As a note, Voodude has all of the traits of a troll, probably even a paid troll. It is the job of a troll to tie up bloggers and disseminate massive amounts of contrary misinformation, particularly cartoons and bad graphs. Voodude fits the profile precisely.
UPDATE: If someone prefers to remain anonymous, that's their business. But, I really don't like people being anonymous trolls and going around engaged in denial tactics. That is why I went to the trouble to find out who Voodude is. He is Brian Marple Mulder of Alberta, Canada. There is a lot more on him, but I just wanted to prevent him from being a coward hiding behind a computer screen.
The world is cooling, not warming.
This was Voodude's claim and some of the graphs he supplied. I will provide my response below.
The blackish areas have no anomalous temperature, they are normal. The blue-ish or purple areas are COOLER THAN NORMAL.
My ResponseLet's start with the easiest ones first, the last two graphs he provided. His line of reasoning is that the combined area of the cool areas and the neutral areas are greater than the warming areas, therefore the planet is experiencing global cooling, not global warming.
First, let me say this is so ridiculous a claim that this is where I first suspected he was a paid troll. Why would someone make a claim this obviously fraudulent? Why do I call it fraudulent? Just consider the meaning of 'neutral.' It means it falls in neither group. So, you cannot group the neutral areas as being part of the cooling trend. As a counter argument, I would be equally justified in claiming, "The total of the neutral areas plus the warming areas is much greater than the cooling areas; therefore, global warming is real." That would be equally false. The correct interpretation of these two graphs is that the warming areas in both graphs is greater than the cooling areas in total extent.
Did Voodude really believe that horrible claim he made? I sure hope not. His profile on Disqus states he is an engineer. Since he remains anonymous, it is impossible to verify, but I seriously doubt it. By the way, why is Voodude so anonymous?
Let's look at his first two graphs, now. They are equally easy to debunk, but it is a little bit more involved. This issue here is the name at the top of the graph - Mr. Roy Spencer. If you ever use anything from Roy Spencer, it is an automatic given you're going to be wrong. One of his papers was submitted last summer for the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. You can read about it, and him, here. There is an interesting article about his work in The Guardian.
Voodude tried to justify his graphs with this statement:
The fact is, I don't trust him (and neither should you). So, let's go to the website and see for ourselves. This is a really nice website built by Dr. Kevin Cowtan in the Department of Chemistry at the University of York. Thank you, Professor, for this excellent site.
Once you go there, you can select the data you want and the time period. Let's try to replicate Voodude's claims and compare them to Spencer's graphs above. He said there was a cooling trend over the last 17 years and he only used the land data. This is what I get using the Berkeley land data for the period of 1999 to 2015:
|Source: Kevin Cowtan|
Oops! The graph shows a warming trend of .168 degrees Celsius per decade. No cooling trend here. Maybe he meant to use the NOAA data:
|Source: Kevin Cowtan|
Still oops! There's a warming trend of .14 degrees Celsius per decade.
Okay, we've already busted this claim all to heck and Roy Spencer's claims along with it, but why stop there? There is a major false argument deniers always go for, even though they know they are lying by doing so - they fail to include ocean warming which accounts for 93% of the planetary warming. This is what we get if we include the oceans in our calculations:
|Source: Kevin Cowtan|
We can safely say the Earth is not cooling and this claim is completely busted. But, there's more.
Cherry PickingThis is one of the most common false arguments used by deniers - picking the data that best produces the results desired. As scientists, it is our duty to examine all of the data and obtain the most correct result. As deniers, it is their job to manipulate the data to best obtain the predetermined result. Admittedly, they are pretty good at their job. Way too many people have fallen for this false argument. Certainly, Voodude has engaged in this very thing. Let's examine, again, his claim - the data from the last 17 years shows a cooling trend.
First question - Why did he go with 17 years? Normal cycles takes decades (manmade) or millennia (naturally occurring). Voodude never actually said this was a naturally occurring cooling trend, so we will consider both. In either case, 17 years is not enough to produce any valid conclusion. I can measure the global temperature in the Northern Hemisphere for the period of August through January and I'll get a cooling trend. That is an example of cherry picking. I selected August through January because I knew the seasonal change would show a cooling trend.
So, if 17 years is invalid, why did Voodude pick it? I'm at a bit of a loss because we already saw above there was no cooling trend during this time period - unless you use Roy Spencer data!
Ah, hah! He not only specifically selected his period, he specifically selected his source of data.
And, all the while, he rejected the use of ocean warming.
This is the very definition of cherry picking. What did Voodude have to say about this?
I don't consider cherry picking to be applicable when the end of the data is current. If one picks a period, like, 1966-1968, both end-points "picked” ... then, that is cherry picking. But specifying one point, as in, a temperature series, while the other point is "now” ... that's a bit different. What, then, are the alternatives? If the end-point is “now”, either I pick the starting point, or you do... somebody has to pick the starting point... So, then, what is the point in labelling a data series (that has the current point at one end) "Cherry Picking”? The current month is taken as the starting point -no cherry picking- and the root-mean-square, linear regression analysis is computed, going back in time, as far as possible, such that the trend is COOLING. The slope, as returned by the linear regression analysis, is negative. Some temperature time-series do not support any cooling at all. If the data supports the conclusion, then IT IS COOLING. You may argue about the length of the trend, as many are short; or about the statistical significance, because temperature series tend not to be significant, but if the data support the conclusion, IT IS COOLING.
His argument is, if he uses today as his end point, he can use any point he wishes and it isn't cherry picking. But, isn't cherry picking defined as using the period you want? Even if he is using today as one endpoint, he is still selecting the period so it will fit his desired results. So, he has sidestepped the very question and issue and fails to address how he used a very specifically selected time period, data set and ignored the ocean warming.
But, there's more.
Straw Man ArgumentWhen challenged on the science, Voodude threw out these two gems:
Christopher said, of the IPCC, "However, it's evaluations and decisions are based on peer-reviewed science"
Where's the Science in this?
IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world's wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” "This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, anymore.”
Christopher said, of the IPCC, "However, it's evaluations and decisions are based on peer-reviewed science"
Where's the Science in this?
”At a news conference [22Jan2015] in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-...
The answer to Voodude's question in both cases is the same - there is no science in these quotes. So, why was he bringing them up? Simple, they are straw man arguments.
A straw man argument is when a new topic is inserted into a discussion to divert attention from the original argument. This allows the person inserting this argument an opportunity to attack the straw man and make it appear as if they dissected the original argument.
Voodude was making an argument that the world is cooling. What does either of these two quotes above have to do with that topic? If you can't find anything then we are in agreement. The fact is, Voodude threw these out in an attempt to divert attention to the fact he had no science to support his claims. This is a very common strategy among deniers - they have no science to support them, so they distract the audience with something else.
By the way, both of those quotes were taken out of context in an attempt to make them sound different than they were spoken. Of course, that is another false argument, but we'll leave that for another day. Here is a link to a site showing the full quotes.
ConclusionThere is little doubt in my mind Voodude is a paid hack for the denier lobby, probably the Heartland Institute. The reason I specifically mentioned that group of deniers is because we were engaged in a series of exchanges exposing Heartland, Tom Harris, and Russell Cook for the paid deniers they are when Mr. Voodude suddenly shows up. The timing is especially suspicious with the appearance of Russell Cook who is known to attack climate scientists and climate science bloggers in attempts to intimidate them. Both Harris and Cook were getting beaten up rather badly and ran away, only to suddenly be replaced by Voodude. I can easily imagine Cook calling up Voodude and telling him he needed to tie up my blog.
So, if you come across Voodude, be warned about what he is. But, then again, since he refuses to reveal who he is, all he has to do is change his handle and appear as someone else.
But, isn't that what you would expect from someone who is afraid of the science?
Of course it doesn't prove anything, but a few days ago I caught Voodude cutting and pasting without attribution from a year-old article by Tom Harris that is archived on Anthony Watt's WUWT site.ReplyDelete
One more coincidence to add to the fact that he disappeared so suddenly from the conversation mentioned in the Conclusion above -- after spending hours posting there almost continuously -- as soon as Christopher and I started speculating that he might be a paid troll.
That is why I put his name in the title. Hopefully, if someone does a search on him they will find this article.ReplyDelete
He's probably Harris's alter ego. For days when he wants to get full of gin and let his hair down.ReplyDelete
I'm sorry Dr Keating but I'm not sure I agree with you 100% on your math there. I'm no global warming denier - quite the opposite. I read your blog because I love the wonderful amount of information you provide about global warming.ReplyDelete
However, just from a stats point of view I think you've made an error here in that you've used the implicit assumption that the events you're calculating the odds for (9 of the top 10 hottest months occurring in the last 2 years) are independent of each other - so if the 12 month period ending in May 2015 being among the hottest on record is event A and the the one ending in April 2015 is event B you calculate the likelihood of them both being among the hottest as
P(A and B) = P(A)*P(B|A) = (24/1624)*(23/1623)
However, if these two 12 month periods share 10 months between them, surely the value of P(B|A) is substantially higher than 23/1623. Imagine for the sake of argument a case where the period of November 2014 - February 2015 was very hot - so hot that it moved the whole year into the top 10 all on its own. In this fictitious case the value of P(B|A) would be close to 100% because practically any 12 month period that included the hot period would be in the top 10 unless there were some unusually cold months to counterbalance it - which would be unlikely.
To calculate what this actually is would require information about the temperature anomalies themselves and is beyond my ability to determine. But I think you've oversimplified a bit in using the basic conditional probability. The calculations you've used could apply to the top 10 years, but not the top 10 overlapping 12 month periods.
Just a point of clarification. I love your blog. Keep up the good work!
I had considered this very question when I was doing the calculations. What I decided was the chances of the different months being one of the coldest months ever recorded was the same as if they were one of the hottest ever recorded. The net effect was that it didn't make a significant difference.ReplyDelete
However, I believe your question (and objection) is valid enough that I have approached one of the mathematicians that did the original calculation for his opinion. I will publish it if he responds.
That made me laugh.ReplyDelete
He only showed up after Harris had left the arena. Maybe Harris does a quick change in a phone booth somewhere.ReplyDelete
This is a great post Chris! You lay bare some of the specific ways that deniers manipulate data, in order to create the illusion that somehow scientists are so dumb that they have not already examined, or have simply missed, the supposedly valid objections deniers raise. For example, we all know that if the long term data really showed no warming trends, not only would climate scientists NOT try to manufacture such warming trends, but they would also not be foolish enough to think that such supposedly valid challenges to their analysis, could be slipped past tens of thousands of scientist, and indeed, millions of people who are now very interested in being informed about AGW! The truth is, that most of their most clever schemes are really based on nothing but smoke and mirrors, which when used, give the impression that their observations are simply based on common sense? One perfect example you brought up is the claim that the global temperature graph showing both hotter, colder and neutral temperature areas on Earth, seems to contradict the existence of a global warming trend with some kind of commonsense observations. But as you point out, if neutral areas yield no changes in temperature, (during the timeline of the graph), when they are added to either warmer or colder areas on the same graph, neutral temperature themselves can neither corroborate nor deny any warming or cooling trends? As you point out, the correct assessment compares the total warming areas with the total number of cooling areas. Thus, what, at first, might seems relevant in Voodudes arguments, really signifies nothing--nothing but statistical smoke and mirrors!ReplyDelete
The meteorologist which I questioned, who wrote a letter of AGW denial in one of my area newspapers, used a similar ploy when trying to debunk the fact that more and more warming temperatures are being recorded---by diverting the issue into one of acknowledging that in the past there were far fewer populated areas in any given geographical locations. He then reasoned that since there now are a far greater number populated towns and cities, that therefore, there are now more areas that report record highs--thus claiming that this fact makes all temperature records suspect because of that simple fact. However, if one just ignores all the smoke and mirrors, one realizes that we do indeed, have a long list of changing records for specific areas, like Minneapolis, New York, or Miami Beach, etc etc! Therefore, when reading the temperature records from those specific areas, we really do know if New York is becoming warmer or colder over time. the same goes for Albuquerque, Tuscaloosa, or even Moose Jaw Manitoba. No matter what the size or exact location of any population center, most of them have relatively long weather records that can be used to determine if indeed, higher temps have been increasing over time!
The art of denial has to do with convincing the public that reputable climate researchers, are really the ones using smoke and mirrors---in order to prevent anyone from really seeing through the massive smoke screen they hide behind and the blinding flash from the mirrors that they use!
One thing I have heard recommended, is that when anyone seems to be implying that a "gotcha" type of revelation brought up by a denier which is then accompanied with the beseechment to just go to such and such a site, where the truth will be plain to see, is that one really SHOULD check out that site, since often what is claimed there, is just not true, or, has been taken out of context, cherry picked, and/or embellished with an impressive sounding and convoluted explanation that sounds impressive, but really mean vert little, or nothing at all!
The strategy they employ is a childish attempt to turn the table by accusing genuine climate scientists of being guilty of the vert faults and unethical behaviors that deniers really thrive on.
Thanks for the good work, Christopher!
That's what I mean. You never see those guys together, just like bizarro Clark Kent and Superman.ReplyDelete
"stellar" - Tell me, if Mann is so respected, did Trenberth file an amecus brief, favouring Mann, in Mann v Styen? Did Gavin file a brief for Mann? Did Patchy file a brief to support Mann? Did ANYONE step up to defend Mann? The New York Times did. Anybody else? Bueller? Anyone?ReplyDelete
I am not familiar with the legal issues but I am familiar with your straw man arguments. What does any of this have to do with science? And, yes, Mann's reputation in the science community is stellar. Which explains why people who reject science don't like him. They can't refute his work.ReplyDelete
Look, I just commented on your post - that is where the "stellar" comes from. If you deviate from "the science" - why is it my fault that I comment on your distraction?ReplyDelete
" N2 and O2 don't absorb IR, "ReplyDelete
Never said they did. However, in a real atmosphere, so called "greenhouse gases" transfer heat by collisions to N2 and O2 (and vice versa). So, actual heat, from, oh, let's say condensation and freezing from thunderclouds at the tropopause ... let's say some of that heat is transferred to and O2 molecule. That heat might be transferred to a CO2 molecule by collision, and that CO2 molecule - because of the infrared capability that matches the heat transferred into it - radiates a photon. Even the latent-heat-loaded H2O might collide with a CO2, transfer heat, and have the CO2 radiate the photon.
Remember, the photon can go off in any direction, but, there are less greenhouse molecules above it than below, probabilistically enhancing the upwards escape to space.
Thank you for being concerned for my health. Did it ever occur to you that I might be in hospital, bed-ridden, unable to do much else? You have no idea yet you think the worst.ReplyDelete
Do you think any of the Coast Guard graduates will dare say anything? I guarantee that some of them think as I do. More so, than the graduating class of Brown, or Haaavad.ReplyDelete
Is this the same group?ReplyDelete
BTW, this is LAND. Says so right on it.
BE L&O doesn't pass my test.
So, aside from RSS and UAH, where is the NOAA version of the NOAA satellite oxygen brightness anomaly? I have never found it.ReplyDelete
Your comment did nothing to address Dr. Mann's reputation in the science community and did nothing to address the science itself. It was a straw man, just like this most recent comment of yours. Amazingly, you cannot address the science. Paid troll.ReplyDelete
Troll, maybe ... Pay me. Nobody else does.ReplyDelete
I do my own research, and am not paid by anyone. I made my own conclusions...ReplyDelete
And my point is https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dialoguesonglobalwarmingblogspotcom/dialogues_on_global_warming_what_if_climate_change_is_real/#comment-2036450316
Clouds form, preferentially, when the sea surface temperature "tries" to exceed a somewhat fixed value. Excess heat is then rejected by the cloud albedo enhancement. That is the darker spot in the upper righthand corner...ReplyDelete
CO2 has a great impact, if there were none, and the earth went from none to, say 200 ppmv. It is logarithm-like, but physical analogs to mathematical concepts don't hold "all the way" ... CO2 concentration is more of an asymptote, which never reaches the line. Meanwhile, CO2 fertilization, the β effect, has been enhancing net primary production, removing CO2. What happens to rock-weathering as CO2 concentrations go up?ReplyDelete
The "no global global warming in x years" gets trotted out at WUWT from time to time. The fact that they only present the lower troposphere synthesised data is an obvious enough cherry-pick.ReplyDelete
The starting point cherry-pick is a bit more subtle. They work backwards from the current month to find a zero trend line (Christopher Monckton even says he has a computer program to find it; what better definition of a cherry-pick is there? :-) ). The trick works because of the large El Nino spike around 1998, plus the fact they only do this when the current month is low. The IPCC points out that trend calculations are sensitive to start and end points, and must be interpreted with caution.
If we do see another spike due to the current El Nino, it will be interesting to see if it stops the zero trend line trick from working. Personally I would rather see people use annual data, not monthly data to at least remove some of the noise caused by seasonal variability.
Excellent comment. Thank you. The key is the climate is highly variable. That works well for people who want to cherry pick the data.ReplyDelete
Speak of the devil!ReplyDelete
Well, I suddenly figured out what I'm posting about tomorrow. Thank you very much.ReplyDelete
Don't forget that the government has a habit of granting extremely large tax breaks as well as government subsidies to particular companies--including big oil and energy companies that really on, or produce, fossil fuels.ReplyDelete
In return corporate executives often feel no obligation to include the welfare of their fellow, and poorer, Americans as parts of their business models. All too often decisions to outsource labor or production to foreign companies are in response to profit motives, alone, while the governments decisions to protect the welfare of the middle class are examples of using money to directly benefit American citizens and consumers.
Of course without the fossil fuel industry and the products or services it has created, Americans would never have enjoyed much of the prosperity they have received in the past. But a necessary transition to green or renewable fuel sources, is just one of many historic changes to the economic basis of the world.
In earlier centuries we had an agriculturally based economy until mass production and the availability of electric power, transformed us into a manufacturing economy providing entirely new types of employment for people to make livings with.So, if we are forced to become part of an economy based on renewable sources of energy that will represent another kind of change. As in all times before, changes will not always come easily or overnight, but I doubt that global warming is being concocted in order to destroy capitalism, or rob from the rich to pay the poor. As I said, in a capitalist economy even Exxon Mobile is perfectly free to invest in green energy and even to dominate energy markets in that way. Merely asking the wealthy to give up a small part of their bounty for the good of all, is hardly a sequel to "Robin Hood."
I really wish that you or any other denier could give me a reasonable scenario, under which the government or scientists, or everyday Americans, could end up controlling the affairs and economy of the world. Considering that every major scientific body in the world, (not just America), endorses the fact that AGW is real and something to be quite concerned about, and since you now seem to think that the UN itself is now supposedly part of the plot, the burden of proving some grand conspiracy is yours.
So please let me know how expanding the use of green fuels, is going to hand over the control of the world to liberals or the damn scientist who are scheming to get a piece of the pie? If you think the danger of that is so real, you should be able to offer a reasonable and convincing scenario for how it will happen? So, go ahead, enlighten us!
So any evidence that shows you and Russell Cook might be very wrong, is nothing more than a logical fallacy? Are you saying that because you are always or seldom wrong, then those who find facts which contradict you must be using a logical fallacy based argument? In other words, anyone who disagrees is wrong, because the two of you are nearly or always right? Sounds a bit self affirming and really downright kooky!ReplyDelete
And aren't you someone who frequently says, "I stopped reading after...."
That statement hardly proves that you are open minded to the opinions or to the knowledge of others?
I fail to see how your previous implication that AGW affirmers, want to redistribute the wealth, can be taken any other way than as a political statement? And anyway here is an exact quote taken from your recent comment:ReplyDelete
"I refuted that by pointing out two quotes by high-up leaders of the IPCC making public statements of a highly-political nature, unsupported by science or published papers..."
So your not being political when accusing the IPCC or injecting politics? Especially when in the next breath that their political public statements were unsupported by science of published papers? Usually when someone uses terms like re-distributing wealth, and accuses a major world body of being politically motivated, that's a dead giveaway that such a person is motivated at least partly by politics themselves.
The possibility that you are making such points merely to confirm that you are taking the high road when arguing, is truly a remote one, and a contention that both you and those who differ can easily see through.
Here is a website that refutes the ideas that all arguments made by AGW affirmers are political in nature:
In 20122 Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil admitted that global warming is a problem for human beings and he agreed with the idea of carbon caps!
"Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil admitted"ReplyDelete
...Appeal to authority ...
"Usually when someone uses terms like "re-distributing wealth," and accuses a major world body of being politically motivated, that's a dead giveaway that such a person is motivated at least partly by politics themselves."ReplyDelete
Exactly. The IPCC is a political, bureaucratic organization, cloaked in cherry-picked "science"
... "re-distributing wealth" is exactly the term used by Otto Edenhofer, of the IPCC
"... climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” "This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, anymore.”
The cherry-picked "science" is illustrated by Phil:
”Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Voodude, I missed your delusional rants. I'm glad to see you haven't returned to reality. It's crowded enough here already.ReplyDelete
You are one of the most cherry-picking delusional deniers I've ever run across. Why don't you put all of those quotes in context? Or, are you afraid they won't support your crazy claims?ReplyDelete
Please, provide us with the context.ReplyDelete
Try this for context - you're a paid troll and will say anything you are paid to say.ReplyDelete
Hi, CB. I do have other things going in my life that take me away from you. Don't worry, though ... I'll be back.ReplyDelete
Darn, I need a Terminator image for that ... well, next time...
It is only a google translate; but the paras around where the 'quote' comes from changes the context significantly:ReplyDelete
This all sounds not by climate policy, which we know.
Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate policy separated from the major issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we do not have 11 000 gigatonnes of carbon in the coal reserves beneath our feet - and we may be deposited only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we are to keep the 2 ° C target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no way around the fact that a large proportion of fossil reserves must remain in the ground.
De facto, the expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to an entirely different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.
First of all, we have industrialized countries the atmosphere of the international community virtually expropriated. But one must say clearly: We distribute by the climate policy de facto the world by assets. That the owners of coal and oil which are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free himself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has to do with environmental policy, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole, almost nothing.
Nevertheless, the environment suffers from climate change - especially in the South.
It will be a lot to do to adapt. But that's just much more than conventional development policy addition: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be circumvented, if the production efficiency is increased - and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But then we have to see that successful climate policy just needs a different global trade and financial policies.
Keep it in the ground, So if a country is basing their economy on exporting a fossil fuel, they need help and compensation in developing an economy that works toward a sustainable climate AND economy.
No, Agenda 21.......
Looks like my quotes are born out by the Google Translation! Would you provide the source URL of the German?ReplyDelete
(I never mentioned Agenda 21)
source url is as above in your post:ReplyDelete
Not sure how you can claim your quotes are ".. born out by the Google Translation..."
the Agenda 21 reference is from the wording you provided implying that environmental policy is a subterfuge for 'control' of economy.
"The trick works because of the large El Nino spike around 1998,"ReplyDelete
OK, so where is the COOLING trend, if the warm blob of the Great El Niño isn't included? It shows COOLING since Feb of 2000. Thus, the claim,
"The trick works because of the large El Nino spike around 1998,"
"The trick works because of the large El Nino spike around 1998,"ReplyDelete
OK, so what COOLING trend exists in the UAH TLT data, derived from NOAA satellites, if we purposefully avoid "the large El Nino spike around 1998"
... well, a COOLING trend since September, 2000 (to today). "The trick works because of the large El Nino spike around 1998,"
"Personally I would rather see people use annual data"ReplyDelete
Average Temperature, Annual; (month will be greyed out) (generates jan-dec) 1895-2014, Primary Corn and Soybean Belt, Entire Region (check) Display Base Period 1961-1990 (check) Display Trend (check) per decade 1996 to 2014 (leave unchecked) smoothing
The zone that they classify as Primary Corn and Soybean Belt shows COOLING since 1997 1996.
"neutral temperature themselves can neither corroborate nor deny ANY warming or cooling trends?"ReplyDelete
Yeah, they show that the bulk of the earth is perfectly normal, regardless of the CO2 levels exceeding 400ppmv. In the RSS data, the perfectly normal areas of the earth are black.
I don't have a temperature for "Moose Jaw Saskatchewan"ReplyDelete
... but GISS has a station in Prince Albert...
"when reading the temperature records ... we really DO know if ... becoming warmer or colder ... Tuscaloosa, or"ReplyDelete
Alabama, State-wide, has been COOLING ever since 1895; that’s right, 1895.
Alabama, CD 1. Northern Valley COOLING since 1895
Alabama, CD 2. Appalachian Mountain COOLING since 1895
Alabama, CD 3. Upper Plains COOLING since 1895
Alabama, CD 4. Eastern Valley COOLING since 1895
Alabama, CD 5. Piedmonth Plateau COOLING since 1895
Alabama, CD 6. Prarie COOLING since 1895
Alabama, CD 7. Coastal Plain COOLING since 1895
Alabama, CD 8. Gulf COOLING since 1895
Alabama, Birmingham COOLING since the beginning of the record, 1930
Alabama, Huntsville’s short record shows it has been COOLING since 1998
Alabama, Mobile COOLING since the beginning of the record, 1948
Alabama, Montgomery short record shows it has been COOLING since 2004
You don't have to be dishonest, you know.ReplyDelete
What's stopping you from telling the truth?
If everyone knows you're lying, how effective might those lies be?
"The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists."
"he is using today as one endpoint, he is still selecting the period so it will fit his desired results. "ReplyDelete
The fact that the data even supports my "end results" shows that it is COOLING. The selected period is just to show that it has been COOLING since 19XX or 20xx ...
As a counter-example:
What is it, with you, and NASA? “Nothing beats an astronaut” ...ReplyDelete
I don't have a temperature record for Moose Jaw either---the point is simply that we DO have long temperature records for many specific cities, towns and areas, therefore we can ABSOLUTELY know if temperatures in them have been rising over time. I said this in response to a letter writer whose letter was published in one of my local newspapers, because he attempted to deny the significance of rising temperatures by implying that, because particular areas now contain more populated cities and towns, with more inhabitants than in the past, this means more records are now available to be collected from all of them them? However, this observation in no way can dispute the temperatures we have for specific cities or towns in the same areas. So even if temperatures in Prince Albert (to use your own example) have been part of a local cooling trend since about 1880) we know this because we are able to look at ITS particular temperature records---as we can also do in just about any other urban location. However, rising or lowering temperature in any one area or locality, do not prove the existance any trend consisting of either rising or lower temperatures---because although Prince Albert might have average yearly temps of say, 50 degrees, (a guess), Australia and India may be simultaneously undergoing terrific heat waves of 110 degrees or more. So how long is it going to take you to understand that (global) warming trends are determined by examining (global) temperature records--for God's sake, not just in Prince Albert or Moose Jaw! This is not a hard concept to grasp, and I don't know why you find it so difficult to understand?ReplyDelete
A cooling trend established by examining only one year? I don't know it this graph is accurate but it's pretty obvious that when the entire record is graphed, there is a pretty obvious rising temperature trend in California that happened between around 1900 up until the present. And when the graph is read from about 1900 and after, which is the way it is always done, this warming trend cannot help but be observed.ReplyDelete
Its seems to me that the results you see, must be coming from temperature data and an analysis done of it, on the Bizarro world.
Again, you're refusing to recognize that you're blanket condemnation of the UN as being a politically motivated organization, is really a political view in itself.ReplyDelete
The IPCC, does not cherry pick science, unless you beieve that examining the findings of a large number of studies done by noted authorities on climate change, is somehow an example of bias?
I don't know about you, but when I want help with my taxes, I will consult a tax expert. When I need my kidney stones removed I consult a Dr., and when I want someone to advise me on how to build my financial portfolio, I will seek the help of an investment firm.
Who do you think the UN should consult in order to become informed about climate change---a carpenter, a beautician, or a denier who deliberately distorts and lies about the findings of esteemed climate scientists?
Anyone can, submit scientific research to be peer reviewed, as many contrarians have. But the reason deniers are often refuted by peer reviews, is simply because there are mistakes and flaws in their research! You're free to rely on those with no real understanding of science, or those who deliberately distort it, but I am sticking with those proven authorities who are much more knowledgeable than less eduaated people who attempt to deny man-made global warming.
The link you gave was not always easy to understand since meaning might have been lost in the translation from German to English---the grammatical construction of German is not the same as that of English. But the author seemed to be noting the difficulty encountered by trying to get all countries to co-operate. And, the economic changes he described were not alarms about socialism--just the fact that the task we face will not be easy, and it will alter portions of our global economic operations. The fact that less money might go to oil companies and more to those establishing green energy harvests, in on no way necessitates establishing a socialist or Communist system, but it does mean that the forms of energy we rely on in the future will be produced and sustained by using different methods. Capitalism may need to adjust, but it will not end because of renewable fuels, rather there will be new companies to invest in, and new entrepreneurial ventures. If you think this means liberals and tree huggers will rake in the dough, rather than Exxon Mobil---you're wrong, and you are focusing on politics to justify your fears!
You don't seem to understand what a trend is. There is a difference between saying it is cool this month, it does not mean it has been cooling overall.ReplyDelete
You only show a cooling trend because you have cherry-picked the start and end points.ReplyDelete
*sigh* ... The end point is now ... so I didn't pick that. The start point is mathematically determined (how far back can the analysis show a cooling trend?). For example, this chart of Califorina shows ZERO cooling trend. When analyzing a temperature time-series, the data either supports a cooling trend, or it does not. Prince Albert supports the cooling trend, State-wide NCDC California, does not:ReplyDelete
Trends can be short, or statistically insignificant, but, a linear regression analysis is an appropriate tool for determining a trend. My criteria is a negative slope, however small. This means "reaching back" as far as possible, which is statistically insignificant ... that doesn't mean that the cooling trend is insignificant (perhaps a shorter span would test out as significant) ... There is a balance, in analyzing temperature trends, with a simple least-squares linear regression. When it comes to a "flat line" - the "pause" or "hiatus" in warming temperatures ... it is difficult to say if a result of +0.000005 is a statically significant "warming" (because it is, after all, positive) ... one could argue that any positive slope is a "warming" ... but, what about a negative slope? I choose to state that any negative slope is a COOLING result.ReplyDelete
Well, go calculate a statistically significant result then get back to us.ReplyDelete
You most certainly did pick the end point. You cherry-picked the station as well.ReplyDelete
Well, sorry. That means your entire argument is invalid until you do.ReplyDelete
Btw, who said the ocean must absorb heat "a percentage for a percentage"?
I can tell that if this dude has a fever and accidentally breaks his thermometer such that it reads 1 C lower than normal, he will claim that he has been cured of his fever.ReplyDelete
By what you have been posting, no one should even consider them.ReplyDelete
That's you. Only you can't even tell trolls from deniers. That says something.ReplyDelete
Then why should we trust you with the statistics?ReplyDelete
By the way, do you know that the RSS has been found to be exhibiting a cooling bias due to its orbital mechanics?ReplyDelete
How long does it take you to figure out that performing all your fancy mathematical tests on cherry-picked data gives you cherry-picked conclusions that have no worth?ReplyDelete
Hey, at least Dr. Keating got a gazillion upvotes because of it.ReplyDelete
Dr Roy Spencer said so, in his blog postings. But, in a more recent blog post, (June of last year) he said that the UAH lower troposphere Version 6 will reduce the difference between the UAH and RSS data.ReplyDelete
”As we finish up our new Version 6 of the UAH dataset, it looks like our anomalies in the 2nd half of the satellite record will be slightly cooler, somewhat more like the RSS dataset. •••”
and here it is, Version 6.0 beta: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta1