|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 7, 2013 18:52:17 GMT
Steve: Yes, short term trends are sometimes meaningless.
But when they become longer term trends, they are not meaningless.
That "trend change" is hard to see in a long term trend until it has gone bye bye for a longggg time.
Take a look at a grain chart.
Think about each days trade as a year in climate.
Get my drift?
Analyzing the long term trend of the Corn chart would show that we are still in an uptrend. Anyone who grows this stuff knows the trend did a reversal last year. By the time the long term trend is breached, the corn will rot in the bin.
So, short term trends CAN be very important.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Mar 7, 2013 18:56:26 GMT
Steve,
You seem to have missed the point that the alarmists were the original cherry pickers. Then, when Bob Tisdale pointed out that the alarmists still had to fudge their cherry picked data to support their position, you started waving your hands around and calling foul... about the cherry picking. Bob Tisdale did not create the cherry picked, statistically flawed escalator that you object to, alarmists did. He just pointed out that alarmists predictions are getting so far from reality that cherry picking the data is not enouph. Alarmists are reduced to chartsmanship, cherry picking, and adjustments to try and justify their position.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 7, 2013 20:27:57 GMT
dontgetoutmuch What!!? I seem to have missed the point that Scepticalscience demonstrated how cherry picking dates could give a misleading impression!! How could I miss the point when the whole point of the Escalator is to demonstrate how cherry-picking dates can be used to give a misleading impression? And scepticalscience say that that is the whole point? Do you think the four or five examples I've linked to in my last few posts, where sceptics have presented short term data and pretended they represent the end of warming or the start of cooling, are not good demonstrations of what scepticalscience are trying to say. Are you dumb enough to fall for the sceptic trick, even when you have been shown how easy it is to pull?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 7, 2013 21:08:25 GMT
Yes, the unbending devotion of steve to the Cause. In AGW world (Warmology), warming in the past means it is warming now; the ubiquitous "long term" trend. steve said "absolutely debunked". Real sciency sounding steve, very clever semantics game. Below has been posted more than once in this forum, and it is only one reference. If we searched for AGW apologist statements from 2007, they were saying 5 more years would be enough. 5 years more came and went, now it is 5 more years although Ben Santer said in 2011 that a total of 17 years of no statistically significant global warming is required. Some data sets are now touching on 17 years. Let's call it the 17 year rule. Will the AGW flock agree when that time frame is passed? No. It will never be enough time. There will always be excuses for failure. www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdfsteve is right, it doesn't say "absolutely debunked". How's that amplification effect working out steve?
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Mar 7, 2013 21:22:30 GMT
Steve,
The alarmists are arguing that "temporary" halts in warming do not prove that overall warming has halted. All of your arguments are based upon this.
The alarmists are on record defining "temporary" in this context is anything up to 15 years. According to the alarmists themselves, any non-warming period over 15 years is not temporary and is impossible.
This is science. The alarmists have agreed to a method for falsification of the AGW premise. Any single 15 year consecutive pause in warming falsifies AGW.
The non-warming period has exceeded the 15 year threshold. Now the alarmists have a problem. To disguise it Skeptical Science create the "escalator" to hide this fact with a false step, the step Bob Tisdale points out in his article.
Fudging two lines on a graph, and claiming that the non-warming for the past 18 years is not 18 years long, but rather two periods, both shorter then 15 years separated by a short period of warming does not change the fact that the world has not warmed for more then 15 years. The fifteen year threshold has been broken.
You keep talking about examples of cherry picked dates. You are desperately not talking about the fifteen year period where warming halted.
The rules of science are simple. Falsification: If any single situation falsifies the premise the entire premise is falsified. It doesn't matter how many warming trends you trot out. One is all that is needed.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 8, 2013 2:58:16 GMT
Well, I got to follow Dr. Mann for a few hours on twitter till he blocked me.
I reminded him about MIS-11 and MIS-5.
Of course, he didn't like to be reminded of that.
I find it amazing....that he has a PhD. I continue to wonder anymore....how in the hell did he get one?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 8, 2013 2:59:01 GMT
And you know that I am such an abusive poster.....
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 8, 2013 6:07:14 GMT
And you know that I am such an abusive poster..... Lacking an ability to be scientific is a better description. Eg you said "all matter is cooling", rather than something like, "the consensus view of the Universe is that it is the only existing matter anywhere, not just the visible matter or detectable matter, so that no other matter exists anywhere, and the total heat content of all the existing matter has been reducing since the time of the big bang. Instead you used "all matter is cooling" to make irrelevant/incorrect observations of a situation where all matter was clearly not cooling. I was having a very difficult conversation with two other people where your comments 'as an expert' were very unhelpful.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 8, 2013 14:01:13 GMT
Radiant: All matter IS cooling.
I know you don't understand that, but it is fact.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 8, 2013 14:31:37 GMT
I believe your native tongue is Icelandic?
We cannot say in English that all matter is cooling, because it is a fact that some matter is getting hotter.
I just googled this topic and found this:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iceskater: You are correct about the chemical verses nuclear reations.
However, you are NOT correct about all matter cooling. That is what it does....and is striving to do. When a portion of matter recieves a photon, it warms.....yes....but that only delays its eventual cooling.
I know that is hard to wrap ones mind around........I had one heck of a time with it myself...but that is how it is.
Sigurdur
You are mixing up language
You cannot say all matter is cooling if you know that some matter is getting hotter
Matter does not strive. It does not try.
---------------------------------------------------------------
What you are wanting to say is that all matter has a natural tendency to get cooler. However that can only be true if the warm matter is in a colder environment, otherwise it would be possible to create an engine out of this principle.
It is true that the big bang theory of the universe says that the fate of all matter is to be absolutely cool. That is however only a theory rather than a fact.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 8, 2013 17:27:34 GMT
I believe your native tongue is Icelandic? We cannot say in English that all matter is cooling, because it is a fact that some matter is getting hotter. I just googled this topic and found this: --------------------------------------------------------------- Iceskater: You are correct about the chemical verses nuclear reations. However, you are NOT correct about all matter cooling. That is what it does....and is striving to do. When a portion of matter recieves a photon, it warms.....yes....but that only delays its eventual cooling. I know that is hard to wrap ones mind around........I had one heck of a time with it myself...but that is how it is. Sigurdur You are mixing up language You cannot say all matter is cooling if you know that some matter is getting hotter Matter does not strive. It does not try. --------------------------------------------------------------- What you are wanting to say is that all matter has a natural tendency to get cooler. However that can only be true if the warm matter is in a colder environment, otherwise it would be possible to create an engine out of this principle. It is true that the big bang theory of the universe says that the fate of all matter is to be absolutely cool. That is however only a theory rather than a fact.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 8, 2013 17:28:26 GMT
I believe your native tongue is Icelandic? We cannot say in English that all matter is cooling, because it is a fact that some matter is getting hotter. I just googled this topic and found this: --------------------------------------------------------------- Iceskater: You are correct about the chemical verses nuclear reations. However, you are NOT correct about all matter cooling. That is what it does....and is striving to do. When a portion of matter recieves a photon, it warms.....yes....but that only delays its eventual cooling. I know that is hard to wrap ones mind around........I had one heck of a time with it myself...but that is how it is. Sigurdur You are mixing up language You cannot say all matter is cooling if you know that some matter is getting hotter Matter does not strive. It does not try. --------------------------------------------------------------- What you are wanting to say is that all matter has a natural tendency to get cooler. However that can only be true if the warm matter is in a colder environment, otherwise it would be possible to create an engine out of this principle. It is true that the big bang theory of the universe says that the fate of all matter is to be absolutely cool. That is however only a theory rather than a fact. Radiant: You answered your question. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 8, 2013 20:06:41 GMT
dontgetoutmuch You've repeated the claim three times without any attempt to back it up. magellan points out that I am right. Being magellan, rather than say I have correctly identified and rebutted your wrong information he says that I am playing semantic games. Let's be clear about what magellan's citation says: 1. Temperature trends were obtained from a 15 year old climate model which is known not to display anything like natural variability. 2. The proportion of periods of no warming in that model was counted and used to estimate the 15 year number. 3. The 15 year number applies to temperature data only after it has been adjusted/massaged/fudged to account for El Nino. Normally, an analysis like this would make magellan's blood boil. To make magellan's blood boil even more, let's cite Tamino's application of Step 3. (I should say that I would not have faith in Tamino's analysis either, and would only consider it once the planet has gone through a few more ENSO periods.) Analysing data in this way can be useful because it raises questions like "what is natural variability?", but I don't think you can claim that the climate science community has embraced this viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 8, 2013 20:07:09 GMT
sigurdur,
What's your twitter handle?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 8, 2013 20:37:33 GMT
Radiant: All matter IS cooling. I know you don't understand that, but it is fact. Providing you understand that is a theory rather than a fact then, allowing for language differences, we are not very far apart.
|
|