Dawlish's Global Warming Wager
AGW Facts
wager is:
"I bet you $/£10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010
will be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e
within the next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely
to break any records."
Paul Aubrin
1/ Who will bet on temperature series, they are not even reliable enough
to show if the trend is positive or negative ?
Example: GISS trend over the last ten years +0.0057°C/year versus RSS-MSU
-0.0035°C/year
2/ Why would one bet on temperature series when what is to be
demonstrated is the influence of humanity on those temperatures due to
the burning of fossil fuel. Is there is a reliable indicator of the part
of fossil fuel burning in the evolution of temperatures ? No one seems to
exist. If one existed, I am sure it would have been highly publicised in
this group.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
slope = 0.00567257 per year
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
slope = -0.0034773 per year
Dawlish
If there are no indicators, there is no reason for a temperature
record.
You are waving your arms about. The odds are all in your favour, if
you believe any of what you say above. Take the bet.
PS. Thank you AGW, but I'd rather use a solicitor and arrange the bet
from here.
Paul Aubrin
> On May 5, 7:15 am, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 May 2011 16:33:33 -0600, AGW Facts wrote:
>> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The wager
>> > is:
>>
>> > "I bet you $/£10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010 will
>> > be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e within the
>> > next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely to break any
>> > records."
>>
>> 1/ Who will bet on temperature series, they are not even reliable
>> enough to show if the trend is positive or negative ? Example: GISS
>> trend over the last ten years +0.0057°C/year versus RSS-MSU
>> -0.0035°C/year
>>
>> 2/ Why would one bet on temperature series when what is to be
>> demonstrated is the influence of humanity on those temperatures due to
>> the burning of fossil fuel. Is there is a reliable indicator of the
>> part of fossil fuel burning in the evolution of temperatures ? No one
>> seems to exist. If one existed, I am sure it would have been highly
>> publicised in this group.
>>
>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
>> slope = 0.00567257 per year
>>
>> http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html slope = -0.0034773
>> per year
>
> If there are no indicators, there is no reason for a temperature record.
As far as I know, there is no indicator of the influence of fossil fuel
burning on the average world temperatures. If one existed, you would have
referenced it in your answer.
>
> You are waving your arms about. The odds are all in your favour, if you
> believe any of what you say above. Take the bet.
I am interested in the demonstration that burning fossil fuels has a
significant influence on global temperatures. I am especially interested
in the feedback aspect, are they positive, as AGWers pretend or negative ?
>
> PS. Thank you AGW, but I'd rather use a solicitor and arrange the bet
> from here.
I will not bet on GISS ability to resolve their discrepancy problem with
the satellite data series (ex. GISS trend over the last ten years +0.0057°
C/year versus RSS-MSU -0.0035°C/year).
Tom P
Sure, and there's no indicator of the influence of gasoline to make cars
move. Your car doesn't move if the tank's empty you might argue, but
that's no proof, look at any parking lot full of cars all standing
around, none of them moving and all with gasoline in their tanks. And a
million years ago there were no cars moving round and all that gasoline
was there underground. So even with all that gasoline around, not a
single car moving! That conclusively proves that cars don't need gasoline.
hda
Silly. You confuse correlation with experimentation. Go play
more with your PV system. Find out about Joule or Watt.
Paul Aubrin
>> As far as I know, there is no indicator of the influence of fossil fuel
>> burning on the average world temperatures. If one existed, you would
>> have referenced it in your answer.
>>
>>
> Sure, and there's no indicator of the influence of gasoline to make cars
> move. Your car doesn't move if the tank's empty you might argue, but
> that's no proof, look at any parking lot full of cars all standing
> around, none of them moving and all with gasoline in their tanks. And a
> million years ago there were no cars moving round and all that gasoline
> was there underground. So even with all that gasoline around, not a
> single car moving! That conclusively proves that cars don't need
> gasoline.
If Dawlish can exhibit no valid indicator that his hypothesis won then
there can be no valid bet. His proposition of a non significant success
indicator is simply not acceptable.
Bill Ward
I'll gladly explain to you the mechanism by which gasoline (and air)
causes cars to move, if you'll explain to me the mechanism by which CO2
causes the surface of the Earth to warm while the average optical depth
of the atmosphere remains constant.
Stay away from Lloyd. He's a bad influence on your analogies.
matt_sykes
GISS data?
You got to be kidding, its as reliable as a 20 year old Austin Metro.
Mickey Langan
> If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The
> wager is:
>
> will be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e
> within the next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely
> to break any records."
Not with Hansen keeping the books.
--
Mickey
Software axiom: Lack of speed kills.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 04 May 2011 23:27:57 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
> > On May 5, 7:15 am, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 May 2011 16:33:33 -0600, AGW Facts wrote:
> >> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The wager
> >> > is:
>
> >> > "I bet you $/£10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010 will
> >> > be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e within the
> >> > next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely to break any
> >> > records."
>
> >> 1/ Who will bet on temperature series, they are not even reliable
> >> enough to show if the trend is positive or negative ? Example: GISS
> >> trend over the last ten years +0.0057°C/year versus RSS-MSU
> >> -0.0035°C/year
>
> >> 2/ Why would one bet on temperature series when what is to be
> >> demonstrated is the influence of humanity on those temperatures due to
> >> the burning of fossil fuel. Is there is a reliable indicator of the
> >> part of fossil fuel burning in the evolution of temperatures ? No one
> >> seems to exist. If one existed, I am sure it would have been highly
> >> publicised in this group.
>
> >>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
> >> slope = 0.00567257 per year
>
> >> per year
>
> > If there are no indicators, there is no reason for a temperature record.
>
> As far as I know, there is no indicator of the influence of fossil fuel
> burning on the average world temperatures.
"As far as I know, the earth is flat."
>If one existed, you would have
> referenced it in your answer.
>
>
>
> > You are waving your arms about. The odds are all in your favour, if you
> > believe any of what you say above. Take the bet.
>
> I am interested in the demonstration that burning fossil fuels has a
> significant influence on global temperatures. I am especially interested
> in the feedback aspect, are they positive, as AGWers pretend or negative ?
Why don't you, here's a novel idea,
TRY LEARNING THE DAMN SCIENCE?
>
>
>
> > PS. Thank you AGW, but I'd rather use a solicitor and arrange the bet
> > from here.
>
> I will not bet on GISS ability to resolve their discrepancy problem with
> the satellite data series (ex. GISS trend over the last ten years +0.0057°
> C/year versus RSS-MSU -0.0035°C/year).
RSS is positive. Lying doesn't help your case.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 04 May 2011 16:33:33 -0600, AGW Facts wrote:
> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The wager
> > is:
>
> > "I bet you $/£10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010 will be
> > beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e within the next 5
> > years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely to break any records."
>
> 1/ Who will bet on temperature series, they are not even reliable enough
> to show if the trend is positive or negative ?
> Example: GISS trend over the last ten years +0.0057°C/year versus RSS-MSU
> -0.0035°C/year
Lie.
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
Only 1, the lower statosphere, is negative.
"Lower stratospheric cooling is mainly caused by the effects of ozone
depletion with a possible contribution from increased stratospheric
water vapor and greenhouse gases increase."
>
> 2/ Why would one bet on temperature series when what is to be
> demonstrated is the influence of humanity on those temperatures due to
> the burning of fossil fuel. Is there is a reliable indicator of the part
> of fossil fuel burning in the evolution of temperatures ?
Yes. Google "isotopes."
>No one seems to
> exist.
Maybe you should try, oh I don't know, looking?
> If one existed, I am sure it would have been highly publicised in
> this group.
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
> slope = 0.00567257 per year
>
> http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
> slope = -0.0034773 per year
The other 2 msu show an increase.
erschro...@gmail.com
And the resident sociopath once again shows why everybody laughs at
him.
matt_sykes
Paul Aubrin
>> > If there are no indicators, there is no reason for a temperature
>> > record.
>>
>> As far as I know, there is no indicator of the influence of fossil fuel
>> burning on the average world temperatures.
>
>
> "As far as I know, the earth is flat."
The flat earth is a very convenient and useful local approximation.
That's said, I don't see any useful meaning to your analogy.
One of your mechanical replies when you have nothing worthy to argue ?
The first, second, and third IPCC reports admitted that the
'anthropogenic signal' wasn't distinguishable in the noise. In the
fourth, the governmental used a dawligish argument to assert that 'most
of the 20th century observed warming (0.6°C) was man made. If it is not
xxx tell me what is it is not a scientific argument. It gives no
scientific criterium that can possibly invalidate the xxx hypothesis in a
scientific experiment. If such a rational criterion existed, why wouldn't
you reference it instead of your sempiternal insane analogies ?
>> > You are waving your arms about. The odds are all in your favour, if
>> > you believe any of what you say above. Take the bet.
>>
>> I am interested in the demonstration that burning fossil fuels has a
>> significant influence on global temperatures. I am especially
>> interested in the feedback aspect, are they positive, as AGWers pretend
>> or negative ?
>
> Why don't you, here's a novel idea,
>
> TRY LEARNING THE DAMN SCIENCE?
You still believe that your AGW hysteria is based on science ? It is as
based on science as astrology is based on astronomy.
Paul Aubrin
>> 1/ Who will bet on temperature series, they are not even reliable
>> enough to show if the trend is positive or negative ? Example: GISS
>> trend over the last ten years +0.0057°C/year versus RSS-MSU
>> -0.0035°C/year
>
> Lie.
RSS-MSU lower troposphere global mean, over the last ten years my dear,
over the last TEN YEARS (that means since year 2001).
> http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
The data so that you can have it checked for you (ask for help).
RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
2001 0.101
2001.08 0.124
2001.17 0.178
2001.25 0.357
2001.33 0.303
2001.42 0.119
2001.5 0.18
2001.58 0.434
2001.67 0.207
2001.75 0.327
2001.83 0.326
2001.92 0.285
2002 0.358
2002.08 0.45
2002.17 0.338
2002.25 0.37
2002.33 0.324
2002.42 0.398
2002.5 0.37
2002.58 0.301
2002.67 0.292
2002.75 0.121
2002.83 0.27
2002.92 0.209
2003 0.444
2003.08 0.321
2003.17 0.234
2003.25 0.297
2003.33 0.348
2003.42 0.143
2003.5 0.282
2003.58 0.277
2003.67 0.324
2003.75 0.436
2003.83 0.351
2003.92 0.448
2004 0.318
2004.08 0.327
2004.17 0.442
2004.25 0.273
2004.33 0.155
2004.42 0.099
2004.5 -0
2004.58 0.083
2004.67 0.207
2004.75 0.281
2004.83 0.215
2004.92 0.124
2005 0.436
2005.08 0.346
2005.17 0.323
2005.25 0.483
2005.33 0.289
2005.42 0.261
2005.5 0.359
2005.58 0.261
2005.67 0.402
2005.75 0.386
2005.83 0.33
2005.92 0.158
2006 0.234
2006.08 0.249
2006.17 0.257
2006.25 0.237
2006.33 0.072
2006.42 0.167
2006.5 0.23
2006.58 0.232
2006.67 0.319
2006.75 0.319
2006.83 0.196
2006.92 0.289
2007 0.545
2007.08 0.334
2007.17 0.349
2007.25 0.298
2007.33 0.184
2007.42 0.195
2007.5 0.261
2007.58 0.318
2007.67 0.254
2007.75 0.218
2007.83 0.128
2007.92 0.064
2008 -0.104
2008.08 -0.055
2008.17 0.048
2008.25 0.027
2008.33 -0.13
2008.42 -0.031
2008.5 0.078
2008.58 0.066
2008.67 0.183
2008.75 0.181
2008.83 0.217
2008.92 0.15
2009 0.252
2009.08 0.194
2009.17 0.155
2009.25 0.172
2009.33 0.055
2009.42 0.017
2009.5 0.329
2009.58 0.243
2009.67 0.471
2009.75 0.3
2009.83 0.328
2009.92 0.204
2010 0.596
2010.08 0.524
2010.17 0.599
2010.25 0.505
2010.33 0.53
2010.42 0.493
2010.5 0.564
2010.58 0.553
2010.67 0.511
2010.75 0.303
2010.83 0.316
2010.92 0.22
2011 0.085
2011.08 0.052
2011.17 -0.027
2011.25 0.11
Since 2001 to now, RSS MSU trend -0.0035°C/year vs GISS +0.0057°C, this
gives a reasonable vision of the actual uncertainty levels.
Dawlish
Then bet.
Dawlish
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 06:43:30 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > If there are no indicators, there is no reason for a temperature
> >> > record.
>
> >> As far as I know, there is no indicator of the influence of fossil fuel
> >> burning on the average world temperatures.
>
> > "As far as I know, the earth is flat."
>
> The flat earth is a very convenient and useful local approximation.
> That's said, I don't see any useful meaning to your analogy.
> One of your mechanical replies when you have nothing worthy to argue ?
> The first, second, and third IPCC reports admitted that the
> 'anthropogenic signal' wasn't distinguishable in the noise.
And if you go back, you find no evidence for relativity or nuclear
fission. Now we have such evidence.
>In the
> fourth, the governmental used a dawligish argument to assert that 'most
> of the 20th century observed warming (0.6°C) was man made. If it is not
> xxx tell me what is it is not a scientific argument.
Idiot. The report doesn't say that.
> It gives no
> scientific criterium that can possibly invalidate the xxx hypothesis in a
> scientific experiment. If such a rational criterion existed, why wouldn't
> you reference it instead of your sempiternal insane analogies ?
Go read some of the science.
>
> >> > You are waving your arms about. The odds are all in your favour, if
> >> > you believe any of what you say above. Take the bet.
>
> >> I am interested in the demonstration that burning fossil fuels has a
> >> significant influence on global temperatures. I am especially
> >> interested in the feedback aspect, are they positive, as AGWers pretend
> >> or negative ?
>
> > Why don't you, here's a novel idea,
>
> > TRY LEARNING THE DAMN SCIENCE?
>
> You still believe that your AGW hysteria is based on science ? It is as
> based on science as astrology is based on astronomy.
So you tell me, why do almost all scientists agree with me and not
you? Why do almost all the scientific journal articles agree with me
and not you? Why does every national science academy? Every
scientific organization?
Riddle me that.
erschro...@gmail.com
Did you look at the graphs at the reference? Do you understand what a
positive slope means?
Can you find me ONE scientific article that claims the earth is now
cooling? I dare you to do just that.
Dawlish
Paul Aubrin
>> The flat earth is a very convenient and useful local approximation.
>> That's said, I don't see any useful meaning to your analogy. One of
>> your mechanical replies when you have nothing worthy to argue ? The
>> first, second, and third IPCC reports admitted that the 'anthropogenic
>> signal' wasn't distinguishable in the noise.
>
> And if you go back, you find no evidence for relativity or nuclear
> fission. Now we have such evidence.
But the supposed evidence that 'most of the 20th century warming was
caused by CO2" is "post normal" science, but is backed by regular
scientific evidence.
If you had any such evidence at hand you would not be compelled to reply
with your worthless analogies.
Paul Aubrin
The bet you propose would in no way possibly falsify the anthropogenic
global warming hypothesis. Whether you are right or wrong, it proves
nothing, it has not the slightest interest. That is the reason why you
find nobody stupid enough to accept you proposal.
Further more, I don't bet with proven liars. And you proved, in this same
thread, that you are a deliberate liar.
Paul Aubrin
>> Since 2001 to now, RSS MSU trend -0.0035°C/year vs GISS +0.0057°C, this
>> gives a reasonable vision of the actual uncertainty levels.
>
> Did you look at the graphs at the reference? Do you understand what a
> positive slope means?
Did you read what I sa id, and did you put the numbers in your worksheet
to compute the linear regression coefficient on the specified last ten
years period ?
No you don't. The slope on the last ten years period is -0.0035°C/year.
This leaves only two possibilities: the first you are really
scientifically impaired and lack the skills to understand and verify what
is said; the second, your bad faith is unfathomable.
>
> Can you find me ONE scientific article that claims the earth is now
> cooling? I dare you to do just that.
Straw man. I just stated that Dawlish's bet is stupid and that the
uncertainties are such that the result would prove nothing?
You take the RSS-MSU lower troposphere data from year 2001 to now as is
available from the
RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt file
you compute the LTO coefficient and you tell us that the result is -0035°
C/year. If you compute the uncertainty on the LTO coefficient and if you
do the same exercise with the GISS data series, your will obviously
conclude that the uncertainties are so great that nothing can be
concluded from the evolution of one data series or the other.
And your lame flat earth analogies will not change a iota in what I
exactly said.
Paul Aubrin
>> Since 2001 to now, RSS MSU trend -0.0035°C/year vs GISS +0.0057°C, this
>> gives a reasonable vision of the actual uncertainty levels.
>
> Then bet. Coward.
You forgot to present your apologies for your lie.
You have been showing your dishonesty, who will bet with you.
If you have some decisive scientific argument in favour of your AGW
hypothesis present it now or shut up. Your bet proves nothing, it is
worthless.
James
news:ktk3s65fm7se0rl35...@4ax.com
Someone should explain how this bet on a few years of weather temps is
relevant to anything. Why not bet on London temps over a few days
instead? This seems very off topic as well as stupid
gordo
wrote:
He is asking you to bet on global temperatures.Psst want some easy
money...the odds are much in your favour if an increase in CO2 has no
effect on global temperatures.The odds for natural variation and less
input from vulcanism is overwhelming if the increase is from those
causes.
Dawlish
> "AGW Facts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
it's hard to escape your own overt cowardice, isn't it jimmy? Same
with auby. Accept the bet, or crawl back into your holes, the pair of
you. It's clear, straightforward and you'll win, if what you both say
on here (well, just copy and paste onto here, for one of you) s
correct.
Easy money for a denier. Waiting for someone to show that he believes
what he writes.
Paul Aubrin
> He is asking you to bet on global temperatures.Psst want some easy
> money...the odds are much in your favour if an increase in CO2 has no
> effect on global temperatures.The odds for natural variation and less
> input from vulcanism is overwhelming if the increase is from those
> causes.
The confidence in sciences, according to Gordo, is based on votes by
governmental delegates, polls on skewed samples and bets on data series
with no clear public definition.
Climate science of Gordo is a post-normal science -ie an ideology-, not
an experimental science.
Paul Aubrin
>> Someone should explain how this bet on a few years of weather temps is
>> relevant to anything. Why not bet on London temps over a few days
>> instead? This seems very off topic as well as stupid
>
> it's hard to escape your own overt cowardice, isn't it jimmy? Same with
> auby. Accept the bet, or crawl back into your holes, the pair of you.
> It's clear, straightforward and you'll win, if what you both say on here
> (well, just copy and paste onto here, for one of you) s correct.
Let's have a look back to this stupid wager: "I bet you $/£10,000 that
the GISS temperature record for 2010 will be beaten in either 2011, 2012,
2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e within the next 5 years and 2011 has started
cool and is unlikely to break any records."
The bet was devised by someone who holds for sure that the humanity is
the cause of a steady, average 0.3°C/decade temperature increase. He has
been disappointed those last ten or fifteen years as this trend failed to
show up. For ideological reasons, he is unwilling to admit the
possibility that the 1980-2000 warming period was nothing exceptional in
the history of climate. And to hide his ideological defeat, he propose
you to show with his bet that a supposed theory that would imply a steady
cooling is false.
Who has advocated such a theory here ? Nobody.
So who will take his bet ? Nobody. No one is interested.
James
news:4dc39f94$0$27516$426a...@news.free.fr
I think this is his way of making up for all those awful statements and
lies he's been debunked on over the months. He thinks this bravado
somehow clears him of his stupidity but it's more for his ego than the
group. Unfortunately, he's only added to it with a stupid challenge on a
weather bet. Pity.
James
news:891ec918-0e43-4272...@j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com
It appears that your 97% scenario has replaced the Hockey Stick as a
viable indicator. Right along with "Elvis is alive".
James
news:ais6s65cm38m02stu...@4ax.com
Irrelevant hogwash.
AGW Facts
> On Wed, 04 May 2011 16:33:33 -0600, AGW Facts wrote:
>
> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The wager
> > is:
> >
> > "I bet you $/£10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010 will be
> > beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e within the next 5
> > years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely to break any records."
>
> 1/ Who will bet on temperature series, they are not even reliable enough
> to show if the trend is positive or negative ?
Nutter.
AGW Facts
> On Wed, 04 May 2011 23:27:57 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
> >> enough to show if the trend is positive or negative ? Example: GISS
> >> trend over the last ten years +0.0057°C/year versus RSS-MSU
> >> -0.0035°C/year
> >>
> >> 2/ Why would one bet on temperature series when what is to be
> >> demonstrated is the influence of humanity on those temperatures due to
> >> the burning of fossil fuel. Is there is a reliable indicator of the
> >> part of fossil fuel burning in the evolution of temperatures ? No one
> >> seems to exist. If one existed, I am sure it would have been highly
> >> publicised in this group.
> >>
> >> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
> >> slope = 0.00567257 per year
> >>
> >> http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html slope = -0.0034773
> >> per year
> >
> > If there are no indicators, there is no reason for a temperature record.
> As far as I know, there is no indicator of the influence of fossil fuel
> burning on the average world temperatures.
You mean except for all of the evidence that shows it has.
> If one existed, you would have referenced it in your answer.
Nutter.
erschro...@gmail.com
I do that for people like tundy and matt, who have shown they cannot
comprehend science.
You, OTOH, have simply shown you will not read the science.
AGW Facts
wrote:
> On 05/05/2011 08:43 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> > As far as I know, there is no indicator of the influence of fossil fuel
> > burning on the average world temperatures.
"As far as I know." LOL! Stupid Creationist nutter.
> Sure, and there's no indicator of the influence of gasoline to make cars
> move. Your car doesn't move if the tank's empty you might argue, but
> that's no proof, look at any parking lot full of cars all standing
> around, none of them moving and all with gasoline in their tanks. And a
> million years ago there were no cars moving round and all that gasoline
> was there underground. So even with all that gasoline around, not a
> single car moving! That conclusively proves that cars don't need gasoline.
Cars back then were powered by Fred Flintsone's feet.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:45:07 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Since 2001 to now, RSS MSU trend -0.0035°C/year vs GISS +0.0057°C, this
> >> gives a reasonable vision of the actual uncertainty levels.
>
> > Did you look at the graphs at the reference? Do you understand what a
> > positive slope means?
>
> Did you read what I sa id, and did you put the numbers in your worksheet
> to compute the linear regression coefficient on the specified last ten
> years period ?
I used the graphs MSU themselves put up.
> No you don't. The slope on the last ten years period is -0.0035°C/year.
For which of the 4 series?
> This leaves only two possibilities: the first you are really
> scientifically impaired and lack the skills to understand and verify what
> is said; the second, your bad faith is unfathomable.
>
>
>
> > Can you find me ONE scientific article that claims the earth is now
> > cooling? I dare you to do just that.
>
> Straw man.
No, you claim the earth is cooling, so put up or shut up. Cite a
scientific reference.
>I just stated that Dawlish's bet is stupid and that the
> uncertainties are such that the result would prove nothing?
>
> You take the RSS-MSU lower troposphere data from year 2001 to now as is
> available from the
> RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt file
> you compute the LTO coefficient and you tell us that the result is -0035°
> C/year. If you compute the uncertainty on the LTO coefficient and if you
> do the same exercise with the GISS data series, your will obviously
> conclude that the uncertainties are so great that nothing can be
> concluded from the evolution of one data series or the other.
>
Cite a scientific reference.
> And your lame flat earth analogies will not change a iota in what I
> exactly said.
Cite a scientific reference.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 22:41:23 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
> >> Someone should explain how this bet on a few years of weather temps is
> >> relevant to anything. Why not bet on London temps over a few days
> >> instead? This seems very off topic as well as stupid
>
> > it's hard to escape your own overt cowardice, isn't it jimmy? Same with
> > auby. Accept the bet, or crawl back into your holes, the pair of you.
> > It's clear, straightforward and you'll win, if what you both say on here
> > (well, just copy and paste onto here, for one of you) s correct.
>
> Let's have a look back to this stupid wager: "I bet you $/£10,000 that
> the GISS temperature record for 2010 will be beaten in either 2011, 2012,
> 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e within the next 5 years and 2011 has started
> cool and is unlikely to break any records."
>
> The bet was devised by someone who holds for sure that the humanity is
> the cause of a steady, average 0.3°C/decade temperature increase.
Like pretty much all scientists.
>He has
> been disappointed those last ten or fifteen years as this trend failed to
> show up.
Cite a scientific reference.
>For ideological reasons, he is unwilling to admit the
> possibility that the 1980-2000 warming period was nothing exceptional in
> the history of climate.
Find a scientific reference which supports this.
>And to hide his ideological defeat, he propose
> you to show with his bet that a supposed theory that would imply a steady
> cooling is false.
>
> Who has advocated such a theory here ? Nobody.
> So who will take his bet ? Nobody. No one is interested.
You're like a little child, claiming "pigs can fly" and then demanding
people prove you wrong.
Cite a scientific reference.
AGW Facts
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 12:33 am, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The
> > wager is:
> >
> > "I bet you $/£10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010
> > will be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e
> > within the next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely
> > to break any records."
> GISS data?
> You got to be kidding, its as reliable as a 20 year old Austin Metro.
Every expert on the planet agrees the GISS dataset is the gold
standard for global temperature.
Tahe the water, alarmist.
AGW Facts
<mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
> On 2011-05-04, AGW Facts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The
> > wager is:
> >
> > "I bet you $/?10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010
> > will be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e
> > within the next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely
> > to break any records."
> Not with Hansen keeping the books.
Too honest for you, eh? LOL!
AGW Facts
wrote:
> "AGW Facts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
> news:ktk3s65fm7se0rl35...@4ax.com
> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The
> > wager is:
> >
> > "I bet you $/£10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010
> > will be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e
> > within the next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely
> > to break any records."
> Someone should explain how this bet on a few years of weather temps is
> relevant to anything.
Global average temperature, shit-for-brains.
Dawlish
Take the bet coward. It's marvellous to see these deniers trying to
climb into each others' burrows for shelter and shouting names from
behind imaginary walls to try to hold onto their beliefs. You and
other deniers tell us day after day that AGW is BS. If it is, warming
is unlikely and you have very good odds in your favour. So take the
bet.
Mickey Langan
Riiighhhttt....
--
Mickey
Getting old is tough. It's frustrating when you know all the
answers and nobody bothers to ask the questions. -- unknown
Dawlish
> On 2011-05-06, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 05 May 2011 08:02:30 -0500, Mickey Langan
> ><mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
>
> >> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The
> >> > wager is:
>
> >> > "I bet you $/?10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010
> >> > will be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e
> >> > within the next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely
> >> > to break any records."
>
> >> Not with Hansen keeping the books.
>
> > Too honest for you, eh? LOL!
>
> Riiighhhttt....
>
> --
> Mickey
>
> Getting old is tough. It's frustrating when you know all the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Show me one piece of scientific evidence that the GISS record is
somehow not to be trusted. Just *one*. Don't insinuate without being
able to back up your insinuations.
Paul Aubrin
You simply show that you ignore what actually science is.
Post normal science is not science.
Paul Aubrin
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 10:21:11 +0200, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/2011 08:43 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>
>> > As far as I know, there is no indicator of the influence of fossil
>> > fuel burning on the average world temperatures.
>
> "As far as I know." LOL! Stupid Creationist nutter.
One more proof that you cannot cite anyone.
Still waiting...
>
>> Sure, and there's no indicator of the influence of gasoline to make
>> cars move. Your car doesn't move if the tank's empty you might argue,
>> but that's no proof, look at any parking lot full of cars all standing
>> around, none of them moving and all with gasoline in their tanks. And a
>> million years ago there were no cars moving round and all that gasoline
>> was there underground. So even with all that gasoline around, not a
>> single car moving! That conclusively proves that cars don't need
>> gasoline.
>
> Cars back then were powered by Fred Flintsone's feet.
I see that you appreciate meaningless analogies.
Paul Aubrin
>> As far as I know, there is no indicator of the influence of fossil fuel
>> burning on the average world temperatures.
>
> You mean except for all of the evidence that shows it has.
What evidence, can you cite ?
>
>> If one existed, you would have referenced it in your answer.
>
> Nutter.
Your ad hominem are one more proof that you have no evidence to show.
Paul Aubrin
>> > Can you find me ONE scientific article that claims the earth is now
>> > cooling? I dare you to do just that.
>>
>> Straw man.
>
> No, you claim the earth is cooling, so put up or shut up. Cite a
> scientific reference.
I claimed that the 2001-now trend in the RSS-MSU series was -0.0035°C/
decade, and I joined the evidence.
Whether you have been unable or unwilling to take it into account does
not make this evidence less factual.
Paul Aubrin
This doesn't change the fact that for the 2001 to now period, the GISS
series show a global temperature increase and the RSS-MSU a negative
temperature increase showing how much uncertain the global temperature
concept is.
erschro...@gmail.com
You know, you're full of crap.
Again, I challenge you, post a scientific source that backs your
claims. Put up or shut up.
Maybe you should stick to the philosophy group where nobody expects
you to behave like a grown-up.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:16:38 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > Can you find me ONE scientific article that claims the earth is now
> >> > cooling? I dare you to do just that.
>
> >> Straw man.
>
> > No, you claim the earth is cooling, so put up or shut up. Cite a
> > scientific reference.
>
> I claimed that the 2001-now trend in the RSS-MSU series was -0.0035°C/
> decade, and I joined the evidence.
Cite a scientific source. Put up or shut up.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 09:13:22 -0600, AGW Facts wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 04 May 2011 16:33:33 -0600, AGW Facts wrote:
>
> >> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The wager
> >> > is:
>
> >> > "I bet you $/£10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010 will
> >> > be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e within the
> >> > next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely to break any
> >> > records."
>
> >> 1/ Who will bet on temperature series, they are not even reliable
> >> enough to show if the trend is positive or negative ?
>
> > Nutter.
>
> This doesn't change the fact that for the 2001 to now period, the GISS
> series show a global temperature increase and the RSS-MSU a negative
> temperature increase showing how much uncertain the global temperature
> concept is.
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_validation.html -- look at the graph
James
news:915cab06-8116-455e...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com
How many times..... It's a weather bet stupid, but you got the
attention you continually look for here. Now shoo.
.
James
And that tells you what? You're another imbecile.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's a bet on what will happen to global temperatures within the next
5 years and it is showing up you deniers as outright cowards. If you
consider that as a weather bet, that's fine by me and you can call it
a weather bet as many times as you wish. We'll just laugh at you. You
probably also think that small rectangular carpets really can fly.
Take the bet racist coward.
Dawlish
You could easily choose a month in many previous years, compare it to
now and show a negative slope. Thus temperatures are no longer
increasing. It's dead easy, because we are presently still
experiencing the effects of a strong and mature La Nina.
Why don't you deniers understand that cherry picking 2 months and
comparing them, will not convince anyone of temperature change. Try
picking *any* of the 12 months in 2001 and finding a negative value
for the comparative temperature to *any* of the months Jan-Sept 2010,
when we were still experiencing the after-effects of an El Nino. Go
on. Try it.
Cherry picking 2 months and joining the dots is just a stupid way to
try to convince anyone that temperatures have increased, or decreased.
you have to look at the context of the months you are comparing. Why
don't you do that? Are you stupid and ignorant?
James
Still laughing lol
Paul Aubrin
>> You simply show that you ignore what actually science is. Post normal
>> science is not science.
>
> You know, you're full of crap.
>
> Again, I challenge you, post a scientific source that backs your claims.
> Put up or shut up.
I don't understand you. What claim ?
Paul Aubrin
> On May 6, 7:51 pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:16:38 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > Can you find me ONE scientific article that claims the earth is
>> >> > now cooling? I dare you to do just that.
>>
>> >> Straw man.
>>
>> > No, you claim the earth is cooling, so put up or shut up. Cite a
>> > scientific reference.
>>
>> I claimed that the 2001-now trend in the RSS-MSU series was -0.0035°C/
>> decade, and I joined the evidence.
>> Whether you have been unable or unwilling to take it into account does
>> not make this evidence less factual.
>
> You could easily choose a month in many previous years, compare it to
> now and show a negative slope. Thus temperatures are no longer
> increasing. It's dead easy, because we are presently still experiencing
> the effects of a strong and mature La Nina.
I take this clumsy rant as a confirmation that you know very well that
your bet has no scientific value.
Paul Aubrin
>> I claimed that the 2001-now trend in the RSS-MSU series was -0.0035°C/
>> decade, and I joined the evidence.
>
> Cite a scientific source. Put up or shut up.
RSS-MSU low troposphere data is below, taken from their website. You know
how to compute the linear regression trend. The result is -0.0035°C/year.
You can easily verify. Do it now or shut up.
2001 0.101
2001.08 0.124
2001.17 0.178
2001.25 0.357
2001.33 0.303
2001.42 0.119
2001.5 0.18
2001.58 0.434
2001.67 0.207
2001.75 0.327
2001.83 0.326
2001.92 0.285
2002 0.358
2002.08 0.45
2002.17 0.338
2002.25 0.37
2002.33 0.324
2002.42 0.398
2002.5 0.37
2002.58 0.301
2002.67 0.292
2002.75 0.121
2002.83 0.27
2002.92 0.209
2003 0.444
2003.08 0.321
2003.17 0.234
2003.25 0.297
2003.33 0.348
2003.42 0.143
2003.5 0.282
2003.58 0.277
2003.67 0.324
2003.75 0.436
2003.83 0.351
2003.92 0.448
2004 0.318
2004.08 0.327
2004.17 0.442
2004.25 0.273
2004.33 0.155
2004.42 0.099
2004.5 -0
2004.58 0.083
2004.67 0.207
2004.75 0.281
2004.83 0.215
2004.92 0.124
2005 0.436
2005.08 0.346
2005.17 0.323
2005.25 0.483
2005.33 0.289
2005.42 0.261
2005.5 0.359
2005.58 0.261
2005.67 0.402
2005.75 0.386
2005.83 0.33
2005.92 0.158
2006 0.234
2006.08 0.249
2006.17 0.257
2006.25 0.237
2006.33 0.072
2006.42 0.167
2006.5 0.23
2006.58 0.232
2006.67 0.319
2006.75 0.319
2006.83 0.196
2006.92 0.289
2007 0.545
2007.08 0.334
2007.17 0.349
2007.25 0.298
2007.33 0.184
2007.42 0.195
2007.5 0.261
2007.58 0.318
2007.67 0.254
2007.75 0.218
2007.83 0.128
2007.92 0.064
2008 -0.104
2008.08 -0.055
2008.17 0.048
2008.25 0.027
2008.33 -0.13
2008.42 -0.031
2008.5 0.078
2008.58 0.066
2008.67 0.183
2008.75 0.181
2008.83 0.217
2008.92 0.15
2009 0.252
2009.08 0.194
2009.17 0.155
2009.25 0.172
2009.33 0.055
2009.42 0.017
2009.5 0.329
2009.58 0.243
2009.67 0.471
2009.75 0.3
2009.83 0.328
2009.92 0.204
2010 0.596
2010.08 0.524
2010.17 0.599
2010.25 0.505
2010.33 0.53
2010.42 0.493
2010.5 0.564
2010.58 0.553
2010.67 0.511
2010.75 0.303
2010.83 0.316
2010.92 0.22
2011 0.085
2011.08 0.052
2011.17 -0.027
2011.25 0.11
Paul Aubrin
>> >> 1/ Who will bet on temperature series, they are not even reliable
>> >> enough to show if the trend is positive or negative ?
>>
>> > Nutter.
>>
>> This doesn't change the fact that for the 2001 to now period, the GISS
>> series show a global temperature increase and the RSS-MSU a negative
>> temperature increase showing how much uncertain the global temperature
>> concept is.
>
> http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_validation.html -- look at the graph
1980-2007 graph. Interesting, but unrelated with what I was saying.
Dawlish's bet is not on 3 decades series, but on short term previsions.
And on the short term, the last decade for example, even the sign of the
trend is not the same for the RSS-MSU and CRU (minus) and the GISS and UAH
(plus) data series. This is easily verifiable using the publicly
available information.
Paul Aubrin
>> >> Not with Hansen keeping the books.
>>
>> > Too honest for you, eh? LOL!
>>
>> Riiighhhttt....
>>
>> --
>> Mickey
>>
>> Getting old is tough. It's frustrating when you know all the answers
>> and nobody bothers to ask the questions. -- unknown- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Show me one piece of scientific evidence that the GISS record is somehow
> not to be trusted. Just *one*. Don't insinuate without being able to
> back up your insinuations.
Are you asking for a scientific evidence relative to the confidence to be
placed on Hansen ?
Trust in a man is not a scientific concept. You trust him as long as he
apparently behaves as a trusted person and that the checks on his results
are consistent with the trust level you place in him.
Paul Aubrin
>> Who has advocated such a theory here ? Nobody. So who will take his bet
>> ? Nobody. No one is interested.
>
> Take the bet coward.
I avoid hazard games. I am not interested in bets. I don't understand
what your bet is supposed to prove. You are unable to explain it. Your
bet seems completely uninteresting and worthless. It is a very stupid
idea. Maybe you can find one or two idiots to play this game with you,
but not me.
Is it clear now.
Paul Aubrin
> It's a bet on what will happen to global temperatures within the next 5
> years and it is showing up you deniers as outright cowards.
Dawlish, you spent hundred of message to explain us that climate meant at
least 30 years statistics. We spent hundred of messages to explain you
that we know that we don't deny there has been a warming trend over the
last two centuries. We spent numerous posts to explain that the
allegation that this warming was something unusual and mostly man made
was absolutely not based on scientifically convincing arguments.
Your bet addresses none of these points. That is the reason why nobody is
interested.
Dawlish
The bet is not intended to address a point. It's intended to expose
the lack of credibility in the views of climate deniers like you that
GW is unlikely to continue.
Don't be a coward. Stand up for your convictions and take the bet.
Same challenge to any of the silent deniers.
Mickey Langan
And Dawlish apparently forgets that GISS draws a great deal from
the CRU temperature records and data sets, provenance for which is
in tatters. GISS has no credibility at all compared to UAH and RSS.
Hansen "spins" news releases based on the so-called GISS data, and
makes grandstanding political plays based on theories that have not
been borne out by events. He simply has not shown the type of
impartiality and measured evaluation that is required to make
a scientist trustworthy.
By the way, how's that UK Met Office project going that was going
to rescuscitate the CRU temperature record (and vet GISS in the
process). Hmm?
--
Mickey
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Show us there is a problem with the data. Show us the evidence. Don't
just repeat crap you've read from other deniers to denigrate a fine
scientist and a set of data which is unimpeachable. Show us the
evidence there is something amiss. It's so easy to say, isn't it? But
you can't provide a scrap of evidence to back your beliefs. Can you?
Paul Aubrin
Sorry 7 years old minded Dawlish. I am not interested.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
You've been so uninterested that you've been chirping about it for
days, posting again and again. It nags at you doesn't it? You daren't
take the bet, so you wish to somehow diminish it. It is what it is.
The bet is showing up the deniers' complete lack of faith in their own
beliefs.
Bret Cahill
> > >> > It's a bet on what will happen to global temperatures within the next
> > >> > 5 years and it is showing up you deniers as outright cowards.
>
> > >> Dawlish, you spent hundred of message to explain us that climate meant
> > >> at least 30 years statistics. We spent hundred of messages to explain
> > >> you that we know that we don't deny there has been a warming trend over
> > >> the last two centuries. We spent numerous posts to explain that the
> > >> allegation that this warming was something unusual and mostly man made
> > >> was absolutely not based on scientifically convincing arguments.
>
> > >> Your bet addresses none of these points. That is the reason why nobody
> > >> is interested.
>
> > > The bet is not intended to address a point. It's intended to expose the
> > > lack of credibility in the views of climate deniers like you that GW is
> > > unlikely to continue.
>
> > > Don't be a coward. Stand up for your convictions and take the bet. Same
> > > challenge to any of the silent deniers.
>
> > Sorry 7 years old minded Dawlish. I am not interested.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You've been so uninterested that you've been chirping about it for
> days, posting again and again. It nags at you doesn't it? You daren't
> take the bet, so you wish to somehow diminish it. It is what it is.
> The bet is showing up the deniers' complete lack of faith in their own
> beliefs.
Not necessarily. They could be Trappist monks who will have nothing
to do with worldly matters.
Bret Cahill
Paul Aubrin
>> > Don't be a coward. Stand up for your convictions and take the bet.
>> > Same challenge to any of the silent deniers.
>>
>> Sorry 7 years old minded Dawlish. I am not interested.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You've been so uninterested that you've been chirping about it for days,
> posting again and again. It nags at you doesn't it? You daren't take the
> bet, so you wish to somehow diminish it. It is what it is. The bet is
> showing up the deniers' complete lack of faith in their own beliefs.
I have been interested by the way you presented it, seven years old
minded Dawlish. You are so sorry that your honey pot didn't work. Your
fallacies are so obvious, you caught nobody.
Dawlish
For someone who isn't interested, you sure do post a lot. *>))
If I "catch" someone; it could cost me £10.000. Have you ever
considered how it would be to win, or lose that much? It is way out of
your league, isn't it?
AGW Facts
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 09:14:19 -0600, AGW Facts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On 05 May 2011 06:43:40 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 04 May 2011 23:27:57 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
> > >
> > > > On May 5, 7:15 am, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, 04 May 2011 16:33:33 -0600, AGW Facts wrote:
> > > >> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The wager
> > > >> > is:
> > > >>
> > > >> > "I bet you $/£10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010 will
> > > >> > be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e within the
> > > >> > next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely to break any
> > > >> > records."
> > > >>
> > > >> 1/ Who will bet on temperature series, they are not even reliable
> > > >> enough to show if the trend is positive or negative ? Example: GISS
> > > >> trend over the last ten years +0.0057°C/year versus RSS-MSU
> > > >> -0.0035°C/year
> > > >>
> > > >> 2/ Why would one bet on temperature series when what is to be
> > > >> demonstrated is the influence of humanity on those temperatures due to
> > > >> the burning of fossil fuel. Is there is a reliable indicator of the
> > > >> part of fossil fuel burning in the evolution of temperatures ? No one
> > > >> seems to exist. If one existed, I am sure it would have been highly
> > > >> publicised in this group.
> > > >>
> > > >> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
> > > >> slope = 0.00567257 per year
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html slope = -0.0034773
> > > >> per year
> > > >
> > > > If there are no indicators, there is no reason for a temperature record.
> >
> > > As far as I know, there is no indicator of the influence of fossil fuel
> > > burning on the average world temperatures.
> >
> > You mean except for all of the evidence that shows it has.
> >
> > > If one existed, you would have referenced it in your answer.
> >
> > Nutter.
> What evidence, can you cite ?
$200.
AGW Facts
> On May 5, 5:53 pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:43:20 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> The flat earth is a very convenient and useful local approximation.
> > >> That's said, I don't see any useful meaning to your analogy. One of
> > >> your mechanical replies when you have nothing worthy to argue ? The
> > >> first, second, and third IPCC reports admitted that the 'anthropogenic
> > >> signal' wasn't distinguishable in the noise.
> >
> > > And if you go back, you find no evidence for relativity or nuclear
> > > fission. Now we have such evidence.
> >
> > But the supposed evidence that 'most of the 20th century warming was
> > caused by CO2" is "post normal" science, but is backed by regular
> > scientific evidence.
> > If you had any such evidence at hand you would not be compelled to reply
> > with your worthless analogies.
>
> I do that for people like tundy and matt, who have shown they cannot
> comprehend science.
>
> You, OTOH, have simply shown you will not read the science.
Over and over and over again. The facts presented for him on a
silver plate hundreds of times just by me alone, and he still
insists he somehow just missed it. Typical Creationist nutter.
AGW Facts
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:15:15 -0700, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 5:53 pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:43:20 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> The flat earth is a very convenient and useful local approximation.
> >> >> That's said, I don't see any useful meaning to your analogy. One of
> >> >> your mechanical replies when you have nothing worthy to argue ? The
> >> >> first, second, and third IPCC reports admitted that the
> >> >> 'anthropogenic signal' wasn't distinguishable in the noise.
> >>
> >> > And if you go back, you find no evidence for relativity or nuclear
> >> > fission. Now we have such evidence.
> >>
> >> But the supposed evidence that 'most of the 20th century warming was
> >> caused by CO2" is "post normal" science, but is backed by regular
> >> scientific evidence.
> >> If you had any such evidence at hand you would not be compelled to
> >> reply with your worthless analogies.
> >
> > I do that for people like tundy and matt, who have shown they cannot
> > comprehend science.
> >
> > You, OTOH, have simply shown you will not read the science.
> You simply show that you ignore what actually science is.
AGW Facts
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 2:38 pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:15:15 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On May 5, 5:53 pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:43:20 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >> The flat earth is a very convenient and useful local approximation.
> > >> >> That's said, I don't see any useful meaning to your analogy. One of
> > >> >> your mechanical replies when you have nothing worthy to argue ? The
> > >> >> first, second, and third IPCC reports admitted that the
> > >> >> 'anthropogenic signal' wasn't distinguishable in the noise.
> >
> > >> > And if you go back, you find no evidence for relativity or nuclear
> > >> > fission. Now we have such evidence.
> >
> > >> But the supposed evidence that 'most of the 20th century warming was
> > >> caused by CO2" is "post normal" science, but is backed by regular
> > >> scientific evidence.
> > >> If you had any such evidence at hand you would not be compelled to
> > >> reply with your worthless analogies.
> >
> > > I do that for people like tundy and matt, who have shown they cannot
> > > comprehend science.
> >
> > > You, OTOH, have simply shown you will not read the science.
> >
> > You simply show that you ignore what actually science is.
> > Post normal science is not science.
> You know, you're full of crap.
Yes, he knows that.
> Again, I challenge you, post a scientific source that backs your
> claims. Put up or shut up.
FOX "News!"
> Maybe you should stick to the philosophy group where nobody expects
> you to behave like a grown-up.
AGW Facts
Take the wager, alarmist nutter
AGW Facts
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 09:16:09 -0600, AGW Facts wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 05 May 2011 10:21:11 +0200, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/05/2011 08:43 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> >
> >> > As far as I know, there is no indicator of the influence of fossil
> >> > fuel burning on the average world temperatures.
> >
> > "As far as I know." LOL! Stupid Creationist nutter.
> One more proof that you cannot cite anyone.
Nutter.
AGW Facts
> On Fri, 6 May 2011 08:16:38 -0700 (PDT), "erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 6:20 pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:45:07 -0700, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> Since 2001 to now, RSS MSU trend -0.0035°C/year vs GISS +0.0057°C, this
> > > >> gives a reasonable vision of the actual uncertainty levels.
> > >
> > > > Did you look at the graphs at the reference? Do you understand what a
> > > > positive slope means?
> > >
> > > Did you read what I sa id, and did you put the numbers in your worksheet
> > > to compute the linear regression coefficient on the specified last ten
> > > years period ?
> >
> > I used the graphs MSU themselves put up.
> >
> >
> > > No you don't. The slope on the last ten years period is -0.0035°C/year.
> >
> >
> > For which of the 4 series?
> >
> > > This leaves only two possibilities: the first you are really
> > > scientifically impaired and lack the skills to understand and verify what
> > > is said; the second, your bad faith is unfathomable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Can you find me ONE scientific article that claims the earth is now
> > > > cooling? I dare you to do just that.
> > >
> > > Straw man.
> >
> > No, you claim the earth is cooling, so put up or shut up. Cite a
> > scientific reference.
> >
> >
> > >I just stated that Dawlish's bet is stupid and that the
> > > uncertainties are such that the result would prove nothing?
> > >
> > > You take the RSS-MSU lower troposphere data from year 2001 to now as is
> > > available from the
> > > RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt file
> > > you compute the LTO coefficient and you tell us that the result is -0035°
> > > C/year. If you compute the uncertainty on the LTO coefficient and if you
> > > do the same exercise with the GISS data series, your will obviously
> > > conclude that the uncertainties are so great that nothing can be
> > > concluded from the evolution of one data series or the other.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Cite a scientific reference.
> >
> > > And your lame flat earth analogies will not change a iota in what I
> > > exactly said.
> >
> > Cite a scientific reference.
> I claimed that the 2001-now trend in the RSS-MSU series was -0.0035°C/
> decade, and I joined the evidence.
MSU data 2001 to 2010:
y = -7E-05x + 0.2149
R2 = 0.0002
Note that it has been the hottest decade on record.
AGW Facts
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 3:13 am, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 May 2011 22:41:23 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
> > >> Someone should explain how this bet on a few years of weather temps is
> > >> relevant to anything. Why not bet on London temps over a few days
> > >> instead? This seems very off topic as well as stupid
> > > it's hard to escape your own overt cowardice, isn't it jimmy? Same with
> > > auby. Accept the bet, or crawl back into your holes, the pair of you.
> > > It's clear, straightforward and you'll win, if what you both say on here
> > > (well, just copy and paste onto here, for one of you) s correct.
> > Let's have a look back to this stupid wager: "I bet you $/£10,000 that
> > the GISS temperature record for 2010 will be beaten in either 2011, 2012,
> > 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e within the next 5 years and 2011 has started
> > cool and is unlikely to break any records."
> >
> > The bet was devised by someone who holds for sure that the humanity is
> > the cause of a steady, average 0.3°C/decade temperature increase.
More or less, within error bars.
> Like pretty much all scientists.
Almost 98% of the experts.
> > He has
> > been disappointed those last ten or fifteen years as this trend failed to
> > show up.
Last decade = hottest on record. Oops!
> Cite a scientific reference.
FOX "News."
> > For ideological reasons, he is unwilling to admit the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
> > possibility that the 1980-2000 warming period was nothing exceptional in
> > the history of climate.
He means the 1880-2011 waming period. =ALL= of the evidence says
it is unprecidented as to cause and rate.
> Find a scientific reference which supports this.
FOX "News." The USA Republican Party. Standard Oil. You know: the
usual.
> > And to hide his ideological defeat, he propose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
> > you to show with his bet that a supposed theory that would imply a steady
> > cooling is false.
No evidence of "steady cooling." No wonder "Paul Aubrin" refuses
to take the wager: he knows he's spewing bullshit.
> > Who has advocated such a theory here ? Nobody.
> > So who will take his bet ? Nobody. No one is interested.
>
> You're like a little child, claiming "pigs can fly" and then demanding
> people prove you wrong.
>
> Cite a scientific reference.
AGW Facts
<mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
> On 2011-05-06, AGW Facts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 May 2011 08:02:30 -0500, Mickey Langan
> ><mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011-05-04, AGW Facts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The
> >> > wager is:
> >> >
> >> > "I bet you $/?10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010
> >> > will be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e
> >> > within the next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely
> >> > to break any records."
> >> Not with Hansen keeping the books.
> > Too honest for you, eh? LOL!
> Right
Yes, I'm right. Take the bet, clown.
AGW Facts
<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 6:07 pm, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
> > On 2011-05-06, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 05 May 2011 08:02:30 -0500, Mickey Langan
> > ><mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
> > >> On 2011-05-04, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > >> > If Dawlish likes, I will host a domain for Dawlish's wager. The
> > >> > wager is:
> > >> > "I bet you $/?10,000 that the GISS temperature record for 2010
> > >> > will be beaten in either 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015: i.e
> > >> > within the next 5 years and 2011 has started cool and is unlikely
> > >> > to break any records."
> > >> Not with Hansen keeping the books.
> > > Too honest for you, eh? LOL!
> > Riiighhhttt....
> Show me one piece of scientific evidence that the GISS record is
> somehow not to be trusted. Just *one*.
.... and be sure to tell the scientists about it; for some odd
reason none of them are aware of the GISS data and Hansen not
being trustworthy.
> Don't insinuate without being able to back up your insinuations.
It's all politics to these clowns.
AGW Facts
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 11:04:06 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
>
> >> >> Not with Hansen keeping the books.
> >>
> >> > Too honest for you, eh? LOL!
> >>
> >> Riiighhhttt....
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mickey
> >>
> >> Getting old is tough. It's frustrating when you know all the answers
> >> and nobody bothers to ask the questions. -- unknown- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Show me one piece of scientific evidence that the GISS record is somehow
> > not to be trusted. Just *one*. Don't insinuate without being able to
> > back up your insinuations.
> Are you asking for a scientific evidence relative to the confidence to be
> placed on Hansen ?
No.
AGW Facts
> > Take the bet coward.
Translation: "I don't believe my own assertions."
Paul Aubrin
You don't need to repeat yourself to show your utmost helplessness to
back what you say with facts.
Can you, or not, define an indicator that can show unambiguously, from
observed facts, that, as is asserted by the IPCC, humanity causes most of
the observed global world temperature variations. If one can be devised,
we will observe it until the AGW hypothesis is validated or invalidated.
Keep your ridiculous bets for yourself.
Paul Aubrin
>> > I do that for people like tundy and matt, who have shown they cannot
>> > comprehend science.
>> >
>> > You, OTOH, have simply shown you will not read the science.
>
>> You simply show that you ignore what actually science is.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Sorry, but I actually graduated as an Engineer in physics.
The projection is yours.
You simply show that, not only do you ignore what science actually is,
but that you have been too brainwashed to recover from your delusions.
Paul Aubrin
The scientific proof by wager. This was attempted by Blaise Pascal when
he decided to renounce to reason in favour of his religious belief.
Another proof that you ignore what a scientific evidence is.
Paul Aubrin
>> I claimed that the 2001-now trend in the RSS-MSU series was -0.0035°C/
>> decade, and I joined the evidence.
>
> MSU data 2001 to 2010:
> y = -7E-05x + 0.2149
> R2 = 0.0002
>
> Note that it has been the hottest decade on record.
I verified all this again:
If you consider 2001-2010 instead of 2001-now:
Temp = -0.0135055868*yyyy+27.3340781152
std error on trend =0.1291856278
From jan2001 to April 2011
Temp= *-0.0034783218*yyyy+7.2395450797
Std Error on trend =0.1493506998
gordo
You know it is not scientific proof by wager.The temperature must be
higher than at any time in recorded history for Dawlish to win.Seems
like a pretty safe bet for anyone who keeps claiming that there is
cooling or within the normal range etc.etc. If you fall into that
category then why not make some easy money?
Could it be perhaps that deniers just like to spread their
disinformation about and know that Dawlish is correct?
Paul Aubrin
>>>> What evidence, can you cite ?
>>>
>>> $200.
>>
>>The scientific proof by wager. This was attempted by Blaise Pascal when
>>he decided to renounce to reason in favour of his religious belief.
>>Another proof that you ignore what a scientific evidence is.
> You know it is not scientific proof by wager.
> The temperature must be
> higher than at any time in recorded history for Dawlish to win.
> like a pretty safe bet for anyone who keeps claiming that there is
> cooling or within the normal range etc.etc. If you fall into that
> category then why not make some easy money?
You probalby noticed that the warmist side will win if only one year is
warmer, in the GISS series, even if the first 4 years are actually colder.
Did you try to evaluate the odds for each side to win:
1- In the null hypothesis: If each year has exactly the same probability
to be to be colder or warmer than the previous one: how many paths, how
many of them never cross the no trend line.
2- What become those odds in the hypothesis where the chosen data series
persists in exhibiting the same warming bias it exhibited during the last
30 years (greater trend that UAH, RSS and CRU).
Or you evaluated the chances, and you are a crook, or you didn't and your
are very naive. If you evaluated the odds, you would know that the actual
bets are not far from those that result from the null hypothesis.
If you truly believed that 'most of the warming' is induced by humanity,
you would have proposed the opposite bet: one were you win only if none
of the five next years is less warm than 2010.
Moreover, the GISS has revised its past data nearly every month, the bet
does not specify what is the reference data in case the 2010, or the
subsequent years would be 'adjusted' as they have already repeatedly
been.
Last, but not the least, you, yourself, mentioned that the outcome of the
bet will provide no scientific evidence of a warming or a cooling trend.
So this bet, as it is related to nothing interesting, has not the
slightest interest.
gordo
>On Sun, 15 May 2011 12:13:44 -0700, gordo wrote:
>
>>>>> What evidence, can you cite ?
>>>>
>>>> $200.
>>>
>>>The scientific proof by wager. This was attempted by Blaise Pascal when
>>>he decided to renounce to reason in favour of his religious belief.
>>>Another proof that you ignore what a scientific evidence is.
>> You know it is not scientific proof by wager.
>> The temperature must be
>> higher than at any time in recorded history for Dawlish to win.
>
>> like a pretty safe bet for anyone who keeps claiming that there is
>> cooling or within the normal range etc.etc. If you fall into that
>> category then why not make some easy money?
>
>You probalby noticed that the warmist side will win if only one year is
>warmer, in the GISS series, even if the first 4 years are actually colder.
Warmer than at any time in recorded history.
>Did you try to evaluate the odds for each side to win:
>
>1- In the null hypothesis: If each year has exactly the same probability
>to be to be colder or warmer than the previous one: how many paths, how
>many of them never cross the no trend line.
Then it would be a fifty fifty chance but Dawlish does not believe
that.
>2- What become those odds in the hypothesis where the chosen data series
>persists in exhibiting the same warming bias it exhibited during the last
>30 years (greater trend that UAH, RSS and CRU).
Then Dawlish would win.
>Or you evaluated the chances, and you are a crook, or you didn't and your
>are very naive. If you evaluated the odds, you would know that the actual
>bets are not far from those that result from the null hypothesis.
Maybe you could see if Dawlish would give you better odds than 50/50.
Why he should I have no idea since his bet actually depends upon an
extreme global temperature never recorded before.
>If you truly believed that 'most of the warming' is induced by humanity,
>you would have proposed the opposite bet: one were you win only if none
>of the five next years is less warm than 2010.
That is not correct.We have data showing that the *trend* is warming
and that there are years where the globe is cooler than the previous
year.
>Moreover, the GISS has revised its past data nearly every month, the bet
>does not specify what is the reference data in case the 2010, or the
>subsequent years would be 'adjusted' as they have already repeatedly
>been.
The GISS has to revise its data as more information is available.You
know that and understand it.It is still the trend that Dawlish is
banking on to win the bet.
>Last, but not the least, you, yourself, mentioned that the outcome of the
>bet will provide no scientific evidence of a warming or a cooling trend.
>So this bet, as it is related to nothing interesting, has not the
>slightest interest.
It has interest for those who keep repeating that we are heading for
an ice age,global warming has stopped etc to put their money on a
sure thing if they are correct.They do not believe their heifer dust
and I do not think that you do either.
Dawlish
Chirping. You don't believe what you spew. You'd like to ignore this,
but you can't. It nags at you, so you have to somehow try to denigrate
the bet. A bet is a bet. If you don't take it, you *know* that record
temperatures are likely to happen over the next 5 years, don't you?
Take the bet.
Harry
wrote:
What else is it then??
>The temperature must be
>higher than at any time in recorded history for Dawlish to win.
So far, "NONE" of the recorded figures lately are in excess of
anything previous. What you are promoting is a catastrophic event of
global warming. Highly unlikely for the next thousand or even million
years, don't cha know!
>Seems
>like a pretty safe bet for anyone who keeps claiming that there is
>cooling or within the normal range etc.etc. If you fall into that
>category then why not make some easy money?
Bullshit! Alarmist crap. In any case, the time factor is so great that
nobody will be alive to claim their just dues. Oh, and who said or
claimed that the climate is "NOT" changing?? - Of course it is, it
always has done so. And are you denying the fact that we are still
coming out of an Ice Age?
>
>Could it be perhaps that deniers just like to spread their
>disinformation about and know that Dawlish is correct?
Dawkish is a charlatan, as anyone knows who follows his non-arguments.
A troll!
Harry Merrick.
Paul Aubrin
>>You probalby noticed that the warmist side will win if only one year is
>>warmer, in the GISS series, even if the first 4 years are actually
>>colder.
> Warmer than at any time in recorded history.
>>Did you try to evaluate the odds for each side to win:
>>
>>1- In the null hypothesis: If each year has exactly the same probability
>>to be to be colder or warmer than the previous one: how many paths, how
>>many of them never cross the no trend line.
> Then it would be a fifty fifty chance but Dawlish does not believe that.
Absolutely false. Can you tell the odds in case one (null hypothesis) and
in case two (null hypothesis and slightly biased base data series) ?
Who will believe what you say if you cannot ? Several posters gave you
some hints recently.
>>2- What become those odds in the hypothesis where the chosen data series
>>persists in exhibiting the same warming bias it exhibited during the
>>last 30 years (greater trend that UAH, RSS and CRU).
> Then Dawlish would win.
From your answers it is very clear that you didn't even begin to evaluate
the odds. Or you understand them and you are a crook. Or you spent
evaluating the odds, and you perceive that the bet is a scam, but as a
crook you pretend not to know it.
Dawlish
Take the bet, or stop chirping. We all know why you and others won't
take it - because you know *full well* that global temperatures are
highly likely to hit record levels again in the next 5 years.
Aren't they?
gordo
Well I am not a crook or at least I am not one here.So take whatever
other option you like but it has nothing to do with your reason for
not taking the bet.It is because you admit to the trend or you just
hate to make easy money.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pauly, like all other deniers that spew onto here, knows full well he
is highly likely to lose such a bet, as he knows *full well* that
global temperatures will hit record levels again, within the next 5
years. Don't you pauly?
Deniers like pauly know that if they were to accept that pretty
inevitable turn of events, it would be tantamount to taking their
finger out of the leaking dyke.........and their whole belief schema
would have to start to crumble, as a result. And that would not be fun
for them. *>))
AGW Facts
Huh? No.
> This was attempted by Blaise Pascal when
> he decided to renounce to reason in favour of his religious belief.
Nutter.
> Another proof that you ignore what a scientific evidence is.
$200, or do it yourself.
AGW Facts
<grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote:
The $200 fee is for me to once again provide the evidence to the
alarmist nutter "Paul Aubrin" since he is claiming he is too
stupid and/or too lazy to look for it. I'll do it again for $200.