The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Are the Climate Commission's claims of a hot summer correct? > Comments

Are the Climate Commission's claims of a hot summer correct? : Comments

By Anthony Cox, published 12/3/2013

How can there be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 36
  7. 37
  8. 38
  9. All
A paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) attributes just 0.8 °C/century to anthropogenic influences:
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/Tung_and_Zhou_2013_PNAS.pdf

"In fact, the net anthropogenic warming trend has been remarkably steady for the past 100 y at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade."

That is, 0.8 °C/century.

I.e., Nothing to worry about. All upside, no downside.

Here is another extract from the paper:

"If this conclusion is correct, then the following interpretation follows: The anthropogenic warming started after the mid-19th century of Industrial Revolution. After a slow start, the smoothed version of the warming trend has stayed almost constant since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade. Superimposed on the secular trend is a natural multidecadal oscillation of an average period of 70 y with significant amplitude of 0.3–0.4 °C peak to peak, which can explain many historical episodes of warming and cooling and accounts for 40% of the observed warming since the mid-20th century and for 50% of the previously attributed anthropogenic warming trend (55). Be- cause this large multidecadal variability is not random, but likely recurrent based on its past behavior, it has predictive value. Not taking the AMO into account in predictions of future warming under various forcing scenarios may run the risk of over- estimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the AMO is likely in its down phase."
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 9:22:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was most entertained by the article. We did have several very hot days this summer and I did wonder about the record, but I see BoM couldn't resist some fudging..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 9:45:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, you feed the temperature data into the equation, and it tells you what the tax rate should be, while it sterilises the conclusion of any value judgment - it's "science" all the way!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 10:12:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
you mean the carbon tax has not cooled the planet? We have been conned again. Election please and get rid of the data fiddlers. There are to many gullible who believe such nonsense.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 10:22:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh good lord!

“How can there be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record?”

This is like asking how can a cricket team post the highest ever innings score without one of the team scoring the individual run record.

Whew mate you are a character.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 11:04:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele; a very timely analogy with cricket given the brouhaha currently occuring with the Australian cricket team members not handing in their homework.

Are you saying all cricket players are the same or that Australian weather and climate is a cricket match?

Fascinating; who would be the opening bowlers? I would recommend QLD for pace and vigour and the ACT for spinning guile and deception. Tasmania could be the wicketkeeper given they are the per capita champions for never letting any government subsidy get through. NSW and VIc would be the opening bats as they are old stayers and can be relied upon to produce a steady effort. For anything out of the box SA can be called upon and WA will or won't turn up.

Carry on, your comments are bound to be as riveting as an ABC radio commentary.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 11:21:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Anthony,

Thank you for your reply however I'm still not sure you understand why there 'can there be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record'.

If it is something you are still struggling with I can provide a more fulsome answer if needed. I just thought baby steps were appropriate to begin with.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 11:29:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"baby steps", or in your case burping. Read the article; it says:

"The BOM and the CC could make the point that there does not have to be a record in all the constituent parts of the nation; it is sufficient that it be hot enough everywhere for the record to be broken."

Then:

"The problem is the BOM has not released the methodology of how it reached its conclusion that the summer was the hottest; or what climatic and weather causes were responsible for it, other than saying that AGW has caused it."

If you are privy to how the BOM achieved its record please inform us Mr Steele. And also babystep us through the gross errors made in respect to ocean warming and particular site records made in the CC reports.

csteele, climate whisperer and allround know-it-all.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 11:38:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Anthony,

You quoting;

"The BOM and the CC could make the point that there does not have to be a record in all the constituent parts of the nation; it is sufficient that it be hot enough everywhere for the record to be broken."

is not the same as you saying you personally accept it.

So do you, Anthony Cox, personally accept that there can 'be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record', or do I need to do more work here?
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 11:53:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes csteele and you of course are practising your usual brand of supercilious trolling; to wit, you have focused on the minor point that there can be an agglomerate record without any specific records, and not considered this is a NEW parameter with no explanation about its formulation. I mean, after all, maybe this has happened many times before:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/mystery-black-box-method-used-to-make-all-new-australian-hottest-ever-records/

Neither have you considered the parlous state of the BOM's own records which presumably are the basis for this new gee-whiz parameter of a National record temperature, or the fact that both the BOM and CC misrepresent their own records.

Nor have you considered the alternative explanation put forward by Ken Stewart that the new National record may be a construct of a dubious regional maximum record.

Consider these issues, which are the main points of the article, before you proceed further down your little irrelevant track.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 12:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Anthony, Anthony, Anthony. How could you post such gibberish?

I see you have posted Anthony Watts 0-700m heat anomoly figure with the 'straight' yellow line showing that ocean heat has paused. The figure is a fraud because the yellow line showing ocean heat has paused is not straight, but bent in at least 2 places. And you have simply copied this to prove the CC wrong.

You are such a chump Anthony.

Oh and if you are interested Moomba had its hottest ever recorded temperature of 49.6 on January 12th 2013.

Keep up the good work Anthony, we need more laughs.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 12:42:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I love your references Mr Cox:
Blog link
Blog link
Climate commission summary
Blog link
Blog link
Blog link
Blog link
Blog link
Scientific paper
Blog link
Climate commission summary
Broken blog link
BOM link
Blog link
Climate commission summary
BOM link
BOM link

I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here...

By the way, what is that yellow line on the first graph? That's not a 'highlighted region' pretending to be a regression is it? Because an actual regression would show that the ocean temps are increasing, just as the CC says they are...
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 12:49:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor Agro, still pedalling the company line. Are you saying OHC has increased since 2003, when ARGO was introduced and reliable measurement began? Willis has a good post on the NOAA graph you find so strange because a trend line was inserted:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/ocean-temperature-and-heat-content/#more-80690

The really strange thing about OHC is the rapid trend down in SST since 2003:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/mean:12

The point is how can OHC be incresing when SST is decreasing?

And Moomba had it's hottest In January 2013? Wow, so did Newcastle; did you read the rest of the temperature history about Newcastle? Probably not; the irony is cruel; on the one hand the CC is trumpeting, or whatever Flannery does, about a new National temperature metric which doesn't rely on specific records and there you have Newcastle with a specific record and a monthly record 120 years earlier which was much hotter.

Same for you Bugsy.

Why don't you 2 guys get your heads together [sic] and explain BOM's methodology for achieving the National record? Was it a straight spatial weighting?
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 1:18:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Anthony,

I beg to differ.

This is a very salient point because if you do refuse to personally accept something this simple, when the answer is so glaringly obvious to the rest of us, then it speaks directly to the veracity of the rest of your assertions.

I ask again, do you Anthony Cox accept that there can 'be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record'?

Damn easy my friend.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 1:28:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm more a "climate" type of guy than a weather one, so I like at least thirty successive measurements (why thirty? Who knows; it's more than twenty nine?) to average out, before I talk about climate-type stuff, so here's what I did.

I looked at Sydney, which has by far the longest uninterrupted set of weather measurements in Australia. And then I looked at January 2013 and discovered two very hot days (7th and 18th; this latter the new record) and a 31 day average (see; Thirty one is even more than thirty is more than twenty nine) which was way above the usual 31-Day January average. Yeap January 2013 was 27.6 Degrees Max over the whole (flamin'?) month, whilst the usual is a mild 25.9Deg!

Now that's what I call climate change, maties.

And that's also where all you climate-change deniers get it all wrong; not looking at the thirty one day average. As an aside; Being deniers you probably reckon there are less than six million seconds in a year, eh? less than six million ants in an ant-heap; less than six million litres water in Sydney Harbour. Less than six million Big Macs sold every hour!

OK. So some of you might counter that the thirty one day average for January 1896 was 29.6 Degrees, and that that shows the climate (ie thirty or more successive readings averaged) was warmer back then, but I'll just let you have your little laugh, 'cause I know there were a lot fewer days in the average January in the 19th century!

And please don't start with the Calendar Denier smears when you run out of logical arguments to get you out of the hole you've dug for yourselves..OK?
Posted by punter57, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 1:36:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Cox, have you bothered asking them?

For your convenience:
Further information
National Climate Centre
Bureau of Meteorology
Phone (03) 9669 4082
Email Helpdesk.Climate@bom.gov.au

I'm guessing not, because I think it's highly likely that of you did and didn't get an answer, then you you would have said so (conspiratorial evidence). And if you did get an answer, then you wouldn't be asking us, now would you?

By the way, those ocean temperatures have not 'been flat' since 1998, as your blog links claim. I know it 'looks' a bit that way, but that is why we have statistics and do regressions isn't it?

I would suggest you extend your reading a bit before you embarrass yourself again. Here's another blogpost on your graph.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/fact-checking-the-cherry-pickers-anthony-watts-edition/ (thanks Poirot)

Spot the difference.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 1:41:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a load of rubbish again.

It is interesting to see that the denialists keep repeating myths and give links to web sites that are supported by the fossil fuel industries, then they may also be paid to repeat their rubbish as cohehnite/Anthony appears to do.

It is time the denialist stopped reading the kids stuff like Watts and Nova (they have no crediablity at all) and start in the real world where scientists are involved. They never refer to a actual scientists peer review paper just some old meteorologist misled incorrect discredited blog site.

It is also interesting to see that denialist like cohenite (with no expertise in climate or science) give no explanation why the world is warming other than say that they know better than scientist that have been studying it for years.

As we see on this blog denialists don’t have any knowledge of climate science, they simply don’t want human-caused climate change to be true.

Denialism is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event or facts and we see that on this blog and their (paid?) aim is to discredit climate scientists.

And the denialist keep saying it is not warming, it is time they grew up and became rational adults.

In the mean time with recent record ice melting in the Arctic, which effects the weather in the northern hemisphere, as seen in recent weather extremes in USA and Europe is still melting and is at present causing a major interest in that large cracks are appearing in the multi year ice which some say could result in a ice free year.
Posted by PeterA, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 1:46:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PeterA
Unforuntately, all that you, and all the warmists have posted in this thread, are appeal to absent authority, assuming what's in issue, and personal argument. As these are logical fallacies, therefore they are not rational, and therefore they are not scientific which you would know if you knew anything about science, which you obviously don't.

Furthermore, REPEATING them doesn't strengthen your position - it only weakens it.

The basic premise on which you all keep falling down is the idea that it's a precondition of entering into the argument that everyone accept your BELIEF in ABSENT AUTHORITY as settling the entire issue. The best that can be said about that belief, is that it's simply irrational.

This means that you have to argue by evidence and reason, not by appeal to authority.

Then as soon as your irrational methodology is pointed out, we get this thicket of spiteful personal argument in substitution of the proof you should be providing. (Note: more of the same appeal to absent authority as incontrovertible is not proof; it just means you don't understand what you're talking about.)

Furthermore you also all fail to understand that science does not supply value judgments, whereas public policy requires them so, even if all your ASSUMPTIONS were granted, which they're not, you still wouldn't have got to square one in establishing their relevance to anything more than mere temperature measurements with no relation to public policy.

So ... go ahead. Got that evidence of catastrophic global warming that policy can improve, showing the units of a lowest common denominator in which you accounted for the downside of both options both now and in the future? You know - the *scientific* method.

Further replies by way of the standard warmist fallacies merely cement in your own defeat.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 2:16:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again the warmists are attacking the messenger and avoiding the message.

The message is clear - David Jones of the Bureau of Meteorology has given false climate data to the Climate Commission who in turn have passed the false data onto the public thus misleading us.

Forget about the ocean temperatures, forget about the January record, these are minor arguments when compared to the fraudulent use of BoM data to claim Birdsville had a record temperature when it didn't. That is a lie and as Anthony clearly demonstrates David Jones, head of BoM, has lied repeatedly in this deceptive release by the Climate Commission. If he put similar errors into an annual company financial statement he'd be in jail. David Jones should resign as should the naive scientists on the Climate Commission who allowed themselves to be tricked and coerced by this man.
Posted by Janama, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 2:20:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Here's another analysis of your Watts' graph.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cherrypicking-deny-continued-ocean-global-warming.html
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 2:49:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another climate change sceptic who appears to have no relevant qualifications whatsoever.

What's next, climatologists practising law.
Posted by mac, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 2:55:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You attack Anthony for providing a blog reference then reply with another blog reference.

Here's a reference to National Council for Air and Stream Improvement,

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

"Loehle, Craig. 2009. Cooling of the global ocean since 2003. Energy & Environment 20(1&2): 99-102.

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years."
Posted by Janama, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 3:02:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look a new estimate of Holocene temperatures was published in the journal Science. It shows new proxy data reconstruction of temperatures over the last 11,0000 years showing what every sensible person already knows, the recent spike during the Age of Fossil Fuels is unprecedented during the current interglacial period.

It turns out that the new Holocene temperature reconstruction is an extension of the "hockey stick" analysis of Michael Mann, and shows the same pattern at the end of the stick. Climate "sceptics" took issue with his reconstruction, claiming that there were periods in the Holocene when temperatures were as high (or higher) than they are now (and there were). Somehow, the fact that there have been high average surface temperatures in the (relatively) recent past is supposed to "prove" that there is nothing unusual going on now. Of course, that is a logical non-sequitur.

It has been well-established for nearly 20 years that the Holocene has been a quiet period for the Earth's climate, at least up to the last few centuries. The new Science study confirms we are experiencing abrupt climate change now. The evidence shows they have convincingly shown a resolution to capture a century long warming trend in the past 100 years or so, comparable to the last 11,000 year trend.

To make a long story short, there is no known natural climate forcing that could cause the spike in the Science publications graphs. If there were, we would know about it, and it would likely show some weak periodicity like the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles.

Sceptics have forgotten that there are numerous lines of evidence pointing to abrupt climate change in the 20th and 21st centuries.

They have forgotten that the physics of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is well-described, there is no doubt burning fossil fuels emits these gases, and warms the Earth's surface. In short, they have forgotten that the Earth is indeed round, and not flat.

Ironically the sceptics will attack this study or basic physics or science in general regardless of what this study's proxy data clearly demonstrates, basically because they are crazy
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 3:29:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay Geoff, let's assume in your favour that all of that is granted.

So what?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 3:44:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To be fair Janama, I posted a blog site because it's all Anthony seems to read. The only papers he references are those that are reproduced on said blog sites, or he's only read the abstracts, which are freely available.

Oh look, an Energy and Environment reference, I love those guys. And using 4.5 years worth of data too. Excellent, hard hitting stuff. I bet it's referenced all over the scientific literature. The full name of the organisation that Craig Loehle works for is the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Incorporated, the environmental resource for the forest products industry.

I am very glad that such not-for-profit research organisations have enough money to spend on analysis that doesn't seem to have any relevance to their industry. I only wish that Australian industries had the same attitude. Maybe I should get a job there.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 3:48:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy - now you know that only 4.5 years of data was available! It still contradicts the theory that the missing heat is in the oceans.
Posted by Janama, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 4:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the sake of peace and quiet, yes I agree, as does Anthony, that it is possible to have a national record without having component records. It may well be the case that this is what happened with the record summer; we don't know as the Bureau has not made public its methodology. It may also be true that particular areas of Australia may have had an inordinate influence on the temperature record due to very large distances between thermometers, where any uncertainty is magnified by the area weighting.
I also agree that 10 years is too short a time to determine a trend (as for 31 days- good grief!) but to this little black duck that flatter looking part over the last 10 years looks very interesting in the light of enormous CO2 emissions and IPCC scenarios. (10,000 years might show an interesting trend.)
Now that that's out of the way, let's look at the other claims of the Climate Commission, in particular those eye catching 23 records. 6 of the 23 are not records at all- and another 4 can't be checked because BOM methodology has not been released. At the very least it is misleading. I would have thought Anthony's critics would have been all over these, but the best they can do is say "But.. but.. Moomba had a record." Big deal. How long has Moomba been operating? Since June 1995!
Posted by kenskingdom, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 4:52:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Janama,

Blogs ain't blogs when it comes to popular analysis of papers and their data.

Some blogs actually have scientists on board who are trained in the disciplines covered by their commentary, and who reference peer-reviewed material for their analysis.

Here's one looking at Loehle's claims:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-cherry-pickers-cooling-oceans.html
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 4:55:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot: from John Cook's website describing himself.

"Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. "

you were saying?
Posted by Janama, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 5:09:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Janama,

You know what I'm saying...that the people who run the blogs to which I link have at least some scientific qualifications and expertise - who actually understand the things they are explaining.

As opposed to jumped up weathercasters and lawyers passing themselves off as knowledgeable on climate science.

I'd stack Gavin Schmidt or Grant Foster up against Anthony Watts or Anthony Cox any day.

Like I said - blogs ain't blogs.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 5:54:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Janama, I have a bit of a problem here. Who do I believe? The Climate Commission with expertise in climate science, such as Professor Will Steffen, Professor Andy Pittman, Professor David Karoly, etc. or Anthony Cox, lawyer and failed climate paper author? It is a tough one isn’t it?

But I don’t really have to worry, because I can look at the evidence they bring to the table. Anthony Cox disputes the evidence of the Climate Commission with a fraudulent graph. Oh gosh, it is not going well for Anthony is it? He claims the Climate Commission is lying by reproducing a lie.

Anthony then claims evidence from “Researcher Ken Stewart” to back his cause. Except Ken is not a researcher. He is a retired School Principal. Oh gosh, I think it got worse for Anthony. But there is more…

Before drawing a conclusion, I should look at what Ken came up with. Ken claims that it can’t have been the hottest on record across Australia, because it was not quite a record in most of the parts he divided Australia up into. Somehow, Ken failed to realise that if all of Australia was close to a record, there would be a good chance that the country as a whole would produce a record. It is not often there are much higher than average temperatures across the country for an extended period of time. Weirdly, the graphs Ken produces shows just this. Ken must have found it hard to be a School Principal when he had trouble adding up.

In fact the graphs Ken posts fully support the claim made by the Climate Commission. I think this one might be an own goal for Anthony and Researcher Ken. Go, look, it is worth a read http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/a-tale-of-two-records/
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 7:07:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looks like a loss by an innings and 135 runs.
Posted by Alan Austin, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 11:21:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I'm glad we've resolved that smoking is in fact extremely healthy.

But since I, like Anthony, am entitled to my own facts, I know that Perth's summer just gone was indeed the hottest and driest - and worst, most humid - in my experience. So Anthony is wrong and I am right.
Posted by R. Ambrose Raven, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 5:48:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And then add Melbourne making history with a record nine-day heatwave of temperatures above 30 degrees.

The mercury hit 30.2 degrees yesterday making the first nin-day run of 30 degree plus days since records began in 1856.

And yes this is weather, but add it to the long term trends Australia is experiencing and they become climate.

Just another nail in Cohenite's belief coffin!
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 10:08:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, you seem to have a little trouble with reading comprehension. As I pointed out in my previous comment, which appears to have passed you by, I have no problem with a national record being achieved without its constituent parts achieving a record. That is possibly the explanation for the "summer record", but we don't know as it cannot be replicated without access to BOM's methodology. If you want to trust the Climate Commission, CSIRO, and BOM, go right ahead, but I don't, and I have very good reasons not to. I choose to check the data for myself. By the way, the Australian regions I looked at are not of my choosing, they're the ones the Bureau uses. So what about the 6 "records" that weren't records? Haven't bothered to check them? Or are you quite happy to accept spin and half truths.
And R Ambrose Raven, it may be convincing to you that you had a hot summer in Perth. Brisbane’s summer temperatures were exactly- average. Which is one reason why a national average is meaningless.
Posted by kenskingdom, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 10:21:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff persists with the Marcott paper which has disappeared the MWP and every other warm period for the last 100,000 years; it does so by using a low resolution statistical smoothing which excludes such warming periods as the MWP. By low resolution I mean data points which are longer in time than a particular climate episode.

The paper also does the infamous “Hide-the-decline” trick of simultaneously discarding temperature proxy data from the modern era when it diverges from the instrument record while relying on a cherry-picked and smoothed to pointlessness proxy data for the past temperature.

This is not just a bad paper it is deliberately misleading. Respond to these specific points if you can Geoff; your sanctimonious lectures are repetitive and empty of content, some substance would be good. In fact I challenge any of you superior types who believe AGW to justify this dreadful paper which is typical of AGW ‘evidence’.

Punter57 says January was warmer in the past because they only divided by 30 not 31.Maybe Punter works for the CC. The January 2013 monthly mean maximum was higher than the average over all the Observatory temperature record but similar to many other January averages above 27C over that record and well below the brutal month of January in 1896. In any event Observatory temperatures were higher in the 1800’s:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3534/3534-h/3534-h.htm

This record of early climate shows temperatures of 42.8C on the 27th December 1790. Punter should stick to losing on the horses; or make it plainer that he is taking the piss.

Bugsy has done a hit and run only there was no hit while Agro goes the ad hom against a guy whose shoes he is not fit to polish; so much for taking these 2 clowns seriously. And Agro, you just keep on believing whoever pays your weekly cheque. Ditto for the Raven.

And dear Poirot, groupie to the climate scientists like Foster and Schmidt; both competent statisticians who ably demonstrate the old saying, lies, damned lies and statistics. One day you’ll think for yourself.

Alan, buzz off; they don’t play cricket in France.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 11:30:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite I pretty much give up on you attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

I do however fully support the other sceptics: highly regarded climate scientists who see the IPCC's regular reports as much too conservative, and these are the scientists who have repeatedly been proven correct, unfortunately.

Unfortunately your sceptical view runs completely counter to the growing evidence that climate change is occurring. When will you admit you are wrong, all of the evidence is clearly against you and the wave of continuing scientific evidence further erodes all of your so-called four pillars of mis-truth.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 11:49:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

You're right, of course.

The "skeptic" sites are "debunking" Marcott et al left right and centre, although they're putting a little more effort into it than you are.

But wait....here's a cogent rebuttal to Watts and Co.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/watts-is-whopping-crazy-after-marcott.html

And over at Jo's, she's thinks it "might" be cooling....'

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/has-the-world-started-cooling-hints-from-4-of-5-global-temperature-sets-say-it-might-have/

Good stuff!
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 12:55:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keskingdom say: "That is possibly the explanation for the "summer record", but we don't know as it cannot be replicated without access to BOM's methodology."

First there was the High Quality network, a network of stations in use for over a decade, that was such low quality the Bomb replaced it with ACORN without even mentioning why. ACORN was supposed to use the latest technology for climate change monitoring. Now they use AWAP for the hottest summer day records. Q: If ACORN was supposed to be for climate change work, why substitute another, undocumented method? (A: Because it gave the result they wanted.)

You wouldn't see the ABS producing a new unemployment metric showing record high unemployment without at least a technical publication about its production. But the Bomb have no problem with such sloppy data handling, apparently, and neither do the warmists commenting here.
Posted by davids, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 1:16:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear kenskingdom,

You say;

“For the sake of peace and quiet, yes I agree, as does Anthony, that it is possible to have a national record without having component records.”

I think Anthony really needs to say this himself don't you.

If his wording was wrong, or incautious, or said through ignorance of statistics, or whatever he needs to acknowledge it. Then I think we can move on.

Otherwise it will continue to reflect badly, even terminally, on what he is asserting in the rest of his article, as you of course would expect it to do.
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 1:28:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot and Geoff do their usual thing: a lecture from Geoff and a link from Poirot; can either of you think for yourself?

Poirot's link is to some bister and bluster PC site which says Watts is wrong and that Marcott et al use "proxies from 73 sites around the globe, whereas previously much of what was known about temperatures in the early Holocene was based on ice cores or other more limited data."

That is not true. Much of the Paleoclimatic science uses a variety of proxies; previously the Hockeystick of Mann and Briffa etc used only tree-rings for instance. In respect of those 73 proxies only nine contained data that extend to 1950. Of those nine, only two contained data that extended to 2000. In addition the Marcott study conspicuously doesn’t show temperature data, spliced or unspliced. One reason may be a rather severe divergence problem. Their SH extratropics reconstruction maxes out at 1.22 deg C in AD1900, declining to the reference period 0 in 1961-90.

Similarly their NHX temperature increases all comes between 1920 and 1940.

That's right, the study finds no temperature increase in the modern era, that is, post WW11, the period of maximum AGW!

In respect of the past, apart from contradicting every other paleoclimatic study which has found the MWP and prior warm periods at least as warm as today, this one doesn't because the study uses statistical resolution which exceeds the period of known climate events like the MWP and therefore cannot statistically recognise them.

I mean even you, Poirot, a dyed in the wool fanatic, can see that elementary flaw in the study can't you? Or are you going to wait until Tamino tells you what to think again
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 1:31:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, thanks for the running commentary, cohenite. Waffle waffle waffle.
Using ad homs to complain about ad homs, nice work.

Did you know that 1950 is the standard 'present' in BP (Before Present) reconstructions of paleo data? Especially those that rely on any sort of radioisotope dating.

I wonder why that is? I'll give you three guesses...

So, complaining that the proxies don't run past 1950 is being a bit naive. Just like Easterbrook's complaints that Marcott "didn't present the original data used", when in fact it is all presented in a supplemental database table. I bet that guy would be embarrassed if he could be, but he's a 'skeptic', and so as we all know, has no shame.

Oh yes, it's such a bad paper they published it in Science. So many flaws, goodness. Not like the old Journal of Geophysical Research, or Energy and Environment eh? Those guys have Standards. It's amazing how so many people from all walks of life are interested in being specialist subject reviewers for Science. Perhaps you could send in your resume.

Still no comment on the yellow line? Thought not.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 1:53:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Cohenite, this is Ms bister and bluster PC.

Would you mind giving me references to all the other paleo papers that provide a global temperature reconstruction covering the past 11,300 years in the same detail? (Not ice core reconstructions, they and more are already covered by Marcott.)

It's just that no-one I've talked with knows about them (including one of the world's leading paleoclimatologists) and I'd like to refer to them on my blog.

I expect Science didn't know about them either, or they'd have been less likely to publish the Marcott paper. (Science tends to favour leading edge research.) (Links to abstracts will suffice.)

"only nine contained data that extend to 1950"

Did you know there are very good records that go back even beyond 1950, right back to the late C19 in sufficient spread and numbers to give a global trend. Marcott et al were more interested in the previous 11,000 years. No need to collect a few dozen proxy series when there are thermometers located in thousands of sites all around the world.

It's a cute example of compartmentalised thinking when people can accept the lie that a proxy temperature series from a *single* site in the arctic equates to a *global* reconstruction (leaving aside the issue of polar amplification); and at the same time complain that 'only' 73 proxies from sites all around the world aren't sufficient. Or worry that 'only' nine records are post-1950. (Not that you'd think that - but some people do.) It almost makes one wonder if they've even read the paper they are criticising, where it describes how they compared their reconstruction with modern climatology. (Hint: it did not rely on those 'nine' records post-1950).

You'd be surprised that such people must also think the global average temperature fluctuated by 3 degrees or more during the Holocene (coz they think temp on an ice sheet in the arctic is the same as temperature everywhere around the world). Nonsense of course. The temperature only had to drop 0.6 degrees C or so and the world had the Little Ice Age.
Posted by Sou, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 2:23:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Back to the original topic, in case there are any lurkers interested in one of the main reasons for breaking the heat record last summer, I've got a gif animation of the continental heat wave - as well as a screenshot of Sentinel, showing the fires raging all across the continent as well. There were a number of other heat records broken by the way. Not just the summer record for the entire continent.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/01/a-whopper-of-heat-wave.html

I've also got a video about the angry summer from Channel 10 (yes, really):

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/australias-angry-summer.html
Posted by Sou, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 2:34:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite, you can add this to your debunking thesis:

Trees and shrubs are taking hold in what was once frozen tundra. A new study of 30 years of satellite data shows vegetation moving northward as climatic conditions shift.

A study, conducted by an international team of 21 researchers from 17 institutions in 7 countries and funded by NASA, appeared in the journal Nature Climate Change on March 10.

Professor Bruce Forbes from the Arctic Centre of the University of Lapland in Rovaniemi, Finland, one of the authors, says "we are seeing more frequent and longer-lasting high pressure systems. In winter, the snow cover comes later, is deeper on average than in the 1960s, but is melting out earlier in spring."

"Arctic plant growth during the early 1980s reference period equaled that of lands north of 64 degrees north. Today, just 30 years later, it equals that of lands above 57 degrees north — a reduction in vegetation seasonality of about seven degrees south in latitude," says co-author Prof. Terry Chapin, Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. The change equates to a distance of approximately 480 miles.

“In a few decades, if the current trends continue, much more of the existing low shrub tundra will start to resemble woodlands as the shrubs become tree-sized”, says Forbes.

Northern Boreal forest species are adapted to cold. “Some areas of boreal forest will be negatively impacted by warming temperatures, from increased drought stress as well as insect and fire disturbance”, says Scott Goetz of Woods Hole Research Center in the US, another of the co-authors.

Although many climate studies can be argued, increasing deciduous growth creeping further north shows temperatures are staying warm enough to support vegetation in what was once frozen tundra.

I'll see what other real 'science' supports my side of the fence
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 3:29:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And some more Cohenite:

Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, chief of US Pacific Command, believes there will be terrible security threats on a warming planet.

Locklear said that societal upheaval due to climate change “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen which will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

He added, describing the reaction to his assessment. “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level, certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”

Locklear isn’t alone in his climate fears. A recent article by Julia Whitty takes an in-depth look at what the military is doing to deal with climate change. A 2008 report by U.S. intelligence agencies warned about national security challenges posed by global warming, as have later reports from the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. New Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel understands the threat, too.

Locklear’s words help to further mainstream the idea that climate change is a serious after he made the comments during an interview. Despite the real challenges including the North and South Korea tension Locklear focused on climate change as an even more important threat.

Nothing of importance to see here or consider?, move along eh Cohenite!
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 3:39:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Art of the Anthropocene: The Scythe (Tom Yulsman, Discover)

More on Marcott et al. Some people will react against this, if they are allergic to scientific methods and cannot cope with uncertainty (which, by the way, contrary to what people like J Curry will have you believe, is not at all the same as "we know nuffin").

Others (like me, who can still recall a smattering of stats/biometry from years ago) will find it informative.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/03/13/art-of-the-anthropocene-the-scythe/#.UUAUOBxHK_Q
Posted by Sou, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 4:01:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Verballed by Sou; I never said the last 11,300 years, I said "Much of the Paleoclimatic science uses a variety of proxies";

Stomata: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

Dendro and others, just in Australia: http://www.pages-igbp.org/workinggroups/aus2k/metadatabase

Sediment/ oxygen isotopes: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N30/C3.php

Ice-cores, yadda, yadda.

All proxies, specifically for MWP: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Watts Paleo page:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/paleoclimate/

1950 = present, radiocarbon dating calibration; noting that high-precision dates with a standard error <50 yr can and should be rounded to the nearest yr.

None of which excuses the fact that if the predominant paleoclimatic proxy, tree-rings, don't respond to late 20th century warmth, how would one know that they didn’t do the same thing in response to possible medieval warmth – a question that remains unaddressed years after Mann's Hockeystick.

Marcott uses a variety of proxies, speleothems, cosmogenic isotopes, as well as tree rings and ice cores; but all are filtered with such wide time parameters as to filter out the ostensibly studied warm periods.

Marcott says, "Our global temperature reconstruction for the
past 1500 years is indistinguishable within uncertainty from the Mann et al. (2) reconstruction; both reconstructions document a cooling trend"; Mann, of course is 'influential' at Science and McShane and Wyner have deconstructed his Hockeystick.

Anyway, well trolled sou and bugs; the topic of this thread is the astounding mistakes of the CC and BOM where, as Ken has shown, they cannot even read their own records and still haven't indicated the method by which they deducted a National temperature record. Which justifies Ken's supposition that they may have extrapolated from a sub-regional maximum temperature to a National mean temperature.

Comment on that boys.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 4:17:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C.Steele: "“For the sake of peace and quiet, yes I agree, as does Anthony, that it is possible to have a national record without having component records.”

I think Anthony really needs to say this himself don't you."

Anthony: “The BOM and the CC could make the point that there does not have to be a record in all the constituent parts of the nation; it is sufficient that it be hot enough everywhere for the record to be broken.”

What's so hard about that?
Posted by kenskingdom, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 4:25:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Cohenite, 'verballed by Sou'? And here I was being polite in the extreme after being referred to (in my absence) as "bister and bluster PC" >:-O

Since you haven't given me the courtesy of providing the information you spoke of when you disputed the fact that "much of what was known about temperatures in the early Holocene was based on ice cores or other more limited data". Do you even know when the early Holocene was? Do you know what paleo records Marcott et al analysed. It certainly doesn't read as if you do. Once again, are you aware or not of any similar global reconstructions that provide the breadth and detail of Marcott et al. (You can't just reel of any single site paleo record - chances are, if it's real and sufficiently long term, it's part of Marcott et al's reconstruction.)

I *was* going to help you out with your early question about how the oceans get warm by suggesting you read this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html

But given the mixed bag you've been regurgitating from WUWT and other pseudo-science quackery, you probably wouldn't understand it. (I recall another lawyer, Jon Faine, who has an aversion to science. It might be curable, don't know. I do know that it's not a prerequisite for entry to a law degree.)
Posted by Sou, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 4:36:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite, this thread is about the incompetence of the BOM? Oh.

And here I was thinking it was mostly about yours in this opinion piece, I guess that was my mistake.

Still no comment on the yellow line in your cut and pasted graph?

Oh, and I'm most impressed by how you imply that it was I who changed the topic by trolling you. Only a lawyer could do that with such aplomb.
Well done.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 4:43:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy - The yellow line is exactly what it looks like! an approximation showing the slow down in the rise in OHCA since the Argo buoys were introduced in 2003 - stop being a pedantic idiot and address the topic!

The topic is that the records supplied to the CC were lies - 6 of them, possibly more.

If this were an academic paper it would fail peer review.

If it were an annual company financial report the authors would be in jail.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the Climate Commission's claim of an exceptional hot summer is not correct.

Now address that!

P.S. The problem with contributing to discussions like this is that the warmists are all taxpayer funded academics who speak down to you like you were one of their pimply 20 year old students yet what truly amazes me is that they will allow the BoM to print false and misleading information and yet claim to be scientists!

It's a sad day for science, no wonder the public have become distrusting and sceptical about climate science.
Posted by Janama, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 6:30:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Researcher Ken, so nice of you to drop by. My post referred to your blog post, I even linked to it just to make sure. In case you have forgotten, it started with this:

“So I’m sure all journalists reporting this claim would have referred to the BOM’s Time Series Graphs on their website, which use the ACORN data, to confirm just where this summer was the hottest on record. Forgive the sarcasm- they plainly didn’t. Let’s take a look.”

Then you posted a whole host of dissected charts pointing out that summer 2013 was not the highest temperature in any one of the areas you posted a chart for. Then you wrote this:

“So the only part of Australia left that could be responsible for the summer maximum record, and consequently the mean, is this bottom part of WA not in the south west corner, or perhaps as well the southern portion of Queensland”

So on your blog post you clearly couldn’t add 2 and 2 together. If the temperature was the 2nd highest on record in Southern Australia (after 2001/02 and well above 3rd) and equal second highest in Northern Australia (after 1997/98 and equal with 1982/83 and well above 4th), then it stands to reason that the probability of it being the highest ever across the country are going to be close to 1.

If you now think that it is indeed “that it is possible to have a national record without having component records”, perhaps you should go and update your blog with that information
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 7:29:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Janama, you have been sadly deceived. The yellow line is not “an approximation showing the slow down in the rise in OHCA since the Argo buoys were introduced in 2003” It is a bit of crayon drawing across a graph.

It is not even straight. It is pretending to be a trend line, but it has been bent in two places to make sure that it fits within error bars on the figure. It is so obviously a fraud that it leaves me wondering how anyone, but a chump can be deceived by it.

Given that it is Anthony Cox’s evidence in chief in this post on OLO, I think it demonstrates Cox’s complete incompetence with assessment of data.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 7:39:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist - Here's the yellow line in context! (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/)
"Sure looks like a pause to me, especially after steep rises in OHC from 1997-2003. Note the highlighted period in yellow:" NOTE! highlighted period! NOT recreated flat line, NOT trend line, but highlighted period - they even used a highlighter pen - as you do.

" I think it demonstrates Cox’s complete incompetence with assessment of data."

No - it demonstrates your stupidity!

Now why don't you stop being pedantic and address my last post for what I really said. I said the CC report was false and demonstrated why - do you approve of the BoM giving out false and misleading information? If you do you are NOT a scientist, you are NOT even a reputable academic you are just another warmist with an axe to grind.
Posted by Janama, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 8:15:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ohc1.jpg

There's the data.

Oh look...and there's Anthony Watts' flat yellow line.

Or you might prefer this?

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ohc2.jpg
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 8:52:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm.
When the umpire gives you out, you are supposed to leave the crease.
It's just not cricket ...
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 9:18:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist; little yellow line is an approximation; I have linked to a Willis analysis of it above, look at it; data is there; for the 1993-2003 data the increase is approx. +0.1C (11 years); the Error is about 0.02C, R2 0.8309. For 2003-2012 the increase is about +0.02C. (10 years). The error is about 0.01C, R2 0.5597. That is not quite flat but close enough at statistical significance. That blows AGW out of the water.

And congratulations on your interpretation of Ken's post; cherry picked in the usual tendentious manner of AGW supporters ignoring completely that Eastern Australia was the least anomalously warm it has ever been; the MDB nearly the same and SouthEastern Australia thereabouts; in fact the tale is one of stark contrast between the West and East of Australia.

If you can't get that right mate your worth as a constructive troll is severely diminished; do better. The only reason I'm here is to learn something from you smart types, not take your snark.

Now, how did BOM achieve its hottest ever summer? David Stockwell suggests a spatial weighting thus for January:

States Anomaly Area Contribution

NSW/Act 2.79 0.104 0.29016
NT 1.88 0.175 0.329
Qld 2 0.225 0.45
SA 1.88 0.127 0.23876
Tas 0.52 0.009 0.00468
Vic 1.28 0.03 0.0384
WA 1.23 0.33 0.4059
Weighted Average 1.7569
Australia(BoM) 1.76

Do something useful and ask your mates whether that is right instead of hanging about assuming some sort of superiority
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 9:28:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know what, I've had a change of heart. I think you guys are right. I reckon the university trained meteorologists, climatologists and data analysts working at the BOM should be sacked (because they don't know science) and the whole exercise should be turned over to the rank amateurs, failed economic statisticians, retired school teachers and lawyers who obviously know a lot better.

By the way, by your mates Stockwells calculations, was it a 'hot summer', or was it a cool summer?

Did he use an econometric analysis again?
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 9:59:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah - yet another Tamino trick - he has more tricks than Mann.

What is being discussed is Ocean Heat Content. A chart was offered from NOAA - http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/ - It shows anomaly trends prior to and after the introduction of the Argo Buoy data in 2003. As they say, prior to 2003 the data was from XBTs, CTDs, moorings, and other sources. Yet the Argo bouys are the most comprehensive ocean temperature measuring system we have ever had, and when they were introduced their data showed a significant change in the trend.

HERE IS THE CHANGE IN THE TREND!

http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/trends.PNG

This is the science - the rest is typical warmist deflection and slight of hand.

Why do you guys hate people and the planet so much that you pray everyday for more and more warming so your insane deranged ideas can become manifest!
Posted by Janama, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 10:04:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh look, a not flat line. Neither graph you present looks even vaguely like Watts' yellow one does it Janama?

Oh and cohenite, I don't have to assume some sort of superiority, I know I'm better than you at science. For example, I have published infinitely more scientific papers than you. I know that sounds like an arrogant boast, but really it is very easy to achieve.

However I don't have an axe to grind with the climatologists, I just think they are better at climate science than you too.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 10:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Talking of "skeptics" having fun with producing graphs.

Here's an interesting commentary on that lark.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/cooling-the-planet-with-fake-trend-lines-deniers-making-up-cooling-trends-with-cherry-picked-data-all-the-rage/

"....What matters is producing graphs that look "sciencey"".

(although I note that Watts' yellow line dipped out in that respect:)
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 11:32:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear kenskingdom,

If you scroll up from this post to the top of the page you will see, just under the name Anthony Cox, the words “How can there be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record?”.

This is the line he is pushing. He is endevouring to cast doubt on the BOM assertion that this is our hottest ever summer nationwide. His title reinforces this tactic with the words “Are the Climate Commission's claims of a hot summer correct?” This is his agenda and an ambiguous line buried deep into his article does not change that one iota.

Anthony, not you, needs to tell us that he understands 'how there can be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record' which would then beg the question why he posed it in the first place?
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 11:43:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The warmists have been completely and totally thrashed on this topic over and over again in this forum because of their failure to answer these three questions.

1. Climate science
Science means what the DATA say, not by what the AUTHORITIES say. This destroys your entire case, because you have nothing else. Poirot and Bugsy and others are openly affirming the proposition that their methodology is appeal to authority: the religious methodology of knowledge.

When challenged to actually prove by data, we get links to articles in the mass media that make all the same assumptions the warmists do: an endless chain of the fallacy of equivocation.

And this is quite apart from any question of dodgy assumptions in the science; manipulation, suppression and falsification of data, systemic bias, and outright fraud.

2. Adverse effect
Even if all the warmists' contentions as to climate science were granted, all you would have established is a tendency for temperatures to rise.

So what? You can't just ASSUME that because an effect is man-made, therefore it's negative. You need to prove it. Hype about hurricanes won't cut it.

To establish ecological catastrophe, for example, you need to show the effect on the distribution and abundance of species in the original versus the counter-factual scenario, as well as the human evaluations of both.

Yet all we get are more appeals to authority.

3. Whether policy an improvement
Then you need to show that policy is capable of producing an improvement when the downsides of policy also are taken into account. The basic knowledge set required is seven billion subjective human evaluations of the current scenario indefinitely into the future, versus the counter-factual scenario indefinitely into the future, compared in units of a lowest common demoninator.

Go ahead. You guys are talking total bullsh!t.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 14 March 2013 8:40:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ,

You call that an argument?

You roll out the same rhetoric for every subject. I expect you have a nice little template beside you that lends itself to whatever is going down on a particular thread at any given time.

I suppose I should apologise for believing climate scientists on "the science" - and not lawyers and what not with a penchant for conspiracy theories...but there you go : )

(Btw, you're right about the "DATA" - although I prefer to take my direction from those who understand it - and not those devoid of qualification who indulge in crayon practice and then try to pass it off as "science:)
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 14 March 2013 8:55:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot
Wow. We are amazed at your proof that the world faces catastrophic global warming that policy can improve.

All
Note there was no attempt to actually prove what is in issue? Just an insistence that no-one is entitled to question the authorities?

And all the other warmists have nothing better either, else where is it
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 14 March 2013 9:44:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a rumour going round that some right wingers want to ditch the rape laws.
Clearly the Australians laws are having minimal effect on a world wide basis, as a percentage of total world wide rapes Australia account's for a considerably less than 1%.

1. Medical science
Has not proved that being raped is physical harmful, provided the rapist does not use physical force, which would no longer be necessary as rape would no longer be illegal.

2 The positive effects
Less women murdered or injured because of no risk of going to jail.
Women could claim they were raped, when if in fact they were having an affair, which in turn would lead to lower divorce rates.
The resources of the police would be available for other tasks such as catching out scientists who lie on their research applications.

3.Whether policy an improvement
Jails less crowded
Money saved on housing prisoners
_____________________________________________________________________

Now Jardine K. Jardine that is total bullsh!t.
I have extreme prejudice against people who are determined to rape this planet, for some short term ill-conceived gain, based on some of the stupidest arguments I have ever come across.
It may have escaped your notice, but liveable planets are hard to find ,and we are well on the way to trashing this one.

I hope the liberal party will wake up before it is to late, that just because a law or (Carbon) tax is not having an earth shattering effect ,does not mean we should not impose it.
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 14 March 2013 10:37:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair

Notice how that ASSUMES that we face catastrophic global warming that policy can improve?

But that's we're waiting for you to prove, remember?

FAIL.

Your lack of proof, and of rational argument, isn't somehow made up by substituting the concept of rape for the concept of global warming.

Thanks for proving the skeptics right, and the warmists wrong - again!

Come on guys. Got those data sets there yet? Just show how you've accounted for the distribution and abundance of species, and all relevant human evaluations both now and in the future, in both scenarios, in units of a lowest common denominator. That's what science and rationality require in order for your claims to make sense.

What you've got is religion, and a nasty anti-human religion at that.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 14 March 2013 11:15:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So long on blind faith in experts and so short in common sense.

How is that 3C (or more) per century warming the climate models predicted coming along (not)?
Posted by davids, Thursday, 14 March 2013 12:33:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a mountain of evidence supporting the fact that we are altering the climate by pumping vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but if people are going to regard all sources which do not accord with their opinion as suspect, nothing I can say will convince them of anything.

Anyway if people want to believe the world is a cube and spaghetti grows on trees good luck to them. It would however be a great to see people actually understand the basics of climate science, rather than some of the garbage that emanates from the popular press, a good start would be an Internet search For "climate change science"
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 14 March 2013 1:05:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hay warmy, ain't you heard mate. CO2 is replacing water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Strange none of your so called scientists predicted that. Interestingly they appear to be interchangeable, or at least do interchange, not add together.

Now, as you probably dont know, water vapour is a much more effective heat absorber, than CO2. Thus the more CO2, the less water vapor, the less of your beloved "greenhouse gas effect" that will, or can occur.

I've been waiting for a while now for all the usual suspects to start proclaiming the new global cooling disaster.

When do you think it will happen?
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 14 March 2013 1:17:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Csteele; the line in the article is not ambiguous; only a fool would think it was; only a pedantic fool would persist when the ‘question’ has been answered again in the comments; are you illiterate? Only a pedantic fool would think someone could not understand that a record can occur among the agglomerate of parts without a record occurring in any of the parts. Why don’t you google Simpson’s Paradox?

Only a complete nuisance would not understand your ‘point’ is not the point; the point is:

1 BOM has not revealed its methodology and therefore Ken Stewart’s alternative suggestion of how a record could occur is valid; that is, an alleged National record could be based on an alleged Regional record of a different temperature type.

2 BOM and the CC have made demonstrable errors, at least 25% in its headline graph, and therefore doubt on a new, unexplained temperature metric attributed to AGW is entitled to be held.

3 Anthony Watt’s graph is a reasonable and statistically valid interpretation of what OHC has been doing since the most reliable measure of OHC, ARGO, was introduced in 2003.

4 The CC has track record of sensationalism, distortion and alarmism and therefore scepticism is not only warranted, it should be the reaction of any reasonable person.

I keep asking these questions, basic questions, of you and other advocates of AGW and all I get is junk and puerile point-scoring from you and Poirot, a job application from Bugsy, the greatest scientist ever to infinity in the history of the world, and snark from Agro; at least Punter was funny.

You guys are a big disappointment; why don’t you do something useful, apart from answering the queries posed in the article and listed above, by considering the release of the latest emails and note the motivations of the person who has released them:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/climategate-iii-the-password-is-out/#comments

Warmair, you are a sick, little puppy; Robin Williams compared sceptics to paedophiles; now you compare them to rapists; is that what you are saying?
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 14 March 2013 1:38:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There you have it folks. When the climate clowns are challenged to actually join issue, round and round and round they go. We get their crushing logic: "we must be right because we must be right". That's it. Then comes their killer argument: "look up everyone who agrees with us on the internet".

You guys are a joke.

But let's just get one thing clear. This is all they've got, and all they've ever had. There is nothing more substantial to this belief system which they have yet to disclose. This is it.

It's just an endless repetition of their original BELIEF that human activity is sinful and government is God, an endless equivocation using "science" to mean "those high social status officials whom I unquestioningly believe" and when we challenge them to prove by DATA and answer the issues as to RATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ..... nothing. Nil. Nada. Zip. Just endless circularity and references to their own groupthink.

That's it. Quite disgraceful really. That's why they've gone quiet, all except those they are embarassed to have on their side, like warmair and Poirot, whose attempts are positively puerile.

Come on guys. Stop pretending you don't understand the first principles of rational thought.

What happened, cat got your tongue? Got those data sets yet? Remember to show your workings, won't you, including any discount for futurity and how you derived it.

Honestly, it's like having a conversation with peasants from the dark ages, only they've replaced the church with the State.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 14 March 2013 1:38:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davids
quote
How is that 3C (or more) per century warming the climate models predicted coming along (not)?
________________________________________________________________________________________

The actual prediction is 3 Degs C for a doubling of the level of CO2 with an error margin of 1.5 plus or minus. An increase of anything more than 2 Deg C is thought likely to be disastrous.

A simple fact of life is that it takes some 300 times more energy to raise the temperature of oceans than atmosphere. This should make you realize that the oceans must be absorbing a large part of the extra heat, but until such time as the oceans come back into equilibrium with the rest of the climate system temperatures must continue to rise. Another way to think of it is that the oceans would actually have to cool, in order to maintain the present global temperatures. The recent increase in ocean temperatures mean that surface air temperatures will rise by at least 0.4 Deg C even if we stop the level of greenhouse gases rising today.

Unfortunely it is looking a graet deal wosrt than origonal predicted.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/worse-climate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-faster-than-predicted

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 14 March 2013 1:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol, JKJ...someone pulls the string in his back and off he goes for yonks (must be just about finished for this round, I reckon. Trouble is that he'll come out with exactly the same spiel next time, although it might be on a different subject...oh well...)

The term "catastrophic" is a favourite attachment of denialists - and JKJ conforms to type.

And yer all listen up to Hasbeen - he (apparently) has "got the maths" : )
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 14 March 2013 2:10:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair says: "The actual prediction is 3 Degs C for a doubling of the level of CO2"

No that's the computer model predictions.

The actual science says a 1.1C increase for a doubling of CO2. The difference is that the computer models allow for a positive feedback created by the increase in cloud cover created by the increase in temperature.

Unfortunately a recent paper has just shown that the amount of cloud cover has actually decreased so the model's feedback hypothesis is incorrect and hasn't been supported by the empirical evidence.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/global_cloudiness.png?w=640

warmair says: "The recent increase in ocean temperatures mean that surface air temperatures will rise by at least 0.4 Deg C even if we stop the level of greenhouse gases rising today."

Therefore we should be observing a steady increase in atmospheric temperatures - but we don't. In fact we have observed a decrease in global temperatures over the past 10 years.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2003/plot/rss/from:2003/trend

Once again the models are wrong - in fact there have been various papers written on just how consistently wrong the models are.
Posted by Janama, Thursday, 14 March 2013 2:29:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite, why do you persist in insisting that our climate expertise is so fantastic that you need your questions answered by us? You should be asking the people who did it, i.e. the BOM.

What is the point of asking 'basic' climate questions on a political opinion blog anyway?

I know that you are not really interested in the actual answers, you just want to prove that you think you know more about the subject than your ideological opponents. However, your actual ideological opponents appear to be climate scientists, and they don't live here. They have better things to do.

All this is pointless white noise, but it is fun to occasionally drop in and ridicule your 'expertise' now and then.

BTW, I love this " Anthony Watt’s graph is a reasonable and statistically valid interpretation of what OHC has been doing since the most reliable measure of OHC, ARGO, was introduced in 2003." Does that include the yellow line? Because if it does, then it isn't.

That FOIA guy has a dramatic way with rhetoric doesn't he? All those poor newborns. I'm glad that this appears to be the final release of emails, and also a spectacular breach of privacy. Perhaps when this particular witch hunt is over, everyone can go back to their day job? I love how you guys get so excited about a bit of gossip, like 'the emails have been released' etc., when you have no idea what is in them. Lets trawl around in peoples personal messages looking for evidence of fraud and nefarious dealings, ooooh exciting! You truly are the eunuchs at the orgy.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 14 March 2013 2:49:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You truly are the eunuchs at the orgy."

Well, kudos for that one. Still, I repeat, I'm disappointed Bugsy; you were so helpful on the Knorr deal; your 'input' clarified for me that the AF is a dud concept and confirmed that the assumptions made in calculating CO2 source emissions are just as useless. What a concept: a balance between natural emission and sinks. Fairyland.

I talk to scientists all the time; climate science is basically simple; you establish a mean, isolate a deviation from the mean, hypothesise a reason for the deviation and test the hypothesis against another deviation; ie Koutsoyiannis and hindcasting, or Hansen's 1988 predictions; see:

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98017416.pdf

von Storch and Zwiers summed it up:

"Climatology was originally a sub-discipline of Geography, and was therefore mainly descriptive (see, e.g., Bruckner [70], Hann [155], or Hann and Knoch [156]). Description of the climate consisted primarily of estimates of its mean state and estimates of its variability about that state, such as its standard deviations and other simple measures of variability. Much of climatology is still focused on these concerns today."

Unfortunately AGW science has subverted this and introduced ideology, politics and money; as a result the science is corrupted.

And this is where I'm smarter than you Bugsy; decades of legal practice, evaluating and summating evidence allows me to recognise a rat when I see it; AGW is a rat.

And while you're right that the science will not be decided on blogs like this, blogs like this will inform the final decision makers at the next election.

So, given that, why do think the BOM and the CC could not even get their own basic facts right?
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 14 March 2013 3:14:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair: Your links to tabloid science fail to convince. Here is a rebuttal of the 'more sensitive than we thought' meme.

http://landshape.org/enm/files/2009/07/EE-20-4_7-Stockwell.pdf

Before you scoff at E&E, Rahmstorf admitted that he had probably used too short a smoothing and consequently conflated the 1998 El Nino with the overall trend. He blotted his special "more sensitive than we thought" climate report to the Copenhagen Conference over it, with misleading captioning on the graph. All captured at RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/a-warning-from-copenhagen/langswitch_lang/wp#comment-127955.
Posted by davids, Thursday, 14 March 2013 4:25:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was unaware that conveyancing required a lot of evidence, but there you go. You learn something new every day.

cohenite, your whole article is a masterpiece of misinterpretation and and flat out misdirection. For example, pulling out records from December, to argue against a January record is not really on. Nothing you have presented contradicts what the BOM said. Even Watts/Colemans graph shows ocean heat increasing, and supports exactly what the CC said.

You complain you don't know how the BOM did their calculations (without apparently asking them), and then proceed to offer a patchwork of guesswork explanations as to how it occurred. Well done, explanation complete. It obviously is possible to get that answer, and it has even been admitted by "Researcher Ken" that is is certainly possible.

You are the one that needs to get their facts right, pick some that make sense next time eh?

So, it seems to me that you are beating the CC and the BOM with the proverbial piece of wet lettuce.

And if you are correct that blogs like this will inform the final decision makers at the next election, then God help us all.

PS, I think you've made a new disciple in Janama there, she's a keeper ;)
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 14 March 2013 8:05:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anonymous rabbit and self-declared world's best scientist pops head out of warren for another spray, and spits out false teeth.

You're a true believer, aren't you Bugs?

It was the CC which claimed all time records which occurred in January and other months of Summer not just January specific records; the page 3 graphic describes Summer [hence title "Angry Summer"] records not just January records, therefore the criticism stands; the CC was wrong in the examples described by Ken Stewart.

Why should I or any other citizen have to ask a publically funded body, scientific or otherwise for information about such things as their record methodology? The information should be there as a matter of course. This arrogance is systemic; the CSIRO/BOM need a good dose of the salts to remind them of where their funding comes from; so do you Bugsy boy, assuming your stipend is publically derived and not from your paper delivery.

The CC/BOM has claimed a new National record but has not indicated whether this is new metric or when it was done before; they obviously haven't read Charles Todd's records from 1896, which, unlike the 2012-2013 heatwave which has an East/West dichotomy, show a uniform National temperature hotter than this record:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/davids-disinformation.html

"God help us all"

Another Hamiltonian who thinks democracy only works if it produces results which they agree with. The public is sick of being treated as mugs by you superior types; if you had levelled from the start and not drowned the public in hyperbole real environmentall issues would not have got sucked into the AGW scam.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 14 March 2013 8:44:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This ratbag of an article brought out the ratbags, didn't it. Typical shameless display by a fake skeptic, not just showing off his ignorance about weather and climate but his innumeracy and lack of basic research skills. Cohenite's responses only emphasise the above - as well as being a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I mean take this for example: "an alleged National record could be based on an alleged Regional record of a different temperature type". Utter nonsense.

Or this: "The summer record is based on the mean temperature which is the average of the combined maximum and minimum temperatures for the period." Complete crapola.

Cohenite has done no research. There's more than enough explanation on the BoM website for any normal idiot to figure it out. Unfortunately fake skeptics are abnormal idiots.

He also lives a long way from a river, not knowing that a single river can meander through a fair bit of territory and can most definitely cause more than one flood in a single place at different times and can also flood more than one location along its route at the almost the same or different times. And you don't need a river to get a flood either.

Davids - your first link brings up a threat warning. Your second link doesn't seem to go to any particular comment. (And E&E is 90% garbage, if a rung or two above the dog astrology journal.)
Posted by Sou, Thursday, 14 March 2013 8:51:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stop Press.

Climategate Mk 3 has hit the air.

This time, instead of hundreds of incriminating emails being released in a huge batch, & quickly ignored by our MSM, it appears they will be released over a period. This should prove like the old Chinese Water torture, with a constant drip drip, of evidence of their perfidy.

I wonder how long they will be able to brazen it out, when confronted continually with the truth. No wonder our lefties wanted to censure the net.

Lets have this subject again, in a few months, when one group or the other will probably have their tail between their legs, & be heading for the hills.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 14 March 2013 9:03:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sou: Link copied again from RC, lets see if it works this time.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/a-warning-from-copenhagen/comment-page-6/#comment-127955

I don't get any alerts with the link, but here is the title and abstract.

RECENT CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS: DISAGREEMENT WITH PROJECTIONS
David R.B. Stockwell
ABSTRACT:
The non-linear trend in Rahmstorf et al. [2007] is updated with recent global
temperature data. The evidence does not support the basis for their claim that the
sensitivity of the climate system has been underestimated.
Posted by davids, Thursday, 14 March 2013 9:15:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sou, you are obviously delirious; I won't bother replying to the bulk of your petulant diatribe; one example will suffice; you say:

"The summer record is based on the mean temperature which is the average of the combined maximum and minimum temperatures for the period." Complete crapola."

From BOM:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/about/temp_timeseries.shtml

Mean temperatures are the simple average of the maximum and minimum temperatures.

Go away please.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 14 March 2013 10:20:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you wish to not be treated like a mug Anthony, then please stop acting like one.

The summer record is not only based on the mean temperatures, but also the maximums.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml

I get that you feel frustrated and talked down to, most people with some sort of expertise tend to do that when they encounter ignoramuses with hubris.

The only thing I believe in is the data. I can see pretty clearly what the data is telling us. I can also see that there is a section of the population that have made up their mind that it isn't and present some pretty tortured analyses of datasets produced by people who know better. Any mug should be able to see that too, unless they are an ardent disciple of the conspiracy theorists, that is.

The funny thing about your little rant, is that you complain about 'real' environmental issues being sucked up into this climate business, but you never actually promote or shed light onto what these actually are. In fact nearly all environmental issues I have seen mentioned are usually given short shrift and dismissed almost immediately by your lot.

Why don't you for ONCE highlight an environmental issue that you think is so important that we can all agree it should take priority over everything else?

I can see the disciples jacking off in anticipation over the new emails already, how fun. They think they already know what they are going to find, don't they? 'Defenders of he true science' indeed.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 14 March 2013 10:45:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy - I'm a man!

The graphic of the Angry Summer in the Climate Commission Report states that Australia had the hottest Summer ever! It explains the records that were broken - for Birdsville it says NOW - 49C, meaning this summer and for NOT NOW 48.5C in 2004. But the hottest temperature for summer was in December in the summer of 1972 at 49.5!

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=122&p_stn_num=038002&p_c=-288833391&p_startYear=1972

In the second graphic it claims Birdsville had a January run of 31 consecutive days of temperatures of 40C or over.

where do they get that from? - I can only count 26.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=122&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2013&p_c=-289198325&p_stn_num=038026

They also claim in the same graphic that Rockhampton had a record daily rainfall of 349mm yet on 21st of February 1929 Rockhampton recorded 388.6mm which clearly retains the record.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=136&p_stn_num=039082&p_c=-305486424&p_startYear=1929
Posted by Janama, Thursday, 14 March 2013 11:36:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Janama,

You might like to begin the count to 31 consecutive days for Birdsville by starting on the 27th December 2012....: )

cohenite,

I think you secretly carry a flame for Sou....you her asked to "Go away please."

I'm a bit put out, because when you and I first crossed swords, you weren't half as nice to me.

: )
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 14 March 2013 11:49:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough Poirot, point taken - so what about the other two?

That's my posts exhausted for 24hrs.
Posted by Janama, Friday, 15 March 2013 12:09:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, of course you are Jan.

As to your little searches, you are looking at the wrong weather stations there. The record was at Birdsville Airport, not the police station. Same for Rockhampton, the station with the record was Rockhampton aero, not the post office that you linked to.

It's important to get your datasets right before you start being pedantic isn't it?
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 15 March 2013 12:29:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I knew it! you'd come back with exactly that post.

So all the work done by diligent Australians for over 100 years dutifully posting temperature and rainfall records are no longer required because the BoM has closed them and their data records down!

I hear rolling in the graves.

So Birdsville's airport isn't in Birdsville. It's somewhere else.

Rockhampton's Post office isn't in Rockhampton, It's somewhere else.

Why does the BoM keep ignoring the stations it closed down and futher more why does it close them down?

Casino airport is a perfect example......oh why do I bother!

It's a sad day for science
Posted by Janama, Friday, 15 March 2013 12:45:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite - no, not delirious. Admit I thought it was just the maximum record. I missed that the summer record was for both the mean and the maximum. That's doubly horrendous and bodes ill for most of us when the next El Nino arrives.

Seeing that you couldn't even figure out how either were calculated - it's a bit rich to have a shot at me like you did.

My opinion of your article is unchanged. It's appallingly bad. Especially for a site that I presume is intended for an educated readership. (If it was posted on a climateskeptic blog protesting the carbon pricing scheme, or on one of the conspiracy freaks' science-denying websites, it would fit right in with the other nonsense and not get scorn heaped on it, because no educated person would read it.)

I gather you've been sniping at climate science for ages. Why not take some time to start to learn about the subject? If you wrote informed articles they would no longer generate scorn and derision (except from people like Janama).

Janama - I see you've picked up that the Birdsville record occurred in January but the series of 31 days over 40 started in December. Temp records aren't usually discarded (except the part that might be too wrong to fix). When a weather station is shifted or a new one is used instead, an adjustment is usually needed to splice the two series - eg Birdsville PO to Birdsville airport, which probably won't show up on the individual separate data sets, which are 'actuals' at that site, but it will affect the 'record'.

I can understand cohenite and Janama being 'angry'. If they live in Australia (anywhere but the Pilbara), they've just been through an angry summer and that can do funny things to some people, especially if those people had convinced themselves 'we're heading for an ice age, any day now....'
Posted by Sou, Friday, 15 March 2013 2:46:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Janama, I had a look at your claims about “the fraudulent use of BoM data to claim Birdsville had a record temperature when it didn't”. The claim in the report was that Birdsville had 31 consecutive days over 40 C, a site record. Well it did have 31 days over 40 C from 27th December 2012 to 26th January 2013 inclusive.

“Rockhampton had a record daily rainfall of 349mm yet on 21st of February 1929 Rockhampton recorded 388.6mm which clearly retains the record.”

These are different sites. Rockhampton weather is collected at the Rockhampton Aerodrome, which has been open since 1939. The Post Office site closed in 1953. Who knows what the rainfall at the Post Office would have been on 25th January 2013?

So what was this false and misleading information the BOM gave out again?
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 15 March 2013 8:13:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony, you are such a chump. That yellow line is not an approximation; it is a bit of crayon drawing. It is pretending to be flat, but isn’t. It is so obviously a fraud, that I am surprised that even you fell for it.

Seriously mate, you wouldn’t know a cherry pick if it bit you on the bum. I compared the numbers for southern Australia and northern Australia because they are the only two that added together could possibly make Australia. Eastern Australia, southeastern Australia, southwestern Australia and the Murray Darling Basin do not added up make Australia. In fact three of them overlap. Even in eastern Australia summer of 2012/13 was the third warmest ever (after 2005/06 and 1982/83). So there was not that stark a difference between east and west. But do go on trying.

If you wanted to know how the BOM came to their figures, you could read the explanation on their website, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml rather than having your mate David pull some imaginary numbers out of a hat.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 15 March 2013 8:15:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Skeptics" are all over the place depending which "strategies" they are employing in any given debate.

Take this example from Anthony Watts during an interview with the site Oil Price.

http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/wattsvwatts_global_warming.jpg

and there's more:

http://skepticalscience.com/oilprice-watts-interview.html

There should be some sort of award for that level of denial - perhaps there already is.....
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 March 2013 8:33:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy if you can't find fault with "hiding the decline", & many other such activities, & believe or profess to do so, that all so called climate scientists are on the up & up you are one of five things.

You could be a club member, riding on the gravy train.

You could be a fool, who will kowtow to authority, wherever you find it.

You could be a greenie activist, for whom any lie is truth if it fits the current rant

You could have been conned by a higher intellect, such as our esteemed treasurer, Swanny.

Or you could be a liar.

I obviously have no idea which you might be, but your arrogance suggests a club member. Perhaps you are simply benefiting from the huge illegitimate injection of public funds the scam has given academia.

Which ever does not matter, & I do find your posts a waste of time.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 15 March 2013 11:02:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

Or he could be an actual scientist!

Which would explain why he can understand science and you can't/don't want to. It might also explain why you resort to colourful labels and conspiracy for your measly argument.

Which, in reality, is not an argument at all.

It's what deniers use in place of legitimate scientific debate.

And it's pathetic.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 March 2013 11:10:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy, Poirot, Agronomist- Rocky aero is less than 4 km from the PO. Heavy rain such as we had in January does not come out of an isolated shower that rains here but not 4 km away. The same for an even bigger event 84 years ago. There may be a few mm difference but not that much. Birdsville airport is roughly 300m from the police station. ACORN makes no adjustments when making a composite of the 2 sets of data, so they definitely can be compared. The Burnett river has multiple river height gauges. Should they all have been included in the 123 records? Wallaville is 50-60km upriver from Bundy and the flood peak went through on the same day. It's double dipping to claim as 2 separate records.
The lack of desire or ability to check basic facts, and the pathetically juvenile standard of comments, reflects poorly on you. Over and out.
Posted by kenskingdom, Friday, 15 March 2013 11:16:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Poirot you fully approve of "hiding the decline" do you?

You feel it is not only legitimate, but scientific to hide the fact that the data you were using told the opposite story to the one you were pushing?

You approve of switching from data that tells one story, to totally different data, & splicing them together, if it gives the desired result?

You approve of hiding the fact that you conducted this fraudulent practice?

Thank you for confirming that you are happy to accept any old lie, if it fits your objective.

As I gather you are not a climate scientists, I guess you have confirmed, with this attitude that you vote green.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 15 March 2013 12:15:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So nice of you to drop by again Researcher Ken. Have you corrected your blog post yet?

But on to more important things. The Birdsville claim, that Janama disputed, was that for the first time there had been 31 consecutive days over 40 at this station this summer. What the distance to the Birdsville Police Station has to do with this claim is unclear. Perhaps you will elaborate? Had there been more than 31 consecutive days over 40 recorded at the Police Station in the past? I couldn’t see that from the records, but do tell.

As to Rockhampton, your claim that “does not come out of an isolated shower that rains here but not 4 km away” is not a refutation of anything stated here, because no one has been arguing that it didn’t rain in Rockhampton. The argument is about whether the rainfall on 29th February 1929 holds the record for this station. Clearly it doesn’t, because the station only opened in 1939.

However, the implication from your post is that the 1929 record would still hold because there would little difference in rainfall over that short distance. This argument is clearly rubbish. In big rainfall events there can be substantial differences in recordings over a few km. We are only talking about a 10% difference between the two readings. So just as an example of a big rainfall event when both stations were operating. In January 1951 at Rockhampton Post office, the highest daily rainfall was 135.9 mm. At the nearby Rockhampton Aerodrome on the same day it was 173.5 mm which is a 22% difference.

Whether the 1929 record would still have held in 2013? We can’t know for sure, because both stations were not operating in 1929 and 2013. But that doesn’t make the BOM claim a lie.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 15 March 2013 12:44:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a bunch of crank paranoid conspiracy theorists this abominble article attracted, which was probably the aim of the article.

For heaven's sake, all you have to do is look at the monthly averages where the Birdsville weather stations overlap in time to see the difference. (Ken's probably never driven in the rain.)

What Ken and Janama call dishonest or bad science is the complete opposite. Talk about confirmation bias, world view, distorted mental models, right wing authoritarianism etc.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/on-denier-doublethink.html

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/fooling-bottom-8-oh-its-just-another.html
Posted by Sou, Friday, 15 March 2013 1:15:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Recap of criticism by sundry trolls, alarmists, climate scientist groupies and world’s best climate scientist [ie not just an “actual scientist” as Poirot adoringly exclaims]:

1 You can have more than 1 flood record on same river; sou says: “you don't need a river to get a flood either.”
Yes, I’ve heard blocked gutters have a lot to answer for. Record was on Laidley Creek, a minor tributary or stream of the Brisbane catchment, one of 40, and the rest, larger rivers, did not even reach the BOM predicted height let alone break a record. Fail.

2 Rainfall; Agronomist has been his usual charming self and produced a different rainfall result for Rocky PO and Aero in 1951; Agro says the difference is 37.6 mm or 1.5 inches; separated by 2.2 kms, all residential/urban with no geographical features. Produce the links Agro and we’ll study this phenomenon. I will say this; Agro’s well connected info puts Teleconnection in its place and casts a shadow over the spatial weighting BOM does with temperature; speaking of which; Agro says “But that doesn’t make the BOM claim a lie.” Let’s call it a half something then: half-fail.

3 Birdsville temperature; 49C beating prior record in 2004 of 48.5C; at Birdsville Airport, running since 2000; Birdsville Police Station record in 1972 of 49.5C:

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=122&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=038002

Cherry-picking and product of possible faulty homogenisation, discussed below: Fail.

4 Watt’s OHC yellow line graph; reply to Agronomist above which he can’t see, must be blind or vision selective; OHC since ARGO statistically flat; that’s flat Agro, like your lack of manners; and 5 times less than pre-2003 increase all at a time of increased CO2 and AGW: Fail.

5 National record; new metric; http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/mystery-black-box-method-used-to-make-all-new-australian-hottest-ever-records/#more-26497

See reply to Agronomist above; needs seeing eye dog; not based on National warming with a stark East/West contrast;

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/not-the-hottest-ever-summer-for-most-australians-in-sydney-melbourne-or-brisbane-not-extreme-heatwaves-either/#comment-1247396

In addition Agro’s link to BOM ‘explanation’ offers no insight into how BOM calculated National record temperature; for instance compare this graph of State temperatures:

http://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/7-jan-states-table2.gif

With BOM’s list of State temperatures:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml

The difference is explained by Jo and the team:

Continued.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 15 March 2013 1:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a far simpler explanation Hasbeen, and that is you are just a truculent old coot. I only ever really address comments to you when you directly address me. None of your comments ever add anything useful or insightful to any subject and nothing you have ever written has given pause to respect any opinion that you hold. In light of the fact that you find my posts a waste of time, as I do yours, you could do me the courtesy or ignoring them in future, as I generally do yours.

Ken: whatever, take it up with the BOM.

Cohenite: now this is a great example of misinterpretation and misrepresentation of statements, something that is far too common on these blogs and actually typical of your articles. You are guessing that I’m a ‘climate scientist’, but I have made no such claim to that, nor claimed to be the ‘world’s best’. However, I do claim that I have published infinitely more scientific papers than you, only because you only have to publish one to achieve that honour.

The points made here are trivial, as is the article.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 15 March 2013 3:31:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And let you & your com man mates a free run,no way Bugsy.

We will bug you & the other con men until we get the truth.

Do enjoy your little bit of cherry pie, it looks as if the planet & the net are about to turn nasty for you.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 15 March 2013 3:47:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued;

To achieve the BoM’s national and state averages based purely on all station maxima, it’s interesting looking at how many of the highest maxima stations would be needed out of the total in each jurisdiction:
Australia 339 out of 721
NSW 91 out of 172
Northern Territory 27 out of 54
Queensland 54 out of 125
South Australia 45 out of 80
Tasmania 57 out of 57
Victoria 68 out of 94
Western Australia 60 out of 139
In other words, if you chose the hottest 339 weather stations in Australia on 7 January 2013 and ignored the other 382, you’d find an average maximum of 40.3C.

By comparison 1896 a real National heat-wave according to Sir Charles Todd’s records:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/davids-disinformation.html

In conclusion the Summer hot but too many questions unanswered to justify hysterical conclusions of “Angry Summer”; fail.

6 How did BOM calculate its National Mean? Ken Stewart offers one suggestion; supported by David Stockwell’s observations:

http://aefweb.info/data/Stockwell%20AEF%20Conference.pdf

See slide 10; basically ACORN hot ‘lumps’ around Alice Springs and Tibooburra responsible for heating of entire continent. Ian Hill has noted a temperature gerrymander with BOM’s spatial homogenisation; Ian says:

“Look at NT, lots of area, not that many stations. When considering the state area ratios used to work out the national figure, Alice Springs is probably more than ten times as “equal” as any station in SA. Of course Alice Springs or other stations close to the SA border need to be used to help work out the SA average. Similarly for the other large (in area) states.”

The reason why this temperature gerrymander exists was looked at by Stockwell and Stewart:

http://landshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/06-Stockwell[1].pdf

They looked at the HQ network but the point applies to ACORN:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/boms-new-data-set-acorn-so-bad-it-should-be-withdrawn-954-min-temps-larger-than-the-max/#comment-1090733

Basically there are 2 problems with BOM’s homogenisation process; the data and the extrapolation from particular sites. Let me state this plainly; BOM has problems with both as Della-Marta et.al. (2004) found; these problems have persisted as BOM’s predictive woeful record shows, eg:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=931

And they are not transparent. Not good enough, except for the alarmists. Fail.

And the CC; wrong again:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_dare_the_climate_commission_complain_at_being_caught_out/
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 15 March 2013 4:03:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone else notice how deniers want to splice the Birdsville records without allowing for the recent one being on a different weather station at a different physical location? I guess they don't approve of Watts' surface station efforts.

Or how they think a river can't flood more than one area. (Nor heard of flash floods.)

Still trying to argue what Watts himself denied, that the yellow line is a 'trend' line.

And despite a complete lack of numeracy skills (don't understand how an average works), and incomprehensible lack of understanding of even basic weather and climate, still maintain they know more about weather and climate than the professionals.

Dunning Kruger or a deliberate attempt to disinform? Both I'd say, mixed in with paranoid conspiracy ideation (involving BoM, the Climate Commission, the Australian government and probably all the media outlets including Channel 10 and maybe the opposition as well).

I'd call them knuckleheads except that would be insulting to knuckleheads.
Posted by Sou, Friday, 15 March 2013 4:03:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sou - do you have anything to contribute to this discussion or just you just come here to abuse people and promote your blog?
Posted by Janama, Friday, 15 March 2013 4:38:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Janama he/she doesn't; he/she is just a nasty little sou and sou.

There is, unfortunately, no doubt the position of the BOM and the CSIRO has been politicised in respect of AGW. Science and the world economy have been tained and distorted by this with $billions wasted.

The CC is beyond redemption and is a disgrace.

I hope some good does come out of it including a closer examination of Green ideology and its insidious impact.

In the meantime the 'science' of AGW goes from bad to worse. The much vaunted Marcott paper about paleoclimate temperature is just dreadful. Apparently Marcott's thesis dealt with the subject and had NO hockeystick showing the present warmer:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/14/marcotts-hockey-stick-uptick-mystery-it-didnt-used-to-be-there/

Marcott's proxies do not sustain any conclusion about today being warmer:

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/13/marcott-mystery-1/

In fact Marcott has conceded that the present day warming, or "uptick" in temperature is not "robust".

And when the the confection of the "uptick" is removed what is left is a confirmation that the MWP and Holocene were warmer:

http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/hockey-stick-found-in-marcott-data/

Yet this rubbish was published in a prominent peer reviewed journal.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 15 March 2013 8:53:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Janama, I owe you and everyone here an apology. The logos on the left led me to believe this was a site for educated discussion of topical issues. I've now been informed that the educated have been evicted and it's now become a squat for the illiterati.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Illiterati

Sorry for intruding. You can relax now and indulge in your paranoid conspiracy theories, flounder about in the mysterious world of simple arithmetic, and mock scientific research without any further dose of reality coming from me.
Posted by Sou, Friday, 15 March 2013 9:10:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for coming sou; don't forget about 9% of all human emissions of CO2 comes from exhalation which is exacerbated by the increase in population; do your bit and hold your breath.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 15 March 2013 10:34:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just one final post.

I always fooled myself that OLO had a few degrees more veracity than sites like Watts and Nova. The mere fact that a few scientists bothered to join the fray occasionally, together with other intelligent souls, served to paper over the obvious denialism rampant around here.

Eventually there will only be "skeptics" here - and they can indulge in tribal group-think just like they do at Nova and Watts. It'll be a perfect orgy of ignorance where conspiracy theories will abound, and the master of ceremonies will be none other than "cohenite the great".

And all the "skeptics" (who actually think that he knows what he's talking about) will be able to talk about the nasty climate scientists who didn't know 'alf of what their cohenite does...and they'll all live happily ever after.

No wonder Sou was disappointed...as a site for serious climate debate, it's a joke
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 March 2013 11:21:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But it's not a site for serious climate debate Poirot, it never was.

It's a site for ridiculing your opponents and trying to claim the high ground by complaining about being ridiculed by opponents.

That's why I hang around here.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 15 March 2013 11:38:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear cohendite,

You claim;

“I keep asking these questions, basic questions, of you and other advocates of AGW and all I get is junk and puerile point-scoring”

Actually my friend your primary question was “How can there be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record?”

It is there as a subheading for this piece and in the article itself.

As it was the primary question it was the one I went to first. I gave an answer then asked if you considered it adequate. You evaded answering or explaining yourself over several posts instead choosing to sling insults.

That effort from you was by definition puerile.

So please explain why you posed it in the first place. The only reason I can see was to cast doubt over the Met's announcement about it being a nation wide record summer. Perhaps you have a different explanation if so I would like to hear it.
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 16 March 2013 12:07:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piorot et al - you continually make reference to these holier than thou 'supreme climate scientists' who are superior and form the basis of your consistent argument from authority.

So tell me - where do put leading scientists like Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Nils-Axel Mörner, Garth Paltridge, Philip Stott, Hendrik Tennekes, Sallie Baliunas, Chris de Freitas, Don Easterbrook, William Kininmonth, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Henrik Svensmark, Ian Plimer, William M. Gray, William Happer, Tom Segalstad, etc. and the hundreds of highly trained scientists who disagree with your views on climate?

Are you that superior in your knowledge of the subject that you can readily dismiss their views as a "perfect orgy of ignorance where conspiracy theories will abound" when we repeat their views and ideas on sites like this, because in attacking us you are attacking them. These are the people we listen to, in attacking WUWT and JoNova you are merely attacking the people who provide a link to these leading scientist's views and ideas.
Posted by Janama, Saturday, 16 March 2013 12:18:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony wrote: “Watt’s OHC yellow line graph; reply to Agronomist above which he can’t see, must be blind or vision selective; OHC since ARGO statistically flat”

The data that went into the plot are available here http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Data/OHCA_700.txt so anyone with a modicum of statistical knowledge can do their own assessment of Anthony’s claim that the data are “statistically flat”. Using the most simple, least squares fit, the slope the trend line between 2003 and 2012 comes out at 2.46 zeta joules per year with 95% confidence intervals of 0.61 to 4.31 zeta joules per year. The slope is significantly non-zero p=0.016.

Anthony, your claim that the trend is statistically flat is 100% wrong. I expect this type of statistical fail is one of the reasons why your paper was rejected? I suggest you could try to get published in Energy & Environment, after all they have published a paper claiming the sun is made of iron and your paper is about the same quality. Don’t tell me Energy & Environment have rejected your paper as well.

You are such a chump Anthony.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 16 March 2013 8:17:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correct.

Any player who claims the regression is flat is run out at the bowler's end without facing a ball.

(just posting to untick the notifications box)
Posted by Alan Austin, Saturday, 16 March 2013 8:58:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why oh why won't any of you supposedly wise & educated people explain to this supposedly simple old fogy, just why your gods had to hide the decline, to try to make a scientific point, & if you approve?

Why did you have to "get rid of the medieval warm period" if the science is so good.

Oh & why did the UEA spend millions fighting freedom of information requests.

I know you won' answer. Answering hard questions is a no no for you lot. Much better hubris & abuse, a thoroughly scientific method, when your science won't stand up to scrutiny.

Just one last question, why is a bit of heat in Oz evidence of global warming, & the deep freeze of most of the northern hemisphere is just weather? I'll give your names to a mate of mine in Young. He is often short of pickers for his cherry orchard.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 16 March 2013 10:42:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Csteele, you are disingenuous; you don’t want an explanation from me, you want a mea culpa; you want me to say I was wrong and the headline for the article was wrong.

The headline was not wrong; there was no regional or state record. I then offered Ken Stewart’s valid explanation of how a National record could be produced under such circumstances in the context of agreeing that a combined record could be produced from parts which had no record; I repeated that in the comments.

But the important context was that the BOM had not explained how they achieved their result. Ken Stewart was entitled to offer his explanation which worked.

Another explanation from David Stockwell was offered to do with spatial weighting with all its defects, and it worked too.

Then, finally an explanation from Jo Nova involving exclusion of cool sites and how that was wrong was given, and it worked also.

3 explanations of the headline were offered, all viable, along with 2 acknowledgements that an agglomerate record could occur.

But we don’t know, do we csteel, how BOM produced their result because BOM hasn’t offered an explanation?

But that isn’t important to you, all you want to do is score points and persist with your inane demand; well, it’s your bee and your bonnet and I’m not interested; but you are right about something csteele when you say:

“The only reason I can see was to cast doubt over the Met's announcement about it being a nation wide record summer.”

Finally, you understand csteele; except I wasn’t casting doubt; I was explaining why there should be doubt.

Anyway you’ve been a pedantic nuisance and contributed nothing to this thread.

Speaking of nuisances; I had posted above on the ‘flat’ yellow line for Agro’s benefit: he hasn’t mentioned it so is either blind or trolling; I’ll repeat it in the next post.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 16 March 2013 2:02:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agro’s little yellow line; what I said before:

“Agronomist; little yellow line is an approximation; I have linked to a Willis analysis of it above, look at it; data is there; for the 1993-2003 data the increase is approx. +0.1C (11 years); the Error is about 0.02C, R2 0.8309. For 2003-2012 the increase is about +0.02C. (10 years). The error is about 0.01C, R2 0.5597. That is not quite flat but close enough at statistical significance. That blows AGW out of the water.“

I did use poetic licence to say ‘flat’ at the 2nd post and agro picked it up and ignored the first; good trolling.

But let’s dig down further to Agro’s comeback where he says:

“Using the most simple, least squares fit, the slope the trend line between 2003 and 2012 comes out at 2.46 zeta joules per year with 95% confidence intervals of 0.61 to 4.31 zeta joules per year. The slope is significantly non-zero p=0.016.”

In energy terms that is not flat; but it is still FIVE times LESS than the pre-2003 increase which Agro doesn’t mention; more importantly when you convert the energy increase from joules to temperature, guess what, it is FLAT:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/ocean-temperature-and-heat-content/

I’m not a chump Agro but you’re still trolling; do better, or better still do nothing; this thread should end since the criticism has hit rock bottom.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 16 March 2013 4:41:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay let’s look at the arguments so far.

Warmists
1. “It must be so because it must be so.”
2. “The way we know whether it’s true is to look around and see whether other people are saying it.”
3. “It must be so because I read it in the Sydney Morning Herald.”
4. “It must be so because I read it in the Guardian.”
5. “It must be so because human beings exist.”
6. “It must be so because capitalism is evil and modern industrial activity is unsustainable.”
7. “Anyone who dares to question it is mad, a rapist, a paedophile”.
8. “The way we know it’s true is to look at the social status of the people who are saying it’s true. This seals the deal, the moreso if they are State-funded."
9. “It’s not bad enough to be catastrophic but it’s bad enough to make life unsustainable, the planet uninhabitable for our grandchildren, and to warrant government taxing everything and regulating all human activity.”
10. “I trust experts more than I trust a critical analysis that proves them and me wrong, and which I cannot answer.”
11. “It must be so because the government told me so.”

Skeptics
1. “The observed data are not supported by the theory”.
2. “The models have failed to predict actual temperatures.”
3. “The conclusions assume warming in their methodology.”
4. “A theory is not scientific just because it’s supported by the authorities; it must be supported by the data”.
5. “The main warmist scientists secretly talk among themselves that their theory’s failure to account for the data is “a travesty” while publicly abusing anyone who dares to question it”
6. “There has been demonstrable systematic bias in the manipulation, suppression, and falsification of data”
7. “The temperature measurements themselves do not comply with their own standards and are systematically biased towards warming.”
8. “You can’t claim conclusions are scientific if you refuse to publish the data sets on which they’re based because they can’t be replicated.”

(cont.)
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 18 March 2013 4:53:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
9. “It is not okay to treat the role of government as irrelevant to the production of knowledge in what is a trillion-dollar governmental concern and industry. It is not okay to simply assume that government’s blatant and open bias in favour of CAGW is beneath notice, or has not affected the outcome.”
10. “Science does not supply value judgments. The claims of climate scientists to know what temperature the planet should be are false.”
11. “Even if the warmists’ climatological claims were true, that of itself would only show a tendency to a rise in temperatures. It does not self-evidently prove that the real consequences are necessarily detrimental rather than beneficial.”
12. “The methodology for concluding that CAGW is detrimental is flawed because it assumes any change is automatically detrimental, assumes any anthropogenic effect is automatically detrimental, fails to consider possible benefits, lacks any means of taking into account the necessary human valuations in the alternatives, and lacks a lowest common denominator in which to compare them.”
13. “Even if the results were necessarily detrimental, the methodology for concluding that policy is justified is flawed because it assumes policy would be beneficial without taking account of the downsides in terms of human deprivation or suffering or death caused by policy; and because it lacks any means of taking into account the necessary human valuations in the alternatives, and lacks a lowest common denominator in which to compare them.”
14. “the vested interests behind the whole alarm have been corrupted by the billions of dollars that depend on government servants favouring the line indicated by their political masters.”

Now which theory has more explaining power?

With REAL science ONE disproof is enough to dispose of the matter. The very fact that the warmists persist in dealing with questions that prove them wrong by refusing to answer them means they have completely and totally lost the argument.

But perhaps if the warmists repeat their evasions and fallacies a few more times, cite the IPCC a bit more, or post another link to the SMH that will satisfy their intellectual standards?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 18 March 2013 4:58:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine K. Jardine

Please don't let any in facts get in the way of anything you wish to believe.
Don't let those those pesky scientists get under your skin, just because they are pointing out the flaming obvious, like the Arctic melting, glaciers melting, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, various continents breaking all time heat records, flash floods, or insurance claims for weather related events sky-rocketing.
All this is happening at a time when it would be reasonable to expect temperatures to be falling due to reduced sunspot activity and several recent La Nina events.

Meanwhile lets throw another couple of 100 millions tons of coal, a few billion barrels of oil, and 3 or 4 cubic kilometres of natural gas on the BBQie.
Posted by warmair, Monday, 18 March 2013 9:21:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh warmair - you are such a laugh!
everything you just said is just wrong.

wake up mate!
Posted by Janama, Monday, 18 March 2013 9:42:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair
Please acknowledge that you understand that appeal to absent authority is a logical fallacy, and that a scientific conclusion cannot rely on a logical fallacy.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 18 March 2013 10:11:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine K. Jardine

I recommend you come out of hibernation before it is too late.

The only authority I am interested in, are the facts which clearly show that the globe is warming.

It is a simple fact that for the global ice sheets to be steadily melting means that more heat is coming in than is escaping.

The evidence is clear from the satellites that Arctic ice is reducing steadily both in area and volume.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Arctic_Sea_Ice_Minimum_Comparison.png/220px-Arctic_Sea_Ice_Minimum_Comparison.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Oldest_Arctic_Sea_Ice_is_Disappearing.png/220px-Oldest_Arctic_Sea_Ice_is_Disappearing.png

None of which is surprising considering that how quickly the Arctic is warming.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/ArcticYearlongTempAnom_HR.jpg/220px-ArcticYearlongTempAnom_HR.jpg


Antarctic ice is also reducing in volume based on at least three streams of data.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2006-028

Glaciers are in steady decline in the majority of places. Just in case you think the information given in the links below is not borne out by fact I have visited a few of the glaciers in question and can confirm that the information given in the link was accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/gallery/retreating.html

None of the above is based on the views of any particular person or authority it is based on the data.
Global warming is beyond any reasonable doubt, the cause and man's contribution are issues which are open to some rational debate but to deny the data is not
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 19 March 2013 9:28:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair, you are tedious. I took the trouble to go through your links; they are rubbish, in particular your link to a 2006 NASA GRACE conclusion that the ice sheet has been declining.

GRACE initially had trouble with Glacial Isostatic adjustment [GIA] which is a false reduction of the ice sheet caused by compression of the ice due to weight which confounds the GRACE satellite measuring signal; 2 new studies have shown the initial conclusion of less ice was wrong:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml

http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/which-sea-level-measurement-does-the-lack-of-ice-melt-agree-with/

Please note the 2nd paper which is discussed at the linked site in the context of how a growing Antarctic will reduce sea level rise is no longer avaialable at the NASA site. Conspiracy!
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 19 March 2013 12:57:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry as good skeptic I don't accept predictions based on duboious computer models as per your link below.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml

The data from the GRACE satellites show a drop in the gravity field over the Antarctic which can only be explained by a loss of ice or possibly by the earth springing back after the ice has melted either way it shows that the land ice has decreased.

As for your other link beam me up Scottie no intelligent life there.

Now how about those glaciers why are some 90% of them in retreat ? why has the Arctic dramatically shrunk since the 1980s as per the satellite photos or is it all a big conspiracy and there really are no satellites and its all a big hoax. No you are simply ignoring the data because it does not suit your view of the world. That is not tedious it is just plain silly.

It gets even sillier because sea levels have risen steadily over the most of the last 100 years and more, now there are only two ways that can happen one is by thermal expansion, and the other is by ice melt, either way it proves that that the globe is warming.
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 19 March 2013 4:01:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair

The issue is not whether you can find evidence of warming in some part of the globe.

The issue is whether the globe as a whole shows warming that is
1. anthropogenic
2. necessarily detrimental rather than neutral or beneficial
3. significant enough to warrant governmental intervention, and
4. which policy can improve having regard to the downside and upsides both ways.

Thus even in your own terms what you have just shown does not establish what is in issue, by a long shot.

It is no more cogent than if I were to point to evidence of cooling somewhere and just flatly assume catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling which policy can improve.

“…the cause and man's contribution are issues which are open to some rational debate…”

Data don’t interpret themselves. That requires theory, and if your theory is based on logical fallacies, it will be invalid and unscientific, which I'm proving it is, while you're failing to defend it.

Obviously it won’t be open to you to enter into rational debate while ever you:
1. evade the issue – didn’t answer my question, did you?
2. jump to conclusions unjustified by your data – non sequitur
3. rely on ad hom – anyone who disagrees with you is “hibernating” i.e. has cognitive problems
4. misrepresent the issue – whether the ice-caps are shrinking
5. continue refusing to explicitly reject the logical fallacies that comprise your argument.

So I’ll ask you *again*: will you please acknowledge that appeal to absent authority is a logical fallacy, and that logical fallacy cannot be the basis of science?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 19 March 2013 5:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GRACE has problems:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009E&PSL.288..516R

And it is plain why the study contradicting NASA no longer is available at NASA links:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-036

The contradictory paper is:

Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David

Abstract:

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.

Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5% change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses."

Fancy that, a paper which contradicts NASA's findings, in fact is the opposite of NASA's findings is no longer welcome at NASA!

Sea level rise definitive study:

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1

No unusal acceleration of rise, in fact a deceleration.

Tedious warmair.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 19 March 2013 7:00:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thus yet again it turns out that the warmists, so full of haughty insults about others not understanding “science”, not only don’t have science on their side, they don’t even have logical thought on their side.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 20 March 2013 10:20:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine K. Jardine
First let me make it quite clear I always try to avoid Ad hom attacks, but if other people wish to attack me that way, I am tempted to respond in kind.

I am glad to see that you accept some parts of the globe are warming, It is also clear from the way that glaciers, and the poles are melting this is global phenomena, which if you needed, it is confirmed by many other sources of information, such as sea level rise.

The first thing to consider is do we know of any possible cause that could account for the warming that has taken place since the 1970s. The only answer which is compatible with the data, is the increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So what caused the the greenhouse gases to rise so abruptly. There can be little doubt that humans are responsible due to the huge amounts of fossil fuels that we are burning on a daily basis.

The logic is straight forward, and further more it was predicted that warming would occur as long ago as the 1890s.
Quote
"So I’ll ask you *again*: will you please acknowledge that appeal to absent authority is a logical fallacy, and that logical fallacy cannot be the basis of science?"
End quote
I am not required to answer any question you put and will only do so if I think it has some merit. The question is basically an attempt to introduce a strawman argument.
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 20 March 2013 12:34:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warmair

It’s still impermissibly illogical.

“The question is basically an attempt to introduce a strawman argument.”

Mind-reading.

It’s perfectly meritorious to attempt to obtain agreement that the basic principles of logic apply, since the argument of so many warmists is that it must be so because of the “consensus” of climate “science”, which is an appeal to absent authority.

So the warmists have to be dragged kicking and screaming, or rather squirming and insulting, to the proposition that, yes, the basic principles of logic must apply to them too. But even then you can’t bring yourself to do it.

So after all this, all we have is that warmair will *not* explicitly reject recourse to logical fallacy, and why not? Because he asserts my alleged subjective state of mind as his reason.

That’s it guys. That’s the reasoning why we face anthropogenic global warming that policy can improve. That’s the best the warmists can come up with.

But of course, even if we conceded everything that warmair has argued so far – and it is not conceded – all we would have is:
There is reason to think that the globe is warming
There is reason to think it might be anthropogenic.

So what?

Still waiting to see how you get - without appeal to absent authority - from there to your conclusion that it’s necessarily detrimental rather than neutral or beneficial, significant enough to warrant governmental intervention, and that policy can improve it having regard to the upsides and downsides both ways.

You are miles from a logical argument, and when specifically challenged to rule out relying on a fallacy, you answer with more fallacy!

The difference between the personal arguments of the warmists, and the personal arguments of the skeptics, is that the warmists have the burden of proof, and the skeptics don't rely on ad homs for their conclusion!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 20 March 2013 1:16:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thus the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the warmists is demonstrated.

Their technique, AT ITS BEST, consists of selectively identifying evidence of warming, pre-supposing that the only possible explanation is it must be caused by man's sin and the demon carbon dioxide, and badly extrapolating from there that we're all going to die from making life on earth unsustainable unless government has the power to regulate every aspect of human existence.

Note also their unvarying technique. They present full of bluster and conceited insults about how anyone who disagrees with them doesn't understand "science", assume what is in issue and appeal to authority over and over and over again. Then when it becomes clear that they can't divert the debate away from their actual methodology, one by one they silently slink away.

They do not have the intellectual decency to concede what they cannot defend: and they just pop up again elsewhere re-running the same refuted fallacies.

When the skeptics accuse the warmists of ad hom, non sequitur, begging the question and appeal to absent authority, as we have just seen, it's demonstrably true because THAT'S ALL THEY'VE GOT AND ALL THEY'VE EVER HAD - that and billions of dollars of worth of an international empire of government funding. And they have the gall to accuse the skeptics of being in the pay of big vested interests!

But, as the warmists have the onus of proof and have not yet discharged it (because they can't), when they accuse the skeptics of fallacies it is just more irrelevance. The fallacies of the skeptics AT THEIR WORST still do not detract from what we have just seen, that the warmists have no argument but popular delusion and the madness of crowds.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 22 March 2013 8:02:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ,

On the contrary....

I'm not intending to frequent this forum very often in the future. It's ostensibly become just another denialist site, pretty well full to the brim of the type of usual suspects who inhabit other sites like it.

Presided over by "scientist-in-chief", cohenite the lawyer and his merry band of hecklers.

Take your own contributions, for instance. You appear to possess one generic argument for all your debates. No matter what the subject or your present incarnation, out you whip your trusty template, which is ....boring.....

It is fascinating, however, watching you guys trawl around for someone to argue with...."slinking off"...nah, just thought we'd leave it to you to reinforce each others denial. But it's a bit difficult to achieve when there's no-one left on the other side for you and the others' to hurl invective at.

Oh well.....
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 22 March 2013 10:00:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot
Do you think your evasions are not obvious to the most casual observer?

I'm a "denialist". And what scientific proposition is it that you allege I'm denying?

Now come on. Just show your data and workings for how you figured out the alleged anthropogenic global warming is detrimental will you, and the downsides of policy, for both scenarios, in units of a lowest common denominator, then and you can stop your bickering.

And *I'm* the denialist? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 22 March 2013 10:14:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Gawd, Peter Hume, you're so transparent.

Do you really think I'm going to waste my time re-introducing argument that has been presented on this forum (and rejected by "black-is-white" denialists) a hundred times before?

Bugsy pointed out that this never was a site for serious climate debate. I have to agree. It's a site for popular opinion on a subject that few have expertise in. You guys even reject argument from scientists when it's simplified and laid out carefully in front of you.

No matter how many times denialist banter is blown out of the water, it makes no difference to your outlook.

Which is why it's called "denial" and not "skepticism".

Anyway, I'm off to do something a little more meaningful...have a nice day.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 22 March 2013 10:30:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Anyway, I'm off to do something a little more meaningful"

Say hi to the other pixies down at the collective; you're going to be so bored when the lie of AGW bites the dust; you'll have to invent another great cause; I reckon Alien abduction would suit you; swished away by great hulking space-critters in white rockets; I could see a book series.

Anyway, after the lunatics currently 'governing' us are put back in their cages I'm going to do my best to get a new law in place which mandates that 'green' voting electorates must source their electricity from green energy.

Stock up on candles.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 22 March 2013 3:54:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, whatever you do, don't read the major German, yes German newspapers. It would really spoil your day.

They are now publishing the evidence of the fraud.

Despite the fact that most of the northern hemisphere is still digging itself out of the snow of the 5Th severe winter in a row, they are not cherry picking, like our immoral lot.

No they are quoting the science that warmists have been trying to hide for years, & the new stuff built on that.

When all the physics is in, it suggests increase CO2 will result in a very minor cooling, & definitely no heating, of the greenhouse kind or not.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 22 March 2013 4:17:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, you have never provided data and reasons I've asked for and neither has any warmist that I have ever asked in all the threads in here where their belief system has been COMPLETELY EXPLODED AND DEMOLISHED. You, and they all, have ONLY EVER assumed everything in issue, referred off to absent authority, and abused anyone who dares question it as a "denialist".

When I ask you what specific scientific proposition I am alleged to deny, the very core of all your argument, again you refer off to some unspecified absent supposed know-it-all.

Obviously if you and all the other warmists could answer my questions without disproving your own arguments, you would have done so already.

Those warmists embarrased to openly re-run fallacies as you do, have simply fallen silent.

I don't know what motivates you but it's certainly not science.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 24 March 2013 8:43:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

I've some time right now. As one of your warmists I'm happy to address any question you might have for me. Tell you what, let's go one for one and you can have the honour of going first.

Could be diverting.
Posted by csteele, Monday, 25 March 2013 11:20:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aw come on JKJ, I've been busy and only just got to the party. What do you have for me?

Tell you what, perhaps I should go first. I would love to know exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming? And is that point outside the margins that would permit effective action to combat its threat?

Or are you a committed flat-earther to your grave?
Posted by csteele, Monday, 25 March 2013 11:49:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey guys, you are in a vacuum. I'm in Dubai, they don't care about your stupid AGW theories, they just move on as does the rest of the world. Only in Australia is it a debate.

Get a life!
Posted by Janama, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 12:15:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still trolling csteele; your contribution to this thread has been adequately described above.

But, by all means, put up your 'facts' about the world warming.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 8:41:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Anthony,

We have already danced and you refused to answer my question but hey, I'm a sucker for punishment.

Perhaps you would like to try the one I put to JKJ.

Exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming? And is that point outside the margins that would permit effective action to combat its threat?
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 8:51:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho, ho, ho...

Apparently anyone who holds a view opposing cohenite's is a "troll".

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

Janama,

"I'm in Dubai, they don't care about your stupid AGW theories..."

Coming from one of the world's most unsustainable cities, that's not surprising.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=all-of-dubai-underwater-with-climat-2010-01

I wonder?.....
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 9:31:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"All of this infrastructure could be out of commission in a century. Nearly all the infrastructure in Dubai could be underwater by 2100."

You are kidding!

It's a shame Scientific American has become a cheap warmist rag instead of the fine science magazine it used to be.

It's an example of just how distorted and corrupt the scientific community has become over the lies and the hoax of climate change and sea level rise is one of the major hoaxes. You only have to go to the beach for sixty years or more to realize there is no sea level rise of any significance.
Posted by Janama, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 11:36:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele
Thanks for your challenge which I gladly accept.

A mere demonstration of sustained warming would not establish the warmists' argument, because the argument, as I understand it, is not merely that there's been sustained global warming. If that were the argument, of itself, it would lack any reason to think that
a) it's anthropogenic
b) it's detrimental in effect rather than neutral or beneficial, and
c) policy can improve the net situation.

As I was not at my computer in the 29 minutes you gave me to respond, and as the question you ask, even if I conceded it, would not establish the warmists' case for the reasons I have given, therefore I would like to take up your challenge at the beginning.

So the question I have for you is: what is the warmists' argument in summary? Assuming there is sustained global warming, how do you get from there to a conclusion in favour of policy action?

However I would like you to agree to this pre-condition. If at any time your argument
- assumes a proposition are contending for
- *relies on* personal argument
- misrepresents my argument
- relies on appeal to absent authority,
we are both agreed you lose, okay? And I undertake the same.

You need to be able to establish your own argument by reason and evidence, not just assume everything that's in issue and refer off to someone else.

Do you accept this challenge?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 10:05:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have seen 2 recent developments in the AGW faux science; one is an other attempt to justify Mann's Hockeystick in the form of the utterly discredited Marcott 'thesis'; the other is an ongoing attempt to remove the lag between temperature movement and CO2 'response'; the latest effort is this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060

Parrenin’s paper continues Shakum’s work which purported to show that CO2 levels moved first and temperature followed. Shakum is a terrible paper and has been demolished by Eschenbach:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/shakun-redux-master-tricksed-us-i-told-you-he-was-tricksy/

Shakum basically cherry-picked his data discontinuing his CO2 proxies about 6000 years ago when they showed an increase at the time temperature began its decline to the present. Willis had previously done a proxy by proxy analysis of Shakum’s data and found nothing to justify Shakum’s conclusion that CO2 preceded temperature when in fact most of the proxies showed temperature and CO2 going in opposite directions. This is confirmed by Lansner’s analysis:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

It is confirmed by what has happened during the 20thC:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-CO2Temp.gif

And what has happening this century:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend

There is now a concerted attempt to rewrite history in respect of the temperature/CO2 lag which parallels Mann’s hockeystick.

This is the sort of thing which csteele endorses.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 10:04:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

Excellent!

Firstly a little house keeping.

If I was after a cheap shot I would now point out that I in fact waited over 12 hours rather than 29 minutes for a reply from you and then make some snide comment about deniers, their figures and attention to detail, but as I'm not I won't. ;)

However I think a general call to treat figures honestly would be appropriate.

Now let us take a look at the proposed rules;

If at any time the argument
- assumes a proposition are contending for
- *relies on* personal argument
- misrepresents the other's argument
- relies on appeal to absent authority,
We are to agree that the offender loses.

You will have to explain “assumes a proposition are contending for”.

The only problem with the list is the mine field is being laid but who is to be setting the pressure sensors? You? Perhaps we should seek someone who we can agree would give a fair adjudication on transgressions otherwise it will be open to either of us picking up the bat and ball and declaring ourselves a winner. Did you have anybody in mind?

Should we perhaps also have a rule that penalises anyone who – misrepresents the question put to them.

For instance I asked of you “exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?” but you went on to qualify the question then answer your own qualifications without addressing the original.

You were not asked what the 'warmist' argument was rather what you would need to see to be prepared to acknowledge the world was experiencing sustained warming.

Once resolved I am happy to address what you have put to me.
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 12:38:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi csteele - you're keen! : )

I just thought I'd toss this into the ring...John Abraham debunking Watts (always entertaining).....

http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Real-Pragmatism-for-Real-Climate-Change-Interview-with-Dr.-John-Abraham.html
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 1:40:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was out fixing fences and did not go into the thread before your initial challenge and later post.

“You will have to explain “assumes a proposition are contending for”.

I mean anyone who’s contending for a proposition, for example that the globe is warming, can’t be allowed to assume it in their premises. It can’t be a pre-condition of my entering the debate that I am supposed to accept as a premise that there is global warming. The party asserting a positive proposition has the onus of proving it.

“The only problem with the list is the mine field is being laid but who is to be setting the pressure sensors? You? Perhaps we should seek someone who we can agree would give a fair adjudication on transgressions “

The "mine field" is only explicit agreement that logical fallacies are unacceptable.

Don’t know who would be mutually acceptable. Need a judge.

“Did you have anybody in mind?”

No. Only thing I can think of is to adjourn to debate.org where they seem to have a better format for this kind of formal debate. Not sure how they adjudicate.

“Should we perhaps also have a rule that penalises anyone who – misrepresents the question put to them.”

"For instance I asked of you “exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?” but you went on to qualify the question then answer your own qualifications without addressing the original."

I haven’t misrepresented your question and I never accepted it. As I explained, sustained warming is necessary but not sufficient to establish the warmist argument. We haven't yet joined issue.

In the absence of a mutually acceptable judge, I don’t see we have any option but to go ahead. My point is only this. It’s just too tedious wading through constant accusations of bad faith, circular argument, and appeal to absent authority. If you won’t explicitly renounce recourse to logical fallacies from the outset, then there’s no point discussing the topic.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 3:41:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said JKJ. Case in point Poirot's link to the dreary interview with the pompous pontificate Abrahams; samples;

1 Hyperbole: "Doing nothing about the problem is a choice, with tremendous costs"

2 Paranoia: "There are a number of reasons for that. It is clear that a lot of money is spent by organizations that want to ensure we do not invest in clean renewable energy or conservation."

3 Contradiction: "Real scientists are sceptical by nature. We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves." compared with: "A major indicator of how people feel about climate science is how they view collective action. Persons who think working together on a shared problem (like energy and climate) can lead to exciting and profitable solutions are much more likely to accept the science. People who reject collective action or government intervention are much less likely to accept the science."

4 Fallacy of consensus: "the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change."

5 Personal insult: "that is plain denial."

6 Girlie man: "I have been attacked numerous times on Mr. Watts’s website, as have my colleagues."

What a sook and what rubbish.

Poirot, are you getting sillier
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 5:55:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

To be true to the challenge I have been brushing up on the 'logical fallacies' that you would have us both renounce (I'm assuming both rather than just me).

I thought it might be useful to explore the one most immediately to hand;

You put to me; “I was not at my computer in the 29 minutes you gave me to respond”

I put the argument that I had “in fact waited over 12 hours rather than 29 minutes for a reply”

The supporting evidence is the times of the two posts in question;
Posted by csteele, Monday, 25 March 2013 11:20:17 AM
Posted by csteele, Monday, 25 March 2013 11:49:30 PM

Based on the fact that these were 12 hours and 29 minutes apart, I think it would be safe to say that the majority of people reading this would assume that you had failed to notice the PM on the second posting and had calculated the difference at 29 minutes.

My question at this point is; would me saying “I think” transgress the “*relies on* personal argument” rule?

To continue, there would have been an expectation that a reply from you may have been something along the lines of “Yup, sorry, I misread the AM/PM tags”.

Instead you have posted the argument; “I was out fixing fences and did not go into the thread before your initial challenge and later post.”

So I have been exploring Wikipedia to find out if this is;

“Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

Or possibly;

Post hoc ergo propter hoc therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.

Or even something else entirely, though I'm tending toward the first. Please correct me if required.

I haven't played with these for decades but I know it is going to be fun so bugger the judge and let's get on with it.

Cont...
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 7:57:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont...

So back to my question; “exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?”

To your response was; “sustained warming is necessary but not sufficient to establish the warmist argument. We haven't yet joined issue.”

Indeed we have not joined the issue since I explicitly avoided doing so. It is a simple question that might just as easily read “exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global cooling?” To impugn any answer from you would illustrate your support that the world is indeed warming would of course be a logical fallacy and we are both committed to avoiding them like the plague.

To use your language then let us replace 'exact figures' with 'data set'. I would hope that there isn't a reticence on your behalf for providing data sets or at least robust summaries as this will be a very bereft discussion.

Therefore “what data set would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?”
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 7:58:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele

LOL.

Okay:

Yes I noticed only the minute difference, not the hour difference. My error. Yes you are right, my saying I was out fixing fences was logically
a) missing the point
b) irrelevant.

And for penance I offer the following:
1. I waive any contention whether the world is experiencing sustained global warming. I assume it as given for the sake of argument.
2. I answer your question ““exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?”, as follows “I don’t know, and will be guided by you on that.”

Your Q: “ “what data set would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?””

My answer: “Any”.

There. What could be more amenable and fairer than that?

Now. As that point is no longer in issue, pray tell us how you get from there to your conclusion that the sustained global warming, which we are indubitably experiencing, is anthropogenic, detrimental, and amenable to improvement by policy?

“My question at this point is; would me saying “I think” transgress the “*relies on* personal argument” rule?”

I don’t think it would transgress the personal argument rule at all. T

he reason is because, even if the majority of people reading this did in fact assume that I had failed to notice the PM on the second posting and had calculated the difference at 29 minutes, that fact alone would not invalidate my argument that you haven’t proved your case.

My point about personal argument is only that one’s entire argument can’t *rely on* it. The argument can’t take the form “The warming must be anthropogenic because you are an idiot if you don’t agree.”

If you can independently show evidence and reason why the warming must be anthropogenic, it would not be against the rule to add personal argument, though it would be bad manners, and logically speaking, irrelevant.

Ie you can have personal argument *in addition to*, not *in substitution for* logically valid argument; but better avoided of course.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 8:58:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

Normally I wouldn't let someone get away with a “for the sake of the argument” fallacy. If one accepts that the process of arguing is about moving toward agreement by building agreement one step at a time, then having one of the party concede just “for the sake of the argument” introduces a weak foundation stone which that party can pull at will to collapse the whole effort.

Of course I am not saying you would stoop to such a thing to win the day so in the spirit of magnanimity I will let it stand just as I am prepared to let you avoid producing a data set but I think it only fair I get to play that card once too.

Right, to your question. You put to me the following;

“As that point is no longer in issue, pray tell us how you get from there to your conclusion that the sustained global warming, which we are indubitably experiencing, is anthropogenic, detrimental, and amenable to improvement by policy?”

A gentle reminder of your words if I may; “If you won’t explicitly renounce recourse to logical fallacies from the outset, then there’s no point discussing the topic.”

I am going to flag that your question directly speaks to plurium interrogationum or the 'Fallacy of many questions' (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question) – “someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.”

I might need some help with the second but I have a feeling it also transgresses the 'Fallacy of division' “which occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.”. For instance does a 'warmist' need to have concluded all three of your propositions?

I invite you to rephrase your question to align more closely with the agreed rules.

Perhaps if we concentrate on curbing the plurium interrogationum we might more usefully move forward.

Or to use some street vernacular 'Let's break it down!'

Dear Poirot,

Thanks. ;)
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 11:47:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Normally I wouldn't let someone get away with a “for the sake of the argument” fallacy.”

Why is it a fallacy to concede something for the sake of argument? That’s not a fallacy, or if it is, what is the fallacy?

“introduces a weak foundation stone which that party can pull at will to collapse the whole effort”

No it doesn’t, because if I tried to raise it as an objection later, I would be contradicting my own undertaking not to do so, and thus must lose that point for that reason.

Yes it needs to be broken down. A good and venerable method of doing so is that of pleadings at common law, which were specifically designed for this purpose. They basically apply Aristotelian logic impartially to disputed propositions, enabling them to be indefinitely broken down into their component sub-issues. Pleadings were used to identify the issues before a hearing, thus eliminating matters that were either agreed or irrelevant. Once defined, the parties would then proceed to show evidence or reason for their case, with the party asserting going first.

An issue is a proposition capable of being answered yes or no, starting with ‘whether’ or ‘that’, which one party affirms and the other denies.
The party asserting a proposition must state it.
It must be stated in the positive, not the negative (“that X is not true”).
The other side can then either admit each proposition, deny it, or admit it but say it doesn’t have the effect the other side is contending for, in which case it then becomes a sub-issue which the responder must state.
The general issue is the proposition which, answered one way or the other, concludes the whole argument in favour of one party or the other. Every other proposition is a sub-issue.
The party asserting has the onus of proof.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 28 March 2013 8:03:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“For instance does a 'warmist' need to have concluded all three of your propositions?”

Depends how we define the issues. I think you need first to state the warmist case, because I can’t propose in the negative, and I can’t state your case for you.

I said the ‘anthropogenic, detrimental, improvable by policy’ bit in an attempt to compendiously define the issues. However I don’t see how a warmist can avoid asserting the three elements that I proposed because
a) the anthropogenic part is the warmists’, not mine
b) so is the detrimental bit; if it’s not detrimental I don’t care, so there’s no issue, and
c) if you’re not proposing a policy response, then again I don’t care, so there’s no issue.

“so in the spirit of magnanimity I will let it stand just as I am prepared to let you avoid producing a data set but I think it only fair I get to play that card once too.”

For the two reasons I have given, I don’t need to produce a data set, because
a) it’s not a fallacy to concede something from the outset, because it’s merely filtering out what is not in issue; and
b) an issue must be stated in the positive (the globe is warming), not in the negative (the globe is not warming), and the onus of proof is on the party asserting.

I have conceded the issue about whether there’s sustained warming because I am confident that the warmists cannot establish their justification of policy even in their own terms. But if I had not conceded it, I still wouldn’t have had to produce a data set because the onus of proof starts out on you to prove your case, not on me to disprove it.

Let us proceed? Will you accept my challenge and state your case?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 28 March 2013 8:05:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

The agreed parameters at the very start of our exchange was that our questions would go 'one for one'. You agreed saying “Thanks for your challenge which I gladly accept.”

I took the time to formulate a question that was pared down, free from supposition, and one I would have thought provided a perfect building block.

You then chuck the whole kiln at me. Has 'one to one' now become 'one to many'? If so then lets agree to change the rules.

Look at what you put to me.

“As that point is no longer in issue, pray tell us how you get from there to your conclusion that the sustained global warming, which we are indubitably experiencing, is anthropogenic, detrimental, and amenable to improvement by policy?”

Let us list the assumptions.

Firstly you assumed the 'point' was not longer an issue. Surely this is something I need to agree to. Having thought about it I assessed the risk of you 'pulling the foundation stone' as sufficiently low that I acquiesed, nevertheless I feel the protocols under which I thought we were operating would dictate that you were at the very least being presumptive.

Next your question assumes I have concluded that all the sustained global warming is due to anthropogenic factors. You have not ascertained this to be the case either by asking me directly or providing evidence through citing previous quotes of mine so why state it as a given? Also doesn't this raise the Fallacy of the single cause where 'it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes?'

Cont..
Posted by csteele, Thursday, 28 March 2013 4:39:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's an excellent article in The Economist.

In summary - no one bloody knows!

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Posted by Janama, Thursday, 28 March 2013 6:03:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Csteele
Can I just say, while you are paused…

“I took the time to formulate a question that was pared down, free from supposition, and one I would have thought provided a perfect building block.”

Well as I’ve agreed to it, it does make a perfect building block.

“Firstly you assumed the 'point' [whether the world is experiencing sustained global warming] was no longer an issue. Surely this is something I need to agree to.”

You already agree that the world is experiencing sustained global warming. You’re the one asserting it, aren’t you?

Therefore since I’ve conceded that proposition, we’re both saying ‘yes’ to the same proposition, which means it’s not an issue. So it’s not being presumptuous of me to treat is as a non-issue. The only way it could be an issue now is if you’re denying that the world is experiencing sustained global warming.

“Next your question assumes I have concluded that all the sustained global warming is due to anthropogenic factors.”

It’s not me arguing the warmist case, it’s you. I’m asking you to tell me what it is. I thought I was making a fair representation of it because, as I understand the warmists’ argument, it’s that we face extra-ordinary warming that risks being extra-ordinarily detrimental, enough to warrant international governmental action to control carbon usage.

“You have not ascertained this to be the case either by asking me directly or providing evidence through citing previous quotes of mine so why state it as a given?”

I state it as a given because surely it's common ground to all parties to the debate that the issue is whether the alleged global warming is anthropogenic? Why should I have to ask you whether you agree it's anthropogenic?

But if it’s not, then by all means forget my attempt to represent the issues, and do you please go right ahead.

“Also doesn't this raise the Fallacy of the single
cause…?”

You tell me. What is the warmist case you want me to answer?

What do you want me to do?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 28 March 2013 7:46:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Note: Sorry JKJ, hit hard up against the posting limit. Please forgive me but I will post the rest of what I had prepared as I am now very short of time. The only thing I will say about your above post is that when I wrote that “Next your question assumes I have concluded that all the sustained global warming is due to anthropogenic factors.” the operative word is 'all'. I feel I'm holding you to the standard you would have me display. Now to the rest of my reply, hopefully it lets me deliver the third one.

Cont..

You have also assumed I have concluded the substantial warming we are experiencing is going to be either entirely, or on balance detrimental. Once again you have not taken the opportunity to ascertained this to be the case either by asking me directly or providing evidence through citing previous quotes of mine.

Finally you have assumed I have concluded the sustained global warming 'amenable to improvement by policy'. Of course there is the initial charge that once again you have not taken the opportunity to ascertained this to be the case either by asking me directly or providing evidence through citing previous quotes of mine but look at the basic logic of your words. If we take them at their face value then 'improvement' would surely mean a 'greater amount of'.

To the issue of you providing a data set. You claim “it’s not a fallacy to concede something from the outset, because it’s merely filtering out what is not in issue”. What could be more germane to the climate change argument than acknowledging the Earth is experiencing a sustained period of warming? Conceding for the sake of argument or because “I am confident that the warmists cannot establish their justification of policy even in their own terms” is vastly different to accepting the premise. As stated I am happy to move on but felt the point needed to be made.

Cont..
Posted by csteele, Thursday, 28 March 2013 9:57:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont..

So where does that leave us? I think the only way forward is to continue building until we find our real point of contention. Therefore I will state what I see as preliminary givens. If you want to challenge any of them I will then undertake to furnish evidence to support them.

1. CO2, where present in a atmosphere at a planetary level, contributes toward the so called 'greenhouse effect' which in turn raises temperatures above what they would be if without the presence of this gas.
2. CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect on this planet.
3. CO2 levels on Earth are increasing at a sustained rate.
4. Human activity causes increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Of course I am not expecting any conclusions or 'joinings' to be drawn at this point, just that we continue building on some solid foundations.

I had the impression from your earlier posts on this thread that this was what you valued. If you would rather 'rip and tear' let me know.

Finally you put;

“I think you need first to state the warmist case, because I can’t propose in the negative, and I can’t state your case for you.” Fine, but if this heads where I think it might you also need to be prepared to state the denialist case, because I also can’t propose in the negative, nor can I state your case for you.

I am enjoying your informative explanations at the end of you posts so thank you.
Posted by csteele, Thursday, 28 March 2013 9:59:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Messrs Jardine & Steele,

Thank you for a most enlightening teasing-out of the preliminary settings for AGW issues.

Hopefully, we might move on now to the actual issues :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 29 March 2013 9:34:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"1. CO2, where present in a atmosphere at a planetary level, contributes toward the so called 'greenhouse effect' which in turn raises temperatures above what they would be if without the presence of this gas.
2. CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect on this planet.
3. CO2 levels on Earth are increasing at a sustained rate.
4. Human activity causes increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Seems a reasonable set of parameters; "sustained rate" needs defining; some sources say CO2 increase is linear, others exponential.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 29 March 2013 6:20:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth
I hope so too as I have never seen a warmist argument that, when challenged, does not fall back to logical fallacies especially appeal to absent authority and begging the question. So without trying to eliminate that possibility, there’s no point discussing the issues, or we’ll just be back to the usual loop.

csteele
Do you explicitly renounce recourse to logical fallacies or not?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 29 March 2013 6:44:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

I sincerely hope we are explicitly renouncing them together.

I feel I have demonstrated that I have taken my side of this shared responsibility to heart, studying up what constitutes logical fallacies, identifying them when they have been utilised by your good self in recent posts, and taking on board your analysis when you have given it.

May they slip into my replies unintended on the odd occasion? Probably, as I think they may yours, but I would of course have the good manners to allow you the opportunity to correct your offerings to conform with our agreed rules.

If you, for whatever reason, deem this inadequate we can apply a three strike or even a single strike and you are out rule. However I think 'correction' might serve us better, not only for the sake of the discussion but also for our small but distinguished, though possibly slightly impatient, audience.

May I take this opportunity to note that to be precise my points 2 and 3 should read 'Atmospheric CO2'.

If this all finds favour in your eyes then let the building continue! Well at least within the constraints of a four post limit.
Posted by csteele, Friday, 29 March 2013 7:32:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Csteele

1. Renouncing fallacies
“I sincerely hope we are explicitly renouncing them together.”

I’ll take that as a yes you renounce them; correct me if I’m wrong.

“However I think 'correction' might serve us better…”

I agree. Best way is, if one thinks the other’s argument fallacious, to point it out and give reasons. For my part I renounce recourse to fallacies; and correct me if you notice one that I don’t.

2. Joining issue
I will be putting you to proof of your last four propositions and from here on.

As you are now entered on propositions which go to the question whether the sustained global warming that is common ground, is anthropogenic, I don’t know why you took exception to me saying that the issues include whether its anthropogenic.

So I wish you would cut to the chase and let us know if you intend to contend whether the sustained global warming is
1. anthropogenic
2. detrimental rather than neutral or beneficial; and if so, significant enough to warrant political action
3. amenable to improvement by policy.

If you don’t intend to affirm these or similar propositions, especially 2. and 3., there’s nothing to argue about.

And if you do, I think the warmists’ case gets progressively much harder for them to prove in that order.

So if you do intend to argue points 1 to 3 above, and had intended to proceed by establishing common ground, proposition by proposition, from 1 to 3, then I would like to advise against that, for two reasons.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 30 March 2013 4:54:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
a) As it is common ground that recourse to fallacies is not allowed, and as appeal to absent authority is a fallacy, therefore you will have to prove each proposition by showing evidence and reason for it in this thread. Posting links that you claim prove your point will not do: I am not to be sent on an errand to construct your argument for you.

Showing evidence and reason on all the issue of climate science will require a very voluminous correspondence on many questions of particular facts and methodolgly which are in issue. This process will be very involved and time-consuming.

b) It will all have ultimately served no purpose if, as I predict, you turn out to be completely unable to even begin establishing your case as to the issues of ecology, or of economics. Anthropogenic global warming is necessary, but nowhere near sufficient to the warmists’ argument, which is that it’s likely to be highly detrimental, and requires an urgent high level international policy response.

Therefore I would like to suggest that you start at the other end. Let us strike to the root. Talk of global warming would not be a public issue if no-one’s liberty or property were to be violated on the pretext of political action to remedy it. It will save us a lot of time if you can prove your case in favour of a policy response, because if you can’t, the rest will be redundant.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 30 March 2013 4:55:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

I think a pessimist and cynic would look at your last post and decide you were declaring the result before the contest had really begun. However I am an eternal optimist.

We do however seem to have gone directly from (in your words) 'a perfect building block ' to 'show me the whole structure or there is no point in continuing'. From my very hazy recollection of the Greeks this was not the form of argument they took nor what I had assumed to be the one you initially flagged for our exchange.

You write;

“Showing evidence and reason on all the issue of climate science will require a very voluminous correspondence on many questions of particular facts and methodolgly(sic) which are in issue. This process will be very involved and time-consuming.”

As I am not a climate scientist nor I wager are you then this may well be seen by some as an attempt to declare the contest won by setting the bar impossibly high. Not I of course because you have indicated a desire to not argue from bad faith, which of course this would undoubtedly be. To require proofs at each and every step, regardless of whether the other party deems them truly contentious or not, would not be efficient, fair, nor in the Aristotelian spirit.

Cont..
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 30 March 2013 8:19:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

I would have thought the most obvious way forward, without inflicting the onerous burden of describing the history of science from its infancy or to wade through its innumerable proofs, is to behave like gentlemen and continue building until we reach our true point of contention.

For instance if I were to say that through the application of accepted physics I predict the Sun will come up tomorrow, and you decide to reject that prediction, I think I have the right to ask you to narrow down the particular physical law that you are contending will not be valid tomorrow. It could be the conservation of momentum, the theory of gravity, nuclear physics, planetary physics etc.

So when I present you with the following;

1. CO2, where present in a atmosphere at a planetary level, contributes toward the so called 'greenhouse effect' which in turn raises temperatures above what they would be if without the presence of this gas.
2. Atmospheric CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect on this planet.
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels on Earth are increasing at a sustained rate.
4. Human activity causes increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I feel I am entitled to pose these for consideration as givens and expect that only in the circumstance of you find any of these contentious would you require proof. For instance if you do not accept that human activity causes increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere then tell me and we can then set about debating that point otherwise let us accept it as a given and move forward.

You must agree that if this was indeed the point of contention then it would be silly to be asked to lay out extensive proofs for the rest.

Or to paraphrase your good self 'It will save us a lot of time if you can lay out your point of contention and see if we can move beyond it, because if we can’t, the rest will be redundant.
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 30 March 2013 8:21:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I feel I am entitled to pose these for consideration as givens and expect that only in the circumstance of you find any of these contentious would you require proof."

I have considered them as givens, and find all of them contentious. Each one of them contains numerous assumptions and sub-issues that go not just to the questions of positive science, but also to the methodology and theories to arrive at those propositions.

But there's a much more fundamental point that you keep going past without closing on, and your last post avoids this fundamental point yet again.

For reasons I have given, the major point of contention is that EVEN IF all the climatology were granted, which it's not, it would not be sufficient for the rest of the warmist argument to follow - far from it. You would still be two complete refutations away from even beginning to make a case that the world faces anthropogenic global warming that is significantly detrimental and justifies a policy response.

But we don't even know if you're arguing that yet, because you refuse to state your case!

If you rest the warmist case on the climatology alone, then you must lose the argument, because climatology does not supply value judgments, and policy requires them. The best that could be said of the line of reasoning you are now following is that, even if it were granted, it would end in a simple non sequitur, and so it is common ground that the warmists must lose that argument.

But if you don't rest the warmist case on the climatology alone, then you need to state the case you are asserting and which you want me to answer.

I have told you the real point of contention. Would you please now specifically let us know whether or not the warmist argument you are offering to defend, includes that sustained global warming is
1. anthropogenic
2. detrimental rather than neutral or beneficial; and if so, significant enough to warrant political action
3. amenable to improvement by policy.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 30 March 2013 10:17:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

There is a sense that having laid the minefield you are reluctant to take a step.

“I have considered them as givens, and find all of them contentious. Each one of them contains numerous assumptions and sub-issues that go not just to the questions of positive science, but also to the methodology and theories to arrive at those propositions.”

Yet when I look at a given such as “Atmospheric CO2 levels on Earth are increasing at a sustained rate.” I see it as something that is thoroughly quantitative and the most basic of scientific data collection. Why don't you?

Perhaps it might help if I change the terminology to better reflect your own. I offer the following 'proposals';

That CO2, where present in a atmosphere at a planetary level, contributes toward the so called 'greenhouse effect' which in turn raises temperatures above what they would be if without the presence of this gas.
That Atmospheric CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect on this planet.
That Atmospheric CO2 levels on Earth are increasing at a sustained rate.
That Human activity causes increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So let us apply your afore stated proscriptions which were;

So are the above “capable of being answered yes or no, starting with ‘whether’ or ‘that’ “? Yes they are.

“The party asserting a proposition must state it.” Done.

“It must be stated in the positive, not the negative (“that X is not true”).” Done.

“The other side can then either admit each proposition, deny it, or admit it but say it doesn’t have the effect the other side is contending for, in which case it then becomes a sub-issue which the responder must state.”

So my dear fellow I invite you to either admit, deny, or admit but say it doesn’t have the effect on what I am contending for, the above propositions.

Obfuscation; “(or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, wilfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret”,

However delicious the word “beclouding” our path surely is now clear.
Posted by csteele, Sunday, 31 March 2013 1:15:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a bloviator you are csteele; you posit some elelmentary leading questions, quaint but typical in their quasi-syllogistic form and then preen yourself for being smart.

Let's take the first one:

"That CO2, where present in a atmosphere at a planetary level, contributes toward the so called 'greenhouse effect' which in turn raises temperatures above what they would be if without the presence of this gas."

Define 'greenhouse effect'; consider how a bare increase in the emissivity of the gases in the atmosphere due to the presence of CO2 can cause heating; consider how it can be that atmospheric pressure does not contribute to the temperature profile of the atmosphere; explain how the increase in emissivity of the gases of the atmosphere, at Earth conditions, caused by an increase in CO2, can increase the temperature profile of the atmosphere.

Explain the mechanism by which CO2 causes the energy balance of the Earth to become negative.

Do not dissemble by reasserting I have not answered your 'question' about the title of this article; it has been answered but your didactic pedantry prevents you from accepting that.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 31 March 2013 7:36:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele
I’m torn between admitting, admitting but saying it doesn’t prove what you’re contending, and denying.

However there’s no need for me to choose because you’ve just lost the argument.

If I admit your four propositions, then at that point you’ve lost the argument because AT BEST you will have ended in a non sequitur, because you still won’t have established any reason for anyone to do anything about global warming.

If I admit your four propositions but say they still don’t establish the warmist argument, the same result follows.

And if I deny them, the same result still follows, only you’d have to prove them first, and at the end of all that, you’d still be stuck with a non sequitur.

Therefore, any way we look at it, you’ve just lost the argument because you’ve ended in a logical fallacy. You cannot plead that the rest of your case would prove you right, because you refuse to say what it is despite my repeated requests, remember?

The only way out, would be for you to state all the propositions that comprise your case, which you have so far studiously avoided doing for obvious reasons: because you know you can’t defend them! Do you think your evasions aren't glaringly obvious?

All
I have just demonstrated again that the warmist argument cannot be defended without evasion and falling back to fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy.

QED.

Any other warmists accept my challenge to renounce logical fallacies, state your case, and prove it?

If you do, go ahead.

If you don’t, then the inescapable conclusion is that none of you is able to defend your irrational belief system. As soon as you can be brought, squirming and trying to get out of it, to renounce logical fallacies, it’s ONE STEP to disprove your entire argument, EVEN IF your main factual allegation is already conceded!

Being irrational, your belief system cannot be scientific. It’s just a modern version of the religious doctrine of original sin; and the carbon tax is just a modern version of the selling of indulgences, that’s all.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 31 March 2013 3:09:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele,

It's all about JKJ "winning", don't you see.

His favourite drum to beat is the one about "logical fallacies" which we all know is the "skeptics" preferred method for countering opposing argument. It's wall-to-wall strawmen sometimes : )

When he used to be Peter Hume, it was common to see him lauding his own prowess, acting triumphal in all his self-congratulatory splendour.

It's been quite entertaining watching him attempt to make the rules, take part in the game - and now claim victory.

(Hoorah!, JKJ....makes me wonder why you bother to ask people to debate. You may as well just cut out the middle-man and declare the victory celebrations)
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 31 March 2013 6:05:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

"It's all about JKJ "winning"

Ad hominem: fallacy.

See? That's all the warmists have got. Poirot openly mocks the idea the criterion of rationality.

No, Poirot, it's nothing to do with me personally, and the same issues would still exist no matter my personal circumstances. it's about whether csteele, or you, or anyone can demonstrate that the globe faces anthropogenic detrimental global warming that policy can improve.

Your latest post doesn't prove it, does it? No. csteele's attempt doesn't prove it, does it? No. Nothing that anyone has posted anywhere at any time proves it, does it? No. If it did, you would say what it is.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 31 March 2013 6:16:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

Wow. I felt we were moving toward addressing the first of your questions; whether there were anthropogenic factors contributing to the sustained global warming. It appears you have decided not to make that journey. You were indeed torn/stuck. Sorry.

However thank you for so aptly demonstrating a further set of logical fallacies.

First;
“Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument”...“The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet, by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met” Wikipedia

Second;
“The irrelevant conclusion diverts the attention away from addressing the claim in a dispute instead of analysing its content. This is also called Ignoratio Elenchi or a "red herring".” Wikipedia

Thirdly you wrote;
“Any other warmists accept my challenge to renounce logical fallacies, state your case, and prove it?. If you do, go ahead. If you don’t, then the inescapable conclusion is that none of you is able to defend your irrational belief system.”

There couldn't be a plainer example of "Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.” Wikipedia

You obviously have a deep love for the term fallacy as you have used it or its derivative over 40 times in this thread and even three times in the one sentence. But you should be aware sometimes love is just not enough. You need to take the time to learn its true meaning, its many forms, and recognise them not only when used by others but also when it applies to your own words. May I further advise a more judicious use in the future, at least until you get a better handle on it.

I owe you a debt for reacquainting me with logical fallacies and of course for demonstrating them so robustly. Thank you.
Posted by csteele, Sunday, 31 March 2013 7:51:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Csteele

I’ve shown that your argument ends in a non sequitur. You haven’t shown how it doesn’t.

That means you’ve lost the entire argument. Nothing you have said changes that.

My alleged fallacies:
1.
“Moving the goalposts”

The goal posts have always been the same: whether you, or anyone, can establish the warmist argument without relying on logical fallacies; NOT the four propositions on which you are stuck in non sequitur.

It's you moving the goalposts.

Fail.

2.
““The irrelevant conclusion diverts the attention away from addressing the claim in a dispute instead of analysing its content.”

My conclusion that you are stuck in a non sequitur is not “irrelevant”. So much for your “sincere hope” that you renounce fallacies!

The “claim in a dispute” is your claim that “As one of your warmists I'm happy to address any question you might have for me”

And my questions are: “what is the warmists' argument in summary? Assuming there is sustained global warming, how do you get from there to a conclusion in favour of policy action?”

So you’ve lost, because you haven’t stated the warmists argument in summary. And you haven’t given any reason why anyone should do anything about it.

Fail.

3.
"…Argument from silence … where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence,”

My conclusion isn’t based on absence of evidence. It’s based on the evidence that, having challenged you to state and prove your argument without reliance on fallacies, you have failed to state it, ending in a logical fallacy.

Fail.

Therefore all your allegations of fallacies on my part, are themselves just more fallacies on yours.

Even if my alleged fallacies were real which they aren’t, you would still have lost the argument because you’ve got the onus of proof, not me, remember?

“You obviously have a deep love for the term fallacy…”
reflecting only your persistence in error.

Ad hominem; mind-reading; irrelevant.

We can only wonder what motivates the warmists to continue snidely arguing for a belief system that they cannot defend, but it’s obvious that they knowingly embrace and push false beliefs.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 31 March 2013 8:44:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ,

You are most fulsomely entertaining : )

There you are issuing "fails" and declaring your opponent has lost the argument, banging on interminably about "fallacies" (while setting up your own big fat strawman that "warmists" start out from an "irrational" standpoint.

Let's backtrack a way and see what you wrote:

"Science means what the DATA says not by what the AUTHORITIES say...."

In the next breath he is stating: "And this is quite apart from any question of dodgy assumptions in the science, manipulation, suppression and falsification of data, systemic bias and outright fraud."

csteele, you would have been battling uphill to argue against this pearler of a denier, even if he had stopped moving the cricket pitch all over the ground. If you give him the DATA, then he is likely (as most "skeptics" do) to pull out the "dodgy assumptions, manipulation, suppression, falsification of data, systemic bias and outright fraud - in short "it's a conspiracy"!

JKJ says this: ".....When challenged to actually prove by data, we get links to articles in the mass media that make all the same assumptions as warmists do; and endless chain of the fallacy of equivocation"

Remember Watts yellow line? I link to this http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/fact-checking-the-cherry-pickers-anthony-watts-edition/ to explain why it was wrong. For that I got a whole lot of cheek from cohenite the lawyer. This happens all the time. I link to a scientific explanation and deniers pull out the conspiracy theories just like you have above. It's their fallback stance.

(csteele - you can add eight more mentions of the word fallacy to your count:)

And JKJ, don't let us interrupt the celebrations. A self-declared "winner" who delights in changing the rules as he goes along is a rare bird - congrats on that!
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 31 March 2013 10:24:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

This is really great fun and now you truly have become a guilty pleasure.

So let us continue.

The 'non sequitur' was always going to be your get out of jail card wasn't it. In reality if you were going to employ it in that fashion you could have done so straight after accepting that the world was experiencing sustained global warming.

Your retort could well have read; 'I admit your proposition, and at this point you’ve lost the argument because AT BEST you will have ended in a non sequitur, because you still haven't established any reason for anyone to do anything about global warming.'

You just wanted to save it until you felt stuck/torn.

However the way you have chosen to employ it is quite nonsensical and does raise questions about your understanding of the term.

Shall we explore it together.

“In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.” Wikipedia

Implicit in this is the understanding that the party who raises the propositions also gets to raise the conclusion. I delivered four propositions, but you declared the conclusion as delivering a “reason for anyone to do anything about global warming”. You sir have created the disconnect not I therefore your claim that you have won is incorrect and without logic.

More to follow.

Dear Poirot,

A battle uphill? I said at the start this could be diverting and indeed it has. I'm not sure it could be described as a battle. We are just picking our way through an amicable discussion.
Posted by csteele, Sunday, 31 March 2013 10:48:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi CSteele,

I think you might have found a new form of 'red herring', or 'straw-man' - I've been calling it the 'wounded goose' ploy (I think I have to attribute it to Cohenite).

You write:

"I said at the start this could be diverting and indeed it has. I'm not sure it could be described as a battle. We are just picking our way through an amicable discussion."

Yes ! Divert ! A brilliant tactic !

The trouble is that you can only use this tactic once, once obervers start to twig to it.

Okay, back to topic - should religious rubbish be taught in state-funded schools, Christian, Muslim, Judaist, Buddhist, whatever ?

I'm suggesting that it is completely unnecessary in a modern, post-Enlightenment society. Secular values are adequate. Waddaya reckon ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 31 March 2013 11:04:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

Now to your answers to the charge of employing logical fallacies. Post constraints mean at this time I shall examine just the third one as this is the least defensible.

You initially wrote;

“Any other warmists accept my challenge to renounce logical fallacies, state your case, and prove it?. If you do, go ahead. If you don’t, then the inescapable conclusion is that none of you is able to defend your irrational belief system.”

I charged that;

“There couldn't be a plainer example of "Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.” Wikipedia

You defended yourself with;

“My conclusion isn’t based on absence of evidence. It’s based on the evidence that, having challenged you to state and prove your argument without reliance on fallacies, you have failed to state it, ending in a logical fallacy.”

The evidence you were calling for was 'other warmists' willing to state their case. In the absence of said evidence, you drew your conclusion “that none of you is able to defend your irrational belief system”. That my good sir is a “conclusion is based on the absence of evidence”.

Please note you have gone from “other warmists” in your original proposition to referring directly to me in your explanation/defence. Two separate entities and thus risking a charge of a further fallacy.

In the spirit of our earlier agreement I offer you the opportunity to rephrase your defence to better reflect the particulars of your original assertion.
Posted by csteele, Sunday, 31 March 2013 11:12:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here you go, JKJ. When you're finished with your present exercise in whatever it is you're trying to prove (apart from your own superiority), perhaps you'd like to peruse the response from Marcott et al:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Straight from the horse's mouth (and not via "mass media")
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 1 April 2013 12:28:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that, Poirot:

"Summary and FAQ’s related to the study by Marcott et al. (2013, Science)

"Prepared by Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, and Alan C. Mix

"Primary results of study

"Global Temperature Reconstruction: We combined published proxy temperature records from across the globe to develop regional and global temperature reconstructions spanning the past ~11,300 years with a resolution >300 yr; previous reconstructions of global and hemispheric temperatures primarily spanned the last one to two thousand years. To our knowledge, our work is the first attempt to quantify global temperature for the entire Holocene.

"Structure of the Global and Regional Temperature Curves: We find that global temperature was relatively warm from approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years before present. Following this interval, global temperature decreased by approximately 0.7°C, culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene around 200 years before present during what is commonly referred to as the Little Ice Age. The largest cooling occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.

"Holocene Temperature Distribution: Based on comparison of the instrumental record of global temperature change with the distribution of Holocene global average temperatures from our paleo-reconstruction, we find that the decade 2000-2009 has probably not exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene, but is warmer than ~75% of all temperatures during the Holocene. In contrast, the decade 1900-1909 was cooler than~95% of the Holocene. Therefore, we conclude that global temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene in the past century. Further, we compare the Holocene paleotemperature distribution with published temperature projections for 2100 CE, and find that these projections exceed the range of Holocene global average temperatures under all plausible emissions scenarios."

0.7 degrees. Wow.

So what factors have been 'causing' these trends ? AGW alone ? or what ?

And are we now back where we were 5,000 years ago ? What was going on then ? A shift in many parts of the world from nomadic hunter-gathering to agriculture and urbanisation ? And how did that turn out ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 1 April 2013 9:33:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, you are a compulsive linker devoid of understanding of what you link to; Marcott is finished in terms of data and technique and is a nadir for even the standards of AGW 'science'; you know this when even a died in the wool believer like Raypierre Humbert says:

"As noted in the FAQ, the time resolution of reconstruction is approximately a century. Thus, it is not quite fair to compare the reconstruction to instrumental data that is not smoothed to the same time resolution. It is conceivable that there are individual centuries in the Altithermal where the temperature rose as fast as today, and to the same extent or more, but these would not show up in a record smoothed to 100 year time resolution. I think this is very unlikely, but the paper doesn’t strictly rule out the possibility. This remark applies only to the warming of the past 100 years. Where we are going in the next century is so extreme it would show up even if smoothed down to the centennial resolution, I think."

Humbert skates around the issue but his basic scientific training comes through; Marcott simply smoothed away all the nasty warm periods in the past. All that is left is the future, which like bad used car salemen the AGW prophets assure us will be bad unless we buy their snake oil now.

csteele, your 'complaint about Watts' 'yellow line' has been answered above at Saturday, 16 March 2013 4:41:57 PM, in reply to Agro who has disappeared into the ether; to persist with your claim can only mean you are a person who is incapable of conceding error.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 1 April 2013 5:53:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, well cohenite, I don't pretend I have the expertise of a climate scientist (like you do, for instance) so I link to scientists who do possess it. You never know what you might turn up when someone with real knowledge examines papers...take this for instance - the Stockwell and Cox paper being given the once over http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/step-3/

As for your reference that Raypierre Humbert states that it's "conceivable" that temperature rose as fast as today - so what? The reality is that it's highly unlikely.

"....Marcott simply smoothed away all the nasty warm periods in the past..."

I can understand why a "skeptic" like yourself would make that accusation. It's the sort of bunkum that turns up regularly when real scientists deconstruct denialist blather (like Watts' yellow line).....you guys think that if it's par for the course in denier-land, then everyone must do it.

Wrong.....
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 1 April 2013 7:11:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh yes Poirot; the step has been vindicated by many people:

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/2011-09.pdf

You won't bother reading let alone understand McKitrick's paper on the 1976 'step', so I will explain where Tamino went wrong. Tamino agrees the step statistical analysis is valid but then pulls a rabbit out of a hat and announces the linear trend is better at representing AGW than the step model, thus contradicting his initial statement that AGW isn’t based on a linear temperature trend.

Anyway, statistical analysis of physical processes is only valid if it is correlated with physical causes. In respect of steps in temperature trend, there is a multitude of papers which have statistically documented the climate shift and consequent step in temperature in 1976, including Breusch and Vahid, who did the statistical work for Garnaut’s reports, Tsonis and Swanson, Seidel, Lindzen, Bratcher, McKitrick etc, all with peer reviewed papers, and who have correlated that step with actual physical process.

That is the key and is why AGW science has gone down the rabbit hole.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 1 April 2013 7:30:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, even amateur 'sceptics' can question real scientists at sites like Real Climate, Open Mind, whatever.

The challenge for people like Anthony Cox is to do just that - they won't and you know why.
Posted by qanda, Monday, 1 April 2013 9:00:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKJ,

Early in our discussion I wrote the following;

“Perhaps we should seek someone who we can agree would give a fair adjudication on transgressions otherwise it will be open to either of us picking up the bat and ball and declaring ourselves a winner.”

Yet in good faith I agreed to proceed without a judge.

It is a deep failing of mine that I constantly ignore my prescient guardian angel.

I will be here if you ever want to return with the bat and ball.

However even if you don't I hope you now have a far greater appreciation of what constitutes a logical fallacy, I know I do.
Posted by csteele, Monday, 1 April 2013 10:24:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi qanda - yes, the opportunity is always there to ask questions. We're indebted to scientists who make themselves accessible : )
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 9:28:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We're indebted to scientists who make themselves accessible : )"

And who would that be, Karoly:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/03/comedy-s-hot-new-duo-manne-and-karoly

And what about that honest scientific broker Hansen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/science/james-e-hansen-retiring-from-nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

These guys are not scientists, they are activists and their message is tainted by that purpose; but then, you don't care Poirot because you are an activist too.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 10:44:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Really?...I'm an activist?

You know what the score is in reality.

Climate scientists have been caught on the back foot by the sheer scale an viciousness of the denialist movement. Scientists have usually been able to pursue their work without being subject to personal attacks and withering amateur critiques by people who have little scientific expertise.

That some scientists, against their usual prerogatives, are now taking a stand, is indicative of their frustration at amateurs debasing scientists and the scientific process in order to promote doubt and maintain "business" as usual.

We have whole sites set up to disseminate junk science and ridicule scientists. (Watts and Nova are but two examples)

Why wouldn't some climate scientists take up the stand?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 11:05:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Why wouldn't some climate scientists take up the stand?"

No reason; as long as they do what Hansen has done and get off the public payroll and don't hide behind scientific or academic impartiality to give imprimateur and authority to their views which are not scientific, at least about AGW.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 11:58:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Anthony,

Graham Young, the owner of this site, writes "If someone tells you that human activity isn’t contributing to global warming they are a nutter, not a skeptic."

http://www.ambitgambit.com/2013/03/25/climate-skeptic-in-charge-of-climate/

Are you a nutter Anthony?

And if you are not then is JKJ?
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 8:46:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do try not to be puerile csteele.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 9:19:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quite serious actually my dear fellow.

Do you believe that “human activity is contributing to global warming”?

If you do then when approximately did you come to this conclusion?

If you don't then how do you feel being referred to as a nutter?
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 11:37:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele
The end result remains that you haven't proved the warmist argument or anything near what is sufficient to prove it, and you don't even dare to state what it is - for obvious reasons. All further talk from you is more mere evasion.

cohenite
Since climatology does not, and cannot vindicate the warmists' argument, the issue really bcomes one of psychology. What motivates warmists to propagate their belief system?

For professional intellectuals, dependent on the State, no doubt Leo Tolstoy's quote has explaining power:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

But what explains the non-climatologists who are nevertheless educated people, like Poirot and csteele, actively and persistently clinging to their previous opinions, even knowing that they don't make sense? We know that they know because they have been shown logical disproofs over and over again which they do not and cannot refute, but instead answer with fallacy after fallacy. While mocking the criterion of rationality, they claim to stand for "science"! But science doesn't proceed by circular blind faith, and links to the ABC and the Guardian for gossake LOL!

No-one can be a confused as they are pretending to be. No sir, what we're dealing with here is an ideologically-based commitment to blatant intellectual dishonesty.

So I leave the discussion where I began: pointing out that the warmists have nothing but endless fallacies, have lost the debate over and over again, when challenged instantly descend into personality, and have never in any forum provided evidence or reason to prove their contention that we face catastrophic global warming that policy can improve.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 6:01:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter

Psychological mechanism of denial:

Accuse others of what you engage in yourself.
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 6:12:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Accuse others of what you engage in yourself."

Tell Lewandowsky.

csteele, having been comprehensively scuttled and revealed as nothing but a pedantic empty vessel you resort to, rather enemic, insults. So, I'm a nutter.

My view on AGW is here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html

My concern is that AGW science has now become propoganda and in being such real insight into climate and how it affects humanity is stymied by the ideological preoccupation with CO2.

In respect of CO2 I have posed questions about its effects on climate above; you have ignored them; they are cogent and go to the heart of why AGW is a lie.

In my opinion those who support AGW fall into a few categories; the ignorant and gullible, the ideological, the spivs and those who know better but who lie.

Now, address the questions csteele or state which category of AGW supporter you fall into.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 7:53:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

So you're exiting, having produced exactly nil scientific exposition on your assertion than AGW is false.

What you did perform was your usual rhetorical smoke and mirrors act, whereby your only ambition is to set yourself up as "the winner", almost completely disregarding the issue at hand.

You know that there have been plenty of links in these debates to peer-reviewed material on AGW - but that's where your conspiracy theory kicks in. You can't lose with your type of customised debate, can you. If someone does produce the goods, you can immediately cast the author as a fraud.

That's if anyone can catch up to you as you move the goalposts around the field.

What a joke : )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 9:09:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Anthony,

Here you are in a post a couple of years back.

“Even if you accept AGW is real, which it isn't...if AGW is real, which it isn't...Clearly therefore, if AGW is real, which it isn't...”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13019#224612

AGW is an acronym for Anthropogenic Global Warming – global warming caused by human activity.

I repeat Graham Young, the owner of this site, writes "If someone tells you that human activity isn’t contributing to global warming they are a nutter, not a skeptic."

So the questions I put to you are perfectly valid.

Do you believe that “human activity is contributing to global warming”?

If you do then when approximately did you come to this conclusion?

If you don't then how do you feel being referred to as a nutter?
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 11:52:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sad and pathetic; how old are you csteele, 10? Look everyone, I caught the big bad man in a contradiction; aren't I clever. Only there isn't a contradiction csteele which would be apparent to even your blinkered understanding if you read the links previously provided to you:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 12:28:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Anthony,

LOL.

Yet you have the hide to condemn me for not directly answering questions.

But hey mate, I understand your reluctance. I would be defensive in your position too but when the ground becomes unsteady it is time to check the lance and hop off the high horse.
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 12:59:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is your definition of AGW csteele?
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 4:09:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

"...Marcott simply smoothed away all the nasty warm periods in the past...."

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 4 April 2013 9:25:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahem, cohenite....

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/mini-ice-age-has-started-prof-warns.html

Bloody alarmists - what's the world coming to?

: )
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 4 April 2013 6:30:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, I have interpreted Tamino for you a number of times; this time you tell what he has done in your link.

You do know that Marcott has conceded their uptick is not robust, don't you?

Apart from that what Marcott shows is that the past was warmer.

I think it is a great paper in that respect.

I don't know what your point is by linking to the post at NCTCS.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 4 April 2013 7:00:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Poirot,

The paper you cited in your last post seems to assert that we are heading for a new Ice Age, perhaps even by next year - perhaps the adherents to this theory have been persuaded by the fact that, according to the paper, this past (and current) cold season in Europe is the coldest for 205 years.

But in your defence, perhaps we should suspend judgment on whether or not a New Ice Age is upon us for, let's say, fifteen or sixteen years, to enable us to really observe a definite trend.

After all, perhaps a new Ice Age, global cooling, is a consequence of our production of CO2 - this seemingly anomalous outcome will probably soon be explained in this way by somebody of the standing of Professors Flannery or Steffen, or by Mr Hansen. Whatever they say, I'm sure there will be people who believe them.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 4 April 2013 11:28:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Complex systems, Loudmouth.

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/melting-ice-and-cold-weather.html

That's why atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, etc are collectively referred to as climate scientists.

But why should we take any notice of such people?

What would they know?
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 4 April 2013 11:51:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Poirot,

Yes, of course, we should take notice of what important people say, but we should also be prepared to try to assess WHAT they say according to what we think might be the best criteria.

Ultimately, we have to do our own thinking, based on the best information that we can gather.

Cheers :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 5 April 2013 8:21:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

"Ultimately, we have to do our own thinking, based on the best information we can gather."

You're so right.

That's why there's a difference between a real skeptic and a fake skeptic.

That's also why I link to climate scientists on the subject of climate....ie they deal in "information" based on science - and their papers are usually peer-reviewed. (you know "peer-review", the process that has delivered us our post-Enlightenment world)
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 5 April 2013 8:45:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Complex systems made simple by the Rabett. The latest mantra is that a freezing Europe is consistent with a warming Arctic and Poirot links to the Rabett to prove this.

First of all a warming Arctic and freezing Europe is not evidence of AGW. This is contradicted by Jetstreams; Jetstreams work counter-intuitively and we don’t need AGW to explain some of the extremes of temperature. In a cooling world there is a lower temperature gradient between the equator and the poles; this reduces the power of the climate systems that move the heat polewards.

This in turn allows the circumpolar jet streams to expand equatorwards. This lengthens their path and wavelength and reduces their velocity. Then they are more susceptible to blocking by continental high pressure systems.

This explains why during the Maunder and Dalton minimums there did not seem to be a great reduction in average temperatures. There were however great frosts, capable of freezing rivers to a depth of eighteen inches, splitting oak trees three feet in diameter, causing the failure of winter crops, and then summer heat and drought causing the failure of spring plantings, with resultant famines.

All this has been documented by NASA:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/

"In our simulations, we find that the reduced brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum causes global average surface temperature changes of only a few tenths of a degree, in line with the small change in solar output. However, regional cooling over Europe and North America is 5-10 times larger due to a shift in atmospheric winds."

And:

"So a reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the planet leads to a weaker equator-to-pole heating difference, and therefore slower winds. The effect on surface temperatures is particularly large in winter. Because the oceans are relatively warm during the winter due to their large heat storage, the diminished flow creates a cold-land/warm-ocean pattern (Figure 3) by reducing the transport of warm oceanic air to the continents, and vice-versa."

From Rabett's:

"Our analysis suggests that Arctic sea ice concentration changes exert a remote impact on the large-scale atmospheric circulation during winter".
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 5 April 2013 9:03:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Here's something else from NASA. It's from 2004, but pertinent to this subject.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/

A little more to chew on - fresh water release during the early Holocene.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n9/full/ngeo1536.html
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 5 April 2013 1:49:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, it's not pertinent. You posted a link to a 2001 paper recently as if it were important. It's Not. Science is a moving target and everyone is adding new data.
Posted by Janama, Friday, 5 April 2013 5:43:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Poirot, but I think you are still missing the point which is understandable, after all, since it's fairly complicated. To do one's 'own thinking' is not quite the same as 'defer to authority'. A genuine sceptic certainly takes on-board the findings of people who have done the hard yards, but always with the proviso that one should be prepared to admit of anomalies, improvements and refinements to findings, a better hypothesis, etc., in short, better explanations.

After all, this is not the Middle Ages, when one believed without question, and deferred without question to one's priest. But it is the Era of Sceptics, the post-Enlightenment, in which nothing is 'the whole answer', 'the last word', to be swallowed whole without thinking, - nothing is ever finally, once and for all, closed off. Yes, one hypothesis may answer more, explain more, resolve more, than others, but acceptance is always provisional, until a better hypothesis comes along.

I think that makes up one aspect of what they call the 'scientific method', Poirot, which you can read about on Wikipedia. It's quite interesting, really. Good luck with that.

Cheers :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 5 April 2013 5:43:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

Yes, it's clear that you like to imagine that you "think for yourself". No matter what is presented to you by whom, you can't quite ignore that little gremlin in there telling you it's all a con and if you look at the science dispassionately the reality is that "..somebody, for their own ends, is crying wolf.." and you're determined not to get "...kicked in the nuts, whether by politicians, 'experts', or their useful idiots."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13951&page=0#241446

So you "thinking for yourself" is suitably nobbled from the start..

Instead when someone trained in areas associated with climate science takes the time to explain a few things to you, this is the treatment you dish out:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13951&page=0#241476

That was after he answered your inquiries here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13951&page=0#241436

No one's going to put it over Loudmouth - especially an "expert"!

Thank you for your snide and patronising opening to your last post...as in "Thanks Poirot but I think you are missing the point, which is understandable, after all, since it's fairly complicated..."

Yep...to sum up...you really are a piece of work.....(but you're a piece of work who thinks he thinks for himself...bar the seeping conspiracy mentality)

(Yes, dear, I realise you're going to squeal "ad hom" as if your usual snide rejoinders don't provoke it - go ahead "Back to topic!")
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 5 April 2013 7:46:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot they made a movie about ice melt and the freshwater disturbing ocean currents and causing a sudden ice-age.

Don't worry about it; the Arctic and Greenland ice melt appears to be cyclic:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/03/weather-not-climate-caused-the-brief-surface-melt-in-greenland-last-summer/

This is like a death-wish; combing the records for some confirmation of your expectation of doom. Give it up this is as good as it gets.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 5 April 2013 9:07:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Poirot,

Sorry, what was you point ? Sometimes it's a bit time-consuming to go through all the wet-hanky slaps which you deliver with such devastating effect.

Now, as you suggest, back to topic.

0.7 degrees global temperature rise in a century.

2 inches rise in sea-level in a century.

Wow

General Electric - and probably many other capitalist enterprises, including those in 'communist' [yeah, right] China - are seeing opportunities to massively boost their bottom line by going green.

Regardless of AGW, I'm all in favor of wind farms, vast arrays of solar panels (in Australia, for christ's sake - tell that to a South Australian), geo-thermal energy, hot rocks research, etc., etc., irrespective of whether or not there is AGW.

I don't really mind if GE makes big bucks in its switch from crap-coal-dependent electrical products to progressive/revolutionary forms of electrity generation, that's how capitalism works. Successful capitalist enterprises develop in that way, as Warren McFarlane expounded for so many years - that a product went through a cycle from star to cash cow, as he termed them, until a new product was developed. Quite brilliant really, the way he used to describe it:

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ssqFUpquFjUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=f.+warren+mcfarlan&ots=vWop0PDk0E&sig=lD-0Mf3G_IOv0RvFPQoVKSmFNiA

http://www.harbus.org/2004/A-Trip-Down-Memory-2999/

the point being that capitalist enterprises have to constantly seek for new innovations, new ways to generate profits, through innovations, new anything whatsoever that might kick off new sources of income, to get ahead of their competitors. Marx would say, "Right on".

And lo and behold [I suspect] along comes renewable sources of energy. Great ! Terrific ! Whoopee ! I'm all for it. I don't care if capitalist companies like GE make billions from it. Good on them - move away from coal. Go green, just in case.

That's called the precautionary principle, Poirot. Look it up :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 5 April 2013 11:56:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow yerself, Loudy.

I was reading this evening from a book titled "The Goldilocks Planet", and I noted this:

[Talking of the last thousand years] "Within the envelope (or at least within its individual components) there are ups and downs on the scale of years, decades, and centuries. But the overall pattern is for slightly higher temperatures early on in medieval times--the eleventh to fourteen centuries--diminishing to colder temperatures that then dominated the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. The difference in average annual temperatures between these two states is generally estimated at under one degree Celsius--and most studies suggest less than half a degree. Nevertheless, that difference in climate was palpable. These were the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and this is where climate statistics take on a human dimension: the translation is more vivid than the simple numbers might indicate. The Little Ice Age, for instance, seems to have killed off the Viking colony in Greenland in the mid-fifteenth century, after the warmth of the Medieval times had tempted the Vikings to settle there."

(So instead of asking me to "look things up", perhaps you should be educating yourself a little more fulsomely - "0.7 degrees rise in a century....Wow")

cohenite,

I actually found that quite interesting regarding the cloud cover over Greenland.

But I wonder what's going on in the Arctic circle in general?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS2ngqBDnBg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GetB-xs9D_A
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 6 April 2013 12:27:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Poirot,

Thank you for responding. I don't quite know what you are trying to say - that might be the cause of my advanced years and daily brain f@rts - but my child's brain asks, how did that Medieval Warming period go ? Was it somehow bad for there to be trees or grass and crops growing in 'Greenland' ? And was it good that the Viking colonies there, and in 'Vinland', [presumably implying grape-growing] in eastern Canada, were wiped out by some sort of, what? return to a norm ?

So ........ what was so terrible about the Medieval Warming Period ? What social advances are associated with the period bwetween 800 AC and 1400 AC ? And how did it compare, on social, environmental and economic terms, with the 0.7 degree warming of the past century ?

Are you suggesting that 'Warming periods' are actually beneficial in some way ? If so, I agree with you, we are brothers and sisters in arms :)

Resolution !

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 6 April 2013 9:44:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yo, Joe,

Be interesting to see what happens if we can nudge it up to 2 or 3 (or more) degrees Celsius.....we're in unchartered territory with such a complex climate system.

We've been able to prosper as a species because of the relative stability of climate since we arrived.

But the planetary climate can turn quite diabolically turbulent in response to even relatively modest stimuli - and has for much of the Earth's history.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 6 April 2013 10:22:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Care to start a thread on hot autumns?

Rather warm in the West lately....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-08/perth-experiences-2nd-hottest-april-day/4616896?section=wa
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 8 April 2013 8:58:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, according to BOM Tmin does increase in summer (wetter) and also spring, but is decreasing in autumn. Tmax increases slightly in winter and spring but not as much as Tmin is decreasing so definitely no winter decrease in DTR.

DTR is diurnal temperature range and according to AGW theory should be decreasing so that winters will be warming; the theory says AGW is more noticeable at night and in the colder months because it will affect the Tmins.

Not happening. Neither is AGW. Do you have to be slapped in the face with a fish before you can accept that?
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 11:07:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

To tell you the truth, I'm a bit boggled about the whole thing - and sick of slinging insults : )

It's quite warm over here at the moment, seems unusually warm to me (not saying it's AGW, but just out of interest)...the same as a couple of years ago we had a really weird "cold" winter with oodles of clear sunny days (again, not saying it's AGW, but interesting just the same)

I found this on Trove about the 1910 record for April....http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/37408216
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 1:34:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Poirot,

Warm autumns ? I recall that at the beginning of April, 1986 here in Adelaide, it hit the old century. Mid-July that year was one of the coldest winter months ever, maximum of 8 degrees on about the 17th.

[Why the hell do I remember that ??]

Swings and roundabouts :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 6:48:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Trove is a great place for climate facts; 2 things; the BOM tends to scorn pre-2010 'facts' and back then the MSM could be relied upon a bit more to report climate facts then they can be today because weren't concerned with AGW.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 10 April 2013 8:02:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 36
  7. 37
  8. 38
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy