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 But each of their arguments is wrong, outdated, or irrelevant.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 Dave
    September 26, 2009

    I am reminded of an old joke in Red Dwarf, in which Arnold J. Rimmer would insist on suffixing his name Bsc, Ssc to sound more important.

    Except that it stood for Bronze Swimming Certificate, Silver Swimming Certificate.

  2. #2 Former Skeptic
    September 26, 2009

    Badger3k:

    Actually, I think Girma may be trying to write a book on AGW thru the infinite monkey theory. 2000 posts and counting!!!

  3. #3 Girma
    September 26, 2009

    Dave @1998

    You wrote, You have picked an arbitrary start point (the start of the hadley data series) and forced a line from that point to the present day without any justification for doing so. Your only analysis is tautalogical.

    Dave, could you, please, for a nanosecond, leave the invisible magnifying glass aside and look at the [true mean global temperature pattern]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/to:2008/offset:13.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:13.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:14.42/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:13.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.01/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.01/offset:20). If that pattern was true for the last 159 years, doesn’t it stand to reason that it will be true also for the next 20?

    Do you realise that the mean global temperature is about 14 deg C? That is what you must look at to find the pattern. Not at the pattern through the invisible magnifying glass foisted upon us by someone.

    Cheers

  4. #4 Girma
    September 26, 2009

    Badger3k @2002

    You wrote, Actually, I think Girma may be trying to write a book on AGW thru the infinite monkey theory. 2000 posts and counting!!!

    According to my [prediction]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif), mean global temperature will be less than that for 1998 until 2030. Do you want a bet of $100 USD on that?

    Cheers

  5. #5 Girma
    September 26, 2009

    Bernaard J @1999

    You wrote, It beggars belief that you are so arrogant as to think that you have the right to suffix your name thus, on a (misconstructed) plot of material that you do not understand.

    Bernard, I said “based on historical record”. If mean global temperature behaves in the future as it did in the last 159 years, my [prediction]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif) will be approximately correct. If not, my prediction will be incorrect. What is wrong with that?

  6. #6 Dave
    September 26, 2009

    > Dave, could you, please, for a nanosecond, leave the invisible magnifying glass aside and look at the true mean global temperature pattern.

    What on earth are you wittering about? Your response had nothing to do with my post whatsoever.

    Answer my question Girma. Why is the linear trend derived from 159 years worth of data absolutely unshakeably correct *right now*, despite being different to the linear trend that you would derive from 149, 139, 129, 119, 109 etc. etc. years of the same data? Why has it taken precisely 159 years to arrive at exactly the correct trend?

    Why – if you repeat your “analysis” on the historical data – is the angle of the slope [creeping inexorably upwards](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1920/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1930/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1960/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:2000/trend)?

    Seriously – stop, take a deep breath, and perform exactly the same “analysis” you’ve already done on the dataset 1859-1989 and compare it to the conclusions you’re now drawing.

    The simple answer of course is that the trend is not linear but you refuse to countenance that.

    But please please please answer Bernard’s questions.

  7. #7 Girma
    September 26, 2009

    Bernard @1728

    I may be incorrect in saying resources are unlimited.

    When we eat, our body takes matter from animals and plants and converts it to energy that maintains our body temperature at 37 deg C and allows us to do physical work and move. This energy is wasted and there is no way we can get it back. So matter is converted to energy.

    Does this mean that the mass of the earth goes on decreasing?

  8. #8 sod
    September 26, 2009

    i have been mostly only a spectator on this train wreck of a topic, but this comment needs an answer:

    Does this mean that the mass of the earth goes on decreasing?

    Girma joins another well known “sceptic” in a clear demonstration that he has absolutely not the slightest idea about the basics of physic and/or chemistry.

    i just have to quote this [fantastic post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/update_on_the_nine_alleged_err.php#comment-618692) by Curtin: (#164, update on the nine alleged err)

    Thanks Chris for ref. to Einstein. One curiosity arising from his E=MC^2 is that on the one hand if we simply reduce energy in order to reduce emissions, and then plot the implied reduction in M, we get the very large reduction indicated by his equation, recalling that C^2 is the speed of light squared, while on the other hand if we only change the form of E by replacing fossil fuels etc with solar etc., what then happens to M, and what form does it take for equal amounts of joules in each case? Also possibly pertinent is that while conventional energy burning sends up both H2O and CO2 as part of M, while wind etc do not, what then?

    i think it is rather funny, that both of you think that matter gets converted to energy by chemical reactions.

    Great Minds Think Alike

  9. #9 Janet Akerman
    September 26, 2009

    Bernard,

    What response do you think Girma would get at RC or Open Mind?

    I gained some insight from a [recent comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1963800) from Micheal.

    I assume Michael put the 2000 posts together with [this comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1963721).

    I suddenly feel like a co-dependent addiction enabler.

  10. #10 Girma
    September 26, 2009

    • • • • • • • • • •

    Omega Point

    This thread, after more than 2000 posts, has lead to the [“Omega Point”]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif) where the conscience and consciousness of all bloggers here were united to shed light on prediction of mean global temperatures.

    • • • • • • • • • •

  11. #11 Michael
    September 27, 2009

    Girma,

    Go make some freinds in the real world so you don’t have to come here and bother us with your juvenile nonsense.

  12. #12 Frank
    September 27, 2009

    Bernard,the world is not running out of resources.We have lots of oil,huge quantities of gas,tonnes of oil shales,and oceans of coal.In the few cases where metals get scarce,we can use sustitutes.Agricultural productivity continues to increase and water availability is more about politics or wealth than it is about scarcity.Human ingenuity and market forces will continue to improve economic and social conditions.

  13. #13 zoot
    September 27, 2009

    Looks like timwells is back.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    September 27, 2009

    Frank,

    Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Wish you were correct but you vision is based totally on the material economy. Factor in the natural economy and things are declining rapidly, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Deep rich agricultural soils that are the product of innumerable biological processes are being depleted in decades whereas replenishment takes hundreds if not thousands of years, hence why deserts and dry-lands are expanding rapidly. Fossil age groundwater supplies are being drained at rates far exceeding their rates of replenishment. The aquifer underlying the China plain and the Oglalla aquifer underlying the Great Plains in the US are both being sucked dry, with huge repercussions for agriculture. Most worrying of all, humans are driving to extinction species and genetically distinct populations, the working parts of our global ecological life support systems. Over various scales of space and time, the planet`s biota generate conditions which make the planet livable for Homo sapiens and permit us to exist and to persist. They generate a wealth of ecological services that help to maintain a planet in which live can thrive. There are few if any technological substitutes for most of these services – they emerge freely from nature and have enabled humanity to rise to dominance. The fact is that humans are nickel and diming the planet to death in slow motion, and we have little knowledge of how far we can push these systems before they break down, taking with them these vital services that under lie our civilization.

    The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) painted a stark picture of the current predicament with respect to the declining state of the planet`s ecological infrastructure. The latest Ecological Footprint Analysis (published a few days ago) suggests that, even despite the deep recession over the past year, that this has hardly dented the human over-consumption of nature, and that in a calender year humans go into deficit sometime in early October (if we were living sustainably there would be on deficit). All new technologies will do is to allow humans to take more from nature, without necessarily allowing nature to replace what has been removed. The classic case of this has been the virtual collapse of fisheries around the world, as new high tech methods allowed for increases in catch in the short term while the marine food webs were being decimated. Many of these stocks will never recover. The same is true of the great baleen whales: not so long ago, Minke Whales would have been views ad “commercially unprofitable” so long as there was an abundance of Blues, Fins, Seis, Rights, Bowheads and Humpbacks. But each of these species was decimated by over-harvesting, almost one by one, leaving the 10 metre Minke as the only commercially viable alternative. So much for unlimited substitutability.

    Of course, Bernard, Mark Byrne and I have repeated this *ad libitum* on this and other threads. Suddenly you wade in here with the same “humans are exempt from the laws of nature” anthropocentric gibberish that others like Girma have promulgated. I would like to ask you, Frank, what unique qualifications you possess to be able to write such a one-dimensional argument whilst blindly ignoring the natural economy. Are you an environmental scientist? A population ecologist like myself, who has suddenly seen something that me and my colleagues have missed? Or are you just another believer in the tooth fairy, one who thinks that there are no material limits to growth because human ingenuity can outsmart natural constraints every time?

  15. #15 Chris O'Neill
    September 27, 2009

    Girma:

    According to my prediction, mean global temperature will be less than that for 1998 until 2030. Do you want a bet of $100 USD on that?

    The whole global mean surface temperature already has in 2005. You can start making arrangements to pay me.

  16. #16 frank
    September 27, 2009

    Jeff Harvey,you basically skipped the energy question but that is OK.So your stance is an ecological one which is fair enough.However,generally speaking it is wealthier nations which have the best evironmental standards.That is cleaner water,air etc.Poorer nations destroy more of their natural resources,again generally speaking.The ravages of politics also plays its part.
    There is no doubt that humankind does have a substantial and generally damaging effect on the environment,but the best way forward appears to be wealth generation which will give natons the capacity to preserve as much of the biosphere as possible.I dont believe that development and conservation need to be incompatible.We can do both.

  17. #17 frank
    September 27, 2009

    Jeff,you skipped the energy question,but that is OK.From the ecological point it is generally true that wealthier societies are the ones that have higher environmetal standards including CO2 emissions.The best way forward is to make poor nations richer so that they have an enhanced capacity to preserve more of their environment.I dont see why development and conservation need to be incompatible.We can do both.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    September 27, 2009

    Frank,

    Thanks for your response. I see where you are coming from. But the problem is not only pollutants – it is the amount of natural capital necessary to sustain given population sizes based on rates of per capita consumption. The developed countries all finance large ecological deficits through a global economic system that enables them to reach beyond their borders to obtain, as cheaply as possible (or through coercion) the resources necessary to maintain the standard of living as currently defined. Trade does not increase carrying capacity – it merely shuffles it around. The “quad” in the developed world alone consume more of the planet`s natural capital that the planet can sustainably regenerate. This represents around only 16% of the world`s population with a cumulative ecological deficit. If the rest of the world aspires to share the same standard of living, as is their right, then we are going to need another Earth-like planet to sustain this and very soon. And Earth like planet`s are in short supply the last time I looked.

    The developed world alone is spending natural capital like there is no tomorrow. Poverty in the south, coupled with resource looting by the north, has effectively enabled the rich world to maintain the status quo for the past 60 years. But for how much longer? If you read comments from the likes of senior planners like Kennan and Nitze, or influential political figures like Kissinger, made over the years, then it becomes clear that they were clearly aware that the only way for “us” to retain power and wealth was to either take resources from the poor nations or to advocate ways to try and keep their populations under control as well as their standards of living down (The infamous Memo # 200 in 1974 makes this clear). This would effectively reduce the impact of the poor on their own land masses, freeing their resources for exploitation and plunder. Its all been said by these people and others, and any number of declassified UK and US planning documents from the 1960s and 1970s (the latest that are available) lay it all out in black and white. The problem is that our media does not like to spend much time talking about it. It is not a part of history because it never became a part of history. Straight down the memory hole. Thus we still read narratives about how benign our countries are, that we are interested in promoting freedom and democracy and human rights, and other such nonsense to placate the masses. However, those at the receiving end of western policies (and increasingly Chinese policies) are not so naive. They know the score.

  19. #19 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    [Because you tell the truth, you are barred from the group]( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html)

    This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

    Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.


    Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.

    ….
    So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of “scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice”. But also check out Anthony Watt’s Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year’s recovery from its September 2007 low, this year’s ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.

  20. #20 frank
    September 27, 2009

    I agree with the concept of natural capital,however how can we tell what the size or capacity of that capital is?The biosphere is indeed our life source,but given that humans continually do more with less,does this not suggest that natural capital can be conserved through good management?How can we put an accurate number on the Earths carrying capacity when we still do not know the limits of agricultural production for example?

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    September 27, 2009

    First, Girma:

    Christopher Booker is a contrarian who has no expertise whatsoever in population biology. His job is to muddy the waters. Distort. Mangle. Confuse.

    Besides that, the current demographics of Polar Bear Populations tell us nothing about the short-mid term prognosis for the species. It is true that *some* loss of pack-ice may benefit the bears, provided the decline of ice reached some stable equilibrium. This is because it would make it easier for the bears to catch their seal prey. However, the amount of ice cover in the Arctic is not expected to stablize but to decrease in a linear fashion over the next three decades. Once some critical threshold is reached, there will be a sudden shift in conditions for the polar bear, from optimal (very short-term) to sub-optimal (short-medium term) to significantly sub-optimal (medium-long term). This should be obvious to any biologist examining the dynamics of a system or habitat that is changing rapidly. Many examples exist. For instance, many organisms thrive is edge habitats. As forests were cleared in Eastern North America there is no doubt that this was of benefit to a wide range of mammals, birds etc (although detrimental to many others). But as the habitat continued to be cleared, species, for instance Bewick`s Wrens and Loggerhead Shrikes, which had benefitted under a certain amount of forest clearing suddenly began precipitous declines because an optimum had been passed.

    The other thing Booker has no clue about is the “extinction debt”. That is to say that a change in or loss of habitat “X” does not result in the instantaneous loss of species “Y”. Populations of the latter will decline gradually until they reach a lower equilibrium, or will keep declining towards extinction. This process can occur decades or even centuries after the initial change in habitat.

    Point here, Girma, is that you are out of your depth on discussions of environmental science (heck, you are on climate science as well). You are also wasting your time posting garbage from Booker. He wouldn`t be able to tell a Barn Owl from an earwig.

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    September 27, 2009

    Frank:

    You raise some good points for discussion. I will save mot of it for tomorrow as I have to leave here soon. Most importantly, natural capital can be protected through good management, but only if our society recognizes the costs of losing it. This is where the often contentious debate of full-cost pricing comes in. This is economic policy that would internalize the cost of environmental destruction into the price of consumer goods. For instance, since damage is now externalized, we have no idea of how important an ecosystem service is until it is added or lost. We know roughly that pollination services alone are worth many billions of dollars to the global economy, as are pest control services, but they are not apportioned value in the cost of the fruits and vegetables that we buy. We can only appreciate their importance when, for some reason, there is a collapse in their numbers as this affects crop production.

    There are a number of excellent examples of internalizing the value of nature`s services: perhaps the best are the Catskill Mountain watershed, tropical forest goods in Peru, pest control by Anolis lizards in the Caribbean and pollination of oil palms by an endemic west African beetle. These examples are the tip of a biological iceberg, so to speak.

    More tomorrow: a great book to introduce you to the topic is economist Geoffrey Heal`s book, “Nature and the Marketplace” (2000).

    Here is his website:
    http://www.worldleaders.columbia.edu/participants/geoffrey-healhis website:

  23. #23 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    Bernard J @1999

    You wrote, Do tell, Girma Orssengo, exactly what statistical ‘procedure’ you used to cobble together that load of garbage.

    Bernard is referring to my [prediction of mean global temperature anomaly]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif).

    1. According to [Nathan Mantua, Ph D]( http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm), 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).
    2. My own [result]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif) that the oscillation component of the mean global temperature anomaly is normally distributed.
    3. Cheers

  24. #24 Dave
    September 27, 2009

    Visting this thread really is like picking a scab. I just can’t resist coming back to see if Girma has actually managed to stay on topic for five minutes and answer a straight question (hah!). I love the total misunderstanding about chemical energy and mass, that one’s priceless…

    Shame he feels the need to copy+paste large tracts from other sources to divert attention away from his inability to answer direct questions.

    I’m still waiting to find out whether Girma stands by his assessment that the temperature of two adjacent years in the data series are completely independent, and his explanation why the linear trend plotted according to his half-assed logic does not oscillate about a mean upward trend when plotted against subsets of the data, but instead shows an increasing slope over time – that if you use his logic he has actually massively *overestimated* his own warming trend. You understand that Girma? Because you maintain we are at the peak of an oscillation, and that temperature is going to come down, *your slope will not remain steady, but should decrease over the next couple of decades*. Try plotting a linear trend through different points of a sinusoidal dataset to see what I mean. All of your temperature bets are based on temperatures that are too high for your own analysis to sustain. Perhaps you’d like to stay consistent within your own logic, find the “true” linear slope by properly eliminating the “oscillating” component you cling to (the one that disproves your statement about autocorreleation, btw), and then come back with a revised, lower linear trend. And then make some bets on that.

    And please answer Bernard’s questions.

  25. #25 sod
    September 27, 2009

    When we eat, our body takes matter from animals and plants and converts it to energy that maintains our body temperature at 37 deg C and allows us to do physical work and move. This energy is wasted and there is no way we can get it back. So matter is converted to energy.

    sorry guys, but i am forced to write another post.
    did you all miss the “matter converted to energy” thing, or do you consider this just to be the typical ignorance of girma?

  26. #26 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    Dave

    You wrote, Answer my question Girma. Why is the linear trend derived from 159 years worth of data absolutely unshakeably correct right now, despite being different to the linear trend that you would derive from 149, 139, 129, 119, 109 etc. etc. years of the same data? Why has it taken precisely 159 years to arrive at exactly the correct trend?

    That is a good point Dave. I will look what I would get with a dataset from 1850 to 1998, and see how different it would be compared to my previous result for 1850 to 2008.

  27. #27 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    We eat food (MATTER) that gives us ENERGY to keep us warm and allow us to move and do physical work. So matter is converted to energy by our body.

  28. #28 Steve Chamberlain
    September 27, 2009

    Girma, by this post if no other you convincingly demonstrate you are wholly incapable of doing even the most basic research. A simple 5-minute search of this site would have shown that this very subject had been revealed as the claptrap it was by Tim way back in July. That Booker is recycling his own faecal solids is bad enough; that you think the audience here is that daft that it would swallow your recycling of Booker’s recycled ordure would beggar belief, were it not for the fact that it is so obviously an attempt to deflect attention from your failure to answer Bernard’s questions.

  29. #30 sod
    September 27, 2009

    We eat food (MATTER) that gives us ENERGY to keep us warm and allow us to move and do physical work. So matter is converted to energy by our body.

    this is simply false. so you have never heard about the [law of conservation of mass/matter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass)???

    you have never seen a single chemical equation?

    but you still feel qualified to comment on climate science?

  30. #31 dhogaza
    September 27, 2009

    We eat food (MATTER) that gives us ENERGY to keep us warm and allow us to move and do physical work. So matter is converted to energy by our body.

    Oh, Lord, I leave this thread for 500 or so comments and come back to THIS?

    Ah, well, I needed a good laugh this morning.

  31. #32 Bernard J.
    September 27, 2009

    Girma Orssengo continues to demonstrate that there is no bottom to Stupid.

    I surmise though that he might be approaching the event horizon of a massive black hole comprised of Stupidons, because he appears to be becoming ever more stationary in his non-science as he accelerates toward the Stupidon hole, and because my perception of his progress is coloured ever more red…

    Do you realise that the mean global temperature is about 14 deg C? That is what you must look at to find the pattern. Not at the pattern through the invisible magnifying glass foisted upon us by someone.

    Orsengo, it’s simple, really.

    The concern has two components, and a modifier.

    The components are the natural fluctuation around the mean, which you yourself have plotted and commented upon many times as being on the order of several degrees Celsius/Kelvin. The other component is the tolerance of species and ecosystems to alterations in the mean annual temperature of their physiological envelopes, which for many is similarly on the order of several degrees Celsius/Kelvin – their temporary tolerance of extreme fluctuations notwithstanding.

    The modifier of the concern is the variation in mean temperatures at different parts of the planet, where the change in means might be several degrees Celsius/Kelvin more than the change in the global mean.

    In both cases however, the representation of temperature changes by the use of anomalies is appropriate, both in the scale of change represented by the anomalies, and by the fact that anomalies are more pertinent a representation for specific localities than global temperature is.

    If you don’t know what I have just said, then buy a clue – this might just be a (small) part of your problem.

    Perceived “magnifying glasses” are not, as your own published material demonstrates.

    When we eat, our body takes matter from animals and plants and converts it to energy that maintains our body temperature at 37 deg C and allows us to do physical work and move. This energy is wasted and there is no way we can get it back. So matter is converted to energy.

    Adding to his demonstrations of ignorance in the fundamentals of statistics, of data analysis and presentation, of just about everything pertaining to biology, of the differences between Hitler and Rand, and of numerous other subjects that I have carelessly omitted, Girma Orssengo shows that he has not a clue about physical chemistry.

    Orssengo, every atom that we ingest is subsequently excreted, exhaled, defæcated, sweated, expectorated, ejaculated, menstruated, sloughed, moulted, birthed or otherwise eliminated back to the external milieu. Energy is obtained by oxidative/reductive processes upon the chemical bonds of organic compounds and an oxidiser such as (somewhat, but not completely, tautologically) oxygen. The atoms that compose our bodies and our foods remain as they are; only their chemical bonds alter.

    If one were to start converting mass to energy, there probably wouldn’t be much left where one was standing except a blackened and radioactive crater.

    Does this mean that the mass of the earth goes on decreasing?

    Idiot.

    You wrote, It beggars belief that you are so arrogant as to think that you have the right to suffix your name thus, on a (misconstructed) plot of material that you do not understand.

    Bernard, I said “based on historical record”. If mean global temperature behaves in the future as it did in the last 159 years, my prediction will be approximately correct. If not, my prediction will be incorrect. What is wrong with that?

    Besides the fact that your claim of “based on historical record” reflects no statistical validity at all, you have still not provided any excuse for your vanity suffixation of ‘PhD’.

    Bernard,

    What response do you think Girma would get at RC or Open Mind?

    Janet, from the other posters there, none that would be positive!

    From Orssengo, should he follow the advice to read some of the statistical analyses there to which he would be inevitably referred, the vanishingly small chance that he might actually learn something.

    It’s all moot anyway, because I know that in his cognitive dissonance he will never brave the scrutiny of the real scientists that he pretends to be rebutting.

    Bernard J @1999

    You wrote, Do tell, Girma Orssengo, exactly what statistical ‘procedure’ you used to cobble together that load of garbage.
    Bernard is referring to my prediction of mean global temperature anomaly.

    1) According to Nathan Mantua, Ph D, 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).
    2) My own result that the oscillation component of the mean global temperature anomaly is normally distributed.

    How do a reference to findings “according to Nathan Mantua, Ph D”, and the distribution of your ‘”oscillation component”, in any way constitute a “statistical procedure”

    Have you never prepared a methodology for a peer-reviewed paper? Perhaps you left that to your supervisors/co-authors?

    Oh, and don’t give yourself airs. Your own result?! I knew weeks before you even thought to pretend to test for it, that your ‘residuals’ were normally distributed. The problem is that you did not think to test this for yourself (it took a lot of goading from me and from others for you to stumble to a poor proxy of such testing) and that you certainly did not think to test the normality of the temperature data on which you [originally commented](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1945109) using ‘descriptive statistics’.

    You really are enamoured of the terms “I”, “me” and “my”, aren’t you?

    We eat food (MATTER) that gives us ENERGY to keep us warm and allow us to move and do physical work. So matter is converted to energy by our body.
    Posted by: Girma | September 27, 2009 6:53 AM

    See above.

    Historical PATTERNS of mean global temperature anomaly from WoodForTrees.org
    Posted by: Girma | September 27, 2009 8:02 AM

    Title: Historical PATTERNS of mean global temperature anomaly.

    Author: Orrsengo, G.

    Journal: Energy and Environment, in press.

    Abstract: I did a few regressions on arbitrary intervals of the mean annual global temperature anomaly record, and after drawing a z-plot to see that my oscillating component residuals (origin unjustified) showed an excellent match to the straight line in the middle of my graph, I conclude that there is a W pattern in the record. I call this pattern the Orssengo W theory, and I assert that is demonstrates that CO2 does not cause global warming. All other statistical conventions, and the bodies of climate, of gas, and of radiative physics were considered to be inapplicable to my analysis.

    Introduction: See abstract.

    Methodology: See abstract.

    Results: See abstract.

    Discussion: See abstract.

  32. #34 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    Bernard

    I agree that you pushed me to test the normality of the residuals.

    I vehemently disagree that the food that we eat is not changed from matter to energy.

    1) Food => Body => Energy from food + waste

    2) Energy from food (matter) = Energy expended in doing physical work + Energy expended in keeping us warm + Energy stored as Fat.

    The energy expended in doing physical work and that keeps us warm are used up and there is no way to get it back. So matter from food is finally converted to energy. As a result, the mass of the earth must always decrease.

  33. #36 TrueSceptic
    September 27, 2009

    2004 Girma,

    I already have a bet with you but I’ll take this one too as it’s even less likely. You’ll pay for both at the same time. ;)

    Wow! Over 2,000 posts and still going…

  34. #37 TrueSceptic
    September 27, 2009

    2032 Bernard,

    I think that even E&E will reject Girma’s Nobel winner. I suggest Watts or Marohasy are more likely to “publish” it (maybe…).

  35. #38 sod
    September 27, 2009

    The energy expended in doing physical work and that keeps us warm are used up and there is no way to get it back. So matter from food is finally converted to energy. As a result, the mass of the earth must always decrease.

    you are in total denial of reality. as you are on many subjects.

    your lack of the most basic understanding of statistics and chemistry is shocking. how you got that Phd is beyond me.

  36. #39 TrueSceptic
    September 27, 2009

    2038 sod,

    It’s beyond belief, isn’t it?

    Next he’ll be telling us that Quantum Mechanics is fiction, Evolution is a religion, and the Sun orbits the Earth.

  37. #40 Dave
    September 27, 2009

    > The energy expended in doing physical work and that keeps us warm are used up and there is no way to get it back. So matter from food is finally converted to energy. As a result, the mass of the earth must always decrease.

    Girma, this is sheer insanity once again. I was hoping that the whole “mass must decrease” was an embarassing slip on your part but you just repeated it! Bernard has already explained this to you – the mass remains the same, but energy is released from the chemical processes breaking and reforming molecular bonds. Long chain hydrocarbons are broken down into CO2 by burning them – the mass remains completely the same, but energy is released. We could collect CO2 and reform the original hydrocarbons – but to do so would require an input of energy. You are completely misunderstanding and misapplying the whole mass/energy thing – the processes whereby we turn mass directly into energy are atomic fission and fusion. For eating/excreting we are talking about biochemical processes where mass is conserved.

    Also – I asked you to reapply your “analysis” to historic data and you repeated your old, garbage “W”. Classy.

  38. #41 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

    Suppose that you are a young man in the year 1975. You are married, have two children and own a modest home in the suburbs of a large city. Let us observe a normal, average day of your life.

    You get up at five a.m., because you work in the city and must be at the office at nine. You always had a light breakfast, just toast and coffee. Your electric percolator is gone; electric percolators are not manufactured any longer, they are regarded as an item of self-indulgent luxury: they consume electric power, which contributes to the load of power stations, which contributes to air pollution. So you make your coffee in an old-fashioned pot on an electric–no, an oil burning stove; you used to have an electric one, but they have been forbidden by law. Your electric toaster is gone; you make your toast in the oven; your attention wanders for a moment and you burn the toast. There is no time to make another batch.

    When you had a car, it took you three-quarters of an hour to get to the office; but private automobiles have been outlawed and replaced by “mass transportation.” Now it takes you two hours and a half. The community bus can make the trip in little over an hour, when it is on time; but you never know whether it will be on time, so you allow for half-an-hour’s delay. You trudge ten blocks through the bitter gusts of a cold morning wind to your community bus stop, and you stand waiting. You have no choice–there are no other means of transportation–and you know it; so does the bus company.

    When you reach the city, you walk twelve blocks from the bus terminal to the office building. You make it on time. You work till noon, then eat, at your desk, the lunch you have brought from home. There used to be six restaurants in the two blocks around the building; but restaurants are notorious sources of pollution–they create garbage; now there is only one restaurant, and it is not too good, and you have to stand in line. Besides, you save money by packing your own lunch. You pack it in an old shoebox; there are no metal boxes; the mining of metal has been severely curtailed; there are no plastic bags–a self-indulgent luxury; there are no Thermos bottles. Your sandwich is a little stale and your coffee is cold, but you are used to that.

    In the latter hours of the afternoon, you begin to watch the clock and to fight against the recurring attacks of your enemy: boredom. You have worked for the company for eight years; for the past three years, you have been office manger; there is no promotion to expect, no further place to go; business expansion has been arrested. You try to fight the boredom by telling yourself that you are an unusually lucky fellow, but it does not help much. You keep saying it because, under the boredom, there is a nagging fear which you don’t want to acknowledge: that the company might go out of business. You know that paper consumes trees, and trees are essential for the preservation of life on earth, and forests must not be sacrificed for the sake of self-indulgent luxuries. The company you work for manufactures paper containers.

    By the time you reach the bus terminal again, on your way home, you reproach yourself for being exhausted; you see no reason for it. Your wife–you keep telling yourself–is the real victim. And She is.

    AR

    To be continued.

  39. #42 Dave
    September 27, 2009

    > To be continued.

    Oh jebus, no…

  40. #43 sod
    September 27, 2009

    Girma, you are an idiot.

  41. #44 dhogaza
    September 27, 2009

    You get up at five a.m., because you work in the city and must be at the office at nine. You always had a light breakfast, just toast and coffee. Your electric percolator is gone; electric percolators are not manufactured any longer

    Thank god. They should have never been invented in the first place. No one who loves coffee was using a percolator in 1975 …

    More seriously, Girma’s doomsday scenario tells us why the physics of CO2 warming is wrong, clearly. It’s obvious, right?

    How much LSD did you consume this morning, Girma?

  42. #45 Dave
    September 27, 2009

    Seriously Girma, if you want to keep posting scientific garbage and having it picked apart in excruciating detail, that’s one thing.

    If you want to post bad fiction (especially when you didn’t even write yourself, just flaunting copyright by reposting it willy-nilly), get a blog.

  43. #46 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    It is not necessary to remind you of what human existence was like—for centuries and millennia—prior to the Industrial Revolution. That the ecologists ignore or evade it is so terrible a crime against humanity that it serves as their protection: no one believes that anyone can be capable of it. But, in this matter, it is not even necessary to look at history; take a look at the conditions of existence in the underdeveloped countries, which means: on the most of this earth, with the exception of the blessed island which is Western civilization.

  44. #47 Michael
    September 27, 2009

    Girma:

    So matter from food is finally converted to energy. As a result, the mass of the earth must always decrease

    Further proof, if any was needed, that Girma is a scientific dunce.

    Girma since you clearly lack the capacity for it, I feel embarrassed on your behalf.

  45. #48 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    Instead of their old promises that collectivism would create universal abundance and their denunciations of capitalism for creating poverty, they are now denouncing capitalism for creating abundance. Instead of promising comfort and security for everyone, they are now denouncing people for being comfortable and secure.

    They are still struggling, however, to inculcate guilt and fear; these have always been their psychological tools. Only instead of exhorting you to feel guilty of exploiting the poor, they are now exhorting you to feel guilty of exploiting land, air and water. Instead of threatening you with a bloody rebellion of the disinherited masses, they are now trying—like witch doctors addressing a tribe of savages—to scare you out of your wits with thunderously vague threats of an unknowable, cosmic cataclysm, threats that cannot be checked, verified or proved.

    AR

  46. #49 crazy Bill
    September 27, 2009

    Girma, I will bet you $1 that next year will be warmer than any year in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Are you prepared to take the challenge? I know it is a big risk for me because 1998 was the ‘hottest year ever’, the holy relic of AGW denialists, but I am prepared to put my money on the line and ask you to put up the same.

  47. #50 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    The ultimate source of our food is from plants. The plants build their body using matter from the earth. So the source of our food is indirectly from matter in the earth. We use the energy obtained from this matter in our movement and in keeping us warm. This energy is irrecoverably lost. As a result, to maintain life on earth, it stands to reason that the mass of the earth must go on decreasing.

    For example, we use fuel to push cars along the ground. This energy is wasted as heat energy between the tire and the ground. There is no way we can get this heat energy back, and the fuel in the tank is finished, so the mass of the earth has decreased.

    Instead of just saying it is wrong, please explain why it wrong so I can learn.

  48. #51 Jeff Harvey
    September 27, 2009

    As he is being increasingly cornered and his comic-level book analyses demolished, Girma retreats back to collectivist rants and quotes by his hero…

    How sad.

  49. #52 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    Crazy Bill

    The yearly temperature anomaly for 1998 will not be exceeded before 2030, according to my [prediction.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif)

    Crazy Bill, I have accepted your $1 USD bet with glee.

  50. #53 Chris O'Neill
    September 27, 2009

    Girma:

    The ultimate source of our food is from plants. The plants build their body using matter from the earth. So the source of our food is indirectly from matter in the earth. We use the energy obtained from this matter in our movement and in keeping us warm. This energy is irrecoverably lost. As a result, to maintain life on earth, it stands to reason that the mass of the earth must go on decreasing.

    What a classic. I love it.

  51. #54 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    Jeff @2051

    You wrote, As he is being increasingly cornered and his comic-level book analyses demolished, Girma retreats back to collectivist rants and quotes by his hero…

    Jeff, as far as the science is concerned, I have arrived at the Omega point, I have made my [predictions]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif). I have put may name on it.

    What is your prediction from authority and consensus for the next decade? Post it on this thread and let reality judge who is right and who is wrong. Just do it. Just do it. Just do it.

    Now I have turned to politics.

  52. #55 Michael
    September 27, 2009

    Girma:

    The ultimate source of our food is from plants. The plants build their body using matter from the earth. So the source of our food is indirectly from matter in the earth. We use the energy obtained from this matter in our movement and in keeping us warm. This energy is irrecoverably lost. As a result, to maintain life on earth, it stands to reason that the mass of the earth must go on decreasing.

    This is so wrong it’s hard to know where to start.

    And this is why you are such a waste of time – why do you make such strident claims when you don’t have a clue what you are talking about??

    Back to plants – photosynthesis.
    They don’t use matter from the earth, it’s mainly from the air. And the source of energy to do this is the sun. So when the complex molecules manufactured by plants are broken down to provide energy, there is no reduction in the mass of the earth as these are simple chemical reactions, and the energy released is not the destruction of matter but the breaking of molecular bonds.

    I won’t waste any more of my time on you, but here’s a hint, before you next say something stupid, google it first, eg. before asking us to explain to you how the earth is round, google ‘flat earth’.

    Idiot.

  53. #57 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    Bernard J @2056

    You wrote, Why do you refuse to answer the questions?

    Bernard, be fair. Who should answer questions? Those who asks you for the king’s ransom, or those who tell you not to give any ransom?

    Let me ask you one question. I have given my [predictions](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif). What is your prediction from authority and consensus for the next decade? Post it on this thread and let reality judge who is right and who is wrong. Just do it. Just do it. Just do it. Will you?

    Cheers

  54. #58 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    Sorry. My goodness, I forgot the sun!

    I deserve the scolding.

    On second thought, don’t blame me because the AGW camp told me it is not longer important & I believed them.

    So
    Energy from the sun => Plant => Energy for our body

    It is the energy of the sun that I waste when I jog in the park!

  55. #59 Bernard J.
    September 27, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    For a person who apparently has a PhD in engineering, you are a disgrace.

    As with all of your other scientific howlers, your comment that:

    The ultimate source of our food is from plants. The plants build their body using matter from the earth. So the source of our food is indirectly from matter in the earth. We use the energy obtained from this matter in our movement and in keeping us warm. This energy is irrecoverably lost. As a result, to maintain life on earth, it stands to reason that the mass of the earth must go on decreasing.

    is a [high-school level lesson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass).

    When will you begin to learn? And how exactly did you persuade UNSW that you deserved a PhD?

  56. #60 Janet Akerman
    September 27, 2009

    shorter Girma:

    I do not need to answer your questions, because my statistics are supported by the prophecies of Ayn Rand.

    Ayn Rand know that we could not threaten the ecosphere and knew that science would be wrong if it claimed otherwise.

    And humans and plants are powered by nuclear reactors that derive our eneryg form obliterating matter. E = mc2 describes the only way nature employ’s energy.

    And exploit the poor without guilt, if you don’t have a gun its ok to abuse differentials in power. Ayn Rand says this is just natural.

    Best to ignore those working for our ends whom use the biggest guns to put down any who don’t play by the rules,

    • rules bought by those with concentrated power,

    • rules that happen to enable the exploition of the vulnerable,

    • exploitation of the vulnerable which happen to enable concentration of wealth,

    • concentration of wealth which so happens to enable that we control the rules,

    • we control the rules so happens to also mean that we control who has the biggest guns.

    But we don’t use guns so our policies mean freedom for the oppressed and vulnerable!

    Any perversion or distrortion of science is justified in persuit of this nobel goal.

  57. #61 Jeff Harvey
    September 27, 2009

    Janet, Spot on. Excellent post. I simply am flabbergasted at some of the stuff Girma posts on here. That is why, aside from some of his obvious goads, I went on to other threads in the meantime. The guy is a time wasting troll in my opinion. His political vision, if one can call it that, is an abomination. His science is equally atrocious. You and Bernard both sum up my thoughts entirely.

    Time to move on.

  58. #62 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (PART 2)

    Your wife gets up at six am–you have insisted that she sleep until the coal furnace, which you lighted, has warmed the house a little. She has to cook breakfast for your son, aged 5; there are no breakfast cereals to give him, they have been prohibited as not sufficiently nutritious; there is no canned orange juice—cans pollute the countryside. There are no electric refrigerators.

    She has to breast-feed your infant daughter, aged six months; there are no plastic bottles, no baby formulas. There are no products such as “Pampers”; your wife washes diapers for hours each day, by hand, as she washes all the family laundry, as she washes the dishes–there are no self-indulgent luxuries such as washing machines or automatic dishwashers or electric irons. There are no vacuum cleaners; she cleans the house by means of a broom.

    There are no shopping centers—they despoil the beauty of the countryside. She walks two miles to the nearest grocery store and stands in line for an hour or so. The purchase she lugs home are a little heavy; but she does not complain—the lady columnist in the newspaper has said it is good for her figure.

    Since there are no canned foods and no frozen foods, she starts cooking dinner three hours in advance, peeling and slicing by hand every slimy, recalcitrant bit of vegetables. She does not get fruit very often—refrigerated freight cars have been discontinued.

    When you get home, she is trying not to show that she is exhausted. It is pretty difficult to hide, particularly since there are no cosmetics—which are an extra-self-indulgent luxury. By the time you are through with dinner and dishwashing and putting the children to bed and a few other chores, you are both free. But what are you to do with your brief evening? There is no television, no radio, no electric phonograph, no recorded music. There are no drive-in movies. There is a movie theater in a town six miles away—if you catch the community bus in time. You don’t feel like rushing to catch it.

    So you stay at home. You find nothing to say to your wife: you don’t want to depress her by discussing the kinds of things that crowd your mind. You know that she is keeping silent for the same reason. Junior did not eat much dinner: he has a sore throat; you remember vaguely that diphtheria had once been virtually eliminated, but epidemics of it have been recurring recently in schools around the country; seventy-three children died of it in a neighboring state. The last time you saw your father, he complained about pains in his chest; you hope desperately that it is not a heart ailment. Your mother died of a heart ailment at the age of fifty-five; the old doctor mentioned a device that could have saved her, but it was a product of a very, very advanced technology, which does not exist any longer: it was called a “pacemaker.”

    You look at your wife; the light is dim—electricity is rationed and only one bulb per room is allowed—but you can see the slump of her shoulders and the lines at the corners of her mouth. She is only thirty-two; she was such a beautiful girl when you met her in college. She was studying to be a lawyer; she could have combined a career with the duties of a wife and mother; but she could not combine it with the duties of heavy industry; so she gave it up. In the fifteen hours of this day, she has done the work of a dozen machines. She has to do it—so that the brown pelicans or the white polar bear might not vanish from this earth.

    By ten o’clock, you feel a desperate longing for sleep—and cannot summon any other desire. Lying in bed, by the side of your wife who feels as you do, you wonder dimly what it was that the advocates of a return to nature had been saying about the joys of an unrestrained sexuality; you cannot remember it any longer. As you fall asleep, the air is pure above the roof of your house, pure as arctic snow—only you wonder how much longer you will care to breath it.

  59. #63 Mark Byrne
    September 27, 2009

    Girma @ 2050:
    >Instead of just saying it is wrong, please explain why it wrong so I can learn.

    Girma, you mean explain why its wrong, as has been done in explaining why is it is wrong to use normal probability statistics for non-random and time dependent data?

    Girma @ 2058
    >Sorry. My goodness, I forgot the sun! I deserve the scolding. On second thought, don’t blame me because the AGW camp told me it is not longer important & I believed them.

    Girma regresses to the same level of denial he employed [a month ago]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1875965). Forgetting what he [was shown]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1876071).

  60. #64 Girma
    September 27, 2009

    I said I was wrong about where the energy that I use when jogging comes from. I made a mistake. Yes, it comes from the sun.

    One is qualified does not mean that he does not make a mistake. Mind you this blog is not like writing a considered paper. You just write what is in your mind at that moment and post it, so errors are bound to occur.

  61. #65 dhogaza
    September 27, 2009

    Please, just stop answering this guy.

    Any non-schizophrenic with a triple-digit IQ will recognize that he’s bat-shit crazy.

    You’ll not convince him, and he won’t convince anyone else.

    Save yourselves and the finite disk drive resources of the planet.

  62. #66 Janet Akerman
    September 27, 2009

    Jeff, I’m with you, its time to move on.

    It might be fun to parady Girma’s Industrial Revolution, but that would be playing my co-dependent role his his addiction, anyway my computer can no longer handle the size of this page.

    See you in another thread!

  63. #67 Girma
    September 28, 2009

    Blog members, the ball is now in your court.

    I have made my [predictions]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif) for mean global temperature anomaly for the next decade.

    [Normal Anomaly Plot](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif)

    Please do yours and post it.

    We will be able to come back and see who is right and who is wrong.

    Other wise it is like debating with a mystic.

    Show us your results for the NEXT DECADE?

    Let us see it!

  64. #68 Michael
    September 28, 2009

    dhogaza,

    Bat-shit crazy? Maybe. An anti-science ideologue -definitely.

    But, I’ve a much sadder theory – he’s doing it for the attention.

  65. #69 Girma
    September 28, 2009

    Michael @2068

    You wrote, An anti-science ideologue -definitely.

    This [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif) shows what the data, the science, says.

    Please, pinpoint to me what is anti-science about it?

    It is not rational to call people names without explaining why by raising specific points. Otherwise, it would be just argument by intimidation.

    Michael, have I ever called names?

  66. #70 Michael
    September 28, 2009

    Girma’s plot shows that he has lost the plot. His anti-science nonsense has been repeatedly corrected and refuted. He’s been corrected on everything from basic stats, to Beers Law and conservation of energy principles.

    His anti-science status is confirmed by the fact that his early opinion here – there is no AGW- remains completely unchanged, after all the corrections of his fundamental misunderstandings/ignorance.

    And he holds this view with the unshakable conviction of a newly converted religious zealot.

    Girma, I know you need some attention, but try getting it from some real people. Go and make some friends, it will help your social and emotional development much more than all the serial nonsense you are posting here.

  67. #71 Dave
    September 28, 2009

    > Michael, have I ever called names?

    Girma, you started out in this thread insinuating that the IPCC report was the work of politically motivated liars, and that climate scientists produce the results necessary to obtain funding.

    That’s about as insulting as one can be to scientists.

  68. #72 Girma
    September 28, 2009

    [Selling News](http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/09/media-ecoevangelists)

    The publication of “bad news” is not a journalistic vice. It’s a clear instruction from the market. It’s what consumers, on average, demand.… As a newspaper editor I knew, as most editors know, that if you print a lot of good news, people stop buying your paper. Conversely, if you publish the correct mix of doom, gloom and disaster, your circulation swells. I have done the experiment.

    Julian Cribb, science editor

  69. #73 TrueSceptic
    September 28, 2009

    Girma,

    I made a $100 bet with you. You offered another, similar, bet (to 2030 instead of 2020). I said I’d take that one too (2036). You didn’t reply.

    Well? Before I *really* leave this thread for good…

  70. #74 Girma
    September 28, 2009

    TrueSceptic @2073

    The yearly temperature anomaly for 1998 will not be exceeded before 2030, according to my [prediction.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif)

    TrueSceptic, I have accepted your $100 USD bet with delight.

    Truesceptic, can I ask you one question?

    Could you please post the prediction from consensus and authority for mean global temperature anomaly for the next decade so we can check the predictions? Please post it. If not, I will assume I am dealing with mystics, who just say they have the results when actually they don’t.

  71. #75 Michael
    September 28, 2009

    Girma, just stop embarrassing yourself and go away.

  72. #76 TrueSceptic
    September 28, 2009

    2074 Girma,

    It is possible to predict future temperatures for any one year only within wide error bands, i.e., the trend is upwards but with large variations. [Tamino's bet](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/), which I’ve mentioned before, will give you an idea, but see [2100 predictions](http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions_png) for a longer term view, and how models differ.

    I’ll settle on Tamino’s GISS-based projections for the near future.

    OTOH, you have made precise predictions based only on faulty statistical analysis of past data. Should I call you a mystic?

    No one has results for future events. We can only make guesses, educated or not. I’m betting $200 that my guesses are better than yours. ;)

    Just a reminder: I might win both bets within a year or 2. You cannot win the first bet before 2020. Even if I lose the first bet, I might win the second one in the first few years of the 2020s. You cannot win the second bet until 2030.

  73. #77 Girma
    September 28, 2009

    ENVIROMENTLISM

    Whatever dangers environmentalists claim to find, their answer is always to denounce progress and to search for “nature-friendly” alternatives. If acid rain is supposedly destroying our lakes, they direct us not to neutralize it easily with some alkaline—but to shut down the factories. If topsoil is supposedly being eroded, they direct us not to invent methods of more efficient farming—but to stop harvesting the crops. If there is too much traffic, they direct us not to build better highways—but to stop making cars. Whatever the alleged problem, their incessant “solution” is: de-industrialize.

    Environmentalists do not want to promote human happiness, or even the “happiness” of other species. Those who are callously indifferent to the millions of people who die annually because DDT has been banned will not be moved to moral outrage at the “injustice” of spotted owl losing its nest. What environmentalists desire is not the welfare of the non-human—but the misery of man.

    There is only one practical way of fighting environmentalism: by morally defending man. What needs to be upheld, proudly and unequivocally, is the principle that there is no value in nature apart from that which is of value to man, which means: there is no “environment”—other than the environment of man.

    The men who live by that premise—the men who make civilization and progress possible—are choking on the philosophic pollution of environmentalism. They need to be freed from the suffocating clutches of the worshippers of a virgin earth. They need to breathe air—the liberating air of industrialization. They need be left free to produce—to continue creating the magnificent abundance that has lifted humanity out of the caves and jungles of the pre-industrial era. And who are the individuals? Everyone who understands, and glories in, the fact that man lives by reshaping nature to serve his values.

    AR

  74. #78 Dave
    September 28, 2009

    Shorter Girma:

    Not only am I too dishonest and irrational to understand or learn from criticism, but I am too inept even to construct my own straw man.

  75. #79 dhogaza
    September 28, 2009

    They need to breathe air—the liberating air of industrialization

    “The Liberating Air of Industrialization” certainly has a ring to it, much nicer than “smog”.

    London fogs used to liberate a few people of their life whenever they struck …

  76. #80 Badger3k
    September 28, 2009

    Now he has the mass of the Earth shrinking? Maybe that’s what causes currents? The Moon pulls the water, while the Earth shrinks underneath it, therefore CO2 doesn’t cause warming, and Ayn Rand is a goddess. Did I use all the essential elements (outside of the bad statistics)? I sincerely hope that he is pulling our legs, and really isn’t this stupid.

    The Girma Point – the point where stupidity is concentrated enough to become a form of black hole, which warps gravity locally causing all facts to fly away as fast as they can. Stupid so dense nothing can touch it.

  77. #81 elspi
    September 28, 2009

    Seriously people. I think the easiest explanation of Girma’s behavior is a brain tumor.
    Somebody need’s to convince him to get a MRI/CAT-scan.

  78. #82 Badger3k
    September 28, 2009

    Would the MRI show a linear trend? I missed the “blame Rachel Carson, pro-DDT” lies in that spew as well. Girma is pulling out all the denialist stops. I think we will see the germ theory of disease next. Perhaps HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, or that it is man made, perhaps by the envirofascists, as a means of controlling…well, whoever.

    That is some seriously frakked up shite, though. Ignorance on Parade.

  79. #83 Girma
    September 28, 2009

    If the mass of the earth does not decrease, what then are worried about?

    It means there will not be any limitation in resources.

    If plants in their life form new molecules that store solar energy, and when animals ingest these molecules their body split the molecules to get the energy they need to live their life, then the amount of the element remains the same. That is, in life on earth, new molecules are formed by plants that store energy, and when these molecules are broken by animals they get the energy they needed to live their life.

    As there is no depletion of any of the elements, the concept of “resource is limited” appears to be a fiction.

    If the mass of the earth does not decrease, what then are worried about?

    We are just using up the energy of the sun. Don’t worry about saving the energy from the sun. It is always there whether you use it or not. Try to live your life with out manufactured fear, my friends.

    Thanks Truesceptic for posting the anomaly prediction for the next decade. How about all the others?

    Anomaly was about 0.5 deg C in 1998, it was 0.3 deg C last year, and the IPCC says it will be from 2 to 6 deg C by 2100. How does it do the somersault from 0.3 to 6 deg C? What root does it follow for the next decade?

    Each and every one of you, in your next post, please post the anomaly prediction from consensus and authority for the next decade, so that we can compare them with reality. They must be clear that we must be able to read the actual value, say for 2015, or a range of values. Science is about facts. Show as your facts?

    I am not interested on the value for 2100. We will all be soil by then.

    Girma, TrueSceptic, Bernard, Jeff, Chris, Mark, Gaz, Michael, Bluegrue, Dave, Lee, Zoot, Badger3k, Steve, Sod, Mark Byrne and Janet will all be soil by 2100.

    We don’t need the value for 2100, as none of us are going to be there to check this value. We need the anomaly for 2015. Please post your values immediately.

    Cheers

  80. #84 Michael
    September 28, 2009

    Grima demands an immediate answer to ‘another stupid qwestchen’.

    What about Bernards questions that Girma has ignored over the last few hundred comments??

    Girma, why don’t you take you anti-science nonsense and your religious devotion to St Ayn, to your own blog where you can prattle on stupidly as much as you like?

  81. #85 Dave
    September 28, 2009

    > As there is no depletion of any of the elements, the concept of “resource is limited” appears to be a fiction.

    Oh great steaming horseshit. Girma it’s been pointed out to you *in plain sodding english, time and time and time again* that this is garbage. It took millions of years of geological processes to convert organic matter into fossil fuels. We are motoring through all that accumulated energy in just a couple of centuries – this resource is finite. Once burnt the molecules exist, *but it will take huge amounts of energy to reconstruct the original long-chain hydrocarbons*. That’s without even touching the depletion of other natural resources, such as fish stocks, topsoils etc etc. I mean, come on – again you are bested by 12 year olds in the science department. Really, they would point and laugh laugh laugh at this kind of basic silliness.

  82. #86 TrueSceptic
    September 28, 2009

    2083 Girma,

    I have said before in this thread that people who attacked the provenance of your PhD were unjustified.

    I’m not sure if I said what else I suspected, which is that you have suffered some sort of episode/breakdown.

    Is it possible that the Girma who earned the PhD is not the Girma we see now? I don’t know how else to reconcile the “PhD Girma” with the one who knows virtually nothing about the most basic science.

    Here’s a simple question, prompted by the recent energy/mass discussion:-

    Take 1 tonne (1,000 kg) of methane (CH4). Burn it completely and what happens? Ignoring the energy produced, what are the inputs and products in this reaction? Which elements are involved? Please give the masses in tonnes (or kg).

  83. #87 Michael
    September 28, 2009

    Dave, didn’t you know that empty dams are not a problem?

    The water still exists, just somewhere else.

    Resource limitation? Bah humbug!

    Belief trumps science everytime.

  84. #88 Badger3k
    September 28, 2009

    Well, at least he got away from the matter-energy conversion part. One down, 6 million to go!

  85. #89 Girma
    September 28, 2009

    No diversions please.

    Post your estimate of mean global temperature for 2015.

    Otherwise, all the CO2 driven AGW advocates don’t know what they are talking about.

    Here is my [Predictions.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif)

    In order to compare yours with mine in a few years time, please post them.

    The ONLY issue now is for you all to POST your prediction of anomalies for the next decade. I am waiting with bated breath.

    Excluding TrueSceptic.

  86. #90 Michael
    September 28, 2009

    Yes, no diversions……from Girma’s diversion in not answering Bernards questions.

    Answer the questions Girma, you anti-science ideologue.

  87. #91 Michael
    September 28, 2009

    There once was a dunce called Girma,

    Whose grasp of science could have been firmer

    His knowledge of statistics was nought,

    on anti-science nonsense was his thought,

    but on answering Bernard’s questions – not a murmur.

  88. #92 Badger3k
    September 28, 2009

    Speaking for myself, I don’t have to post anything. I’m not a climate scientist, and the others have done a far more competent job than I could ever do.

    But I do echo the sentiment: Answer the questions, Girma. You have to answer all the open questions before anyone will consider answering anything of yours.

    So, answer the questions you’ve been avoiding, please.

  89. #93 Girma
    September 29, 2009

    Michael, Dave, Bernard, Jeff, Chris, Mark, Gaz, Bluegrue, Lee, Zoot, Badger3k, Steve, Sod, Mark Byrne and Janet, I am not going to be diverted.

    I have made my [predictions]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif). I have provided all the data in a previous post that I used to arrive at the result. I have challenged any one to check my result and confirm or disprove it. It is as simple as that. Come forward any one, and I am ready for the challenge! Other verbiage is inconsequential. I am not talking about 2100. I am talking about the next decade that is verifiable. I am talking about 2015. It will be colder than 1998.

    Show as your prediction for 2015!

    I can not be called an anti-science ideology when I provide all the data and results for inspection. If you believe that you are pro-science, then show as your prediction. How does a 0.5 deg C anomaly in 1998 and a 0.3 deg C last year somersault and lead to 6 deg C for 2001? Could you show as the trajectory for 2015 during that somersault? Please?

    As I said before, by 2001 we will all be soil, so let us deal with the verifiable. Science deals only with the verifiable; otherwise; it is not science; it is mysticism.

    Now the judgment time has arrived. Post your predictions for 2015. That is the one, and only one, question for you to answer. Posting on any other issue will be just diversion.

    I don’t have to answer anything. I am not asking for the king’s ransom. I will answer only when you either confirm or disprove my result above. I have given my estimate for 2015. The one who must answer are those who ask for the king’s ransom, based on results for the year when all of us have become soil.

    Post your anomaly estimate for 2015. No guts, no glory.

    If you don’t have your own, post the one you believe in.

  90. #94 Michael
    September 29, 2009

    Answer Bernards questions on your ridiculous plots and predictions that you have now been avoiding for hundreds of posts.

  91. #95 Jeff Harvey
    September 29, 2009

    Girma, I stick with predictions of the latest IPCC draft. I take the views of 2500 scientists, most of whom are experts in their own fields, over yours. You lack any expertise whatsoever in the field of climate science, as do I, but unlike you I defer to the views of those doing the actual empirical research, meaning those working in universities and research institutes who publish their work in peer-reviewed journals. For someone who probably cannot tell how clouds work and who has also probably never heard of evapotranspiration, I am gobsmacked at your self-righteous posts coupled with your refusal (read: inability) to answer Bernard`s questions.

    Your last Ayn Rand post re: environmentalism was so abhorrent I will not waste any more of my time on your posturing and pedantics. I have science to do.

  92. #96 zoot
    September 29, 2009

    Girma, after you have engaged with Bernard’s questions (I don’t believe you are capable of actually answering them) I will post my prediction. That’s a promise.

  93. #97 Michael
    September 29, 2009

    ">Girma.

  94. #99 Bernard J.
    September 29, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    You have convinced me of one outstanding talent of Ayn Rand’s…

    …and that is her ability to squeeze so much complete crap into each sentence of a diatribe, such as the one you posted at [#2077](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1967812). It must stand as one of the biggest pieces of ideological, and inaccurate, garbage that I have ever had the misfortune of laying eyes on.

    I am in concurrence with [Jeff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1969151): I have used my scientific training and knowledge to interpret and accept the consensus of the experts in climatology, and I accept the models of the IPCC.

    Whilst I am not sufficently trained or experienced to derive de novo the complex models of climatologists, I certainly have enough understanding to know that neither you, nor any or Denialist I’ve come across thus far, have in any way come near to refuting their science.

    If you want to talk short-term, I think in the same vein as does [Tamino](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/), previously linked by TrueSceptic. You might note too, when you consider Tamino’s postings, that he used ‘residuals’ in investigating global temperature trends long before you did (as have I, and no doubt many others participating in this thread). The difference is that Tamino understands how to apply them properly.

    Read a few of Tamino’s postings from the last several years and learn.

    So, now that I have immediately answered your lame question, you have no further excuse to continue to avoid the questions [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1962957) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1964372) that you have been avoiding for so many weeks.

    Even if you had to learn everything from the very beginning of Science 101 in order to answer them, you should have been able to do so long before now.

    What’s the hold-up?

  95. #100 TrueSceptic
    September 29, 2009

    2089 Girma,

    Any sensible person will post much the same predictions as I did, i.e., the views of the climate science mainstream.

    How about my methane question? It’s just a little basic science test and requires no great knowledge of Chemistry.

Current ye@r *