Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardcfromnz

August 29, 2015, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by mosomoso

$

0

0

Jim D, you have identified a non-MDV spline in GISTEMP that passes through 2015. Similar exists in HadCRUT4.

The spline is central to this sequence:

1895 – neutral
1910 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)
1925 – neutral
1940 – MDV maximum positive (+ve)
1955 – neutral
1970 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)
1985 – neutral
2000 – MDV maximum positive (+ve)
2015 – neutral
2030 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)

This is in respect to HadCRUT4: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl

Now see relevant model mean vs observations comparisons:

IPCC AR5 WGI Figure 10.1 (a)

Model mean vs GMST (HadCRUT4)

Model mean trajectory:

1895 – from below (Yes, valid)
1925 – from above (Yes, valid)
1955 – from below (Yes, valid)
1985 – from above (No, invalid)
2015 – from below (No, invalid)

Obviously the CO2-forced model mean does not pass through the MDV-neutral spline after 1955, the trajectory becomes much steeper. This is highly problematic. It implies that CO2 does not drive the secular trend in GMST after MDV is removed.

More in page 2 of comments at Climate Conversations Group:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2015/08/fatal-deficiencies-destroy-scientific-case-for-climate-catastrophe

---

Comment on The conceits of consensus by beththeserf

August 29, 2015, 1:10 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardcfromnz

$

0

0

Say, Rud, do not jokes seem somehow the best way
ter deal with our human fallibility, bi-asses and serf
baggage?.*… a pome:

We envy the gods their longevity,
not recognizing that they envy us.
Envy the heightened drama of existence
that comes with knowledge of life’s brevity
– over before you know it,
– got to have something to show for it,
serious ambition, love and dynasty,
creativity, can’t just sit around like
gods on Olympus clouds, dreaming
up low tricks to play on us below.

Those gods.Can’t keep their jealous eyes off us,
entertain themselves by fooling us,
mortals existing just for their sport.
Stuff of Greek Tragedy, they have to fill
all those tomorrows and tomorrows
of eternity with something, theatre
of the absurd. Sometimes they even come down
to earth, like goddam randy Zeus, making
more mischief, more mayhem via god children,
like Herakles, whom Hera makes mad
so that he kills his wife and children in
a frenzy. And then there’s Helen, daughter of Zeus ..
Tine to bring on the Trojan Wars.

* Then of course there’s yr cold avenger ‘n forensic
analysis types ter keep us in line.)

Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

August 29, 2015, 1:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

≪ Previous: Comment on The conceits of consensus by beththeserf

$

0

0

+10 Beth. A nice time of day to tune into Judith’s and get one of your pomes. Short life spans cram in lots of fun! Like butterflies :)

Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

August 29, 2015, 1:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

$

0

0

Correction Not one but TWO pomes! Well done.

Comment on The conceits of consensus by beththeserf

August 29, 2015, 1:37 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

$

0

0

Tempus fugit, Peter, tempus fugit. ) … (

Comment on The conceits of consensus by beththeserf

August 29, 2015, 1:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by blunderbunny

≪ Previous: Comment on The conceits of consensus by beththeserf

$

0

0

PS Hey Pierre, don’t we miss kim?

Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by blunderbunny

August 29, 2015, 1:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by mosomoso

≪ Previous: Comment on The conceits of consensus by beththeserf

$

0

0

Sorry but you’re deluded. Whilst droughts will always occur they are not a consequence of global warming. I’m be asking for my PhD back had I awarded it to you.

Comment on The conceits of consensus by mosomoso

August 29, 2015, 2:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by blunderbunny

$

0

0

We educate our serfs in Oz. Trouble is, we often forget to educate our PhDs.

---

Comment on The conceits of consensus by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

August 29, 2015, 2:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

≪ Previous: Comment on The conceits of consensus by mosomoso

$

0

0

@Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos) | August 28, 2015 at 8:28 am

In reply to your request, here’s my evidence:

I think I’ve pretty much given up on “skeptic” blogs. I’m not going to go into the reasons, but for the short version, there aren’t any I feel comfortable with. Climate Audit was alright despite my vehement disagreement with its posts on the Andrew Weaver issue, which I’m still baffled by, but it’s very inactive anymore. The Blackboard is also rather inactive, but because of problems with my ISP, I have a lot of trouble posting there anyway. Other than that, I can’t think of any blogs I’d really feel comfortable posting on. [my bold -hro]

Your very own words, which I had noted and quoted over at BH, circa Jul 28, 2015 at 9:48 AM. For <gasp> context, pls see:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/7/25/cooked-motl-josh-337.html?currentPage=2#comments

I fully appreciate – as far too often turns out to be the rather unfortunate case when you are gnawing at a few molecules of a much larger and very old bone – that you may not have meant what you said, nor said what you reallymeant.

But that’s your problem, kiddo. Not mine, nor anyone else’s for that matter!

Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

August 29, 2015, 2:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes

≪ Previous: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

$

0

0

Yup. She seems to value her privacy tho and that’s her choice.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes

August 29, 2015, 3:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

$

0

0

“So you believe Edwards is incorrect and that a pause was not expected.”

Another example of why this is so silly. Suppose a new wage deal – every week your boss tosses a coin. Heads, you get paid, tails not. Suppose there is a pause – four weeks no pay. So you ask Tamsin who says
“scientists always expected this kind of thing could happen in the short term”
It could. That doesn’t mean someone should have been predicting that particular lean period.

Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by climatereason

August 29, 2015, 3:06 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by ...and Then There's Physics

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes

$

0

0

eadler2

How high would the concentrations need to be to cause the catastrophic events you cite?

TONYB

Comment on Week in review – science edition by ...and Then There's Physics

August 29, 2015, 3:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by rovingbroker

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by climatereason

$

0

0

Fabius,

Your comment is so confused it’s worth analysis.

No, it isn’t. Try reading it again, slowly this time.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by rovingbroker

August 29, 2015, 3:42 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardcfromnz

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by ...and Then There's Physics

$

0

0

The Case for Teaching Ignorance — It’s been done:

Like the group’s other albums, Everything You Know Is Wrong is made up of a series of surreal skits that make satiric comments on contemporary culture. This album addresses and parodies pseudoscientific beliefs of the mid-1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_You_Know_Is_Wrong

Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardcfromnz

August 29, 2015, 3:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by rovingbroker

$

0

0

The respective ST and MDV signals referred to above are as per this paper Macias et al (2014):

‘Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record’
Diego Macias, Adolf Stips, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz (2014)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107222#pone-0107222-g005

Figure 1
file:///C:/DOCUME~1/User1/LOCALS~1/Temp/journal.pone.0107222.g001-2.png

Figure 1. SSA reconstructed signals from HadCRUT4 global surface temperature anomalies.

The annual surface temperature (gray line), multidecadal variability (MDV, blue line), secular trend (ST, red line) and reconstructed signal (MDV+ST, black line) are indicated. ST represents 78.8% of the total energy of the series; MDV accounts for 8.8% of the energy and the reconstructed signal for 88%. The dashed thin red lines indicate the range of variability of the ST obtained by applying SSA to the temperature time series obtained for each individual month.

---

Comment on The conceits of consensus by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)

August 29, 2015, 4:01 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardcfromnz

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardcfromnz

$

0

0

Hilary Ostrov:

Your very own words, which I had noted and quoted over at BH, circa Jul 28, 2015 at 9:48 AM. For context, pls see:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/7/25/cooked-motl-josh-337.html?currentPage=2#comments

While context is great and all, being able to read helps more. First, this site isn’t a “skeptic” blog, so I have no idea why you think me saying I’ve pretty given up on them would mean I should stop posting here. Second, saying I’ve given up on places and that I don’t feel comfortable posting there doesn’t mean I won’t still post there. It just means I’ve given up any good expectations of those sites.

I posted at Skeptical Science for some time before they banned me. I didn’t do that because I thought Skeptical Science was a good site. I didn’t do it because I thought I could convince the Skeptical Science regulars I was right. I did it because I thought some people reading Skeptical Science might hear what I had to say and listen. That’s the same reason I may still post at “skeptic” blogs I’ve since given up on.

So you can say:

I fully appreciate – as far too often turns out to be the rather unfortunate case when you are gnawing at a few molecules of a much larger and very old bone – that you may not have meant what you said, nor said what you reallymeant.

But that’s your problem, kiddo. Not mine, nor anyone else’s for that matter!

But the fact you choose to jump to conclusions about what people mean rather than just read what they say doesn’t mean they’ve somehow contradicted themselves. All it means is you choose to read contradictions into what people say rather than just read what people say.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardcfromnz

August 29, 2015, 4:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Danny Thomas

≪ Previous: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)

$

0

0

European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) report of Macias et al (2014) had this accompanying graph:

HadCRUT4 Temperature Anomaly 1850-2013 (°C) (blue and red bars). Secular trend (red line), multidecadal variability (green line) and reconstructed signal from the statistical analysis (black line). Hiatus periods are indicated with grey bars in the x-axis.
Credit: © EU, 2014

Comment on The conceits of consensus by Danny Thomas

August 29, 2015, 5:08 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardcfromnz

$

0

0

JCH,
I have no idea if ‘they made it up’ but I have reason to doubt that the author did.

Buy it if you chose. Who says I’m gonna trust you after your ad homs?

If you were as sharp as you seem to wish to appear, you’d recognize that there is a lack of trust for alternate sources which is why I asked if you knew where I could find it.

Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

August 29, 2015, 5:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Danny Thomas

≪ Previous: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Danny Thomas

$

0

0

Good memories of Zen and the Art …. a book that I have read again and again since the early 70’s. I really understood in related to the concept of Phaedrus as the rational 3rd person who endured in a sea of fools.

Comment on The conceits of consensus by Danny Thomas

August 29, 2015, 5:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on The conceits of consensus by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on The conceits of consensus by Peter Davies

$

0

0

ATTP,
Impressions of you change with the greater interaction. Cut off communication ‘because it’s your ball and you can take it and go home if you want’. You, when repeatedly asked, don’t own up to your mistake when discussing Hay and Church’s SLR presentation. And then you toss in a backhand “Only those clutching at straws and willing to use anything would argue that it was.”

Nice, Attp. Nice.