Deltoid

Seconding Chad's call.

Is there a way to write up shareholder proposals for Deltoid?

Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 29, 2008 2:34 AM

Um, actually I have some fatigue duty which I'd like Tilo Reber to do.

Harold, is Naomi Oreskes fat?

Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 29, 2008 5:25 AM

So far it's the everyone except Tilo Reber thread.

Hmmmm...

Posted by: dhogaza | May 29, 2008 9:59 AM

Tilo.

You denying strawman using troll.

The catastrophes are coming whether you like it or not....the earth is continuing to warm even if it hasn't ......and will continue to warm even if it doesn't.

Why do you insist on ignoring the empirical data formed by the emperialist scientist and trendy trends that undeniably show that you are an evil C02 emitting denying denier?

It is denying trendy trolls like you that caused Katrina and flooding in Bangladesh with your computer using and selfish air conditioner enjoying habits........

If you don't accept the coming doom, you will soon face imprisonment,sterilization, and rehabilitation until we can be sure you are "most likely" cured using a 95 percent confidence interval with t Tests and regression lines and other reliable statistical methods that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you "probably" won't do it again.

At that point you will be released on probation and your temperature will be monitored for the next 30 years to determine your health trend.

Respectfully,

The Alarmists.

P.S. DENIER!

Posted by: Betula | May 29, 2008 11:36 AM

Tushara "I am not claiming that I am making any scientific research on a blog,"

Exactly what do you claim to be doing on this blog?

"I just claim that the scientific peer review process is robust and if you have any evidence to counter anthropogenic climate change, then go through the peer review process."

I could give you a good refutation of your claim, but since your whole "peer review" thing is simply a distraction from my point about Mann's work, I'm going to skip it for now. The peer review discussion will have to wait until after the discussion that claims that only AGW warming proponents should be getting funding.

""Why do I need peer reviewed science to ask why Mann didn't update his data? "

"Sure you can ask questions, that is also the scientific way, but don't claim that the scientific PEER REVIEW evidence is wrong without providing any peer reviewed evidence,""

So are you telling me that I need a peer reviewed paper to demonstrate that Michael Mann never updated his bristlecone tree ring series?

Are you telling me that I need a peer reviewed paper to demonstrate that Michael Mann never corrected his most heavily weighted data series when Linah Ababneh's doctoral dissertation showed that it was wrong?

Posted by: Tilo Reber | May 29, 2008 12:31 PM

bi "By the way, what's the latest version of the conspiracy theory anyway? I forgot."

What conspiracy theory are you refering to bi? Do you have a conspiracy theory?

Posted by: Tilo Reber | May 29, 2008 3:05 PM

Chris: "When are you going to get the simple concept that a change in trend for a ten year period, even if you can't explain the natural weather processes that caused it, is not significant to climate sensitivity. "

Of course it is microbrain. If you can't explain it then you don't understand natural climate causes. If you don't understand natural climate causes, then you cannot know what portion of the climate change that we have seen to attribute to natural causes and what part to attribute to AGW.

And I could care less if you call it climate or weather. It's a ten year flat period, and if you don't know what caused it then you don't have enough knowledge to determine the size of climate sensitivity.

Posted by: Tilo Reber | May 29, 2008 7:01 PM

TR really has a way with the "microbrain"- why not nano, or pico, or femto? Dial it up, munchloaf!

Posted by: Pinko Punko | May 29, 2008 10:08 PM

Tim look what you've done!

We've got all the dodos here in one place. Tilo, Betula, Peter "New Zealand isn't warming" Bickle, even Harold Pierce has chosen to grace us with his presence...talk about waving a red flag at the proverbial bull.

Well...the cumulative IQ of this lot must reach somewhere near the second or third Mersenne prime. But no, someone with a 5th grade education is going to teach these hoity-toity scienticians a thing or two!

Well, if it's any consolation to Tilo and co, their ridiculous arguments are nothing more than or source of mirth for me... I do enjoy seeing the depths of stupidity plumbed every now and then.

Posted by: ChrisC | May 29, 2008 11:13 PM

What conspiracy theory are you refering to bi? Do you have a conspiracy theory?

Hahaha, that's a new one. (Well, not so new... Pielke Jr. tried to pull a similar one a while back.)

Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 29, 2008 11:39 PM

I am a Sales Manager for a chemical company.

Wow! Think of it! A SALESPERSON is overturning science done by the likes of NASA, and has positively refuted the NAS and every other major science organization in the world.

Wow! I'd buy a used car from this salesman any day of the week! Forsooth, he tells truth!

(cough cough)

Posted by: dhogaza | May 30, 2008 12:05 AM

Peter Bickle:

Sigh...why do I bother. (The short answer is because it's fun!)

"ChrisC, what is your IQ, mine is 140. So I am quite intelligent. "

I'll be honest Peter and tell you that I don't know what my IQ. You see, I gave up using silly metrics to try to prove to others that I'm intelligent back in kindergarten. Unlike you, I am able to let my ideas stand or fall on their merit. People will judge my intelligence accordingly. I don't feel the need to brandish around numbers to make myself feel able to play in the sand pit with the big kids.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that your IQ is greater than mine. You're still a tool and you're still wrong.

"What do you do for a living? "

Why is this relevant? Why do you care? Okay, I'll play along. I'm a research meteorologist, working in private industry. My research is in the field of turbulence prediction... in particular, the development of numerical models for the prediction of turbulence in boundary layer flows over topography. I also dabble in radar meteorology, convective processes and numerical mathematics. In the past I've been a meteorologist and a process engineer in mining infrastructure and water treatment.

Do I win? Why is this important?

"Answer this, why has the temperture not increased for 5 years, "

Many, many others have answered your question right here on this blog. Aware that I may as well speak to a tree stump, I'll have one last crack at answering your question.

1) Your question, as stated, is wrong. Global temperatures HAVE increased over the last five years. Linear regression analysis on GISS data will give you a temperature rise of 0.028 +/- 0.019 deg.C/yr, whilst HADCRU data gives a rise of 0.018 +/- 0.016 deg.C/yr.

2) Standard climatological practice requires 30 years of observations to determine a trend. This is because climate data is very noisy, and subject to many internal and external factors. ENSO, SAM, NAO, IOD, solar peaks and troughs ect... In a commercial environment, where for obvious reasons we can't take 30 years of data at our own sites, we generally try for 10 plus correlation to a longer term site.

5 years simply isn't enough data to determine a trend. To suggest otherwise is to admit to statistical illiteracy.

3) None of your bumbling changes basic radiative transfer physics. Unless you have a particular ability to overturn more than 100 years of science, going back to the time of Fourier, why do you think that increasing the opacity of the atmosphere to outgoing longwave radiation will not effect the radiative balence of the plant?

Oh and by the way...New Zealand is warming:

http://www.niwa.cri.nz/ncc/clivar/pastclimate

Disregards from ChrisC

Posted by: ChrisC | May 30, 2008 12:39 AM

ATTN: Peter! GO: http://www.John-Daly.com, scroll down, click on "Station Temperature Data", then find Ms Alice Springs' chart. She is one very healthly lady. Hasn't had a fever since 1879!

ATTN Tim, Don't even think about whacking this post.

Posted by: Harold Pierce Jr | May 30, 2008 3:45 AM

Hello Bernard!

I ain't no shill. I have in preparation an op-ed article entiled "The Late John Daly and Alice Springs" which I'm going to send to your favorite newspaper "The Australian", after I have it checked out by all of those friendly folks over at the NZCC and a few other fellows like Roy and John, Richard, Bob and Roger.

Stay tuned!

PS: Go to GISTEMP and check out the plots for Tombstone and Yuma AZ, and Dodge City KA and compare these plots to Alice Springs and Death Valley.

Posted by: Harold Pierce Jr | May 30, 2008 5:05 AM

I ain't no shill.

Hahahahahahaha... well, you sure tried very hard to sound like one. I don't know why, because for all I know, John Daly is still dead.

PS:

Maybe you can change that to "And now, a word from our sponsors:"

...and then end it with "I'm John Daly, and I would've approved this message were I alive."

I have in preparation an op-ed article entiled "The Late John Daly and Alice Springs"

Thanks for telling us. Maybe someone can write a pre-emptive op-ed warning about a moronic upcoming op-ed by someone who called Al Gore fat.

Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 30, 2008 5:12 AM

Tilo Reber:

"When are you going to get the simple concept that a change in trend for a ten year period, even if you can't explain the natural weather processes that caused it, is not significant to climate sensitivity. "

Of course it is microbrain. If you can't explain it then you don't understand natural climate causes.

No-one can explain why the weather was tbe way it was in the last year. According to Mr. Blatant "there is no emperical evidence to support the IPCC climate sensitivity number" Liar, that means you don't understand the climate. I should point out, as Annan does, that modern temperature observations are ONLY ONE source of SEVERAL for empirical information for deriving climate sensitivity. Even then, the last 10 years are only 10 years out of more than 100 that can be used for this single source out of several for empirical information.

The blatant liar is still avoiding scrutiny, so for his convenience I'll write again the points that the deliberately dense blatant liar is still ignoring:

You start out with nonsense and I suspect that you will continue with nonsense, so this is as far as I'm going with your post.

If the next 30 should warm faster than the current 30 years, it would increase Annan's chances of winning the bet. Therefore it should make Annan more interested in the bet, not less so as you state.

He very conveniently misunderstood that a lower rate of cooling in the past than the future forecast had nothing to do with a bet based on the future forecast. Part of his strategy is to use misunderstandings as an excuse to avoid scrutiny. Since he's still avoiding it and this is the Tilo Reber Thread, the rest of some scrutiny should be repeated here:

The point is that you squacking chickens are defending the abscence of any warming for the last ten years as being due to something that it clearly is not.

I'm not. Stop lying.

"Heaven knows what you're talking about. The trend was 0.17C per decade."

My point is that we are consistently running below the supposed trend.

July 1992-June 2002 0.40 deg c/decade. 0.4 is less than 0.17 is it?

Any other shit you want to feed us?"

Where is that 30 years of .2C again?

"you keep ignoring that the expected growth in forcing over the next 30 years is more than the growth over the last 30"

Anyone with at least half a brain would realize that if "the expected growth in forcing over the next 30 years is more than the growth over the last 30" then the expected growth in temperature over the next 30 years is more than the growth in temperature over the last 30, i.e. as far as I'm aware, the IPCC did not expect temperatures to rise 0.2 deg C/decade over the LAST 30 years. 0.2 deg C/decade is the expectation for the NEXT 30 years.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | May 30, 2008 11:14 AM

Chris C: 1) Your question, as stated, is wrong. Global temperatures HAVE increased over the last five years. Linear regression analysis on GISS data will give you a temperature rise of 0.028 +/- 0.019 deg.C/yr, whilst HADCRU data gives a rise of 0.018 +/- 0.016 deg.C/yr.

BBWWWAAAHHHHAAAAAHHHHHAAAA

What orifice did you pull that information out of? It's not even close. Here is the chart for the last 5 years of HadCrut3 data.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/hadcrut3-five-year-temp-anomoly.html

But who really cares about the last 5 years, since we have had no warming for the last 11 years.

Posted by: Tilo Reber | May 30, 2008 12:43 PM

Chris C: "Oh and by the way...New Zealand is warming:"

Thanks for the chart. Looks like they have had much warmer periods than today.

Posted by: Tilo Reber | May 30, 2008 12:54 PM

Oh, I get it! It's an Irrellavant Troll Roast! ...no wait! Forget I said that!

Posted by: Laser Potato | May 30, 2008 9:08 PM

Boris: ENSO and the solar cycle explain it quite well actually.

No, ENSO doesn't seem to have had anything to do with it.

I would be willing to accept solar, since we are near a solar minimum and have been at a very low level of solar activity for a couple of years. But the guys at Real Climate claim that the effect of solar variation is very weak. Not that I respect the hacks at RC, but Leif Svalgaard seems to have the same opinion, and I do respect him as a solar physisics.

Sorry Boris, the 11 years of no warming are unexplained by natural causes, and they therefore cast doubt upon the IPCC climate sensitivity number.

Posted by: Tilo Reber | May 31, 2008 12:03 AM

How is it remotely possible that you can talk about a five year trend with any degree of seriousness when you also have this on your site? http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/hadcrut3-30-year-trend.html

I am irrevocably led to the conclusion that you are just screwing with us.

Posted by: z | May 31, 2008 12:19 AM

the 11 years of no warming are unexplained by natural causes, and they therefore cast doubt upon the IPCC climate sensitivity number

11 years of data overturns more than 100 years of previous data, as well as several other types of data.

Sure, blatant liar.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | May 31, 2008 12:47 AM

"How is it remotely possible that you can talk about a five year trend with any degree of seriousness when you also have this on your site?"

The only reason that I put the 5 year trend up is because Chris C. claimed that it was still positive. Clearly he was lying.

The thirty year trend is there because bi claimed that it was .2C per decade. Clearly it is not.

Your question, then, is with regards to the substantial positive slope of the 30 year trend. Sure, I know what it is. My argument is that it isn't necessarily meaningful. You can draw trend lines through 30 year periods in the historical record and they will be all over the place. Having captured a 30 year trend is not any indicator that you have captured some underlying forcing effect that will continue indefinitely. Thirty year trends change their slope as easily as ten year trends. Thirty years does not remove all of the natural elements of variability and leave you with some kind of discovered truth. The trend that you are looking at has happened before and it has changed before. The other problem is that if you draw a linear regression trend line through any data, it will give you a straight line through that data, but it will not indicate if any recent changes are happening.

Here is a fourth order polynomial trend line drawn through all of the available RSS data. Notice that it is a little better at capturing change.

"http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/03/bob-carter-reproduction.html"

Posted by: Tilo Reber | May 31, 2008 1:29 AM

you are about 10 years old, right?

I'd rather be 10 years old than a blatant liar.

Falsification of a theory only takes one example.

So you've falsified IPCC's climate sensitivity range? The theory doesn't say there should be no 10 year periods of zero trend or lower. The lies become more blatant.

with regards to the substantial positive slope of the 30 year trend. My argument is that it isn't necessarily meaningful.

Yet somehow a 10 year trend is.

Thirty year trends change their slope as easily as ten year trends.

Yet another bullshit assertion. The bullshit and lies never stop from the blatant liar.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | May 31, 2008 5:56 AM

Thirty year trends change their slope as easily as ten year trends.

this is false. neither do they chaneg from a positive direction to a negative one as often, nor are changes from year to year as wild as they are in 10 year trends.

Atmoz has written a very nice post on this topic:

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/01/29/on-the-insignificance-of-a-5-year-temperature-trend/

notice how 13 years trend show a positive slope more often, than 30 years trends. if we would use the same misleading definitions as the denialists, we would have changed the significant timeinterval needed to 13 years some time ago. we didn t. instead we stick to the NORMAL definition of a reasonable timeframe when talking about climate (aka 30 years).

Posted by: sod | May 31, 2008 6:18 AM

RE #33

Those numbers don't mean anything. Where do you people get the notion that temperatures are measured to +/-0.001 deg with good accuracy and precision? In the US temperatures are measured and reported to +/- 1 deg F (ca 0.5 deg C and usually to +/- 0.5 deg C in the rest of the world). You can't pour raw data into the hopper of a statistical meat grinder and expect to get filet mignon. You are obligated to round the result to the accuracy of the measuring instrument. If this were done, global warming is not occuring.

Posted by: Harold Pierce Jr | May 31, 2008 6:49 AM

RE#48: Really,Harold? Alice Springs Airport is one of Australia's Reference Climate Network sites....

Posted by: Nick | May 31, 2008 9:45 AM

Harold writes:

In the US temperatures are measured and reported to +/- 1 deg F (ca 0.5 deg C and usually to +/- 0.5 deg C in the rest of the world).

In Australia the Bureau of Meteorology reports temperature to 0.1 deg C. So I guess the US must be one of those primitive countries that doesn't report temperature as accurately.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | May 31, 2008 11:42 AM

Sod, This years Arctic sea ice area is about the same as last year, not less as you state.

currently it is slightly less, which is the important point in this. not much, so if you prefer to call it similar, i will agree. major point: the extra ice is GONE.

. What is more interesting is how much ahead of last year the Antarctic sea ice coverage is.

no. actually antarctic sea ice area is completely irrelvant. there is a major diffenerence between the two:

arctic sea ice area is showing a long term downward TREND. anarctic area is showing WILD fluctuations and no trend at all.

People who talk about "thin" sea ice tend to focus on the melting of the ice instead of the cooling of the sea water. Since water is 800 times as dense as air, most of the melting is a result of the cooling of the sea water.

funny one. the real scientists speak of a POSITIVE sea ice albedo feedback.

http://tiny.cc/uO0ML

and actually sea temperature in the arctic has INCREASED by 2°C over the last 30 years, while sea ice was shrinking...

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=56

This years Arctic sea ice was thicker than normal by about 10-20 CM.

if by NORMAL you mean a long term average, then this is a completely FALSE claim. i would love to see your sources for it!

but i guess that this was the source of your absurd claim:

The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html

Personally I expect to see a minimum level of sea ice that is above last year

actually i expect that as well. but this is not god news, because last year was an EXTREME event.

but I also expect a further cooling of the arctic sea water becaluse open water radiates more energy than multi-year sea ice....When the sun is down or when the sun is at a low angle, which is most of the year.

i am looking forward to some sources of your "colder arctic sea".

Posted by: sod | May 31, 2008 12:39 PM

and this one is a beaut, too:

"the 11 years of no warming are unexplained by natural causes,"

Well, the first year of that 11 years is an extraordinarily strong El Nino, and the end of the 11 years contains a strong La Nina. I guess Tilo doesn't consider El Nino and La Nina to be natural?

Posted by: Lee | May 31, 2008 12:44 PM

Here is a beautiful shot of today's stage of the Giro d'Italia that I though you might all like.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/giro08/index.php?id=/photos/2008/giro08/giro0820/bettiniphoto00280641_full

Posted by: Tilo Reber | May 31, 2008 2:46 PM

sod: "you have this story backwards, again. the current arctic seaice area is BELOW the same level last year. "

If it is, your eyeball is calibrated to the pixel.

"that the ice is thin is NOT a wild claim, btw!"

Where did I say that it was?

Posted by: Tilo Reber | May 31, 2008 3:22 PM

"Tilo, stop being a perversely dense asshole."

Let me suggest that you are the perversely dense asshole. Let me suggest that you are the one making a claim with no analytical basis.

"when that lack being pointed out to you and the analytical substrates are being spoon fed to you."

So you consider a bunch of morons on this forum asserting that it is ENSO as an "analytical substrate". Maybe you can get your head out of your butt for three seconds and realize that there is zero evidence that it is ENSO. Much less a fricken "analytical substrate"

At least I made the effort to quantize the trending effects of the El Nino and La Nina cycles over that period. What have you done but shoot off your mouth.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/ten-year-hadcrut3-enso-effects.html

Posted by: Tilo Reber | May 31, 2008 7:41 PM