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 But each of their arguments is wrong, outdated, or irrelevant.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 Girma
    September 29, 2009

    ENVIRONMENTALISM (Part 2)

    Altruism is the doctrine that man has no moral right to exist for his own sake. Taken from the Latin alter (or “other”), it is the doctrine that the sole justification for your life is your willingness to sacrifice it to others. Environmentalism is altruism unadulterated and uncamouflaged. In the past, the call for sacrifice was made on behalf of other human beings, such as the poor and the sick. Now, in a faithful extension of the altruist maxim, the term “others” is merely being broadened. Now we are being urged to sacrifice the human to the non-human.

    And if it is evil to live for your own sake, how can you resist such a demand? If self-abnegation is noble, what could be more praiseworthy than to subordinate your existence to that of the bugs, the weeds, and the mud?

    Environmentalist view man as the enemy. Their aim is to keep nature pristine, free from predatory invasion of man. It is not human welfare that sets the standard by which they make their judgments.

    But if man lives only by a process of remaking the earth—what is the implication of the environmentalists demand that he renounce this process?

    What environmentalists desire is the misery of man.

    We engines of the world are chocking on the philosophic pollution of environmentalism.

  2. #2 Michael
    September 29, 2009

    Again, confronted by science, Girma retreats to the comfort of ideology.

  3. #3 TrueSceptic
    September 29, 2009
  4. #4 Girma
    September 29, 2009

    Micheal

    Science does not deal with the unverifiable, especially that will happen when we all soil.

    Let us deal with the verifiable. Let us deal with science, not mysticism.

    Micheal, post your anomaly prediction for 2015.

  5. #6 Observa
    September 29, 2009

    How long are people here going to continue giving Girma the attention he desires?

  6. #7 Michael
    September 29, 2009

    For as long as I continue to enjoy his taking the denialist position to new depths of disrepute.

  7. #8 Girma
    September 29, 2009

    Why I deny a catastrophic CO2 driven global warming:

    Fact 1 : [Data]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend) shows mean global temperature anomaly decreased by 0.55 deg C from –0.02 deg C in 1878 to –0.57 deg C in 1911.

    Fact 2: [Data]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif) show mean global temperature anomaly increased by 0.9 deg C from –0.57 deg C in 1911 to 0.33 deg C last year, 2008.

    Fact 3: Combining the above two data, from 1878 to 2008, in 130 years, the mean global temperature increased by –0.55 + 0.9 = 0.35 deg C.

    Conclusion: The increase in 0.74 deg C in the last century they always talk about is therefore baseless.

    Question: Is increase in mean global temperature by 0.35 deg C in 130 years dangerous?

    Note: For the oscillation component of mean global temperature, 6σ = 0.9 deg C

  8. #9 Michael
    September 29, 2009

    Answer Bernard’s questions you idiotic troll.

  9. #10 Bernard J.
    September 29, 2009

    OK, this has gone on long enough.

    I declare that Girma Orssengo has refused to answer 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), questions that need to be answered before he can even begin to make the claims about climate that he does, because he does not know the answers, and because he does not even know how to find the answers.

    And through his default, by not answering these questions, I declare that Girma Orssengo has conceded his abject incapacity to comment on anything remotely related to climatology.

    Take a good look readers all – here is a person who seems to have scammed a PhD from one of Australia’s better universities, and he did it without being able to demonstrate that he currently has any understanding of statistics, biology, chemistry, or physics.

    If ever he had skills in basic scientific process, he has certainly lost them now, as TrueSceptic [noted](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1968694).

    I am one of those mentioned by TS who is rather less charitable about any former scientific capacity that Orssengo had – I suspect that it is more likely that Orssengo bluffed his way through his PhD, as it seems too unlikely that someone could genuinely have the nouse to complete one on merit, and then (even through breakdown) lose all indication of ever possessing the requisite knowledge and skill.

    Of course, I nevertheless do not discount the possibility of a breakdown, nor of other [pathologies](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1940691). To this end I have to confess to the ocassional pang of sympathy that such might actually be the case: if so, I hope that Girma finds the help that he needs.

    If such is not the case, and Orssengo is just an ideologically-blinkered troll… well, there’s no helping, really, is there?

    Whatever the truth of the matter, Orssengo shows no capacity for moving forward. Unless he makes a start by answering the bloody questions, I’m done.

    Time for a cup of tea to wash the foul taste of Ayn Rant from my mouth. Or perhaps something more medicinal, such as a single malt…

  10. #11 Girma
    September 29, 2009

    Dear All,

    Thanks again TrueSceptic. You have done the leg work for all the others.

    Here is the [AGW's Prediction]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPredictionAGW.jpg) for the mean global temperature anomaly.

    Comapre that with [Orssengo’s prediction.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif)

    For 2015, AGW Camp says 0.5 deg C; Orssengo says 0.2 deg C.

    For 2020, AGW camp says 0.75 deg C; Orssengo says 0.1 deg C.

    This is what science is all about. Verifiable predictions.

    By the way, the AGW prediction is on the wrong track already now, even for the low energy emission path, and unless the trend reverses there is no where to hide for the AGW camp.

    If you win, I will join the AGW camp, and I will send you X-mas card in 2020. Good luck, as you desperately need it.

    If I win, … Oslo!

  11. #12 TrueSceptic
    September 29, 2009

    2111 Girma,

    I hope you noticed the different reference periods and allowed for that.

    I look forward to you paying the $200.

    Any progress on the methane? It took me just a few minutes from first principles.

  12. #13 bluegrue
    September 29, 2009

    #2112 TrueSceptic,
    >I hope you noticed the different reference periods and allowed for that.

    Of course, [he did _not_](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale).

  13. #14 Girma
    September 29, 2009

    I would have believed in CO2 driven global warming, if the data from 1878 to 1911 , and from 1944 to 1976 had not existed. Why have not they removed these data ranges from the [dataset]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12) so far?

    Year=>Anomaly (deg C)
    1878=>-0.02
    1911=>-0.57
    1944=>0.10
    1976=>-0.24
    2008=>0.33

    Relative to 1878, the world last year, 2008, warmed by 0.33+0.02=0.35 deg C!

    Relative to 1944, the world last year, 2008, warmed by 0.33-0.1=0.32 deg C!

    Is increase in mean global temperature by 0.35 deg C catastrophic?

  14. #15 TrueSceptic
    September 29, 2009

    2113 bluegrue,

    Thanks but I want him to consider my question, check what he’s done, and answer.

  15. #16 Badger3k
    September 29, 2009

    TrueSceptic – “Thanks but I want him to consider my question, check what he’s done, and answer.”

    You didn’t really think that would work, did you? You’ve probably doomed us all to another bizarre Ayn Rand quote by asking him to check his work, and even worse, to consider anything other than his ideology.

  16. #17 Mark
    September 30, 2009

    Why the odd intervals, Grima?

    Ah, it’s because any periodically selected values would show your idea wrong, wouldn’t it.

    Have a look at this graph:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    And you’ll see that there is a variation about the mean (which is the very definition of the mean) and that mean is increasing.

    But who here expects even the level of intelligence and learning of a 15-year-old from you?

  17. #18 Mark
    September 30, 2009

    > Fact 1 : Data shows mean global temperature anomaly decreased by 0.55 deg C from –0.02 deg C in 1878 to –0.57 deg C in 1911.

    No such fact exists: you have not shown the climate temperature average at the two ends of the period therefore you cannot show how they have changed.

    > Fact 2: Data show mean global temperature anomaly increased by 0.9 deg C from –0.57 deg C in 1911 to 0.33 deg C last year, 2008.

    No such fact exists: you have not shown the climate temperature average at the two ends of the period therefore you cannot show how they have changed.

    > Fact 3: Combining the above two data, from 1878 to 2008, in 130 years, the mean global temperature increased by –0.55 + 0.9 = 0.35 deg C.

    No such fact exists: you have not shown the climate temperature average at the two ends of the period therefore you cannot show how they have changed.

    Conclusion: you have no clue what you are talking about

    Question: will you ever learn?

    > Is it possible that the Girma who earned the PhD is not the Girma we see now?

    > Posted by: True Skeptic

    You only just now coming to that conclusion, TS?

    Waaaay back I figured this one as a possibility.

    What may have happened is that Grima is just getting paid for something else now, so his inabilities in science no longer matter. cf David Evans or Ian Plimer et al.

  18. #19 Girma
    September 30, 2009

    The dinosaur and its fellow-creatures vanished from this earth long before there were any industrialist or any men—and environmental “resilience” never brought them back. But this did not end life on earth. Contrary to the ecologists, nature does not stand still and does not maintain the kind of “equilibrium” that guarantees the survival of any particular species—least of all the survival her greatest and most fragile product: man.

    AR

    I was saying why they have not deleted the data in the dataset around 1944 and 1878. Actually that is exactly what they did [here.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPredictionAGW.jpg)

  19. #20 Girma
    September 30, 2009

    Dear bloggers

    Thanks very much. I think we have finally arrived at a reasonable point to end this thread.

    We have anomaly predictions from [me]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif), a denier of CO2 driven global warming because it is unverified, and from the [AGW camp](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPredictionAGW.jpg). We will come back in 5 years time to check who would be right.

    I have no doubt that, because of the current trend and historical patterns (cooling and warming cycles of PDOs), I am more likely to be right.

    Here is the summary for the comparison for anomaly in deg C:

    ………………………………………………
    YEAR    AGW     ORSSENGO
    ………………………………………………
    2015     0.5       0.2
    ………………………………………………
    2020     0.75     0.1
    ………………………………………………

    I wish you the good life (for those who are for it).

    Cheers

  20. #21 Mark
    September 30, 2009

    > The dinosaur and its fellow-creatures vanished from this earth long before there were any industrialist or any men

    And what does that have to do with the price of potatoes, Grima???

    How is this meant to prove that CO2 from care exhausts cannot cause warming???

    > But this did not end life on earth.

    Well go ahead and off yourself and your siblings and children (assuming you have any). After all, the ending of your family line will not end life on earth.

  21. #22 TrueSceptic
    September 30, 2009

    2118 Mark,

    Yes, I thought that about “Girma” from the early days of this thread, when we found that he really is Dr Orssengo. I wasn’t sure if I actually said it, though, and can’t be bothered to search!

  22. #23 TrueSceptic
    September 30, 2009

    2121 Girma,

    I’ll need to contact you about the bet in a year or 2. The ‘Contact Address’ button on your home page doesn’t work.

  23. #24 Mark
    September 30, 2009

    > We have anomaly predictions from me, a denier of CO2 driven global warming because it is unverified, and from the AGW camp.

    Unverified, HOW?

    And why is that “unverified” so important when you ignore any unverified statements you make?

  24. #25 Girma
    September 30, 2009

    TrueSceptic

    Here is my email address: orssengo@lycos.com

    Thanks very much to all of you.

    I LOVE you all though you don’t.

  25. #26 Girma
    September 30, 2009

    Mark

    According to the AGW models, the anomaly for 2015 will be 0.5 deg C. We wait until 2015, and if the anomaly is 0.5 deg C then the model is verified and we will all believe in CO2 driven global warming. If the prediction does not much observation, we reject the AGW theory.

  26. #27 Bernard J.
    September 30, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    It is not appropriate to leave this thread until you have answered 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).

    Your incompetence in matters scientific is documented time and again here: are you also exhibiting cowardice with your persistent refusal to address the questions put to you?

    I have one further question that I would like to add to the others, at this late hour. And that is – what importance did you attach to, and what process did you employ, to remove stochastic forcings from the original data that you used?

    After all, if you are claiming that there is a linear, natural trend in the dataset, that you subtract in order to ‘identify’ your so-called ‘oscillations’, you must acknowledge that there are also stochastic events superimposed upon any other trajectory. These stochastic events could be either cooling or much more unlikely, warming, but you have given no indication of the importance that you place on them.

    So, in addition to your other lingering homework, what of stochasticity in the temperature trajectory?

  27. #28 Girma
    September 30, 2009

    Bernard

    This is the [mean global temperature anomaly]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:0.45/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.45) with its envelope for the maximum and minimum possible anomaly for 159 long years. Bernard, the question that we must answer is that, will this linear envelope change to something else in the next 10 years?

    I say it will not; AGW say it will. This is an irreconcilable difference, and the only solution is to wait for 5 to 10 years and find out which one is true. According to the AGW model, the anomaly for 2020 is 0.75 deg C, and this will lie outside the envelope.

    I have found that the [frequency distribution]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureAnomaly.gif) for the residuals are nearly symmetrical, which suggest that there is no shift towards high temperature in the last couple of decades. Also, in the [normal probability plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif), there is no sign of abnormality at higher temperatures.

    Cheers

  28. #29 Mark
    September 30, 2009

    > According to the AGW models, the anomaly for 2015 will be 0.5 deg C.

    The same can be said of the 1995 temperatures. And the 1990 temperatures. And in those cases, the AGW models were right.

    Why should be think that if they pass yet another test that you will accept it?

    And why the extra delay. Originally, you stated that the coming year would be cooler.

    Backtracking?

    > If the prediction does not much observation, we reject the AGW theory.

    Does not compute.

    Objects fall. Yet there is the case of the man falling from the empire state building and being blown back UP the building by the updraught and being thrown through a window.

    Does this mean we reject gravity???

    No.

    > This is the mean global temperature anomaly with its envelope for the maximum and minimum possible anomaly for 159 long years.

    No, those are not the maximum and minimum possible anomaly for those 159 years.

    Maximum anomaly was -0.6 and the maximum +0.6

    Maximum possible appears nowhere.

    > Bernard, the question that we must answer is that, will this linear envelope change to something else in the next 10 years?

    No, the question you must ask is “is that a linear envelope change?”.

    Something you have failed to check.

    An alarming lack of skepticism there.

    > I have found that the frequency distribution for the residuals are nearly symmetrical,

    No you haven’t. You’ve STATED they are symmetrical.

    Please show proof.

    > which suggest that there is no shift towards high temperature in the last couple of decades.

    Yes there is: you have had to remove an increasing temperature trend. Removing an increasing temperature trend means that there WAS a shift to higher temperatures in the last decades. Else there would be no need to remove a trend.

    > Also, in the normal probability plot, there is no sign of abnormality at higher temperatures.

    They are decidedly abnormal plots.

    Why do you change your period between measures?

    Because you have to carefully select your points to get the figure you wish to see from them.

    By the act of having to pick your points to show your figure shows that no such trend exists: it would exist without you having to enforce it if it had any validity.

    You are merely parroting the same broken arguments that Spencer has made, merely to say “there is no problem, because I say that we are just seeing variations and we are going to vary down any day now…”.

  29. #30 Dave
    September 30, 2009

    > the only solution is to wait for 5 to 10 years and find out which one is true.

    This is sheer nonsense, and woolly thinking of the highest order.

    Its like saying the only way of determining whether a fall from a great height is likely to be fatal is to jump and see.

    The IPCC predictions are not based on guesswork – they are based on decades of rigorous observations, and calculations from first principles of the behaviour of physical systems. They are based on repeatable experiments, and calculations of multiple influences on the climate, that can explain in great detail past and current behaviour as well as make predictions about future change. There is virtually no chance that they are completely wrong – we are talking about improving understanding and accounting for new factors, but the likelihood that *everything* that informs our current understanding of the climate is *flat-out wrong* is infinitesimal.

    You OTOH have drawn a straight line, and declared the 159 year trend to be linear because you say so. You have declared an oscillation because you have drawn an arbitrary W, with no attempt to verify your wild speculation as to underlying causes *whatsoever*. You’ve waved your hands and made contradictory claims about what fits *with no regard for actual observational data whatsoever*. You have made sweeping statements about past and future behaviour of the global climate *while considering only a single metric – temperature*. You have ignored atmospheric composition, solar activity, volcanic activity etc etc, and just declared that there *must be an oscillation, but you are not sure what it is*. You have ignored every single piece of robust analysis to the contrary, and proven to be totally impervious to reason.

    You *will never be right* because you have not formulated anything approaching a coherent argument. You have not provided a *reason* for the behaviour you expect, only made guesses. Which means that even if by some freak event you manage to pick a couple of future numbers correctly, *you are still wrong because you have not understood the processes and cannot justify your reasoning*.

    You cannot answer *why* in any satisfactory way. Which makes your contributions doubly useless.

  30. #31 Mark
    September 30, 2009

    > Its like saying the only way of determining whether a fall from a great height is likely to be fatal is to jump and see.

    Or push them off…

  31. #32 Girma
    September 30, 2009

    [Anti-Alarmist Momentum](http://masterresource.org/?p=5036)

    Here is the death spiral that I believe the the Climate Crisis Industry fears (and is probably right to fear) consciously or subconsciously:

    1. U.S. rejects cap-and-trade in 2009, leaving a climate bill in serious trouble for election-year 2010 and beyond.

    2. Copenhagen flounders without any U.S. commitment and from developing country opposition, among other things. The failed Kyoto Protocol creeps toward its 2012 expiration date with an all pain, no gain tag.

    3. EPA action is delayed by court action and public/political opposition, negating implementation for years and effective implementation for longer. Congressional action to de-authorize EPA becomes more and more likely as businesses, and electric utilities in particular, demand certainty to meet growing U.S. electricity demand coming out of a recession.

    4. The climate continues its decade long trend of non-warming for another 10 years, as some scientists have predicted. The return of bitterly cold winters, and more years “without a summer” increases public skepticism about climate science. More revelations come out about data manipulation by NASA, and cherry-picking by scientists trying to paint a false picture of recent warming in historical perspective.

    5. Climate initiatives (renewable energy subsidies, etc.) are increasingly scrutinized and attacked as job-destroying corporate welfare by the Right and political capitalism by the Left.

    6. Grassroots opposition builds against wind and solar farms because of landscape, wildlife, and people issues–and with the knowledge that such are not going to make a climatological difference. Environmentalists continue to block renewable projects at the local level, making it increasingly obvious that the U.S. risks energy shortages as conventional power generation is also stalled

    7. Given the political impasse, and feeling somewhat duped, more and more science writers and academics will start covering hard climate data/trends rather than uncritically flogging the latest garbage-in/garbage-out forecasting. [Okay, this could be wishful thinking on my part, based on a mistaken belief that left-leaning science writers actually care about balanced reporting, and that academics dependent on government grants might develop something resembling a spine, but a person can dream, can't they?]

    8. More attention focuses on adaptation and climate engineering, both of which spark furious debates on the Left as, respectively, “defeatist” and “playing God with climate.”

    9. The “Great Climate Scare” becomes scrutinized for bad behavior and lessons-learned–which magnifies the intellectual and media turnaround on the issue.

    10. Political support ebbs for government-dependent wind, solar, and energy efficiency companies, deflating the bubble and leaving a sad industrial trail of broken, obsolete, or uneconomic wind turbines and solar panels.

  32. #33 Mark
    September 30, 2009

    Ah, Grima has lost the plot.

    Unable to show anything but idiocy in scientific discourse, jumps right over into PR flackery.

    #1 is wrong (or at best tabloid-headline right, which isn’t all that right unless you’re an apologist for it)

    #2 is wrong, since the US constitutes a minute fraction of the world’s population and also since they haven’t HAD the results so can’t be behind them anyway: they don’t exist yet

    #3 is strangely right: EPA action is being filibustered but this doesn’t say that AGW science is wrong

    #4 Is wrong as shown so very often in this very thread. But Grima’s worm tongue can’t get off the peddling

    #5 is also true, but then again, so was the link between cancer and smoking. Which turned out to be from people paid to interfere to keep profits going

    #6 Astroturf, you mean, Grima

    #7 No impasse. Just the cotinued (if more strident because there’s more change and less disagreement on AGW making their position more and more precarious) wailing over “there is no AGW!!!” and filibustering by the trillion-dollar oil industry

    #8 Doesn’t say that AGW is wrong. In fact, if mitigation and adaption (evolve gills?) are being looked into (they aren’t free, you know), then AGW must be at least real enough to spend the money there

    #9 Nope, the same old “they are silencing us!!!” rhetoric we’ve had for forty years and more. And still doesn’t mean the ones against AGW are right: consensus doesn’t man you’re right, remember?

    #10 No such thing is happening. China remains the biggest producer of renewable generation capacity

    But when did we ever expect the Religious Nut Randian RWingnut Grima to do anything other than issue a great sound, signifying nothing?

  33. #34 Girma
    September 30, 2009

    A [normally distributed data]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif) can not go outside of +/- 3σ envelope.

    It is just IMPOSSIBLE!

    It will be seen in just 5 years when the anomaly is not 0.5 deg C, but much less than that at about 0.2 deg C.

    CO2 driven global warming is one case where Science has been HIJACKED for philosophical, political belief.

  34. #35 TrueSceptic
    September 30, 2009

    Girma,

    No more from me. I’ll just be checking each year’s average the following January. I’ll be in touch for the $200. ;)

  35. #36 Another Girma
    September 30, 2009

    In another universe, another Girma just factored in that:

    * climate is measured in long term averages (30 years);

    * the climate has been relatively stable for more than 400 years (probably more than 2000 years);

    * that CO2 has dramatically risen since the mid 20th Century;

    * aerosol forcings from mid 20thC have been curbed from the 1970s, thus changing the balance between aerosol cooling and greenhouse warming.

    As a result the other Girma just plotted [this graph](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:360/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1930/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1930/trend/offset:0.06/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1930/trend/offset:-0.06/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/trend/offset:0.06/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/trend/offset:-0.06).

  36. #37 Badger3k
    September 30, 2009

    Shouldn’t that be Bizarro Girma?

  37. #38 Girma
    October 1, 2009

    Badger3k

    For the linear component anomaly, we must include all the available data points from 1850 to 2008 to determine the pattern.

    Here is the [linear warming]( http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset:13.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:14.42/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:13.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:13.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.01/offset:5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.01/offset:20) pattern.

    As seen clearly in this plot, all mean global temperatures lied with in the envelope for the last 159 years. Do you really, really, really think this will break down in the next decade?

    No chance!

    No hijacking of science!

  38. #40 Michael
    October 1, 2009

    Another Girma you disgrace the name of Girma with those truly scarey graphs.

    As a Girma you must torture the data and cherry pick the start and end point dates of all trend lines to maximise the Comforting (TM) effect.

    All good Girma’s must reject the science in favour of St Ayn.

  39. #41 Girma
    October 1, 2009

    Did you know that there was a 20-years-long [global warming]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1858/to:1879/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1858/to:1879/trend) from 1858 to 1879, before the industrial revolution, at the rate of 1.1 deg C/100 years?

    What could be the cause of this warming?

  40. #42 Mark
    October 1, 2009

    > For the linear component anomaly, we must include all the available data points from 1850 to 2008 to determine the pattern.

    So if we take the series of numbers:

    1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64

    we must include all the numbers to get the linear component anomaly to determine the pattern.

    Ignoring, of course, the fact that this isn’t a linear progression.

    Then wonder why the analysis indicates that the next figure in the sequence will be 73.

    Grima, what if the linear trend isn’t linear?

  41. #44 Mark
    October 1, 2009

    > A normally distributed data can not go outside of +/- 3σ envelope.

    > It is just IMPOSSIBLE!

    Another prime example of Grima’s astounding grasp of mathematics (i.e. negative).

    No, it’s not impossible.

    The area of a normal distribution within 3 sigma of the mean is 99.7300203937% of the total area.

    Therefore there’s a (100-99.7300203937)% or 0.2699796063% chance that a normal value will be outside the three sigma limit.

    This is infinitely larger than the zero chance of IMPOSSIBILITY.

  42. #45 Mark
    October 1, 2009

    > As seen clearly in this plot, all mean global temperatures lied with in the envelope for the last 159 years. Do you really, really, really think this will break down in the next decade?

    > No chance!

    > No hijacking of science!

    > Posted by: Girma

    1) your graph isn’t science. It’s merely maths. So saying your graph is wrong isn’t hijacking science, it’s pointing out your sophistry.

    2) Have a look at this graph:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    Doesn’t match what your mangled mathematics wants to say, does it.

    Clearly the rate of increase is much higher recently than in the past.

    Clearly there have been many periods in the past where taking two points 10 years apart shows a slight increase or even decrease, yet this hasn’t stopped the overall trend continuing up.

    Stop hijacking science.

  43. #46 Girma
    October 1, 2009

    Mark

    You wrote, what if the linear trend isn’t linear?

    Anomaly = Linear Component of anomaly + Oscillation component anomaly that vary between a narrow range of +/- 3σ

    If the linear trend is not linear, because of the above equation, it will make the oscillation component non linear. However, according to the [frequency distribution]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResidualMeanGlobalTemperatureAnomaly.gif), there is no skew of the oscillation component towards higher temperatures.

    Mark, the only solution is for us to wait 5 to 10 years and we will know for sure whether mean global temperature has become abnormal. I have the [envelope of +/- 3 σ]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif) that applied for the past 159 years, and if any future anomaly temperature goes out of that envelope then we are in trouble. But I don’t think so.

  44. #47 Mark
    October 1, 2009

    > You wrote, what if the linear trend isn’t linear?

    > Anomaly = Linear Component of anomaly + Oscillation component anomaly that vary between a narrow range of +/- 3σ

    Nope, incorrect.

    Where did you learn your maths? At the Taliban School of Advanced Mathematics???

    The oscillation component IS NOT linear. That’s why you have to change your period between “cycles” all the time: there is no oscillation. And the definition of oscillation component is not “moves within +/- three sigma” either.

    Neither have you shown that your frequency distribution is normal.

    Check. How much does it vary from a normalised figure?

    Go on.

    Distribute the numbers normally and work out the variation from that normal fit to the figures you have.

    It doesn’t fit.

    > Mark, the only solution is for us to wait 5 to 10 years and we will know for sure whether mean global temperature has become abnormal.

    No, we know right now. It has become abnormal.

    And you still ignore the absolute fact that the three sigma limit has nothing to do with impossibility or with the variation you wish to impose.

  45. #48 Girma
    October 1, 2009

    Mark @2144

    You are right.

    When I say impossible, I mean to say for two maximum to occur with in a short period of time. For example, for the [oscillation component]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif), the two maximums occurred in 1878 and 1998, with 120 years of difference.

    As a result, it is unlikely for the next maximum to occur in the next decade.

  46. #49 Mark Byrne
    October 1, 2009

    From [Moberg's temperature reconstructions](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html) for the last 2000 years, the mean anomaly is -0.35 K with StDev of 0.22 K (relative to 1961-90 average).

    Plotting Moberg’s mean with +/- 3StDev gives [this control chart](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:-0.3537/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:0.3062/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:-1.013).

    Girma no need to wait 10 years. We are already above the +3 sigma range.

  47. #50 Michael
    October 1, 2009

    Good luck trying to get the science through Girma’s impervious shield of ideology and belief.

    He’s much more interested in torturing the data to make it say what he wants – his latest effort is the statistical equivalent of water-boarding.

  48. #51 Dave
    October 1, 2009

    > Did you know that there was a 20-years-long global warming from 1858 to 1879, before the industrial revolution, at the rate of 1.1 deg C/100 years?

    That’s slap bang in the middle of the industrial revolution.

    > What could be the cause of this warming?

    Going back to your “analysis” I’m extremely interested in your answer to that question.

    According to you, whatever the cause was it must be *precisely* the same as the cause of the increased warming you claim from 1911 – 1944.

    And according to you, that must also be *precisely* the same thing that will cause the sudden bout of cooling you predict we are about to experience.

    So please, explain in detail this phenomenon which you have not yet quantified, with references to observational data and explanations of why the current understanding of the factors that have affected the climate in the last 150 years is entirely wrong.

  49. #52 Dave
    October 1, 2009

    > As a result, it is unlikely for the next maximum to occur in the next decade.

    Unless of course you use a dataset (like GISS) that covers the whole globe (unlike HADCRUT). In which case you find that the additional warming in the Arctic helped push us over 1998 levels in 2005.

    But then, this has been said billions of times already. The water of reason slides effortlessly off the duck’s back of stupid.

  50. #53 Girma
    October 1, 2009

    Mark Byrne @2149

    The 3Sigma values apply to the oscillation component only, so you need to have the average as a linearly warming one. Here how is [+/- 3sigma envelope]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:0.45/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.45) should look like, where the envelope was never exceeded in 159 years.

  51. #54 Mark
    October 1, 2009

    > The 3Sigma values apply to the oscillation component only,

    They have no significance to the oscillation component.

    There is no proof there is an oscillation component.

    There’s no proof that there is a normal distribution about the mean from the residuals of a linear reduction from the raw data.

    There’s no proof that a linear reduction is correct.

    And even if they were all true, the significance of three sigma limit isn’t that it’s impossible to have a value outside that range.

    How many ways can you epic fail…?

    > When I say impossible, I mean to say for two maximum to occur with in a short period of time.

    And it’s already been broken: GISS data showed 2005 broke the maximum and 1998 (what you have as the peak) was equalled TWICE.

    Even the HadCRUT data shows 1998 was nearly beaten three times.

    Therefore if your impossible thing has happend not once but three times (three ways to get two peaks out of three highpoints), then your thesis MUST be wrong.

    Either something impossible has happened or your thesis is wrong.

    Which is it?

  52. #55 Girma
    October 1, 2009

    Dave & Mark

    I have repeated the analysis I did for HADCRUT3 for GISS.

    [Data used for the analysis]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyGISSdata.htm)

    The linear warming for the GISS is 0.56 deg C/100 years.

    For the residual, the standard deviation is 0.12 deg C.

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

    [+/- 3 Sigma envelopes on the GISS data.]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/compress:12/plot/gistemp/trend/plot/gistemp/trend/offset:0.36/plot/gistemp/trend/offset:-0.36)

    Yes, the trend is for cooling.

    AGW camp, where are you going to hide???

    You need to pray for a somersault.

  53. #56 Mark
    October 1, 2009

    > The linear warming for the GISS is 0.56 deg C/100 years.

    And the linear analysis is wrong.

    > Normal Probability Plot

    The data does not match the normal distribution.

    > +/- 3 Sigma envelopes on the GISS data.

    Shows that a better fit would be a curve plot, not a linear one, with a lower gradient in the earlier part and a steeper graph in the latter part.

    What need is there to hide? You haven’t shown anything except that you’re wrong.

  54. #57 Mark Byrne
    October 1, 2009

    I have also repeated [the plot for GISS](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:-0.3537/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:0.3062/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:-1.013).

    Girma has been shown to be wrong on many level, one of which is he is comparing the changing climate with itself. If the climate had warmed more or less in the last 50 years Girma’s 3 sigma would move accordingly and thus he would claim that whatever happens was within 3 sigm rise.

    To overcome this error [I have ploted](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:-0.3537/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:0.3062/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale/offset:-1.013) the mean and +/- 3 StDev. for the 2000 year temperature reconstructions. This puts current warming into perspective and compares it to the last 2000 years of of relatively stable climate.

    Girma’s assumed linear trend disappears when 2000 years of data is considered. And we are outside 3 Sigma.

  55. #58 Badger3k
    October 1, 2009

    What I find interesting is that I write a comment to “Another Girma” asking if that poster should more correctly be “Bizarro Girma” (one who knows science and accepts that AGW is real), and I get replied to with something about linear components and “No Hijack Science!” It seems like he is picking names out of a hat and writing whatever he wants (which seems to be indicative of his inability to read and respond to the real experts…aah. Since I am not a climatologist and accept the conclusions of the experts (and of the evidence itself), but am not in on the whole statistics thing, I must be easy to “reply” to (in other words, put in more nonsense). Of course, I have to end with the obligatory:

    Answer the questions, Girma.

  56. #59 Girma
    October 2, 2009

    Dear All

    As the [anomaly envelopes]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/compress:12/plot/gistemp/trend/plot/gistemp/trend/offset:0.36/plot/gistemp/trend/offset:-0.36) were not exceeded in the last 150 years, it stands to reason that they will not be exceeded, at least, in the next couples of decades.

    According to the data, there is linear global warming of about 0.56 deg C per 100 years. I am not a denier of this global warming. As a result, based on historical patterns, by 2100, the mean anomaly will increase by 0.56 deg C.

    However, superimposed on this linear warming, there is an oscillating warming and cooling that is normally distributed. This means that, relative to the linear warming, the magnitude of these oscillating component vary with in the range +/- 0.36 deg C. The pattern of this oscillation follows the PDO pattern.

    Let us estimate historical maximum anomaly. For example, for 2005, for the GISS data, the maximum anomaly = 0.0056(Year-1880) -0.03 = 0.0056(2005-1880)-0.03 = 0.67 deg C. The actual anomaly for 2005 was 0.62 deg C, which is less than but close to the value for the maximum envelope value of 0.67 deg C.

    Let us estimate historical minimum anomaly. For example, for 1976, for the GISS data, the minimum anomaly = 0.0056(Year-1880) -0.75 = 0.0056(1976-1880)-0.75 = -0.21 deg C. The actual anomaly for 1976 was -0.16 deg C, which is greater than but close to the value for the minimum envelope value of -0.21 deg C.

    As this model was able to give good approximation for historical anomaly temperatures, for more than 100 years, it stands to reason it can be used to predict future anomaly temperatures, at least for next couple of decades.

    My friends, if you haven’t already noticed, please have a closer look at this [plot]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/compress:12/plot/gistemp/trend/plot/gistemp/trend/offset:0.36/plot/gistemp/trend/offset:-0.36). Do you see that the read curve for the anomaly for 2008 relative to the green line of linear warming? In the coming years, will this read curve move towards the green line and cross it (Orssengo), or will it do a 180 degree somersault and move away from the green line (AGW camp)?

  57. #60 Mark Byrne
    October 2, 2009

    Girmam

    Your envelopes are baseless. [Here are](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1974508) the envelopes we have broken. And we are locked into going higher. Yet we can limit the growth if we act decisively, we may be able to keep the natural carbons sinks from turning into carbon sources, thereby we might prevent a nonlinear temperature response.

  58. #61 Mark
    October 2, 2009

    > As the anomaly envelopes were not exceeded in the last 150 years, it stands to reason that they will not be exceeded, at least, in the next couples of decades.

    Well, by definition: you write the envelope so that it wouldn’t be breeched.

    It’s rather like saying “since we haven’t beaten the maximum…”. By definition you can’t beat the maximum: you are either less than it or the new maximum.

    > According to the data, there is linear global warming of about 0.56 deg C per 100 years.

    No, you haven’t shown that. All you’ve shown is that a straight line can be drawn on a plot.

    Try a lowess filter or a polynomial fit of 1st and higher orders and see which one gives the best match (lowest RMS error).

    > Let us estimate historical maximum anomaly.

    No, you haven’t put any anomaly: you change the baseline so the figures cannot be compared.

    > My friends, if you haven’t already noticed, please have a closer look at this plot.

    Try this one:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    Take a close look.

    Try working your statistical meanderings on the data for 1850-1970. See if your prediction matches the 1980-2000 figures.

    It doesn’t.

    Because your analysis is incorrect.

  59. #62 Girma
    October 3, 2009

    CO2 DRIVEN GLOBAL WARMING

    ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

    My friends, if you haven’t already noticed, please have a closer look at the following plots.

    [Mean Global Temperature Anomaly Plot from Data from Hadley Centre]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:0.45/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.45)
    (Linear warming of 0.44 deg C/100 years, with +/-0.45 deg C oscillation about every 30 years)

    [Mean Global Temperature Anomaly Plot from Data from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/compress:12/plot/gistemp/trend/plot/gistemp/trend/offset:0.36/plot/gistemp/trend/offset:-0.36)
    (Linear warming of 0.56 deg C/100 years, with +/-0.36 deg C oscillation about every 30 years)

    In both plots, look at the right end of the red anomaly curve for last year, 2008. Look also at the right end of the green linear warming line. In the coming years, will this red curve move towards the green line and cross it, or will it do a 180-degree somersault and move away from the green line to its maximum value before, and then beyond that maximum value?

    The theory of CO2 driven global warming will fall apart without this 180-degree somersault. We will watch, with intense interest, whether or not this somersault happens in the coming years. Unless that happens, the science is not settled.

    Based on historical patters, the anomaly pattern after 1998 matches that after 1880. If this pattern is repeated, we will have 20 more years of global cooling to anomaly temperature values similar to the 1970s, wiping out all the increase in temperature during the three last decades of the previous century.

    Note also that long before the automobile and air conditioning, from 1860 to 1890, for 30 years, the [globe was warming]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1890/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1890/trend) at the rate of 0.41 deg C/100 years.

    In 1998, near the end of the last century, the oscillation component of the anomaly happened to be at its maximum; as a result, the increase in mean global temperature in the last century, from the Hadley Center data, was about 0.44 + 0.45 = 0.9 deg C. If the oscillation component of the anomaly were at its minimum (like 1911 or 1976) , there would not have been any significant change in mean global temperature (0.44-0.45 = -0.01 deg C) in the last century.

    Science is about the data. Science is not about consensus or authority.

    From the data so far, from the science, CO2 driven global warming appears to be baseless.

  60. #63 Mark Byrne
    October 3, 2009
  61. #64 sod
    October 3, 2009
  62. #65 Girma
    October 3, 2009

    I don’t argue about the linear warming of 0.44 deg C/100 years.

    At WoodForTrees.org you can remove the linear trend by using a DETREND = 0.706

    Here is the plot with the linear trend removed that shows the [oscillating component of the anomaly]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07) with variation of +/- 0.45.

    Cooling from 1878 to 1911, for 33 years

    Cooling from 1944 to 1976, for 32 years

    Cooling from 1998 to ? (2030, for 33 or 32 years)

  63. #66 Girma
    October 3, 2009

    Sod @2164

    Excellent point Sod. I did think about that.

    However the value for 1998 is crucial because it is the end of a maximum.

    You need a complete cycle of minimum cooling and maximum warming to predict the next cycle. As a result 1998 must be included for future prediction.

    This [plot]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07) shows why 1878 and 1998 are important for future anomaly predictions.

  64. #68 Girma
    October 3, 2009

    The greenhouse theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first, and then the atmospheric heat will radiate to the earth’s surface.

    [This is not happening]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12).

    Actually, the reverse it true.

  65. #69 Mark Byrne
    October 3, 2009

    >The greenhouse theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first, and then the atmospheric heat will radiate to the earth’s surface.

    Girma look at the [TLT and compare to the TMT](http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html), then apologize for getting it wrong again.

    Then ask your self why the TLS is cooling? Clue: Its because of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

  66. #70 Girma
    October 3, 2009

    Mark Byrne

    I did compare Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) with ground surface temperature. What is wrong with that?

  67. #71 Girma
    October 3, 2009

    Mark Byrne @2149

    Thanks for the link for the [tree-ring temperature anomaly data](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt)

    In order to compare the linear warming in the last century to that of a century before, I have used the tree-ring temperature data to [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/paleoclimatology1810to1910.gif) and calculate the linear warming from 1810 to 1910, which is 0.47 deg C/100 years. As this warming occurred before 1910, it was not caused by human emission of CO2.

    [Data used for the above plot.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Paleoclimatology1810to1910Data.htm)

    From data from direct temperature measurement, the [linear warming]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend) from 1850 to 2008 is 0.44 deg C/100 years. As this warming is of similar magnitude as for the previous century, it is not caused by automobiles and air conditioners.

    Removing the linear component of the temperature anomaly, we are left with the [oscillation component.]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07)

    This figure shows the anomaly for 1998 is not unusual, because it is of similar magnitude to that recorded in 1878, at a time long before automobiles and air conditioners.

    As a result, according to the data, there is no scientific basis for CO2 driven global warming.

  68. #72 Dave
    October 4, 2009

    > As this warming is of similar magnitude as for the previous century, it is not caused by automobiles and air conditioners.

    Repeat after me the fallacious battle cry of the blinkered denialist, and realise how thoroughly it applies to your reasoning:

    “Correlation is not causation”

  69. #73 Mark Byrne
    October 4, 2009

    Wrong again Girma, Your fallacious argument relies on claiming no dangerous warming based on variation with three Standard Deviations. [This chart](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1973495) disproves your claim, (though Bernard had disproved you on several counts already).

    Time to chuck out that argument.

  70. #74 Bernard J.
    October 4, 2009

    Girma Orssengo.

    Purely from perverse curiosity, what will it take to elicit from you an answer to my 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)?

  71. #75 Girma
    October 4, 2009

    If you want some more debate you can find me at [Girma Orssengo's blog](http://globalcoolingsince1998.blogspot.com/2009/10/mean-global-temperature-anomaly.html)

    I really enjoyed standing up to you mob single headedly.

  72. #76 zoot
    October 4, 2009

    If you want some more debate you can find me at …

    Do you really believe your arrogant display of pigheaded ignorance meant you were taking part in a debate?

  73. #77 Former Skeptic
    October 4, 2009

    “If you want some more debate…

    Debate is Dething you catch Defish with. Especially when you are Deep in Denial…

  74. #78 Badger3k
    October 4, 2009

    I guess standing up to a mob can happen when you constantly repeat the same thing over and over, while holding your hands over your ears while you sing La-La-La-I-Can’t-Hear-You at the top of your lungs. And a retreat with your pants stained yellow is called a “tactical withdrawl.”

  75. #79 dhogaza
    October 4, 2009

    As this warming is of similar magnitude as for the previous century, it is not caused by automobiles and air conditioners.

    Hey, at least Girma’s denouncing Watt’s surface stations project bullshit!

  76. #80 Dave
    October 5, 2009

    Earth to Girma: ignoring criticism and repeating your argument in CAPS is not debating. I urge you to drop your blog and concentrate on publishing your work instead.

  77. #81 Mark
    October 5, 2009

    > At WoodForTrees.org you can remove the linear trend by using a DETREND = 0.706

    And at the GISS site you can see that linear trend is a load of bollocks:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    You earlier complained about the zooming in of data that makes a temperature graph “scary” yet you do even more zooming in your mockery of analysis.

    The trend isn’t linear.

    Look at that graph. Here it is again:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    Look like a linear trend?

  78. #82 Girma
    October 5, 2009

    [Post #70](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow.php)

    Girma is only allowed to post to the thread where Bernard J has asked his questions. Please do not respond to him on other threads, as will delete responses as well as his comments.

    Posted by: Tim Lambert | October 5, 2009 7:43 AM

    WHY????

  79. #83 Michael
    October 5, 2009

    Because you won’t (can’t ?) answer Bernard’s questions, you MORON.

  80. #84 Bernard J.
    October 5, 2009

    WHY????

    … won’t you answer the questions here and here?

  81. #85 Girma
    October 5, 2009

    THE GLOBAL WARMING INDUSTRY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DATA
    ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
    Let us start by plotting the [mean global temperature anomaly]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:0.45/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.45) for the data from the Hadley centre.

    This graph shows a linear warming trend of

    Mean Anomaly in deg C = 0.0044(Year-1850)-0.52

    Superimposed on this linear warming, there is an oscillating component of the anomaly.

    Now the question that must be answered is that after significant increase in human emission of CO2, does the data show a shift in mean global temperatures in the last century?

    In order to answer this question, I want to address the following three questions:

    1. Is the linear warming in the last century of 0.44 deg C/100 years did not occur two centuries ago?
    2. Is the oscillation component of the anomaly at the end of the last century, after the introduction of internal combustion engines and air conditioners, unusual?
    3. What is the trend in the mean global temperature anomaly at the moment?

    1. Is the linear warming in the last century of 0.44 deg C/100 years did not occur two centuries ago?

    As there where no direct temperature measurements before 1850, I used [tree-ring temperature data]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Paleoclimatology1810to1910Data.htm) to plot and calculate the [linear warming from 1810 to 1910](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/paleoclimatology1810to1910.gif):

    Mean Anomaly in deg C = 0.0047(Year-1810)-0.63

    This linear warming of 0.47 deg C/100 years two centuries ago is of similar magnitude to that of the last century. As a result, the linear warming of the last century was not caused by human emission of CO2.

    2. Is the oscillation component of the anomaly at the end of the last century, after the introduction of internal combustion engines and air conditioners, unusual?

    As we have shown that the linear warming in the last century was not caused by CO2 emission, we now look at the oscillating component of mean global temperature to see the occurrence of any shift in temperature as a result of increased CO2 emission.

    To study the oscillation component of the anomaly, we can remove the linear warming component from the anomaly plot using the online software at [WoodForTrees.org]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07) by using a value of DETREND=0.706

    The above plot shows the magnitude of the oscillating component for 1998 is not unusual, because it is of similar magnitude to that recorded for 1878, at a time long before internal combustion engines.

    In order to establish upper and lower limits for the oscillation component, I established that they are [normally distributed]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif), with a standard deviation of 0.15 deg C, giving a 3 Sigma limit of +/- 0.45 deg C.

    From the above plot, for 1998, near the end of the last century, the oscillation component of the anomaly happened to be at its maximum; as a result, the increase in mean global temperature in the last century, from the Hadley Center data, was about 0.44 + 0.45 = 0.9 deg C. If the oscillation component of the anomaly were at its minimum (like 1911 or 1976), there would not have been any significant change in mean global temperature (0.44-0.45 = -0.01 deg C) in the last century.

    The above plot also shows:

    [Global cooling from 1878 to 1911, for 33 years.](http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A04EED7113AE633A25754C0A9669D946396D6CF)
    [Global cooling from 1944 to 1976, for 32 years.](http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf)

    3. What is the trend in the mean global temperature anomaly at the moment?

    In the [the mean global temperature anomaly plot]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:0.45/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.45), look at the right end of the red anomaly curve for last year, 2008. Look also at the right end of the green linear warming trend line. In the coming years, will this red anomaly curve move towards the green line and cross it, or will it do a 180-degree somersault and move away from the green line to its previous maximum value, and then move to values greater than the previous maximum?

    The theory of CO2 driven global warming will fall apart without this 180-degree somersault. We will watch, with intense interest, whether or not this somersault happens in the coming years. Unless that happens, CO2 driven global warming is not supported by the data.

    Based on historical patters, the anomaly pattern after 1998 matches that after 1878, with global cooling for 33 years. If this pattern is repeated, we will have 20 more years of global cooling to anomaly temperature values similar to the 1970s, wiping out all the increase in temperature during the three last decades of the previous century.

    Science is about the data. Science is not about consensus or authority.

    From the data so far, from the science, the theory that increase in CO2 is causing global warming has no foundation.

  82. #86 Dave
    October 5, 2009

    > WHY????

    I can’t speak for Tim, but I’m happy to see you be given a platform to keep espousing your views as long as it is contained here, for the following reasons:

    Because your noise to signal ratio is appalling.

    Because you managed to take a thread about a talk at a science festival and string it out longer than Moby Dick with irrational nonsense, gibberish, scientific howlers, sheer breathtakingly arrogant and offensive claims, and bizarre non-sequitors.

    Because you think debating comes down to who can copy and past Ayn Rand quotes the fastest.

    Because you cannot stay on topic for more than a few posts at a time.

    Because you refuse to answer direct questions with straightforward answers.

    Because you ignore responses you do not like, choosing instead to repeat your arguments verbatim as if they were impervious to criticism.

    I personally think you are destructive to rational discourse in any other thread. I don’t know what else you tried to post elsewhere (beyond “why oh why am I being censored”), but I imagine the content you posted was much the same as you’ve posted here. By all means, keep responding here – this is now by common assent your very own thread, and those of us that are gluttons for punishment will keep responding in detail wherever possible.

    I just wish you’d answer Bernard’s questions.

  83. #87 Dave
    October 5, 2009

    @Girma

    Thanks once again for proving everyone’s point here.

    Every single thing in your above post has been shown to be wrong in this very thread, and is filled with logical chasms that would make a schoolchild blush. You choose to ignore this and repost it yet again, using a heading with fallacious loaded language.

    What is the point in giving you free reign to repost it elsewhere on this site?

  84. #88 Mark
    October 5, 2009

    > Because your noise to signal ratio is appalling.

    Since there’s no actual *signal* there, the ratio is worse than appalling.

    There’s no linear trend, Grima.

    Go and check again if another trend works.

    Lowess filter is generally considered a good way for *statisticians* to observe trends in noisy data.

  85. #89 Bernard J.
    October 5, 2009

    Truly, we are in the presence of [a master intellect](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1979522).

    Orssengo, why are you pissing around here, when you could instead be enlightening the benighted ‘experts’ at, say, Real Climate? As you have now apparently learned how to turn dendrochronology to your arcane analyses, you might consider the current [McIntyre thread](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/) as a suitable platform from which you launch your devastating demolition of the AGW fraud.

    I am sure that Gavin would not censor your efforts…

    Go on – be brave!

  86. #90 Dave
    October 5, 2009

    Forget Realclimate – I say head straight to Climateaudit.

    It’s always fun watching deniers either try and either accommodate utter rubbish or be forced to disprove it themselves.

  87. #91 Girma
    October 5, 2009

    Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents

    We still speak of “The Ice Age” as if it belonged to the remote geological past. Geologists have reached the conclusion that there were several Ice ages. What is more, the last Ice Age, known as the Quaternary, is only about half over, despite our blistering Summers. “Eternal ice” or “eternal snow” are figments of the poetic imagination. Very slowly the great ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic regions are melting and pouring their torrents into the oceans. The earth must inevitably change its aspect and its climate.

    How the change is slowly taking place and what the result will be has been considered by such able geologists as Professor Sir Edgeworth David of the University of Sydney, Australia, Professor Wilhelm Meinardus of Gottingen and a score of others. The latest is Dr. William J. Humphreys of the United States Weather Bureau, who recently addressed the American Meteorological Society on the subject, summarizing old views and modifying them in the light of the information gathered in the Antarctic regions by the Byrd expedition and in Greenland by the ill-fated Professor Alfred Wegner and his companions.

    ….

    The earth is steadily growing warmer. As all the ice at the two poles melts a stupendous volume of water will be released. Professor David Conservatively estimates that the sea level will rise fifty feet. Professor Meinardus doubles that estimate. Dr. Humphreys, with the studies of Byrd and Wegner before him, believes the rise will be 151 feet. Such floods are nothing new, as we see by the marine fossils found on the tops of the Rockies, Andes and other mountain ranges.

    [New Your Times, May 15 1932]( http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1930.pdf)
    During the warming from 1911 to 1944

  88. #92 Dave
    October 5, 2009

    > New Your Times, May 15 1932
    > During the warming from 1911 to 1944

    And what’s the next bit Girma? The one you omitted? The part that says that this is inevitable over the next 30-40,000 years?

  89. #93 Mark
    October 5, 2009

    > We still speak of “The Ice Age” as if it belonged to the remote geological past.

    Were you alive during the last one, Grima?

    > Geologists have reached the conclusion that there were several Ice ages.

    Well another blinding flash of the obvious. NOTE: Scisntists also believe the sky to have a blueish cast…

    > What is more, the last Ice Age, known as the Quaternary, is only about half over, despite our blistering Summers.

    And ice ages take how long to change? 50-100 years? No. People die of old age all the time. But someone dying at age 20 is not considered old age just because he would die of old age anyway.

  90. #94 Mark
    October 5, 2009

    > From the data so far, from the science, the theory that increase in CO2 is causing global warming has no foundation.

    > Posted by: Girma

    But all that crap earlier wasn’t the data, was it.

    Here’s the data:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    Look how that the data goes up and down, but more up than down. This is known in educated countries as _a *trend*_.

    How many times have you said “there’s a cooling period” when the cooling is only after you take off an increasing value off the temperature? If you’re taking off increasing values, you aren’t talking about the data any more.

    And look again at that graph.

    75% of that increase can be explained by the changes in the log value of CO2 concentrations.

    And you insist that CO2 can’t explain the warming???

  91. #95 Dave
    October 5, 2009

    > Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents

    Its hard to say quite what the point of your little extract was there Girma. You just deposited there without any explanation, like a dog turd in the middle of the room.

    I can only guess, but based on your past behaviour I suspect you are trying to make scientists look like over-anxious hysterics predicting doom and gloom for no reason after a couple of hot years. Stop me if I’m getting warm (hah).

    Of course this backfires for several reasons:

    a) Your source is a *newspaper article* nearly 80 years old.

    b) The newspaper article itself is hardly hysterical, predicting as it does a melting of the ice caps in a few tens of thousands of years.

    c) Your own (utterly wrong, but lets let it stand for now) assessment is of a warming trend of less than 0.5 degrees per century. Warming like that would melt the ice caps in just a few centuries. You are yourself being orders of magnitude more hysterical than the article you quoted.

  92. #96 Girma
    October 7, 2009

    Momentum on Climate Pact Is Elusive

    …building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.

    [ANDREW C. REVKIN](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?_r=2)

  93. #97 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    That’s an issue for politicians, Grima Wormtongue.

    You know, those people who denialists INSIST are making this up to scare people into paying taxes.

    Funny how they’re spiking their own wheel on this.

  94. #98 zoot
    October 8, 2009

    [T]he observed warming over the last decade is 100% consistent with the expected anthropogenic warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade, superimposed with short-term natural variability. It is no different in this respect from the two decades before. And with an El Niño developing in the Pacific right now, we wouldn’t be surprised if more temperature records were to be broken over the coming year or so.

    From Real Climate

    Girma, please answer Bernard’s questions.

  95. #99 Bernard J.
    October 12, 2009

    I am going to cross post this so that Girma Orssengo, the resident Deltoid incompetent extraordinaire, has no excuse to claim ignorance of the posting of the questions.

    Orssengo, in addition to the long-ago asked, and multitudinously repeated, 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), can you answer this one?

    If there is a ‘background’, non-anthropogenic warming as you claim, why do you assume that over the scale of decades or centuries oscillatory superimpositions would continue to operate with constant expression? You see, the hazy suppositions that you put forward as explanations for these claimed oscillations are themselves simply mechanisms for heat redistribution around the globe, and as the overall mean global temperature (= heat content) increases, the manners in which the redistribution mechanisms operate will also be reasonably expected to change.

    To expect them to remain stable over increasing temperature ranges shows no understanding of how equilibria in complex systems shift.

    So, again: why have you assumed that your so-called “oscillatory components” are impervious to overall changes in the climatic system? How much of an increase in the mean global temperature do you expect might occur such that these “components” continue to express themselves as you perceive that they currently do? In light of the last question, how long do you believe that these “components” have operated in the past, and how long do you imagine that they will continue to operate in the future?

    And upon what evidence of physics do you base your claims? Note, playing with values beyond the range of a regression does not constitute the standard definition of ‘physics’.