Matthew England will talk about climate models this Sunday 23rd August in the Powerhouse Museum as part of the Ultimo Science Festival. The press release says:

Climate modeller challenges skeptics

With the Government’s emissions trading legislation now delayed, one of Australia’s leading climate scientists, UNSW Professor Matthew England has thrown down the gauntlet to climate skeptics to update their thinking.

“Those that deny basic climate science question climate modelling and fundamental climate physics. But each of their arguments is wrong, outdated, or irrelevant. Most of their claims have long been refuted by the scientific community, the national academies, and so on. Others need no refuting: they fly in the face of basic geophysical measurements, or they are so appallingly wrong they go against simple high-school physics,” England says.


The award-winning oceanographer, who is co-director of UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre, will discuss the whys and wherefores of climate modelling and provide the most up-to-date climate predictions out to the year 2100 (since the IPCC report of 2007), at the Ultimo Science Festival on Sunday.

“This talk will show the step by step of how the models work, how they have evolved over the past 50 years, where they can be trusted, and what their uncertainties are. I will also address many of the skeptics’ claims and show why they are wrong,” England says.

But the latest research is not a pretty prediction, according to England.

“We need a fairly dramatic change in the way we power this planet, away from the old carbon-intensive technologies and into a new era of clean energy. We need to do this very quickly to give us any chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

“Alarmingly, even at that level of warming we will lose most of the world’s coral reefs and around 20 to 30 per cent of species will face potential extinction. The Greenland ice sheet is likely to disintegrate completely if we warm in excess of 2.5 degrees C, that’s a seven-metre sealevel rise” he says.

England says we have already emitted half the greenhouse gases we can if we are to have a reasonable chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

“Every year that there is inaction, this locks in a greater level of climate change. Climate change is now unavoidable, but we can determine, to some extent, what level of change we are prepared to commit to,” says England. “If we care about minimising the impact on heat extremes, bushfires, human health, our ecosystems and our capacity to produce food and have a secure freshwater supply, greenhouse gas emissions need to peak in the next decade and then decline rapidly.”

Comments

  1. #1 Michael
    September 18, 2009

    There was a bit of a dill called Girma,
    Who on the science of climate was a squimer,
    He was in love with a Russian called Rand,
    Which made him stick his head in the sand,
    and claim climate is not 30 years but short termer.

  2. #2 Michael
    September 18, 2009

    And with the correct format:

    There was a bit of a dill called Girma

    who on the science of climate was a squimer

    He was in love with a Russian called Rand

    which made him stick his head in the sand

    and claim climate is not 30 years but short termer

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    September 18, 2009

    Three points:

    first, note how Girma picks a right wing neofascist rag for his source;

    second, he is mistaking weather for climate;

    third, temperatures over most of the planet was above normal in August anyway, in particular Eurasia and (as usual) the Arctic.

    Michael speaks for me in post #1800. As I said yesterday, either Girma has a cement block for a head or he was planted here by one of the Rand-type liberatarian right wing nutty groups to annoy everyone.

    The novelty of having this klutz in here wore off for me a long time ago.

  4. #4 Michael
    September 18, 2009

    Hmmm, spelling is good too;

    There was a bit of a dill called Girma

    who on the science of climate was a squirmer

    He was in love with a Russian called Rand

    which made him stick his head in the sand

    and claim climate is not 30 years but short termer

  5. #5 Girma
    September 19, 2009

    THE ORSSENGO THEORY CONFIRMED!

    [The Pacific Decadal Oscillation](http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm)

    Fisheries scientist Steven Hare coined the term “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (PDO) in 1996 while researching connections between Alaska salmon production cycles and Pacific climate. PDO has since been described as a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability because the two climate oscillations have similar spatial climate fingerprints, but very different temporal behavior. Two main characteristics distinguish PDO from El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO): first, 20th century PDO “events” persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months; second, the climatic fingerprints of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific/North American sector, while secondary signatures exist in the tropics – the opposite is true for ENSO. Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: “cool” PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while “warm” PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990’s (Mantua et al. 1997, Minobe 1997).

    I believe the W pattern I found in the [oscillation component of the mean global temperature plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTrends.gif) matches the PDO pattern described above.

    Don’t I deserve congratulation? Honestly?

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    September 19, 2009

    No Girma, on the basis of surfing the internet for ten year old articles like this you deserve nothing but contempt. Get off your butt for once and go to a library and read the primary data. And also attend conferences where this issues are discussed and argued.

  7. #7 Bernard J.
    September 19, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    I applied [your technique](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109) of ‘data analysis’ to the annual [CO2 data at Mauna Loa](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/).

    For the period to August this year, I found:

    Mean = 345.63 ppm

    Standard deviation = 21.02 ppm

    Minimum = 315.98

    Maximum = 385.57

    Range = 69.59

    Now, to paraphrase you:

    Range for 99.73% of mean global atmospheric CO2 concentration = 6σ = 126.1 ppm.

    As a result, an increase or decrease in mean global atmospheric CO2 concentration of up to 126.1 ppm is natural.

    Last year, for 2008, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 385.57 ppm.

    There is no sign for any abnormal atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    So, using your original ‘statistical analysis’ method, given the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration dataset, CO2 concentration would need to rise above 471.73 ppm in order to qualify as being “unnatural”.

    Of course, you [subsequently changed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945857) your definition to +/- 3σ, which would mean that only concentrations of CO2 above 408.68 ppm would qualify as “unnatural”.

    Even using the conventional 2σ ‘range’, CO2 concentration would need to rise above 387.66 ppm to be considered “unnatural” using your ‘method’.

    So Girma Orssengo, are you prepared to say that CO2 concentrations from 1959 to present are not changing beyond a “natural” range?

  8. #8 Girma
    September 19, 2009

    [Pacific Ocean Showing Signs of Major Shifts in the Climate]( http://nytimes.com/library/national/science/012000sci-environ-climate.html) (January 20, 2000)

    El Niño is marked by abnormally high sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific, which touches off a different set of winter weather consequences, often including heavy rains across the southern tier of the United States.

    La Niña and El Niño typically last a year or two, but there is also a longer-term natural oscillation going on in the Pacific, this one involving a flip-flop in sea-temperature patterns on a scale of decades.

    When the ocean flips from one of these states to another, Dr. Patzert said, “it resets the stage for the climate system; it provides a new background on which smaller events like El Niño and La Niña can occur.”

    In one of these alternating states of what is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, sea-surface temperatures are higher in the eastern equatorial Pacific but lower throughout much of the rest of the Pacific basin. That pattern predominated from the mid-1970’s through most of the 1990’s.

    Scientists believe that large-scale climatic fluctuations like the Pacific oscillation affect the global temperature.
    The last time the oscillation was in its present state, from about 1945 to about 1976, a global warming trend that had begun early in the century leveled off.

    Then it resumed when the oscillation flipped to its opposite state, rising in the 1990’s to the highest level ever recorded.

    Now, for the last two years, the opposite pattern has appeared: cooler water in the eastern tropical Pacific but warmer elsewhere.

    That pattern last predominated from the mid-1940’s to the mid-1970’s.

    While Dr. Patzert and other scientists said they believed that a flip from one phase of the oscillation to another had occurred, they also said it was too soon to tell whether it represented a true shift from one multidecadal regime to the other.

    “There simply has not been enough time” since the shift took place, said Wayne Higgins, a senior meteorologist at the government’s Climate Prediction Center at Camp Springs, Md.

    Five to 10 additional years of data may be required, Mr. Higgins said.

    The shift is only two years old and whether it will last for a full 20 or 30 years remains to be seen.

    Mr Higgins, it is nine years since the date of the above article, and the PDO is still in its cooling phase now. Has the climate shifted or not?

  9. #9 Girma
    September 19, 2009

    Bernard J @1807

    You wrote, So Girma Orssengo, are you prepared to say that CO2 concentrations from 1959 to present are not changing beyond a “natural” range?

    You can argue that the CO2 level is or becoming unnatural.

    However, that is quite different from arguing that CO2 level is causing global warming and we need to reduce it. When the PDO is in its cooling phase, to say the globe is warming is just unbelievable.

    The cooling range for the PDO could be as large as 0.7 deg C, as it happened from 1878 to 1911.

  10. #10 Michael
    September 19, 2009

    Climate is 30+ years you nitwit.

    And, PDO….oscillation. Oscillation.

  11. #11 Girma
    September 19, 2009

    Luminous beauty @1791

    Thank you for the link to [Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution]( http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html). Appreciate it.

  12. #12 Dave
    September 19, 2009

    > You can argue that the CO2 level is or becoming unnatural.

    Bernard J used your own “analysis” applied to a different variable, to show how bizarre your “analysis” is. Don’t change the subject – either you continue to assert your method is valid in the face of patently false results, or you accept your “analysis” of temperature data is flawed.

    > When the PDO is in its cooling phase

    It’s the moon! It’s Milankovitch! Its the PDO! It’s whatever I can find with google that I can somehow shore up my prejudices with! It’s anything but rational analysis!

  13. #13 Michael
    September 19, 2009

    Amazing to see cognitve dissonance in action.

    First Girma is all aflutter over the comments of a researcher whose paper said this:

    ….as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming

    And now:

    When the PDO is in its cooling phase, to say the globe is warming is just unbelievable

    It’d be easier to teach a dog alegebra than get any science through the impervious Rand-o-sphere that Girma’s head is enclosed in.

  14. #14 Girma
    September 19, 2009

    [ENVIRONMENT: Global cooling is here: Don Easterbrook]( http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2009apr04_e.html)

    Professor Easterbrook said that after several decades of studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range in the state of Washington, “My research showed a distinct pattern of glacial advances and retreats (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, GDO) that correlated well with climate records.

    In 1992, Dr Nathan Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations.

    According to Easterbrook: “Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related. All but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO2 emissions, so they were clearly unrelated to atmospheric CO2.”

    Using the pattern established for the past several hundred years, in 1998 he projected the temperature curve for the past century into the next century.

    He said: “At that time, the projected curve indicated global cooling beginning about 2005 ± 3-5 years until about 2030, then renewed warming from about 2030 to about 2060 (unrelated to CO2 – just continuation of the natural cycle), then another cool period from about 2060 to about 2090. This was admittedly an approximation, but it was radically different from the 1° F per decade warming called for by the IPCC. Because the prediction was so different from the IPCC prediction, time would obviously show which projection was ultimately correct.”

    He added, “Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1° F as forecast by the IPCC, but cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward.

    “In 2008, NASA satellite imagery confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.”

    Professor Easterbrook said that the consequences of climate cooling could be severe.

    “The ramifications of the global cooling cycle for the next 30 years are far-reaching – e.g., failure of crops in critical agricultural areas (it’s already happening this year), increasing energy demands, transportation difficulties, and habitat change.

    “All this during which global population will increase from six billion to about 9 billion. The real danger in spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that little will be left to deal with the very real problems engendered by global cooling.”

    He concluded: “Global warming (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008 per cent) was not the cause of the warming – it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

    “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain.

    “Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”

    This is exactly what I showed in this [mean global temperature anomaly plot.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTrends.gif)

    Also well put: The real danger in spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that little will be left to deal with the very real problems engendered by global cooling.

  15. #15 Janet Akerman
    September 19, 2009

    Girma, You’d better start buying stocks in ice picks and snow shoes.

    The only thing lacking was any evidence. No matter if it fits your comforting ideology.

    Opinion peieces are better than evidence don’t you think. I think we should call evidence “Pravda”.

  16. #16 Michael
    September 19, 2009

    Is this the same Girma who at the start of this thread was bemoaning claims of CATASTROPHIC global warming, and warning of scare campigns, SCAREY graphs and ‘alamism’.

    Now he appears to believe in CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL COOLING – starvation, ruin and death unless we start preparing ourselves for massively expensive COOL MITIGATION.

    I think it’s a plot by BIG Governement and an evil cabal of geologists to foist some kind of cooling tax on us.

  17. #17 zoot
    September 19, 2009

    Girma, I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    September 19, 2009

    Girma Orssengo said:

    You can argue that the CO2 level is or becoming unnatural.

    As [Dave](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1948993) pointed out, I was expressly commenting on the validity of your analysis.

    Either you agree with the conclusion in [my post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1948838) that “CO2 concentrations from 1959 to present are not changing beyond a ‘natural’ range”, or you don’t.

    If you do agree, you have to pursue some serious justification of statistical misapplication. If you do not agree, then you need to explain why my conclusion about CO2 concentrations, based on your methodology, is incorrect, but why your original conclusion about temperature is not.

    Start showing some intellectual integrity, or leave all rational folk who read this thread to conclude that you are merely a scientific fraud… if they have not already done so hundreds of posts ago.

  19. #19 Steve Chamberlain
    September 19, 2009

    Quoting from the Opinion pages of the Oz is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

    Actually no, that’s wrong, it’s the second last. Ayn Rand is the last.

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    September 19, 2009

    Steve, I didn’t even bother to sully myself by visiting the Oz, after I read:

    Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh…

    [snip]

    Mean global temperature from satellite measurement for last year was 0.05 deg C!

    Apparently (or at least, according to Girma Orssengo), the ice age cameth last year…

  21. #21 Girma
    September 19, 2009

    Bernard J @1818

    I will try to justify my statistics analysis, and I will get back to you when I am ready.

  22. #22 Girma
    September 19, 2009

    Bernard @1818

    You wrote, I was expressly commenting on the validity of your analysis.

    Start showing some intellectual integrity, or leave all rational folk who read this thread to conclude that you are merely a scientific fraud… if they have not already done so hundreds of posts ago.

    To check the validity of my statistical analysis, I compare the percentages of temperatures that lie between two temperatures values using theoretical results for normal population distribution to those using the cumulative frequency results for our sample data. If my approximation is close, then the analysis is valid.

    Example 1.

    From normal distribution tables, the proportion of temperatures that lie between -σ = -0.15 and σ = 0.15 deg C is 68.26%.

    For our sample data, the [cumulative frequency](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualAnomalyTemperatureStatistics.htm) for –0.15 deg C is 0.186; the cumulative frequency for 0.15 deg C is 0.874. Therefore, the proportion of temperatures that lie between –0.15 and 0.15 deg C is 0.874-0.185 = 68.8%.

    The result for our sample of 68.8% is a reasonable approximation of the theoretical result of 68.26%.

    Example 2.

    From normal distribution tables, the proportion of temperatures that lie between -2σ = -0.3 and 2σ = 0.3 deg C is 95.44%.

    For our sample data, the cumulative frequency for –0.3 deg C is 0.013; the cumulative frequency for 0.3 deg C is 0.978. Therefore, the proportion of temperatures that lie between –0.3 and 0.3 deg C is 0.978-0.013 = 96.5%.

    The result for our sample of 96.5% is a reasonable approximation of the theoretical result of 95.44%.

  23. #23 Girma
    September 19, 2009

    As a result of post @1822 above, a global warming of 0.7 deg C or a cooling by the same amount (as from 1887 to 1911) is within the normal variation of mean global temperatures every 20 to 30 year periods; as result, we must adapt to them instead of a futile attempt to stopping them.

    Girma Orssengo

  24. #24 Girma
    September 20, 2009

    sorry

    (as from 1887 1878 to 1911)

  25. #25 Girma
    September 20, 2009

    [Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology](http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria)

    The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.

    Global warming by 0.8 deg C or cooling by the same amount every 20 to 30 years are with in the normal variation of mean global temperatures that has a 159 year long average of 13.97 deg C.

  26. #26 Michael
    September 20, 2009

    The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope – RL

    Duh!!

    Who’s saying it is??

    This is why Lindzen’s reputation is on the slide.

    Gotta feel sorry for the fools for fall for this.

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    September 20, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    The global mean temperature data are [not normally](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1946419) distributed.

    The global mean temperature data are not independent; they are not randomly distributed; they are autocorrelated; they are time-series data.

    How many breakings of these criteria are permissible using the clumsy analysis that you employed?

    Justify for each point please.

  28. #28 Girma
    September 20, 2009

    Bernard J @1827

    The numbers don’t lie.

    For the residuals of the mean global temperatures, my estimate for this sample data for two standard deviation range of 68.8 % compared to the theoretical for normal distributions of 68.26%; and my estimate for the sample for four standard deviation range of 96.5 % compared to the theoretical for normal distributions of 95.44%. You cannot get any closer than that!

  29. #29 Girma
    September 20, 2009

    [Nathan Mantua, Ph. D., Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans,
    University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.]( http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm)

    The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, is often described as a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability (Zhang et al. 1997).

    Two main characteristics distinguish the PDO from ENSO. First, typical PDO “events” have shown remarkable persistence relative to that attributed to ENSO events – in this century, major PDO eras have persisted for 20 to 30 years (Mantua et al. 1997, Minobe 1997). Second, the climatic fingerprints of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific/North American sector, while secondary signatures exist in the tropics – the opposite is true for ENSO.

    Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century (e.g. Mantua et al. 1997, Minobe 1997): cool PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while warm PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990’s. Recent changes in Pacific climate suggest a possible reversal to cool PDO conditions in 1998.

    [PACIFIC DECADAL OSCILLATION]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTrends.gif)

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2009

    Girma #1829, why did you repeat the same post again? Do you think nobody here can read? Its you who ignores posts they do not like, not the rest of us.

    Here is the abstract of an article co-authored by the same author (Nathan J Mantua) in the journal Environmental Health (2008):

    *Anthropogenically-derived increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have been implicated in recent climate change, and are projected to substantially impact the climate on a global scale in the future*. For marine and freshwater systems, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are expected to increase surface temperatures, lower pH, and cause changes to vertical mixing, upwelling, precipitation, and evaporation patterns.

    OK, Girma, read the partial abstract above (with italics mine). So you have been apparently mis-representing Mantua`s and his colleagues views on the factors underlying climate change. Care to comment, bright guy?

  31. #31 Bernard J.
    September 20, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    The [numbers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1946419) don’t lie.

    The global mean temperature data are [not normally](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1946419) distributed.

    The global mean temperature data are not independent; they are not randomly distributed; they are autocorrelated; they are time-series data.

    So, once again, how many breakings of these criteria are permissible using the clumsy – ignorant! – analysis that you employed?

    Justify for each point above please, and this time refer to a credible statistical text to validate your assumptions and your approach to your ‘analysis’.

  32. #32 Girma
    September 20, 2009

    Jeff Harvey @1830

    At post 1464, I posted the following:

    Gaz @1414
    You wrote, What makes you think this down/up/down/up is evidence of a regularly recurring cyclical pattern

    Gaz, that is what the recorded data show. I don’t mean to say that this cycle will repeat itself in the next 150 years. But for the last 150 years, that is the pattern we see from the data.

    You also wrote, and what do you think the physical mechanisms driving that cycle might be?

    I really don’t exactly know the exact mechanism, but I guess it has something to do with solar cycle, ocean circulation cycle, air circulation cycle, earth’s orbital cycles etc.

    At that time, I did not know the mechanism for my [plot for the oscillation of the mean global temperature]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTrends.gif). But I now found that the mechanism was already explained by Dr Mantua as [Pacific Decadal Oscillation]( http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm). That is my only motivation.

  33. #33 Girma
    September 20, 2009

    Bernard @1831

    Here is ALL the [mean global temperature data]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualTemperatureAnomalyCumulativeFrequency.htm) I used to arrive at my results.

    And here is the [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureCumulativeFrequency.gif) that shows excellent agreement between sample cumulative frequency with cumulative frequency for normal distributions.

  34. #34 Dave
    September 20, 2009

    Of course Girma, if you’d bothered to read the IPCC reports, you’d know all about the PDO, our current scientific understanding of it, which climate models can currently account for it, and how our current knowledge of it is factored into the predicted temperature rise of the next century.

  35. #35 Bernard J.
    September 20, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    The [numbers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1946419) don’t lie.

    1) the global mean temperature data are [not normally](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1946419) distributed. Perform a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, or a Ryan-Joiner test, or an Anderson-Darling test on the data. Explain what the resultant p values indicate.

    If that is too difficult for you, count the number of data points that are less than -0.55, the number of datapoints that are greater than -0.55 and less than or equal to -0.5… et cetera, and construct a histogram of the results. Look at the distribution and ask yourself, “is it monomodal?”, “is it skewed”?, “even if I am such a statistical nincompoop that I can’t perform a test for normality, what does the histogram of distribution tell me?”

    Then, after you have done that, concentrate really hard and tell yourself that:

    2) the global mean temperature data are not independent; 3) they are not randomly distributed; 4) they are autocorrelated; 5) they are time-series data.

    It is imperative that these points are all considered when choosing (a priori, I will add) an appropriate method of analysis.

    So, yet again, how many breakings of characteristics 1-5 are permissible when determining, using your approach, whether there is a trend or ‘significance’ in non-normal, non-random, non-independent, autocorrelated time-series data? And why, when the data are of this form, would you apply “descriptive” statistics to such data in the first place?!

    I repeat, justify your analysis in light of each of points 1 to 5 above, and do so with reference to a credible statistical text or to a comparable published, peer-reviewed paper.

  36. #36 Michael
    September 20, 2009

    BJ, Girma has you on toast.

    His reply will include LOTS of CAPITALS.

    You lose.

  37. #37 Girma
    September 20, 2009

    Bernard J @1835

    I have got a [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureCumulativeFrequency.gif) that shows excellent agreement for the cumulative frequency for the sample data and the normal distribution. It is impossible to improve on an excellent result!

    As a result, an increase or decrease in mean global temperature of 0.7 deg C in 20 to 30 years is normal variation of mean global temperature caused by Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

    A [global cooling]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTrends.gif) in the oscillation component of mean global temperature by 0.7 deg C was observed from 1887 to 1911, confirming that a change in mean global temperature by 0.7 deg C is normal.

    The PDO entered a cooling phase in 1998. NATURAL Global cooling for couple of decades follow.

    Cheers

  38. #38 Bernard J.
    September 20, 2009

    I showed, using [Girma Orssengo's original 'statistical analysis' method](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1948838) (for time-series analysis!), and given the [Mauna Loa mean annual atmospheric CO2 concentration dataset](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), that CO2 concentration would need to rise above 471.73 ppm in order to qualify as being “unnatural” in Orssengo’s perception of such.

    Girma Orssengo [subsequently changed his definition](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945857) to refer to +/- 3σ, rather than +/- 6σ, which would mean that only concentrations of CO2 above 408.68 ppm would qualify as “unnatural”.

    Even using the more conventional +/-2σ ‘range’, mean annual atmospheric CO2 concentration would need to rise above 387.66 ppm to be considered “unnatural” using Orssengo’s ‘method’. To compare, 2008’s mean annual concentration of CO2 was 385.57 ppm, so Girma Orssengo’s method says that there has been no “unnatural” increase in CO2 in the period 1959 to 2008.

    When [pressed on this matter](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1948916), Girma Orssengo replied:

    You can argue that the CO2 level is or becoming unnatural.

    However, that is quite different from arguing that CO2 level is causing global warming and we need to reduce it. When the PDO is in its cooling phase, to say the globe is warming is just unbelievable.

    Note that the second paragraph of Orssengo’s is an irrelevant diversion from the matter at hand.

    So Girma Orssengo, are you prepared to say that CO2 concentrations from 1959 to present are not changing beyond a “natural” range? I am not interested in whether “you can argue” whether CO2 levels are “unnatural”; I want to know if you agree that your method of analysis says that CO2 concentrations are not “unnatural” over the 1959-2008 period.

  39. #39 Bernard J.
    September 20, 2009

    Girma Orssengo, who must be shitting his nappy with humiliation, says:

    I have got a plot that shows excellent agreement for the cumulative frequency for the sample data and the normal distribution.

    I say again: check your statistical procedures.

    The global mean temperature data are [not normally distributed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1946419). Perform a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, or a Ryan-Joiner test, or an Anderson-Darling test on the data. Explain what the resultant p values indicate.

    If that is too difficult for you, count the number of data points that are less than -0.55, the number of datapoints that are greater than -0.55 and less than or equal to -0.5… et cetera, and construct a histogram of the results. Look at the distribution and ask yourself, “is it monomodal?”, “is it skewed”?, “even if I am such a statistical nincompoop that I can’t perform a test for normality, what does the histogram of distribution tell me?

    You seem obsessively enamoured with your “cumulative frequency plot”. Consider the three specific tests for normal distribution, and why they indicate that the data are not normal. Consider the histogram that I described above, and how it clearly shows that the data are not normal.

    Why do you think that three separate and specific tests for normality, and the simple and very straight-forward shape of the distribution itself, indicate that the data are not normal, when your “plot” shows otherwise?

    It is impossible to improve on an excellent result!

    Girma Orssengo, in case you are not getting the message, the data are not normal. Your plot is not “an excellent result”.

    Normality, or otherwise, of the data distribution aside, you have persisted in ignoring [points 2 through to 5](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951531), which are:

    2) the global mean temperature data are not independent; 3) they are not randomly distributed; 4) they are autocorrelated; 5) they are time-series data.

    I say again, it is imperative that these points are all considered when choosing an appropriate method of analysis.

    Why do you continue to ignore this very basic aspect of statistical analysis, in the face of repeated attempts to remind you of it?

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    September 20, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    It is patently apparent to anyone who has completed (or even failed) a first-year university statistics course that you have not a clue in the world about how to appropriately analyse datasets.

    So, to give you a little bit of a helping hand, I will point out to you that time-series data are two-factor data. Does this fact ring any reo in your concretinous boulder of a head?

    UNSW academics must be sobbing like babies into their palms, witnessing the disrepute that you are so profoundly bringing upon the institution.

  41. #41 Girma
    September 20, 2009

    The mean global temperature may not be a normal distribution, but the residual is because the match in the [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureCumulativeFrequency.gif) between the cumulative distribution for the SORTED RESIDUAL in the mean global temperature and the normal distribution is excellent.

    I believe more my own eyes than people’s word.

  42. #42 Bernard J.
    September 20, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    You ‘[analysed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1948838)’ the mean global temperature anomaly, and not the ‘sorted residual[s]‘.

    You are obviously incapable, either through lack of skill or from psychological block, or by both, of pursuing the [recommended construction of the histogram](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951531). For your benefit the histogram is [here](http://i37.tinypic.com/2hgrebb.jpg).

    Comment on the distribution.

    I reiterate that you persist in ignoring [points 2 through to 5](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951531) about the requirements for undertaking the ‘descriptive’ statistical ‘analysis’ that you did.

    Finally, [here is a graph of two sets of hypothetical time-series data](http://i33.tinypic.com/2dvkcqu.jpg). Explain, using the language of a typical peer-reviewed journal methodology, how you would statistically analyse the two series for determining whether there was a trend in either of the datasets, or whether some values are (to use your clumsy terminology) “unnatural”.

  43. #43 Michael
    September 20, 2009

    Shorter Girma:

    I’d sooner believe the crap I make up in my head than any basic indisputable statistical analysis which I don’t get. BLOG SCIENCE WINS!

  44. #44 Michael
    September 20, 2009

    And next up…..Girma reinvents the wheel…as a triangle.

    Stay tuned for more BLOG SCIENCE with Prof Grima!

  45. #45 Girma
    September 20, 2009

    [Cumulative frequency analysis]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_frequency_analysis)

    Frequency analysis is done to obtain insight into how often a certain phenomenon (feature) occurs. This may help in describing or explaining a situation in which the phenomenon is involved, or in planning interventions.

    To present the cumulative frequency distribution as a mathematical equation, one may try to fit the cumulative frequency distribution to a known cumulative probability distribution. If successful, the known equation is enough to report the frequency distribution and a table of data will not be required.

    [Cumulative frequency distribution for the residuals of mean global temperatures.](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureCumulativeFrequency.gif)

    Unfortunately, at a time when people say a decreasing global temperature is increasing, there is no wonder they don’t believe what they see. For them, data doesn’t matter, belief does!

    They complain of resource depletion and consumption. Assuming this is the case, let us try to think with laser like precision. Who is to blame for this? Is it because businesses meeting peoples’ need? Or is it that there are more people with more need to consume? Which comes first? After tax on CO2, will the resource depletion and consumption end? Have we identified the root cause of the problem with precision before we solve it?

  46. #46 Michael
    September 20, 2009

    Shorter Girma:
    climate is 30+ years but I reject that as I need to believe that the climate cooling, so climate is whatever I say it is. And why are you people so irrational?

  47. #47 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2009

    Girma, You did not answer my point. Nathan Mantua, whose work you have (ab)used to suggest that climate cycles are natural, is a co-author on a more recent (2008) paper in which the abstract states (in part):

    *Anthropogenically-derived increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have been implicated in recent climate change*

    Read it again!!!! The paper is saying that *anthropogenic-derived increases in greenhouse gases* are thought to be responsible for the warming!!! You are therefore mis-interpreting the views of the author.

  48. #48 Girma
    September 20, 2009

    Jeff Jarvey @1847

    In the paper [The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Climate Forecasting for North America]( http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm)< .i>, Dr Mantua wrote:

    Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century (e.g. Mantua et al. 1997, Minobe 1997): cool PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while warm PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990’s. Recent changes in Pacific climate suggest a possible reversal to cool PDO conditions in 1998.

    The above summary supports my [plot for the oscillation component of the mean global temperature.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTrends.gif) That is my only point. Nothing more. Nothing less.

  49. #49 Bernard J.
    September 20, 2009

    Dang.

    The [image](http://i37.tinypic.com/2hgrebb.jpg) I linked to [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951865) was labelled with the time range from another analysis.

    the range should read “1850-2008″.

    The data were obtained from Girma Orssengo’s [woodfortrees link](http://woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12) at [#1755](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109).

    This was sloppy of me, even though it was 1.00am when I labelled the graph.

  50. #50 Mark Byrne
    September 20, 2009

    Girma,

    Let me show you [with pictures](http://i38.tinypic.com/5eb8t0.jpg) why your analysis in inappropriate.

  51. #51 Mark Byrne
    September 21, 2009

    Girma, PDO is an oscillation. It [hasn't been stuck in up](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-the-Smoking-Gun.html) so it can’t explain [this scale of warming]( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png) unprecedented for 2000 years.

    Further more ocean cycles operate by taking heat from the surface down into the depths of the ocean. If the PDO were so powerful why is [the ocean](http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-causes-short-term-changes-in-ocean-heat.html) and surface both warming for such sustained periods of time? AGW has the mechanism that explains the source of the heat build up.

  52. #52 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    Mark Byrne @1849

    You wrote, Let me show you with pictures why your analysis in inappropriate.

    I agree that there is a linear warming in the mean global temperature anomaly. In the residual, this is removed as

    Residual = Anomaly – Linear warming component of mean global temperature anomaly

    For the residual, the mean is zero and the standard deviation is 0.15 deg C, for the data at [WoodForTrees.org](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend).

    All intermediate data are [here.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualTemperatureAnomalyCumulativeFrequency.htm)

  53. #53 Janet Akerman
    September 21, 2009

    Green Nazis want to enslave Africans now. Undeveloped countries should be allowed to decide for themselves how to earn money from trade. Not have a chain around there neck from COLLECTIVISTS.

    Freedom to profit from progress, [such as this](http://www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/summers.html) is being denied to poor people by Green socialist who would rather pollution be prevented.

    I venerate fossil fuel, and African’s should get [the piece of the action]( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-african-pollution-disaster) that the free-market awards to them.

  54. #54 Mark Byrne
    September 21, 2009

    Girma @1852,

    Your residuals are also inappropriate as they are calculated on the assumption of a linear warming trend from 1850. In reality most of the warming has occurred post 1945, with the warming (0.15k/decade -30year mean) more than [three times faster]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1890/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1890/to:1930/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1930/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/trend) than your assumed trend.

    Spot the [accelerated warming here too]( http://i37.tinypic.com/11azy2f.jpg).

  55. #55 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    Mark Byrne @1854

    In the equation:

    Residual = Anomaly – Linear Component of Mean Global Temperature Anomaly

    If I reduce the linear component, it will result in increase in the residual.

    The residual must be about the oscillation of the anomaly relative to the long term. There should not be any constant shift component in the oscillation component.

  56. #56 Mark Byrne
    September 21, 2009

    Girma 1855,

    Yep, your analysis is inappropriate. You are making inappropriate assumptions and using inappropriate statistics. The ‘residual’ is oscillating about a warming trend that has accelerated more than 300% in period.

    Try a linear regression of [CO2 and temperature](http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html). The repeat for Ln(CO2) vs Temp.

    The take an advanced class [here](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/) and [here](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/crystal-ball/).

  57. #57 Bernard J.
    September 21, 2009

    There comes a time in every ignorant incompetent’s life when he has to look at himself and say, “I, Girma Orssengo, am an ignorant incompetent.

    After repeatedly pointing out to Girma Orssengo (last time [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951698)) that the [HadCRU annual mean global temperature anomaly data](www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) are not normally distributed, and after repeatedly reminding him ([for example, here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951698)) that the global mean temperature data are not independent, that they are not randomly distributed, that they are autocorrelated, and that they are time-series data, Orssengo simply [repeats his claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951601) that:

    I have got a plot that shows excellent agreement for the cumulative frequency for the sample data and the normal distribution. It is impossible to improve on an excellent result!

    Yes, [he insists](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1949959) that he is using normal data, and that he is using it appropriately.

    The problem is, the data are not normal, and the other criteria that would have required fulfillment in order to perform his [original 'analysis'](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109), but that were not fulfilled, have been studiously ignored by Orssengo.

    At another time [he tried to say](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1948916) that it is debatable whether the anomalies are normally distributed or not:

    You can argue that the CO2 level is or becoming unnatural

    however, there is no debate – the data MUST be normal in order to [say what he said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109) – and the other criteria must be addressed. And surprise, surprise – the data are not normal…

    He [seems to think](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1952939) that subtracting a linear trend from the data and then performing a cumulative frequency analysis on the residuals constitutes justification for his [original claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109) that there is “no sign for any abnormal temperature”.

    Newsflash, Orssengo…

    A linear subtraction is not data transformation. And, almost by very definition, the mean of a group of residuals is always zero.

    I suspect that he does not even have a clue as to why his tautological [comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1953429) that:

    [f]or the residual, the mean is zero and the standard deviation is 0.15 deg C, for the data at WoodForTrees.org.

    is equivalent to saying that the maximum anomaly value in the dataset happenst also to be the biggest!!!

    I have laboured here trying to elicit the merest hint that Orssengo might consider applying appropriate analyses to the data, but he has steadfastly refused to do so. So, turning the tables, I have applied his analysis to the data he claims shows that there is “[no abnormal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109)” temperature signal in the last centuray and a half.

    Using his data sourced from the [original site](www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/), and using the exceedingly basic cumfreq software that even Orssengo should be able to find, I replicated his analysis. As cumfreq does not handle negative values, and because I wanted to apply the test to the same anomaly data that Orssengo used, I added 1 to each value, but this does not alter the significance of the outputs.

    The end result is [this graph](http://i33.tinypic.com/am9w60.jpg), which indicates very obviously that the anomaly data do not fit the 90% confidence band for a dataset with 159 datapoints and the variance present in the HadCRU dataset. Unfortunately the cumfreq software does not seem to permit the confidence intervals to be changed to 95%, but that is a moot point because anyone who understands the nature of such density functions would immediately recognise that the graphed results would fall outside even a 99% confidence band.

    I am still trying to figure out exactly what Orssengo thought he graphed, but whatever it was, it wasn’t a confirmation that the HadCRU data are normal, ‘residuals’ or otherwise. Of course, anyone who was even half awake would have cottoned on to his incompetence, because his “For normal distribution population” trajectory in [the graph](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureCumulativeFrequency.gif) is not a smooth normal curve.

    I could hammer on about this mess for paragraphs yet, but I am over it. Orssengo, if you believe that you have conducted an appropriate statistical analysis, detail your methodology in the manner that I [requested earlier](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951865).

    We all await with bated breaths to see exactly what you know that the whole discplines of science and statistics have missed.

  58. #58 Bernard J.
    September 21, 2009

    Dang again.

    This is the [HadCRU](http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) site.

  59. #59 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    To present the cumulative frequency distribution as a mathematical equation, one may try to fit the cumulative frequency distribution [OF OUR SAMPLE DATA] to a known cumulative probability distribution [NORMAL DISTRIBUTION]. If successful[IT WAS], the known equation is enough to report the frequency distribution and a table of data will not be required.

    We can use the cumulative distribution curve for our sample to find the proportion
    of temperature values that lie between any two limits. We don’t need to know the type of the probability distribution.

  60. #60 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    To present the cumulative frequency distribution as a mathematical equation, one may try to fit the cumulative frequency distribution [OF OUR SAMPLE DATA] to a known cumulative probability distribution [NORMAL DISTRIBUTION]. If successful[IT WAS], the known equation is enough to report the frequency distribution and a table of data will not be required.

    We can use the cumulative distribution curve for our sample to find the proportion of temperature values that lie between any two limits. We don’t need to know the type of the probability distribution.

  61. #61 Mark Byrne
    September 21, 2009

    Girma writes:

    >*To present the cumulative frequency distribution as a mathematical equation, one may try to fit the cumulative frequency distribution [OF OUR SAMPLE DATA] to a known cumulative probability distribution [NORMAL DISTRIBUTION]. If successful[IT WAS], the known equation is enough to report the frequency distribution and a table of data will not be required.*

    Girma how do you judge if the fit was successful? Bernard has just demonstrated it was way way outside confidence limits.

  62. #62 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    Biologist who trained a flea.
    Robert Day, How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, P. 38

    After training the flea for many months, the biologist was able to get a response to certain commands. The most gratifying of the experiments was the one in which the professor would shout the command “Jump,” and the flea would leap into the air each time the command was given.

    The professor was about to submit the remarkable feat to posterity via a scientific journal, but he – in the manner of the true scientist – decided to take his experiments one step further.

    He sought to determine the location of the receptor organ involved. In one experiment, he removed the legs of the flea, one at a time. The flea obligingly continued to jump upon command, but as each successive leg was removed, its jumps became less spectacular.

    Finally, with the removal of its last leg, the flea remained motionless. Time after time the command failed to get the usual response.

    The professor decided that at least he could publish his findings. He set pen to paper and described in meticulous detail the experiments executed over the preceding months.

    His conclusion was one intended to startle the scientific world: WHEN THE LEGS OF A FLEA ARE REMOVED, THE FLEA CAN NO LONGER HEAR.

    This conclusion is identical to the conclusion CO2 DRIVES GLOBAL TEMPERATUE

  63. #63 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    You wrote, Girma how do you judge if the fit was successful? Bernard has just demonstrated it was way way outside confidence limits.

    For a normal distribution, we have the following results.

    1. About 68.26% of the values lie between -σ and +σ about the mean.
      For this range, our sample data gives 68.8%,which is a very good agreement.
    2. About 95.44% of the values lie between -2σ and +2σ about the mean.
      For this range, our sample data gives 96.5%, which is a good agreement.

    The cumulative frequency data are given at the BOTTOM of this [web page.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualTemperatureAnomalyCumulativeFrequency.htm)

  64. #64 Michael
    September 21, 2009

    Orssengo,

    more capitals, MORE CAPITALS, that’ll show ‘em.

    BTW, I am now of the firm opinion that Tim should step in and put Orssengo out of his misery.
    If this was a boxing match the doctor would stopped the fight long, long ago.

  65. #65 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    Note: I calculated the theoretical cumulative frequency for normal distribution using Excel. The temperature values used in this function must first be divided by the standard deviation value of 0.15.

  66. #66 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    Environmentalism:
    Without machines and technology, the task of mere survival is a terrible, mind-and-body-wrecking ordeal. In “nature,” the struggle for food, clothing and shelter consumes all of a man’s energy and spirit; it is a losing struggle—the winner is any flood, earthquake or swarm of locusts. (Consider the 500,000 bodies left in the wake of a single flood in Pakistan; they had been men who lived without technology.) To work only for bare necessities is a luxury that mankind cannot afford.
    AR

  67. #67 Former Skeptic
    September 21, 2009

    C’MON GUYS!!! YOU CAN DO IT!!! TWO THOUSAND POSTS!!!

  68. #68 Bernard J.
    September 21, 2009

    So, the “[no abnormal temperature](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109)” story thus far…

    Girma Orssengo uses the ‘[descriptive statistics](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109)’ sample mean and sample standard deviation to make the claim that there are no abnormal temperatures in the [1850-2008 HadCRU mean annual global temperature](http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) dataset.

    For more posts subsequent to his original claim than I care to count, he has ignored the repeated admonishments that one cannot use such a naïve and inappropriate approach, because (amongst other things) the mean annual global temperature data are not independent, they are not randomly distributed, they are autocorrelated, and they are time-series data.

    However, the most contentious point on which Orssengo shows no capacity for instruction, is that one cannot utilise mean/standard deviation calculations, in the manner that Orssengo did, when the data are not normally (id est, Guassian) distributed.

    Laterally to the matter, Orssengo has tried to evade the significance of normality by [blowing the matter off](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1948916) when he said:

    You can argue that the CO2 level is or becoming unnatural

    Well, no, one cannot argue about the normality of data (whether temperature or CO2) when one is using normality-sensitive techniques. One must objectively determine whether the data are normal [using appropriate tests](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1946419), and if the data are not normal, a different analysis method must be used.

    As an aside, if one can see from a [frequency histogram](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951865) that there are skews and polymodalities in the distribution, one should be very suspicious that the data are normal, even if one is unable to prove so statistically.

    Pressed further, Orssengo then [attempted to employ a cumulative frequency construction](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1949959) and comparison with an expected curve to ‘see’ if normality exists. He was very quickly [shown](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1953841) that a [properly constructed cumulative frequency distribution](http://i33.tinypic.com/am9w60.jpg) indicates emphatically (along with the aforementioned tests for normality) that the mean annual global temperature anomaly data are not normal.

    Our slippery ignorant [then blusters](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1946776) that he was testing the ‘residuals’ of the anomalies, after first subtracting a linear trend from the data.

    Oh, really?

    Well, let’s ignore for a moment that this ‘analysis’ would say nothing at all about his [original claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109) that mean annual global temperature data show “no sign for any abnormal temperature”.

    Let’s also ignore for a moment that [the graph he produced](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureCumulativeFrequency.gif) has an ‘expected’ normal curve that is not smooth – a sure sign of a mistake in construction.

    We will ignore as well the fact that he simply looks at the observed and expected trajectories and sees ["an excellent match"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951795) between them. And without even any reference to confidence intervals!

    What we will do is construct a cumulative frequency distribution of our own, using the totally irrelevant data that [Orssengo refers to](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/WoodFreeTreesGlobalWarming.htm), and see whether he is correct in even this peripheral pile of bollocks that he persists in spouting.

    [He isn't](http://tinypic.com/3ia22sfk).

    The observed cumulative frequency trajectory falls below the lower 90% confidence interval once (at an x value of 0.89), and rises above the upper 90% confidence interval on 26 occasions, at various points at the beginning, the middle and the end of the trajectory. And as for the rest of the datapoints, the way they snake between and approach both confidence intervals should make any thinking person seriously wonder about the normality (or otherwise) of the data.

    This is why we perform specific tests for normality. Even squinting at two trajectories (observed and expected) on a graph, and even if the confidence band is not escaped, one has not objectively quantified the probability that the data are normal.

    Girma Orssengo has demonstrated nothing in this long, sad and tawdry exercise other than showing the world for all time how little he deserves his scientific credentials, how ignorant he is of fundamental statisitcal procedures, and how refractory he is to learning about anything that contradicts his own ideological perceptions.

    He should be ashamed of himself, and humiliated for the disrepute he has brought upon himself, his academic supervisors and institutions, and his work colleagues.

    Of course, as ever – if he disagrees with me, he simply has to write up his methodology in a peer-reviewed journal format and present it to the scientific community for scrutiny.

    He’ll get his answers soon enough.

  69. #69 luminous beauty
    September 21, 2009

    Girma,

    [From a different point of view...](http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html)

    >Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter’s – in which all the people’s material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times.

    Have you had a chance to read “Mutual Aid” yet?

    I can’t emphasize how strongly I recommend Hervey Cleckley.

  70. #70 luminous beauty
    September 21, 2009

    >…they had been men who lived without technology.

    The blatant error of this statement should be obvious. Homo sapiens sapiens has been technology dependent since we first learned to chip sharp edges on stones, to twist twine from bark in order to tie these stones to fire straightened sticks. These technologies combined with socially organized hunting methods and the concomitant develop of language to propagate these complex sequentially ordered techniques within and across societies is what the second sapiens is all about.

    Thus it is demonstrated; Ayn ‘I am not a cult’ Rand and her nonetheless cultist followers totally FAIL at comprehending and suffer from psychological denial of our common humanity in support of a narcissistic and deranged exaggeration of the importance of the individual.

    As much trouble and confusion as this incorrigible handful of whackos may cause, it is fortunate that the vastly larger majority of people are willingly cognizant of and able to learn from their mistakes, and technological [correctives](http://www.permaculture.org/nm/index.php/site/index/) to past excesses remain possible.

  71. #71 Badger3k
    September 21, 2009

    My irony meter broke at “Girma and the Flea”

  72. #72 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    You can destroy men’s minds, but you will not find a substitute.
    You can condition men to irrationality, but you cannot make them bear it.
    You can deprive men of reason, but you cannot make them live with what is left.
    That proof and warning is: drugs.
    AR

  73. #73 Michael
    September 21, 2009

    Notice how Orssengo, when confronted with his complete and utter statistical incompetence, resorts to posting obscure and meaningless Randian rants.

    When challenged by science and the data he seeks comfort in his beliefs.

  74. #74 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    Bernard J @1868

    Before I respond, could you please tell me whether you are saying that my fit of the cumulative frequency of our sample to the normal cumulative probability distribution [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureCumulativeFrequency.gif) is not good enough? Or are you saying I cooked up the plot?

  75. #75 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    But if “wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake”–then man does not.

    Man survives only by altering nature to satisfy his own needs.

    Man cannot survive, as animals do, by automatically adapting to the natural surroundings in which he happens to find himself.

    Nature’s vast wilderness, if passively accepted, is inimical to his survival.

    Man must transform the naturally given into a truly human environment.

    He must produce the values his life requires

    –he must grow food and build supermarkets
    –chop down trees and erect condominiums, mine ore
    –design jet planes
    –isolate organisms
    –manufacture vaccines.

    None of these values exists ready-made in nature.

    Man [WE, NOT YOU] brings all of them into being only by changing his “natural environment.”

    AR

  76. #76 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    But if “wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake”–then man does not.

    Man survives only by altering nature to satisfy his own needs.

    Man cannot survive, as animals do, by automatically adapting to the natural surroundings in which he happens to find himself.

    Nature’s vast wilderness, if passively accepted, is inimical to his survival.

    Man must transform the naturally given into a truly human environment.

    He must produce the values his life requires

    –he must grow food and build supermarkets
    –chop down trees and erect condominiums, mine ore
    –design jet planes
    –isolate organisms
    –manufacture vaccines.

    None of these values exists ready-made in nature.

    Man [WE, NOT YOU] brings all of them into being only by changing his “natural environment.”

    AR

  77. #77 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    At its core, environmentalism is the demand that you surrender your comfort, your well-being, your self. Stop caring about your desire to be happy—it admonishes—and start worrying about how to please the snail darters and the spotted owls.
    AR

  78. #78 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2009

    Girma is doing it again, quoting Ayn Rand rants.

    Listen Girma: Ayn Rand could not tell a mole cricket from a giraffe. She lived at a time when man`s full impact on the environment was only beginning to manifest itself. The science of ecology was in its true infancy, and few researchers had ventured into the field of studying the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function. She would never have heard of the term ecosystem services. She would have had no idea of the importance of biodiversity in sustaining human life. She had no formal training in environmental science (neither do you, for that matter, hence why you are suckered by her elementary nonsense) and her polemics were simplistic gibberish.

    There is no doubt that humans must alter parts of the natural world in order to survive. Even the most die-hard environmentalists do not deny that. The problem is that humans are trying to take over all of nature as evidenced by our monopolization of primary productivity and freshwater flows. Rand was a dolt who did not have a scintilla of knowledge about the myriad of intricate and indirect ways in which the natural world supports man beyond the consumptive value you alluded to in your last post. She did not appreciate the importance of soil-borne nitrogen fixing bacteria that are critical in making this nutrient accessible to plants. She knew nothing of the value of terrestrial and aquatic organisms in filtering out toxic wastes. She could not understand the importance of a stupendous array of soil biota, mostly microscopic, that maintain soil fertility. She would not have known anything about food web stability, resistance and resilience and how this is correlated with species richness. She would known how to calculate the importance of pollinating and seed-dispersing organisms. Rand was an elitist right wing capitalist who derided environmentalism at a time when it was in its early days.

    The problem now, Girma, is that the environment needs protecting from man and not *vice-versa*. Thanks to technology and over consumption, we are degrading natural systems at an increasing rate, systems that, as I have said innumerable times on this thread (and which you claim to have agreed with) sustain and nurture human life. Rand was one of those who would have ignorantly believed that humans are exempt from the laws of nature, and that our species could survive well in a planet covered in concrete and computers. She knew of no value of nature beyond that which we need to manufacture our civilization.

    The point I am making is that Rand`s thinking was out-of-date in 1960; it is by many factors out of date now.

  79. #79 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION

    There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of by passing logic by means of psychological pressure. It consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate.

    The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”
    (AR)

    Check the posts in this thread to find, for yourself, who uses this method of argument, who does not.

  80. #80 Mark Byrne
    September 21, 2009

    Michael accurate calls Girma on his running away from science and flawed application of statistics and his resort to ideologoy.

    Girma writes (or cites Ayn Rand?)
    >*But if “wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake”–then man does not.*

    Illogical, unsupported non-sequitur.

    >*Man survives only by altering nature to satisfy his own needs.*

    Incorrect, man survives by much more than this. Man survives by benefiting from the complex integrated web of the biosphere which creates more benefits than man can create.

    >*Man cannot survive, as animals do, by automatically adapting to the natural surroundings in which he happens to find himself.*

    That is all man has ever done. Except now we are destroying the source of the benefit at an accelerated rate.

    >*Nature’s vast wilderness, if passively accepted, is inimical to his survival. *

    Man-against nature bollocks. Man will not and cannot continue survive on our current trajectory of destroying source of our ecosphere’s benefits at our current rate.

    >*Man must transform the naturally given into a truly human environment.*

    No such thing exists. There is no truly human environment. There are rich ecosystems that maximise the benefit of the earth system inputs, there are poor ecosystems that subsist without maximizing energy flow nor niche filling. And there are dead zones, poisoned regions that are spreading. We are depleting much of the first two at a dangerous rate and producing the third.

    The biggest threat is non-linear change which we can only prevent in advance of a major trigger event.

  81. #81 Michael
    September 21, 2009

    Bizarre.

    Orssengo confirms that his view on science is through a Randian lense.

    No wonder he gets virtually everything wrong – the science must fit his ideological convictions or he dumps the science.

  82. #82 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2009

    Mark #1880,

    Excellent post! I could not have said it better myself. Note Girma`s last posting (1879) where he retreats into a pseudo-intellectual world of his own making after his hero is criticized. The point is that the field of ecology has advanced profoundly since Rand penned her anthropocentric gibberish back in the 1950s or 1960s.

    There are literally thousands of studies showing that humanity derives more from natural systems than resources upon which to build our cities and feed our people. Rand was not aware of any of this. I have discussed this many times before on this thread, giving plenty of easily accessed examples (e.g. books by Gretchen daily, Yvonne Baskin) of supporting ecosystem services and sources where a discussion of them can be found. Clearly, as I have said before, Girma does not read these posts or does not digest them (more likely is the fact that his whole Rand-induced views of the modern world have been shattered because, like her, he does not understand basic ecology).

    As I have also said until I am sick of saying it, these services permit humans to exist and to persist. They do not function solely to provide for Homo sapiens; rather, our species exists because conditions – services – emerging from nature over various scales of space and time permit it. By altering the planet to our own needs, humans have also unwittingly impaired the ability of natural systems to generate the conditions necessary to survive in the longer term. There has to be a balance; Rand, wallowing in her own self-righteous ignorance, did not have a clue as to the costs and benefits of exploiting nature for short-term gain. She could clearly understand that there was aesthetic value to nature, but that is effectively where her appreciation of the natural world ended. If she were alive today and promulgating the same story, she would be undermined by the sheer volume of empirical evidence revealing our dependence on nature to be virtually absolute. She would have to rely on think tanks and right wing lobbyists to spread her gospel of denial.

    Girma, some advice: when you start discussing environmental science, you are getting in way over your head. I am afraid that Ayn Rand is a very poor source of information on the relationship between biodiversity and human welfare and on the functioning of complex adaptive systems. You can admire Rand`s long outdated polemics for all I care, but using it as a bridge to understand the natural world and man`s place in it is frankly absurd. You would be far better off with some of the books by Edward O. Wilson, such as “Consilience”.

  83. #83 Janet Akerman
    September 21, 2009

    **Argument from Fallacy**:
    The essential characteristic of the Argument from fallacy is its appeal to illogical unsupported argument. It includes repetition of false statements, adherence to unscientific assertions and resort to ideology.

    **Argument from False Analogy**:
    The essential characteristic of the Argument from false analogy is to create the illusion of conduct by comparing one set of actions with other actions that are recognised as undesirable.

    **Argument from Closed Loop Self Justification**:
    The essential characteristic of the Argument from Closed Loop Self Justification is to immunize ones argument from critical review by labeling those who critique an argument of the fallacy of Argument by Intimidation.

    Argument from Closed Loop Self Justification is especially useful when one wishes to employ Ayn Rand’s arguments which are criticised for their perceived immoral nature of being: greed promoting, power concentrating, anti-democratic, destructive, and failing to recognise the interdependence of people socially, economically and with the ecosphere.

    Thereby Ayn Rand policy advocates inoculate themselves against criticism of immoral outcomes with which Rand style policies are charged with causing.

  84. #84 Girma
    September 21, 2009

    Jeff @1878, Mark @1880

    You wrote, Thanks to technology and over consumption, we are degrading natural systems at an increasing rate, systems that, as I have said innumerable times on this thread (and which you claim to have agreed with) sustain and nurture human life.

    According to you, we are degrading natural system because of technology and over consumption. So are you suggesting we return to a hunter gatherer society to stop “technology”? So are you suggesting that we bring a society where resources are rationed to stop “over consumption”? What are your REALLY advocating?

    Is it not the case that things are consumed by people? More people consume more. Less people consume less. Capitalists don’t produce products that people don’t buy. The final decision belongs to people.

    Don’t touch my heroes, capitalists, who freed my life from drudgery of life without “technology”, by providing us with cars, airplanes, radio, television, air conditioner, washing machine, refrigerator, dishwashing machine, telephone, computer (that you enjoy at this instant) etc that made our life comfortable, and we know how to operate, but we don’t have a clue what is inside them. When are you going to thank them? Is it not irrational to use a computer but not to thank those who brought it to existence? I am not one who bites the hand that feeds him. I pay homage to capitalists who allowed me to live as human, by changing my environment, as I have not been given at birth with hide, fur, wool, tooth, claw, muscle, speed etc of animals.

    I don’t live in contradictions. If I hate technology, I stop to use it. Do as you preach! I do!

  85. #85 Mark Byrne
    September 22, 2009

    Girma,

    It is a shame that you are arguing with a straw-man rather than the points I (and others) raise. I am in favor our technology that maximize benefit for minimal harm or positive enrichment of the ecosphere system.

    That is why I am in favour of a price on carbon, to reward and incentivize progress towards efficiency and utilization of renewable system flows. That is also why I am for less concentration of power to reduce market manipulations so that humans will be freer from the corporate consolidated control.

  86. #86 Bernad J.
    September 22, 2009

    Bernard J @1868

    Before I respond, could you please tell me whether you are saying that my fit of the cumulative frequency of our sample to the normal cumulative probability distribution plot is not good enough? Or are you saying I cooked up the plot?

    I am saying that your “fit of the cumulative frequency of [y]our sample to the normal cumulative probability [sic] distribution plot” is wrong.

    ‘Cooking’ requires more understanding than you have shown.

    Please note: your demonstration of classic [displacement behaviour](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_activity) with the multiple postings of Randian nonsense, in the face of your humiliation, does nothing to mitigate the errors of statisitcs that you so liberally engage in.

  87. #87 Gaz
    September 22, 2009

    According to you, we are degrading natural system because of technology and over consumption. So are you suggesting we return to a hunter gatherer society to stop “technology”?

    And this would be “Argument by illogical extension of argument”.

  88. #88 Jeff Harvey
    September 22, 2009

    Girma,

    Stop acting like a child. Your latest rant is an embarrassment, especially as you claim to have a PhD. That is what it is like debating you – I get more common sense out of high school students. I have to laugh when the cornucopians, most of whom have no knowledge of ecology whatsoever, come at we with the kinds of frankly stupid argument that you posited in your last post. For you its either/or. For you the only alternative to ecological annihilation is that humans live in caves. The situation as you see it is one or the other. I have had to deal with this kind of crass stupidity for most of my scientific career from generally right wing idiots. People who think, as I have described you, that humans derive nothing from nature except that which we dig up, cut down or transform to build our cities, cars and computers, while those who urge caution as we do so are smeared as killjoy doomsayers.

    Mark is correct – you are creating straw men.

    Of course I am not advocating that humans become hunter gatherers. I realize that there are benefits that technology has bought to humanity. What I am saying is that humans and the natural world are on a collision course, whether you like it or not. I am saying, with plenty of evidence to back me up, that at the current rate at which humans are devouring natural capital that there will be serious consequences in the very near future. We are taking far more from nature than nature can sustainably replace. We are destroying biodiversity, undermining the ability of species and populations to maintain their life-support functions. We are taking over more and more of net primary production and freshwater flows, leaving less and less for the remainder of nature. We are depleting soil fertility in the blink of an evolutionary eye.

    Although technology has got us where we are, new technologies are making it easier and easier for humans to destroy the natural world. This is the achilles heal of capitalism, which is like a giant animal with a voracious appetite that is beginning to consume itself. The whole ideology of corporate style capitalism is based on the notion of unlimited economic growth, which would be fine if we lived on a limitless linear planet. But we do not. The system is closed. To fuel the kinds of consumption enjoyed by the average American, we would need several more Earth-like planets, but the last time I looked I was under the impression that Earth-like planets were hard to find. Many economists are now coming around to acknowledge the fact that human well-being is utterly dependent on a range of critical ecosystem services, both provisioning and supporting, that sustain human life in a manner that we know. Using you dumb logic, Girma, you write as if technology will forever allow us to suck up natural capital, and for western economies to grow forever and ever into the future. Well I got news for you pal: most of the critical supporting ecosystem services have no technological substitutes. Check out the results of Biosphere II: it failed because humans do not possess anything remotely like the capacity to replicate the functions of complex adaptive systems. We evolved and thrive because nature generated the conditions that permitted it.

    The crux of the matter is this: the choice is stark. Either we take account of the damage we are inflicting across the biosphere, or there will be a long, slow road to catastrophe. There is no third way. There are possibilities of achieving sustainability without going back to the Pleistocene. But this means creating social justice and equity for everyone, and challenging the ethos of capitalism that is based on allowing for huge concentrations of wealth and power, while ignoring the basic needs of half of humanity. This might mean that a small but rich part of the world will have to find a way to consume less. If so, let that be it. But if we continue down the path that we are now on, then the future for mankind is a dark one indeed.

  89. #89 Janet Akerman
    September 22, 2009

    Girma,

    Why do we buy things we do not use?

    Why do we need bigger houses and extra storage?

    Why do we throw out so much?

    Why do we design to fail?

    Why do we not yet pay the full price of goods to show the difference between consumption that involves highly destructive process and those that are less or non-destructive?

    Why do we have an arms race terms in terms of the size of automobiles?

    Why did GM [kill the electric car](http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/07/377)?

    Why did [GM kill the streetcars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal)?

    Why does GM get so much special treatment and [leeway?]( http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/congress/7727/nclchoms.htm)?

    Why did Chevron [buy control](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries) of then deny markets access to Ovshinsky’s advanced NiMH battery?

    Why, now that it is faster to cycle than drive on congested roads, are cyclists practically excluded through safety concerns?

    Why is obesity, diabetes and heart disease becoming such a problem?

    Why are people more atomized?

    Why are corporations allied in the pursuit of pushing junk food onto young children?

  90. #90 Steve Chamberlain
    September 22, 2009

    Girma Orssengo (@84) in reply to Jeff Harvey:

    According to you, we are degrading natural system because of technology and over consumption. So are you suggesting we return to a hunter gatherer society to stop “technology”? So are you suggesting that we bring a society where resources are rationed to stop “over consumption”? What are your REALLY advocating?

    Oh cripes, here we go again. Are you channelling Julian L Simon or something? It is NOT that Jeff Harvey is claiming this, he is summarising what biologists, zoologists, botanists, ecologists, mycologists and so on have been documenting and observing for decades. That is, the degradation of the planet’s ecosystems largely thanks to mankind’s insatiable and ever-increasing appetite for stuff. I would have thought someone of your reputation had heard of this, the principles of ecosystem degradation, pollution, soil degradation, desertification, dryland salinity, algal blooms, the near extinction of fisheries, species extinctions and so on have been known of for decades and have been documented to death. Your statement that Jeff Harvey wants to stop technology is absurd – as far as I know he has not once promulgated such a view, and in any case it is not that technology is the real problem – over-consumption of both its products and the stripping of previously unattainable resources thanks to that technology is.

    Rationing? Why not? What’s so unpalatable about it is that western society (if not others) is conditioned to believe that limits placed on its access to consumables is somehow a breach of a fundamental “right”. This mindset has to change before our accelerating and largely unsustainable use of the planet’s resources gets us to the point of collapse of several ecosystems, not to mention the painful deaths of many millions of people (through lack of clean water, starvation, disease etc.). Presumably such an outcome has never occurred to you, or you simply don’t care. Your obsession with posting the babblings of Rand says something.

    Is it not the case that things are consumed by people? More people consume more. Less people consume less. Capitalists don’t produce products that people don’t buy.

    Utter bollocks. You’ve obviously never visited a municipal waste dump.

    Don’t touch my heroes, capitalists, who freed my life from drudgery of life without “technology”, by providing us with cars, airplanes, radio, television, air conditioner, washing machine, refrigerator, dishwashing machine, telephone, computer (that you enjoy at this instant) etc that made our life comfortable, and we know how to operate, but we don’t have a clue what is inside them. When are you going to thank them? Is it not irrational to use a computer but not to thank those who brought it to existence?

    Bwaaahaha 8^))

    Every time you take a breath do you thank the billions upon billions of individual plants and algae that produce oxygen? The trillions of bacteria, fungi, worms, nematodes and other invertebrates that condition the soil so that others can grow crops and you can eat? Do you thank the trillions of organisms of organisms that laid down their lives in the Carboniferous just so you can drive to work? No?

    Do as you preach! I do!

    Having seen what you preach, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

  91. #91 Bernard J.
    September 22, 2009

    Guys.

    You’ll never get anywhere with a debate about ideologies, and Orssengo knows this.

    I suspect that he has re-introduced the whole Ayn Rant crap in order to distract the thread from the fact that he has [backed himself into a corner](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1954374) statistically, and because he knows that there is no escape from his humiliation- as long as attention is focussed on it.

    He is simply hoping that you will forget that he can’t do basic anaylsis, so that he has time to reframe his arguement that AGW is not happening.

    Don’t allow him to change the subject, and definitely don’t allow him to emesh you in a futile discussion with his Randian tar-baby.

  92. #92 Girma
    September 22, 2009

    Bernard J @1891

    I firmly, securely, resolutely stand by my statistical result that the standard deviation for the residual (= Anomaly – Linear Warming from 1850 to 2008) component of the mean global temperature anomaly for the data at [WoodForTrees.org]( http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend) is 0.15 deg C, which gives a 6σ range of 0.9 deg C.

    As a result, an increase from a minimum to a maximum (or a decrease from the maximum to the minimum, [as was the case from 1878 to 1911]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTrends.gif)) of mean global temperature by 0.7 deg C in couples of decades is within the normal variation of mean global temperatures.

    Girma Orssengo

  93. #93 Dave
    September 22, 2009

    Girma,

    > I firmly, securely, resolutely stand by my statistical result

    But you don’t answer any of Bernard J’s extensive and detailed criticism.

    Which means you are making your unsupported assertions based on faith alone, while sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”.

    Hardly a rational response.

  94. #94 Mark Byrne
    September 22, 2009

    >*I firmly, securely, resolutely stand by my statistical result*

    Girma, by now this statement is worthless. You can’t back it up with anything. You only keep restating the same false lines. Your use of CAPS doesn’t improve your case in the face of contradictory evidence.

    Girma, your statistics are not applicable as Bernard and I have demonstrated.

    If you are so confident, again I urge you to publish, but you wont.

    The data have failed the basic test of normality and your statistical application have also failed the giggle test.

  95. #95 Girma
    September 22, 2009

    Janet @1889

    You asked:
    —-Why do we buy things we do not use?

    Janet, why don’t people take responsibility for their action?

    You also asked:
    —-Why are corporations allied in the pursuit of pushing junk food onto young children?

    Who buys the junk food for the children?
    Who gives them money for the junk food?
    By what logic am I responsible for the action of someone who VOLUNATRILY enters my lunch bar and buy junk food?

    You also asked:
    —-Why do we need bigger houses and extra storage?
    —-Why do we have an arms race terms in terms of the size of automobiles?

    For status. In any group of animals there is hierarchy. Janet, as it is natural, just accept it. You cannot change nature.

  96. #96 Janet Akerman
    September 22, 2009

    Girma wise choice; avoid the science and statistics. Bernard’s critique really very powerful wasn’t it. I also notice you ignored most of my points, were they a bit tougher? Regarding those you did address:
    >*Janet, why don’t people take responsibility for their action?*

    You mean like, take responsibility for Randian style polices that promote greed and lack of accountability?

    >*Who buys the junk food for the children? Who gives them money for the junk food?*

    Why their parents I would assume Girma, but we don’t get to pick our parents. Who pays to influence the kids? Who allows junk food pusher to foist their unhealthy products onto vulnerable children? Kids who cannot chose their parents?

    >*By what logic am I responsible for the action of someone who VOLUNATRILY enters my lunch bar and buy junk food?*

    By the simple logic that you are advocating Rand’s policies with promote selfish greed, ahead of considerate behavior. Such policies lead to unregulated exploitation of the most vulnerable. In fact you lose if you to a more rapacious actor if you don’t exploit as much as your competitor.

    >*For status. In any group of animals there is hierarchy. Janet, as it is natural, just accept it. You cannot change nature.*

    Girma your beloved Rand tries to change nature with her individualization, legal system of property rights (that happen to favor the established rich), and lack of understanding of our integration and interdependence with the ecosphere.

    [You also missed the point about storing useless junk and the arms race forcing others to also by bigger cars, and exclude cyclist who perhaps count less in your view?... Not surprising as you’ve missed a lot really].

  97. #97 Girma
    September 22, 2009

    Janet @1897

    So, according to you, because kids don’t choose their parent, I am responsible for the actions of their parents when they VOLUNTARILY enter my lunch bar and by junk food?

    This is mysticism. Each individual must responsible for his/her action. We don’t need lawyers to apportion responsibility with your “kid’s don’t choose their parents” concept.

  98. #98 Bernard J.
    September 22, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    I firmly, securely, resolutely stand by my statistical result that the standard deviation for the residual (= Anomaly – Linear Warming from 1850 to 2008) component of the mean global temperature anomaly for the data at WoodForTrees.org is 0.15 deg C, which gives a 6σ range of 0.9 deg C.

    Why do you persist in using the “6σ range” to define non-“abnormal” temperatures? The conventional probability for statistical significance is 0.05 (which is 5%, or 1 in 20, or 50 in 1000), and for a normal (where ‘normal in this context refers to Gaussian) distribution 95% of values will occur within slightly less than 2σ from the mean.

    By selecting 3σ, or 99.7%, as your cutting-off for ‘significance’, you are restricting unusual events to those that occur on average 3 times in 1000, or less, rather than those that occur at the conventionally accepted rate of 50 times in 1000, or less.

    Why are you doing this?

    And if you are so convinced of your correctness in this method of demonstrating that there are no “abnormal” temperatures in the 1850-2008 HadCRU mean annual global temperature anomaly dataset, why are you not publishing your remarkable ‘discovery’?

    Leaving aside all of my [other criticisms](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951531), I note that amongst the ever-growing litany of unanswered questions directed to you, you have not yet answered the question [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1951865).

    Would you care to do so now? And further to this, if you where presented with [this graph](http://i38.tinypic.com/14y21p2.jpg), would you concede that there is warming?

  99. #99 Janet Akerman
    September 22, 2009

    Girma writes:

    >*So, according to you, because kids don’t choose their parent, I am responsible for the actions of their parents when they VOLUNTARILY enter my lunch bar and by junk food?*

    Nice little dodge there Girma, suddenly you don’t care about the outcome for the child. Some children do not have the most attentive nor informed parents. And child abusing corporations that push their junk food under the nose of vulnerable child with propaganda makes parenting more difficult. And some parents are not skilled enough to deal with that added pressure.

    Take a child centered approach to this problem Girma. A child does not choose the skills/abilities of or her parents. Yet reasonable people recognize the immoral profiteering associated with massive propagandizing of junk food to children. It is exploitation of the vulnerable for profit.

    Girma you are responsible for promoting a laissez-faire system that is blind to the (or acts like there is no) power difference between a 9 year old child and a multinational corporation. You promote a system that rewards exploitation of the most vulnerable. That is where your responsibility lies. You are also responsible for supporting a denialist petition without taking the time to understand the science. That could contribute to great suffering.

    Now answer Bernard’s questions.

  100. #100 Girma
    September 22, 2009

    For those who want to check on my statistical analysis of mean global temperature anomaly, here is all the relevant information.

    [Data Source from WoodForTrees.org]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend)

    [Intermediate Data and Results]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureAnomalyData.htm)

    [Frequency Distribution]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureAnomaly.gif)

    [Cumulative Frequency Distribution]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/CumulativeFrequencyDistributionResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureAnomaly.gif)

    Cheers