to use a dictionary or to know the
difference between physics and meterology.

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm sorry, where was your argument that 15 years of data was
insignificant?

The amount of data you need for a given certainty level is determined by
the data. You're just saying 30 years because you don't like the recent
data.