104 replies to this topic

[Doug1o29]

ealdwita, on 04 December 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

Ooops?.......... http://www.politics....s-off-wwii-debt

Ooops!

Better late than never.
Doug

[Doug1o29]

Professor Buzzkill, on 03 December 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

And if you need the product (i.e. fuel, plastics etc) in which there is no difference in CO2 between brands, who benefits from the increase in price? The product will still be used, CO2 will still be produced and it will make me incur greater costs for nessessary items.

Most of the carbon fees will come back to the citizen in the form of dividends.  The only way you can lose is to use more carbon-based products than anybody else.  Manufacturers will strive to gain a competitve edge by reducing their carbon purchases to a minimum.

Quote

When there is an electric engine driven truck which can deliver my goods (withoutcreating more CO2 in production than a truck uses in its whole life) then i think we can impliment this policy. Until there is a fair ulternative, we are stuck using what we know works.

I did some analysis on electric cars.  Right now, I'd have to drive about 250,000 miles to amortize the cost of an electric car.  That's farther than I've driven my diesel truck since I bought it (1997).  As efficiency and manufacturing costs drop, the price will come down.  When it gets below the five-year amortization milegae, people will find them more economical.

And there are some people working on an electric engine for semi-tractor/trailer rigs.  Don't expect to see one of these on the market anytime soon, but progress is being made in that direction.
Doug

[Zeta Reticulum]

Number Fingers, on 04 December 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

You say I don't know the difference between weather and climate, but yet these alarmists use every single major weather event anywhere in the world as further 'proof' of climate change.  Maybe you should inform them of the difference.  They seem to have forgotten their own handy 'weather isn't climate' meme.

But even I'll admit that that weather graph (or the Real Climate graph, or any such graph) isn't truly useful at all to show trends as precise as those graphs do, simply because of all the sampling errors and the noise involved.  It's essentially impossible to find a global average as it is.  As if that's supposed to mean anything anyways even if they could manage to do so.  The margins of error of the weather-instruments themselves are greater than the differences these charts purport to show.  And that's not even accounting for non-sampling errors, such as the locations of the instruments themselves being altered, for example from shady woodland to open tarmac, or new technology implemented over time.  Even NASA admits that all satellite data relating to sea-level rise cannot be taken as precise measurements. Even that data is in question, so is any model that uses it as a base.

Then Mann tries to use tree rings (3 to be precise) to show absolute precision?  And now the new fad is using stalactites as measurements of historical climate?  What world is this?

Which of course makes the entire process laughable from the very start.  Then they compare these fractions of a degree going back hundreds and even thousands of years as if they have all this data for certain.  Ultimately, they can make the data say anything, because the data itself is such a mess that it can be produced to say anything they need.

Well said mate. lots of people have been and continue to be fooled by the press on this codswallop. And they dont like being told so.

[Br Cornelius]

Zeta Reticulum, on 05 December 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

Well said mate. lots of people have been and continue to be fooled by the press on this codswallop. And they dont like being told so.

Lots of people have actually read the science and know the truth
Maybe you should give it a try.

Br Cornelius

[ealdwita]

Doug1o29, on 04 December 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

Better late than never.
Doug

That's exactly what we said in 1942!

[Doug1o29]

Number Fingers, on 04 December 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

They've been wrong even as far back as 1986 when James Hansen said "Within fifteen years, global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn't existed on earth for 100,000 years.

And that's exactly what happened:  http://www.usgcrp.go...ages/Vostok.jpg

Quote

Or when the scientists at the University of Anglia said in 2000 that within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event."  And that "children just aren't going to know what snow is."

While that may be a bit of an exaggeration, you couldn't prove it in Oklahoma this year.  Remember those stories Grandpa used to tell about how he had to walk five miles to school in six feet of snow and it was uphill both ways?  Well, I don't know about the topography, but about the snow:  he was telling the truth.  Winter storms have decreased over central North America during the last 30 years.  For more info, check:  http://eee.columbia....r-north-america

Quote

It's as if the earth is trolling them.  So in 2012 when there's less snow, they get to say, "It’s consistent with the idea that global warming is going on."  But in 2010 when there was more snow, they say, "Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005-2006 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it.”  It's a sweet ride when you get to win both ways.

Sure is nice.  And both are true:  reduced ice cover over the Arctic Ocean increases evaporation, which produces more snowfall over both North America and Europe.  But, courtesy of the jet streams which have shifted farther north, southern areas now get less snowfall and more rain.  We CAN have our cake and eat it too.

Quote

And then they have the effrontery to say that 'deniers' attack the science or don't understand the science, when the observed reality itself disproves the invented science.  The alarmists have no idea what will happen, but I'm sure they didn't predict no warming for 16 (going on 17) years.

There are about a half-dozen lists of global temperature anomalies and as far as I am aware, they all show warming over the last 16 to 17 years.  I have the Goddard Institute list in front of me right now.  Thanks to Little Fish's misreading of the Hadley 3 list, I now have that.  It, too, shows warming over that period.  Care to post a link to one that supports your contention?

The trouble with your statement is that besides not being true, it depends heavily on the temperature anomaly of 1998.  Without that one outlying year, the temperature trend for the last 17 years would be strongly upward.  But I can't just delete that temp, you say?  Well, then, why are you deleting 1996, 1995, 1994, etc.?  You can't just delete them, either.  The hottest eleven years on record have occurred since 1997.  And if it continues as it started, 2012 will be in fourth or fifth place.

The current moderation of temperature rise has been attributed to (1) sulfur emissions from Chinese power plants, and (2) the downturn in the solar cycle.  Either, or both may be correct.  And that means that when the scrubbers the Chinese are installing start to take effect, tmeps will turn strongly upward.

Temps are also influenced by the solar cycle.  The last solar minimum was in August 2009 when no sunspots at all were recorded.  We're still in the low part of the cycle, but will begin pulling out of it late next year.

Both these influences should have produced a decrease in temps.  But that didn't happen.  Why do you suppose that might be?

Quote

Even psychics are better at predicting the future, because at least some predictions they make come true by chance.  It's funny to watch these alarmists make fools of themselves, except that the reality is they're trying to change world politics and economics based completely on a lie.

At least, you aren't making a fool of yourself.  The facts are doing that.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 06 December 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[Doug1o29]

ealdwita, on 05 December 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

That's exactly what we said in 1942!

Touche'.  Of course, we might have stopped WWII back in 1918 had we produced a decent peace treaty with Germany.  To quote Foch:  "This isn't a peace treaty.  It's a twenty year armistice."  He missed it by one year.

In the US we now fight a war that we could have prevented back in 1948.  Our military is getting us ready for a war with China in another generation.  Looks like war is integral to our way of life.  In the meantime, we still risk a nuclear exchange with Russia and there are eleven missing US atomic weapons out there - four of them not even within our borders.  How do I sleep at night?
Doug

[Little Fish]

RSS, no trend even if you look and compare either side of 1998
http://www.woodfortr...from:2000/trend

and doug if you are going to claim that HADCRU3 has a warming trend over that period, to be truthful you should mention that it is statisically INSIGNIFICANT, meaning the trend IS flat.

whilst endpoint selection is not a good idea, overlooked is the fact that NOAA's benchmarks for the gcm models RULE OUT a period of 15 years or more with a flat trend meaning that 15 years of no trend in the observational data show the models to have failed, and thus the projections of the failed models that are so often used to frighten young children and empower the control freaks are a fantasy.

Edited by Little Fish, 06 December 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 06 December 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

RSS, no trend even if you look and compare either side of 1998
http://www.woodfortr...from:2000/trend

and doug if you are going to claim that HADCRU3 has a warming trend over that period, to be truthful you should mention that it is statisically INSIGNIFICANT, meaning the trend IS flat.

whilst endpoint selection is not a good idea, overlooked is the fact that NOAA's benchmarks for the gcm models RULE OUT a period of 15 years or more with a flat trend meaning that 15 years of no trend in the observational data show the models to have failed, and thus the projections of the failed models that are so often used to frighten young children and empower the control freaks are a fantasy.

It is only a flat trend if you start at 1998 which was an anomalously hot year. Its as simple as that and really isn't debatable.


You have also decided to trust a dataset which contradicts the data from the 5 recognised compilers of global climate temperature.

Stop cherry picking !!!

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 December 2012 - 06:17 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 06 December 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

RSS, no trend even if you look and compare either side of 1998
http://www.woodfortr...from:2000/trend

What?  The Hadley and Goddard datasets didn't support your conclusion, so you had to pick another one?

Your graph used RSS data - satellite data for the lower troposphere.  Interesting if you're into that sort of thing, but global warming is about SURFACE TEMPS.  That is because very few things live in the troposphere and the effects of global warming are SURFACE effects.

Quote

and doug if you are going to claim that HADCRU3 has a warming trend over that period, to be truthful you should mention that it is statisically INSIGNIFICANT, meaning the trend IS flat.

This is true as far as it goes, but there are some things you need to note:
1.  It's a time series.  The data is autocorrelated.  That means you won't get a correct answer using a straight-line model, which assumes the data is independent.
2.  Once you have corrected for autocorrelation, choose the best-fitting model you can think of.  I prefer a polynomial because it is versatile and there are no other variables to include in the model.  Other types of models need some sort of justification for their use.  If you use a decay curve, for example, you need some basis for believing the temps are undergoing a decay process.  Use an adjusted r-square value to determine when you have entered too many terms (Stop adding terms when the r-square value starts to drop.).  That will be your best-fit model.
3.  Note that the flat-line model is not significant ONLY if you include 1998 in your dataset.  You're putting an awful lot of faith in just one year's data.

Quote

whilst endpoint selection is not a good idea, overlooked is the fact that NOAA's benchmarks for the gcm models RULE OUT a period of 15 years or more with a flat trend meaning that 15 years of no trend in the observational data show the models to have failed, and thus the projections of the failed models that are so often used to frighten young children and empower the control freaks are a fantasy.

So who's using a gcm?  I'm talking about an equation.  Mathematical/statistical models are not the same as global climate models.  Hasn't that soaked in, yet?

As I said above, you can affect the outcome by choosing the end-point.  The longer the dataset, the less influence end-points have.  Thirty years of data is the generally-accepted minimum.  Your example is nowhere close to that.  Come back in 2029 when you have enough data to make that claim (or extend your dataset back to 1982).

GCMs are not an appropriate tool for what you are trying to claim.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 06 December 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 06 December 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

It is only a flat trend if you start at 1998 which was an anomalously hot year. Its as simple as that and really isn't debatable.

the data I used starts in 1997. simple for anyone to check in the link i provided.

Quote

You have also decided to trust a dataset which contradicts the data from the 5 recognised compilers of global climate temperature.

the RSS dataset I used is one of those 5 datasets, you would have seen that had you not ignored my post. your graph does not show the same startpoint, you cherry picked your start point.

Quote

Stop cherry picking !!!

you and doug obviously do not understand the point being made. I'll repeat it a fourth time for your understanding - NOAA states that the gcm climate models (used by the ipcc to frighten the gullible) RULE OUT a period of 15 years with a flat trend. I'll say it differently - if there is an observed flat trend for 15 continuous years then the gcm model are exaggerating the effects of co2 - the gcm models do not show flat periods of 15 years in their runs, there has to be a rise over all and any 15 year periods or the models are misunderstanding carbon dioxide. so there is no cherry picking, NOAA stated in 2008 you just have to find a 15 year period of flat trend in the observations to throw out the models. the question is not what you are implying, the question NOAA answered in 2008 is, how many years of non rising temperatures are required to falsify the models' predictions, their answer was 15 years.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 06 December 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

the data I used starts in 1997. simple for anyone to check in the link i provided.

the RSS dataset I used is one of those 5 datasets, you would have seen that had you not ignored my post. your graph does not show the same startpoint, you cherry picked your start point.

you and doug obviously do not understand the point being made. I'll repeat it a fourth time for your understanding - NOAA states that the gcm climate models (used by the ipcc to frighten the gullible) RULE OUT a period of 15 years with a flat trend. I'll say it differently - if there is an observed flat trend for 15 continuous years then the gcm model are exaggerating the effects of co2 - the gcm models do not show flat periods of 15 years in their runs, there has to be a rise over all and any 15 year periods or the models are misunderstanding carbon dioxide. so there is no cherry picking, NOAA stated in 2008 you just have to find a 15 year period of flat trend in the observations to throw out the models. the question is not what you are implying, the question NOAA answered in 2008 is, how many years of non rising temperatures are required to falsify the models' predictions, their answer was 15 years.

You obviously do not understand what Doug and myself are saying, if you look at the trend calculated as a running average there is no flat line in the data. only by starting at an anomalous period can you possible make your point. The data starts 30 years before your arbitary start point and when the whole dataset is used the trend is consistently upwards.
I repeat - only be cherry picking the start point can you make your claim - and even then there is an upward trend in the data.

You yourself have cautioned against extrapolating from a single extreme event - why change your position now ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 December 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[Little Fish]

again you are ignoring the point - there can be no 15 year flat period, otherwise the models are falsified - this was defined by the leading climate modelers themselves in a paper published in NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008.

You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the leading climate modelers and NOAA.

Quote

only be cherry picking the start point can you make your claim

state what you think my "claim" is. seems to me you're not listening.

Edited by Little Fish, 06 December 2012 - 09:13 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish - Doug has done the calculation which proves your statement to be bogus - there has been no 15year flat period.
Only by including an extreme outlier and selecting one particular dataset can it be said that trend has slowed.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 December 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 06 December 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

the data I used starts in 1997. simple for anyone to check in the link i provided.

Any starting point is arbitrary.  Because of the end-effect, you won't get a valid equation with less than 30 observations.  Besides the problems I listed above, there's another one:  small sample size produces skewed results (Google:  "Student's t".).  Without at least 30 points, you can't calculate a reliable trend line.

Quote

you and doug obviously do not understand the point being made. I'll repeat it a fourth time for your understanding - NOAA states that the gcm climate models (used by the ipcc to frighten the gullible) RULE OUT a period of 15 years with a flat trend. I'll say it differently - if there is an observed flat trend for 15 continuous years then the gcm model are exaggerating the effects of co2 - the gcm models do not show flat periods of 15 years in their runs, there has to be a rise over all and any 15 year periods or the models are misunderstanding carbon dioxide. so there is no cherry picking, NOAA stated in 2008 you just have to find a 15 year period of flat trend in the observations to throw out the models. the question is not what you are implying, the question NOAA answered in 2008 is, how many years of non rising temperatures are required to falsify the models' predictions, their answer was 15 years.

Apparently you do not understand that gcms are irrelevant to the question of whether the 1997-2011 (fifteen years, not 16 or 17) has a zero slope or not.  Gcms can't test that.  And besides, you don't have enough data to test it.
Doug