June 2013 Open thread

More thread for you.

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    June 16, 2013

    Irony Meter shares skyrocket ahead of anticipated massive round of replacement as those Libertarian Heroes of Capitalist Triumphalism at the Heartland Institute first loudly claim endorsement by The Commies, and are then forced to recant and grovel to them.

    Watts and minions manage to make muppets of themselves in the process, but we knew that already.

    (Prof Lew manages to get a decent kick in, as is fitting.)

    Of such is Denial made…

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    June 16, 2013

    GSW:

    I’d say it was wrong to attribute her comments as having the full “rigour” of an “analysis” as you seem to do.

    If that’s how it seems to you then you’ve not parsed my comment correctly. I said:

    If this is how she now conducts her analyses, her scientific colleagues are going to start asking her to not stand so close.

    Note the emboldened emphasis? Note especially the predicator “if”? There is nothing “wrong” in my comment, and rather a “wrong” spin of it by you.

    How sad that you feel the need to misrepresent But then, given the many errors of your that litter Deltoid, that’s pretty much your modus operandi

    With respect to Curry’s stated opinon about the coming decade of cooling, if that is what she truly believes she could always support it with a scientifically conducted “analysis”. I’m sure that climatologists around the world would be intersted to see if she can justify her statement with science. Otherwise she’s just selling an illusion to certain clients, and there are words for that sort of professional behaviour.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    June 16, 2013

    3. “For example, there is emerging research which suggests there is a link between declining Arctic sea ice and European climate – but exactly how this process might work, and how important it may be among a host of other factors, remains unclear”

    IT REMAINS UNCLEAR FTARD!.

    Yes, I did read it all you unpleasant oik, but unlike you I appreciate that this is but one of many signals emerging from not only the physical processes of climate change but of ecosystems also. Additionally, and unlike you, I have studied the many aspects and can appreciate the connections between them.

    You really are an ideological dinosaur birch-head.

  4. #4 GSW
    June 16, 2013

    @BJ

    “With respect to Curry’s stated opinon about the coming decade of cooling”

    For goodness sake BJ, that is not her “opinion”, it’s a comment on a blog! “Tsonis and others” have “posited” a climatic shift around the same time, she’s just drawn the two together, she doesn’t claim any significance to it. IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND.

    I’m going to add you to the simple folk list; check, wow and now the appropriately named BJ.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    June 16, 2013

    GSW:

    For goodness sake BJ, that is not her “opinion”, it’s a comment on a blog!

    What?! So you’re trying to tell us that she can say on her blog that the next decade will demonstrate a cooling trend, but when she’s in her office writing her next paper for a scientific journal she can say the opposite and agree with the scientific consensus, and in the process lose no scientific credibility?

    Do you actually follow the implications of your comments to their logical conclusion?

    Also, if there’s no scientific credibility or underpinning to Curry’s blog pronouncements why do the denialists nevertheless give them so much credence? It sounds as though you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. Nice propositional fallacy.

    You’re also flirting with the logical fallacy of the suppressed correlative, and there’s a strong hint of a thought-terminating cliché.

    At least you’re being consistent in your penchant for bastardising logical thought.

  6. #6 Lionel A
    June 16, 2013

    Furthermore Betula-birch-head here is a quote you missed, I wonder why:

    One last word and one last thing to think about. More and more the weather patterns resemble those roughly described by scientists as a Heinrich Event. Such events were characterized by rapid Arctic ice melt and resulting extreme weather and climate shifts. So it might be useful for climate scientists and the UK to discuss these geological events in the context of potential future weather. Because the UK, Europe and the rest of the world appear to be at the start of just such an event. The difference between this event and past events in the geological past is that the human forcing driving it is much greater than the previous natural forces that caused such changes. So it would be naive of us to hope that the current event will not also be more extreme than those seen in the past.

    You could discover more about Heinrich Events, and also Dansgaard–Oeschger events, by reading David Archer’s excellent ‘The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate’, followed by ‘Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast’ for the wider context on the science with the associated lectures being found here: at Chicago University.

    Wise up, don’t be an arse all of your life.

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    June 16, 2013

    “Give it up Jeff. You’ve been exposed in more ways than one”

    This coming from Betula, who claimes that icnreasing atmospheric C02 concentrations is good for the environment and that white tailed deer and coyote abundance are good indicators that the environment in his neck of the woods is in god shape. I don’t known why he didn’t throw in brown headed cowbirds or ragweed – native NA species that are also thriving under anthropogenic conditions and which have greatly expanded their ranges in the past 2 centuries. This represents the basal intellectual level of Betula’s ‘expertise’ on ecology and the environment.

    And this clown doesn’t think his stupidity hasn’t been exposed?!?! A key element in his ritual self-humiliation is that when his arguments are shown to be hilarious over- simplifications or just plainly incorrect, he doesn’t attempt to defend them; no, instead, its back to the Algonquin Park meme.

    I think that any rational readers of this thread a well aware of whose lies and/or embellishment are being exposed. Its old birch man.

  8. #8 BBD
    June 16, 2013

    Betula

    Hard to imagine, but you are just as retarded as BBD.

    A sore loser, I see.

    Notice, all, how our petulant loser skipped over yet another substantive comment – directly addressed to him – without so much as a pause.

    Since this is blatant evasiveness, here, again, (with apologies to others for the repetition) is the comment Betty simply had to ignore:

    Graphs can help. Really :-)

    Please, be curious and actually look at the two links. First you see the global average temperature response to an increase in net forcings – literally the bigger picture, and sadly, rarely shown. All we normally see are temperature time series on their own. The context is helpful. Note that the forcings are scaled coherently. Look at TSI vs well-mixed GHGs.

    Next you can see what climate models do when forced with and without anthropogenic GHGs.

    Meh, climate models, you might say, but it’s solidly backed up by paleoclimate behaviour, as you would have discovered if you had actually read the first three links at the time. Or even on previous occasions.

  9. #9 BBD
    June 16, 2013

    Lionel A. # 6

    I have to somewhat disagree with the notion that what is happening now has any strong parallel with Heinrich events. These are *coolijng* events that occurred during the coldest periods of the last glacial and which were then followed by abrupt NH warming.

    They are features of a glacial climate state rather than an interglacial phase. HEs are, apparently, the consequence of glaciological instability in the Laurentide Ice Sheet (MacAyeal 1993; MacAyeal 2010; Hemming 2004) resulting in episodic purging and consequent ice rafting in the N. Atlantic. It’s not a term I would use in the context of modern warming.

  10. #10 Lionel A
    June 16, 2013

    BBD well this caveat was included:

    More and more the weather patterns resemble those roughly described by scientists as a Heinrich Event…

    But I guess we (you, I and other participant here) will not be around long enough to a) know how closely the current events paralleled Heinrich events and b) know the finer points of how those events unfolded over time.

    What is not in doubt is that the northern hemisphere climate and weather patterns that we once knew are now in a new oscillation phase rather like an engine that has gone out of tune and is hunting because of disturbed inputs from its supporting systems – ignition timing or fuel flow in this latter case.

    If we do not prod the beast further then it may well settle down to a new normal otherwise with BAU all bets are off.

  11. #11 BBD
    June 16, 2013

    The interesting thing about D-O and Heinrich events is the common trigger: freshwater flux into the N. Atlantic at high latitude which inhibits NADW formation and “switches off” the AMOC.

    Nobody talks about it much, but there *is* a potential source for such a flux today, even without the Laurentide. See Giles et al. (2012) Western Arctic Ocean freshwater storage increased by wind-driven spin-up of the Beaufort Gyre

    So it appears that strengthening Arctic winds have increased freshwater storage in the Beaufort Gyre by ~8000km^3. And there it all sits, held in place by the wind.

    Sadly, Dr Giles was killed in a cycling accident in April.

  12. #12 Sou
    June 17, 2013

    Has anyone asked Dr Curry if her “cooling trend” includes the melting Arctic and Antarctic ice, the increasing ocean heat content and rising sea levels?

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/whats-that-about-16-years-since-1996.html

    Deniers like Curry and Watts are getting more shrill and silly while Earth just keeps getting hotter.

  13. #13 Betula
    June 17, 2013

    You’re done BBD. You believe estimates, assumptions and predictions to be fact…they aren’t. Until you admit it, you will always be the loser.

    And to quote you (when you skipped answering my question @ 81 pg 4)…”I don’t care”

  14. #14 Betula
    June 17, 2013

    BBD @ 91..

    “The fun thing, all my denialist chums, is that the signal is only just beginning to emerge from the noise. This is – forgive me – only the warm-up. The best is yet to come”

    Not only are you the loser, you are a LOSER.

    You want the predictions, speculations, assumptions and estimates to be correct so badly, that you are imagining how much “fun” it would be if they were fact,

    You state “The best is yet to come”….yes I can also imagine. I imagine you skipping deliriously in circles shouting “it’s here!, it’s here!…..I’m a loser, I win!, I’m a loser, I win!”

  15. #15 Sou
    June 17, 2013

    Talking of shrill and silly, Betula does it well.

  16. #16 Craig Thomas
    June 17, 2013

    If BBD is a loser for respecting the value of, “predictions, speculations, assumptions and estimates”, then what does that make you, Betula, somebody who gets their disinformation from anti-science kook internet sites like Anthony Watts’ WUWT?

  17. #17 Olaus Petri
    June 17, 2013

    Just in (?): the MET Office does now understand Marcottian science:

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/6/14/met-office-withdraws-article-about-marcotts-hockey-stick.html

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    June 17, 2013

    …”Not only are you the loser, you are a LOSER.”

    …says Betula, whose understanding of environmental science is about the same as that of an elementary school student (see examples I have pointed out many times). And what’s worse, after making various ridiculous assertions, he doesn’t even defend them. He just shifts the goalposts and makes a fool of himself elsewhere.

    This is what climate change deniers think masquerades as ‘debate’. Many of them are masters at this art of hitting and running. They think their nonsense will stick if they spew enough of it out without the need to support it empirically. I listed a number of studies showing biotic responses to warming, and birch man completely ignores them and goes on to another topic (well, one new one and one very, very old one).

    What is clear is that he does not read the primary literature. That’s hardly new: none of the deniers here do. That is because it completely counters their world views, and also because it is way over their heads. Craig summed it up above (#16) when he said that their ‘information’ is gleaned almost exclusively from denier web sites like WUWT, BH and CA.

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    June 17, 2013

    What was I saying? By sheer coincidence, in pops Olaus with more crap from BH. Exactly what I meant. Olaus also has never read a scientific article in his life. His views come straight from denier weblogs. He is a perfect example of what I said above.

  20. #20 Olaus Petri
    June 17, 2013
  21. #21 bill
    June 17, 2013

    Yes Oily, the entire scientific edifice is going to crumble overnight because of some half-arsed crap at the Sticky Bishop’s. As it’s going to every 3 weeks or so. It’s like the second coming for you lot…

    For the 143rd time, Dolt, we have the actual temperature record for the uptick.

    Have you worked out The Commies don’t agree with you yet, incidentally?

  22. #22 Olaus Petri
    June 17, 2013

    Bill, what has that to do with Marcott?

    I noticed that you celebrated Curry’s comment:

    “This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.”

    If (sic) there is a slight cooling trend from 2002 it is interesting, from a scientific point of view that is…Oh…Sorry forgot I was at Deltoid. ;-)

  23. #23 chek
    June 17, 2013

    That’d be the slight cooling trend since the record Arctic melt of summer 2012, AKA winter in the northern hemisphere.

    Olap won’t respond to this because it”s not on his talking points sheet, and it doesn’t compute in his excuse for a brain.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2013

    Olaus Petri says:

    I noticed that you celebrated Curry’s comment…

    Really? “Celebrated”? Could you please link to the post on this thread where anyone who is not a climate change denier “celebrated” Curry’s nonsensical statement?

    And whilst you’re at it Olaus, how many times now have you been told about signal, noise, and the interval of time required to discern signal from noise? For giggles can you answer these questions:

    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

    4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

    5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

    Come on Olaus, show us just how informed you really are. Provide the answers. It’s not difficult, as it’s all been done for you before, but if you disagree with the conclusions of the consensus on these matters it behoves you to state your own understanding of these matters.

  25. #25 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    June 17, 2013

    Hello, my little Deltoids, I’m glad to see you’re still here even if this beleaguered site resembles Custer’s last stand! Anyway, as this is an Aussie site I thought you ought to know that at least the Kiwis seem to have got the message:

    “[Kiwi Green Party] co-leader Russel Norman in his speech to this month’s annual conference never once mentioned global warming…The Green Party did have a climate change conference the following week but Mr Norman’s keynote speech lacked any of the usual end-of-world prophecy and knee-jerk call to de-industrialise.”

    I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!

  26. #26 bill
    June 17, 2013

    Another moron parrots some dimwittery from a trollfeed blog. Late. Have you noticed your drooling imbecility is self-correcting, dummy? Boring. Next.

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    June 17, 2013

    Do you actually follow the implications of your comments to their logical conclusion?

    Oh, Bernard, you high jester, you!

  28. #28 Olaus Petri
    June 17, 2013
  29. #29 Lotharsson
    June 17, 2013

    Notice, all, how our petulant loser skipped over yet another substantive comment – directly addressed to him – without so much as a pause.

    Did the same to my comment pointing out that he was ardently arguing against himself, etc. But then we can all see that’s his modus operandi. When he can’t substantiate his claims – which is all too frequently – he simply runs away from them and hopes no-one notices.

    We notice.

  30. #30 chek
    June 17, 2013

    even if this beleaguered site resembles Custer’s last stand

    You’re confused again Duffer. The closest analogy to Custer’s last stand currently are the Heartland Institute who’s latest wheeze of lying about the Chinese Academy of Sciences is getting them slaughtered in the article, the comments and out in the real world too.

    Heartland chief liar Joe Bast is so busy profusely apologising for something he apparently didn’t do and ‘disappearing’ their own web pages which apparently didn’t say what he’s abjectly apologising for, it would make even your pointy little Winston Smith denier head spin Duffer.

    Your friend, font of knowledge and Heartland stooge Williwatts hasn’t yet been told what to say at last viewing, and is letting assistant moron DBS take the heat.

  31. #31 Lionel A
    June 17, 2013

    You state “The best is yet to come”….yes I can also imagine. I imagine you skipping deliriously in circles shouting “it’s here!, it’s here!…..I’m a loser, I win!, I’m a loser, I win!”

    Logic fail, the stupid it hurts for “The best is yet to come” was irony. I’ll bet you were a bundle of laughs in for the Marine Corps birch-head.

  32. #32 chameleon
    June 17, 2013

    No doubt this comment will languish in moderation. . .
    I came back for a visit.
    Sad. . . deltoids. . . very, very sad :-(

  33. #33 chameleon
    June 17, 2013

    Yep. . .
    Thought so :-)

  34. #34 BBD
    June 17, 2013

    # 20

    - The article was removed on March 12 2013. Montford is just stirring up his monkeys. Who are apparently too stupid even to read the date on the *original post* at My Climate & Me blog.

    - M13 is fine. Nothing was changed, withdrawn or altered. The desperate noise from the deniers notwithstanding.

    The statement from the paper itself remains just as it was published, and clearly bears repeating:

    Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the
    Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high
    frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

    Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard 5×5
    plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3).

    IMO the My Climate & Me blog should have left the post up.

    Tamino demonstrates why in detail here.

    So please take the lies and the rubbish back to BH, where they belong.

  35. #35 BBD
    June 17, 2013

    No. This is wrong:

    - The article was removed on March 12 2013. Montford is just stirring up his monkeys. Who are apparently too stupid even to read the date on the *original post* at My Climate & Me blog.

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    June 17, 2013

    “Come on Olaus, show us just how informed you really are”

    Now there’s a challenge. And the answer is going to be really ugly. He isn’t remotely informed. His ‘scientific acumen’, is embedded somewhere deep in the benthos of ignorance. His humor isn’t even original; this twerp merely parrots the so-called humor of the other deniers here.

    The only thing Olaus fears are commies under his bed. And his entire worldview stems from that little nugget.

  37. #37 Olaus Petri
    June 17, 2013

    Jeffie dear, is science beginning to take back what scaremongering conspiracy theorists like you took from it?:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Y9EZDdpUw&feature=share

    Don’t worry, be happy little Napoleon!

    ;-)

  38. #38 Wow
    June 17, 2013

    Well known science journal: Youtube.

    Moron.

  39. #39 Olaus Petri
    June 17, 2013

    Don’t be so depressing Wow, sing a along! :-)

    Portentology is starting to get out of fashion. Isn’t that a good thang?

  40. #40 chek
    June 17, 2013

    Portentology is starting to get out of fashion

    Well as you’re the only one engaging in it, the obvious answer is to quit it and deal with the accredited science instead.

    But you won’t because your whacko beliefs are more important to you than reality.

  41. #41 BBD
    June 17, 2013

    Olaus Petri

    Please list the errors found in Marcott et al. that have resulted in changes to the paper.

    Thanks!

  42. #42 BBD
    June 17, 2013

    Betula

    You’re done BBD.

    You’re projecting, Betty.

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2013

    Olaus.

    Your last few postings indicate that you have missed some basic questions arising from your ill-advised comment. To assist with your difficulty in observing what was easily seen by others, I will repeat them here:

    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

    4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

    5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

    Once you manage to answer these questions we can explore the import of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

  44. #44 chek
    June 17, 2013

    Curry’s … impending cooling

    That’d be one of Olly’s portentology portents, I take it.

  45. #45 BBD
    June 17, 2013

    That’s the spirit, Bernard J. Insist on an answer. Refuse to allow all this skip-skip-skipping away.

    Nobody is allowed to behave like that in the material world. Imagine if someone engaged in evasiveness of this order in a business deal. You would not tolerate it; I would not tolerate it; Betty would not tolerate it.

    Nobody would tolerate it.

    These lying scum – yes, that is what I said – need to be forcibly held to normal standards of behaviour.

    That will be the end of them.

  46. #46 BBD
    June 17, 2013

    Olaus

    # 38 – still waiting…

    Your dance card is filling up. Best get on with it.

  47. #47 Jeff Harvey
    June 17, 2013

    What was I saying…. Olaus does his ‘science’ by blog and Youtube. Where are the peer-reviewed studies? Nowhere in sight. Of course, Olaus doesn’t read them nor does he understand them. He is a right wing loony driven by his own wretched political views. He certainly finds solace in fringe weblogs that simplify science to the lowest common denominator.

    And his Napoleon comment comes straight from Betula. The little twerp isn’t even original. Copies everything from other deniers or from denier web sites. Note how his latest Youtube offering screws up the importance of temporal scale. That’s not at all surprising, since the author hasn’t clearly been anywhere near a science lecture theater. Note also how deniers like the clown on Youtube only highlight trends when they think it supports their arguments – this graph was avoided like the plague for years and now suddenly its dusted off and used because they think it suits their purpose.

    What a bunch of d***heads they are.

  48. #48 BBD
    June 17, 2013

    And now Olaus is going to answer # 24 / # 40 (Bernard J) and # 38 (me).

    He is going to engage in substantive discourse. He is going to learn something.

  49. #49 Jeff Harvey
    June 17, 2013

    “He is going to engage in substantive discourse”

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for this. He neither wants to nor is capable of doing so. Be prepared for more witless posturing.

    I attended a workshop in Amsterdam a few weeks ago and a prominent theme was ecological noise and how scientists deal with it. ‘Noise’ comes in many forms, but for ecologists or physiologists studying mechanimsm it is characterized by variation that tends to mask key parameter or processes under investigation. Given that noise dilutes the results of many experiments, many scientists try to eliminate or avoid it. Genetic variation in traits is an excellent example of noise generated at the population level that often makes the results of bioassays hard to interpret, such as whe comparing the response of a plant species to various biotic and abiotic stressors.

    With respect to climate, of course there is a lot of noise that masks short-term effects. Deniers like Olaus don’t have even a basic grounding in science, they don’t understand the importance of scale, they cannot reconcile complex non-lienar short term dynamics and thus think that everthing operates in a linear fashion. Stochastic processes are too complicated for these simpletons. To some extent engaging with them is fruitless because they are not educated in the relevant fields and lacking this rely on their own ‘instincts’ to guide their views, which are all-too-often hijacked by their own political biases.

  50. #50 BBD
    June 17, 2013

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for this.

    I am not going to wait. I am simply going to cross out any further of B’s comments that are not attempts to answer Bernard’s and my own questions.

    Either he engages, or he runs into a wall. Will you help?

    Anything off-topic, gets the strikethrough treatment and absolutely no further response.

    Liars need a firm hand. Liars must be forced to engage substantively if they will not do so out of common decency.

  51. #51 Betula
    June 17, 2013

    The difference between prediction and fact…a reality check.

    “The Met Office’s temperature forecasts issued in 12 out of the last 13 years have been too warm. None of the forecasts issued ended up too cold. That makes the errors systemic and significant.”
    http://www.thegwpf.org/12-reasons-met-office-alarmed/

    Interesting….it’s almost as if BBD himself is running the Met Office.

  52. #52 Jeff Harvey
    June 17, 2013

    Oh my… look where Betula sources his latest disinformation.. the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Do these clowns have no shame? Every right wing-corporate funded source they can think of they glean for their world view. Not a peer-reviewed scientific study in sight. These organizations exist for the sole purpose of distorting the science in pursuit of a pro-business agenda.

    And Betula calls this a ‘reality check’. Hilarious!

  53. #54 Jeff Harvey
    June 17, 2013

    Johnl,

    Yuo, that’s the one. Sourcewatch has a good write up on them here:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

    The AGW deniers here on Deltoid aren’t afraid to wear their hearts on their sleeves. They’ll link to just about any source no matter how sordid or unscientific it may be. The reason is simple: they don’t do science. None of them have any relevant expertise in the Earth or environmental sciences. Instead they paste up any disinformation on Deltoid so long as it says what they want to believe and fits in well with their political and idealogical views.

    The GWPF is just one of many sites that distorts the science it hates. many more are cited here: BH, WUWT, Climate etc., CA, and others. This is where the Olaus’s, Betula’s, Karen’s, GSW’s and others get their (dis)information about climate from. In the rare occasion they cite an actual published study, its only because they think they can mangel the conclusions to support a pre-determined opinion. The recent study on the fertilizing effects of increased atmospheric C02 on desert and dryland boundaries is a good example. But even there the deniers do not read the entire studies and only cherry pick the conclusions they like.

  54. #55 GSW
    June 17, 2013

    @Jeff

    I thought you were Canadian?

  55. #56 BBD
    June 17, 2013

    Another Betula source-fail combined with a comprehension implosion.

    Stupid Betty still thinks variability in surface temperature actually “refutes AGW” even though the *fact* that it is almost irrelevant has been explained to him over and over again.

    Stupid or dishonest or both?

  56. #57 GSW
    June 17, 2013

    @Jeff

    It’s only that if you spend anymore time in “de Nile”, you’ll be entitled to dual Canadian/Egyptian citizenship.
    ;)

  57. #58 Jeff Harvey
    June 17, 2013

    GSW,

    Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw….

    Stay in the shadows. You are better there.

  58. #59 BBD
    June 17, 2013

    GSW

    Pointing out that the GWPF is a front organisation disseminating anti-science lies is a statement of the facts.

    Denial is what buffoons like you do. You also – all of you – project like poisoned dogs. The truly stupid comment at # 54 being a prime example.

  59. #60 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2013

    GSW and Betula.

    Olaus Petri is having significant difficulty answering some questions. Perhaps the both of you could help by each offering him the benefit of your own perspectives…

    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

    4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

    5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

    When you’ve offered your own answers these questions we can explore what the temperature record to date is really indicating with repect to the progress of planetary warming, and of the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

    Be brave boys – no dodging, no weaving. Let’s see the depth (or lack thereof…) of your scientific understanding, and where this understanding leads if distracting prevarications are put aside.

  60. #61 Betula
    June 17, 2013

    BBD..

    “Stupid Betty still thinks variability in surface temperature actually “refutes AGW” ”

    Dumber than dirt BBD believes predicted future scenarios resulting from predicted future surface temperatures aren’t predictions.

  61. #62 Betula
    June 17, 2013

    Bernard re #57…

    Funny, I don’t recall you answering #79 on pg 4. You seemed to have skipped over it…or as BBD so eloquently put it @ 42::

    “That’s the spirit, Bernard J. Insist on an answer. Refuse to allow all this skip-skip-skipping away.”
    “Betty would not tolerate it”

  62. #63 Betula
    June 17, 2013

    Hadley@ 49…

    “Not a peer-reviewed scientific study in sight”

    When you can’t attack the content, attack the messenger’, eh Hardley?

    Jeff, why would listing what was predicted by the Met Office and comparing it to what actually happened require a peer reviewed scientific study?

    Try to answer this one without kissing your own lying embellishing Algonquin ass.

  63. #64 chek
    June 17, 2013

    Shit-stupid Betty still insists the worst is over. Which – and it’s the only item of interest here – is also because he (and his GWPF mates) can’t differentiate between signal and noise.

  64. #65 Betula
    June 18, 2013

    “Shit-stupid Betty still insists the worst is over.”

    Not true. You’re still here.

    “can’t differentiate between signal and noise”

    By the way, chek, what time scale would you use to distinguish weather from climate

  65. #66 bill
    June 18, 2013

    That’s the question everyone keeps asking you. The difference is, chek would be able to answer it…

  66. #67 Bernard J.
    June 18, 2013

    Betula said at # 59:

    I don’t recall you answering #79 on pg 4.

    Betula, you don’t recall me answering because I did not bother to answer you at the time – neither your questions nor their answers alter the laws of physics or the fact of climate change. However, if it backs you into a corner from whence you can only respond by answering in turn truly substantive questions put to you, or by capitulating and thereby showing the depauperacy of your case, I will happily respond to your non sequitur as framed by:

    Which of the following sentences do you believe?

    1. “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”

    2.“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

    1. I am not au fait with the nature or extent of climatological signals recorded on Jeff’s trip, so I hold no particular “belief” about them. That said, if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that, to the extent that such changes are anomalous, they represent “first hand” evidence of climate change.

    And as I have noted myself, and as you have refused to challenge, I have seen indications of climate change in my own part of the world. Will you now dispute that such changes are occurring?

    2. If Jeff says that he can’t describe soil “things” first hand, of course I “believe him”. What the relevance of your question is though is unclear – it would appear to be a non sequitur within a non sequitur

    Now, it’s your turn.

    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

    4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

    5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

    When you’ve offered your own answers these questions we can explore what the temperature record to date is really indicating with respect to the progress of planetary warming, and of the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

  67. #68 Bernard J.
    June 18, 2013

    Betula asks:

    By the way, chek, what time scale would you use to distinguish weather from climate

    It seems (unsurprisingly) that Betula needs others to do his homework for him.

    If you answered my questions to you, Betula, you’d have a better understanding of what’s weather and what’s climate…

  68. #69 Jeff Harvey
    June 18, 2013

    Betula cannot answer Bernard’s question. It should be patently obvious what noise is, yet he is stick in his sandbox-level discourse.

    And he still refuses to discuss a single study posted up here that refutes his b*.

  69. #70 GSW
    June 18, 2013

    @All

    I suspect Betula doesn’t post here with the intention of answering your “questions”, he does it for for the pleasure of watching you guys irately console each other that “The Rapture” might still be approaching. There’s no harm in that either in my view, the best things in life are free after all.

    Keep up the good work loonies!
    ;)

  70. #71 BBD
    June 18, 2013

    Dumber than dirt BBD believes predicted future scenarios resulting from predicted future surface temperatures aren’t predictions.

    I’ve got paleoclimate behaviour and the laws of physics.

    You have nothing, which is why you lost the argument, you fucking buffoon.

    And that hurt, didn’t it, Betty? I notice how much more shrill and desperate you’ve been since.

    It’s only going to get worse. Now you have to answer some more sciency questions. Woo!

  71. #72 BBD
    June 18, 2013

    Amazingly, GSW’s comments actually get even more achingly stupid over time:

    he does it for for the pleasure of watching you guys irately console each other that “The Rapture” might still be approaching.

    Unless the laws of physics change to let libertarian cretins off the hook of their own creation, modern climate will behave like paleoclimate.

    Global average temperature will rise by around 2.5C – 3C per doubling of CO2.

    Acceptance of the laws of physics or butt-stupid denial? Oh, okay GSW, play it your way then…

  72. #73 Bernard J.
    June 18, 2013

    GSW.

    In keeping with Ockham’s razor I have a more parsimonious and plausible reason for why Betula, Olaus, and you do not answer the questions.

    You are each either incapable of answering correctly and/or afraid of confronting the logical conclusions that arise from answering correctly.

    Of course neither alternative precludes the likelihood that you and your denialist chums take perverse pleasure in opposing without training, experience or objective basis the work of the world’s professional scientists. If the latter is also the case though, then that’s just sad.

    Are you just a sad case, GSW? Are you?

    Or perhaps you’re just slow on the uptake. Perhaps you can’t see the questions when they all camouflaged by other words. Let me help you:

    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

    4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

    5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

    Remember, when you’ve offered your own answers these questions we can explore what the temperature record to date is really indicating with respect to the progress of planetary warming, and to the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

  73. #74 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    It seems that the words of Hans von Storch that I posted in the Science thread have some bearing here as well. From the Climate onion:

    “Auch mein Eindruck ist, dass die Klimahysterie abgenommen hat. Es gibt zwar noch immer Leute, die bei jeder Naturkatastrophe rituell rufen: „Haltet den Dieb, der Klimawandel hat Schuld!“ Doch viel mehr redet man mittlerweile über die naheliegenden Ursachen der Hochwasser wie das Versiegeln der Böden oder das Verschwinden natürlicher Überschwemmungsgebiete. Und das ist auch gut so.”

    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.se/2013/06/ich-war-nie-klimakanzlerin-spiegel.html

  74. #75 GSW
    June 18, 2013

    @Olaus

    “It seems that the words of Hans von Storch that I posted in the Science thread have some bearing here as well”

    True, true, Olaus, how very true.
    ;)

  75. #76 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    GSW, have read the latest block buster on Arctic ice melt? ;-) Thrilling, or should I say Chilling? Roy Spencer have some excerpts to share:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/who-dares-to-deny-arctic-warming/#comments

    :-)

  76. #77 Craig Thomas
    June 18, 2013

    So…what you’re saying is Bernard J. has science, but you have some quotes from people who agree with the physics of the greenhouse effect, agree global warming is occurring, but don’t do much research of their own.

    I think I’ll go with the science, thanks.

  77. #78 Marco
    June 18, 2013

    For Olaus:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLe4v3jMNIw

    Chilling indeed: in 1930 people started to see Franz Josef Land consisted of many islands. In 2012 the sea was fricking ice-free several degrees NORTH of Franz Josef Land.

  78. #79 BBD
    June 18, 2013

    Olaus # 71 and # 73

    See # 47

    Questions to answer before we continue:

    (BBD:)

    Please list the errors found in Marcott et al. that have resulted in changes to the paper.

    * * *

    (Bernard J:)

    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

    4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

    5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

    * * *

    It seems that the words of Hans von Storch that I posted in the Science thread have some bearing here as well. From the Climate onion:

    “Auch mein Eindruck ist, dass die Klimahysterie abgenommen hat. Es gibt zwar noch immer Leute, die bei jeder Naturkatastrophe rituell rufen: „Haltet den Dieb, der Klimawandel hat Schuld!“ Doch viel mehr redet man mittlerweile über die naheliegenden Ursachen der Hochwasser wie das Versiegeln der Böden oder das Verschwinden natürlicher Überschwemmungsgebiete. Und das ist auch gut so.”

    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.se/2013/06/ich-war-nie-klimakanzlerin-spiegel.html

    And:

    GSW, have read the latest block buster on Arctic ice melt? ;-) Thrilling, or should I say Chilling? Roy Spencer have some excerpts to share:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/who-dares-to-deny-arctic-warming/#comments

    :-)

  79. #80 BBD
    June 18, 2013

    All, please help improve Olaus’ behaviour by forcing him to conform to the minimum standards of debate in good faith.

    He is a chronic avoider. He never answers questions. Let’s not put up with this dishonesty and evasion any longer.

    Let’s insist on some substantive responses before Olaus goes skip-skip-skipping on to the next denialist lie.

    Let’s insist on some intellectual integrity from the worst serial evaders here.

  80. #81 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    BBD, I don’t think von Storch produce “denier lies”. I believe he is a scientist. ;-)

  81. #82 BBD
    June 18, 2013

    BBD, I don’t think von Storch produce “denier lies”. I believe he is a scientist. ;-)

    Answers please. Questions at # 76.

  82. #83 Bernard J.
    June 18, 2013

    Olaus Petri and GSW.

    I will follow on from BBD and point out that your respective quoting of and remarking about von Storch falls under the logical fallacy of non sequitur. Just because von Storch has an impression of non-scientific commentary decreasing over time does not mean that the science is in any way challenged or refuted. You are also committing the logical fallacy of straw man construction – hoping to distract from the science that remains unperturbed by your pointings at squirrels.

    Now, as it is patently obvious that your boys have a shorter attention span than the proverbial goldfish and a lesser capacity for scientific understanding than one, I will attempt to assist your grossly stunted learning by repeating those questions of which you are so mortally afraid:

    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

    4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

    5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

    Remember, when you’ve offered your own answers these questions we can explore what the temperature record to date is really indicating with respect to the progress of planetary warming, and to the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

  83. #84 Bernard J.
    June 18, 2013

    And Betula, you are welcome to chime in with the answers whenever the inspiration should strike.

    Surely between the three of you there is one who can answer these relatively simple questions…

    What are you lily-livered nimrods so afraid of?

  84. #85 BBD
    June 18, 2013

    Olaus Petri

    Please list the errors found in Marcott et al. that have resulted in changes to the paper.

  85. #86 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    Olap never said how you can see climate change.

    Don’t expect the retards to pull their heads from their arse long enough to answer your query.

  86. #87 BBD
    June 18, 2013

    If they don’t answer they will get their lies crossed out.

    If they don’t demonstrate some intellectual integrity, they will get their lies crossed out.

    If they can answer, they they can just fuck off and stop lying.

    Had it with climate liars now.

  87. #88 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    Von Storch is an upstand guy because he behaves like scientists. What’s wrong with that?

  88. #89 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    “upstand” was funny though. ;-)

  89. #90 bill
    June 18, 2013

    Yeah, hilarious.

  90. #91 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    Had it with climate liars now.

    Problem is, Tim doesn’t give a fuck. He doesn’t have to spend time answering their drivel and allows them on here, ensuring that he is almost never included in diatribes specifically, therefore he can pretend he’s being the perfect host who everyone loves.

    Tim’s as responsible as the person who lets their kid scream and shout in the cinema or theatre. Yes, the brats are making the noise, but the parent is responsible for enabling it here.

  91. #92 BBD
    June 18, 2013

    Olaus

    Please list the errors found in Marcott et al. that have resulted in changes to the paper.

    You raised the matter of fake sceptic fake controversy over a robust study. Please demonstrate some honesty and integrity in this matter.

    I have lost count of the times I have asked.

    * * *

    Von Storch is an upstand guy because he behaves like scientists. What’s wrong with that?

  92. #93 Betula
    June 18, 2013

    I ask chek…

    “By the way, chek, what time scale would you use to distinguish weather from climate”

    Bernard @ 68…”It seems (unsurprisingly) that Betula needs others to do his homework for him”

    Bernard asks @ 83…
    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?
    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    It seems that Bernard needs others to do his homework for him….

  93. #94 Betula
    June 18, 2013

    Bernard @ 64…

    “However, if it backs you into a corner from whence you can only respond by answering in turn”

    So, I get you to do a tap dance in regards to the question you skipped over and you backed me into a corner?
    Nice try. You’re not as smart as you think you are, but you are a better dancer than I thought you were…

    Let’s review your dance: “The Algonquin Tap”

    1. There is no skipping in tap dance.

    2. You start with…”I am not au fait with the nature or extent of climatological signals recorded on Jeff’s trip, so I hold no particular “belief” about them”

    There weren’t any in the article, so you are correct that there is nothing to believe. My critique here is that your dance starts with the right movement, but you need to put more heart into it.

    3. You tap…” if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that.”

    Of course you mean at Algonquin…..they didn’t, so you shouldn’t be. My critique here is that your taps should be a bit more firm and you should wipe the happy off your face.

    4 .”If Jeff says that he can’t describe soil “things” first hand, of course I “believe him”.

    Only he didn’t say that, he said…“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil”. Since the soil was frozen, there was no “first hand”

    So, you defaulted on one of the required elements in the dance….disguising dishonesty. That’s an automatic deduction of 3 points, however, I’m only going to deduct 2 points because you said soil “things” and that added a splash of comedy to your routine.

    5. “What the relevance of your question is though is unclear”

    I know, the Algonquin is a tough tap dance to learn. “The Algonquin” is a dance that masks a self centered pseudo King’s lies, embellishments and ego.

    Final critique – overall, you have a lot of work to do. The effort was there, and I can see you’ve had a lot of practice, however, there were some major flaws and the dance lacked feeling. It was almost as if you were backed into a corner…

    The good news is, you are dancing at the Deltoid Theater, so the crowd will still love you no matter how many times you trip over yourself.

  94. #95 Betula
    June 18, 2013

    I ask check…

    “By the way, chek, what time scale would you use to distinguish weather from climate”

    Bernard @ 68 responds:
    “If you answered my questions to you, Betula, you’d have a better understanding of what’s weather and what’s climate”

    Interesting. So I don’t understand the difference between noise and climate because I asked chek what he thinks is the needed time scale to distinguish between weather and climate?
    Berntard, you went directly from doing the tap dance to doing the shuffle…very impressive!

  95. #96 Betula
    June 18, 2013

    BBD..
    “Had it with climate liars now”

    Watch out Hardley…BBD is the vying to be the new s̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶K̶i̶n̶g̶.

  96. #97 BBD
    June 18, 2013

    Yack yack yack.

    The laws of physics and paleoclimate behaviour make a mockery of your silly denialism.

    And we’ve heard enough of this *noise*:

    So, I get you to do a tap dance in regards to the question you skipped over and you backed me into a corner?
    Nice try. You’re not as smart as you think you are, but you are a better dancer than I thought you were…

    So in the shitcan it goes.

    How about answering Bernard J’s questions instead of trolling like a 13-year old?

    Here they are again. Knock us out. Prove that you aren’t just a know-nothing trolling arse. If I were you I’d do it just on a point of pride.

    Perhaps you have no pride. Perhaps it went at the same time as your integrity.

    * * *
    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

    4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

    5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

  97. #98 Bernard J.
    June 18, 2013

    Betula.

    I answered your questions – questions irrelevant to the science of global warming – in good faith. Let me unpack your latest attempt to twist things…

    You say:

    You start with…”I am not au fait with the nature or extent of climatological signals recorded on Jeff’s trip, so I hold no particular “belief” about them”

    There weren’t any in the article, so you are correct that there is nothing to believe. My critique here is that your dance starts with the right movement, but you need to put more heart into it.

    You’re already off-beam, because by “I am not au fait…” I meant that I did not read Jeff’s account of his trip. Simple as that. Any motive that you ascribe to me that assumes otherwise is incorrect speculation.

    You then say:

    You tap…” if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that.”

    Of course you mean at Algonquin…..they didn’t, so you shouldn’t be.

    No, I do not “mean at Algonquin”, for the reason I’ve just indicated in the preceding paragraphs. I simply meant that if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that. It’s not a trick statement, but it seems to have you tying yourself in Gordian knots of ludicrous reinterpretation in an effort to distract from ever touching on the real, actual fundamentals of the science of climate change.

    Then you came out with:

    If Jeff says that he can’t describe soil “things” first hand, of course I “believe him”.

    Only he didn’t say that, he said…“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil”. Since the soil was frozen, there was no “first hand”

    This is just bizarre cherry-picking and desperate reinterpretation. Observe…

    You quote Jeff as saying:

    As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.

    [Emboldened emphasis mine.]

    to which I respond:

    If Jeff says that he can’t describe soil “things” first hand, of course I “believe him”.

    My response is enirely consistent with the last (emboldened) part of the quote from Jeff that you provided. Jeff said that, I responded. Understand?

    As for your mendacious antics with Jeff speaking about frozen soil and me referring to such as soil “things”, well of course I mean to say soil ‘things’, but if you are so stupid (or simply desperate) to erect straw men point at any random squirrel then that’s your problem, not mine.

    You finish with:

    “What the relevance of your question is though is unclear”

    “The Algonquin” is a dance that masks a self centered pseudo King’s lies, embellishments and ego.

    which is simply more of your signature thimblerigging. The fact is that whatever you thnk of Jeff, and whatever Jeff says about himself, the laws of physics remain unchanged – and completely avoided by you.

    So I’ll take all of those points back thank you, deduct twice as many from your sheet, and observe that you’re still a gutless coward who will not ever engage with the basic fundamentals of the science, simply because you are shit-scared that the minute you start to do so you’ll be cornered by empirical evidence, by the immutable laws of nature, and by merciless logic.

    Come on you cowardly Chilodonella, yellow-bellied custard baby… address some basic, lower high school level concepts:

    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

    4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

    5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

    Remember, when you’ve offered your own answers these questions we can explore what the temperature record to date is really indicating with respect to the progress of planetary warming, and to the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

    Don’t go off on yet another of your trade-mark excursions to irrelevant distraction-land, just grow a spine and answer the bloody questions.

  98. #99 chek
    June 18, 2013

    So I don’t understand the difference between noise and climate because I asked chek (sic) what he thinks is the needed time scale to distinguish between weather and climate?

    Quite the tap dancer Betty. I suppose you think it’s impressive. But it isn’t, except on the moronic scale.

  99. #100 Sou
    June 19, 2013

    Anthony Watts blasts Christy, Spencer and Monckton all in the one article. And all the deniers agree their work is just awful.

    What a hoot!

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/anthony-watts-attacks-christy-spencer.html

1 4 5 6 7 8 12