Jonas Thread

By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Jonas N
    January 21, 2012

    Olaus

    I think your assertion to ianam:

    >You can kill the thread in a heartbeat if you just stayed focused

    is a bit on the optimistic side. Don’t forget, I have been quite particular about that extra qualifier condition:

    >And additionally if any of those believing in it, defending it as ‘consensus’ (or similar) had actually read and understood it and was prepared to argue its merits (even after I had had a chance to scrutinize it).

    As I’ve told you, so far nobody has stepped up to the task. And frankly, almost nobody has even claimed to have read any reference that he pushed, that it actually contained the sought for science, and that he had actually understood it.

    Rather, I would expect that ianam’s capacity, understanding and scientific level to be on par with what he presents here .. As I just said.

    As you know, I usually expect that (in such discussions) people come up with the best arguments they hav (left)

  2. #2 Olaus Petri
    January 21, 2012

    Jonas, don’t confuse me being nice to Ianam with my actual trust in his capabilities. ;-)

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    January 21, 2012

    Jonas N.

    I am still wondering why you won’t tell us what papers you have read and what papers you haven’t read, in your journey to claiming that the IPCC made up its confidence levels.

    And you can bluster all you like, but I have read the papers that I’ve drawn to your attention – papers, I note, that you won’t confirm or deny reading…

    You are asking other people to complete your homework, without even trying to demonstrate that you had a go at doing it yourself. I don’t know why it’s OK to do so in Jonasworld, but in the real world people usually try to prove that they’ve had a decent bash themselves at doing something, before they ask someone else to do it for them.

    And in the real world, when you accuse someone of fabrication, you usually present definitive evidence that you have actually done the work to establish that such fabrication is supportable.

    You have not done this.

    I’m also wondering why you are steadfastly refusing to comment on the list of attribution papers that has been growing, and capped of with the [recent post at Skeptical Science](http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html). Are you too afraid of pursuing that avenue lest your claims evaporate into nothingness? Or are you just too scared to post on SkS, where there are actual climate scientists in attendance?

    And finally, you can argue all you like about semantics, but your comment:

    >Bernard too has spent almost five months (backwards) ‘arguing’ that IPCC-claims don’t need to be backed by references, that they should be taken on faith.

    can only be interpretted in one way by any literate person. I have never at any time implicitly hinted or explicitly stated that IPCC claims do not need to be referenced, or that faith should be relied on for acceptance of any claims.

    You put those words in my mouth, and I do not resile from my description of you as a liar.

    You are.

  4. #4 ianam
    January 22, 2012

    Are you too afraid of pursuing that avenue lest your claims evaporate into nothingness?

    Bernard, his claims are already nothing, but that has no bearing on his repeating them forever. He’s just a bot, and your continuing to engage with him as if anything you write would have any effect on his course is quite neurotic … let it go, man.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    January 23, 2012

    [Ianam](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6215991).

    “Compulsive” is probably more appropriate than “neurotic”!

    Nevertheless, I have tired of the enterprise anyway. I think that it is quite evident that Jonas N cannot detail the reading he did (or rather, did not) do in order to arrive at his claim.

    Nor can he critically deconstruct the attribution papers that are sprouting like mushrooms, and nor will he engage on RealClimate with those he libels.

    I’ve been close to calling stumps, and now is as good a time as any.

    Jonas N, you and your trolleagues are hollow men boys. If you can’t do logic and debate properly, there’s no point in further engagement.

    [Close tab…]

  6. #6 Jonas N
    January 27, 2012

    Bernard J

    >You put those words in my mouth

    No, I didn’t! How is your command of the english language? I specifically indicated that your behavior indicated that ‘backwards arguing’ trying to get away from the only relevant core substance:

    What alleged science is (was!) there behind that infamous but prominet AR4 claim? Is there anybody who has seen it **and** can argue its merits? Instead you have been talking about almost anything else. (Maybe you believe that what you and the others here deliver should be called to *‘debate properly’*, but only in la-la-land). You write:

    >You put those words in my mouth

    But it is certainly you who repeatedly (and obviously) misrepresent what I am saying. And making up peculiar stuff as you go.
    But I don’t need to tell you that:
    >You are a filthy, stinking liar.

    That is your description of your own actions, which you (albeit wrongly) accuse me of.
    You (and Rattus) refer to another activist site, run by a Australian cartoonist. But they too erase questions and critique they cannot handle. The level in the posts is often very low. The discussions are usually better. But real discussions are not possible there. For the same reason as they aren’t at Real Climate or Taminos.

    We had a good example further up. I pointed out the logical fallacy in Tamino’s argument (in very mild words), the response was of the level as you guys here manage (an insult without substance). I pointed out where he was wrong in more precise words. And no more comment was allowed.

    And some tell me that Tamino supposedly is good at statistics. Well well … the words in ‘climate lingo land’ very often mean something entirely else than in the real world! Who is surprised!?

    PS The immaturity, the hollowness, the lack of logic and the perpetuous dishonesty is abundant on your side.

  7. #7 Olaus Petri
    January 27, 2012

    The performing elephants of Deltoid are frustrated because no one wants to see their clumsy stunts anymore. Must be hard being the centre of attention in an empty cir…climate tent.

    Chek, Bernie, Jeffie, wow, cupcake, LB etc honking horns and have a scientific blast.:-)

  8. #8 pentaxZ
    January 27, 2012

    “…the attribution papers that are sprouting like mushrooms…”

    Really? Not in the real world. What planet are you from, bernie? Hillarious.

  9. #9 pentaxZ
    January 27, 2012

    “…the attribution papers that are sprouting like mushrooms…”

    Really? Not in the real world they aren’t. What planet are you from, bernie? Hillarious. You know that the “peak climate” is past us, do you not? The CAGW ship is taking in vater. The good days with easy money for you and your cheating and lying “science” buddies is soon to be over. Please, wet your finger and stick it up in the air. I’m sure you will feel in what direction the wind is blowing. You know, you can do that even with your head in the sand.

  10. #10 chek
    January 28, 2012

    Climatescam: Jonarse has so totally owned the IPCC. Yeah he’s like shown that their posterboy claim is absolutely false.

    Deltoid: Really? When did this happen?

    Climatescam: In this blog. Jonarse like totally asked where the science was and nobody could tell him.

    Deltoid: Yes they did.

    Climatescam: But they couldn’t and he couldn’t see it so they totally didn’t.

    Deltoid: So why’s he wasting his time arsing on blogs? Why isn’t he knocking on Jim Inhofe and Marc Morano’s and Christopher Horner’s and Charles Koch’s door with this magic key insight? This is surely killer information in the most literal sense that Watts’ and McIntyre’s can only dream about.

    Climatescam: Well….

    Deltoid: Well it’s because he can’t.

    He’s unable to.

    He’s powerless to do so.

    He’s a grandstanding liar without a clue who’s more interested in recruiting – or should that be attracting – young boys with the political acumen of sandworms and ignorance to match into his half-baked Euro-libertarian club.

    Presumably 10,000 ill-informed idiots like Tampax7, whom nobody would ever require an opinion about anything from, may equal one Lawson on the Peiser scale of idiocy.

  11. #11 Olaus Petri
    January 28, 2012

    Chek, you have my sympathies. I hope you get well soon and realize that you did an all in and lost – big time. The fire and brimstone geschäft is out of fashion and you better come to terms with it. Or you will continue being a laughing stock.

    A friendly advice from someone who knows better. :-)

  12. #12 ianam
    January 28, 2012

    Chek, stop foolishly being baited … every one else has. Leave this thread to the trolls and only the trolls.

  13. #13 chek
    January 28, 2012

    Knows better?

    “Petri”, Jonarse has a meme which has not, and will not, go any further than those like you. It’s designed only to resonate with conspiracy-minded idiots like you and Tampax7 and the rest of the gangbangers.

    Meanwhile back in the real world [this is happening](http://www.youtube.com/embed/EoOrtvYTKeE) and real scientists – not fake blog scientists like Jonarse – have found the mechanism causing it.

    All thats left for the likes of you to do is to complain about your taxes. But not here.

  14. #14 Olaus Petri
    January 29, 2012

    Chek, like GWB says I will leave no child behind. I’ll continue educating you despite your learning disabilities. You are a true believer and and a scary on at that. Your authoritarian personality (which you share with other Ds) has a big F, like Adorno would phrase it.

  15. #16 GSW
    January 29, 2012

    I think this is where we all came in –

    Judith Curry and Peter Webster have a new paper in BAMS “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” worth a read.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/10/uncertainty-monster-paper-in-press/

    There’s been a bit of to and fro, and the following (from Judith to an anonymous Mr X) caught my eye,

    “Listing a large number of uncertainty locations, and then coming up with a “very likely” likelihood statement using expert judgment in the context of a consensus building approach, is at the heart of our concern regarding the IPCC’s treatment of uncertainty.”

    Very much “On Topic” on this thread, I would have thought.

    Also I notice, Gavin’s yearly “Turd Polishing” excerise, aka “How well are the Models doing?” is running a little late this year over at Realclimate. Maybe even he is finding it difficult to say anything positive about them.

    Enjoy Delturds!

    ;)

  16. #17 Rattus Norvegicus
    January 30, 2012

    You might want to check out this discussion of Judith’s little paper. It also includes a nice little discussion of the logic behind the IPCC statement which started this thread way back when, but you would have to be at least a little bit familiar with the D&A literature cited in AR4 Chapter 9.

  17. #18 GSW
    January 30, 2012

    Thanks Rattus, it was the Realclimate article that drew my attention to Curry’s paper.

    As Gavin says, the attribution statement “correctly reflects the opinion of most climate scientists on the subject”.

    Somehow this is translated into a 90-95% certainty figure as the “opinion” of the majority, which you’ll have to agree is less than ideal. In reality, this methodology would be laughed at in any other field of science.

  18. #19 Olaus Petri
    January 30, 2012

    GSW, thank’s for correcting my spelling (of Delturd). :-)

    And the fossil fuel right wing creationist bullies have come up with a new conspiracy. Enjoy the settled science friends:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

  19. #20 Jonas N
    February 7, 2012

    Sorry guys ..

    But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago.

    What is missing between the models, and observed reality increases a little every year.

    If we would do statistics on that (I know, that is taxing your taxonomy quite a bit) we would have to note that the probability that those models got it right is just about statistically insignificant now. Albeit not entirely disproved ..

    You can also see that phenomenon on many pro-AGW-blogs, they are more and more desperately trying to cling to the trend now, avoiding actual temperature measurements. The argument more and more becomes ‘we, the models are not quite proven wrong just yet’

    So much for the settled science since decades ago. Its protagonists incidentally claiming that ‘we have a decade at most to turn this around … ‘

    And I bet quite a bunch of you are gritting teeth over it.

    Someone said that lefty activists are particularly sensitive to losing face, and that this die-hard denial of reality is a consequence of that ..

    But I never claimed to understand the psyche of the doomsayers and fear mongers .. and those activists followers they inevitably seem to attract …

    Heck, some of you might even really really hope and believe that those large positive feedbacks are the true and real thing .. that they are just hiding in the deep sea (or somewhere)

    Meanwhile the CAGW edifice is losing ground everywhere .. and more and more realize that it never was anything close to science .. and the Jeffie Harveys of the world become even angrier with it!

  20. #21 GSW
    February 7, 2012

    Jonas! you’re alive!

    I was a little worried you had given up on this bunch of non numerate, hiding under the stairs, someone else tells me what to think, no hopers. Good to see you’re still at it!

    ;)

    As for current temperatures, I asked gavin over a month ago on realclimate when the annual ‘Dad Joke’, sorry ‘turd polishing’, sorry ‘How are the models doing?’ would be unveiled. Apparently, he’s still waiting on the results of some CMIP5 model runs(?).

    Gavin’s conclusion is of course well known – they are doing fine! The ‘intrigue’ is more the somersaults that will have to be gone thru in the production of this magnum opus. Downplay Hansen’s ~20yr old forecasts, push some new, shiny, state of the art (dubious and untested) ones on a better computer, leave any reference to HadCRUT3 out altogether(?), blame the ‘travesty’ of the lack of warming on..on (?) .. Big Oil?

    In any event, the non numerate Jeffs of this world will accept the Gospel as handed down. He’s on a jaunt at the moment looking for biodiversity armageddon isn’t he? can’t wait till he gets back with the news.

    ;)

  21. #22 Stu
    February 7, 2012

    But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago.

    Obvious and stupid lie. 3100 posts in, and you are still going to sit there and pretend not to know the difference between weather and climate? Pathetic.

    What is missing between the models, and observed reality increases a little every year.

    Bald assertion. Obvious and stupid lie. Citation needed.

    If we would do statistics on that (I know, that is taxing your taxonomy quite a bit) we would have to note that the probability that those models got it right is just about statistically insignificant now. Albeit not entirely disproved ..

    Vapid. Pathetic attempt at sophistry.

    You can also see that phenomenon on many pro-AGW-blogs, they are more and more desperately trying to cling to the trend now, avoiding actual temperature measurements.

    Obvious and stupid lie. Projection. Citation needed.

    The argument more and more becomes ‘we, the models are not quite proven wrong just yet’

    Obvious and stupid lie. Projection. Citation seriously needed.

    So much for the settled science since decades ago.

    Prerequisite not-even-a-farking-sentence interjection.

    Its protagonists incidentally claiming that ‘we have a decade at most to turn this around … ‘

    Vapid. Citation needed.

    And I bet quite a bunch of you are gritting teeth over it.

    Poor English. Projection. Vapid.

    Someone said that lefty activists are particularly sensitive to losing face, and that this die-hard denial of reality is a consequence of that ..

    Projection. Passive-aggressive faux-Libertarian whining.

    But I never claimed to understand the psyche of the doomsayers and fear mongers ..

    Pathetic attempt at taking the high ground. Inconsequential. Vapid.

    and those activists followers they inevitably seem to attract …

    Vapid. Projection. Inconsequential. Asinine dog-whistle martyrdom.

    Heck, some of you might even really really hope and believe that those large positive feedbacks are the true and real thing .. that they are just hiding in the deep sea (or somewhere)

    Yes, if only there was recent research into that issue

    Clown.

    Meanwhile the CAGW edifice is losing ground everywhere .. and more and more realize that it never was anything close to science .. and the Jeffie Harveys of the world become even angrier with it!

    Passive-aggressive. Delusional. Whining. Vapid. Citation needed.

    You took an entire week off to bring us THAT tripe, Jonas?

    What a sad, sad little man you are.

  22. #23 GSW
    February 7, 2012

    [Apologies all if this eventually turns up again, I assume it was a server error – for one horrible moment I thought I’d been moderated from a ‘Troll thread’ – you are a spineless lot]

    Jonas! you’re alive!

    I was a little worried you had given up on this bunch of non numerate, hiding under the stairs, someone else tells me what to think, no hopers. Good to see you’re still at it!

    ;)

    As for current temperatures, I asked gavin over a month ago on realclimate when the annual ‘Dad Joke’, sorry ‘turd polishing’, sorry ‘How are the models doing?’ would be unveiled. Apparently, he’s still waiting on the results of some CMIP5 model runs(?).

    Gavin’s conclusion is of course well known – they are doing fine! The ‘intrigue’ is more the somersaults that will have to be gone thru in the production of this magnum opus. Downplay Hansen’s ~20yr old forecasts, push some new, shiny, state of the art (dubious and untested) ones on a better computer, leave any reference to HadCRUT3 out altogether(?), blame the ‘travesty’ of the lack of warming on..on (?) .. Big Oil?

    In any event, the non numerate Jeffs of this world will accept the Gospel as handed down. He’s on a jaunt at the moment looking for biodiversity armageddon isn’t he? can’t wait till he gets back with the news.

    ;)

  23. #24 pentaxZ
    February 8, 2012

    What a poor looser you are, stu. Pathetic indeed.

  24. #25 John
    February 8, 2012

    Hi Pentaxz, care to answer the rebuttal to your copy-and-pasted-questions-you-didn’t-understand that you promised to nearly two months ago?

  25. #26 Jonas N
    February 8, 2012

    Stu

    >>But now it is about the same **temperature** (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago.
    >
    >Obvious and stupid lie. 3100 posts in, and you are still going to sit there and pretend not to know the difference between **weather** and **climate**? Pathetic

    I’ve highlighted the relevant words for you. You see, they are all different, Stu. Often it helps to read the words properly, even if you don’t understand their meaning, or of the sentences they construct. Even for you, Stu!

  26. #27 Wow
    February 8, 2012

    > But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago.
    > You see, they are all different, Stu.

    You also haven’t shown the data showing the “about the same temperature” figure.

    I mean, if you’re going to demand exactitude, then you need to show the precise mathematics.

  27. #28 John
    February 8, 2012

    >But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago.

    Duff tried to make the same inept argument, so no points for original thinking.

    Seriously though, here is the graph that Jonas belives is proof of the scam!

    No, seriously.

    I see we have quickly reached Pentaxz levels of woefulness and Duff levels of confusing climate with weather variation.

  28. #29 Wow
    February 8, 2012

    Even if you split it into “current year” and “average for the 80’s”, it still shows today as warmer.

    How odd.

  29. #30 Stu
    February 8, 2012

    What a poor looser you are, stu.

    Am I? What’s a “looser”?

    I’ve highlighted the relevant words for you. You see, they are all different, Stu.

    Sweetheart, if you say “But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago”, you don’t know the difference between weather and climate. It’s the intellectual equivalent of “yesterday was the same temperature as September 2nd, therefore winter is a myth”.

    But you knew that already. You were just hoping to get the last word in on a zombie thread so you could point to it and say you got the best of all of us alarmists. I did have higher hopes than that vapid tripe, though. Care to address anything substantial? Do you have any citations for the numerous bald assertions you made? Care to tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?

  30. #31 pentaxZ
    February 8, 2012

    Hi john. No.

    Sorry stu. I mean loooooooooooser! Big time!

  31. #32 pentaxZ
    February 8, 2012

    Guys, listen! Do you hear? Reallity is coming, like a tsunami. And it’s coming fast. Brace your self.

  32. #33 John
    February 8, 2012

    >Hi john. No.

    At least you are a devout member of your faith.

  33. #34 John
    February 8, 2012

    >Guys, listen! Do you hear? Reallity is coming, like a tsunami. And it’s coming fast. Brace your self.

    You mean, an …. *apocalypse*?

  34. #35 chek
    February 8, 2012

    Guys, listen! Do you hear? Reallity (sic) is coming, like a tsunami.

    Aural and other forms of hallucination are highly regarded in some religions. Including denialism by this over-excited account, presumably somehow intended to impress.

    Of course, one may be impressed – or more accurately appalled – by the level of habitualised cretinisation required to post such a comment.

  35. #36 pentaxZ
    February 9, 2012

    Guys, it helps to clean your ears from wax. You will hear better!

  36. #39 Jonas N
    February 12, 2012

    Stu

    Let me repeat it once more for you:

    >But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago

    Observed temperatures are recorded, reported and updated as monthly averaged. That is so even now! Ie for january. If you have a problme with this, you indeed have a problem with that (too!). So let me spell it out even more blatantly so that (even) you have the chance to get the message:

    >But now it is about the same temperature (global **average [for last month]**) it was in the early 80s **[averaged monthly]**, ie [more than] 30 years ago

    John even was so kind to provide a link, but incidentally(?) left out just the **early** 80s and which didn’t include the most recent [monthly averaged] temperatures. But I’m sure, (even?) you can make the relevant changes to see that what I said is correct.

    Temperatures [recorded/reported monthly, averaged] are something different than weather, which in turn is something different than climate. And hence, I was not mentoining the latter. You were, and erroneously!

    If you (really?) wanted to talk about climate [Do you really, really want to? Not just posturing? and] … talk about climate, which commonly is viewed as 30 years of weather averaged, you would have only two data points since ~1950. And any ranting about change would be nonsense. Difference, yes, probably, at least a little, but systematic change: No way! And talking about accellerated change with only two datapoints would immedeately disqualify you from any grown up deliberations.

    You may, of course, include even more 30-years periods (data points), but then you would have to go back to the early 1920s, and before that, and could not possibly use those (three! or more) data points to make a case for any anthropogenic signature in the change. Since before ~1940-45 human changes in CO2-level where essentially insignificant.

    No Stu, you really don’t want to talk about cliamte, because then, you would have absolutley no point. The whole (C)AGW-scare depends on temperature records (some of them dubious) and I pointed out to you that today’s temperatures (averaged monthly) are about the same as more than thirty years ago (averaged monthly)!

    And I also pointed out what this means for the reliability of the modelled forcasts. And that you are (for good reasons) more and more ‘afraid’ of yet more (threat-) prophecies not being fulfilled!

    The rest of you post is even more stupid. I’ll leave it at that. (And you really need to work on your command of the english language. Before, I know you hade problems with the words ‘six’, ‘years’, ‘studied’ and ‘physics’ but it seems much worse than that)

    PS Did you read you own link? Din you know what it said? Probably not, because it more made my point than reinforce the opposite …

  37. #40 chek
    February 12, 2012

    you would have only two data points since ~1950.

    Thanks for proving unequivocally – indeed so unequivocally that even morons like Petri, GSW, Tampax and sunspot should be backing away (if indeed they ever understood anything to begin with) – what a science challenged dolt you are, Jonarse.

    Nobody else’s words but your own could have been so eloquent in exposing you for the cretin grooming frawd you are.

  38. #41 Robert Murphy
    February 12, 2012

    “talk about climate, which commonly is viewed as 30 years of weather averaged, you would have only two data points since ~1950″

    Yeah, because
    1951-1981,
    1952-1982,
    1953-1983,
    1954-1984,
    1955-1985,
    1956-1986,
    1957-1987,
    1958-1988,
    1859-1989,
    1960-1990,
    1961-1991,
    1962-1992,
    1963-1993,
    1964-1994,
    1965-1995,
    1966-1996,
    1967-1997,
    1968-1998,
    1969-1999,
    1970-2000,
    1971-2001,
    1972-2002,
    1973-2003,
    1974-2004,
    1975-2005,
    1976-2006,
    1977-2007,
    1978-2008,
    1979-2009,
    1980-2010,
    1981-2011
    constitute just 2 data points.
    lol

  39. #42 Jonas N
    February 13, 2012

    Yeah Robert Murphy …

    And why stop there? If you take monthly points, you would have 12 times more ‘datapoints’even (and if you’d take them daily …. well I’m sure you can *’do the math’* yourself ;-)

    And of course, if you use monthly data, you would have to wait only one month to observe ‘climate change’, and after another (month) you may even be talking about a trend, and two more months would possibly allow you to start hollering about **accellerating** climate change .. won’t it?

    After just four (extra) months of observations …

    Nope, you don’t and you can’t! Sorry chap. (Can you see why not?)

    But incidentally and ironically, you underscore two other aspects where the AGW-followers get it wrong over and over again:

    1. The ‘Wheather is not climate’-meme(*) where you present a magnificant own goal: Accordeing to your ‘argument’, after just one more year (or month) of ‘wheater’ you believe that you can observe changes in ‘climate’, and

    2. The practice of using the same observations/data many times and believing if you make small changes to the treatment the results are ‘independent’ or ‘confirming’ each other. Moreover, the newspeak (mis)use of ‘independent’ is also manifested when talking about those many ‘inquireies’ ..

    (*) Funnily, the AGW-followers often try to beat their critics over the head by repeating that (intrinsically correct) meme, but regularly get it terribly wrong when doing so. Just a few posts before you, Stu unchallenged felt compelled to make just that own goal too …

  40. #43 J
    February 13, 2012

    Yes chek, the sort version for you:

    In 60 years, you can make only two **independent** observations of ‘the climate’

    That is what I say!

    (I added the ‘independent’ here since you obviously need help with exactly that)

  41. #44 Jonas N
    February 13, 2012

    The above post (@ chek) was by me of course! Sorry

  42. #45 chek
    February 13, 2012

    you would have to wait only one month to observe ‘climate change’

    Jonarse, you’re an idiot with no comprehension.

    An equatorial climate in February remains an equatorial climate the following month, as do tropical, temperate and arctic climates etc..

    You don’t even understand that.

  43. #46 Robert Murphy
    February 13, 2012

    “And why stop there? If you take monthly points, you would have 12 times more ‘datapoints’ even…”

    That’s true. Your “there are only two data points” claim was complete nonsense. I notice you have not even tried to claim otherwise.

    “And of course, if you use monthly data, you would have to wait only one month to observe ‘climate change’,”

    No, you would wait about 30 years to get a handle on climate. It doesn’t matter if you divide your data into seconds, it still requires about 30 years to be useful for climate. It’s not an exact number, but a good approximation.

    “…, and after another (month) you may even be talking about a trend, and two more months would possibly allow you to start hollering about accellerating climate change .. won’t it?

    After just four (extra) months of observations …

    Nope, you don’t and you can’t! Sorry chap.”

    Of course we wouldn’t. Not everybody is as stupid as you. It must have made you feel so smart to demolish such an idiotic straw-man.

    “Accordeing[sic] to your ‘argument’, after just one more year (or month) of ‘wheater[sic]’ you believe that you can observe changes in ‘climate’,”

    Bullshit. That’s not an argument anybody made. Are you really that deficient in basic statistics and reading comprehension? Basic intellectual honesty? Yes, you are. On all accounts.

  44. #47 Jonas N
    February 13, 2012

    Robert M

    Which part do feel is difficult to understand. You write:

    >you would wait about 30 years to get a handle on climate

    Which is exactly what I pointed out to Stu, and subsequently poor chek. I called these observations ‘one datapoint’ wrt to an observed climate.

    Are you seriously saying that you have difficulties understanding that?
    And to talk about ‘climate **change**’ you need several such observations (ie at least 60 years) and even more if you want to talk about **acceleration**. Is that too difficult too?

    >Not everybody is as stupid as you

    If you really feel that you have something to contribute, I suggest you help your fellow travelers Stu and chek (and the others here) to avoid looking stupid.

  45. #48 Robert Murphy
    February 13, 2012

    “Which is exactly what I pointed out to Stu, and subsequently poor chek. I called these observations ‘one datapoint’ wrt to an observed climate.”

    There are more than two 30 year periods over the last 60 years. This is basic stuff, which is why you don’t get it.

    1951-1981, 1952-1982, 1953-1983, 1954-1984, 1955-1985, 1956-1986, 1957-1987, 1958-1988, 1859-1989, 1960-1990, 1961-1991, 1962-1992, 1963-1993, 1964-1994, 1965-1995, 1966-1996, 1967-1997, 1968-1998, 1969-1999, 1970-2000, 1971-2001, 1972-2002, 1973-2003, 1974-2004, 1975-2005, 1976-2006, 1977-2007, 1978-2008, 1979-2009, 1980-2010, 1981-2011

    There is nothing magical about the first value or the last one. You sound like the guy who tried to tell me the best way to find a linear trend was to draw a line from the start point and the end point and ignore the data in between. All of the above are valid 30 year data points, and by looking at how those rolling averages change over time you can see how climate has changed over that time frame.

    “And to talk about ‘climate change’ you need several such observations (ie at least 60 years)”

    Absolute horse crap.

    “Is that too difficult too?”

    Basic stats is too difficult for you.

  46. #49 Jonas N
    February 13, 2012

    Robert M,

    OK, so the point I made indeed was **too difficult** for you to understand.

    You now make the point, you just before vehemently denied you were trying to make:

    > “Accordeing[sic] to your ‘argument’, after just one more year (or month) of ‘wheater[sic]’ you believe that you can observe changes in ‘climate’,”

    >Bullshit. That’s not an argument anybody made

    Now you are saying the exact opposite:

    > All of the above are valid 30 year data points, and by **looking at how those rolling averages change** over time you can see how **climate** has **changed** over that time frame.

    It is very hard reading that in any other way than that you want to drop the earliest year, and add the latest observed to you dataset, and call that difference climate change.

    But (changes due to) one year is just weather. As I said before:

    >the AGW-followers often try to beat their critics over the head by repeating that [weather-is-not-climate-] meme, but regularly get it terribly wrong when doing so.

  47. #50 Robert Murphy
    February 13, 2012

    “Now you are saying the exact opposite:”

    No, there’s no contradiction at all.

    “It is very hard reading that in any other way than that you want to drop the earliest year, and add the latest observed to you dataset, and call that difference climate change.”

    *Everything* is really hard to read when you’re as dense as you are. Of course, what I actually said was the opposite of the above. When you look at all the 30 year time periods over the last 60 years, any particular one loses it’s significance. Not the way you do it, however; for you, only the first and last 30 year periods are counted. You ignore the other 29 30 year periods.

    “But (changes due to) one year is just weather.”

    Which is why I never ever said to look at changes from just one year.

  48. #51 Jonas N
    February 13, 2012

    Sorry Robert, but that is not what you wrote:

    I copy it once more, and highlight different parts:

    > **All** of the above are **valid 30 year data points**, and by looking at how those **rolling averages change over time** you can see how **climate has changed** over that time frame.

    If you claim that indeed all of those were (in this context) valid data points, your statement would be correct for any number you chose to include in what you call “that time frame”. Ie even if you only took two consecutive points.

    There I don’t agree with you. I’d say your ‘change’ is observation of mostly weather. I’d say you need much more, and that you indeed need to wait 30 years to have two **independent** points. And I specifically clarified that above #3129.

    >You ignore the other 29 30 year periods

    No, I don’t ignore them (*)

    >Which is why I never ever said to look at changes from just one year.

    So, Robert Murphy, are **all** these (your) ~30 data points **valid** to study **climate change**, or are they not? It’s a simple Yes/No-question.

    Because your statement is quite ambiguous. If you by ‘all’ mean *‘all 31 of them, combined’*, I’d agree with you, because that is what I actually said. And the intermediate ones show you solely show your moving average changes during that time frame. (*)

    But if you by ‘all’ mean *‘each and every one of them, individually’*, your statement (which does **not** specify any **required minimum** number of points/time frame) is bollocks, and implies exactly what you deny.

    As I’ve said before:

    > the AGW-followers often try to beat their critics over the head by repeating that [weather-is-not-climate-] meme, but regularly get it terribly wrong when doing so.

    (*) But remember, you did make all your statements to contradict me!

  49. #52 Robert Murphy
    February 13, 2012

    “Ie even if you only took two consecutive points.”

    Yeah, but each point would be averages of 30 years of temperature data. But we don’t have just those 2 points, we have over 30 since 1950.

    “There I don’t agree with you. I’d say your ‘change’ is observation of mostly weather.”

    And you’d be wrong. Again.

    “I’d say you need much more, and that you indeed need to wait 30 years to have two independent points.”

    You can say whatever you want, it doesn’t make it so.

    “No, I don’t ignore them”

    Sure you did. You only count 1951-1981 and 1981-2011. You ignore 29 30 year periods in between. Of course, just looking at the two data points you did pick, you would see that temperature has greatly increased.

    “So, Robert Murphy, are all these (your) ~30 data points valid to study climate change, or are they not? It’s a simple Yes/No-question.”

    Yes, of course. That is what I said explicitly, and what you reject implicitly when you only look at the first and last data point.

    “But if you by ‘all’ mean ‘each and every one of them, individually’, your statement (which does not specify any required minimum number of points/time frame) is bollocks, and implies exactly what you deny.”

    Nonsense. Each data point requires 30 years of temperature data. I said so explicitly.

    “But remember, you did make all your statements to contradict me!”

    Yes, all statements of fact are only stated to contradict you. It’s all about *you*. lol

  50. #53 Stu
    February 13, 2012

    Just when you think Jonas cannot possibly get dumber…

  51. #54 Jonas N
    February 13, 2012

    Your comments are getting really really stupid, Robert!

    Now you claim that taking two consecutive (of your) points is **not** studying mostly weather. Amazing …

    > But we don’t have just those 2 points, we have over 30 since 1950.

    That is true for the earlier points (and irrelevant for the question: whether 2 data points suffice). What can you say about ‘climate change’ between the two (or four-five) last of your points? (And please don’t conflate climate with temperatures)

    I repeat what I said once more, on chek/Wow/Stu-level for you (Maybe I should include you in that group):

    > In 60 years, you can make only two **independent** observations of ‘the climate’

    PS It is a bit surreal that some punk kid(?) here tries to tell me something about averages, about moving averages or basic statistics (and even argues that two points are valid ’because we have many more of them’). And on top of interjects with stupid insults.

  52. #55 Jonas N
    February 13, 2012

    Stu, your many thoughts, which you’ve shared so generously (about moving hands, physics studied, climate vs weather etc) are valuable too. Only not in the way you may have believed …

  53. #56 Robert Murphy
    February 13, 2012

    “Now you claim that taking two consecutive (of your) points is not studying mostly weather.”

    It isn’t when each point is 30 years of data.

    “What can you say about ‘climate change’ between the two (or four-five) last of your points? (And please don’t conflate climate with temperatures)”

    A lot. And of course we are talking temperature here. The last 5 points would cover a 35 year range of temperature. Just the last one would be good enough to get an idea what is happening to the climate. The point is while one 30 year period is OK, the more the merrier. Looking at the 30 year moving averages gives a better idea of what is going on over time than just looking at the first 30 years and the last 30 years. It lets you ask different questions.

    “In 60 years, you can make only two independent observations of ‘the climate”

    And that’s still utter bullshit.

    “PS It is a bit surreal that some punk kid(?) here tries to tell me something about averages, about moving averages or basic statistics (and even argues that two points are valid ’because we have many more of them’).”

    Why? You are completely ignorant about all of the above. Why are you surprised that someone calls you out on it?

    “and even argues that two points are valid ’because we have many more of them’”

    We don’t just have two points; only an idiot like you would delete the other 29 30 year averages.

    “And on top of interjects with stupid insults.”

    BWAHAHAHA!:

    “some punk kid”

    You have to be a POE.

  54. #57 ianam
    February 13, 2012

    Robert Murphy, you’re being baited. Jonas and the rest of the trolls here are ignorant and corrupt morons who cannot be reached with facts and logic (they are not POEs, they are really that stupid), and there are no lurkers to be educated; no one reads this thread except when it pops up in the recent posts list. Please stop posting here and polluting that list. And Stu and chek, you should know better by now; stop acting like hopeless neurotics and leave this thread alone already.

  55. #58 Olaus Petri
    February 13, 2012

    Stu and chek are not acting like hopeless neurotics. They are… :-)

  56. #59 Jonas N
    February 13, 2012

    Robert, this is why it is so much fun to poke fun at you climate scare believers

    I ask:

    > What can you say about **‘climate change’** …
    >… ** between** the two (or four-five) last of your points? (And please don’t conflate climate with temperatures)

    And you answer:

    > A lot

    Really!? That’s just too wonderful ;-)

    So you believe you can say **anything** about the climate **changing** …
    … **between** those two points? Really? (And still, you immediately switch to ‘temperatures’!? (*) )

    Maybe you still haven’t even understood the question? It’s that misdirected [weather-is-not-climate-] meme the believers often try, and thereby display their ignorance about the matter. Here it is you who both believe that overlapping sampling intervals give you independent observations, and that the moving averages between independent (ie separated) sampling intervals contain much more information. You even say:

    > You are completely ignorant about all of the above [averages, moving averages and basic statistics]

    Sorry chap, but if you asign a representative interval of some continuously changing data observation, and decide that its average is a relevant metric, and if you then observe it over two independent (ie non-overlapping) such intervals to get two observations of your metric (the climate) ..

    .. the moving average calculated over a sliding interval between those two separate observations, will merely connect those to data points with a fairly smooth line.

    By definition! By necessity, Robert! There is no extra revealing information contained in those intermediate, overlapping calculations! And it will be fairly smooth because that is what is meant of having chosen a ‘representative interval’.

    > Looking at the 30 year moving averages gives a better idea of what is going on over time than just looking at the first 30 years and the last 30 years. It lets you ask different questions.

    No, not really. It just connects the two consecutive and independent observations by a line without any major squiggles. It must, by definition.

    (*) That was one of the more obvious climate-vs-weather cockups I’ve seen here, and that says quite a bit ..

    PS I see that ianam utters ‘support’ and hopes you’d have any valid point here. He has made that mistake many times before. And (as far as I can remember) never had any valid point or even only any reasonable interjection whatsoever ..

  57. #60 Robert Murphy
    February 13, 2012

    “So you believe you can say anything about the climate changing … … between those two points? Really? (And still, you immediately switch to ‘temperatures’!? (*) )”

    Sure, you’re talking about 31 years of temp data. Of course we’re talking about over 30 of those 30 year averages, and looking at how they have steadily increased over time and at what rate tells us something important about how the temperature trend is changing. Btw, temp data *is* what is under discussion. There is no single data point for “climate”.

    “By definition! By necessity, Robert! There is no extra revealing information contained in those intermediate, overlapping calculations!”

    Sure there is. You can see how the 30 year averages are changing over time. This helps to ensure you have removed the extraneous noise inherent in the system.

    “No, not really. It just connects the two consecutive and independent observations by a line without any major squiggles. It must, by definition.”

    No, it really mustn’t.

    “That was one of the more obvious climate-vs-weather cockups I’ve seen here, and that says quite a bit .. ”

    Says the man who doesn’t understand first year stats.

    OK, I’ve had my fun beating up the idiot. My blood pressure has gone down to acceptable levels (it was a little high this morning which is why I need some relaxation smacking around a troll or two). You can continue to spout your nonsense in peace.

  58. #61 Jonas N
    February 13, 2012

    So Robert Murphy, who vehemently argued that he can tell **a lot** about climate change by comparing two consecutive datapoints of moving 30-year averaged temperatures, one year apart, after first vehemently denying that he ever suggested “to look at changes from just one year”, who doesn’t even know that moving averages change continuously and merely and quite smoothly connect two separate (consecutive) sampling intervals, if your chosen sampling interval is representative (here for ‘climate’). Who time and time again shows that he has difficulties keeping climate and weather (temperature) apart …

    And this kid thinks he can teach me anyting about basic statistics!? What a farce!

    Well, there was at least some bonus for his feeble attempt to score an insignificant point: Several other know-nothings here jumped in and took his side. Both ianam, chek and Stu once more desperately hoped that the next insult-spouter has a valid point.

    Quite precious!

  59. #62 John
    February 13, 2012

    >And this kid thinks he can teach me anyting about basic statistics!?

    No, I suspect he knows he can’t. Nobody can.

  60. #63 Jonas N
    February 13, 2012

    John, nobody here has even been close to saying anything relevant about statistics, certainly not Robert Murphy.

    A guy whose most ‘valid point’ has been that in a 60 year period, wherein you can make two independent observations of a 30 year average, you can also construct several other 30 year averages (but then never more than one independent one) cannot teach me anything.

    On the contrary, I have been telling him about some of the very simplest things about ‘moving averages’, which he instinctively denied, thereby getting entangled in the most stupid contradictions and making a fool of himself.

    This is so rudimentary basic, that it’s not even worth calling ‘basic statistics’

    But I’ll add you to the list of hopeful supporting voices who have nothing of substance to add, but still desperately hope that somebody else (on their side) knows what he’s talking about.

    But I can inform you, that this is where it always ends. (C)AGW-faithers bailing out after having cocked-up about as simple things as moving averages, hands moving boxes, the laws of Newton, non-existing IPPC-references supporting its most central claim .. and of course loads of insults if their blind faith isn’t shared or accepted.

  61. #64 John
    February 13, 2012

    Yes Jonas, I am well aware that you believe your own interpretations of science to be so self-evidently correct that you don’t have to back them up with evidence.

    I am well aware that you cherry-picked two points thirty years apart and tried to argue that it constiuted a trend.

    I am well aware that you will respond to this excellent comment with a flurry of namecalling and assertions that I am incorrect without actually providing any evidence to the contrary except your own opinion.

    I also haven’t forgotten you have been completely unable to find just one scientific paper given to you here in which the claims made were either non-existent or exagerated, as per your boast that you debunked all of them just by looking at them. One is all I asked for.

  62. #65 Jonas N
    February 14, 2012

    Au contraire, John

    I am saying something very different.

    I am saying that you need to have (some) 30 years(*) of observations to make intelligable statments about ‘what the climate is’. Meaning that we today have a reasonable grasp of what climate we have about now, that is since ~1981. And that deviations from that (meanwhile) should be interpreted more as weather.

    And I am saying that you need (at least) two such independent, seperate observations to start talking about **climate change** (prefereably more), and that you need even more if you want to talk about a trend, ie a rate of change, and yet more if you want to start talking about any change of rate (acceleration).

    In short, during ~60 years you can observe climate **change** (it being **different** among those two observations), and you need some ~90 or ~120 to talk about a rate of change, or even change of rate (accelleration).

    Absolutely nowhere do I need to cherrypick around which years I need to center my 30 year averaged observations. Quite the opposite:

    If you have a long sequence of many (independent) 30 year intervals, and make a smooth curve going through those (averaged) observations, you will end up on the same curve using any other (tranposed) choice of 30 year intervals, pretty much spot on. That’s what I am saying.

    (And poor Robert seemingly thought something else, and got himself entagled in hopeless contradictions and complete nonsense)

    And I brought this up for two reasons:

    Firstly and mainly, because we since CO2 emissions became notable have barely more than two such intervals, to remind people of that observing climate change (and making measured statements about it takes long long time), and

    Secondly, because the oft-used weather-is-not-climate-meme is exactly where many (C)AGW-believers go wrong, thinking that the most recent temperatures (if high) are the present climate (albeit being merely ‘weather’). Sometimes blatantly confusing temparture with climate.

    (and poor Robert did exactly that, repeatedly)

    >you will respond to this excellent comment with a flurry of namecalling

    Haha, you really haven’t been following the ‘debate’ (and your fellow travelers) at all, have you?

    >without actually providing any evidence to the contrary except your own opinion

    So you think that sampling (of observations), averageing over representative intervals, and how such behave is ‘opinion’, that I need ‘evidence to calculate a mean?

    Well John, that’s why you are on the side of Robert,Stu, Wow, ianam, and quite a few more …

    (*) That’s the common convention

  63. #66 Jonas N
    February 14, 2012

    John (contd)

    >I also haven’t forgotten you have been completely unable to find just one scientific paper given to you here in which the claims made were either non-existent or exagerated

    >One is all I asked for

    Thats wrong on two counts, John. You also wanted to chime in on Bernard’s meme that I need to provide him with this and that, so that he could avoid the core question: If he (or anybody else) had read (and understood) any science underpinning the most prominent AR4-claim.

    You asked if I could name any paper I had read, and I replied ‘What’s wrong with the ones I have discussed here’, whereupon you told be you were to lazy to wade through som 3000 posts.

    Secondly, I have done exactly that. In this thread! Shown that the referring claims were vastly overstated.

    >as per your boast that you debunked all of them just by looking at them

    Inventing up your own story again, John?

    Well, that’s why you are on the side of Robert,Stu, Wow, ianam, and quite a

    few more …

    Sorry, but I have not seen you engaging in any substantial way at all. Not here, and not elsewhere. Just empty siding with your side, and making demands … to lazy to even properly read what is being discussed.

    (Or are you really totally unaware of what a ‘moving average’ actually is?)

  64. #67 John
    February 14, 2012

    >You asked if I could name any paper I had read, and I replied ‘What’s wrong with the ones I have discussed here’, whereupon you told be you were to lazy to wade through som 3000 posts.

    That is a lie. You insisted that you had glanced at every paper given to you here and squealed loudly that every claim made for the papers was “non-existent or exagerated”. I asked you to name *one* in which the claims were “non-existent or exagerated”, as per your wording, and you refused. So readers can take that as they will, and I’m sure they will forgive me for not wanting to scroll through 3000 comments.

    >I am saying something very different.

    No, you are lying. What you said, with no prompting, was that the weather was the same as thirty years ago and completely ignored the long term trend. When called on this you started babbling about “moving averages” and “thirty year intervals” to distract from the fact you are wrong. Your original comment had nothing to do with either. You specifically chose that time period because the UAH shows the averages are similar to now. But the trend, Jonas…*the trend!*

    I do agree, however, that temperature is not climate. Perhaps you should spead the word down at Watts.

  65. #68 Jonas N
    February 14, 2012

    John

    You aren’t really with the program, are you?
    As so many more, you are not reading anything properly.

    >You insisted that you had glanced at every paper given to you here

    I most certainly didn’t say that. I said something very different. But I did name several I had read, in this thread too. Repeatedly.

    >you said, with no prompting, was that the weather was the same as thirty years ago

    I most certainly did not say anything even close to that. What is it with you Deltoids? Can none of you read properly? I mean, even with some slack for mistakes, and sloppy formulations, people come up with the most amazing rubbish. (Robert, denying what he just had said, hands moving boxes etc)

    No wonder som many of you are completely lost when it comes to (even the simplest) science. Heck, not even moving averages do (quite some) people here understand.

    The point I made initially (here, recently) was about temperatures now. Not trends or climate,

    I got the usual idiotic babble-nonsense-answer from (this time) Stu, and I explained in detail where he went wrong. Which prompted Robert to try to have a go at it. Hopelessly getting entangled in his own contradictions.

    Now you tell me that you want to switch topic to ‘the trend’!?

    I have pointed out that too: That when temperatures don’t comply with the ‘predictions’ the climate scare believers very very much rather would like to talk about the trend. Most eagerly about ‘the long term trend’.

    For the most obvious reasons. And by ‘obvious’ I mean for those of us who actually understand what statistics, and moving averages, observations, sampling intervals etc are.

    John, you seem to be only a clueless bystander here, and in the bigger picture. Why do you believe so hard in the scare (which you have never seen)? Why!?

  66. #69 Stu
    February 14, 2012

    Just for fun, these quotes are from the same person:

    In 60 years, you can make only two independent observations of ‘the climate’

    and

    (Or are you really totally unaware of what a ‘moving average’ actually is?)

    I’ve actually submitted this thread to my daughter’s 8th grade science class (they’re doing a thing about critical thinking), but her teacher rejected it because she refuses to believe any of the denialist clowns are actually serious.

    As a random aside, the verdict was unanimous on Olaus being a “creep” and “rapist”.

  67. #70 Olaus Petri
    February 14, 2012

    Dear Stu, you sure are more than a travesty. You haven’t brought anything to the table (besides arm waving, bad mouthing and a box moved by a hand) and now you proudly let us know that your little 8th graders found out that I was a rapists.

    Well, that’s science class deltoid style if anything.

    I on the other hand (sic) have shown this thread to colleagues of mine and come up with some results too. They didn’t label you a rapist or child molester, but as an ignorant ranting excuse for an activist lacking scientific training what so ever.

    Mind you, the difference in outcome could be explained by the fact that my colleagues aren’t 8th graders. They work at universities.

  68. #71 GSW
    February 14, 2012

    stu,

    Thats one hell of tough school your daughter attends. A supposed failure in critical thinking gets you branded a rapist?

    I’d have word with authorities if I were you, something has gone seriously wrong there.

  69. #72 Jonas N
    February 14, 2012

    Stu … Short version, and I highlight the significant word for you:

    >In 60 years, you can make only two **independent** observations of ‘the climate’

    (I remember you being very fond of using that word in connection with some moving box, but I also remember the math was way to tricky for you to then … not to speak about those darn ‘physics’ you struggled so long with … six months here, and years before that)

  70. #73 John
    February 14, 2012

    Here is Jonas not cherry picking temperatures thirty years apart and ignoring the underlying trend:

    >But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago.

    Those are your own words.

    As for “predictions”, the only long term “predictions” that have turned out to be wrong are those of the deniers who claim year after year that cooling is imminent. Any moment now.

    >What is missing between the models, and observed reality increases a little every year.

    Which models? Name them.

    >So much for the settled science…

    The only person claiming “settled science” here is you.

    > I…I…I…I…I…I…I…I…I…I…I…

    Referring to yourself eleven times! A new record.

  71. #74 Jonas N
    February 15, 2012

    Ah, I see what you were getting at, John

    I did in fact note that the temperatures today are similar to the ones in the early 80:s, which are releated to weather. And I did go on to explain what that meant wrt to likelihoods for the models (and your ‘trends) to be correct. It’s all in there in #3107.

    I even specifically addressed the ‘trend’ that you claim I was ignoring.

    But probably on too high a level(?)

    The rest of you comment is only babble ..

  72. #75 John
    February 16, 2012

    >I did in fact note that the temperatures today are similar to the ones in the early 80:s, which are releated to weather.

    You mean you ignored the underlying trend and pretended there had been no warming.

    >The rest of you comment is only babble ..

    Yes, you pretended the trend is meaningless which is a lie.

    >But probably on too high a level(?)

    Probably!

    >The rest of you comment is only babble ..

    You mean the bit where I asked you to name a model that was wrong? (You didn’t of course, but I knew you wouldn’t.)

    Or the bit where I ridiculed you for endlessly referring to yourself as if all climate knowledge begins and ends with you?

  73. #76 Jonas N
    February 16, 2012

    John

    >You mean you ignored the underlying trend and pretended there had been no warming.

    >you pretended the trend is meaningless

    Nope! Learn to read! I explained what it means wrt to the trend.

    > which is a lie

    So now, your imagination, about what you think I am pretending (and do not write) constitutes “a lie” in your view? Sorry chap, you really should work on your understanding of individual words, and language skills. (Long before you try understanding anything about statistics).

    Yes, everything except that I pointed out that temperatures today (last month’s average) are the same as in the early eighties was just babble. A lot from you is. Most of it, I’d say. But you were correct that this pointing out of fact could be seen as me comparing the ’weather’ today with that from some years in the early eighties. (I didn’t say “was the same” because that that’s not what I meant, and because it would constitute any checkable information. I said temperatures)

    Which part of what I said about ‘the trend’ do you think you didn’t understand?

    I am fully aware of that many climate scare believers much rather talk about ‘the trend’ than actual, observations. That’s why I started out by pointing out what is missing between supposed ‘trend’ and reality, and what it means.

    But do you seriously think that a fitted straight line (through a sequence of observed data points) should weigh more than the actual observations? Why?

    And regarding to ‘what model, name one’: You can pci pretty much every one estimation of ‘temperature rise per decade’ that has been proposed based on the models from the AGW-side. The exact number is completely irrelevant to what I say.

    PS I still see you mostly as a poorly informed bystander, making some noise from the sideline, demanding a spoon feed you your latest attempt to maintain a constructed strawman.

  74. #77 John
    February 16, 2012

    I am fully aware of that many climate deniers much rather talk about ‘the weather’ than the actual, (sic) trend.

    Jonas, I simply demand that you actually provide evidence to back up your ficticious claims. To date you’ve provided none, and in all your waffle have been unable to prove to me that the trend is irrelevant. Your attempts at choosing random “observations” and trying to link them as if they mean something has been quite laughable, as has your endless condescending boastfulness in lieu of actual substance.

    I repeat my charge. You say the trend is irrelevent. I say you are lying. What’s more: you *know* you are lying. If the best you can do is pick two “observations” thirty years apart and argue that it’s more important than the overall trend you are an even bigger lightweight than I thought.

  75. #78 Jonas
    February 16, 2012

    John ..

    The observed data is the observed data.
    Fitting a trend line to it does nothing to the actual data, it reduces its content of information.
    Nobody has ever doubted (much less ‘denied’) that if you fit a trend line to a series of data points, you get a line, and you may label it ‘trend’.
    It still does not contain any more information than the actual observed data points.

    You can point at that line as much as you want as yell, it lies above the actual observation, and it slopes upward. The observed temperatures are still what is real (and the constructed trendline still is only that).

    May I try to help you with (what I think is) your problem:

    You argue that any individual data point just by chance (‘fluctuations’) might vary and occasionally thus noticeably lower than (what you hope/believe/think is) the true and correct trend prescribed by the underlying physics and laws of nature (so far not sufficiently established or demonstrated).

    That is a perfectly reasonable argument, if one believes that the underlying physics are fairly accurately captured. I am not questioning that stance. In short:

    If (!) there exists a true (!) trend, with scatter/fluctuations around it, some occasional data point may (by chance) happen to fall below lower than the rest.
    (~Half should fall below, and the rest above, together reasonably well scattered around that descriptive underlying trend)

    Are you with me so far? Your argument seems to be that (almost) only the latest observation is so low, that it showed similar temperatures as he early eighties.
    Because if that is what you say, I agree with you. Nobody is denying the existence of the existing data points (How can anybody even argue that?)

    Are you still with me?

    Because these quite (no, very!) obvious observations were the starting point of what I was saying. I’ll even repeat it once mor for you convenience (although repeating obvious things does not seem to help some here):

    I noted that for quite a long period those observations did not cluster evenly around the supposed trend, especially not the previously predicted trend. (Including them in new trend constructions, of course lowers that trend, but only marginally if you are talking about longer trends).

    The point being that you need to ask you self: By what probability can this ‘random fluctuation’ for longer and longer periods give you observed data points that fall below the trend, and sometimes far below:

    One occasional one is not a problem, especially if you have equally many on the upper side. But what is the probability that the observations are lower than the trend for most of a decade or so?

    You can try this at home: What is the probability that you can roll a dice 10 times and ‘by mere chance’ have the datapoints all fall below the average? (*) And a dice has a completely flat underlying ‘trendline’, level at 3.5.

    My point was, that what the longer time elapses, the more improbable is the ‘explanations’ that all these points fall short of the ‘prediction’ (under the trendline, and some even far short) by mere chance or random fluctuation (‘it’s just weather’) and your underlying hypothesis (the trend) is still the most plausible explanation/description.

    In your (plural) case, you even argue for a substantial upwards slope, so even with unchanged observed temperatures, the discrepancy increases with time, and at the same time rapidly(!) decreases the probability that this is just a fluke …

    But I have been saying this many times before. And you guys (some) still try the stupid ‘climate is not weather’- meme).

    And if the above argument really is too difficult for you to comprehend, you indeed have a problem with ‘lightweight’. Another one you’d probably be completely unaware of ..

    (*) Its ~one in a thousand, in case you can’t calculate even that

  76. #79 Stu
    February 16, 2012

    By what probability can this ‘random fluctuation’ for longer and longer periods give you observed data points that fall below the trend

    [Citation needed]

  77. #80 chek
    February 16, 2012

    I suppose [this @ 3164](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6229003) is what passes for logical, scientific thinking in the insane-iverse and goes some way to explaining why Jonarse attracts disciples of the calibre he does. Bumcheeks like Pentax, Petri, GSW et al aren’t impressed by just anybody, you know.

  78. #81 Jonas N
    February 16, 2012

    Chek

    It seems that you believe that your very frequent use of some term(?) “Jonarse” somehow elevates you standing among some here, that it somehow enforces the important points(?) you set out to make here. And that it even renders you some admiration or at least support.

    I cannot judge to what extent others silently admire or just respect your ‘performance’ here, but I got a few good laughs out of when Jeff Harvey (and I think some of the trolls) drew ‘support’ from your utterly substance-free drivel.

    In that latest comment you even refer to “logical, scientific thinking” as if you think that you were posturing and pretending about your own level ..

    I found that funny too!

    BTW Have you yet found any science showing that the (maybe, somewhat) melting of Himalayan glaciers threatens the fresh water supply for half a billion? You claimed something to that effect in the Open thread … in your usual eloquent language

  79. #82 chek
    February 16, 2012

    It seems that you believe that your very frequent use of some term(?) “Jonarse” … enforces the important points(?) you set out to make here.

    It reinforces the extremely important and evident point that you’re an arse. Since time immemorial, and long before, puncturing the vanity of painfully and insufferably arrogant bores has employed ridicule and where possible equating them with bodily parts or functions. You fit the bill admirably in every regard, even down to your login being readily and amusingly corruptible.

    In that latest comment you even refer to “logical, scientific thinking” as if you think that you were posturing and pretending about your own level ..
    I found that funny too!

    Well that’s mainly your own ching-a-ling thought processes in action, but I’d suggest probably not as funny as the audience, nor for the same reasons.

    BTW Have you yet found any science showing that the (maybe, somewhat) melting of Himalayan glaciers threatens the fresh water supply for half a billion? You claimed something to that effect in the Open thread … in your usual eloquent language

    We did all that earlier in this set. Perhaps you should re-read the posts and then RTFP that are linked. Oh but I was forgetting – you’re likely another one who prefers hanging their hat on a denier spin version of the recent GRACE survey paper, rather than the opinions of the actual [glaciologists involved](http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/02/08/cu-boulder-study-shows-global-glaciers-ice-caps-shedding-billions-tons-mass) and [others.](http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/samudra-tupa-glacier-retreat-and-himalaya-glacier-mass-losses/)

  80. #83 Jonas N
    February 16, 2012

    chek, thank you for once more sharing your profound and heartfelt emotions, thoughts and even wisdom …

    But I wonder, which part of:

    >threatens the fresh water **supply** for **half a billion**?

    did you not understand?

  81. #84 Stu
    February 16, 2012

    Jonas, what part of

    We did all that earlier in this set.

    did you not understand?

    By the way, kudos on calling other people trolls. That is the most stunning lack of self-awareness you’ve displayed yet.

    By the way, either provide a citation for

    By what probability can this ‘random fluctuation’ for longer and longer periods give you observed data points that fall below the trend

    or admit that you were lying. Again.

  82. #85 Jonas N
    February 16, 2012

    Stu,

    I am glad you identify yourself among the ‘we’ (as in “**We** did all that earlier ..”) chek wants to include in your collective efforts. Who more (do you think) should be included?

    And I sa a lot of brouhaha about threatened freshwater supply for half a billion, but no science what so ever. Only repeated expressions of belief that it still should be so ..

    OK, I’m a bit unfair to you here. Of course you would have absolutely no method to establish if that claim indeed where supported by any science. But it is not even claimed by any (alleged) science, it is merely one more of those many factoids that get swallowed wholesale when fed to those you call ‘we’ ..

    And no Stu, there is no trolling from me. The worst you can accuse me of is feeding some trolls, sometimes. And even heckling them occasionally. Of that I am guilty.

    It’s funny that you mention self awareness too. I have lost count of how many approaches you’ve tried to sound superior, but never providing any substance at all.

    I think poor spelling and syntax is the most relevant criticism you’ve come up with.

    And I still chuckle at the thought of you ‘having studied six years of physics’ .. it’s still priceless. And yes, I think it is a wonderful statement about your self-awareness wrt you knowledge of physics … Really!

    ;-)

  83. #86 Jonas N
    February 16, 2012

    Oh Stu …

    I almost forgot. I know you need spoon feeding even with the simplest things. That quote you demanded a reference for was a question that I proposed ‘John’ (and others) ask themselves. I think that this (by me) suggested question can be found exactly there where you copied it. I am quite certain that you’ll find that it was me who suggested the (‘But instead look at the’) trend-believers ask themselves that …

    I can even explain why it is a relevant question for (specifically)

    But you have to ask nicely!

    ;-)

  84. #87 Stu
    February 16, 2012

    Thank you for admitting that you were lying, Jonas. Again. Thank you for admitting that you are trolling, Jonas. Again. Thank you for admitting that you are insecure about your education, Jonas. Again.
    Thank you for admitting you have no argument, Jonas. Again.

  85. #88 Olaus Petri
    February 16, 2012

    I’ll do the math for you Jonas: first grade+second grade+third grade,+forth grade,+fifth grade,+sixth grade = six years of deltoid climate scare physics (and an extra curriculum in spotting rapists through criticism of CAGW).

  86. #89 Jonas N
    February 17, 2012

    Stu … I am certain that you are and have been doing your very best. We can all see what that amounted to …

  87. #90 GSW
    February 17, 2012

    Jonas.

    Is that right Jonas, you’ve been banned from your own thread?

  88. #91 Jonas N
    February 17, 2012

    GSW, it pretty much seems so. What else could Tim do? People have been embarrassing themselvs and him here for half a year … He really needed an excuse.

  89. #92 Richard Simons
    February 17, 2012

    I’ve not been following this thread closely, but did Jonas ever get around to identifying a single person he considered to be a ‘real climate scientist’?

  90. #93 Olaus Petri
    February 17, 2012

    Richie, I’m sure Jonas identify professor Curry as a real climate scientist. I do at least. :-)

  91. #94 Stu
    February 17, 2012

    Yes, Olaus, and as I asked way, way, way back in #1568:

    We’re getting somewhere now: Judith Curry qualifies as a real scientist, guys? So is it safe to assume that you consider 0.0056% of climate scientists to be real scientists, or are there others?

  92. #95 Jonas N
    February 17, 2012

    Richard S, Yes, I described every single one of them, in #2194

  93. #96 Olaus Petri
    February 18, 2012

    Stu, any more real rapists in the neighborhood?

  94. #97 GSW
    February 18, 2012

    Jonas, thou liveth!

    ;)

  95. #98 Jonas N
    February 19, 2012

    GSW

    Nah .. I don’t really know. My comments have been disappearing, or ‘making it through’ days later it seems. Ie. the usual tactics at climate-scare blogs.

    Nut I live indeed, have been the entire time. This ‘Deltoid-experience’ has been quite entertaining. Almost none of them even attempted to argue their case, or just behave like a grown-up.

    It must be a strange world those activists populate. Their latest meme is a bogus ‘Heartland Strategy-memo’ which many hope constitutes the final blow to those ‘evil deniers’ .. and the wish so even after its status as fabricated fake has been established with extremely high certainty.

    They are just wishing and hoping so hard, and closing their eyes and covering their ears … Because the ‘already knew’ before checking any facts. Incidentally, neither checking nor facts are familiar activities or terms among them …

  96. #99 Jonas N
    February 21, 2012

    So it seems now, my comments make it through long long after I post them. Presumably because of the effect it has on other commenters here.

    But after the latest blow (magnificant own goal) from the CAGW-crowd dishonestly trying to smear those who promote open debate ..

    .. what can you guys do?

    I will add some more thoughts to the Gleick-scandal, because pretty it isn’t, and I am quite certain we haven’t seen the end of it.

    Firstly, Gleick alleges that *”At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail”*. This is quite hard to swallow (and Judith Curry states flat out *”hard to believe that he didn’t write this”*). And even if he didn’t pen this himself, I would be surprised if he didn’t know who, or had a good hunch.

    Secondly, the fake Strategy-memo looks as if it was written after the other documents had been read and searched. It is crafted around tidbits found in the authentic ones. In a rather clumsy way trying to inflate common activist talking-points and conspiracies (and making gross errors about Koch-money). It is hard to believe that that creation of the fake memo preceded the reading of the authentic ones.

    Thirdly, as is somewhat indicated in Gleick’s confession, there seemed to be a wider group informed of (at least) the existence of those documents before. The immensely quick reaction from DeSmogBlog, only an hour after that (alleged first, and fake) strategy document ‘leaked’ to Gleick was scanned one final time?

    Moreover, I was somewhat surprised at how quickly both blogs, some journalists, but more importantly ‘The Team’ and other organizations had ready and condemning statements about Heartland prepared. Most noticeable, [the Team in The Guardian]( http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf) (incidentally not penned by them, but by Aaron Huertas from one of the worse climatescare astroturf lobby groups, the misnamed ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’) and some [Climate and Health Council], both with many signatories from all over the world.

    The noticeable things is that these more ‘official’ responses to the alleged leak made no reference at all to the, by then, well known information that the most ‘juicy bits’ all came from one by Heartland strenuously contested (and quite obviously) fake fabricated document. Not one reservation even about any authenticity. Reading these puff-pieces give the strange impression that they were written beforehand, or at least that they addressed a situation that had already passed. It is hard to rid oneself of the suspicion that these signatories had prior information of at least the upcoming ‘leak’. That this ‘strikeback’ was a ‘coordinated attack’ (incidentally, one of Michael Mann’s favorite phrases since 2009)

    Finally, Peter Gleick is the [chairman of f the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity](http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml). (And Lybia under Ghadaffi, [chaired the UN Human Rights Commission]( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2672029.stm))

    As a closing note: The paid propaganda outfits at [DeSmogBlog have hailed Peter Gleick for “his courage, his honor”](http://www.desmogblog.com/whistleblower-authenticates-heartland-documents) …

    Say no more!

  97. #100 Jonas N
    February 21, 2012

    Sorry guys, I know you insatiable thirst for information and checking the facts … but I forgot one link, so here it comes:

    [Climate and Health Council](http://www.climateandhealth.org/magazine/read/call-to-reveal-all-funding-behind-climate-sceptics-_179.html)

Current ye@r *