Michael | May 9, 2012 at 2:37 am |
No chance.
Quibblers never let the chance for a quibble go by.
Not true. I’m a quibbler, and I can le… DOH.
I see what you mean.
Michael | May 9, 2012 at 2:37 am |
No chance.
Quibblers never let the chance for a quibble go by.
Not true. I’m a quibbler, and I can le… DOH.
I see what you mean.
Willis Eschenbach
Could you please look at the following claim of mine?
In the graph below, 100% of the observed GMT data for the last 100 years lie within the GMT band. As a result, it is reasonable to extrapolate the GMT band to predict GMT for the next two decades.
Willis, do you agree with that?
Agree. Feeble distortions; unfunny and hectoring nonsense.
beesaman | May 8, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
Lack of thought. Lack of bias.
Tomayto. Tomahto.
Wacka-wacka-wacka.
A fourth sense for a fourth sense:
mock·er·y (mk-r):
4. A false, derisive, or impudent imitation
lolwot
what the hell are you expecting to go away?
- Agenda-driven hype masquerading as science
- The “bad apples” responsible for this
- The corrupt IPCC “consensus process” which is the root cause
- And finally the IPCC itself, to be replaced by a much smaller panel of truly objective climate scientists with no political agenda
do you guys really think the science doesn’t show AGW?
The “science” doesn’t “show” anything, lolwot (i.e. there is no empirical scientific evidence of AGW), but the GH theory itself is valid and some warming may have occurred as a result of human GHG emissions. But the IPCC “leap of faith” to a potentially catastrophic AGW has no sound scientific basis – simply model projections and hype.
Hope this answers your questions.
Max
WebHubTelescope
So even Girma admits that what he is plotting has no redeeming qualities.
That is my model for the climate pattern of the last 100 years.
What is yours?
Is not my model closer to the observed data than you can ever get? I have not seen a better model that is closer to the data. If there is, show me.
We have to describe the observed data as accurately as possible before we are able to establish a theory to explain it.
Your extrapolation of my model for 200 years is unfair. I am trying to explain the current climate pattern, and extrapolate it just for the next couple of decades.
I don’t believe I understand your argument about risk. I believe you’re trying to say something like “people who cause warming are benefitting from costs they’re pushing on other people.” If so, I think you’re just begging the question. In any event, I don’t understand what you mean by “we need a better null,” but if you can clarify your position, perhaps I can respond better.
As for my “pronoiac proposition,” I’m sure you’re right that occasionally things shift radically, but I deny that you, or anyone else, has enough information to know whether warming, cooling, dumping CO2, or sinking it, is most likely to bring about, or prevent, the next radical climate shift. Absent that information, I deny that there is any blame to be had if my policies happen to trigger it.
Louise, Why are you so mad at the Heartland Institute? Did they end up with all the weather records that were collected and then dumped by Mr. Phil Jones? That collection was priceless. I can see why you as a UK taxpayer are so angry. The Tea-Party feels just like you do. Keep your chin up.
I agree with your description and conclusion Ron.
There is no evidence in the data for most of the recent warming to be caused by man.
Ron, IPCC’s projection of 0.2 deg C warming is already outside the upper GMT band of 2*sigma as shown => http://bit.ly/HRvReF
For this, IPCC received a noble prize. World academy of sciences and prestigious scientific journals support this position.
If you look the global mean temperature (GMT) anomaly relative the climate pattern of the smoothed GMT, the anomaly only oscillates and its current value is zero as it is on the the smoothed GMT curve. The GMT anomaly does not always increase as shown by GISS and CRU. It only oscillates. It is wrong to refer GMTs relative a horizontal line of “base period 1961-90”
How sad. How very sad.
Well said.
Re pictures of submarines – I kinda like these, but I’m a former submariner. I don’t consider them as proof on anything other than submarines being about the coolest (maybe I should say neatest instead), type of vessel ever built. Do you know that all ships can be placed into two catagories? Submarines and targets.
We are told we are going to see a warming by 0.2 deg C per decade. I claim no warming or a slight cooling in the next two decades. As 100% of the observed data lie within the GMT band for the last 100 years (http://bit.ly/HRvReF), statistically it is correct to say the observed data will also lie within the extrapolated band at least for the next two decades. Note that the residual GMT that oscillates with in the GMT band is approximated by a normal distribution with a mean of zero and standard deviation of about 0.1 deg C. For a normal distribution, about 95% of the data lie within the +/- 2*sigma range of the GMT band as shown in the graph.
> Keep your chin up.
I’ve heard that expression somewhere, but where?
Louise, you go on about how much ‘climategate’ has cost you, yet you are strangely quiet on the fact that fuel has doubled in price over the last decade, electricity has more than doubled in price, and the cost of just about everything else – food included – has increased very significantly as a result. And that’s just the beginning – we’re set to see very much greater increases over the near future.
I think you need to develop some sense of proportion.
Pink Floyd.
Louise, don’t worry–the U.S. was picking up the tab for a lot of CRU’s research, so you aren’t out more than a pint and a packet of crisps. Deal.
I should add that if CO2 proves to be a non-problem, there’s going to be hundreds of millions – perhaps billions – of people who are very angry at having being impoverished for no good reason. I certainly would not like to be in the shoes of the likes of Mann and Jones if that does happen.