|
|
Post by steve on Jan 6, 2011 14:04:27 GMT
So Roy Spencer is an AGW careerist who has been faking the warming of the UAH record then. Interesting? Do you have a link where Spencer "state(s) that global average temperatures are warmer than ever?" My guess related to Roy Spencer's data. Roy's data is not too far out of line with other data. I am talking about comparisons with 1961-90, so I'm not saying "warmer than ever". Astromet is getting his excuses in early - if he is right he will be happy to accept the data. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 6, 2011 14:35:32 GMT
Do you have a link where Spencer "state(s) that global average temperatures are warmer than ever?" My guess related to Roy Spencer's data. Roy's data is not too far out of line with other data. I am talking about comparisons with 1961-90, so I'm not saying "warmer than ever". Astromet is getting his excuses in early - if he is right he will be happy to accept the data. Data? How does it compare to the hockey stick Steve? Spencer's data shows gentle warming from 1979. The hockey stick is a hockey stick by virtue of a handle that allegedly ended 100 years or so ago and became unprecedented warming (more than ever). Why not admit you took "Attempts to state that global average temperatures are warmer than ever have simply been actions by the AGW careerists to make a mountain out of a molehill." and offered Spencer's data as being warmer than ever and that he assents to it being unprecedented. But it is only the nutcases you ascribe to who do that. What his is known as is a Freudian slip. Your adherence to the hockey stick and your unsubstantiated belief that it is gospel led you to reply as you replied. It certainly does not arise from anything Astromet posted. So it is your belief that Spencer's data is proof of the hockey stick? I can see why you support hiding the decline. LOL! We wouldn't want to bring any scrutiny to the accuracy of the handle by confusing by juxtaposing Briffa's tree rings to anything we can actually measure. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 6, 2011 15:03:45 GMT
Icefisher
The posts on this board are listed in date order with older posts above newer posts. I made a guess based on Spencer's data and with other references to comparisons with 1961-90. Astromet followed it up with a comment about AGW scientists fudging data to make it appear "warmer than ever". My response was ironic which you should learn about because it's fun.
Your response is not Freudian. It is an obtuse determination to come to incoherent unsupportable conclusions about your opponents in order to be argumentative and to have a good old rant.
As far as I am concerned the discussion is about comparisons with recent weather observations back to 1960.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 6, 2011 16:09:50 GMT
As far as I am concerned the discussion is about comparisons with recent weather observations back to 1960. Is that what "ever" means to you Steve? And we thought Christian fundamentalists were nutz thinking the world was only 6,000 years old and here you are saying it is only 50. LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 6, 2011 21:00:29 GMT
And who said "warmer than ever", icefisher  |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 6, 2011 21:56:09 GMT
And who said "warmer than ever", icefisher Not sure what your question is seeing at least two possible questions. First of all Astromet said "warmer than ever" in post 852, to which you replied to in post 853 suggesting he was referring to Spencer. Second, if you are asking who Astromet was talking about you should probably ask him. I simply used the synonym "unprecedented" warming as a fair interpretation knowing that has been said by many from Hansen, to Mann, to Jones. p.s. still waiting for your like to evidence that scientists correctly predicted the recent warming over on page 31 of Where's the Heat topic. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 7, 2011 9:54:37 GMT
So Roy Spencer is an AGW careerist who has been faking the warming of the UAH record then. Interesting? Listen, none of these people you mention are forecasters Steve. That means they do not forecast. The AGW people simply guess, make things up, and blow a ton of hot air (pun intended) on everything and anything that has to do with climate and weather. These people, who you hold up high (incredibly) as some kind of high priests of climate science are pseudo-scientists only concerned with their careers. But they do not forecast. This is because they cannot. Not even two weeks in advance, not a month in advance and certainly not seasonally. So how, just how, are they able to forecast years and decades in advance? They cannot, and they know it. So, for all your own hot air, it doesn't matter how much you rant and go on about these fellows who've made a mess of climate science. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 7, 2011 10:11:19 GMT
Listen, none of these people you mention are forecasters Steve. That means they do not forecast. Hmmm, maybe that is why Steve is having such a hard time providing a link to evidence that scientists accurately predicted the current climate. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2011 10:34:21 GMT
And who said "warmer than ever", icefisher Not sure what your question is seeing at least two possible questions. First of all Astromet said "warmer than ever" in post 852, to which you replied to in post 853 suggesting he was referring to Spencer. Just a little lesson in argument tactics for you icefisher: I made a guess about temperatures that differed from astromets, and in order not to be accused of using a warm-fudged dataset, I picked Roy Spencer's data. Astromet, in my view, tried to get his excuses in early by saying that if he loses it's only because all the data is warm-fudged. My response was to question whether he was perhaps implying that Roy's data was in the warm-fudged category (which we all know is likely untrue). Hope that clears things up. Warming from CO2 was predicted by Arrhenius in the 1890s. When climate modelling got going in the 60s and 70s they worried about cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. More worried about warming leading to more scientific research, and ultimately the political activity that led up to the IPCC report. All this started happening well before the more dramatic warming of the late 80s and 1990s. So as I said on page 31 of that thread, some like to think the warming is "invented/a lucky guess/a selection effect/not interesting". |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 7, 2011 10:53:12 GMT
Not sure what your question is seeing at least two possible questions. First of all Astromet said "warmer than ever" in post 852, to which you replied to in post 853 suggesting he was referring to Spencer. Just a little lesson in argument tactics for you icefisher: I made a guess about temperatures that differed from astromets, and in order not to be accused of using a warm-fudged dataset, I picked Roy Spencer's data. Astromet, in my view, tried to get his excuses in early by saying that if he loses it's only because all the data is warm-fudged. My response was to question whether he was perhaps implying that Roy's data was in the warm-fudged category (which we all know is likely untrue). Hope that clears things up. Warming from CO2 was predicted by Arrhenius in the 1890s. When climate modelling got going in the 60s and 70s they worried about cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. More worried about warming leading to more scientific research, and ultimately the political activity that led up to the IPCC report. All this started happening well before the more dramatic warming of the late 80s and 1990s. So as I said on page 31 of that thread, some like to think the warming is "invented/a lucky guess/a selection effect/not interesting". Steve, I don't get this statement by you, "Astromet, in my view, tried to get his excuses in early by saying that if he loses it's only because all the data is warm-fudged."What excuses? Lose what? What are you talking about? Listen, I am a professional forecaster, an expert in long-range forecasting. That is what I do. My experience in climate science stretches over two decades and my experience as an astronomic forecaster over three decades. Forecasting is not a game, nor is it for wannabes, or contrariness attitudes. People who often have more time on their hands doing little but making things up that simply are not true. I could care less if you want to acknowledge my forecast of ENSO or not. Who cares? That does not change the facts. What you should rather be doing is learning much more about the Earth's climate and weather than you've shown in your comments, which, to this point in time, has been very little. Moreover, it is well known that Co2 lags behind temperature, and is driven by it. Not the other way around. The warming since the early 1980s, and into the 1990s was solar-forced and had absolutely nothing at all to do with humanity. However, you are in no way equal to a forecaster. You have not put in the work, nor the effort and should therefore know this before you make things up which are not true - at all. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2011 13:27:12 GMT
I made a guess about temperatures based on Roy Spencer's data. In essence my guess disagrees, I think, with your guess that temperatures will be "cooler than normal". But to be sure, we need to know how you define "normal" and how we can check whether it is cooler than normal. I used Roy Spencer's data as I trust him to report it honestly (even if he is an AGW "sceptic"). But you suggested that none of the data can be trusted. This means that there is no baseline for testing either of our guesses. I think that you prefer it if your guesses cannot be tested. Lets take it as read that you disagree. Feel free to make a statement about Roy Spencer's temperature data, or any other temperature data you choose just as long as it is easily checked. www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/ |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 7, 2011 14:02:16 GMT
I made a guess about temperatures based on Roy Spencer's data. In essence my guess disagrees, I think, with your guess that temperatures will be "cooler than normal". But to be sure, we need to know how you define "normal" and how we can check whether it is cooler than normal. I used Roy Spencer's data as I trust him to report it honestly (even if he is an AGW "sceptic"). But you suggested that none of the data can be trusted. This means that there is no baseline for testing either of our guesses. I think that you prefer it if your guesses cannot be tested. Lets take it as read that you disagree. Feel free to make a statement about Roy Spencer's temperature data, or any other temperature data you choose just as long as it is easily checked. www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/Coming from a skeptic or not, global temperature data is very spurious. It is difficult to ascertain whether the Earth's temperature has fallen or risen due to the high fluidity of the atmosphere, and the uneven collection of raw weather data. The best we have, including Spencer's data is from sea-surface ocean temperatures. As G.S. callendar put it ~ "The subject... is a vast one, and only too easily submerged in an ocean of repelling statistics, unless firm measures are taken to reduce the mass of data into a form which eliminates distracting or irrelevant detail..." The sampling done since, say 1980, coalesced at the same time many climate scientists were coming out of their global cooling scares of the 1970s, and into the emerging period of their global warming scares. Thus, the sampling of global temperature has been heavily tainted by ideological forces which continue to muck up progress into this important sector. We are in need of new, stable algorithms which can account for factors such as changes in world spatial coverage and the progression of observing methods around the globe. I am of the hope that once the scare tactics wane down that progress will be made to provide raw weather data to a baseline which can be applied to discovering a proper sampling system for world temperature. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 7, 2011 14:24:04 GMT
Warming from CO2 was predicted by Arrhenius in the 1890s. When climate modelling got going in the 60s and 70s they worried about cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. More worried about warming leading to more scientific research, and ultimately the political activity that led up to the IPCC report. All this started happening well before the more dramatic warming of the late 80s and 1990s. So as I said on page 31 of that thread, some like to think the warming is "invented/a lucky guess/a selection effect/not interesting". LOL! You claimed skillful prediction Steve! "Some sceptics are so amazed that scientists have correctly predicted warming that they prefer to pretend that the warming is invented/a lucky guess/a selection effect/not interesting." Predicting warming would be correct in 50% of the cases thus you proved it was not interesting. In fact is is completely not interesting. On 50/50 choices people are only interested in being able to predict changes skillfully like 80% of the time and it was a travesty that the scientists failed to predict the flattening of global temperatures since 1998. So one can say that the prediction capability of climate science has not advanced since 1890. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2011 14:33:22 GMT
Clearly, I have given a short summary of the situation only, so your 50% statistic is obviously wrong, and I've only proved that you would claim it was not interesting or a lucky guess, not that it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2011 14:52:58 GMT
So what you are perhaps saying is that collective hysteria infected a large fraction of the various independent people taking weather data in different ways (including people not involved in climate science) which nevertheless resulted in data that correlated with each other, and physical changes such as reductions in Arctic sea ice, glaciers, ecological changes and personal experiences. And despite that, there is very little evidence of such a thing happening. Deliberate (even subconscious) tainting, particularly tainting by a large number of independent people with different levels of "ideological influence" could, I am sure, be detected by careful analysis and cross-correlation.
|
|
