A Few Things Ill Considered

[Update: I am closing this thread as it is now over 500 comments long. However, because the discussion is still ongoing it will continue on this post. There is also the possibility of Chris S coming back with his own analysis of Richard's data.

This is a quick summary of what we can conclude thus far.

Richard thinks he is a sceptic. I am sorry to say that he is not. A sceptic considers all available material and evaluates evidence objectively. We know Richard does not do this because he has several times cited material that he admits himself he has not read. A sceptic will consider all relevant lines of evidence with equal rigour. Richard does not do this as evidenced by his dismissal of current global warming because of an alledged dearth of long temperature records from tropical weather stations simultaneous with his confident statement that it "seems the temp run up to the MWP was just as rapid as this one is", an unsupported, and unsupportable, statement. A sceptic will not engage in evasion, obfuscation and shifting of claims, they are able to focus and think critically and rationally.

There are a couple of good overviews at various points in the thread, itemizing unanswered issues and illustrating Richard's tactics. You can read them here, here, here and here.

Original post follows]

I spent some time in the comment threads over at ClimateEtc trying to defend the use of the term “denier”. I confess that I use it too often and too quickly but I’ll be damned if it is not simply the most accurate word sometimes. That was the point I made and it didn’t go over too badly. Anyway, that is not my topic here.

One fellow challenged me to give a serious look at the arguments on this page so I did and thought I could expand on my answer to him here. I only watched the first video of two there and this is more or less what I answered over there.

If I may summarize for interested readers who do not want to follow the link and spend the 6 minutes required: the author of the page is using temperature data from a station(s?) in southern ontario to show primarily two things: one is that summer temperatures are not increasing, only winter temperatures are increasing therefore it is not in fact getting warmer it is only getting less cold (there is no argument that the seasonally averaged trend is rising); two is that the slight averaged rise is extremely small compared to the daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations. It is very nicely done, clearly presented graphics that support the argument well. I dislike the outraged tone and unecessary insinuation that this is something being delibrately hidden and that the usual CRU and GISS global trend graphs are a deception.

But despite being well supported, the first argument itself is flawed in at least two fundamental ways. Firstly, the whole thing is an analysis of southern ontario versus the GISS global temperature analysis. This is simply inappropriate, drawing a global conclusion from a single small part of the globe. Secondly, it is not a convincing point that just because it is only “less cold” (also known as warmer, no?) in the winter and not warmer in the summer that therefore it is unfair to say the climate overall is warming. Everyone involved in global temperature analyses defines what they mean when presenting average temperatures, and that is typically defined as globally and seasonally averaged temperatures. It is not unknown, or known but covered up or ignored that seasons may respond differently. I don’t know if the page’s author is actually correct in this particular summer/winter claim, it certainly seems plausible. But regardless, an average is an average, this is simple statistics, not a trick.

I do know that that aside from seasons, another observational feature is that nightime and daytime anomalies are different, nightime is warming faster. This is actually strong evidence that it is in fact an enhanced GHE we are looking at and evidence that it is not solar forcing. These are interesting details, but they do not in anyway make the average temperature trend deceptive or inconsequential.

The second argument is what’s known as an arguement from incredulity. The trend looks so small, 0.8oC over 100 years, when the temperatures flucuate 10′s of degrees in a single 24 hr period, more than ~~100 degrees C~~ 70 degrees C summer to winter in some places. But that does not mean one’s incredulous intuition is right! Any scientist involved in the study of ecosystems will tell you how incredibly sensitive some organisms can be to tiny changes in their environment, it is the opposite of inconceivable that the entire biosphere will be similarily vulnerable. But for me the strongest evidence that small flucuations can have tremendous impact comes from the ice core and sediment records of the glacial/interglacial cycles. Here we can see that the difference between the climate the globe has today and one where kilometre thick ice sheets extended well into the continental US is a mere 5oC in the global average temperature! 5 degrees, heck a good Chinook wind could make the temperature go up 4 times that between the time I left for school as a boy in Alberta and the time I got home. But when you are talking about climate, and not weather, 5oC is, apparently, huge.

If jrwakefield comes over here, please everyone try to be nice!

Comments

#1 adelady
November 8, 2010

That thing about huge daily or seasonal temperature variations is hard to shift. But anyone who thinks that Alice Springs, stuck out there in a huge desert a mere 23 degrees south of the equator, would be a good place to live without a blanket, think again. The _mean_ overnight minimum in July is less than 4C, not cosy at all.

As for the less cold winter nights. I rather thought the indicators of AGW as against solar warming were
more warming at night rather than day
more at the poles than the tropics
more in the troposphere with a cooling stratosphere.

So the observations at that location are entirely in accord with overall theory.

Though if the WACCy predictions come through, there could be a shock for several years. Warm Arctic, Cold Continents.
#2 Byron Smith
November 8, 2010

Good points.

Small query: which locations have seasonal variation greater than 100ºC? I’m only aware of places that have a difference of about 70ºC between record high and record low (Chicago, for instance).
#3 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

First, I did all the work on the site, including making the videos, downloading all EC data and doing all the analysis.

Second, there was nothing in what you stated that I have not heard before, which means I have well thought out answers.

Interesting is your comment about this being just Southern Ontario where I see this converging trend of TMax and TMin. I would have expected from science when something like this is brought forth to be “Gee, that’s very interesting, does that happen everywhere?”. Instead I got your answer. Which to me means you are making a prediction that the rest of Canada does not show this trend.

Well, your prediction is false. If you took the time to look through the whole site you will have seen two things. First that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station. Summers are cooling. Second, you would have found on my site a scientific paper published in Canada in 2000 that shows the exact same thing. Their conclusion was that Canada is not getting hotter, it’s getting less cold. They also note in the paper that they cannot find ANY AGW signal in the data. That means this narrowing of the yearly range is NORMAL VARIATION.

If this is happening in Canada, then it must be happening in the US since the effects of AGW would not be altered by political boarders.

But what of the rest of the world? Again, had you continued with the site you would have found reference to the exact same thing found in Ireland and Australia.

Because of my site I now have someone in Australia who has access to world daily temp data and is presently doing the same thing as I did. My prediction is this trend is world wide. If world wide, AGW is dead in the water.

Now as for average being the “gold standard” for showing trends. Bull shit. A good scientist will look at ALL data from ALL angles, not that which tends to fit the premise. Here is an analogy why averages are misleading and hide detail.

A student studies the average speed of cars over the past 50 years of data taken from all locations. He makes the startling discovery that people are driving, on average, faster. He then goes on to claim that if this trend keeps going people will drive so fast as to break the sound barrier (taken to the extreme, the same extreme that AGW predictions make). But the study is flawed because he did not look at the details. Had he done so he would have found out that the average has increased because there are more highways today than 50 years ago. The max speed has not increased at all, in fact in an effort to save fuel, speed limits on major highways has been reduced!

People are driving faster on average only because more people are driving on highways, fewer on slower speed roads. But the max speed that can possibly be driven has dropped. That is a very important point missed by using averages. Averages hide detail. In science no detail must be ignored. It can make or break a theory.

Next, another analogy about warming winters are adding more heat. That depends on how you look at it. That position takes the premise that deep cold winters is normal, any increase in winter temps is bad. That’s an assumption not based in any fact.

Take two glasses for water. One full, one empty. My position is the full glass, your’s the empty glass. My position is that the full glass is normal. When winter comes, water (heat) is lost. The deeper and colder the winter, the more water is lost (bad). The less water (milder winters) mean less lost water (a good thing). Losing less water is keeping nearer the normal state, which is a full glass (which you cannot add any more water (heat) to because it overflows (escapes into space).

Your position is the exact opposite. The glass is supposed to be empty, and adding any water to it is bad.

Who is correct? Look at the recent history of the planet. The MWP and the RWP were great times for humanity. Bountiful crop production, and humanity moved forward. Wind the clock back to before this ice age and we see 400 million years of tropical paradise. Winters were rare to non-existent. I have paleontological evidence to support my premise, you do not.
explained by AGW. You now have a competing theory to explain that same evidence. That spells real trouble for AGW.
Lastly, changes you referred to. That’s why evolution works. Just because the planet is changing doesn’t mean we are causing it.

Now you may not realize this but something very significant has happened here. Theories live or die on discriminatory evidence. Facts that can only be explained by one theory. In this case increasing temps for AGW. But that just evaporated because I have shown you an alternative explanation for why the average temp has been increasing. So now there is no discriminatory evidence exclusively for AGW as I have shown another possible reason for the increase in average temps. That spells trouble for AGW.
#4 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

Sorry about the end, the cut and paste got screwed up.
#5 Marco
November 8, 2010

Richard, care to explain to us how the world moved forward during the MWP? The Arabs did, but certainly not the world. Europe and China went forward from about the 14th century onward, right AFTER the MWP. I also have some trouble seeing the Roman time as “better” than other periods.

However, what you clearly do NOT understand is that daily fluctuations may be large, but that even small increments in average temperature have a major influence. There are several plants that *require* there to be at least x number of frost days. You also fail to understand that long-term cold is required to kill significant numbers of pine beetles. The northern shift of the “cold enough for long enough” boundary has changed such that even Alberta is now having problems with the mountain pine beetle. In case (you (think) you probably don’t care: it’s incurring significant monetary loss.

Your example of 400 million years ago is pretty funny. Care to show us what types of animals roamed the world at that time? There’s a good reason reptilians did so well…
#6 coby
November 8, 2010

[removed by the author]

I will rewrite this without the confusion between oC and oF, embarrassed apologies to all!
#7 M
November 8, 2010

In fact, it would be interesting to do a correlation between GDP per capita and temperature patterns… I’m willing to bet that the places with cold winters have much higher GDP per capita than places with warm winters.

The “paleontological evidence” is kind of funny: homo sapiens basically evolved since the ice age started. Admittedly, most of civilization arose during this last interglacial… of course, this interglacial has had amazingly even temperatures, which is a data point that maybe suggests that what matters isn’t really what’s hot and what’s cold, but rather than changes are not too extreme.

Also, among other logical errors: “They also note in the paper that they cannot find ANY AGW signal in the data. That means this narrowing of the yearly range is NORMAL VARIATION.” Being able to prove that a change is due to AGW is not necessarily easy… but not being able to prove it is a very different statement than the statement “they proved that AGW was not a contributor to changes” which is what is implied by the statement “this means that the change is due to Normal variation”.

In sum: not impressed by RW.

-M
#8 Omega Centauri
November 8, 2010

I’m with Byron in 2, 100C annual difference seems pretty high to me. The most variable place I’ve ever lived managed about 130F, but
100C is 180F. I would think maybe the Gobi desert, but I doubt it’s max temps are even 120F, and that would require -60F annual minima (or more), so is that realistic. So I’ll take a few guesses:
Fairbanks Alaska say 90f to -50f, yields about 160f.
Siberia maybe (80-90f) to maybe -70:-80f, but still under 180.
Sahara 125f to maybe a bit below freezing?

Maybe a few places if you take all time high versus all time low might get close. But it is unlikely these happened in the same year.
#9 skip
November 8, 2010

Next, another analogy about warming winters are adding more heat. That depends on how you look at it. That position takes the premise that deep cold winters is normal, any increase in winter temps is bad. That’s an assumption not based in any fact.

It assumes neither. It simply shows that average temperatures are increasing even in your exclusively Canadian data. This is very far from “AGW is dead in the water.”

Your position is . . . The glass is supposed to be empty, and adding any water to it is bad.

Straw man.

Whether the glass is supposed to be half- empty or not is a separate question; that fact that water is being added confirms that *water is being added*.

You are arguing the trivial point as to whether the added water appears when the sink is on or when the pitcher is tilted. But whatever, its being added—and both explanations are in fact anthropogenic.

The MWP and the RWP were great times for humanity. Bountiful crop production, and humanity moved forward.

So is it that the AGW theory is “dead in the water” or is it that its happening but it’s a good thing?

Wind the clock back to before this ice age and we see 400 million years of tropical paradise.

For whom?

So now there is no discriminatory evidence exclusively for AGW as I have shown another possible reason for the increase in average temps. That spells trouble for AGW.

I didn’t understand what the other “possible reason” is—natural variation?
#10 coby
November 8, 2010

Apologies, I am unable to substantiate my 100oC claim so will withdraw it. I thought I had come across some record of this magnitude for Siberia. The antarctic continent has that range in its records (-89oC to +15oC) but that is not in the same precise location.
#11 skip
November 8, 2010

Richard:

I tried to post on your blog cite but I don’t understand the posting protocols:

I’m sorry but there are so many problems, from my perspective, with your argument and presentation, aside from what I mentioned above, that they are hard to enumerate.

First, this statement from your website, on one of the four ways that mean temperatures could rise:

Decrease the summer temperatures a little, but increase the winter minimum temperatures more.

. . . Thus, this “global warming” could just be a narrowing of the range in temps.

My question:

So what? What about AGW theory proper precludes this as the possible expression of particular regional or overall global temperature increase–one that has been found in the instrumental record? Why should I regard the dearth of “hot summers” as a some smashing insight?

If you took the time to look through the whole site you will have seen two things. First that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station.

Taken literally this is an amazing statement. Do you mean the data *include* every station or that every station shows this trend?

Second, you would have found on my site a scientific paper published in Canada in 2000 that shows the exact same thing.

I simply couldn’t. Would you just link it, please?

If this is happening in Canada, then it must be happening in the US since the effects of AGW would not be altered by political boarders.

Completely ad hoc speculation.

But what of the rest of the world? Again, had you continued with the site you would have found reference to the exact same thing found in Ireland and Australia.

Again, Richard, I just couldn’t navigate your site that effectively so can you just please link these for me/us?

Because of my site I now have someone in Australia who has access to world daily temp data and is presently doing the same thing as I did. My prediction is this trend is world wide. If world wide, AGW is dead in the water.

So the research by a guy you know that is not conducted yet is going to throw out 30 years of climate science–we heard it here, first.

Richard, being a retired fireman (an honorable profession, let me hasten to add) and enough of a renaissance man to also be competent in software design is truly impressive. But can you just try to see how this looks from *my perspective*:

Here’s a guy with no climate training, no peer-reviewed publication record, and a line of argumentation based on the straw man that AGW necessarily predicts hotter summers in Canada and the *speculation* that a mate from Australia will upend all interpretations of the instrumental record with his forthcoming analysis.

However passionately convicted you are, can you at least understand *why* this looks dubious to me?
#12 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“homo sapiens basically evolved since the ice age started.”

Humans evolved in the hottest driest place on the planet, Central East Africa 3 million plus years ago (Antarctica then was ice free). During those 3 millions years the Mediterranean Sea evaporated completely several times (at least 12 in all over 20 million years). We had to invent ways of dealing with colder climates.

I’m going to be away for a few days, so give me some time to respond to these comments, which I fully expected the tone to be like.
#13 MartinM
November 8, 2010

Well, your prediction is false. If you took the time to look through the whole site you will have seen two things. First that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station. Summers are cooling. Second, you would have found on my site a scientific paper published in Canada in 2000 that shows the exact same thing. Their conclusion was that Canada is not getting hotter, it’s getting less cold. They also note in the paper that they cannot find ANY AGW signal in the data. That means this narrowing of the yearly range is NORMAL VARIATION.

This is an…interesting description of the paper in question:

Annual mean temperature has warmed an average of 0.98C in southern Canada over the last century. Associated with this increase in mean temperature is a relatively smaller increase in daily maximum temperature and a larger increase in daily minimum temperature.

…

For the period of complete data coverage, 1950–1998, Canada as a whole has warmed by 0.38C. There is a strong pattern of warming in the southwest and cooling in the northeast. The maximum and minimum temperatures have increased at a similar rate which has resulted in a slight overall increase in the DTR.

…

The causes of the different spatial and temporal trends, such as increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases or natural climate variability, cannot be addressed by a study of this nature. There is evidence, nevertheless, suggesting that a certain degree of agreement exists between observed trends in Canadian climate and those predicted by GCMs incorporating an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Of course, one could simply refer to GISTEMP, which publishes monthly and seasonal global averages, as well as annual, making determining whether or not Summer temperatures have increased globally the work of a couple of minutes. The answer, oddly enough, is yes. Very much so.
#14 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“Richard, care to explain to us how the world moved forward during the MWP? ” Talk to historians and archeologists. It’s easy enough to understand. Short mild winters, more people survive. Longer growing season, more food means more people can do other things than try to survive cold winters. That means more people to do labourous tasks, like building cathedrals. The Vikings thought the MWP was better while living in Greenland, only to abandon it during the LIA. Or do you think tnat long cold winters with shorter growing seasons make food production better.
#15 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“Your example of 400 million years ago is pretty funny. Care to show us what types of animals roamed the world at that time? ”

I said for that length of time. Wondered how the great sauropods were able to grow so large? How about plants grew much faster in a 5 time more CO2 atmosphere.

The super giant oil fields are from periods of “warming”, where ocean life thrived. Then we have the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55myo, right when the Mammalian clad took off into all the orders we see today. And not from CO2: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo578.html
#16 Joseph
November 8, 2010

During those 3 millions years the Mediterranean Sea evaporated completely several times (at least 12 in all over 20 million years). We had to invent ways of dealing with colder climates.

Absolutely, but

(1) We’re currently in course to do in hundreds of years what might normally take thousands of years by natural means (unless there’s a catastrophe of some sort.)

(2) Adapting to colder climates is different to adapting to warmer climates.

(3) We have much more infrastructure at stake than people had millions of years ago.
#17 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“What about AGW theory proper precludes this as the possible expression of particular regional or overall global temperature increase–one that has been found in the instrumental record? Why should I regard the dearth of “hot summers” as a some smashing insight?”

As noted in one of the blog posts, taken to extreme, extrapolating the convergance would mean the summer TMax and winter TMin would be the same at 13C in some 750 years. That is not physcally possible. Thus at some point in the future those two must start to diverge and widen, regardless what CO2 is doing. There is no choice in that.
#18 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“Straw man.

Whether the glass is supposed to be half- empty or not is a separate question; that fact that water is being added confirms that *water is being added*. ”

In your view. In my view the water is being replaced. Lost water returned.
#19 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“Wind the clock back to before this ice age and we see 400 million years of tropical paradise.

For whom?”

Take a course on paleontology.

“So now there is no discriminatory evidence exclusively for AGW as I have shown another possible reason for the increase in average temps. That spells trouble for AGW.

I didn’t understand what the other “possible reason” is—natural variation?”

Yes, that’s all there is left if not from us.
#20 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“Taken literally this is an amazing statement. Do you mean the data *include* every station or that every station shows this trend?”

Every station that has a long data set (more than 50 years) shows the trend. I checked them all. Some of which I posted in separate posts. Those with not enough data still shows the trend but not to the degree, which would be expected.
#21 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

” simply couldn’t. Would you just link it, please?

If this is happening in Canada, then it must be happening in the US since the effects of AGW would not be altered by political boarders.

Completely ad hoc speculation.

But what of the rest of the world? Again, had you continued with the site you would have found reference to the exact same thing found in Ireland and Australia.

Again, Richard, I just couldn’t navigate your site that effectively so can you just please link these for me/us?”

Then you can’t be that interested. If it were me, before I posted anything critical I would have preread every single post so I understood what was presented. You are obviously then not really interested.

http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/04/2000-paper-on-canadian-surface-temps.html

http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/07/other-parts-of-world-also-getting-less.html

As for your claim of ad hoc, no logic. Explain how the summers in Windsor are dropping, but not over the river in Detroit.
#22 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“However passionately convicted you are, can you at least understand *why* this looks dubious to me?”

That’s your problem not mine. All that counts for me is the evidence. The evidence is what the evidence is, if it brings down all of AGW, so be it. Your side will just have the embarrassment of being taken down by a non-scientist. Yeah, I can see how that might hurt — too bad. Not my fault the entire climate community failed to, or did not want to, see the detailed evidence. Got side tracked by other biases.

BTW, this is not the first time I’ve taken on someone with a degree who thought he was right. Wiki Polonium Halos. I had no formal training in geology, spent 2 years teaching myself first, then solved the enigma that no one else could.
#23 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“Absolutely, but

(1) We’re currently in course to do in hundreds of years what might normally take thousands of years by natural means (unless there’s a catastrophe of some sort.)”

Do what? Make winters less cold and summers less hot?

“(2) Adapting to colder climates is different to adapting to warmer climates.”

Less hot summers means less usage of A/C units, less energy required. Long deep cold winters means more energy needed to keep from freezing to death.

“(3) We have much more infrastructure at stake than people had millions of years ago.”

So why not advocate moving all our infrastructure away from active tectonic zones? They are at far more risk of destruction than anything the climate can throw at us.
#24 skip
November 8, 2010

Take a course on paleontology.

My point was obviously not very clear, and there are a number of things I want to see your responses on but let’s just focus on just one point for a moment, Richard:

As noted in one of the blog posts, taken to extreme, extrapolating the convergance would mean the summer TMax and winter TMin would be the same at 13C in some 750 years. That is not physcally possible.

Agreed.

Thus at some point in the future those two must start to diverge and widen, regardless what CO2 is doing.

Of course, but again, *so what*?

They could just as easily diverge in the future with *higher average temps* for *both* winter and summer. Do you have some reason why you’re ruling out that happening within the proposed scientific model of AGW?

Richard, you’re so keen on this convergence as some massive insight when its probably just an artifact of the unique effects of climate change in Canada/North America or just random chance operating within the overall anthropogenic signal.

Richard, my fear for you is that this convergence finding (assuming it stands up to statistical replication) is going to turn into your version of McIntyre’s point-centered-mean drama—a meaningless blip on the scientific radar of the larger global warming issue
#25 skip
November 8, 2010

. . . if it brings down all of AGW, so be it. Your side will just have the embarrassment of being taken down by a non-scientist . . . Not my fault the entire climate community failed to, or did not want to, see the detailed evidence.

And let me get this straight. You’re the non-scientist that’s going to take down AGW?

I mean, if you do, the Molson’s certainly on me. But right now my money isn’t on you.

BTW, this is not the first time I’ve taken on someone with a degree who thought he was right.

I see. So slaying academic monsters is a bit of a hobby?

And you’re quite wrong if you think I’m not interested, Richard. This is growing increasingly fascinating.
#26 skip
November 8, 2010

Re: Wiki Polonium Halos.

I had no formal training in geology, spent 2 years teaching myself first, then solved the enigma that no one else could.

Well, whether no one else “could have” had they bothered is an interesting if unverifiable claim, although congratulations for a job well done.

But do you see, Richard, how this example is awkward for you?

In the case of PH you had a body of scientific evidence (for the age of the Earth), and solving the matter of short-lived uranium deposits put you in *line* with a scientific consensus. You didn’t “take down” a scientific paradigm, but bible-banging fringe pseudo science. That’s not as impressive as upending the overwhelming scientific consensus for global warming, as you now claim you’re on the verge of doing.
#27 Ian Forrester
November 8, 2010

Skip, don’t waste too much of your time on Wakefield. He is a certifiable crank. He once suggested that it would take 400,000,000 2MW windmills to supply the US with renewable energy. That is more than 4 windmills for a family of four. Even in the US they are not that big users of energy.

He is mathematically, logically and scientifically challenged. Don’t pay any attention to his ramblings.

For example, Wakefield, how do you explain this recent finding in the US if, as you claim, summers are getting cooler?

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/04/endless-summer-hottest-september-record-high-temperatures/
#28 skip
November 8, 2010

Ian Patrick Forrester!

Don’t ruin it for me . . . I’m actually interested in what Richard says.

I still wish I had four windmills . . .
#29 mandas
November 8, 2010

Wow! I mean… wow!

Another layperson without a degree in anything taking on a subject that requires complex statistical analysis – far in excess of anything that a non-mathematician can comprehend -draws straight lines through (unknown) data sets for a extremely small corner of the world, and concludes that it means all the scientists who have been working on AGW for decades have got it all wrong.

Is that a reasonable summary of what we have going on here?

I want to follow coby’s request and be nice, but seriously????

Ok. I will be nice. I won’t take apart all the logical fallacies (“if this is happening in Canada, it must be happening in the US.” Ok, I’ll bite – why?); ridiculous extrapolations (drawing straight lines through summer and winter trends and saying that in the future the temperatures will be the same. Has it ever occured to you that the trends may not be linear? Just saying!!) and just outright laughable statements (“Canada is not getting hotter, it’s getting less cold….” ROFLMAO!!!!!).

Finally:

“….Theories live or die on discriminatory evidence. Facts that can only be explained by one theory. In this case increasing temps for AGW. But that just evaporated because I have shown you an alternative explanation for why the average temp has been increasing. So now there is no discriminatory evidence exclusively for AGW as I have shown another possible reason for the increase in average temps. That spells trouble for AGW….”

So, ummmm, what is your theory? What is causing the changes that you have observed? I can’t actually see a theory anywhere, just an inadequate treatment of a very limited dataset with no explanation.

I, like skip, remain fascinated.
#30 mandas
November 8, 2010

Wikipedia is a wonderful tool. It sometimes provides useful information if you follow the links and references provided, but every scientist knows and understands it should NEVER be used as a reference for anything. The reason is simple – because anyone can make changes to it and the information is not verified.

Nonetheless, I did what Mr Wakefield asked and wiki’d Polonium Halos, and what an eye opener!!! It is even better if you look at the history of edits on the page, and follow the links provided.

And I have to say, congratulations Richard. You have made a name for yourself! You have managed to edit the page, put in a link (2 actually) to an opinion piece you wrote (no, it is not a scientific paper), and have an on-going argument with a creationist; all on a public web-page. The number of back and forward changes to this one page are amazing!

I am impressed.
#31 skip
November 8, 2010

Are you shitting me?

LOL.

Looks my trusting spirit got me punked again.
#32 adelady
November 8, 2010

Sitting here on the southern edge of the Australian mainland, I’m absolutely fascinated with the notion that it’s not getting warmer – though here the correct expression is *hotter*.

I _can_ understand people from another climate not understanding how things work elsewhere (I for instance find the humidity of places like Sydney absolutely intolerable) but I would never, ever presume that my experience would apply to places like Canada or Pakistan. Snow and ice or monsoons are unfamiliar and I have no idea how warmer or colder would affect them.

But I do understand drought, fire and flood and warmer means more of all of them. Not an inviting prospect even if they arise from less cold rather than more heat.
#33 mandas
November 8, 2010

skip

Yeah, sorry. You have been punked. Mr Wakefield obviously spends a lot of time in the net publishing his opinions. As well as his self-agrandising on wikipedia, and the web-blog that coby originally linked to, he has another denialist blog here:

http://www.climategatecountryclub.com/

If you want to post you can join the club – I think it is up to a staggering 37 members when I looked. This is my favourite article:

http://www.climategatecountryclub.com/forum/topics/nasa-measures-greenhouse

I am at a bit of a loss why his avatar is an iconic Australian bird though (sulphur crested cockatoo – there are millions just outside my backdoor!!).
#34 Richard Simons
November 8, 2010

Richard Wakefield @ #3

Interesting is your comment about this being just Southern Ontario where I see this converging trend of TMax and TMin. I would have expected from science when something like this is brought forth to be “Gee, that’s very interesting, does that happen everywhere?”.

Why would you expect this reaction to something that has been predicted and noticed for decades?

My prediction is this trend is world wide. If world wide, AGW is dead in the water.

Why, given that you have shown nothing which is contrary to expectation?

Next, another analogy about warming winters are adding more heat. That depends on how you look at it. That position takes the premise that deep cold winters is normal, any increase in winter temps is bad.

No, it doesn’t. If winters are less cold, they have become warmer. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is a completely different issue.

You now have a competing theory to explain that same evidence.

Where? I never saw one.

@#21

“Again, Richard, I just couldn’t navigate your site that effectively so can you just please link these for me/us?”

Then you can’t be that interested. If it were me, before I posted anything critical I would have preread every single post so I understood what was presented. You are obviously then not really interested.

If you don’t think your ideas are important enough make clear, why should we think they are important enough to read?
#35 adelady
November 8, 2010

Sorry to burst Mr Wakefiled’s bubble, but this global warming thing’s been going on for a while.

Absolutely brilliant that the radio station archive kept this so well.

http://climatecrocks.com/2010/11/08/climate-science-1956-blast-from-the-past/
#36 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“Of course, but again, *so what*?

They could just as easily diverge in the future with *higher average temps* for *both* winter and summer. Do you have some reason why you’re ruling out that happening within the proposed scientific model of AGW?”

That’s not up to me to disprove or prove. That’s up to you to provide evidence that that’s what will happen in the future. There’s an endless number of speculations on what the future might bring. None of that matters. All that matters is the evidence, and there is no evidence that what you suggest has happened in the past, so no reason to think it would happen in the future.

Besides, according to this report the IPCC’s CO2 emission scenarios are unrealistic: http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/IPCC_article.pdf
#37 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“He once suggested that it would take 400,000,000 2MW windmills to supply the US with renewable energy. ”

I never said anything of the sort. Where did you get that from? Not me. I said 4 million, not 400 million. Do the math. Use 10% capacity value (not 30% capacity factor, a meaningless number). Include 3% growth on average per year (25 year doubling time). That would mean almost double the electrical consumption of today. It comes to some 3.8 million 1.5MW turbines to achieve 20% of the power demand by 2030.

So I’m a crank because you abused a number I didn’t say, nice.
#38 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“my fear for you is that this convergence finding (assuming it stands up to statistical replication)”

Download the data a check it yourself. It’s simple to do. Write a program to hit the EC database, for each month, for each year for each station and drop the data into text files (takes about 3 months to run it all). Then write a program to loop through those files and import the data into separate Access database mdb files one for each station. Then run queries on each of those to get summary data which goes into a master mdb file. Then you run queries on the station data, copy and paste into Excel and let it do the stats. Simple enough for a highschool student to do, so you should be able to replicate it. Go ahead and show me where I’m wrong.
#39 Ben Lawson
November 8, 2010

Don’t get him started on immigration either, apparently.

Richard Wakefield’s account has been limited
#40 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“And let me get this straight. You’re the non-scientist that’s going to take down AGW?”

Assume this analysis comes from a climate scientist. Then what would you think?
#41 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“Another layperson without a degree in anything taking on a subject that requires complex statistical analysis – far in excess of anything that a non-mathematician can comprehend -draws straight lines through (unknown) data sets for a extremely small corner of the world, and concludes that it means all the scientists who have been working on AGW for decades have got it all wrong.”

Nice try. This is simple stats that anyone can do on Excel. Nothing I havn’t been doing for 25 years. Even you can do it. I can send you one of the text files if you want to give it a try.

Now this was a little more challening for me (since wind turbines were brought up) http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/
#42 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“Don’t get him started on immigration either, apparently.”

LOL!! My name sure gets around! Bunch of commies they are. They didn’t like my questioning them. Niether did RC who always deleted my posts.
#43 mandas
November 8, 2010

“…Assume this analysis comes from a climate scientist. Then what would you think?…”

It didn’t. And it wouldn’t.

“…there is no evidence that what you suggest has happened in the past, so no reason to think it would happen in the future….”

So ummm, because something hasn’t happened in the past, then it can’t happen in the future huh? Interesting logic. I had never thought of that before (wait – did I just think something that I hadn’t thought in the past? That’s not possible!)

“…All that matters is the evidence….”

Well sort of right. Evidence is nothing without analysis of what it means. So, you have producted your evidence. What is your theory about what is happening to the climate then?
#44 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“And I have to say, congratulations Richard. You have made a name for yourself! You have managed to edit the page, put in a link (2 actually) to an opinion piece you wrote (no, it is not a scientific paper), ”

I havn’t edited anything on that page, interesing it has been. My paper was published in the Journal for Geological Education, and it was peer reviewed.
#45 Ben Lawson
November 8, 2010

Oh Richard, you simply must start collaborating with Anthony Watts. Pretty please!
#46 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“I am at a bit of a loss why his avatar is an iconic Australian bird though (sulphur crested cockatoo – there are millions just outside my backdoor!!). ”

It’s not a Sulphur, He’s a Citron Crested Cockatoo from Indonesia. I have one, that’s him. One of my many birds (including a talking Rainbow Lori who speaks in context).
#47 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“I won’t take apart all the logical fallacies (“if this is happening in Canada, it must be happening in the US.” Ok, I’ll bite – why?);”

The continent is a single climate regime. Warm fronts from the Gulf come all the way up to Northern Ontario. Arctic cold fronts can go all the way down to Florida. The jet stream, which lowe pressure systems follow, flows around Canada in the summer, and the US in the winter, often with deep troughs through both countries. Low pressure systems pull in cold air from the north and warm air from the south as they move from west to east across the boarder.

If Windsor’s summer TMax is decreasing then so too much Detroit’s.

“ridiculous extrapolations (drawing straight lines through summer and winter trends and saying that in the future the temperatures will be the same. Has it ever occured to you that the trends may not be linear? Just saying!!)”

THAT”S MY POINT!! It’s NOT linear. This is just a small portion of a cycle of temperature swings, a cycle whose period is longer than the 100 years of measurements.

Oh, and the IPCC also draws extrapolation lines through their data and makes future predictions. You don’t have a problem with that do you.

“and just outright laughable statements (“Canada is not getting hotter, it’s getting less cold….” ROFLMAO!!!!!).”

“Like other parts of the world, Canada has not become hotter (no increase in higher quantiles of maximum temperature), but has become less cold.”
http://www.cmos.ca/Ao/articles/v380301.pdf
#48 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“So ummm, because something hasn’t happened in the past, then it can’t happen in the future huh? Interesting logic. I had never thought of that before (wait – did I just think something that I hadn’t thought in the past? That’s not possible!)”

CO2 was 5 to 20 times higher in the geological past, far more than the puny amount we are emitting. The planet didn’t cook, didn’t die, did very well. Thus there is no evidence from past CO2 levels of the TMax taking off world wide. There is enough evidence from that period that winters, specifically glacial periods, are anomalous and not normal.
#49 mandas
November 8, 2010

“….Nice try. This is simple stats that anyone can do on Excel. Nothing I havn’t been doing for 25 years. Even you can do it. I can send you one of the text files if you want to give it a try….”

Oh really??? I have done university courses in statistics, and I wouldn’t touch the mathematics required to analyse climate with a barge-pole. It is WAY out of my league. But, how about you read more deeply. If you really think you can analyse climate data with high school maths and Excel, you are smoking some seriously good crack. Why don’t you do some reading on the subject first. Here’s a book you might try:

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5QgAfL1N6koC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=climate+change+statistical+analysis&ots=-r8uE72HrU&sig=tgwoYMG3fEyOwZRwEN9DYGcgtCU#v=onepage&q=climate%20change%20statistical%20analysis&f=false

But it does seem you have a basic knowledge of statistics, so maybe I am being unfair to you. I had a read through a few of your posts on your blog, and you made a very important point at this thread:

http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/03/clearns-misrepresentations.html

At the end, you made an important statistical point in your criticism of the (simplified) climate change model:

“…No degrees of probability. Instead a line of certainty. It is not physically possible to know with that certainty what the future average of the global mean temperature is. Thus omitting the error bars, the uncertainty of the simulation, is a fraud. No one in science omits the error bars, you would fail physics 101 if you did….”

Of course, I then went back to your graphs that coby linked to, and was somewhat perplexed. Where are the error bars??!!

So ummm, are you resitting your Physics 101 exam? I probably would trust your analyse a little more if I didn’t realise you failed physics at high school.

Now, go away, do some reading and if you want to do this properly, try doing it based on science and not political posturing.
#50 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“Sitting here on the southern edge of the Australian mainland, I’m absolutely fascinated with the notion that it’s not getting warmer – though here the correct expression is *hotter*.”

You have the data to back that claim up? Specific daily temps going back 100 years? Because that data from Darwin shows it has not gotten hotter. See also: http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/the-australian-temperature-record-part-8-the-big-picture/ he’s going to be doing some of the same things I’ve done for the data he has. See this for his reply to me inquiry:http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/07/other-parts-of-world-also-getting-less.html

“Yes that seems to be the general pattern here. The rise in means is largely due to increasing minimum temps. In large areas of south / eastern Australia maximum temps have been decreasing, and in an area of inland Victoria and NSW the means are decreasing- cooling! I’ve seen your graph and it would not be too hard to do as I have all the data now. I stuck to means as that is how the HQ data is available.”

BTW, as you grow older you feel the heat more.
#51 mandas
November 8, 2010

“…..The continent is a single climate regime….”

That is so singularly laughably stupid it doesn’t even warrant comment.

“….”Like other parts of the world, Canada has not become hotter (no increase in higher quantiles of maximum temperature), but has become less cold.”…”

You do understand that if the minimum increases, the mean also increases? Ergo, the place gets hotter!!

“…Oh, and the IPCC also draws extrapolation lines through their data and makes future predictions. You don’t have a problem with that do you….”

Any reason why I should? (I think they include bands of error though – must have passed Physics 101).

“….CO2 was 5 to 20 times higher in the geological past,…”

So what? What is that supposed to mean for human civilisation, and the ecosystem we rely on?

“….THAT”S MY POINT!! It’s NOT linear….”

You’re the one that drew straight lines, not me.

“…It’s not a Sulphur, He’s a Citron Crested Cockatoo from Indonesia….”

I stand corrected. Bu easy mistake to make given the photo and their close relationship.
#52 mandas
November 8, 2010

“…..”Sitting here on the southern edge of the Australian mainland, I’m absolutely fascinated with the notion that it’s not getting warmer – though here the correct expression is *hotter*.”

You have the data to back that claim up? Specific daily temps going back 100 years? Because that data from Darwin shows it has not gotten hotter…”

Did you fail Geography 101 as well?
#53 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“So, ummmm, what is your theory? What is causing the changes that you have observed? I can’t actually see a theory anywhere, just an inadequate treatment of a very limited dataset with no explanation.”

Normal variation of cycles within cycles. Or do you not think the climate has any cycles of changes? How do you parse out a normal cycle trend from one caused from emissions of CO2?

There is no way that the increase in average temp that started in the 1800s was from our emissions of CO2. At that time FF combustion was in small localized areas in the world. The rest of the world was burning wood, like we had been doing for 10,000 years before then. CO2 emissions were a tiny faction of today’s, which at 3% growth doubles every 25 years. That means in the last 25 years we have emitted as much CO2 as in the previous 150 years. Right at the end of WWI, which CO2 emissions were just 15% of today, the average temp reversed and decreased until 1975 and it increased again. I cover this in the pdf papers on the site as to what caused this change in the average. Then the average started to increase again after 1975. The last 12 of the last 25 years, when or CO2 emissions were the most shows no change in world average temps. It’s flat.

Seems to me the AGW theory is the one that has the problem.

Now I’m really going to throw you a ball.

The claim is that industrialization with CO2 emissions caused this increase in the average temp. I’m going to make you consider an opposite proposal. That the “warming” trend caused industrialization!

Before Industrialization we were in the grips of the Little Ice Age (long deep cold winters with a short growing season, they may have even had very hot summers). With restricted food supply it was difficult to advance. Soon as the planet started to “warm up” (longer growing season), there was more food available for more people to start to specialize and be used for labour other than food production. That spawned the Industrialization which grew as the winters became less severe. And here we are today, industrialized because the planet cycled out of a cold period. AGW has it backwards.

That’s it for me for a couple days, think I got all of you, have to go to Toronto for a political meeting on how we are going to kill Ontario’s Green Energy Act (I’m on a policy committee).

It’s been fun, back Thursday.
#54 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“You have the data to back that claim up? Specific daily temps going back 100 years? Because that data from Darwin shows it has not gotten hotter…”

Did you fail Geography 101 as well?”

No, Darwin is the only data I have seen so far. You got it from your area? Let’s have a look at it.
#55 mandas
November 8, 2010

“……Normal variation of cycles within cycles. Or do you not think the climate has any cycles of changes? How do you parse out a normal cycle trend from one caused from emissions of CO2?….”

Wrong. Yes, the climate has cycles, but every one of them has an explanation. To say – “natural variation” is a cop out of the highest order, and is so totally unscientific that it can only come from someone who has zero – repeat – zero – understanding of science.

When the climate changes, a REAL scientist tries to understand why, not just dismiss it as ‘a natural cycle’ or other such gobbledegook. You are fond of picking apart creationists arguments, now you are presenting one yourself. The climate is changing – even you admit that’s the case. Now, here is your question to pass this exam:

Q1 – The climate is changing. what do you think is causing it to change? Provide evidence to support your answer.
#56 Richard Wakefield
November 8, 2010

“…..The continent is a single climate regime….”

That is so singularly laughably stupid it doesn’t even warrant comment.

————–

OH, I see there isn’t any air masses that move across the two countries, I stand corrected — NOT! Let’s get the US temp data and see shall we before we dismiss this as you do.

————–

“….”Like other parts of the world, Canada has not become hotter (no increase in higher quantiles of maximum temperature), but has become less cold.”…”

You do understand that if the minimum increases, the mean also increases? Ergo, the place gets hotter!!

————

Go back to the glass analogy. We are returning the LOST heat, not new heat.

———–

“…Oh, and the IPCC also draws extrapolation lines through their data and makes future predictions. You don’t have a problem with that do you….”

Any reason why I should? (I think they include bands of error though – must have passed Physics 101).

———

Huge bands, and yet they claim to know what the temp will be by a few degrees in the future. Yeah, right.

———

“….CO2 was 5 to 20 times higher in the geological past,…”

So what? What is that supposed to mean for human civilisation, and the ecosystem we rely on?

———-

More CO2 faster growing crops. Longer growing season, more crop production: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N39/C2.php

————

“….THAT”S MY POINT!! It’s NOT linear….”

You’re the one that drew straight lines, not me.

————

There is nothing wrong with linear regression through the points.

————

“…It’s not a Sulphur, He’s a Citron Crested Cockatoo from Indonesia….”

I stand corrected. Bu easy mistake to make given the photo and their close relationship.

————-

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23004780/Cockatoos-Invade-Indonesia

I know it’s early in AU, but it’s bed time here, gotta go, back Thursday.
#57 Shirakawasuna
November 8, 2010

Darwin on the southern edge of Australia? I wonder if his persona permits being trivially wrong (while belligerent).

Is this a good short version of what’s going on?

1) Someone learns intro stats and learns how to make graphs with R (or something).
2) Doing linear fits to subsets of the data indicates something impossible when extrapolated, therefore the extrapolation is wrong.
3) Equivocate on the extrapolation, then generalize from local to global. Confuse Canada/Ireland/Australia for the world (how did you pick these!?). Miss the point of the post, going so far as to somehow miss the point of the title.
4) An entire field of science must be wrong (and has apparently has no one who took intro stats or knows what seasons are). See 1).

Also, is this too mean? If so, I apologize. Sarcasm seems to be called for, given the condescending attitude he’s lugging around.
#58 skip
November 8, 2010

First off:

If Windsor’s summer TMax is decreasing then so too much Detroit’s.

That’s an argument?

An argument supporting the idea that North America is “one climate system”? The two are across the bridge from each other. But what about Sandwich and San Antonio? Or Ontario Canada and Ontario, California? Jesus, Richard.

But wave that crazy point.

Assume this analysis comes from a climate scientist. Then what would you think?

What if a Ph.D. in biology argued for for a six day creation, Richard? (And they do exist.)

I would, regardless, think it just as revealing that he cannot answer simple questions such as why apparent temperature convergence within an overall warming trend is incompatible with AGW, and thus would question his alleged status as “climate scientists”–one who thinks climate science can be resolved with “simple stats that anyone can do on Excel”, to boot.

You might as well ask me, “What if NASA’s flight director argued for a geocentric universe?”

It wouldn’t happen, Richard. That’s the point.

Download the data a check it yourself. It’s simple to do

You’re missing my point. For the nonce I’m letting your data analysis stand for the sake of argument. My point is that even if its sound the thing you’ve “discovered” is not a threat to the AGW hypothesis and is (at best!) the analog of McIntyre’s hollow “triumph” on the issue of point centered means.

Again, if you think it is a threat to AGW theory, *why*?

Oh, right. We’ve seen how you address this:

Do you have some reason why you’re ruling out [partial convergence of summer and winter temps within an over warming trend] happening within the proposed scientific model of AGW?”

That’s not up to me to disprove or prove. That’s up to you to provide evidence that that’s what will happen in the future.

Just utterly wrong, Richard. Just utterly wrong. There is no nice way to say it when someone is just utterly wrong, so sorry Coby.

Richard, can you not see it? Can you really *not* see it? Your argument is delirious. You’re claiming that the partial convergence of summer and winter highs *within an overall warming trend* somehow demonstrates the “death of AGW”–or however you worded it. I am asking, *why* do you believe that?

Why–repeat, *why* do you believe these temperature convergences, even as your own data show *overall warming*, are incompatible with AGW?

Why?
#59 Ben Lawson
November 8, 2010

Surprise, surprise, Richard’s “theory” is the wild waving of hands. If you want to claim that it’s merely “normal variation of cycles within cycles” then you have to show it and explain it. Given your remarks here you must have a paradigm-shifting Excel formula in your back pocket that will stun us into humiliated silence. How about it?

I bet you’re a ton o’ fun on a ‘policy committee’. Are you “Pinky” or “the Brain”?
#60 Ian Forrester
November 8, 2010

Wakefield said (#37):

I never said anything of the sort. Where did you get that from? Not me. I said 4 million, not 400 million. Do the math. Use 10% capacity value (not 30% capacity factor, a meaningless number).

Wakefield said (Desmogblog, October 2, 2008):

The study estimated that the U.S. will require about 120 gigawatts (GW) of new generation just to maintain a 15 percent reserve margin. That will require at least $300 billion in generation and transmission facility investments by 2016.

BTW, 120 GW would be the same as 400,000,000 wind turbines.

http://www.desmogblog.com/stephen-harper-s-right-hand-man-helped-organize-an-anti-kyoto-astroturf-group

So we can now add honesty challenged to the list of challenges I put up earlier.

Why are deniers so dishonest? Oops, I forgot, that is the only way they can get “facts” to support their case.
#61 mandas
November 8, 2010

Ian

That link is pure gold. I had a read through it, and not only does he have selective memory, he also rejects his own posts. He provided a link to a paper to support his argument about Norway’s carbon taxes, and when his argument was pulled apart and it was shown that his link said exactly the opposite to what he claimed (remind you of anyone), he responded with this gem:

“….Since I did not write what I posted, It’s not my diatribe….”

Just read that again really slowly.

Since….I….did…..not….write….what…..I…..posted.

(sorry for not being nice coby, but you have to admit, he has it coming)
#62 Marco
November 8, 2010

Richard, I have spoken to historians, and none have much positive (nor negative) to say about the MWP. Their biggest beef is the simplistic focus on Europe of most people.

Regarding your other historical flaws (there is no better word): the flora and fauna of the last 400 million years ago are for the most part significantly different from now. The PETM, which you appear to refer to in a positive sense, resulted in a significant mass extinction. These rapid climate changes also are considered to be major evolution drivers. You sure you want to bet we humans will survive another evolutionary explosion?
#63 Chris S.
November 9, 2010

Looks like I’ve come late to the party so I won’t dwell on the most egregious errors that others have already tackled. I do want to talk about this statement though as it’s one I’ve seen repeated in various forms quite often.

“Short mild winters, more people survive. Longer growing season, more food means … Or do you think tnat long cold winters with shorter growing seasons make food production better.”

Now, I can only speak for Europe from experience and in the first part of this post I will, though what is true for Europe is also true for the whole temperate band (at least in the northern hemisphere). Later I will move on to talk about agriculture in the tropics.

Since the agricultural revolution (ca. 18th Century) European agriculture has intensified rapidly to the extent that the growing season has been, effectively, maximised. For some crops (e.g. wheat, oil seed rape) this means plants are in the ground before the previous growing season ends and overwinter in the fields for early cropping the next spring allowing for two crops per ‘season’ (for these crops the season is now the whole year).
Other crops are unable to overwinter, usually due to waterlogging of the soil during the winter months (NOTE: nothing to do with winter temperature). For these crops the limit to the start of the growing season is when the soil is dry enough to drill. Plant breeding has increased the growth rate of crops so that the sow to harvest time is a great deal shorter than medieval times but, even with a longer growing season we still have a lot to do to squeeze in a second crop in a growing season, not to mention dealing with potential problems mid-season through drought and/or flooding events that may or may not happen with the changes in the climate.
One aspect of agriculture that does not have an early season limit is crop pests. I’ll use an example here of a well studied pest – the aphid Myzus persicae. This, and other aphids cause crop damage in two ways, mechanical damage from feeding and transmission of plant viruses. It is known that the phenology of M. persicae in the UK is strongly dependent on January-February mean temperature (linear relationship p<0.0001, r^2 0.70+) the warmer the winter, the earlier the aphids fly. They also have more generations in warmer conditions and work on Culicoides midges suggest that warmer conditions leads to faster development which in turn leads to increased susceptibility to virus transmission as their guts do not have the time to form barriers against virus particles.
As already stated, crops are being sown as early as possible, as aphids are flying earlier they are entering the crops at an earlier, more vulnerable growth stage, thus the forecast is for crop yields to suffer due to pest activity.

That’s the temperate zone, in the tropics the growing season is not limited by low temperatures, in fact it is quite the opposite – higher temperatures are a limiting factor in crop yields (if it gets too hot the crops suffer heat stress, combined with decreasing precipitation and increasing evaoporation they also dry out and wilt).

The rosy picture painted by Mr. Wakefield et al. aint quite so true as they’d like to claim. Perhaps in addition to the other reading/courses already suggested to him he’d also like to take some lessons in agricultural science.

If anyone wants any citations to the literature for any of the above I can provide them (didn’t want my post to be swallowed in the spam filter through too many links).
#64 J Bowers
November 9, 2010

Richard Wakefield — “Wind the clock back to before this ice age and we see 400 million years of tropical paradise. Winters were rare to non-existent.”

And grasses were even rarer. Why would that be, what species of plant do crops and cereals belong to, and what are the main staple foods of most of the world?
#65 skip
November 9, 2010

G’mornin’ . . . .

Anyway, if anyone is interested in Richard’s triumph over creation science here is a direct blog link.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

If there is any lesson here, I suspect its don’t think you’re ready for Mike Tyson because you kicked your kid sister’s ass.
#66 Chris S.
November 9, 2010

skip: It seems that the Journal for Geological Education didn’t get read by the authors of this:

COHERENT DESCRIPTION FOR HITHERTO UNEXPLAINED RADIOACTIVITIES BY SUPER- AND HYPERDEFORMED ISOMERIC STATES Marinov et al. (2003) International Journal of Modern Physics E Volume: 12, Issue: 5(2003) pp. 661-668 DOI: 10.1142/S0218301303001466

Abstract: Recently, long-lived high spin super- and hyperdeformed isomeric states with unusual radioactive decay properties have been discovered. Based on these newly observed modes of radioactive decay, consistent interpretations are suggested for previously unexplained phenomena seen in nature. These are the Po halos, the low-energy enhanced 4.5 MeV α-particle group proposed to be due to an isotope of a superheavy element with Z=108, and the giant halos.
#67 skip
November 9, 2010

Yeah but Richard still has his glory because he published his piece in ’88 and the online reprint emerged in ’97.

Not that I give a shit. I certainly didn’t need Richard to save me from young earth creationism. I mean, given the choice between believing that all of evolutionary biology and earth science is wrong or believing a guy on the make to prove Genesis true its a no brainer–sort of like whether to believe all of climate science or a guy boasting of his mastery of Excel.

Its a pity Richard can’t see the analogy.
#68 pough
November 9, 2010

LOL!! My name sure gets around! Bunch of commies they are. They didn’t like my questioning them. Niether did RC who always deleted my posts.

http://www.despair.com/dysfunction.html
#69 Sab
November 9, 2010

RW: “…..The continent is a single climate regime….”

That is so singularly laughably stupid it doesn’t even warrant comment.

RW: “OH, I see there isn’t any air masses that move across the two countries, I stand corrected — NOT! Let’s get the US temp data and see shall we before we dismiss this as you do.”

————–

Dear Richard Wakefield,

Comments like those above are the reason we can tell that you don’t really have a clue about climate. Southern Ontario does not equate to all of Canada. Repeat after me: “Southern Ontario does not equate to all of Canada.”

I know that most of you folks near Toronto think that you are in the centre of the Universe, but those of us who live in the more remote parts of our beautiful country would like to point out that you are an idiot. Perhaps you have yet to hear about the more distant provinces like Saskatchewan, Nunavut, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories. You may also be interested to hear that despite being part of Canada they don’t all share the same climate as Detroit.
#70 mandas
November 9, 2010

Sab

You might want to add in Mexico City there as well, which I tend to think has slightly different climate drivers than the Beaufort Sea coast of Alaska – just saying!
#71 mandas
November 9, 2010

Chris

We have had the discussion about CO2 being ‘plant food’ ad nauseum with many deniers over and over again that it seems to be like ground-hog day.

You may recall the discussion with “ronnie” at the Global Warming Turns 35 thread, and with Dan Pangburn – the retired Mechanical Engineer who also had written papers ‘proving’ AGW was wrong based on his own statistical analysis and a cosmic ray causality theory. Both of those guys couldn’t grasp the concept that additional CO2 is not the boon for plants that they thought, and they both refused to accept the evidence of study after study which demonstrated the negative effects of reduced nitrogen fixing, increased allelopathy, lower protein concentration, etc, etc, etc.

Unfortunately, the ‘CO2 is plant food’ has become the latest version of denialism, after all their earlier attempts to debunk the theory have been shown to be flawed. You know how it goes:

Stage 1 – The Earth is not warming.
Stage 2 – Well, the Earth may be warming, but it is just part of a natural cycle and had nothing to do with humans.
Stage 3 – Well, humans may have something to do with it, but global warming and additional CO2 are good (plant food etc).

I’m wating for Stage 4 – Well yes, we are causing global warming and it may not be a good thing, but if we try to do anything about it it wil destroy the economy (PaulinMi??)

Then of course comes Stage 5 – Well ok. Maybe we could have done something about it if we had acted in time. But the scientists did not give sufficient warning and were always fighting among themselves.
#72 blueshift
November 9, 2010

Chris S.,
Fascinating post. References in the literature would be too technical for me at this point, but do you have a good source for more information on the overwintering etc.?
Thanks
#73 Ben Lawson
November 9, 2010

Gosh, two more days before Richard;s promised return from plotting to take over the world. I eagerly await enlightenment.
#74 Sab
November 9, 2010

@mandas #70: Oh absolutely, but I figured that focusing on the country he’s supposedly from might help bring home the message. Given that he thinks all of Canada has the same climate I doubt he even knows that Mexico exists.
#75 adelady
November 9, 2010

Oh, I dunno about Canada.

I’m still fascinated with Darwin’s tropical climate being the same as Adelaide’s more-Mediterranean-than-the-Mediterranean climate.

For Richard’s benefit, Adelaide’s latitude is roughly equivalent to Los Angeles or Cyprus or Tunis. Not Rio de Janeiro or Barbados or Nicaragua as Darwin might be.
#76 Chris S.
November 10, 2010

blueshift:
Not 100% sure what you mean by a “good source for more information on the overwintering etc”.

If you mean the crops then there is good background on the discussion page of the Winter Wheat entry on Wikipedia.

There’s also some overview on UK farming in winter here: http://www.ukagriculture.com/four_seasons/four_seasons.cfm?str_season=Winter&intro=no

A good article outlining some of the challenges of winter rapeseed (canola) in the UK: http://www.farminguk.com/news/Bounce-back-expected-for-winter-oilseed-rape_16647.html

Winter wheat is an increasing aspect of US agriculture: http://www.agnetwork.com/Winter-Crops-In-The-Midwest/2010-09-14/Article.aspx?oid=1236110&fid=AN-TOP_STORIES
#77 Chris S.
November 10, 2010

Darn it, I thought three links would escape the spam filter, evidently not. Anyway, here’s a nice set of maps of where crops, including winter crops are found in the US: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sis5219

Australia also has winter crops as a major aspect of their agriculture eg: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/abare-upgrades-winter-crops-forecast/story-e6frg95o-1225880345316
#78 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

“Unfortunately, the ‘CO2 is plant food’ has become the latest version of denialism, after all their earlier attempts to debunk the theory have been shown to be flawed.”

Really? Then how come commercial greenhouses have their CO2 levels THREE TIMES atmospheric to boost plant growth? Or why the Dutch are diverting natural gas fired plants emissions into greenhouses to boost plant growth? How did plants manage to survive in the geological past with CO2 up to TWENTRY TIMES today? Hell, we did that very experiment in highschool biology to show CO2 boost plant growth!

CO2science.org has a database of peer reviewed papers showing improved plant growth in response to higher CO2. But of course, none of this means anything to you. Who’s denying what now?

And I never said the climate in Canada was the same everywhere. Another attempt to make me look stupid, but you have just done that to yourself. I said the continent gets subjected to the same weather patterns. That is a fact. Right now in London where I am we have a warm high pressue system that goes to James Bay in the north all the way down to the Gulf in the south.
#79 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

“Southern Ontario does not equate to all of Canada. Repeat after me: “Southern Ontario does not equate to all of Canada.”"

This comment shows you have not read the rest of the posts. This cooling of summer shows up all across the country, from BC right through to the east coast. Every station I looked at across Canada shows the same thing, go look, it’s all there.

In fact, I started all this from someone who lives in Calgary who sent me an email about a highschool project his son did looking at daily temps since 1900. He found summers there were cooling. That’s when I decided to download all the data and check the rest of the country.

You are showing your distain and ignorance more than trying to make me look stupid.
#80 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

“Of course, I then went back to your graphs that coby linked to, and was somewhat perplexed. Where are the error bars??!!”

Gezz, you took stats and you make that claim. Give me a break. The data you get from EC has these fields:

[Station Data].Year, [Station Data].Month, [Station Data].Day, [Station Data].[Max Temp], [Station Data].[Min Temp], [Station Data].[Mean Temp]

To look at the full range of temps for a station I run this SQL:

SELECT [Station Data].Year, Max([Station Data].[Max Temp]) AS [MaxOfMax Temp], StDev([Station Data].[Max Temp]) AS [StDevOfMax Temp], Avg([Station Data].[Mean Temp]) AS [AvgOfMean Temp], StDev([Station Data].[Min Temp]) AS [StDevOfMin Temp], Min([Station Data].[Min Temp]) AS [MinOfMin Temp]
FROM [Station Data]
GROUP BY [Station Data].Year
ORDER BY [Station Data].Year;

I then take that recordset and paste it into excel and plot the numbers to make those graphs.

How can this possibly be wrong? How that this possibly be complex? Explain that.
#81 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

“The PETM, which you appear to refer to in a positive sense, resulted in a significant mass extinction.”

Of what? What was killed off on mass? Phylogentic analysis on Mammals shows that the major clads formed during that time. It wasn’t a mass exinction, it was a blossoming of new species!
#82 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

“Darwin on the southern edge of Australia? I wonder if his persona permits being trivially wrong (while belligerent).”

Another attempt to try and make me look stupid. I NEVER SAID THAT!!! Gezz, read the comment again. You are only making yourself look foolish by this attempt at putting words in my mouth.

If you people want a proper dialog, STICK TO WHAT I SAY, not what you want me to say. Or forget this. You are just reenforcing my premise that you will do anything, misrepresent anything, to keep the AGW faith alive. DOGMA!

Either appologize, or piss off.

No more posts from me until you people become civil, like you were asked to be.
#83 Ian Forrester
November 10, 2010

No more posts from you, Wakefield until you can be more honest. You have been constantly shown things that you say but accuse others of putting those words in your mouth. Of course it is very easy to cut and paste and show that you actually said them.

Why should we believe your statistical analysis when you are a proven liar and your “data” are shown to be wrong by a paper you say agrees with you? Anyone who has read that paper will know that it shows the exact opposite of what your “analysis” claims i.e. summer maximum temperatures have increased but not at the same rate as winter minimums.

You should stay away until you can behave in an honest manner. This trait of yours (dishonesty) has been shown up for a number of years as you have spread your lies and rubbish over many science blogs.
#84 skip
November 10, 2010

Richard, there are so many points I would love to pursue with you or observe others do so–long term trends of anthropogenic CO2 output and implications, what previous hotter eras do and do not prove, issues of fringe versus mainstream science (your strike against creation science offers so many inroads . . . .), your answer to Ben’s report on your “peer reviewed” study that supposedly found “no anthropogenic signal”, the relationship between Southern Ontarian and overall continental climate, and on and on.

But I’d be happy–in all civility–with a simple answer to this question:

Why–repeat, *why* do you believe these temperature convergences, even as your own data show *overall warming*, are incompatible with AGW?

Why? –Skip #58
#85 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

“Why should we believe your statistical analysis when you are a proven liar”

Fuck you all. This thread is over.
#86 Chris S.
November 10, 2010

With regard to CO2science as referenced by Mr. Wakefield in #78.

Some of my colleagues have papers referenced there (including my boss), interestingly only those papers that show a positive impact of CO2 get listed, not those by the same authors that show negative impact. In addition, of those papers that are featured, some show ambiguous effects but only the positive side of that ambiguity is referred to in the write-up.

Perhaps Mr. Wakefield may want to bear this in mind in future…
#87 Chris S.
November 10, 2010

Oh dear, it seems Mr. Wakefield has chosen to use Ian’s abrasive tone as an excuse to not answer anyone else’s points.

That is a shame as there have been some very germane points raised by others.
#88 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

Why should I stay and be subjected to verbal abuse, would you? I was quite willing to defend my analysis, quite willing to engage in RATIONAL discussions, but not this, and not insinuating remarks I never made. Fix those first.

Not one appolgy for the abuse is very telling of the tone of the crowd here.
#89 Chris S.
November 10, 2010

Mr. Wakefield, should I apologise for remarks made by others? Is it rational to paint several different commentators with several different styles of debate as a crowd? Is it possible to ignore the insulting commentators and engage with those who have asked polite questions or is it merely easier to cry foul and bow out without engaging those who have highlighted serious issues with your analysis?
#90 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

I never back out of any RATIONAL discussion. I will think about this I have much more important work to do (I’m actually working on someone’s website at the same time here) than spend time trying to defend against insults.
#91 skip
November 10, 2010

LOL. Way to go, Ian.

I wonder, has, “Fuck you all” ever been supported by previous peer review?
#92 Ian Forrester
November 10, 2010

Wakefield, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who constantly lies, distorts data and misinterprets graphs. You are the abuser, not me, you are abusing science and scientists with your dishonest comments here and elsewhere.

Why anyone would want to know what further lies he has to tell is a puzzle to me. He makes everything up so what is the benefit of reading his comments?

I have been a scientist for over 45 years and I will not stand idly by while people such as Wakefield and the many others who pollute science sites (this is a part of “scienceblogs” after-all) write lies aiming to discredit science and scientists. His posts are an insult to scientists everywhere.
#93 skip
November 10, 2010

I have been a scientist for over 45 years . . .

That’s all very good and well, Ian, but are you proficient with *Excel*?
#94 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

Ian goes or I do.
#95 Marco
November 10, 2010

Richard, the PETM killed of 20% or so of marine species. Yes, mammals suddenly had some more fun. But what is your evidence that we humans will be among the lucky ones when such a new evolution driving force (as rapid climate change is) is putting strain on flora and fauna?

Note that due to our modification of earth, many normal evolutionary pathways have been cut off. In the old days, trees could, to some extent, pass over barriers like rivers and mountains. Today, we have added additional barriers by building cities and using land for agriculture. Migration pathways have become significantly distorted and even blocked. In itself an evolutionary strain, and you are happily claiming another one is no problem. Of course, you never provided evidence that the MWP was good for ‘us’.

Oh, and Richard, the Dutch are not just using CO2 to boost plant growth. There’s this little pesky thing of also adding nutrients and water in sufficient amounts and at the right time. Not something easily done for plants NOT in greenhouses. “Ah, those pesky details, they destroy the story! Ignore! Ignore!”
#96 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

“Note that due to our modification of earth, many normal evolutionary pathways have been cut off.”

Are you advocating that humans exterminate themselves to save the planet?

Of course the Dutch will fertilize their plants. Fact is, CO2 increases plant growth. Plants suffocate below 180.

You have a reference for that 20% decline in Marine organisms? First I’ve heard that.
#97 Ben Lawson
November 10, 2010

So Richard, your arguments boil down to defiance and squirming?
#98 Chris S.
November 10, 2010

Ian does it never occur to you that frothy mouthed ranting does not acheive as much as cold headed reasoning. Mr. Wakefield can demonstrate his grasp of the issues and problems with his thesis without the ‘easy out’ of of claiming the big boys were nasty to him. An independent observer is surely more likely to be swayed by reasoned exposure to the flaws in Mr. Wakefield’s claims than someone shouting insults whether they be baseless or not.
#99 Ian Forrester
November 10, 2010

Chris S please do not confuse honest descriptions of denier behaviour with the “frothy mouthed rantings” that they use all the time. I have just been honest with how he behaves in all the blogs I have encountered him on. I would have thought, that since you are a scientist yourself, you would not be condescending to other scientists.

Science is based on honesty and truth thus anyone who behaves in a manner contrary to how science is conducted should be shown for what he is. Why do you treat people like Wakefield with kid gloves? He does not deserve the respect that you seem to think he deserves.
#100 Sab
November 10, 2010

Actually I’m addressing your intellectual dishonesty Richard. The climate of Canada is not the same from east to west or north to south. British Columbia has extremely detailed climate information, which happens to show many different climatic types throughout the province. Check out ClimateBC. And seeing as you bring up Alberta why not look into Andreas Hamann’s work on climatic variability?

You might also want to look into what has been happening in parts of Yukon Territory over the last 30 years. Dramatic changes in temperature and moisture throughout the province and considerably different to the changes going on in BC.

So no, I’m not trolling you. I stand by my point that suggesting all of Canada and the US share the same climate (and certainly not the same climate as Southern Ontario) is a ridiculous comment.
#101 Richard Wakjefield
November 10, 2010

“Why do you treat people like Wakefield with kid gloves? He does not deserve the respect that you seem to think he deserves.”

Ian, you are on the verge of being publicly liable. Provide one example of where I have stated anything knowly was false. Prove I have lied. Otherwise, back off.
#102 Ian Forrester
November 10, 2010

Wakefield, 400,000,000 windmills for one. Want me to show how many more times you have lied?
#103 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

Sab, you are misunderstanding me. Let me state this clearly so you understand. There are different climate regions of the country. By the climate REGEME is the same. That is, weather events pass through the entire country. Low pressure systems that form in the Pacific can make their way across Canada to the Atlantic causings storms along the way. It is not uncommon for Arctic air masses to follow a jet stream trough all the way down to Florida.

This topic started because I claimed that if the summer temps in Canada are dropping, then so too should, at least, the upper US states. There is only one way to find out. Get the daily temp data.
#104 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

“Wakefield, 400,000,000 windmills for one. Want me to show how many more times you have lied?”

You are blind? I aleady stated I NEVER said that. Show me where I have. Guess I better call my lawyer…
#105 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

Marco, Re Extinction.

You have to be very careful when claiming there is extinction. There are two types of extinction. There is phylogenetic extinction. That’s when a species completely dies off with no descendants.

There is also taxonomic extinction. All that is is when the parent species does not continue, but off branched species do continue. There is no real extinction there because there is at least one descendant species.

The claim that 99% of all species have gone extinct is countered with all current species today came from that “extinction.” It’s not a real extinction, only a taxonomic extinction.
#106 Ian Forrester
November 10, 2010

Wakefield, see my post #60. Do you deny that it was you who wrote on Desmogblog:

The study estimated that the U.S. will require about 120 gigawatts (GW) of new generation just to maintain a 15 percent reserve margin. That will require at least $300 billion in generation and transmission facility investments by 2016.

BTW, 120 GW would be the same as 400,000,000 wind turbines.
#107 skip
November 10, 2010

Richard, I checked your post on desmog. Ian quoted it right:

The study estimated that the U.S. will require about 120 gigawatts (GW) of new generation just to maintain a 15 percent reserve margin. That will require at least $300 billion in generation and transmission facility investments by 2016.

BTW, 120 GW would be the same as 400,000,000 wind turbines.

How about just saying you made an honest mistake/typo?

And along that note, Richard, the defense that you’ve never stated anything knowly[sic] was false is pretty lame. It just means in essence that you’ve granted yourself license to make any bullshit claim you want, and if someone calls you on it, fall back on the defense that it wasn’t intentional and then threaten litigation.

How about just getting your cites/numbers/facts straight in the first place?

I mean come on.

Oh, by the way . . .

Why–repeat, *why* do you believe these temperature convergences, even as your own data show *overall warming*, are incompatible with AGW?

Why? –Skip #58
#108 Chris S.
November 10, 2010

Ian, you remind me of Tom Fuller’s witch-hunt against Tobis. It’s not pretty. You made your point many, many posts back and Mr. Wakefield is still able to avoid the more substansive critiscisms.

“He does not deserve the respect that you seem to think he deserves.”
How about you show some other commenters some respect by allowing them time to speak without shouting all over everyone? People here have spent time and effort rebutting Mr. Wakefield’s claims, sometimes in great depth, time that is now wasted due to your domination of the thread.
#109 Ian Forrester
November 10, 2010

Chris S, please get a life. I have not dominated this thread. All I have done is point out to other posters Wakefield’s history of deceit, distortion and making things up. How can you as a scientist not realize that such information concerning posters is important so that those reading posts can get some background information on the poster? Are you that naive? Are you willing in your everyday business willing to believe known liars as you are to believe those who you trust? Do you check out the backgrounds of people selling you “the deal of a lifetime” or do you believe those who have shown these people to be snake oil salesmen?
#110 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

“Do you deny that it was you who wrote on Desmogblog:”

No link to it, no idea if that is true. If it is I was wrong then, the numbers are 4 million. Being wrong is not lying. You claimed I lied.

You keeping a file on me?

I just checked the numbers. Unfortunately you can’t post html tables here. I was wrong on the 4 million 1.5MW. It’s 4 million 3MW and 7 million 1.5M at 18% Capacity Value. At a 10% capacity value double that.
#111 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

OK, that was wrong then, don’t remeber it. So be it. Honest mistake. Not wrong now. Wind now produces 11.4GW of name plate in the US. To meet the 20% by 2030 it would have to increase at 16% per year to get to the 290GW goal. That would require 7.6 million 1.5MW turbines, which in the last year alone 3,000 per day would have to be built. It’s easy enough to do on a spreadsheet. Oh, and the total costs? $23Trillion.

That does not include by 2030 you would have to start to take down and replace worn out turbines. They only have a 20 year lifespan.

“Why–repeat, *why* do you believe these temperature convergences, even as your own data show *overall warming*, are incompatible with AGW?”

Why do you think it does?

I already explained it many times. Warmer is normal, colder is not. “warming”, which you wish be be bad, is returning to the normal state.

How about another anology? You have 50c change in your pocket. You find a quater in a parking lot. You are now UP 25c. That’s an increase you did not have before.

But if you had a dollar in change in your pocket and LOST a quarter, you are now SHORT 25c. Should you find a quarter in the parking lot, you just replaced what you lost. Nothing new.

AGW claims that cold is the default position. I claim warm is the default position, going cold is a loss of heat that should be there.

BTW, I’m typing fast, not going to bother to spell check anything, so typos are bound to happen.
#112 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

“All I have done is point out to other posters Wakefield’s history of deceit, distortion and making things up. ”

Ian, you are a prime example of someone who will do and say anything to discredit anyone who disagrees with your faith. You are proof of what Coby was unhappy about my calling people like you the AGW faithful.

Everyone makes mistakes, I guess you never do, as long as it is corrected, it doesn’t matter. I have never made things up, prove I did. I have never distorted the science at any time, prove I did, and I do not decieve people. Unlike Desmog does, continuously misrepresenting the science, such that when some of us questioned what is posted, the comments are shut down. Is it still up and running? Traffic must be low.

Now I came here to discuss science not try to defend myself from people like you. So if you are not interested in discussing the science, simply piss off and let the rest of us get on with it. I’m not going to take your verbal garbage any more.
#113 mandas
November 10, 2010

RW at post #82:

“…No more posts from me until you people become civil, like you were asked to be….”

RW at post #85:

“…Fuck you all. This thread is over…”

RW at post #90:

“…. I will think about this I have much more important work to do (I’m actually working on someone’s website at the same time here) than spend time trying to defend against insults….”

RW at post #94:

“….Ian goes or I do….”

RW at post 112:

“…. I’m not going to take your verbal garbage any more….”

Yet you are still here!!! After stating “no more posts from me” you have managed to post 11 – count ‘em – 11 times!!

Why don’t you be a man of your word, or is this just indicative of your normal modus operandi? You lie…and are called on it. You post pseudo-scientific nonsense…and are called on it. You make laughably stupid claims, and when you are called on it you deny making the claims. Then you bluff and bluster and make threats that you don’t even carry out.

Here’s a tip. Threats are worthless unless you have the balls to back them up with action.
#114 mandas
November 10, 2010

So you don’t lie huh? And want to engage in a rational discussion huh? Ok….

Post #82: “…Darwin on the southern edge of Australia? I wonder if his persona permits being trivially wrong (while belligerent).” Another attempt to try and make me look stupid. I NEVER SAID THAT!!!

Well yeah you did, at post #50:

“… Sitting here on the southern edge of the Australian mainland, I’m absolutely fascinated with the notion that it’s not getting warmer – though here the correct expression is *hotter*. You have the data to back that claim up? Specific daily temps going back 100 years? Because that data from Darwin shows it has not gotten hotter…”

“….This topic started because I claimed that if the summer temps in Canada are dropping, then so too should, at least, the upper US states. There is only one way to find out. Get the daily temp data…”

Oh, its just the upper US states now. What happened to Florida and Mexico (which are on the same continent last time I looked). Anyway, its your theory, you get the data and show your theory is right.

Post 110: “..No link to it, no idea if that is true. If it is I was wrong then, the numbers are 4 million. Being wrong is not lying. You claimed I lied….”

Well yeah you did like (no it was not an honest mistake!). At post #37 you said:

“….I never said anything of the sort. Where did you get that from? Not me. I said 4 million, not 400 million….”

Interesting!!

Post 111: “…I already explained it many times. Warmer is normal, colder is not. “warming”, which you wish be be bad, is returning to the normal state…. AGW claims that cold is the default position. I claim warm is the default position, going cold is a loss of heat that should be there….”

What a crock of shit. AGW DOES NOT CLAIM COLD IS THE DEFAULT POSITION. That is the singularly most stupid statement I have ever read in my life, and completely misrepresents AGW. Read this next bit carefully RW, because it is important. AGW claims the world is warming, and that this warming is caused by human activity. And here is a really really really important point you need to grasp. THERE IS NO NORMAL, DEFAULT TEMPERATURE FOR THE EARTH’S CLIMATE.

So, you accept the Earth is warming. What is your theory as to why? Pretty easy question, how about you try and answer it before you did what you promised to do, and make like a hockey stick (and puck off!).
#115 coby
November 10, 2010

Richard, please take Chris’ advice and ignore Ian. Plenty of others have made clear and respectful points you should just address them.

Ian, please take Chris’ advice and chill out. Your approach may succeed in chasing off individuals, but you do not win any “hearts and minds” among lurkers, which is really the only point.

Sorry to be late to chime in and now off to bed.

BTW, Richard, you never really addressed my original objections in the top post.
#116 skip
November 10, 2010

I am interested where you get these windmill numbers, or why you even think the cost of windmills as a sole replacement of base load is even interesting, but I don’t want you to be distracted.

Why do you think it [“temperature convergences, even as your own data show *overall warming*, are incompatible with AGW] does[sic]?

Because average temperatures are getting warmer.

AGW predicts that increases in carbon will raise average temperatures. Carbon increased, and so did temps. Your own analysis shows this (even setting aside the question of how reliable it is.)

Warmer is normal, colder is not.

Warmer than what? Colder than what? What is your definition of “normal” and from whence does it come?

Its an utterly amorphous premise with no clear connection to any part of your initial argument, and I wonder if you even realize that you’re switching arguments mid-paragraph. You’ve switched from “temperature convergences, even as average temperatures go up, are *not* compatible with AGW” to, “warmer is better . . . more *normal*.” Again, it is not the same argument, and I genuinely wonder if you even understand that.

And the money analogy is simply bad, Richard, because for all practical purposes more wealth is always better. But more heat is *not* always better. It depends on the species, its ecosystem, and the real limits to how much additional heat helps and when it starts to become a menace.

AGW claims that cold is the default position.

Wrong, Richard.

AGW says that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increasingly trap the sun’s energy in the atmosphere and warm it. The implications of this increased warming over the course of a century and beyond involving the vast and overlapping ecosystems that constitute earthly life and their prospective reaction to it are a massive and separate array of subjects. It is a set of problems that taxes thousands of interested and vested biologists, botanists, oceanographers, and other academics, none of whom are shallow enough to think that a vaguely defined state called “warm” is “normal” or that the question can be resolved on an Excel spreadsheet.

I claim warm is the default position, going cold is a loss of heat that should be there.

Again, how “warm” is “warm”, and does it vary by region and season?

You’re using this completely vague axiom—Warm Is Good—as part of a schizophrenic argument that alternately denies the AGW hypothesis or implicitly concedes it but claims it is beneficial.

I’m not defending the abuse, but this is the type of thing that makes your posts attract ridicule.

My take on you is you’re one of these zany amateur scientists tinkerer types with a really furtive and creative mind but have become unfortunately fixated on a vision of yourself as some sort of iconoclastic giant slayer.

I just read a story in the *Atlantic* about Lonnie Johnson, a guy that’s working on a whole new way of separating electric energy from hydrogen by using solar heat to push ions through a membrane. He previously made millions inventing the Super Soaker and worked at the Jet Propulsion Lab and Naval Weapons College. But his initial aptitude tests as a kid suggested he had no engineering talent. (He was probably too smart for the tests, but being poor and black in Mississippi probably didn’t help him.)

Why not do something like that with your time, Richard?
#117 Ian Forrester
November 10, 2010

Coby, I will make no apologies to Wakefield or anyone else for my posts. If I have a fault it is to call a spade a spade. My tone was not abrasive or insulting but was truthful from what I have learned about Wakefield from previous posts on the internet.

He was the one who started to be abusive with his foul mouthed comments. In my view they were not called for.

In my personal life and in my business life I always consider honesty to be the number one attribute if we are going to get along either as a friend or a business associate. Any hint of dishonesty will get me very agitated and I will not stand for it.

Sorry, but that is the way I am.

[mandas makes a good case in your defense below, I may have jumped the gun on you here, sorry! - coby]
#118 Sab
November 10, 2010

@ Richard 103:
“Sab, you are misunderstanding me. Let me state this clearly so you understand. There are different climate regions of the country. By the climate REGEME is the same. That is, weather events pass through the entire country. Low pressure systems that form in the Pacific can make their way across Canada to the Atlantic causings storms along the way. It is not uncommon for Arctic air masses to follow a jet stream trough all the way down to Florida.

This topic started because I claimed that if the summer temps in Canada are dropping, then so too should, at least, the upper US states. There is only one way to find out. Get the daily temp data.”

Thank you for clarifying your position Richard, much appreciated. I’m sure you understand that climate is actually much more complicated, especially across continents. The climatic regime ALSO varies across the continent. Weather events don’t always pass through the entire country or continent, it just isn’t that simple. Certain areas have more predictable weather patterns than others, of course that only holds true to the extent that we have records for such information.

Take a look at the work coming out of the IPY projects. Those huge changes in the Arctic (e.g. loss of sea ice, plant community responses to drier and warmer conditions) are likely to result in large changes of albedo in the north, with knock-on effects to weather systems elsewhere including on the jet stream.

Back to the discussion about temperature. You have been painting with a very broad brush and I think part of the problem is in talking about artificial (national) boundaries. Areas that are geographically close might be expected to show similar trends in climate, but that depends to a great deal on topography, the direction of prevailing winds, rain shadows, extreme weather events, etc… As a counterpoint to the claim that summer temperatures are getting colder how about that fact that summers across large areas of the Yukon are getting warmer and drier, and spring/summer/autumn is lasting longer?

It could easily be that your analysis for Southern Ontario and the adjoining areas of the US are correct. But over a wider part of the country/continent? I’m afraid it just doesn’t match up to the groundtruthed data we are seeing for BC/Alberta/Yukon/NW Territories.

Thanks
#119 mandas
November 10, 2010

Whenever you take a position on something, it is important to read and analyse the evidence. There has been some criticism from a number of people regarding the ‘debate’ between Ian Forrester and Richard Wakefield. Just so we know what has REALLY occurred, I thought I would review the conversation- with extraneous information from other posters removed. Here it is. It makes interesting reading.

IF: Post #27 – “…He is a certifiable crank. He once suggested that it would take 400,000,000 2MW windmills to supply the US with renewable energy. That is more than 4 windmills for a family of four. Even in the US they are not that big users of energy….”

RW: Post #37 – “…I never said anything of the sort. Where did you get that from? Not me. I said 4 million, not 400 million…… So I’m a crank because you abused a number I didn’t say, nice…..”

IF: Post #60 – “…BTW, 120 GW would be the same as 400,000,000 wind turbines…
http://www.desmogblog.com/stephen-harper-s-right-hand-man-helped-organize-an-anti-kyoto-astroturf-group
So we can now add honesty challenged to the list of challenges I put up earlier….”

(I clicked on the link and confirmed that it indeed say exactly what Ian suggested that it did. I even found some more information that I commented on in my post #61, where I showed that RW attempted to deny a source that he provided which he thought supported him – but didn’t).

RW: Post #79 – “…You are showing your distain and ignorance more than trying to make me look stupid….”

RW: Post #82 – “…Either appologize, or piss off. No more posts from me until you people become civil, like you were asked to be….”

IF: Post #83 – “…No more posts from you, Wakefield until you can be more honest. You have been constantly shown things that you say but accuse others of putting those words in your mouth. Of course it is very easy to cut and paste and show that you actually said them. Why should we believe your statistical analysis when you are a proven liar and your “data” are shown to be wrong by a paper you say agrees with you? …. You should stay away until you can behave in an honest manner. This trait of yours (dishonesty) has been shown up for a number of years as you have spread your lies and rubbish over many science blogs….”

RW: Post #85 – “….Fuck you all. This thread is over….”

RW: Post #88 – “…Why should I stay and be subjected to verbal abuse, would you? I was quite willing to defend my analysis, quite willing to engage in RATIONAL discussions, but not this, and not insinuating remarks I never made. Fix those first. Not one appolgy for the abuse is very telling of the tone of the crowd here….”

RW: Post #90 – “…I will think about this I have much more important work to do (I’m actually working on someone’s website at the same time here) than spend time trying to defend against insults….”

IF: Post #92 – “…Wakefield, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who constantly lies, distorts data and misinterprets graphs. You are the abuser, not me, you are abusing science and scientists with your dishonest comments here and elsewhere…. His posts are an insult to scientists everywhere….”

RW: Post #94 – “…Ian goes or I do….”

IF: Post #99 (in response to ‘frothy-mouthed rantings’ criticism from Chris) – “…Science is based on honesty and truth thus anyone who behaves in a manner contrary to how science is conducted should be shown for what he is. Why do you treat people like Wakefield with kid gloves? He does not deserve the respect that you seem to think he deserves….”

RW: Post #101 – “…Ian, you are on the verge of being publicly liable. Provide one example of where I have stated anything knowly was false. Prove I have lied. Otherwise, back off….”

IF: Post #102 – “…Wakefield, 400,000,000 windmills for one. Want me to show how many more times you have lied?…”

RW: Post #104 – “…You are blind? I aleady stated I NEVER said that. Show me where I have. Guess I better call my lawyer…”

IF: Post #106 – “…Wakefield, see my post #60. Do you deny that it was you who wrote on Desmogblog…”

Skip checked that Ian had quoted Wakefield correctly, and he confirmed it at Post #107 (just like I had at Post #61). There was then a short exchange between Ian and Chris again.

RW: Post #110 – “…No link to it, no idea if that is true. If it is I was wrong then, the numbers are 4 million. Being wrong is not lying. You claimed I lied….”

(oh really?? What about post #60, and skip’s and my verification??)

RW: Post #111 – “…OK, that was wrong then, don’t remeber it. So be it. Honest mistake. Not wrong now….”

So looks like he finally did the right thing and actually checked his previous statements – possibly by following the link that Ian had provided 50 posts previously. No apology though, even though he had constantly demanded one from Ian for supposedly libeling him. And to make matters worse, not only didn’t he apologise, he actually skewed it into an insult against the person who had called him out for lying.

RW: Post #112 – “…Ian, you are a prime example of someone who will do and say anything to discredit anyone who disagrees with your faith. You are proof of what Coby was unhappy about my calling people like you the AGW faithful…. Now I came here to discuss science not try to defend myself from people like you. So if you are not interested in discussing the science, simply piss off and let the rest of us get on with it. I’m not going to take your verbal garbage any more….”

To be quite frank, I am fully, 100% behind Ian on this one. RW has shown himself to be a liar; a peddler of nonsensical pseudo-scientific garbage; someone who completely misrepresents the principles underpinning the theory he is supposedly criticising; completely impervious to facts and evidence; totally unable to respond to simple questions from people like skip and myself who have asked him – repeatedly – to state his own theory and why he thinks his work is in anyway counter to AGW; and someone who abuses and threatens (but does not follow through) when he does not get his own way.

Sorry coby, but I think you are wrong on this one. I think Ian has shown restraint, and has been totally justified in everything he has said. If anything, I have been the one who has been more abrasive (rude?), but I also feel I have been justified calling a spade an agricultural, earth-moving implement.
#120 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

Sab, you are civil, you get my replies.

Take a look at the work coming out of the IPY projects. Those huge changes in the Arctic (e.g. loss of sea ice, plant community responses to drier and warmer conditions) are likely to result in large changes of albedo in the north, with knock-on effects to weather systems elsewhere including on the jet stream.

Why would your a priori position be that all this change must be from our CO2 emissions? Is it not possible at all that there is normal variation? Of course, you will have to say yes. Then the question becomes, how do you parse out the normal variation from that which is speculated to be caused from AGW? In other words, what physical evidence is there that links these changes to CO2?

Ask yourself this question. If we could turn back the clock 200 years, remove humans from the planet, would what we see happening now happen then too?

BC and Alb data is on the site. They too are seeing a drop in max temp. As for the Arctic, there isn’t much data on what the temps were prior to the 1960′ or 1970′s. So nothing to compare it too.

However, it does beg the question. What happened in the Arctic during the MWP?

how about that fact that summers across large areas of the Yukon are getting warmer and drier, and spring/summer/autumn is lasting longer?

You have the data for that? I’d like to see it. But it still begs the question. How do you know this isn’t normal variation? What physical evidence is there that CO2 is causing this? Don’t cite computer models, that is not evidence. Just stating that CO2 is also increasing is not good enough. Correlation is not evidence of causation.

As I have noted before, there is no underlying reason to reject that the current warming trend happened first, and gave us industrialization.
#121 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

BTW, Richard, you never really addressed my original objections in the top post.

With the shotgun bombardment I have recieved here, I’m not sure what you are refering to. So can you repeat or be specific please.
#122 mandas
November 10, 2010

RW

“…..But it still begs the question. How do you know this isn’t normal variation? What physical evidence is there that CO2 is causing this?…”

There is over 150 years of science and evidence that CO2 absorbs LWR, and that increases in CO2 increases the heat content of a gaseous mixture. Aware you really unaware of that?

And how about you answer the question that has been asked over and over and over again. What is causing the ‘natural variation’? Pretty simple really.
#123 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

Coby, maybe don’t bother. Seems obvious to me that few here have an open mind to looking at things differently.

Sab if you are interested in continued civil dialog email me.

Coby, may I suggest you do not invite another skeptic here again. It is clear the Dogma of AGW is well entrenched with your followers. (did you get this kind of abuse at JudithCurry? No. People were civil). They will go down kicking and screaming when the boat sinks. Let me inform you that the public is way ahead of you on this. The vast majority of people think AGW is a scam. Don’t believe me? Go read comments to newspaper posts, and the poll SA did that blew up in their face. The costs of “fixing” AGW is proving too much for governments, and are starting to move away from AGW. People are getting screwed with huge energy bills and losing their homes, they’ve had enough of AGW scare mongering.

The rest of you, well, I kinda feel sorry for you.
#124 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

<1>What is causing the ‘natural variation’? Pretty simple really.

Obviously you don’t think there can be any normal natural variation. But how about this. The same processes that produced natural variation for the past 4.5 billion years. Pretty simple really.
#125 Richard Wakefield
November 10, 2010

There is over 150 years of science and evidence that CO2 absorbs LWR, and that increases in CO2 increases the heat content of a gaseous mixture. Aware you really unaware of that?

Mandas, answer this. Was the increase in average temp from 1800 to 1945 from our emissions of CO2?
#126 skip
November 10, 2010

The vast majority of people think AGW is a scam. Don’t believe me? Go read comments to newspaper posts, and the poll SA did that blew up in their face.

Not technically true, but not relevant either. It is either true or it isn’t regardless how many have been swayed by arguments such as yours.

People are getting screwed with huge energy bills and losing their homes, they’ve had enough of AGW scare mongering.

As a result of what actions?

The rest of you, well, I kinda feel sorry for you.

Your concern is appreciated.

The same processes that produced natural variation for the past 4.5 billion years. Pretty simple really.

There was no climate 4.5 billion years ago, because there was no atmosphere.

Sab, you will tell us how your correspondence with RW goes, right?
#127 mandas
November 10, 2010

“…..Obviously you don’t think there can be any normal natural variation. But how about this. The same processes that produced natural variation for the past 4.5 billion years. Pretty simple really….”

There is no clearer indication that RW is not a scientist, never has been a scientist, and never will be a scientist. To answer that the currently observed changes in the climate are exactly the same as all past changes in climate, without attempting to explain:

a – what caused those previous changes; and
b – without examining whether the same causes exist today.

is nothing short of the sort of explanation from a creationist, not a scientist.

RW, scientists observe things happening, then try to deduce and explain WHY those things are happening. You have observed something is happening, and your only explanation is that it is the same as what has happened in the past (where is your evidence for this?), and that everyone else who has an alternate explanation to you is wrong. And you then go off on a politically motivated diatribe about scams, boats sinking, comments to newspapers from the public, energy bills and scare-mongering.

You have shown your true colours. You are not a scientist and know nothing about the scientific method. You do not want a rational debate; you just want to thrust your ill-considered and non-evidence based views down our throats. Ian was very light on you.

You disgust me.
#128 Sab
November 10, 2010

[i]Why would your a priori position be that all this change must be from our CO2 emissions? Is it not possible at all that there is normal variation? Of course, you will have to say yes. Then the question becomes, how do you parse out the normal variation from that which is speculated to be caused from AGW? In other words, what physical evidence is there that links these changes to CO2?[/i]

Well to be fair I didn’t say that my a priori position was that *all* of this change must be from our CO2 emissions. Lets not forget industrialsed farming and forestry practices, to say nothing of urbanisation, that change the albedo of the surface. Of course there is normal variation in climate, that is not a debating point among scientists. Greater minds than you or I spend a lot of time and effort working on figuring out what the different contributing factors are. Climate is complicated, that is the overwhelming answer But here’s the kicker: Human activity has changed the composition of the atmosphere. This we know. We also know the basic physics of the effects of our outputs. To assume that changing the composition of the atmosphere would not have *some* effect on climate is profoundly stupid, given that we know other species have changed the composition of the atmosphere in the past (its why we’re having this conversation at all). The problem facing us is not figuring out the specific contribution to warming of the vast increase in CO2 due to human activities. It is that we have become increasingly aware of the complexity of the positive and negative feedbacks going on in the atmosphere and in ecosystems across the planet. We are dealing with complex systems that can be perturbed in ways that produce unpredictable outcomes. We are talking here about a world of emergent properties into which we have been pumping vast amounts of crap and are now hoping that we haven’t created an irreversible change with uncertain outcomes.

[i]Ask yourself this question. If we could turn back the clock 200 years, remove humans from the planet, would what we see happening now happen then too?[/i]

In this impossible scenario we would see no spike in CO2/methane emissions due to human activity. We know that CO2 warms the atmosphere and acidifies the oceans, so we would likely see less of that. Its a moot point really though, unless you have a means of viewing alternate universes?

[i]BC and Alb data is on the site. They too are seeing a drop in max temp. As for the Arctic, there isn’t much data on what the temps were prior to the 1960′ or 1970′s. So nothing to compare it too.[/i]

I’d have to say that this is incorrect. BC data at least indicates increasing temperatures in winter and summer. There are multi-decade datasets available for the arctic although I dont deal with them specifically but will look around and see what collegues have been working with. Given that these are the most important areas for detection of warming patterns I hope you can agree its an important place to take into account when trying to suggest general trends for the continent?

[i]You have the data for that? I’d like to see it. But it still begs the question. How do you know this isn’t normal variation? What physical evidence is there that CO2 is causing this? Don’t cite computer models, that is not evidence. Just stating that CO2 is also increasing is not good enough. Correlation is not evidence of causation.[/i]

First of all say what you mean by normal variation. What time period are you talking about? In the lifetime of which human communities (which is what it all comes down to really, arguing about saving the planet is well and good, but what we are really interested in is our future survival)? That correlation is not evidence of causation is something on the minds of all scientists working in areas related to climate. And all science one would hope. Yet saying that increasing CO2 is irrelevant is flat out wrong, because we know that more CO2 in the atmosphere means more trapped solar radiation in the atmosphere.

Get this: *Even if* there was a general warming trend in the atmosphere already (which I believe is your hypothesis) human activity has and continues to increase this supposed warming. i.e. makes its impacts more rapid and unpredictable. Rapid and unpredictable changes in the atmospere sound like fun don’t they? Okay I’m being flippant, but surely you must understand that even in your proposed scenario human-caused CO2 emissions are a problem.

As for how we know this isn’t ‘normal variation’ comes down to many factors including how we define ‘normal variation’. There are many sources pointing towards changes being non-normal (whatever normal is): local knowledge about animal species distributions and how they have changed over several generations; shifts in species composition of plant and microbial communities; changes in growth patterns of plant species; loss of multi-year sea-ice. I can’t ennumerate them all, but I’m sure you can search for them. I know you are fixation solely on CO2 levels and the best place to look for direct impacts of CO2 are in ocean acidification. Take home message: its complicated, and everyone knows its complicated, but that doesn’t mean we cant derive the trends or figure out some of the contributing factors.

[i]As I have noted before, there is no underlying reason to reject that the current warming trend happened first, and gave us industrialization.[/i]

So the spike in emissions of gases during the industrial age, that we know contribute to warming the atmosphere (again its why we are having this conversation), is coincidence? Do you contend that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are somehow special and do not contribute to effects on climate? We are taking carbon that was locked up in the crust and in plants and putting it into the atmosphere. Seriously, how can that not have an effect?

I’m probably blabbering by this point as its late and I’m on pain-killers. Have fun working through this post eh?
#129 mandas
November 10, 2010

Adelady

I know you do your research, and I know that you realise it is getting hotter here in Adelaide (you know, on the southern edge of the continent some 3,000 km from Darwin), but I thought I would show you these graphs, showing the trends in minimum and maximum temperatures in South Australia. Makes you think doesn’t it:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=sa&season=0112&ave_yr=0

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmin&area=sa&season=0112&ave_yr=0

I would show you the mean temperature, but three links forces the post into moderation. Anyway, if you go to the link you can check it out for yourself. Indeed, anyone (!!) can.
#130 mandas
November 10, 2010

“…. If you took the time to look through the whole site you will have seen two things. First that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station. Summers are cooling…..But what of the rest of the world? Again, had you continued with the site you would have found reference to the exact same thing found in Ireland and Australia…..Because of my site I now have someone in Australia who has access to world daily temp data and is presently doing the same thing as I did. My prediction is this trend is world wide. If world wide, AGW is dead in the water….”

So, since I have shown the prediction to be wrong (note the BOM graphs linked to above) can we move on now?
#131 Marco
November 10, 2010

Richard, I am talking about phylogenetic extinction. Regardless, you still have not told us why you think human sapiens sapiens will be able to withstand the evolutionary pressure. Homo neanderthalensis could not withstand evolutionary pressure and disappeared. One hypothesis points to rapid climate changes as a major factor in their disappearance.

Do note that I do not think homo sapiens sapiens will go extinct. It’s going to be life, but not as we know it…

Finally, Richard Wakefield can take this little comparison and draw his own conclusion about using polls:
In the latest Rasmussen energy poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update
39% of respondents indicated global warming is caused by humans
A Gallup poll on evolution
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx
shows that 39% of Americans believe in evolution.

Note that this places Americans far down the list of civilised countries in terms of acceptance of the theory of evolution. The UK isn’t doing much better.
#132 Chris S.
November 11, 2010

This thread is worthy of WUWT. mandas provides the Forrester-Wakefield back and forth above, meanwhile the following remain largely unanswered:
adelady @#1, 32, 35, 75
M @#7
skip @#9, 11, 24, 58
MartinM @#13
Richard Simons @#34
mandas @#49, 51, 55
marco @#62, 75
me @#63, 86
JBowers @#64
and, of course our host, who asked us to play nice…
#133 coby
November 11, 2010

Ah well, I guess Richard’s mind is pretty firmly made up. It’s not easy being ganged up on, but I think the fracturing of the dialogue was in no small part due to the fact that he raised more new issues in each of his posts than he addressed ones already on the table. Most of them have ready answers:
climate change is natural
it has been warmer before
correlation is not causation
natural is the null hypothesis
recovering from the LIA
no proof it is CO2

and other standards were in there too.

Richard, if you are still bothering, the following straightforward questions have gone unanswered:
1 – “natural” is not an explanation. Past changes do have their own and different explanations where the data allows. If not CO2 today, then what?
2 – why do you think winters warming more than/instead of summers is a. of less concern to ecosystems than warming summers and b. a contradiction of AGW theories?
3 – what do you mean by “normal” climate? How have you determined this to be normal
4 – how is the “tropical paradise” of 400M ya relevant to today’s flora and fauna?

My unanswered objections in the top post are
A. winters warming faster than summers are cooling (if true) is still a warming climate on average so what is the problem/deception with the globally and seasonaly averaged temperature reconstructions? and
B. it is simplistic, naive and wrong to believe that large daily temperature flucuations mean small climatic shifts are not important.

It is true that I did not get the rough treatment at Curry’s place you did here, but others did absolutely and the reasons I didn’t are because I articulated my points carefully, I stayed focused on one or two issues at a time, I did not use loaded rhetoric.

My personal opinion is that it takes two for a dialogue to become a flame war but it only takes one to calm things down and make it useful again.
#134 skip
November 11, 2010

There are a couple of minor problems with the dynamic here, myself being no small part of either.

First, you have about a half dozen of us who lurk on this blog and defend home turf like dogs of war guarding the castle gate.

Second, pretty much all of said dogs have (a) tasted blood and (b) are just sick of reading the same bullshit over and over and over, so we’re jaded, pissy, and prone to insulting language on a continuum that runs with Chris and Coby at the mild end, myself somewhere in the middle, and Mandas and Ian at the other extreme. Because Coby doesn’t censor anybody like they do at RC, there’s more of a street brawl ethic. Someone like Richard gets the beat down that posters have practiced on Crakar for years.

Third, the result of all this is that a quack like Richard gets set upon by the pack, and because he’s so self-deluded he decides that he’s a victim of persecution (the Galileo meme) instead of just a bullshitter with a poor set of arguments.

There are probably some ways of addressing this, but ultimately none of these three issues is the key problem when you get someone like Richard, who is as full of himself as he is of absurdity. I mean, here’s a guy who thinks he’s brought down a scientific paradigm with his spreadsheet, boasts of his great victory over Genesis geology, and simply ignores any question that lends itself to difficult answers. Face it, with some of the heavies that post here around there’s no way he’s not going to get bruised.

But maybe there is some way in the future, when everyone is engaged on someone like Richard, that we could coordinate responses to particular discussants in one post under a collective banner–for the purposes of efficiency and lurkers. As probably the least technically educated and skilled among the “regulars” who appear on this site I certainly have no problem standing down and letting Mandas, Chris, Coby, etc. take the lead on this, just so long as my suggestions were heard and considered. I mean, when I ask someone like Richard a question its because I think its important.

Anyway, I’m emotionally with Ian on the particular case of Richard, but I also wonder if our “pack mentality” constitutes overkill in a case like his.
#135 Richard Wakefield
November 11, 2010

http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/10/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-%e2%80%9cbig-table%e2%80%9d/

“On Nov 17, the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment is holding a hearing on “Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response.””

And so starts the formal end of AGW.
#136 skip
November 11, 2010

See what I mean?

Richard thinks vacuous bravado is argumentation.

No reaching this guy, but leaner, meaner response strategies might be feasible.
#137 Marco
November 11, 2010

I guess Richard thinks that several people in that meeting are going to say that AGW is a hoax. Curry may get closest of actually saying so, and even *she* does not think it is a hoax.

Titley will be the most interesting to hear. Interesting for the deniosphere, that is. He will explain how the US Navy is already making plans, based on the projections of the IPCC, for future possibilities. Note, those include major conflicts due to climate change.

Richard is going to be soooooo disappointed!
#138 mandas
November 11, 2010

skip (et al)

You do have a point about a ‘pack mentality’, and its also interesting to see you put me at the ‘nasty’ end of the debate (ok – fair call!).

But as you have also pointed out, we have seen this before and after a while you get extremely jaded with the standard denialist position. If someone wants to have a reasonable, rational debate, then I am all for it and will happily take a reasonable, rational position as well.

But this was not the case here, and it is rarely the case with these people. A reasonable, rational debate involves using logic and evidence to support your case, and evaluating any contrary evidence to see how it may support or run counter to your views/theory/hypothesis. But…. RW et al are completely impervious to evidence and logic. We have provided mountains of evidence and logic which demonstrate unequivocably that he is wrong. Just the simple question that you asked, ‘why do your findings provide AGW is false?’ was never answered, nor was the other obvious question asked by me (and others) as to what supposed ‘natural cycle’ was causing the observed temperature increases. There were also the obvious ridiculous statements about ‘it’s happening in Ontario so therefore it is happening all over the world’ and ‘it is not getting hotter, just less cold’. I mean, really!!!!

I can go on and on – I provided conclusive data from Australia which falsified his original prediction but still there is absolutely no acknowledgement of this. RW (and people like him) do not come here to have a rational debate based on facts and evidence – if they did then they would actually present some, and listen to the other side and acknowledge relevant points. They come here solely to try to demonstrate their superiority over we ‘dogmatic warmists’, and laud how they have proven climate scientists are either idiots or liars, seeking to impose socialist world government and to make money from our lies.

To be frank, it gets tiresome VERY quickly, and I for one am getting heartily sick of idiots who are totally impervious to facts. This is not just an intellectual debate about philosophical issues here – this is the future of the ecosystem that we rely on for our livelihoods and well being. You know – the world our children and grandchildren will have to live in. I am not sure if you have kids skip, but I know coby has a couple of young ones, and I have young grandchildren. I want them to grow up in a world that is not falling apart because of diminishing resources, failing ecosystems and conflict within an ever growing human population which is exceeding the carrying capacity of the very environment it relies on.

People like RW are not interested in facts and evidence. They take a politically motivated worldview based solely on an unquestioning belief in the ‘right’ wing of politics. You can see that from his most recent posts, where he finally revealed his true nature. Talk about scams etc, then his obvious joy that the republican party will try to tear down efforts to combat AGW; prejudging a supposed rational hearing into the issue.

AGW is a direct result of human over-population. The obvious solution is for his ilk to stop breathing.
#139 skip
November 11, 2010

I am not sure if you have kids skip, but I know coby has a couple of young ones, and I have young grandchildren. I want them to grow up in a world that is not falling apart because of diminishing resources . . .

Twins in January–and yes, it is a shared sentiment.
#140 mandas
November 11, 2010

Well congrats there. I must have missed that at the time, or you kept it quiet.
Despite having grandchildren (me – not my wife), my wife and I are trying for kids at the moment – IVF. Maybe overpopulation will be my fault.
#141 skip
November 11, 2010

I lived in the US for a year and my accent opened a few things other than doors…. but you probably didn’t want to know about that!

Posted by: mandas | September 22, Monckton thread.

Maybe overpopulation will be my fault. –Mandas

I see, and it all comes together now. And you’re right: the vision of you violating pure American womanhood in this overpopulation project (not to mention whatever sheep contagions were transmitted in the process) is enough to squelch any deeper inquiry!
#142 coby
November 12, 2010

Ewe!! :-p
#143 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

Environmentalists ‘exaggerated’ threat to tropical rainforests from global warming

The threat to tropical rainforests from climate change may have been exaggerated by environmentalists, according to a new study.

Researchers have shown that the world’s tropical forests thrived in the far distant past when temperatures were 3 to 5C warmer than today.

They believe that a wetter, warmer future may actually boost plants and animals living the tropics.
The findings, published in the respected journal Science, come from a study of pollen trapped in rocks during a natural period of global warming 56.3million years ago.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1328853/Environmentalists-exaggerated-threat-tropical-rainforests-global-warming.html#ixzz154pd6YFm

———-

Coby, going to answer my email?
#144 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

IPCC Climate Science Is Fundamentally Wrong: Carbon Footprint is All Wet

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29657

In his book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, William Kininmonth, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre says, “The simple one-dimensional energy balance model used by the IPCC to justify its radiative forcing hypothesis is unrealistic in its portrayal of processes at the earth-atmosphere interface.” The IPCC model suggests that the heat and latent energy exchange between the underlying surface and the atmosphere is a direct response to the imbalance of solar energy and terrestrial radiation at the surface. Such a proposal is at odds with the physics of the surface energy exchange processes.” It’s one of many errors made to achieve a result; actions that are the opposite of even poor science.
#145 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

Glacier Experts Rubbish IPCC Apocalypse Claims
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/09/proper_glacier_estimate/

No Cause For Alarm Over Sea Level Or Ice Sheets
http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/1837-no-cause-for-alarm-over-sea-level-or-ice-sheets.html

World’s Forests Can Adapt To Climate Change, Study Says
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/11/climate-change-forests-water-amazon
#146 Ian Forrester
November 12, 2010

WOW, Wakefield reads the Daily Mail and the Canada Free Press.

Now we know why he is always wrong.
#147 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

“Now we know why he is always wrong.”

So because I read the Daily Mail means the Science paper on warmer tropics being better is wrong. Interesting logic.
#148 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

World’s Forests Can Adapt To Climate Change, Study Says

The Guardian, 12 November 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/11/climate-change-forests-water-amazon

“Rather than global warming, the [trouble] for tropical plants is deforestation. The fossil record shows that, when you don’t have humans around, the plants can deal with high temperatures and CO2.”

No Cause For Alarm Over Sea Level Or Ice Sheets
http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/1837-no-cause-for-alarm-over-sea-level-or-ice-sheets.html

“Two favourites of sea level alarmists are Tuvalu and the Maldives. Sea level measurements for Tuvalu (and 10 other stations) between 1992 and 2006 are available on Fig. 13 on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website (PDF 1.97MB). For about the past eight years the sea level seems to be virtually constant.”
#149 coby
November 12, 2010

Hi Richard,

I am planning to answer your email.

About your quote in comment #144, as a skeptic, have you verified that the IPCC relies on a single one-dimensional energy balance model? And who’s hypothesis is the “radiative forcing hypothesis”? The IPCC does not do any original research.

About your quote in #143, as a skeptic, did you read the actual paper or rely on a popular press account? Also did you read to the end of that article where is says:

British forest expert Dr Simon Lewis of Leeds University said warmer, wetter weather could boost rain-forests. However, if climate change led to more droughts, it could be disastrous for regions like the Amazon.
In the last five years, the Amazon has experienced two ‘one in a century’ droughts, he said.

‘The 2005 Amazon drought was widely characterised as an unusual 1-in-100 year event, which caused tree deaths leading to rotting trees releasing over four billion tonnes of carbon dioxide,’ he said.

‘And now in 2010, another drought has stuck, which initial analyses show is more extensive than 2005, even though it is only five years later.

‘These droughts are consistent with model projections showing a die-back of the Amazon, further accelerating climate change in a dangerous loop.

‘The new paper is useful, but doesn’t address present-day concerns of drought-impacts that affect the forest itself and the millions of people who live there.’

The speed of modern day man-made climate change was much faster than the global warming of 60million years ago, he added.

Or did you stop reading after the portion that fits your preconceptions?
#150 GGMcGreedy
November 12, 2010

RW,
Have to totally concur with Coby at #149. To reference the part of that Daily Mail article that suits your preconceptions, but leave out the bulk of the article which gives the opposite position is quite unacceptable and very, very misleading.
Why you would do so when you must know you would be called out on it is beyond me.
The only conclusion is that you were so quick to make a point that you didn’t actually read the article in its entirety. Either that, or you are somewhat clueless.
If it’s credibility you’re after, you’re really going about it the wrong way.
I’m getting the feeling you are wasting everyone’s time here. Your true position is looking less scientific by the moment, and seems to be one fuelled by some anti-IPCC angst.
#151 Ian Forrester
November 12, 2010

Wakefield said:

So because I read the Daily Mail means the Science paper on warmer tropics being better is wrong.

Mm seems it is your logic that is lacking. Since you neither linked to the actual Science paper nor gave a reference to it (a common tactic by deniers so that it takes a great deal of effort to track down original papers to see if the comments made are correct or not). You have used someone’s interpretation of the paper who may not have understood it, or misinterpreted the results. You then cherry picked bits that suited your denier agenda and reported that. As Coby has shown, you are of course wrong again.

Coby, I know that deniers hate to have their rubbish posts censored but is it possible to set aside a thread labeled “garbage can” and when they post scientific garbage the posts are moved there and a picture of a garbage can is shown as their post? I know that this would keep posts a lot more civil because then the scientists who frequent this blog would not be subject to the (scientific) insults posted by the scientifically challenged deniers.
#152 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

“Or did you stop reading after the portion that fits your preconceptions?”

Read it all. The rest was not science but opinion. The point is, does this study mean anything to you? Did I not previously say that warmer and more CO2 is better, especially in the tropics? Then this comes out. You have a problem with this, then contact the authors of the paper.

Shooting the messenger is not science, but attempts to maintain the faith.
#153 skip
November 12, 2010

Coby, have we found our new Crakar?

Richard, you didn’t vet your sources carefully, did you? Your link cites the National Academy of Sciences as an authority on glacial melt. Does this mean that you acknowledge the NAS as an authority?

(By the way, the IPCC long ago acknowledged the mistake in Himalayan glacial melt projections. Its neither a secret nor a key aspect of climate change science.)

From your link:

The scientists’ article Contribution potential of glaciers to water availability in different climate regimes is published (free as of press time) in the Proceedings of the [US] National Academy of Sciences. They write:

“We find that the seasonally delayed glacier contribution is largest where rivers enter seasonally arid regions and negligible in the lowlands of river basins governed by monsoon climates. By comparing monthly glacier melt contributions with population densities in different altitude bands within each river basin, we demonstrate that strong human dependence on glacier melt is not collocated with highest population densities in most basins.”

“By all means, the expected climatic development may have detrimental effects for smaller high-mountain communities,” comments Kaser.

Which means they do not question the truth of AGW, Richard, only the specific projection of 2035 Himalayan glacial melt.
But this gets even more embarrassing for you, Richard. The National Academy of Sciences has made their position on climate change very, very clear:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/20/science/la-sci-climate-change-20100520-6

In a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap-and-trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.

Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary because “climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming … concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,” . . .
#154 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

“have you verified that the IPCC relies on a single one-dimensional energy balance model? ”

I havnt read Kininmonth’s book, ask him.
#155 coby
November 12, 2010

Richard, you are confusing the world in a different climate with the world in a rapidly changing climate. I refer you again to this article and the problems it uncovers with your point.

Also, I thought #64 made a good example in that vein that you never responded to, that being that in the climate you seem to think would be a paradise, the main food crops humanity relies on today were a rarity. We, and all the ecosystems of this planet, have adapted and evolved for the climate as it currently is. Any change, warm cold or sidewise, will represent a challenge to the biosphere and a very rapid change is likely a disaster, not for the planet, it doesn’t care, but for those of us who live on it in its current state.
#156 skip
November 12, 2010

I see the gangs’ all here.

Richard, this is by the way, an old and tired tactic that unscientifically trained or inclined deniers use all the time: carpet blog bombing.

“Here’s a whole bunch of links that prove my point! How you like them apples!”

Having seen the process numerous times, I can give a rough outline of the Phases of Climate Denial Metaphysical Rebellion (apologies to Sartre)that you will go through.

Phase 1: You will continue to bomb us with links, cocksure they prove something about “alarmism” being a “hoax” or that AGW is “fraud”, and so forth.

Phase 2: People on this forum are going to eventually look at every link, track down every original source, see what those original sources do and do not say, and confront you with it. (And God help you if cite something wrongly on Mandas’s watch.)

Phase 3: You will change your story/backtrack/switch the subject/accuse us of being dogmatic/avoid answering direct questions or some creative new tactic to avoid facing that you’ve cited something that has no credibility or does not prove your point.

Phase 4: You will be called on these tactics of evasions by the aforementioned contributors.

Phase 5: You will be unable to process the simple fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about and no basis from which to be saying it. (After all, you see yourself as the man that brought down AGW with his spreadsheet analysis and stuck it to the creationists when everyone else was at a loss for a response.)

So, you will invent a new narrative: You’re being personally abused and persecuted because we simple minded climate drones cannot appreciate your genius and/or the paucity of our own arguments.

Phase 6: You will eventually trade a series of insults and obscenities with Ian and Mandas, and in this one regard I imagine you will give as good as you get. (Precedent shows that I’ll be a collateral casualty . . . but please, whatever you do, don’t call me a . . . oh I can’t even say it . . . *nincompoop*.)

To some extent this process has already partially played out but let’s see if my debate modeling is as good as Hansen on climate predictions.
#157 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

The National Academy of Sciences, the APS and others are under attack from their members over this political position of these organizations. Or did you miss this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/06/another-letter-from-hal-lewis-to-the-american-physical-society/
#158 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

Also, I thought #64 made a good example in that vein that you never responded to, that being that in the climate you seem to think would be a paradise, the main food crops humanity relies on today were a rarity. We, and all the ecosystems of this planet, have adapted and evolved for the climate as it currently is. Any change, warm cold or sidewise, will represent a challenge to the biosphere and a very rapid change is likely a disaster, not for the plane, it doesn’t care, but for those of us who live on it in its current state.

What does that have to do with CO2 emissions? Such would happen in a normal change of climate. There have been civilizations in the past that suffered normal climate change and lost crops (the LIA for one). Doesn’t mean such changes are from us. And doesn’t mean we can “fix” the climate to conform to what we need.

Return of a LIA would be far worse for us, as history has shown.
#159 Ian Forrester
November 12, 2010

here is an interesting quote from Tamino’s Open Mind site concerning anti-science trolls such as Wakefield:

P.S. When your future comments disappear, rest assured it’s not because they’re hard to deal with. It’s for the same reason your previous comments have been edited: because you failed to rise above the stupid threshold.

How about having a “stupidity threshold” here Coby?
#160 skip
November 12, 2010

The National Academy of Sciences, the APS and others are under attack from their members over this political position of these organizations.

This was one member of APS.

Remember what I predicted:

You will change your story/backtrack/switch the subject/accuse us of being dogmatic/avoid answering direct questions . . .

So, let me re-ask the direct question:

Your link cites the National Academy of Sciences as an authority on glacial melt. Does this mean that you acknowledge the NAS as an authority?
#161 coby
November 12, 2010

Richard,

In #157 you are engaging in an argument from authority, in this case presenting the authority of one particular member of one of the mentioned organizations as carrying more weight than the authority of the both entire organizations. This is not a scientific argument, it is dogmatic.

It is also ironic because it is you who presented something from the NAS to make a point. When shown that the actual source document did not support your case, your response was to say that because of Hal Lewis and the APS we can’t trust the NAS. Well why did you bring them in to the dialogue?

#154 is similarily an argument from authority, you quoted Kininmonth and you haven’t read his work and when I question your comment you say “go read him”. Why should I, his comment about IPCC models is very confused.

I understand you feel under the gun, but this is really not indicative of any kind of careful thought whatsoever, and is pretty much the opposite of skepticism. My comment at Curry’s place was motivated by this kind of behaviour, which I see al the time.

You did not accept or indicate what is wrong with my point in #155: rapid change is the issue, not final equilibrium climate.
[update: I see you did, ignore the above]
#162 coby
November 12, 2010

Richard #158:

Your argument was that 400M ya was great, I was addressing that. Do you understand yet that this misses the point that change is the problem? You do allude to understanding that though you are changing the subject rather than advancing a dialogue.

What does it have to do with CO2? CO2 is the primary driver of the current change. This is another topic, I think the onus is on you to propose an alternative, something other than “natural changes”, something with a concrete cause
#163 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

Your link cites the National Academy of Sciences as an authority on glacial melt. Does this mean that you acknowledge the NAS as an authority?

Argument from authority has no place in science. So yes, I don’t care what a politically motivated group running the NAS has to say.
#164 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

rapid change is the issue, not final equilibrium climate.

What evidence do you have that rapid change is an issue? And that “rapid” change has never happened before? What change happening now is “rapid”? How do you measure something relative without some baseline?

Your argument was that 400M ya was great, I was addressing that. Do you understand yet that this misses the point that change is the problem? You do allude to understanding that though you are changing the subject rather than advancing a dialogue.

The past 400million years was great, it produced humans. You are here because of that 400 million years of evolution. Change is not the problem, change is normal. That’s why there is biological evolution, organisms responding to change, regardless of the rate. How many species have gone extinct because of this “rapid” change? Zero.

What does it have to do with CO2? CO2 is the primary driver of the current change.

That’s the theory, not fact. You are confusing events with mechanisms. The climate is changing that is the observed events. The mechanism that causes that change is the theory. I have asked and it has been ignored, how do you parse out natural change from human caused change?

This is another topic, I think the onus is on you to propose an alternative, something other than “natural changes”, something with a concrete cause

I believe there are Hobbits living up the street in the side of a hill. Is the onus on you to show that there are no Hobbits, or on me to provide the evidence there is?

As a skeptic I don’t have to provide ANYTHING in the way of explaining what is happening. The onus in science is on the people giving the POSITIVE evidence, in your case “CO2 is the primary driver of the current change.” There is no discriminatory evidence that would support that premise. What change is happening in the climate that has a direct link to CO2 emissions? Changing temperature is not discriminatory because there can be natural reasons for that to change.

You tend to ignore my analogies, but I will give it a try again as to what I mean.

A pulp and paper company decides to put a plant on a lake in Northern Ontario. Big facilities, hiring hundreds. New town opens up, people buy new homes, settle in for what looks to be long term work. 10 years goes by, and environmentalists, who hate such industries, do water analysis on the lake and find high levels of mercury in the fish. They sound the alarms blaming it on the mill. “there is no natural way the mercury can get there, it must be man made” is the slogan. The mill fights back, it can’t be them, but the environmentalists fight harder getting the political ear. Lawsuits start against the company, and eventually the mill closes, the town becomes worthless and everyone moves out losing their equity. Victory for the environmentalists.

10 more years goes by and a PhD geology student working in the area discovers a pegmatite dike which runs under the lake. Having some interesting mineralization, he decides to drill the lake bottom in the winter. He finds the lake is there because of a slip fault, and along the slip fault where it meets the pegmatite dike he finds high mineralization of cinnabar.

So the source of the mercury was natural all along. Until further research showed that, the ASSUMPTION was humans must have caused it because we all know paper mills pollute.

I see the exact same thing with AGW. Your claim is that CO2 is doing the causation for the observed changes simply because we have yet found a natural mechanism that would make such change. That is God-Of-The-Gaps.
#165 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

#154 is similarily an argument from authority, you quoted Kininmonth and you haven’t read his work and when I question your comment you say “go read him”. Why should I, his comment about IPCC models is very confused.

By that logic, anyone providing any evidence can be claimed to be arguing from authority. That was not the point of posting that quote and link. It’s to show there is no “consensus” and there are those in the field of climate science who have evidence as to why they reject the theory.

Unwilling to read such means you are arguing in a vacuum. One thing I aways did when fighting creationism was read everything I could of what they wrote so I could see where they were coming from.

So you really have no argument against Kininmonth if you won’t read his book.
#166 coby
November 12, 2010

What evidence do you have that rapid change is an issue? And that “rapid” change has never happened before? What change happening now is “rapid”? How do you measure something relative without some baseline?

Richard, I will take a stab at this and the rest of your post tomorrow, it is late at night here. I must say though, you have a frustrating habit of fracturing the conversation and the set of questions above are either some misguided rhetorical tactic or an indication that you have very little knowledge of climate science.

So you really have no argument against Kininmonth if you won’t read his book

Well, I do have the fact that the only person to recommend it to me could not be bothered to read it himself, or to understand the quote he took from it.
#167 coby
November 12, 2010

One other quick point because it is easy to deal with:

The past 400million years was great, it produced humans. You are here because of that 400 million years of evolution. Change is not the problem, change is normal.

Umm, part of that past was a huge asteroid strike that killed off the dinosaur and allowed mammals to flourish. By your logic, asteroid impacts are great. This argument is absurd.
#168 mandas
November 12, 2010

skip

“…(And God help you if cite something wrongly on Mandas’s watch.)…..”

Actually, I am not even going to bother with any of RW’s carpet bombing of denialist crap until he provides satisfactory answers to the questions that he has been dodging for some time now:

1 – You have observed changes in the climate in your corner of the world. What is causing those changes? (no – saying ‘natural cycles’ is NOT an answer. You actually have to show what the drivers of the change are)

2 – Why do you think an increase in mean temperatures (resulting from an increase in minimums) is inconsistent with AGW?

3 – Since I demonstrated that the changes you observed in Canada are NOT happening in Australia, and the prediction you made at post #3 is now demonstrably falsified, in what way are you going to accept the evidence and modify your views?

Pretty easy questions, why don’t you give them a go RW? After all, they go to the root science of your claims to date (let’s just ignore the political posturing can we?)
#169 Ian Forrester
November 12, 2010

Wakefield’s analogy of pulp mill effluent shows that he is now a “mercury from pulp mills” denier as well as an AGW denier.

Wakefield, any idea why pulp mills pollute with mercury? Do you understand the chemistry going on in the older mills? It would be quite easy for the pulp mill to say “Look, our new technology doesn’t use mercury, we can’t be to blame.” If, however, they do use mercury then they will be contributing the major portion of mercury going into the lake. Quite simple if you appeal to authority (i.e check the science) rather than appeal to deniers such as your self.
#170 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

1 – You have observed changes in the climate in your corner of the world. What is causing those changes? (no – saying ‘natural cycles’ is NOT an answer. You actually have to show what the drivers of the change are)

No I don’t. You have the positive position. Again I will ask do you ignore this question: How do you parse out normal natural mechanisms to this warm trend from CO2 caused? Second question you have not answered. Is the 1800-1945 increase in average temp from our puny CO2 emissions? Phil Jones says no.

2 – Why do you think an increase in mean temperatures (resulting from an increase in minimums) is inconsistent with AGW?

Why do you think it is? It’s not discriminatory evidence. Just because the average is increasing doesn’t mean it’s not natural. Correlation is not evidence of causation.

3 – Since I demonstrated that the changes you observed in Canada are NOT happening in Australia, and the prediction you made at post #3 is now demonstrably falsified, in what way are you going to accept the evidence and modify your views?

First, those are anomalies, not actual temperature data. Which means it is compiled from a number of locations, and extrapolated for locations that do not have data. Let’s look at the RAW data from each station before you claim victory. In the mean time:

Northern Australia summer max temps: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=nt&season=01&ave_yr=0

No change. Flat.

Northern winter temps: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=nt&season=07&ave_yr=0

Flat. Though both only have data from the 1940′s onward, and we know the planet cooled during that period to the mid 1975′s.

Same with this series: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=sa&season=1202&ave_yr=0

I will be firing off an email to the fellow in AU who is looking at the raw data.
#171 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

Ian, typical knee-JERK reaction. You have no understanding of what an analogy is for. That one went right over your head.
#172 Ian Forrester
November 12, 2010

Typical snarky response from Wakefield. Notice how he also refuses to answer my questions?

It didn’t go “right over my head” it was so stupid I just let you know how stupid it was, unless you can answer my questions you won’t realize how stupid your analogy is.

By the way to get back to the original point of this thread (you and your erroneous statements about cooler temperature maximum’s in Canada and elsewhere) which paper exactly were you referring to that you claim is supporting your false conclusions? Is it the paper MartinM cited or another one?

I don’t expect an answer since you are incapable of giving honest answers but I just asked to show the lurkers how dishonest you are.
#173 skip
November 12, 2010

I don’t care what a politically motivated group running the NAS has to say.

Then why link us to a commentary that cites them as evidence–which is what you did?

Add this to the list of direct questions you should answer.

One thing I aways did when fighting creationism was read everything I could of what they wrote so I could see where they were coming from.

Interesting . . . I did the same thing with creationism/intelligent design, although to say I read “everything” would be extreme.

What, exactly, have you read from the AGW position?

So you really have no argument against Kininmonth if you won’t read his book.

This has huge implications for future exchanges, RW. I’m holding you to this one.
#174 Richard Wakefield
November 12, 2010

Interesting . . . I did the same thing with creationism/intelligent design, although to say I read “everything” would be extreme.

What, exactly, have you read from the AGW position?

So you really have no argument against Kininmonth if you won’t read his book.

This has huge implications for future exchanges, RW. I’m holding you to this one.

I find it very telling that you people continue to distort and take out of context what I write.

I didn’t say “everything.” I said “Everything I could” Big difference.

Now I know of the book I will likely order it from Amazon, interested in what he has to say.

And yes, I read as much as I can on what your side claims, including science papers if I can get them without a paywall. Sometimes I have emailed the authors to get a pdf from them.

Doubt you do the same from our side.
#175 skip
November 12, 2010

Doubt you do the same from our side.

False.

On the recommendation of “skeptics” I read three books allegedly exposing the climate “fraud”.

Suffice it to say I was not convinced.

Want to learn more, Richard?
#176 mandas
November 13, 2010

Looks like I am being ignored.

My questions must have been too hard.
#177 coby
November 13, 2010

mandas, see #170 which I just pulled out of the spam filter (sorry Richard)
#178 Marco
November 13, 2010

Interesting how Richard takes one month and claims that that is “winter”.

Richard, here are the REAL winter max temperatures for Northern Australia:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=nt&season=0608&ave_yr=0
Up.
Or Australia as a whole:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=aus&season=0608&ave_yr=0

Also interesting is the claim that this:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=sa&season=1202&ave_yr=0
is flat. Do an analysis on the data, Richard, and it won’t be “flat”.
#179 Richard Wakefield
November 13, 2010

Skip: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.pdf

Marco/Mandas: http://members.westnet.com.au/brigun/australia_air_temperature_trends.html
#180 Richard Wakefield
November 13, 2010

your erroneous statements about cooler temperature maximum’s in Canada

Explain how the data is erronous. Explain how I’m presenting the data is erronsous. What is erronous about this SQL statement that gets that data:

SELECT [Station Data].Year, Max([Station Data].[Max Temp]) AS [MaxOfMax Temp], StDev([Station Data].[Max Temp]) AS [StDevOfMax Temp], Avg([Station Data].[Mean Temp]) AS [AvgOfMean Temp], StDev([Station Data].[Min Temp]) AS [StDevOfMin Temp], Min([Station Data].[Min Temp]) AS [MinOfMin Temp]
FROM [Station Data]
GROUP BY [Station Data].Year
ORDER BY [Station Data].Year;

I have answered your questions, you just don’t like my answers.

Saying I’m wrong, and showing why I’m wrong are two different things. SHOW me where I’m wrong.
#181 Ian Forrester
November 13, 2010

Wakefield said:

SHOW me where I’m wrong.

Here is what real scientists have to say:

http://www.cmos.ca/Ao/articles/v380301.pdf

As you will see their data do not agree with your results. You claim that there is a paper which confirms your results but refuse to give a cite. You are just being dishonest once again. Cherry picking, as you have done up thread, is not science.

Can you answer my questions about pulp mills now?
#182 MartinM
November 13, 2010

Skip: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.pdf

Richard, if you really think that ridiculous pack of lies is going to convince anyone, you’re beyond hope.
#183 Marco
November 13, 2010

MartinM: Richard just tries to change focus whenever he is caught out. The sad thing is that he even made the decision to post something from the SPPI as a counter-argument. He is already beyond hope!
#184 skip
November 13, 2010

The onus in science is on the people giving the POSITIVE evidence, in your case “CO2 is the primary driver of the current change.” There is no discriminatory evidence that would support that premise.

97 percent of climate specialists say you are wrong, and I suspect most of them are in fact fluent in Excel, Richard.

What change is happening in the climate that has a direct link to CO2 emissions?

That which was shown by your own analysis (not that I put much stock in *it* per se) : Average temperatures have risen.

Why do you think it is? It’s not discriminatory evidence. Just because the average is increasing doesn’t mean it’s not natural.

An argument from (your own willful) ignorance. We *have* an explanatory mechanism, Richard: The heat absorbing effects of CO2. It’s a physical *fact*. Even so called “skeptics” (Lindzen, Spencer, Monckon et al) acknowledge this mechanism. They only dispute its magnitude (but that’s another issue and a different debate). This is why your Hobbit analogy is so weak. Unlike Hobbits, we have independent scientific verification of (a) the energy absorbing effects of CO2 (b) the increase in its atmospheric concentration, and (c) observed temperature changes—even according to *your own data* in your own cheesy analysis.

And yes, I read as much as I can on what your side claims, including science papers if I can get them without a paywall.

I’m calling bullshit (Sorry Coby).

Name just *three* peer reviewed “science papers” you read about AGW—and be sure to tell us how you debunked them. (And yes, I am baiting the reciprocal question.)

Because Richard, its clear you don’t even read what *your* “side” claims; you troll for headlines and carpet blog them.

Please indulge me in an extensive example of this:

Early today I decided that before I surrendered my mind to college football and my stomach to my mother-in-law’s cooking I would get up early and do a little homework on another of your links.

(By the way, you were so sloppy you unknowingly linked it twice.)

No Cause For Alarm Over Sea Level Or Ice Sheets
http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/1837-no-cause-for-alarm-over-sea-level-or-ice-sheets.html –Richard

Care to know what I found, Richard? The incompetence and scientific illiteracy of your source (Cliff Ollier) would have been breathtaking had I not seen its like so many times from climate deniers. He’s identified as a “professor” but has all the scholarly aptitude of one of my laziest senior undergraduates.

He starts off with USDA grade A horseshit:

First, there is still no proof the Earth is experiencing “dangerous” warming. Temperatures have levelled off since 1998.

Regurgitating one of the most heinous denier absurdities still in circulation. Do you subscribe to this statement, Richard?

Furthermore, the methodologies of averaging temperature are inconsistent and full of problems.

Un-cited, ad hoc, vague, based on nothing.

Thermal expansion of the oceans seems to be of little consequence at present because the satellite measurements show the oceans are cooling.

Also un-cited, supernatural nonsense, and probably based on hearsay about the ARGO buoys—another argument that has been rehashed on this forum again and again.

This was beautiful:

the Hubbard Glacier is advancing at 25 metres per year, and has been doing so at least since its discovery in 1895.

Classic denier stunt—the cherry pick. Find a glacier not retreating and conclude that therefore *overall* glacial retreat is neither a global phenomenon nor a subject of concern—sort of like finding a temperature trend for Southern Canada and declaring it a worldwide phenomenon.

Despite alarmist propaganda there is much evidence to suggest that the ice sheets are in good health.

And this is where ignorance and laziness power the fallacy train into a canyon of intellectual oblivion. Ollier manages to cite one source that has no relevance to his position and three that fundamentally disagree with him, as well as you, and it says much about both of you.

Behold:

For example, one recent paper is entitled “A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850” (Thomas et al. 2008).

Another blatant cherry pick based on the reading of a *title*. (Sound familiar, Richard?) Consulting a map shows that the WAP constitutes about 1/20th of the land mass of the Anarctic, and locational variation in accumulation versus loss of Anarctic ice is neither a surprise nor a threat to the AGW theory. To wit, as Ollier proceeds . .
.
Another reports that “The East Antarctic ice-sheet north of 81.60S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003 … enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ±0.002 millimetres per year” (Davis et al. 2005).

This is one of those “AGW debunking” citations we will never hear the end of until flat earthers actually *read* it, by which they might notice that Davis and colleagues

“(1) . . . show that the thickening is probably a result of increased snowfall. It may be premature to predict that the East Antarctic ice sheet will continue to thicken, but the measured change is roughly that expected as a mean response to *20th-century climate change* [my emphasis. If this part of the ice sheet continues to grow--as general circulation model predictions suggest it should--then this thickening *may* [my emphasis] become a large negative term in the sea level change equation.”

And that

”The current thickening in East Antarctica is not sufficient to completely stop sea level rise. It might, in the short term, counteract one of the other contributions, such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. But the remaining contributors–melting of nonpolar glaciers, thermal expansion of the oceans, and groundwater changes–*will be sufficient to produce sea level rise over the coming decades and centuries, regardless of any thickening that might occur in East Antarctica.*[my emphasis]”

Isn’t it it amazing how this works? When you *read* the article you will *know* what it says and then you *don’t* look like a fool.

Not that Ollier understands this:

Wingham et al. (2006) wrote: “We show that 72 per cent of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt yr-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm yr-1.”

This is from:

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2006 364, 1627-1635
D.J Wingham, A Shepherd, A Muir and G.J Marshall
Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet

The Antarctic contribution to sea-level rise has long been uncertain. While regional variability in ice dynamics has been revealed, a picture of mass changes throughout the continental ice sheet is lacking. Here, we use satellite radar altimetry to measure the elevation change of 72% of the grounded ice sheet during the period 1992–2003. Depending on the density of the snow giving rise to the observed elevation fluctuations, the ice sheet mass trend falls in the range K5–C85 Gt yrK1. We find that data from climate model reanalyses are not able to characterise the contemporary snowfall fluctuation with useful accuracy and our best estimate of the overall mass trend—growth of 27G29 Gt yrK1—is based on an assessment of the expected snowfall variability. Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica. The result exacerbates the difficulty of explaining twentieth century sea-level rise.

This does *not* deny sea level rise; it only articulates the uncertainties of Anarctica’s *specific contribution* to what is an accepted fact.

In a 2006 Interview Wingham explained himself for a lay audience:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/24/ice_shelf_collapse/

“I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland’s ice cap – Greenland is quite far south – is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it . . . [and after saying that there is substantial variation and uncertainty in ice melt] . . . No one doubts that the ultimate fate of Arctic ice looks a grim one, but I believe we have too few data to be confident of how fast it will meet its fate.”
And Wingham’s most recent scholarly comment on the subject:

Science 16 March 2007:
Vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1529 – 1532
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136776

Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets

Andrew Shepherd1 and Duncan Wingham2*

After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth’s ice sheets are changing. *As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow.* [my emphasis] Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, *data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall* [my emphasis]. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. *In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models*[my emphasis].

And finally . . . .

Johannessen and colleagues analysed satellite data on the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2003. They found an increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimetres per year in the vast interior areas above 1500 metres, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. Below 1500 metres, the elevation-change rate is -2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year.

Because Ollier doesn’t provide a citation (again the work of this “professor” looked like an undergraduate’s rough draft), I had to look up Johannessen to find the most recent work. Please read the abstract carefully.

ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC SCIENCE LETTERS, 2008, VOL. 1, NO. 1, 51−56

Decreasing Arctic Sea Ice Mirrors Increasing CO2 on Decadal Time Scale

Ola M Johannessen1,2

Abstract Arctic sea ice is a keystone indicator of *greenhouse-gas induced global climate change* [my emphasis], which is expected to be amplified in the Arctic. Here we directly compare observed variations in arctic sea-ice extent and CO2 since the beginning of the 20th century, identifying a *strengthening linkage* [my emphasis], such that in recent decades the rate of sea-ice decrease mirrors the increase in CO2, with r ~–0.95 over the last four decades, thereby indicating that 90% (r2 ~ 0.90) of the decreasing sea-ice extent is empirically “accounted for” *by the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere* [my emphasis]. The author presents an empirical relation between annual sea-ice extent and global atmospheric CO2 concentrations, in which sea-ice reductions are *linearly, inversely proportional to the magnitude of increase of CO2* [my emphasis] over the last few decades. This approximates sea-ice changes during the most recent four decades, with a proportionality constant of 0.030 million km2 per ppmv CO2. When applied to future emission scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this relationship results in substantially faster ice decreases up to 2050 than predicted by IPCC models. However, departures from this projection may arise from non-linear feedback effects and/or temporary natural variations on interannual timescales, such as the record minimum of sea-ice extent observed in September 2007.”

Ollier managed to cite four sources, none of which supports his premise on sea level rise *or* AGW, and three which explicitly *refute* it. This is quite a piece of argumentation you picked for us, Richard.

But if you’re going to make a series of vacuous arguments replete with fallacy and mis-citation, you might as well finish strong with the stupidest argument of all:

Of course even if we believe global sea level is rising, it takes another leap of faith to accept that it is caused by minuscule increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by human activity.

Richard, we see this inane argument from incredulity *all the time*:

“Something I can’t see that is small in amount cannot hurt me.” By this bankrupt logic a gram of arsenic cannot kill you—after all, it would only be a fraction of the mass of your body after you ingested it.

It speaks more volumes than I can write, Richard, that you would so cavalierly skim the headline of this utter nonsense and present it to this forum as “proof” that AGW is unthreatening because of uncertainties in the rate of sea-level rise—let alone as having any relevance to the question of whether carbon emissions are causing climate change.

I often tell contributors to this forum such as yourself that it is not my intention to humiliate; it’s an unavoidable outcome of honest critique. And the humiliation is ultimately your own fault, Richard, because you mindlessly cite utter nonsense such as this quackery by Ollier. You’ll not live this one down, Richard; I’ll see to that as long as you post on this forum.

Furthermore, I can be heartless when needed. If making you look and feel stupid is an inevitable cost of evaluating your claims and making whatever contribution to the battle for truth I might, its I a price I am more than willing to pay.
#185 GGMcGreedy
November 13, 2010

Skip @ #184:
“And this is where ignorance and laziness power the fallacy train into a canyon of intellectual oblivion”

Nice line – is it your own? Mind if I steal it for meaningful conversation with pretty girls and pretend it’s my own?
Also – good quality post. I admire how you are thorough without being offensive.
Finally, what’s your mother-in-law cooking. Any good?
#186 skip
November 13, 2010

Go for it, GG. Hope you get lucky with it.

Ma-in-law will surprise me but its always good, so “surrender” might have been a misleading term.

Ok, halftime is about over . . . .
#187 Ben Lawson
November 13, 2010

skip: Epic
Richard: Fail
#188 Richard Wakefield
November 13, 2010

That which was shown by your own analysis (not that I put much stock in *it* per se) : Average temperatures have risen.

Correlation is not evidence of causation. You also missed the meaning of the lake analogy.

Go ahead and find a flaw in the analysis. Be specific. I posted the SQL, show me where that is wrong. Since you won’t be able to do that because there is nothing wrong with what I did, your opinion is worthless.
#189 Ben Lawson
November 13, 2010

Next “nail in the AGW coffin” from Richard W – an accurate multiplication table all the way up to 10 times 10. Can’t show where he’s wrong? He wins! Civilization has been saved by Excel (and SQL).

Your analysis is “erronsous” because you are intentionally selecting data that suits your prejudices and then trying to use naive arguments to justify your conclusions.
#190 Richard Wakefield
November 13, 2010

“Your analysis is “erronsous” because you are intentionally selecting data that suits your prejudices and then trying to use naive arguments to justify your conclusions.”

So in other words, what I’m doing is correct. You find no fault in the methodology, right? Prove I am intentionally selecting data that suites my predjudices. Download the same data and have a look at it yourself. Pick any station you want with a long enough record. You will see the same thing I do. Not just some stations show this trend, all stations do.

Don’t say I’m cherry picking, prove it.
#191 Ian Forrester
November 13, 2010

Wakefield you are such an arrogant and ignorant fool.

Your method is erroneous because you are cherry picking. Cherry picking data is a very serious form of scientific misconduct.

Get a life, you are not only wrong but are dishonest.

For real data on Canadian temperatures produced by honest scientists see:

http://www.cmos.ca/Ao/articles/v380301.pdf

You still have not produced a reference or a link to the paper you claim backs up your conclusions. Are we correct in assuming that it doesn’t exist or if it does it does not confirm your results?
#192 Ben Lawson
November 13, 2010

Richard says “So in other words, what I’m doing is correct.”

How do you get so many feet into one mouth? Yes, Excel can chart numbers. No, you haven’t proven anything. (See all previous responses to your ponderous insights.)
#193 wagdog
November 14, 2010

#138
Nice post mandas, except for this part:
AGW is a direct result of human over-population. The obvious solution is for his ilk to stop breathing.

I’ve “debated” with JR Wakefield in another forum (Youtube of all places. Yeah I know. I should know better.) After all the link bombing and counter citation, it generally devolves into broken record playing and parroting the same talking points ad infinitum. A complete waste of time, however I do still think there is value in the likes of RW and that their continued existence is important for survival of the human race.

To understand why, one must understand the nature of self-sustaining self-propagating irrational belief systems, why they come about, and why humans have evolved brains that function as a fertile environment for them. Have you seen Dan Dennett’s TED talk on memes? (Google it if you haven’t) It was Richard Dawkins who first described the meme machine nature of human culture. My belief is that human culture evolved memes to deal with unknown risks. Human history is filled with high risk decisions which were highly rewarding when they paid off, but were also highly damaging when they didn’t. Faced with such a risk a rational culture could wait around until sufficient data was collected so that a decision could be made whether it was a good risk to take. This could take a long time. Meanwhile there would be competing cultures who would devise an irrational belief system to justify taking the risk (by denying that any danger exists, for example) and if the risk does pay off for them, guess which culture wins out. Of course the risk could go the other way, and the meme will lead the humans who believed it into oblivion.

Provided there are sufficient number of irrational memes competing, there will always be a few that survive due to a few of the highly risky decisions paying off, or because the meme is self-serving (i.e. it was able to spread to another culture before leading the host culture into oblivion when the risk they took went the wrong way.)

If you believe that rational cultures are to survive in a sea of potentially self-destructive irrational cultures continuously infecting and re-infecting each other with dangerous memes, it is easy to see that any attempt to spread rationalism via the use of scientific facts to other irrational cultures is doomed to fail. Instead the rational culture should engineer compatible memes in the same way geneticists engineer viruses for gene therapy in curing disease. (Memes have often been described as viruses of the mind — cf. Inception.) Make use of the meme machine and turn it to our advantage.

JRW and his ilk are useful as meme machines, because we can convince them into taking really stupid risks, a few of which will pay off for society as a whole. How exactly we do this is still not well understood as the field of memetics is a very nacent area of evolutionary biology.
#194 skip
November 14, 2010

Wag:

I have also been fascinated by memes. The one hope I hold is that our *awareness* of them can be an (at least potential) safeguard against their potency.

I believe/hope this because as a younger person I was very much spellbound by the meme of Christian fundamentalism/creationism, but exposure to the facts eventually rattled me out of this dogmatism (and reading *Dawkins*, was not coincidentally a big part of it).

Richard just saw his mindlessly cited resource on sea level rise destroyed. Not that I’m so clever–its like playing checkers against someone who voluntarily starts with half the pieces. Right now his mind is struggling with how to interpret this, and his only defense is to repeat the simple mantra that “correlation is not causation.” What *might* happen is that he will recognize the power of the meme in his own thinking, as happened to me.
#195 Richard Wakefield
November 14, 2010

See, nothing unusual today:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/co2-present-1-5mya.png

Hey, Coby, notice the heartbeat like variation I noted to you in the email.
#196 MartinM
November 14, 2010

See, nothing unusual today:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/co2-present-1-5mya.png

If by ‘today’ you mean ‘a few hundred years ago,’ sure. You’ll notice that according to that graph, ‘present’ CO2 concentration is ~280ppm, which is of course more or less the pre-industrial concentration. In other words, the graph shows nothing unusual ‘today’ because it doesn’t actually show today at all. Not particularly surprising for a study focussing on geologic timescales.
#197 Ian Forrester
November 14, 2010

Wakefield, just what do you think today’s CO2 level is? Don’t you think (assuming you give the correct answer) that it is, in fact, very UNUSUAL?

Please answer my previous questions.
#198 skip
November 14, 2010

Ian:

I only skimmed the Zhang et al paper, but fairness requires me to report that some of it is actually partially consistent with Richard’s claims—at least with regard to the actual temperature record. In fact, I strongly suspect that this in fact *is* the paper he referenced but has failed to identify.

From the abstract:

From 1900–1998, the annual mean temperature has increased between 0.5 and 1.58C in the south. The warming is greater in minimum temperature than in maximum temperature in the first half of the century, resulting in a decrease of DTR [diurnal temperature range].

Richard’s key claim as I understand it is that mostly winter temps have gone up, and thus converged with summer temps and this (somehow) demonstrates the falseness of AGW.

The greatest warming occurred in the west, with statistically significant increases mostly seen during spring and summer periods.

That part would seem to contradict Richard’s claims that his analysis (there is only less cold, not more warmth) holds for all of Canada . . . and eventually North America . . .and Ireland . . .and Australia—when his mate down under (its probably Crakar) comes through with *his* revelational analysis.

In the body of the article the authors explained this further.

Annual mean temperature has warmed an average of 0.98C in southern Canada over the last century. Associated with this increase in mean temperature is a relatively smaller increase in daily maximum temperature and a larger increase in daily minimum temperature. In this century, the increases have resulted in a decrease in diurnal temperature range by 0.5 to 2.08C. The bulk of decline in DTR occurred during the first half of the century, coinciding with an increase in cloud cover during that period. Both of these results are broadly consistent with greenhouse gas induced climate change, *but* . . .

[Richard must have quote mined the next part]

. . . the timing of the changes, coming prior to the most significant increase in greenhouse gases, suggests that other mechanisms may be responsible . . .

And shortly after is the part that Richard must have read/heard about and pounced on as the vindication of his spreadsheet coup:

. . . This [the temperature record] indicates that southern Canada has not become hotter but less cold. –Zhang et al pg. 425

Richard is of course doubly confused about the matter, believing that temperature convergence is not consistent with AGW because “correlation does not equal causation” (?), or that the analysis can be extended past southern Canada, but I think its important that we acknowledge the small part of his claim that is correct—even if it lacks the implications he keeps trying to attach to it.
#199 Ian Forrester
November 14, 2010

Sorry skip but here is the part wish I most strongly disagree with. He is saying this to suggest to people who do not have a strong background in climate science to that there is no warming. Which of course is completely wrong.

Here is Wakefield’s quote (post #3) which is not confirmed by the Zhang at al paper:

Well, your prediction is false. If you took the time to look through the whole site you will have seen two things. First that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station. Summers are cooling.

The Zhang paper shows that summers are getting warmer but are not warming as fast as winters. This is exactly what is predicted if CO2 is in fact causing the warming.

Wakefield is just out of touch with scientific reality.
#200 GGMcGreedy
November 14, 2010

RW @ #195
If I were you, what I’d be taking from the graph would be that in the past 1.5m years, CO2 levels (from the graph, which shows pre-industrial time) have never been higher than 300ppm. Today, i.e. 2010, they are 390ppm, i.e. 30% higher than at any other time in the past 1.5m years.
How do you think that happened?
Do you not suppose such a massive increase in CO2 might be significant?

Skip, I’d always given RW the benefit of the doubt that his claim that S. Canada might be becoming less cold rather than more warm, but as you have well pointed out, how is his analysis anyways at odds with current AGW theory or prediction? If anything, I say fair play to him as an amateur for seemingly independently corroborating some parts of (much more) definitive scientific studies. It’s his extrapolation from a (possibly correct) single observation to a wholly erroneous postulate where he has tripped himself up badly.
But I think it might be some time before he *gets it*.

Is Crakar an antipodean climate scientist?
#201 skip
November 14, 2010

Ian:

I’m just saying he’s only 95 percent, as opposed to 100 percent, wrong.

GG: I had to look up antipodean (having not encountered the word Antipodes in years), and no, Msr. Crakar is not a climate scientist but a formerly persistent and antagonizing, but legendary, presence on this forum.
#202 Richard Wakefield
November 14, 2010

If I were you, what I’d be taking from the graph would be that in the past 1.5m years, CO2 levels (from the graph, which shows pre-industrial time) have never been higher than 300ppm. Today, i.e. 2010, they are 390ppm, i.e. 30% higher than at any other time in the past 1.5m years.
How do you think that happened?
Do you not suppose such a massive increase in CO2 might be significant?

It happened from our emissions of CO2 from the buring of a trillion barrels of fossil fuels.

Is this significant? No. It’s replacing into the atmosphere what used to be there before the ice age. 3 million years ago CO2 was 3 times today, some 1000ppm.

As for that paper, I really have to sigh big time. I already pointed to this paper many times above: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/04/2000-paper-on-canadian-surface-temps.html

As for the west coast temps I have done the graphs, havn’t had time to post them (busy with the wind turbine site). I will be posting many more stations including the east coast over the winter months when I have more time.

As for central Canada trends:http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/03/central-canada-trends.html

So, yes I have already done those, and no my premise is NOT from one location. Really wish you people would read and comprehend what I write, because you clearly are not.
#203 skip
November 14, 2010

Really wish you people would read and comprehend what I write, because you clearly are not.

Um, Richard, as demonstrated above, you don’t even comprehend your *own sources*.
#204 skip
November 14, 2010

Phase 1: You will continue to bomb us with links . . .

Check. (And when they are shown to be inimical to your position, you just ignore us (see below).

Phase 2: People on this forum are going to eventually look at every link, track down every original source . . .

Partial check. The two I’ve looked at directly revealed that you don’t even read/understand your own sources.

Phase 3: You will change your story/backtrack/switch the subject/accuse us of being dogmatic/avoid answering direct questions . . .

Check. The closest thing to an “answer” to the question of why temperature convergence within an overall warming trend disproves AGW has been the non sequiter “correlation does not equal causation”.

You have utterly ignored my analysis of your sea-level editorial because its nothing but an embarrassment for you.

(And so forth)

Phase 4: You will be called on these tactics of evasions by the aforementioned contributors.

Check

Phase 5: You will be unable to process the simple fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about . . .

Probable check–unless you realize now how little sense you’re making and are just too proud to admit it.

Phase 6: You will eventually trade a series of insults and obscenities with Ian and Mandas . . .

TBD. But after all, modeling a debate is probably harder than modeling climate.
#205 Ian Forrester
November 14, 2010

Waskefield you do not understand how science works.

Here is a longer quote from your post #3:

First that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station. Summers are cooling. Second, you would have found on my site a scientific paper published in Canada in 2000 that shows the exact same thing.

First your data don’t show that summers in Canada are “cooling”. What your data show is that they are not warming as fast as winters are warming.

Secondly, you claim that your results and conclusions are verified by a “science paper published in Canada” in 2000.

I though you were citing a real paper published by real scientists in a peer reviewed journal (e.g. Zhang at al). But now you claim that this “paper” is not a science paper written and published as a real science paper would be but is a self-published piece of fish wrap written and published by you on your own web site.

If AGW was not a serious problem and definitely not a joking matter I would be laughing my head off at your puerile antics.

Please try and distinguish between “papers” self published by cranks such as your self and real science papers.

You still haven’t answered by questions about why your ridiculous analogy between AGW and your hypothetical pulp mill does not support your views on correlation does not mean causation.
#206 mandas
November 14, 2010

Wow. Normally it gets quiet over the weekend, but it looks as though everyone couldn’t leave this alone. Apologies for my absence. I was too busy out conversing with nature (yeah – it’s my hobby as well as my job).

This thread has really started to mount up, and it would probably be difficult for a newcomer to grasp the gist of what has been going on. So, for them and for others who may have become lost, I thought I would summarise.

Richard Wakefield (RW), a newcomer here but a prolific blogger just about everywhere else on the net, was invited by coby to put forward his views on AGW, and for us to respond (nicely!!). The conversation has gone somewhat like this:

RW: I have obtained some temperature data from a few local stations here in Canada, run them through Excel, and have determined that the mean temperature is increasing as a result of a convergence between winter temperatures (which are increasing), and summer temperatures which are essentially staying the same. My analysis of this is that this must be happening all over the world, and as a result, I officially pronounce AGW discredited.

Us et al: We have several questions about this (I have removed the personal comments etc – this is a summary after all):

1 – Isn’t climate data a little complicated, and don’t you need a more detailed statistical treatment to be able to make accurate observations and predictions?
RW – Anyone can do it. All you need is a basic understanding of Excel.

2 – In what way do you think that an observed increase in mean temperatures is inconsistent with AGW?
RW – Because it isn’t getting hotter, just less cold.

3 – How can you extrapolate from stations in Canada and say it is happening all over the word?
RW – Because the whole North American continent is a single climate regime, and therefore it must be happening in the US. And I have a friend in Australia who will be getting me some data soon and then we will see it is happening there as well.

4 – Here is some data from Australia. Note that it shows that both summer and winter temperatures are increasing, therefore your prediction is falsified.
RW – This is not real data. It is temperature anomaly data, not raw data (apparently data showing an increase in summer temperature (ie anomaly) is different to the raw data from which the anomaly data is derived)

5 – You have observed an increase in mean temperatures. What do you think is causing it?
RW – Natural forces.

6 – What natural forces?
RW – It is not up to me to provide evidence for this. It is up to you to provide evidence that it is CO2.

7 – CO2 absorption of LWR is a fundamental principle of science and has been known for over a century.
RW – Additional CO2 is good for plants.

RW – I don’t care what you all say, here are some links that prove I am right.
Us – Well, if you actually read the papers you have linked to you will find they say something else and don’t agree with you at all.

RW – Here are lots more links from reliable sources such as whatsupmybutt and the SPPI. And anyway, it is all a scam and the new republican majority will dismantle it all, hahahahahaha

So, here we are. Feel free to join the debate at anytime!
#207 Ian Forrester
November 14, 2010

Wakefield is wrong once again (is anyone surprised?).

He said:

Is this significant? No. It’s replacing into the atmosphere what used to be there before the ice age. 3 million years ago CO2 was 3 times today, some 1000ppm.

No reference for this number but presumably pulled from some denier web site.

What does science have to say about CO2 levels 2 to 3 million years ago?

Well, it seems that they were approximately 200 ppm, rising to about 300 ppm about 3.3 million years ago. Over the previous 20 million years the concentration never rose above about 450 ppm. Who to believe, cranks quoting from denier sites or actual scientists?

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/tripati.etal.sci.2009.pdf
#208 mandas
November 14, 2010

Sorry – left one important point out:

RW – “You have the positive position. Again I will ask do you ignore this question: How do you parse out normal natural mechanisms to this warm trend from CO2 caused?…”

Us – Well, if you go to Google Scholar or Web of Science or any other search engine for science publications and type “human fingerprint climate”, and restrict your search to recent publications (say, after 2005) you will provide dozens of papers which do exactly that.

RW – Ignore and repeat.
#209 mandas
November 14, 2010

Ian (post #207)

I have read some reports of CO2 concentrations of up to 400ppm in the Pliocene warm period around 3.3 million years BP.

What is even more interesting though is what that actually means for climate. Everything points to temperatures about 3 degrees above current, with sea levels up to 20 – 30 metres higher.

So I, for one, think that “…Is this significant? No. It’s replacing into the atmosphere what used to be there before the ice age. 3 million years ago CO2 was 3 times today, some 1000ppm….” is a pretty stupid idea, and only something that a denialist who is completely divorced from reality would support.

Unlike your average idiot, I think that is VERY significant.
#210 mandas
November 14, 2010

Sometimes when I am bored I go back over old posts to see if I have missed anything. This time I struck gold:

RW at post #164: “…..I see the exact same thing with AGW. Your claim is that CO2 is doing the causation for the observed changes simply because we have (not) yet found a natural mechanism that would make such change. That is God-Of-The-Gaps….”

So ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm – you have claimed over and over again that the causes of the current climatic changes is ‘natural variation’ etc, yet, as you admit yourself, WE HAVE NOT YET FOUND ANY SUCH NATURAL MECHANISM!!!!!!!!!! On top of that, you dismiss a mechanism that we know – unequivocably – which WILL cause climate change, and which we know – unequivocably – is increasing.

So to sum up your argument. It’s not CO2!!!! (fingers in ears, lalalalalalalalala)

I think those creationists got to you!
#211 Chris S.
November 15, 2010

I see the discussion has gotten a lot more reasonable and Mr. Wakefield has finally been given enough rope to hang himself, I think any lurkers reading this thread will now have a clearer view of the problems in his various analyses, and the political outlook that underpins them.

I note that the questions I pointed out in post #132 remain unanswered and mandas has summarised more unanswered questions in post #206. Perhaps Coby would like to put these questions in an update to the main post in order to further demonstrate to Mr. Wakefield and any lurkers that he has missed, or perhaps avoided, a lot of the discussion.

In addition I’d like to highlight this post:

RW: @#38: “Download the data a check it yourself. It’s simple to do. Write a program to hit the EC database, for each month, for each year for each station and drop the data into text files (takes about 3 months to run it all). Then write a program to loop through those files and import the data into separate Access database mdb files one for each station. Then run queries on each of those to get summary data which goes into a master mdb file. Then you run queries on the station data, copy and paste into Excel and let it do the stats. Simple enough for a highschool student to do, so you should be able to replicate it. Go ahead and show me where I’m wrong.”

“…(takes about 3 months to run it all)…”

Now, I need something to do away from the microscope this winter, but I don’t have a spare three months to get the data. As Mr. Wakefield already has them in an Excel file then I’m sure he wouldn’t mind if I had a copy so that I can check his claims. (I won’t be working with Excel but the stats programmes I use can import Excel sheets to work from). Perhaps our august host can act as an intermediary as he already has my email address? I don’t generally hand my email address out to strangers, I honestly don’t know what Mr. Wakefield would do with it, but I wouldn’t like to take any chances on that score.

What do you say Richard? Will you send Coby the data so as I can work on them? Given your confidence in your claims I’m sure you won’t mind.
#212 skip
November 15, 2010

But Chris:

But if Richard can’t answer a simple question like, “If you deny the NAS is an authority on AGW, then why did you cite a link using it as one?”, then it seems unlikely he’ll have anything to say after an additional three months of your secondary data analysis.
#213 Richard Wakefield
November 15, 2010

What do you say Richard? Will you send Coby the data so as I can work on them? Given your confidence in your claims I’m sure you won’t mind.

The raw data is in text files, tab delimted. The larger datasets are 35meg each, 5megs zipped. There’s 1300 of them.

I didn’t spend 3 months getting the data, I spend two days writing the programs needed to get and store the data, I just let it run for 3 months.
#214 skip
November 15, 2010

I just have to ask:

Richard, when you ignore question after question question, what is your self-appraisal?

Do you see this a clever argument tactic? (“If a don’t say anything at all I’ll never risk saying anything wrong.”)

Is it some passive-aggressive attempt at revenge? (“I’ll show these wise asses, I’ll just clam up and say nothing!”)

Or is it an integral part of the process (by omission) of effective self-indoctrination? (“I’m sure I could have a good answer to that point, but I’ll get back to it later when the timing’s right and I can pull out my aces.”)

Its amazing to observe.
#215 Chris S.
November 15, 2010

“copy and paste into Excel and let it do the stats”

I just want the Excel file, thanks. Just for the Ontario station(s) if you like.

Or do I have to submit an FOI request?* :p

*this is, of course, a joke.
#216 Richard Wakefield
November 15, 2010

So ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm – you have claimed over and over again that the causes of the current climatic changes is ‘natural variation’ etc, yet, as you admit yourself, WE HAVE NOT YET FOUND ANY SUCH NATURAL MECHANISM!!!!!!!!!!

Ian is making the same mistake that Gentry did with the Po haloes. Gentry’s claim was that since science did not have a ntural mechanism for how the polonium got into the rock, it must have been God that put the Po there as a sign of His creation.

Ian’s claim is that since science does not have a natural mechanism for how the average temp increases, it must have been our CO2 emissions that is “unequivocally” causing the change (in science there is no such thing as “unequivocal”).

Gentry and Ian are both making the same logical fallicy — god-of-the-gaps. Someday a natural mechanism will be shown to be the cause of this “warming” and then your faith will come crashing down, like Gentry’s did.

What I posted is not in contradiction. The contradiction is on the AGW side, contradiction unque on science, that humans are causing the change as the default position.
#217 mandas
November 15, 2010

Richard

That was my post, not Ian’s. And you have completely misrepresented everything I have said to you, everything about AGW, and everything that you have said yourself.

Ascribing observed warming to CO2 when there are no discernable natural mechanisms is NOT – as you so ridiculously put it – the ‘god of the gaps’. Because we all know – it is an extremely well known principle of science – that increasing the CO2 composition in a gaseous mixture will increase the heat absorption of that mixture; ie more CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat. It is not ascribing it to GHG simply because we can’t discover anything else. We have known this principle for over a hundred years, and it has been confirmed over and over again through experiment and observation. Get this straight Richard – THERE IS NO GAP!

This is a really, really, really simple concept Richard, and it takes twisted denialist logic to fail to accept it. Simply speaking, we have a causal mechanism – GHG. We have correlation – increasing GHG and increasing temperatures. And every other forcing mechanism which could cause the increase in temperature is absent. So, that’s a pretty robust theory we have going right there.

If you want to discredit the theory – which you are desperately trying to do for political, not scientific reasons – you are going to have to undermine one of those three pillars I have just described.

1 – Show that CO2 (and other GHGs) do not absorb LWR (good luck doing that)

2 – Show that temperatures are not increasing (since your own observations show that they are, then you would have to deny your own findings – which I would have to admit is not unheard of in denialist circles)

3 – Show that there is some other mechanism that we have not considered (but, as you have already admitted, there are none)

So it looks as though you are stuffed there RW. You have observed that temperatures are increasing, and your only explanation to repeatedly claim that it is natural, despite being unable to find any such natural mechanism. And you keep repeating over and over that it isn’t CO2. I wonder why that is?

It can’t be because of the standard denialist claim that small amounts of CO2 can’t make any difference, because you like to claim that those small amounts of CO2 will greatly enhance plant growth, so they obviously DO make a difference. So what is the real reason you want to deny that it is GHGs?

I can finish by using one of your own quotes to show just how twisted your logic is.

“…… Someday a natural mechanism will be shown to be the cause of this “warming” and then your faith will come crashing down, like Gentry’s did…..”

The difference between you and me Richard, is that you are asserting that the increases that you yourself have observed are natural – except you have absolutely no idea what natural mechanism is causing them, and have only the vague hope that someday, someone will find something that no-one has found to date, despite the best efforts of thousands of denialists just like you.

On the other hand, I will continue to accept a theory which is consistent with accepted scientific principles, and which has both a well established causal mechanism and robust correlation. But then, I’m a scientist.
#218 skip
November 15, 2010

Incredible.

Gentry’s claim was that since science did not have a ntural mechanism for how the polonium got into the rock, it must have been God that put the Po there as a sign of His creation.

. . . the same logical fallicy [sic] — god-of-the-gaps.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this really, really bad argument is made in sincerity, Richard, but its just a really, really bad argument nonetheless.

CO2 is an observed gas that *really exists*, Richard. It is not an abstraction–like God.

Furthermore, CO2–this *observed* substance–has a *scientifically* verified property: It absorbs solar radiation that would otherwise emanate back out to space. It is a real, physical substance, with verifiable and verified scientific properties. It is not a presumed supernatural entity with mysterious attributes that can be summoned wherever a “natural” explanation is lacking. It *is* natural (in the broad sense of being part of the natural world), Richard. That is the whole point.

Richard, can’t you just see it? You’re trying to relive what you think was your triumph over creationism so you’re attempting this desperate Procrustean project of finding a way that AGW is religion or a “god the gaps” motif when its nothing of the sort.
#219 mandas
November 15, 2010

Oh, and if you want to know how we know that increasing GHG are causing the temperature increases, do some reading:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
#220 skip
November 15, 2010

He’s not going to read anything, Mandas. He thinks toppling AGW is his chance to be Aldous Huxley and he won’t let anything as mundane as scientific reality rob him of the moment.

The irony here is that Richard is the willfully ignorant, faith-driven character in all this–he believes on pure faith that *anything* but carbon is the driver. We see these kettles calling pots black all the time. Groan.
#221 Richard Wakefield
November 15, 2010

mandas your paper was 10 years old.

Examples of other natural factors playing with the climate that are now understood since then:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo905.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034864.shtml

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo578.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727

A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638(8), November 1, 2000)
- Heinz Hug

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071132/The-Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory-of-Ferenc-Miskolczi

How you can possibly claim we understand what is going on when your own people pubish papers like this:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TrenberthSciencePerspectives-1.pdf

The THEORY is CO2 SHOULD be altering the temps. But a complex system like our climate does not behave as the climate models predict.

Questions unanswered:

1) How do you parse out a normal variation in temp changes from anthropic forcings?

2) was the temp increase from 1800 to 1945 because of our CO2 emissions?

New question. With summer max temps flat or dropping how does that fit the AGW claim of more heat deaths due to CO2?
#222 Marco
November 15, 2010

Looks to me like Richard Wakefield is the religionist here. Allow me to take evolution as an example:

Science has come with a very intricate and wide-ranging theory of how our flora and fauna evolved through natural selection combined with mutations, gene shuffling, etc. It fits with observation, allows verifiable predictions (but not nearly as accurate as climate science can…think about that one for a while), and is based on an ever-growing understanding of life.

The religionist then states the observations and predictions may show a correlation, but that’s not causation, that we cannot prove that a *god* is not evolved in the process, “hence”, a *god* IS involved in the process. Richard’s own argumentation in a nutshell.
#223 Chris S.
November 16, 2010

No Excel files in my inbox today.

Surprised? No.

Disappointed? Maybe a bit.

Oh but I see Mr. Wakefield has moved on from CO2Science and Benny Peiser’s two-bit outfit to quoting E&E.

Surprised? No.

Disappointed? Yes.

We should open a sweepstake, how many posts before he quotes Monkton? How many till we get to Mark Morono?
#224 Matt Bennett
November 16, 2010

I never thought I’d live to see him bettered but this fuckwit is Crackar on speed….
#225 Ian Forrester
November 16, 2010

Wakefield, start being honest.

You claim:

New question. With summer max temps flat or dropping how does that fit the AGW claim of more heat deaths due to CO2?

As you have been told a number of times in this thread by myself and others this is just not true.

What recent data show is that summer temperatures are increasing but at a lower rate than winter temperatures are increasing.

See Zhang et al. to see this in Canada.

You are pathetic.
#226 skip
November 16, 2010

RW:

You’ve devolved into what every non-scientist who takes on AGW for ideological reasons becomes: A mindless link drone, trolling the web for anything that *looks* like it challenges AGW.

Scan . . . drool . . . .copy . . . . paste . . . scan . . . . drool . . . copy . . . paste . . .

. . . and on and on.

I suspect you realize you’ve hit rock bottom and you have nothing to lose by just linking everything in sight, but let me ask you a question:

Direct Question, Richard: Did you read *any* of the things you just linked us to? If so, how many?

Repeat: Direct Question, Richard: Did you read *any* of the things you just linked us to? If so, how many?

Because yet *again* you’ve linked us to material that *refutes* you–along with some other laughable material.

Repeat: Direct Question, Richard: Did you read *any* of the things you just linked us to? If so, how many?
#227 Ben Lawson
November 16, 2010

RW says: Someday a natural mechanism will be shown to be the cause of this “warming”

I presume Richard has faith in his prediction, since he doesn’t have evidence or a theoretical basis to support his statement.
#228 Ian Forrester
November 16, 2010

Wakefield whined:

Questions unanswered:

1) How do you parse out a normal variation in temp changes from anthropic forcings?

2) was the temp increase from 1800 to 1945 because of our CO2 emissions?

Only unanswered by those either too stupid or too lazy to actually look for answers:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/007.htm

PS: anyone else notice the irony of Wakefield’s misuse of the term anthropic when he really means anthropogenic?
#229 skip
November 16, 2010

I did but I didn’t see the irony.

I think think of anthropic as in the anthropic principle. What are you driving at Ian?

Forgive my dimness if its obvious . . .

And Coby, with all respect, you dragged this guy in like one of my cats would drag a half-dead rodent. We’ve tried to engage him but he’s just gone into Crakar mode: Ignoring questions and mindlessly carpet blogging.
#230 Ian Forrester
November 16, 2010

Skip, the reason I find it ironic is that is is mostly used by cosmologists and other types who discuss the origin of the universe, the existence of human life and by those discussing Intelligent Design. The latter is what I find ironic in Wakefield’s use of the term.
#231 skip
November 16, 2010

Ok but I thought it was always used by agnostics/atheists: the reason the universe’s properties are within the narrow range necessary to allow existence–including our own–is because it just is what it is. There are any number of hypothetical cosmoses which don’t have these properties, and the fact that we’re here to even discuss the point is thus not remarkable and thus no compelling argument for the existence of God.

Jesus, listen to me . . . .why am I even discussing this?

You guys have fun with Richard for a few days. To hell with it; I’m going to San Francisco.
#232 Ian Forrester
November 16, 2010

Skip, that is what I found ironic, it is used by people discussing religion and not in scientific discussions.
#233 Richard Wakefield
November 16, 2010

an·throp·ic /ænˈθrɒpɪk/ Show Spelled
[an-throp-ik] Show IPA

–adjective

of or pertaining to human beings or their span of existence on earth.
#234 mandas
November 16, 2010

“…..How you can possibly claim we understand what is going on when your own people pubish papers like this:….”

I didn’t realise Kevin Trenberth was at Adelaide University. I must look him up when I go in today.

“…..mandas your paper was 10 years old…..”

There were two papers – one 10 years old and one 4 years old. And in what way were they wrong? And of the 4 papers you linked to, 3 of them accept that AGW is occurring, and one of them – Chilingar – is so bad that every single scientist who has reviewed it has said it was just politically motivated bad pseudo-science. This is a paper written by a petroleum engineer, published in an industry journal, that claims that increased CO2 results in cooling of the atmosphere rather than heating. Not even you could be that moronic (oh, wait….).

“…..Questions unanswered:
1) How do you parse out a normal variation in temp changes from anthropic forcings?
2) was the temp increase from 1800 to 1945 because of our CO2 emissions?…”

Q1 – already answered
Q2 – no (partly at the end)

“…New question. With summer max temps flat or dropping how does that fit the AGW claim of more heat deaths due to CO2?…”

Invalid question. Summer max temperatures are not flat or dropping. I have already provided a link to the BOM data from my part of the world which discredits this.

So how are you going on identifying the ‘natural mechanism’ that is causing the increasing mean temperatures that you have observed?
#235 Ian Forrester
November 16, 2010

Wakefield, I am talking about normal usage not definition.

How are you coming along with finding out why your AGW/pulp mill analogy is so ridiculous? I bet you don’t even understand what I am talking about, your knowledge of just about everything is so limited.
#236 pough
November 16, 2010

Hold on. Did Wakefield just reference Miskolczi unironically? Even Spencer think’s he’s full of it.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
#237 Richard Wakefield
November 16, 2010

Wakefield, I am talking about normal usage not definition.

Oh, I see. I used it correctly by the definition, but because some people misuse the word I’m wrong in how I used it.

Wonderful logic, no wonder you swallowed the AGW coolaid.
#238 Richard Wakefield
November 16, 2010

Summer max temperatures are not flat or dropping. I have already provided a link to the BOM data from my part of the world which discredits this.

I’m currently looking at the July TMax for all stations, select those with complete/near complete records with more than 80 years of data. Is that cherry picking? Guess you think it is.

I will be posting the results on my blog. You won’t be happy. So far:
Station Location Prov Start Yr End Yr # Recs % Complete TMAX trend
4333 OTTAWA CDA Ontario 1900 2009 3300 3379 98% TMax dropping
3328 SASKATOON DIEFENBAKER INT’L A Saskatchewan 1900 2009 3293 3379 97% TMax flat trend
2205 CALGARY INT’L A Alberta 1900 2009 3292 3379 97% TMax dropping
5325 BROME Quebec 1900 2009 3090 3379 91%
TMax flat trend
2973 MUENSTER Saskatchewan 1904 2009 3024 3255 93% TMax flat trend

This is what I will see with the rest. But you will all think I’m lying.
#239 Richard Wakefield
November 16, 2010

Hold on. Did Wakefield just reference Miskolczi unironically? Even Spencer think’s he’s full of it.

No, Spencer does not think Miskolczi is full of it. He admits much of what Miskolczi states is correct, and questions the equalibrium state that Miskolczi claims.

You should also read the comments, very enlighting.

See: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ferenc.pdf

“Conclusions
1 It is clear now, that radio sonde and satellite measurements do not support the
standard theory of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. The new theory of Miskolczi,
based on those atmospheric profiles under very different circumstances, does support
those empirical results. His theory contains no parameters that are “fitted” to historic
climate trends and greenhouse gas concentration trends. The only thing that is different,
is that other, more experimentally founded, boundary conditions are taken in solving the
differential equations describing radiation equilibrium:
i. Infrared Radiation equilibrium between surface and atmosphere
ii. Partly infrared transparent atmosphere.
The result indicates that the atmosphere chooses an optical thickness, by water vapor
take-up or release, that ensures the maximum Outgoing Long wave Radiation globally for
a cloudy atmosphere.
2 Measurements of the oscillating weather patterns in the tropical Pacific show
indeed that the climate controls itself, by changes in the water content of the air, and so
by changing cloud cover and cloud height.
3 Measurements of troposphere heating, predicted by the standard theory as a
consequence of the greenhouse gas increase, in de period 1979-1999 contradict the
standard theory by measuring a global cooling instead.”
#240 adelady
November 16, 2010

I’m n.o.t going to re-read the whole comment thread on that Spencer post again but I do remember his point. Repeatedly made to a couple of persistent doubters.

Briefly put. Miskolczi’s argument is merely a trivial restatement of known science for the most part. The last little extra part where he tries to say that his analysis reveals something new is completely wrong.

Just read Spencer’s patiently repeated, and repeated, explanations and answers to the comments on that post. He shows why M cannot possibly be right, both on theory and in the equations. He does a good job.
#241 Richard Wakefield
November 17, 2010

was the temp increase from 1800 to 1945 because of our CO2 emissions?…”

Q2 – no (partly at the end)

Very interesting admission. So the average temp increased from 1800 to 1945 all on its own, from natural causes and cyclic variation, except party at the end (with no change in rate) which was from our CO2 emissions. Continued increases of CO2 by 4 times and the planet’s average temp dropped (seen in the CDN data too), but only after 1980 did our CO2 cause this increase with no natural component at all.

Yep, they must have passed around a lot of coolaid.
#242 Richard Wakefield
November 17, 2010

Just read Spencer’s patiently repeated, and repeated, explanations and answers to the comments on that post. He shows why M cannot possibly be right, both on theory and in the equations. He does a good job.

This is what I get from a carefull read. We do not understand what is going on in the climate system. We have huge gaps in what we know for sure, and what we don’t know about what we don’t know is huge. Thus ANY such predictions or speculations on the effects of CO2 is just that. Speculations.

Hence the dogma here that CO2 is “unequivocally” causing this warm trend is just that, faithful, politically motivated dogma.

Take a political poll of those here who support anthropic CO2 is killing the planet. Wanna bet is it far leftist, human hating, capitalism hating, USA hating world views here?
#243 Ian Forrester
November 17, 2010

Wakefield said:

This is what I get from a careful read. I do not understand what is going on in the climate system. I have huge gaps in what I know for sure, and what I don’t know about what I don’t know is huge.

There, I corrected it for you Wakefield. I suggest you take some science courses and your ignorance will disappear. Start with Junior High Chemistry and Physics.
#244 Richard Wakefield
November 17, 2010

Ian, must be nice to be a God and understand everything about how the climate works.

Seems ridiculing is the only defense you have to keep the faith. I know I have won the debate when people attempt to belittle me and throw insults around.
#245 Ian Forrester
November 17, 2010

Wakefield you deserve any and every truthful statement about your ignorance, arrogance and selfishness in regard to your delusional statements about climate science. This is a science blog (see it is even in the title) so your nonsense is not welcome. As I said, get your self a science education then come back and discuss things in a rational and informed manner. Otherwise, you are just a denier troll.
#246 pough
November 17, 2010

I know I have won the debate when people attempt to belittle me and throw insults around.

Try to imagine a scenario where someone stupid and obviously wrong refuses to answer questions and simply restates his wrong opinion over and over again. What’s the response? Is it something other than belittlement and insults?

This is how I know you’re completely hopeless.
#247 pough
November 17, 2010

No, Spencer does not think Miskolczi is full of it. He admits much of what Miskolczi states is correct, and questions the equalibrium state that Miskolczi claims.

You should also read the comments, very enlighting.

I did read the comments and I agree they were very enlightening. Spencer’s commentary on Miskolczi can be summarized thusly:

Your paper is correct and interesting, but what’s correct isn’t interesting and what’s interesting isn’t correct. Can you comment on what I think is wrong about it?

Miskolczi’s response: Nothing on subject.

Spencer: Can you comment on what I think is wrong about it?

Miskolczi’s response: …

Spencer: Can you comment on what I think is wrong about it?

Miskolczi’s response: …

Spencer: Can you comment on what I think is wrong about it?

Miskolczi’s response: …
#248 pough
November 17, 2010

Take a political poll of those here who support anthropic CO2 is killing the planet. Wanna bet is it far leftist, human hating, capitalism hating, USA hating world views here?

Leaving aside your over-the-top hate-filled invective, is there any particular reason to think that the left believes one thing because of ideology and the right is free of such a blinder?

Let me tell you how I understand your position:

1. There is some as-yet-unknown natural forcing that works exactly like CO2 is thought to work.

2. CO2, in spite of all physics and experimentation, does little of what we expect it to do.

3. 97% of all nerds who have devoted their lives to understanding climate are either morons, greedy liars (who have come up with an unworkable plan to make money) or are simply blinded by ideology.

4. A small groups of contrarians, none of whom agree with each other and few of whom actually study climate science, understand climate science better than the experts.

I won’t say there’s no chance of you being right, but I will say I think my skepticism is entirely justified.
#249 Richard Wakefield
November 17, 2010

1. There is some as-yet-unknown natural forcing that works exactly like CO2 is thought to work.

The same natural forcing that is admitted here to have caused the average temp to increase from the 1800′s to 1945.

2. CO2, in spite of all physics and experimentation, does little of what we expect it to do.

Which is correct. Summers have not produced more heat waves and more heat related deaths as AGW predicted. There has been no change in weather events, no increase in storms, hurricanes, rainfall, snowfall, etc. Sea level rise has not accelerated.

3. 97% of all nerds who have devoted their lives to understanding climate are either morons, greedy liars (who have come up with an unworkable plan to make money) or are simply blinded by ideology.

Yes. 85% of the world thinks there is a god too, their “experts” tell them so.

4. A small groups of contrarians, none of whom agree with each other and few of whom actually study climate science, understand climate science better than the experts.

Understand the ulterior motives of the High Priests of AGW. Keeping one’s income from government grants, keeping one’s political power, are large motivators to fabricating the science. Hansen, Jones and Mann are excellent examples.

BTW, I’m not right wing. I’m in the center of the political spectrum (www.politicalcompass.org). I don’t have a political ideological dogma to defend.
#250 Ian Forrester
November 17, 2010

Well that does it for me. Time to unload idiots who refer to climate scientists as “High Priests of AGW” to the dustbin of the internet. This is a science blog Coby, please do not allow for the misinformation and rubbish of the likes of Wakefield to pollute the scientific understanding of climate science.

Thank you.
#251 Chris S.
November 17, 2010

RW:”I’m currently looking at the July TMax for all stations,”

So, you’ve got the data to hand & can send it on to me then.

What are you afraid of?
#252 mandas
November 17, 2010

Wakefield @ #238.

Hate to break this to you, but Ottawa, Saskatoon, Calgary, Brome and Muenster are all in Canada, not in ‘my part of the world’ as I keep stating.

I have already posted a link the the Australian Bureau of Meteorology websiite climate information, which shows unequivocably that both max. and min. temperatures are increasing in South Australia – which is my part of the world. So your prediction is falsified. Get that – falsified!!!

However, unlike you , I would not be so rapidly moronic to claim that something that was happening in my tiny corner of the globe MUST be happening everywhere else. I would actually go and look at the freely available data – you don’t need a ‘friend’ to get it for you. That’s one of the wonders of the modern world – Al Gore’s other invention, the internet.

Doing one’s research before opening one’s mouth or putting fingers to keyboard is the hallmark of a real scientist. Pity you failed on that score.
#253 mandas
November 17, 2010

Wakefield @ #241

“…..was the temp increase from 1800 to 1945 because of our CO2 emissions?…”
Q2 – no (partly at the end)
Very interesting admission….”

Just goes to show what a complete dickhead you are there RW. yes – dickhead. If you actually bothered to read ANYTHING on this subject before putting forward your moronic creationist dogma, including both the IPCC report which you are supposedly trying to discredit, and the link that Ian was kind enough to provide at post #228, you would have discovered this statement from the IPCC:

“…..The radiative forcing due to changes in solar irradiance for the period since 1750 is estimated to be about +0.3 Wm-2, most of which occurred during the first half of the 20th century….”

So, go away, take your head out of your arse, and do some reading and try and put forward an argument which is not just a continual restatement of your right-wing, fundamentalist, creationist dogma.
#254 mandas
November 17, 2010

Wakefield @ #244

“….. I know I have won the debate when people attempt to belittle me and throw insults around….”

Then it looks like you lost the argument back at post #85 when you said:

“….Fuck you all. This thread is over…..”

Or, you could try ‘winning’ the debate by actually getting some evidence together (you have some from a small area), coming up with an internally consistent theory (nope – fail), reviewing that theory against other known information (nope – fail) and be able to respond to criticisms of your theory (nope – fail).

So, based on your own criteria of losing the debate when you start to insult – you have lost.

And based on my criteria of losing the debate if you are unable to develop and defend a cogent argument, you have also lost.

Guess that makes you a two-time loser.
#255 pough
November 17, 2010

Keeping one’s income from government grants, keeping one’s political power, are large motivators to fabricating the science.

That’s certainly easy to say, but do you have any evidence to back it up? I’ve heard it so many time before, but interestingly nobody has supplied any evidence or any description of how such a thing would even be possible.

First of all, many climate scientists are professors. They already get paid. Also, the grant money that comes their way is taken by their institutions and offsets their salary. So they don’t make much extra. Add to that the fact that most of the grant money goes into satellites, not to scientists. And then there is the fact that no other science needs to “invent” a global catastrophe to get grant money, in spite of the fact that there are probably fewer climate scientists than other sciences, so less money would go further. Also, they’re all nerds and you think they have A) banded together across nations and B) are avoiding actually figuring things out for the sake of greed? Do you not know any nerds? Finally, their crazy money grab plan happens to be something that every person on the face of the planet wants not to be true. Who in their right mind would invent something that every person smart enough to disprove has incentive to do it?

You’re crazy if you think that has even the smallest chance of being true. It takes some serious tinfoil to even consider it.

I don’t have a political ideological dogma to defend.

And yet you say things like, “far leftist, human hating, capitalism hating, USA hating”. You don’t have to be far to any side of the political spectrum for your hate to cloud your thinking. Hell, you don’t have to be political at all to be wrong.
#256 Richard Wakefield
November 17, 2010

So, you’ve got the data to hand & can send it on to me then.

What are you afraid of?

Nothing, it’s 5 megs zipped per station. Which station do you want?
#257 Richard Wakefield
November 17, 2010

“…..The radiative forcing due to changes in solar irradiance for the period since 1750 is estimated to be about +0.3 Wm-2, most of which occurred during the first half of the 20th century….”

But somehow that forcing then, natural forcing, doesn’t have any influence today. Interesting logic.
#258 Richard Wakefield
November 17, 2010

have already posted a link the the Australian Bureau of Meteorology websiite climate information, which shows unequivocably that both max. and min. temperatures are increasing in South Australia – which is my part of the world. So your prediction is falsified. Get that – falsified!!!

Those were still averages. I have the URL to get the raw daily data for any station in AU. Once I finish the July stuff for Canada I’ll be writing code to get that data from AU. Then we will see what the daily data is actually doing. That’s going to take time to get that data.
#259 mandas
November 17, 2010

RW @ #257

“….But somehow that forcing then, natural forcing, doesn’t have any influence today. Interesting logic….”

No it’s not interesting logic – just a statement of fact. You do know that TSI changes over time, right? And you do know that the sun is in a quiet period at the moment, right?

I have suggested this to you time and time and time again, but you seem unable to follow simple advice – DO SOME READING ON THIS ISSUE!!!!!!

RW @ #258:

“…..Those were still averages. I have the URL to get the raw daily data for any station in AU. Once I finish the July stuff for Canada I’ll be writing code to get that data from AU. Then we will see what the daily data is actually doing. That’s going to take time to get that data….”

So ummmmmm, I show you the average maximum temperatures are increasing, and I show you that the average minimum temperatures are increasing (which you seem to accept), but that somehow is not enough to convince you huh?

But more concerning, is that you don’t have, and have never had, the data from Australia, but you still persist in your idiotic claims when – you admit – you don’t have any evidence. You are a creationist aren’t you!
#260 Richard Wakefield
November 17, 2010

I have suggested this to you time and time and time again, but you seem unable to follow simple advice – DO SOME READING ON THIS ISSUE!!!!!!

Fig 3 from this: http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

Total solar irradiance has increased up to 2000, higher now even though flat since 2000 than it was in 1900. So since the solar irradiance was lower in 1900 than today, and the average increased from 1900 to today then the current increase will still have a significant solar component now than it did in 1900.

This paper then goes on to say that this warm trend will reverse and we will return to a cooler period, regardless of how much CO2 we emit.

Hence to stave off this cooling period (and the susbequent loss of crops) we should be pumping as much CO2 as is possible to compensate if AGW is correct.

Yeah, I do some reading.
#261 mandas
November 17, 2010

RW

That’s great. So, just so we all know, based on your earlier statements that your observed increases in mean temperature being caused by ‘natural mechanisms’, and your linking to this paper, then we can say that you believe that climate change is occuring as a result of an increase in solar irradiation. Can we go with that then? And can we also state that you accept the findings of any paper that you link to?

These are pretty important points – we need to know where you stand.
#262 mandas
November 17, 2010

As I said, thanks for that link to the paper from that Russian institute. It made fascinating reading. Let’s go over some of the highlights shall we:

“…. Until 1978, precise measurements of the value of the total solar irradiance (TSI) were not available. But according to indirect data, namely the established major climate variations of the Earth in recent millennia, one must doubt the invariance of its value….”

Oh really? Then on what basis did they make claims regarding increasing TSI in the earlier half of the twentieth century? Surely they can’t be constructing detailed and supposedly accurate graphs based on imprecise data? Wouldn’t that be unethical?

But let’s leave that aside for the moment. Let’s look at the TSI data post-1978. There they are, at Figure 1. That’s strange, they show a marked decrease in TSI from 1978 to the present. Let’s keep that in mind and move on shall we?

“….The intense solar energy flow radiated since the beginning of the 1990′s is slowly decreasing and, in spite of conventional opinion, there is now an unavoidable advance toward a global temperature decrease…. The Earth, after receiving and storing over the twentieth century an anomalously large amount of heat energy, from the 1990′s began to return it gradually….”

So how does this correlate with observations? Well, the paper was from 2008, so it would be instructive to see if its predictions are accurate.

“…2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record…. The past year (2009) was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began……”In 2009, it was clear that even the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data hasn’t stopped global warming from continuing…”(NASA)

“….2010 is set to be the warmest on record….” (NOAA)

“….the years 2001 – 2009 have been 9 of the 10 hottest years on record….” (the other year was 1998) (NCDC)

Not going well so far. Let’s see how well the paper does elsewhere.

“….A global increase in temperature has also occurred on Mars. NASA researchers, after tracing changes on its surface from 1999 until 2005, discovered melting ice at Mars’ south pole and warming of the Martian climate, a natural event that occurred without any contribution by Martians or greenhouse effect driven by Martians. Analogous processes have also been observed on Jupiter, Neptune, Triton, Pluto and other planets of the solar system. These can only be the direct consequences of the action of one and the same factor – the prolonged and extraordinarily high level of the energy radiated by the Sun…”

Oh, oh, this is not going to be good. Hasn’t TSI been dropping dropping since 1978 (from their own graphs)? How could Martian temperatures possibly have increased when solar radiation is decreasing? Might there not be something else happening here? I guess it could be a delay, or some form of thermal intertia – maybe that’s it.

“….There is no ocean on Mars; therefore its thermal inertia is much lower, and cooling begins much faster than the Earth…”

Well, they rule that one out themselves. What’s next?

“….The ocean serves as the basic depository of CO2, and since the solubility of gas in the water decreases with an increase in the temperature, the warming of the ocean leads to the emission of this large volume into the atmosphere. A further source of CO2 entering the atmosphere was revealed several years ago by the Far-Eastern Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences: the huge amount of algae frozen into the icebergs that drift in the Arctic and near the Antarctic coasts. Falling into warm water after the melting of ice, they rot, giving out carbon dioxide. Consequently, the widespread point of view of the determining role of industrial human activity on the global warming of climate is the result of substituting cause for effect….”

So they’re saying the increase in CO2 is because of rotting algae and oceanic outgassing, not human activity? Interesting.

“….If it were possible to withdraw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, its absorption would decrease from 63 to 51%. However, an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide will cause virtually no increase in absorption….”

So if you remove CO2 it will reduce the temperature of the atmosphere by reducing absorption, but if you return it to the atmosphere it will have no effect? Interesting perspective!

So as I said there RW, thanks for that link. I am going to ask you again, do you stand by what it claims? I have more if you like.
#263 pough
November 17, 2010

But somehow that forcing then, natural forcing, doesn’t have any influence today. Interesting logic.

Also, quiescent volcanoes have extremely limited effects on climate. This has been pointless irrelevancies that can only confuse the rubes, brought to you by RW and pough.
#264 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

“….2010 is set to be the warmest on record….” (NOAA)

Since the year is not over yet, I find that rather optimistic, and unrealistic, eventually to be shown false. It won’t be the warmest on record, not even close.

The claims of it being “warmer” since 1998 don’t match reality. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/05-loehleNEW.pdf. In my video I show that for Southern Ontario comparing the “coldest” year with the “warmest” year shows that the summer temps of the two years is the same. What was “warmer” in 1998 was the beginning of Dec and the end of Feb. That’s it.

I have also showed http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/09/summer-of-2010-hottest-on-record-not.html that 2010 for us is no where near the hottest. Now before you go off claiming cherry picking one location, I will do the rest of Canada once the year is over.

Interesting that 2010 is claimed to be the hottest on record when last winter the UK was completely covered in snow, the first time in 50 or 60 years.

My view of the Russian paper? It’s evidence, period. You have an issue with the paper, contact the author and tell him. Your criticisms of it mean nothing until you bring it to the author and let him reply and clarify. But you just dismiss it out of hand, that’s dogma.
#265 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

Lindzen’s testimony at the hearings yesterday: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/profess-richard-lindzens-congressional-testimony/#more-27999
#266 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

The European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) released a paper today written by German physicist Dr. Horst Borchert. The paper reveals a clear relation between solar activity and ocean cycles, and thus act as the main climate drivers. Measured data shows no CO2 impact on climate.

http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/16/german-scientist-co2-not-the-cause-of-climate-change-cold-period-is-anticipated/
#267 Ian forrester
November 18, 2010

Coby this is a science site please prevent the spamming of denier troll rubbish.
#268 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

That paper by Borchert IS science!!
#269 coby
November 18, 2010

Richard, this whole thing started with a comment of mine at Climate Etc. regarding the difference between denial and skepticism.

Your blind acceptance of papers, blogs and articles that fit your predetermined view that AGW is an “anti-capitalist” lie is the precise opposite of skepticism.

Your continued avoidance of questions and issues that challenge your statements is dogmatic, and your out of hand rejection of CO2′s radiative properties and the unequivocal warming the planet is undergoing is denialism.

There was a request up the line for a summary/refocusing post to continue this one. I would like to do it, but I don’t see myself having the time soon enough to be relevant. I am happy for a clearly written guest-post offering if anyone is so motivated, it is a long thread and such a summary would be valuable in not allowing the key points of the debate being lost with Richard’s continued misdirections and subject changes.

Ian, I won’t censor him in the belief that the rope he is being given is enough to hang him several times over. I know you don’t agree, but it is the policy here. I will consider closing the thread if people seem to want that.
#270 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

So, Coby, you are going to ignore Borchert’s paper. You wanted a mechanism from me, he provides it. The denialism will be on your side if you ignore this scientific paper that shows no role for CO2. Deal with it.
#271 coby
November 18, 2010

Richard,

Considering that you have not read this paper I think it merely confirms your lack of skepticism. And considering that the proposed mechanism in the abstract is at odds with your repeated insistence above that the climate was just returning to “normal” temperatures after the LIA, it is confirmation that you are simply interested in denying the mountains of science developed over 150 years indicating that rising CO2 levels should and are driving temperatures up. Add to this your insistence that the world is not even warming!

A rational and honest person does not try to argue out of that many sides of his own mouth.
#272 Chris S.
November 18, 2010

I think a quick perusal of the references in the Borchert paper is illuminating – the usual suspects (Svensmark, Scaffetta, Lomborg, Singer) plus the inevitable G&T and, as a bonus, junkscience!

Richard,
I’ll have Ontario and Sasketchewan as a starter, if coby is willing to play intermediary…
#273 coby
November 18, 2010

No problem on my part. Richard, share the data, reveal the code?
#274 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

Coby, so you are going to deny the science in Borchert’s paper. Very interesting indeed, and totally expected you all would. Ignore the stuff that challenges the faith, yepper, now that’s real science…

As for the data, I said stations, not provinces. Each station with data back to 1900 will be 5megs zipped. So here is a quick list of stations with long records, oh, gee I already posted that, guess you ignored it.

Here are the top 10 stations according to the number of records:

StnID Station Province MinOfYear MaxOfYear CountOfDateString
5168 HALIBURTON A Ontario 1900 1992 2426
4442 DURHAM Ontario 1900 2003 1675
2971 MOOSOMIN Saskatchewan 1900 2000 2344
4333 OTTAWA CDA Ontario 1900 2009 3300
4862 BLOOMFIELD Ontario 1900 1933 930
588 FORT ST JAMES British Columbia 1900 2009 3297
735 CHILLIWACK British Columbia 1900 2006 2514
4576 LUCKNOW Ontario 1900 1991 2205
3328 SASKATOON DIEFENBAKER INT’L A Saskatchewan 1900 2009 3293
380 BELLA COOLA British Columbia 1900 2002 3021

Pick one. Also, you have a choice, the raw data right from EC, or the cleaned data with only the fields you need, should you trust me that I properly cleaned the records (removed data that wasn’t temp data).
#275 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

reveal the code?

I’ve already posted the SQL I used twice. No one posted any fault with it.
#276 MartinM
November 18, 2010

I have also showed http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/09/summer-of-2010-hottest-on-record-not.html that 2010 for us is no where near the hottest. Now before you go off claiming cherry picking one location, I will do the rest of Canada once the year is over.

It’s not the location you’re cherrypicking.
#277 wagdog
November 18, 2010

Notice that throughout this thread, R Wakefield has repeatedly stated that correlation does not imply causation at least three times. He then cites:

German physicist Dr. Horst Borchert. The paper reveals a clear relation between solar activity and ocean cycles, and thus act as the main climate drivers.

Borchert’s main claim is a correlation between global cosmic rays and regional temperature. Strange how a correlation is suddenly found to be sufficient evidence of a causal link when it is the Sun to blame, but not when it is fossil fuel related CO2.

A good sceptic would doubt causal links on both sides, and then examine the data and evaluate physically accurate predictive models to see which, if any, are true.
#278 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

Oh dear, another paper that shows the sun caused this warm trend, and the future is lower temps:

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2010-Variable-solar-dynamo3.pdf

Another you will ignore.
#279 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

wagdog, does that mean you are going to move to the skeptics camp on AGW? Especially with this new paper just put up?
#280 MartinM
November 18, 2010

Oh dear, another paper that shows the sun caused this warm trend, and the future is lower temps:

Did you bother to read it? The conclusion is that, during the period 1844-1970, solar variation explained 43% of observed warming. And their model relies on an increasing TSI to cause warming, rendering it incapable of explaining recent warming.
#281 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

Did you bother to read it? It concludes that the planet will COOL by 2020-2030, regardless of how much CO2. Notice also NO MENTION of anthropic CO2 having any effect. They did noted about water vapour being a factor but NOT CO2.
#282 MartinM
November 18, 2010

It concludes that the planet will COOL by 2020-2030, regardless of how much CO2.

No. It concludes that a ‘Maunder-type’ minimum would cause a relative decrease in temperature of roughly 0.4 degC. That is, their prediction is for a decrease of 0.4 degC in the solar contribution to temperature only.
#283 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

MartinM LOL!

That’s funny. You will go to any lengths, including putting meaning into a sentence that isn’t there, to keep the faith alive. How do you know that is what they mean?

Let’s see. The IPCC’s forcast is what, 1 to 3C in 100 years, so then by this, remove .4C from that? If so why didn’t the author say that?

“relative” means from TODAY, not what CO2 would do.
#284 mandas
November 18, 2010

Well, I for one have had enough of trying to convince a creationist that he is wrong, because, exactly as RW would have discovered 20 odd years ago, that it doesn’t matter how much evidence you present, it doesn’t matter that their argument is both internally and externally inconsistent; their position is based on an unwavering faith that they are right, and everyone who expresses a contrary view is wrong.

RW has already stated – quite categorically – that he is unable to provide evidence for the mechanism that he suspects is driving the changes he has observed, but that he has ‘faith’ that he is right and that someday, someone will find the evidence.

He has stated – quite categorically – that he rejects 150 years of science and experiment which shows unequivocably that CO2 is a GHG and it raises the temperature of the Earth’s climate.

He has stated – unequivocably – that he believes that climate scientists are committing mass conspiracy and fraud, and that anyone who accepts the science is a far left wing, human hating, USA hating socialist.

He has provided link after link which he feels supports his case. In virtually every single case, he has not even read the paper he links to, and in virtually every single case, the papers say the exact opposite to what he thinks they say.

He has provided link after link to politically motivated, pseudo scientific garbage, that make claims that are ridiculously easy to dissemble.

He abused and threatened – without having the balls to follow through with his threat – and got upset when he was abused in turn.

He continues to make idiotic claims without a shred of evidence to support then (no RW – Canada is NOT the whole world), and when evidence is presented which demonstrates he is wrong (when will you get around to accepting the data from the Australian BOM?) he just rejects it for moronic reasons.

The really sad thing, is that Richard just cannot see that he is acting EXACTLY like the creationists he is so proud of proving wrong all those years ago. He rejects science; he adopts a position that has no supporting evidence; he has ‘faith’ that he will be proven right someday; and his reference material is shot through with contradictions and demonstrable errors. When he is presented with the evidence that he is wrong, he just rejects it out of hand (remind you of anything Richard?).

Richard, you are a creationist idiot. I will waste no more of my time on you, because you have demonstrated quite clearly that you have made up your mind, and no amount of evidence or logical argument will convince you otherwise. I used to have doubts about AGW, but I read and read and read and even took university courses to improve my level of knowledge. I guess that’s the real difference between you and me – if the evidence is shown to me, I am willing to admit I was wrong and can change. You can not.
#285 Chris S.
November 18, 2010

Richard, I was trying to give you some leeway to choose your sites but if you insist I’ll have:

4333 OTTAWA CDA Ontario 1900 2009 &
2973 MUENSTER Saskatchewan 1904 2009

for starters, just the excel files though, thanks.
#286 blueshift
November 18, 2010

Chris S.,
Thank you for the links. I’m sorry my question was so vague- I don’t really know enough to know what I should ask, but it seems that I have a place to start now.

Have you considered a guest post on Skeptical Science?

RW,
Some advice/commentary:
1) You’ve complained repeatedly that you were being misrepresented in the comments here. If so, you would be better off trying to clarify your arguments rather than adding a list of new arguments and links to unrelated points.
2) You really ought to define your terms clearly. In particular, if you are going to say that AGW is falsified you need to explain what you think AGW is.

Also, are you going to answer Mandas questions in 261 and 262?

Skip,
In 134, you discuss the dynamics of this thread. My modest suggestion is that the various red herrings need to be ignored or set aside until the initial claims are clarified. RW doesn’t seem to enjoy answering direct questions, so this would take quite a bit of discipline and I know I’m not contributing.
#287 MartinM
November 18, 2010

That’s funny. You will go to any lengths, including putting meaning into a sentence that isn’t there, to keep the faith alive. How do you know that is what they mean?

I took a truly radical approach, one no climate ‘sceptic’ would ever attempt; I read the material, and checked its references. The authors compare their results to those of Feulner and Rahmstorf, who explicitly state that their results are ‘…relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades.’ I also read the paper on which this book chapter is based. A quick look at the normalised data presented in fig 5 suggests that their model is broadly consistent with a 0.4 degC decrease in the solar contribution, but wholly inconsistent with the 0.9+ degC decrease necessary to overwhelm the non-solar trend they put at about 0.5 degC/decade.
#288 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

Chris, if I give you just the xls files then you will be getting aggregated data, not raw data.
#289 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

Chris, I have exported the cleaned data from those two stations into this file: http://www.mcswiz.com/filepickup/stationdata.zip
#290 Richard Wakefield
November 18, 2010

Also, are you going to answer Mandas questions in 261 and 262?

I have, many times explained my position. I accept the evidence, and I have show two new papers that shows the sun has significant effects on the climate (one directly negates CO2), and their prediction is we are heading to cooler times, regardless of CO2. But seems that no one here is willing to even consider this as a possible explanation for this warming, even though they are science papers.
#291 Chris S.
November 19, 2010

Thanks Richard,

I’ve had a quick play with some of the data over lunch. Site 2973 (Meunster).

For the whole series Tmax, Tmin & Tmean all show significant increase (p(less than)0.001) but the variance is huge and the residuals show that the data are not normally distributed.

For the months May – August Tmin & Tmean show significant increase (p(less than)0.001) and Tmax is also significantly increasing (p=0.002). The data are more normal but the variance is still huge.

For July, Tmax is, as you say, showing no linear trend (p=0.460)(though the residuals indicate a linear regression will not capture any trend and perhaps a quadratic or cubic may elucidate further). Tmin and Tmean, on the other hand both show significant increase (p(less than)0.001). The data are slightly skewed – Tmax more so than the other two and the variance is, again huge.

I’ll play a bit more over the next month or so to see what else I can tease out.
#292 Richard Simons
November 19, 2010

#274 “Here are the top 10 stations according to the number of records:”

Why were the Agriculture Canada stations omitted? Some of them, e.g. Brandon and Swift Current, have records going back well before 1900.
#293 Richard Wakefield
November 19, 2010

Why were the Agriculture Canada stations omitted? Some of them, e.g. Brandon and Swift Current, have records going back well before 1900.

I downloaded only Environment Canada data. Always willing to look at more records.
#294 Richard Wakefield
November 19, 2010

Chris, I hope you are not running linear regressions through the TMax, there is error in the data, as you can see in the graphs I posted of this station:

http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/11/station-2973-muenster-saskatchewan.html

That will tend to skew the line up.

So let’s look at these graphs in detail. The first one is the full range of yearly temps, with summer TMax in red, Winter TMin in Blue, the TMean in black, orange are the standard deviations. The mean is a meaninless number, all that counts is the trend in the TMax and TMin. TMin is increasing, very clearly. TMax however is dropping after 1945.

Second graph is the summer months TMax variation (6,7,8). Highest of TMax is CLEARLY dropping. The lowest of TMax is flat.

The next graph is just the highest of TMax with a 10 year moving average. Up until 1940, then clearly down since.

Clearly the hottest days of summer was between 1930 to 1940ish. Summers are a full 2C cooler now than then.

The last graph is the number of days 30C and above. Clear downward trend in the number of heat waves.

So now do you believe me? Have I really done ANYTHING wrong here or elsewhere?
#295 MartinM
November 19, 2010

For the whole series Tmax, Tmin & Tmean all show significant increase (p(less than)0.001) but the variance is huge and the residuals show that the data are not normally distributed.

That’s not really surprising. I’d expect Tmax and Tmin to be drawn from a GEV distribution.
#296 Richard Wakefield
November 19, 2010

There is no increases in TMax, it’s DROPPING.
#297 skip
November 19, 2010

I just got back from San Francisco, and wow is my butt sore . . . from a long bike ride that involved several epic climbs on hilly streets.

And I see nothing much has changed in a few days:

Yeah, I do some reading. –Richard # 260

Remember this, Richard?

What, exactly, have you read from the AGW position? skip # 173

You never answered, Richard. I think we both know why.

So I’ll repeat it:

Direct question, Richard: What, exactly, have you read from the AGW position?

You have an issue with the paper, contact the author and tell him. Your criticisms of it mean nothing until you bring it to the author and let him reply and clarify. But you just dismiss it out of hand, that’s dogma. Richard #264

Which reminded me of:

One thing I aways did when fighting creationism was read everything I could of what they wrote so I could see where they were coming from. . . . So you really have no argument against Kininmonth if you won’t read his book. .—Richard #174

Direct Question, Richard: How many of the scientists who argue in favor of AGW—that you supposedly read—have you contacted with your criticisms?

And while we’re on the topic of dodged questions:

Direct question, Richard: Do you still stand by Ollier’s editorial on sea level rise—you know, the one you cited and which I destroyed (not that it was an impressive achievement; anyone with a few spare hours and the inclination could have done it) in post #184?

I know I have won the debate when people attempt to belittle me and throw insults around. — Richard # 244

This is what you tell yourself, Richard, but the debate is “won” or “lost” based on the position you take, not the behavior of the disputants. If you pick a bankrupt position, as you have, your ship is sunk before it even leaves port.

And in some murky spot you don’t talk about you know the real truth: You’ve *lost* the debate when you’ve been caught citing things you have not read and refusing to answer direct questions.

Furthermore, I predict you will ignore my direct questions, of course, because you were caught citing garbage and now there is no way out.

Repeat: I predict, Richard, that you will ignore my direct questions

How about one more time for *absolute* clarity:

Repeat: I predict, Richard, that you will ignore my direct questions

Richard, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that in other capacities you’re a decent person. But you’re destroying yourself publicly and you will live to hate yourself for this one day. In advance, I’ll promise to try to forgive you as much as I am able, but bear in mind that my children and theirs and subsequent generations have to inherit the world people such as you are helping to create. That will have to be taken into consideration.
#298 Richard Wakefield
November 19, 2010

Direct question, Richard: What, exactly, have you read from the AGW position?

The last IPCC report, and several hundred links to papers people have told me to read, which I have. Plus I’ve been a regular vistor of a few proAGW sites (including RC), though no longer post.

Direct Question, Richard: How many of the scientists who argue in favor of AGW—that you supposedly read—have you contacted with your criticisms?

3, and they stopped responding to my questions and requests for raw data.

Direct question, Richard: Do you still stand by Ollier’s editorial on sea level rise

Sea level rise is not accelerating. See any station you want from here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.shtml

Plus this latest paper: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JC005630.shtml
#299 skip
November 19, 2010

There are any number of your claims and links I could pursue here, Richard, but at least I finally got some response from you, so for now I am going to focus on just this one:

Direct question, Richard: Do you still stand by Ollier’s editorial on sea level rise

Your attempt at an answer?

Sea level rise is not accelerating. See any station you want from here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.shtml

A clumsy and blatant dodge at so many levels: Assuming the question of whether sea level rise “acceleration” is the key issue in whether sea levels are rising at all, the classic “denier dump” tactic: (“Throughout this vast data set is proof I’m right.”), and trying to worm away from the question at hand, which is whether you *still endorse your own source*.

I didn’t ask, “Richard, are you able to link something that has something to do with sea level rise?”

(Once again) I asked,

Direct question, Richard: Do you still stand by Ollier’s editorial on sea level rise?

And still you will not answer. In front of a potential worldwide audience you continue this blatant evasion, and I’m not going to let you off the hook, Richard. You tried to peddle bullshit, you got caught, and now its on your permanent record, no matter how determined you are to try to hide from it. This is the price of your half-ass scholarship and dogmatism.

But I cannot help but as this additional question—very much like your earlier embarrassment about the NAS:

Direct Question, Richard: Does your use of this link mean you accept *NOAA* as an authority?
#300 Richard Wakefield
November 20, 2010

Direct Question, Richard: Does your use of this link mean you accept *NOAA* as an authority?

You are not getting it at all. This is not an evasion, this is my position. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!

I don’t care who presents the data, the only “authority” I accept is the EVIDENCE. Actual, empirical evidence. Doesn’t matter if it’s NOAA, NASA, or someone with a tape measure on a pole in the water. I accept the evidence, not who claims to be an “authority.” Argument from authority means nothing in science.

Understand now?
#301 skip
November 20, 2010

This is not an evasion, this is my position. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!

Richard, I can assure you that I read *every word* you write—and yes, I’ve done it very, very carefully.

And it’s a blatant evasion to focus on the addendum question and to try to use it as a way to disguise your *continued* evasion on the primary question.

I don’t care who presents the data, the only “authority” I accept is the EVIDENCE. . . . I accept the evidence, not who claims to be an “authority.” Argument from authority means nothing in science.

Oh, *really*?

What about Ollier? Why did you cite him? Because oh, yes, Richard I did READ CAREFULLY.

I’ll repeat my question *yet again*.

Direct question, Richard: Do you still stand by Ollier’s editorial on sea level rise?

Your anguish is showing, Richard. And its because you have no way of answering that question other than to *admit* the truth that everyone but yourself can see: You didn’t even *read* Ollier’s editorial, let alone subject it to rigorous scrutiny.
You’re not going to be able to sneak away on this.

Again, all things being equal I would just assume you be on your way and go off to your life contended and happy, but you’re out here doing damage, Richard. You’re lending your misdirected passions to a malignant cause and there will be consequences for that.

Again, there are so many other things wrong with your arguments, so many others I could hammer, but just bringing them up becomes a pretext for your tangential evasions, so I am going to hammer the one question *yet again*:

Direct question, Richard: Do you still stand by Ollier’s editorial on sea level rise?
#302 Richard Wakefield
November 21, 2010

Direct question, Richard: Do you still stand by Ollier’s editorial on sea level rise?

What is your problem? I have already explained I go by the evidence. What he presented in that article is what I have read from other sources and papers. So yes, him and I agree that what he presented is correct.

You have evidence he is wrong? Let’s see it.
#303 skip
November 21, 2010

What is your problem?

I have any number of them, not the least of which is dogged commitment to debate. Thus I genuinely thank you for this subsequent direct and cogent answer, which is an amazing revelation.

I have already explained I go by the evidence.

Easy to claim.

What he presented in that article is what I have read from other sources and papers . . . So yes, him and I agree that what he presented is correct.

Dead giveaway. You believed him because he conformed to what you “read from other sources and papers”. We call that confirmation bias, Richard.

You have evidence he is wrong? Let’s see it.

You already have. Please read my post in 184 for a detailed critique of Ollier.
#304 mandas
November 21, 2010

Hi skip

Here’s a couple of interesting papers that you might wish to read:

http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/diurnalTempRange.pdf

http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706

The main issue of interest is the discussion on how and why AGW would predict that the increase in Tmin would be larger than any increase in Tmax, particularly in the Diurnal Temperature Range (DTR). The second paper also suggests that this is both predicted and observed for the seasonal temperature ranges as well (winter temperatures increasing at a greater rate than summer temperatures).

They explain how this is an obvious consequence of the greenhouse effect – increased solar warming would cause a widening of any diurnal or seasonal range. It’s pretty obvious when you think about it. A good analogy is somewhere like the Moon, which has no atmosphere and a huge diurnal range. It is the Earth’s atmosphere and GHG which dampens these wild oscillations.

Amazing what you can find if you read and understand science isn’t it?
#305 skip
November 21, 2010

Zip it, mandas. I don’t want Richard distracted.

I agree though, that it is indeed a joy that I would advocate for anyone.
#306 Richard Wakefield
November 21, 2010

The main issue of interest is the discussion on how and why AGW would predict that the increase in Tmin would be larger than any increase in Tmax, particularly in the Diurnal Temperature Range (DTR).

Couple questions:

1) and how is this bad?

2) and this is unusual in what way?

3) where is TMax increasing? Not the average, but the daily high temps in the summer. Is TMax increasing only in the winter?

4) would this not have been the case during the MWP?

5) would this not have been the case from 1800-1945 when CO2 wasn’t increasing temps, temp was increasing naturally?

6) so how then can AGW be the ONLY explaination for this narrowing?
#307 mandas
November 21, 2010

Apologies skip – I feel suitably chastised.
Looks like I provided the necessary diversion to allow your mate to avoid answering your questions, while also failing to appreciate how, once again, his views have been shown to be flawed.
Sorry.
#308 skip
November 21, 2010

LOL.

You just had to stick your nose in it, didn’t you!

Godammit, mandas . . .
#309 mandas
November 21, 2010

Yeah sorry skip. I will stop now, and sign-off with a quote:

“….I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to…..”

Richard Lindzen, Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 17 November 2010.
#310 Richard Wakefield
November 22, 2010

Richard Lindzen, Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 17 November 2010.

I fully agree with that. Include in that what the “warming” will actually manifest as, and if that “warming” is a priori bad.

And yes, Skip I will be dealing with your lengthy comment once I get my references sorted.
#311 Richard Wakefield
November 22, 2010

mandas the question for you is do YOU fully accept Lindzen’s testimony? Because if you do, otherwise why did you post it, you have a serious problem because Lindzen is CLEARLY stating that there is more to the causes of this “warming” trend than just CO2.
#312 skip
November 22, 2010

Wakefield Update Part II

Mandas has summarized much of how the exchange with RW has gone on this thread (see post # 206): (E.g. the closest thing to an “answer” RW can muster in response to the commonsense question, “Why is temperature convergence of winters and summer temps within an overall warming trend not consistent with AGW?” is the complete non sequiter, “Correlation does not equal causation.” It’s a senseless response and evasion, but its all Richard has so we’ll keep hearing it I assume . . . . taking on faith that his observations from Southern Canada will be vindicated worldwide . . . vague reference to “natural forces” that drive climate change . . .

It should also be noticed that our esteemed administrator also called Richard out on some specific citations:

About your quote in #143, as a skeptic, did you read the actual paper or rely on a popular press account? Also did you read to the end of that article . . . ? — Coby #149

Richard ignored him.

In a later exchange:
So you really have no argument against Kininmonth if you won’t read his book– Richard

Well, I do have the fact that the only person to recommend it to me could not be bothered to read it himself, or to understand the quote he took from it. Coby #166

(Richard’s argument amounts to, “There exists a book which says I’m right. If you have not read this book, my position is vindicated by default—regardless of whether *I’ve* read it.”)

And yet what does Richard attempt to tell us about his approach to science—this guy who cites a book *he has not even read*?

Argument from authority has no place in science. Richard #163
I accept the evidence, not who claims to be an “authority.”

Argument from authority means nothing in science. Richard #300
This is where it gets *really* interesting.

In 184 I posted a detailed critique of one of Richard’s (non?)-authorities—an editorial by Cliff Ollier on Sea Level Rise. In my summary I said:

It speaks more volumes than I can write, Richard, that you would so cavalierly skim the headline of this utter nonsense and present it to this forum as “proof” that AGW is unthreatening because of uncertainties in the rate of sea-level rise—let alone as having any relevance to the question of whether carbon emissions are causing climate change.

Richard ignored me.

So I brought it up *again* later, this time in the form of a direct question:

Direct question, Richard: Do you still stand by Ollier’s editorial on sea level rise . . . Skip #297

In fairness, Richard *did* attempt to answer a couple of other direct questions at this point, but despite the cans of worms they opened I wanted to stay on topic. How did Richard answer my question about Ollier?

Sea level rise is not accelerating. See any station you want from here:(And then provided a link to NOAA’s raw data set.)

So I tried again!

Direct question, Richard: Do you still stand by Ollier’s editorial on sea level rise? Skip #299

Richard ignored me.

Instead he answered *another* question I asked, about whether NOAA was an “authority”—again opening a can of worms but I’ve slowly been learning his strategy so I refocused the topic and asked my question *yet* again!

Direct question, Richard: Do you still stand by Ollier’s editorial on sea level rise? Skip #301

What finally happened? A response! To wit:

What is your problem? . . .What he presented in that article is what I have read from other sources and papers. So yes, him and I agree that what he presented is correct . . . You have evidence he is wrong? Let’s see it. –Richard

So we had come full circle! And I told Richard

Please read my post in 184 for a detailed critique of Ollier.

Then mandas—*fucking* mandas!—had to bring up the convergence issue again and what happened . . .

Richard ignored me.

He went off on mandas’s issue. He was clearly relieved to be rid of the Ollier discussion. (Way to go, mandas.)

It puts in perfect light another, earlier one sided exchange, when I asked Richard in 214

Richard, when you ignore question after question [after] question, what is your self-appraisal? –Skip #214

Richard ignored me.

Its becoming increasingly clear what’s going on with Richard: He fashions himself a brilliant iconoclast, toppling dogmas with his wit and his spreadsheet. He has also memorized several methodological catch phrases: “correlation does not equal causation . . . God of the gaps . . . argument from authority is invalid in science . . . “ and so forth, and he thinks they are sharp weapons in his rhetorical arsenal. So he tries to force the argument into these precast frameworks with which he is comfortable even though he misapplies them or even blatantly succumbs to their very pitfalls.

This is why Richard ignores so many direct questions. His mind simply blocks out anything for which he cannot devise a retort that even *he* finds compelling.
#313 Richard Wakefield
November 22, 2010

Ok, Skip. Before I post these references, do you agree there is no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise?

ARCTIC:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-51509K7-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1551681216&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=96b0e326d49e249dfaf1f2599e6490f2&searchtype=a

“The combined sea ice data suggest that the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.”

GREENLAND:
Wake, L.M., Huybrechts, P., Box, J.E., Hanna, E., Janssens, I. and Milne, G.A. 2009. Surface mass-balance changes of the Greenland ice sheet since 1866. Annals of Glaciology 50: 176-184

“it could as well be stated that the recent changes that have been monitored extensively (Krabill et al., 2004; Luthcke et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2006) are representative of natural sub-decadal fluctuations in the mass balance of the ice sheet and are not necessarily the result of anthropogenic-related warming.”

ANTARCTICA:
Tedesco, M. and Monaghan, A.J. 2010. Climate and melting variability in Antarctica. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 91: 1-2.

“Scientists have observed large increases in melting on the Greenland Ice Sheet in recent decades. But what is happening in Antarctica? Temperature increases during the past 50-100 years have been recorded for the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica. Melting over Antarctica has been monitored since 1979 using spaceborne passive microwave observations. The sign of the melting trends over Antarctica is variable at regional scales, depending on the period analyzed and on the indices used, with the continent-averaged trend being negligible. ”

http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ice.html

How long would it take to meld just the West Antarctic Ice Sheet?
Pollard, D. and DeConto, R.M. 2009. Modelling West Antarctic ice sheet growth and collapse through the past five million years. Nature 458: 329-332.

“one thousand to several thousand years,”

Since this didn’t happen during the pasy interglacial periods, our CO2 won’t make it happen today.

PLUS:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OllierPaine-NoIceSheetCollapse-AIGNewsAug.2009.pdf

My prediction? These will have no effect on your current belief.
#314 Snowman
November 22, 2010

Hi guys. I know, I know, I said I was going off on an extended break. But frankly, I’m worried – worried about our gracious host, Coby.

I note with alarm that the temperature in Vancouver tonight is expected to drop to minus 12 C and stay dramatically cold for goodness knows how long. Temporary shelters are being readied in the downtown area. Records could be broken. Across the city there is the gravest concern.

And it could get worse. One local newspaper reports that meteorologists believe it could be the harshest winter in half a century.

I’m sure I’m fretting over nothing. But Coby, please do set our minds at rest. Tell us you’re okay.
#315 mandas
November 22, 2010

Slinks away, cowering and whining, with my tail between my legs.

Besides, its too damn hot! 35 degrees here today! And in November!

Dick at post #135: “…..”On Nov 17, the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment is holding a hearing on “Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response.”….And so starts the formal end of AGW….”

Dick at post #265: “…..Lindzen’s testimony at the hearings yesterday:…..”

Dick at post #311: “…..mandas the question for you is do YOU fully accept Lindzen’s testimony? Because if you do, otherwise why did you post it, you have a serious problem because Lindzen is CLEARLY stating that there is more to the causes of this “warming” trend than just CO2…..”

But what did Lindzen – the great white hope of Dick; the man who was going to stand up before congress and expose the scam of AGW – ACTUALLY say?

Well, as I pointed out to Dick at post #309, Lindzen said, quite clearly, that the rise in human CO2 emissions were causing the climate to change and temperatures to rise, but that the real science debate was the extent of warming. He said – quite clearly – that the increase in temperatures from CO2 emissions alone would be only minor (he said in the order of 1 degree C), but that climate models which predicted greater temperature rises relied on feedback mechanisms from H2O etc. And in his opinion, those feedbacks were over-stated.

So, want to know why I linked to him Dick? It’s because YOU – Dick – linked to him, and pinned your Dick hopes on him telling all and sundry that AGW was a scam and a rise in CO2 would not cause temperatures to rise. Unfortunately, he said no such thing. And guess what Dick? He said NOTHING about the sun being the cause of recent temperature increases.

Guess he thinks you are a Dick as well.
#316 skip
November 22, 2010

Each of your posts is a monument to the potential for shallowness in the human mind, Snowman.

Weather . . . climate. You either don’t get it or don’t care. With record highs or nearly so in LA, Wichita, and Chicago, you would think you would give up this type of argumentation.

Hey everybody, watch this–its really, really funny:

Hey Snowman, care to justify your claims about “climategate”?

(We won’t hear from him for months now.)
#317 adelady
November 22, 2010

Yes, mandas, and it’s 35 again today.

It’s already 27 in the kitchen (we foolishly “invested” in that loosefill insulation – worked OK for about 5 years – near useless now). And I had a very discouraging discussion with someone yesterday who had the effrontery to point out that Adelaide doesn’t actually benefit much from a La Nina and that the Indian Ocean is not our friend.

So much for my little dream of a mild summer.
#318 mandas
November 22, 2010

Hi Adelady

I have an 1880s sandstone cottage. Its great at the moment – nice and cool. But after a few weeks of hot weather, the blocks heat up and it acts like an oven.

Maybe we should move to Darwin. Apparently its not that far away and I believe its not all that hot there either.
#319 Snowman
November 22, 2010

Heavens, under fire again from the desert oracle. I really must watch my step. The wrath of Skip the Magnificent is terrible to behold.
#320 skip
November 22, 2010

I really must watch my step.

History shows it won’t prevent you from tripping over your own feet, so why bother?

Snowman, let me ask you a *purely abstract* question:

Do you believe we all have an obligation to be intellectually honest–that when debating or discussing an issue, whether public, private, scientific, historic or what have you, we should all at least *strive* for honesty/modesty/forthrightness about the weakness in our own claims and the strengths of our disputants’? Not that we aren’t allowed to be sincerely wrong–that’s to be human–but that we have to at least *try* to be honest?

Do you think that (intellectual honesty) is a virtue–even an obligation among civil people? To the point where it would be fair to say that someone who is *not* intellectually honest, who uses the tactics of evasion, obfuscation, deceit, straw men, and so forth, could rightly be characterized as a really, really bad person–the kind of person you would tell children to *not* be, the kind of person you would think of with utter disdain?

Purely in the abstract, Snowman, would you agree with these generalizations? Your opinion means much to me in this matter.
#321 Snowman
November 22, 2010

Well Skip, I’m delighted that you set such store by my opinion. Perhaps I could respond by asking you a question of my own – in a spirit of pure abstraction, naturally.

Do you believe that we should try to avoid pomposity, verbosity and self-righteousness? Do you agree that someone who leavens his argument with occasional humour and irony is far more likely to carry the day – more likely, that is, than someone who is drearily ponderous and dismally earnest?

I await your answer with the greatest of interest.
#322 Richard Wakefield
November 22, 2010

mandas, are you refering to Richard (Dick) Lindzen? Can’t be me, that’s not a name I go by.
#323 skip
November 22, 2010

Do you believe that we should try to avoid pomposity, verbosity and self-righteousness?

Yes. Although defining and attributing these terms is difficult, and honesty is still the greater virtue.

Do you agree that someone who leavens his argument with occasional humour and irony is far more likely to carry the day – more likely, that is, than someone who is drearily ponderous and dismally earnest?

No. I do not.

I believe the day is carried by facts and logic and truth–that is for those who are interested in them; i.e, those who are intellectually honest.

Now, Quid pro quo, Snowman. I answered your questions; the forum is at your disposal.
#324 Snowman
November 22, 2010

Your problem, Skip, is that you seem to feel I am under an obligation to answer your high school debating club questions. I have had occasion to reprove you over this in the past, and I speak sharply to you again.

You and I will never agree on anything. Compared to us, Tea Partiers and New York Times liberals are kindred spirits.

This place isn’t life, Skip. This isn’t reality. This is a few people with nothing better to do working themselves into foaming indignation (I note the exchanges above with Richard Wakefield). You sit at your computer at three in the morning bashing out endless rants as if it all means something. It doesn’t, Skip. It’s an illusion. See it for what it is.

Anyway, it’s now nearly 1:00am here in London, and I am off to bed.
#325 mandas
November 22, 2010

Only one Dick around here – and his name isn’t Lindzen!
#326 skip
November 22, 2010

you seem to feel I am under an obligation to answer your high school debating club questions.

I have no such sentiment, but your refusal to do so shows the bankruptcy of your worldview.

It doesn’t [mean anything], Skip. It’s an illusion. See it for what it is.

The future will tell, but whatever becomes of it, the world will see you for what you are.
#327 mandas
November 22, 2010

I am going to close off all my discussion on this thread with one last post. I like to discuss and argue, but I always find it extremely difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who keeps changing their position as soon as the first one is shown to be flawed. In one way that’s good – it means they can recognise that their case is weak. But it shows a huge lack of integrity not to admit the flaws in their argument, and acknowledge the evidence and logic which has swayed them to change their position.

This has been a very long thread for such a short period of time, so it may be difficult to follow the sheer volume of argument presented. I have made a couple of summaries earlier, but I will close with another summary so any newcomers can jump right in; or people who may have become lost can catch up.

Dick has made a couple of very important points, and I would like to go over them in detail to establish for all of those who remain and wish to discuss with him. I will start off with perhaps his two most telling and important points:

Post #82: “… If you people want a proper dialog, STICK TO WHAT I SAY, not what you want me to say….”

Good point. We should all discuss the issue based on what the author has said, not the way we would like to spin it.

Post # 22: “…All that counts for me is the evidence….”

Another good point. While I might suggest that logical reasoning and analysis of the evidence is just as important (if not more so), if you adopt ANY position, it must be underwritten by evidence.

Post #36: “…That’s up to you to provide evidence that that’s what will happen in the future. There’s an endless number of speculations on what the future might bring. None of that matters. All that matters is the evidence….”

A re-emphasis of the earlier point about evidence. I agree with his point that it is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence and that one should not speculate without some form of evidential support.

Post #53: “….What is causing the changes that you have observed? …..Normal variation of cycles within cycles. Or do you not think the climate has any cycles of changes? How do you parse out a normal cycle trend from one caused from emissions of CO2?….”

Dick is adopting the right position for a scientist. He has stated that he reads extensively on this subject, and has found no evidence to explain what is causing the observed increases in mean temperature. Therefore, it would be wrong of him to make a definitive statement about causality when he has none. He does SUGGEST that it is some form of natural cycle – which appears to me to be speculation unsupported by any evidence – but let’s forgive him here for the time being.

Post #164: “….Your claim is that CO2 is doing the causation for the observed changes simply because we have (not) yet found a natural mechanism that would make such change….”

Dick is re-emphasising his earlier point that he believes the cause of the increasing mean temperature is some form of ‘natural mechanism’, and one should not insert a causal mechanism (ie CO2) if one does not have evidence.

Post #216: “….Someday a natural mechanism will be shown to be the cause of this “warming” and then your faith will come crashing down, like Gentry’s did…..”

Once again Dick is stating that the cause of the temperature increases is unknown ‘natural cycles’, but is now being more definitive that it is NOT CO2 and the AGW theory will be destroyed when the mechanism is found. This appears to contradict his earlier position on evidence, since he has no evidence that it is natural, and no evidence that it is not CO2. Dick appears to be speculating here.

Post #221: Links provided to to papers on: Biogeochemical Feedbacks; Solar Forcing; Unknown explanation for PET Max; CO2 Causes Cooling; GHGs are Saturated. He then states that …”The THEORY is CO2 SHOULD be altering the temps. But a complex system like our climate does not behave as the climate models predict….”

Dick is now casting around for something – anything – that might suggest that it is not CO2. Of course, the climate IS complex, just as he suggests, so any simplistic theory or mechanism would obviously not be sufficient to meet his evidentiary requirements.

Post # 239: “…that the climate controls itself, by changes in the water content of the air…”

Well, this is a little different. Looks as though the climate is no longer complex, and it contains a self correcting mechanism which negates other forcing mechanisms. It wouldn’t matter if CO2 (or anything else) was to increase, water vapour would act as a negative feedback. At least he provided a paper by way of a link. I guess that means he believed the paper was accurate and was sufficient evidence on which to base a point of view.

Post #260: “…Total solar irradiance has increased up to 2000, higher now even though flat since 2000 than it was in 1900. So since the solar irradiance was lower in 1900 than today, and the average increased from 1900 to today then the current increase will still have a significant solar component now than it did in 1900….”

Oh, now it appears that the sun is involved. I have to wonder why – on 17 November – Dick has determined that the main forcing mechanism causing the increase in mean temperatures is the sun, when on 15 November the supposed ‘natural mechanism’ was unknown. I guess he must have had an epiphany. But I also have to wonder, how come someone who has supposedly read so widely on the subject had never made the obvious link about the sun and climate earlier.

Post #264: My view of the Russian paper? It’s evidence, period. You have an issue with the paper, contact the author and tell him. Your criticisms of it mean nothing until you bring it to the author and let him reply and clarify

Well that’s pretty definitive. The Russian paper on the sun was accurate. TSI is the (sole) driver of climatic variation right now; the paper said so. And it must be the sun, because the paper provides evidence from Mars and Pluto to prove it.

Post #266: “….The paper reveals a clear relation between solar activity and ocean cycles, and thus act as the main climate drivers. Measured data shows no CO2 impact on climate….”

So now it is both the sun AND oceans, and CO2 plays no part. I wonder where the new discovery about the oceans came from, and why wasn’t it discussed earlier?

Post #268: “….That paper by Borchert IS science!!…”

A detailed read of the last two papers which gave Dick his viewpoint reveals that they disagree on several important issues. I guess that doesn’t matter though, they are both – according to Dick – accurate (just like the bible is the infallible word of god I guess). Oceans huh?

Post #278: “….Oh dear, another paper that shows the sun caused this warm trend, and the future is lower temps….”

Ok, we get it. Its the sun! (what? No oceans?)

Post #281: “….They did noted about water vapour being a factor but NOT CO2….”

Hang on! Didn’t you suggest earlier that water vapour was a NEGATIVE feedback? How come it is now a POSITIVE feedback? (I guess oceans are right out then)

Post #309/310: ‘’…It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to….. I fully agree with that. Include in that what the “warming” will actually manifest as, and if that “warming” is a priori bad….”

So you agree that it is CO2 causing a slight warming now? What happened to the earlier statements about CO having: a) no effect , and b) a cooling effect? What happened to the sun? Oceans? But you now accept that water vapour has a positive feedback (this is twice now – what happened to the earlier claim that it was a self correcting mechanism?)

You see Dick, a couple of the things that any theory must have are both internal and external consistency. Your ideas – on the other hand – are just a compendium of denialist dogma that you cut and paste without even the slightest idea of what has been written, and without stopping and considering how they all fit together (they don’t by the way).

How about you stop casting around for something – anything – other than CO2 (which, after all, has both external and internal consistency) and come up with a consistent idea of your own, and stop linking to, and writing, crap. But it won’t matter much to me, because I am done.

Stop being a Dick, Dick!
#328 coby
November 23, 2010

Richard had a long comment held up in moderation, see 313 above.

Not that it alters mandas’ exposure of his dishonest tactics just posted above…
#329 Richard Wakefield
November 23, 2010

Not that it alters mandas’ exposure of his dishonest tactics just posted above…

mandas’ exposure of mandas’s dishonest tactics just posted above.

- insulting
- putting inferences that do not exist
- twisting presented evidence
- incorrectly calling someone a name they do not go by

I’m sure if I were to spend the time mandas did rereading all the posts I could cherry pick even more of his dishonest tactics.
#330 Ian Forrester
November 23, 2010

Wakefield and other posters to this thread, please read again my post #27. I correctly exposed Wakefield for what he is. He manages to extend this thread to over 320 posts. Mostly from him and mostly as I described. You will never get a rational discussion with Wakefield, he is not rational, logical nor honest.
#331 skip
November 23, 2010

- insulting

Well, yeah. I think you have Mandas’ number there.

- putting inferences that do not exist

Give one example.

- twisting presented evidence

Give one example.

- incorrectly calling someone a name they do not go by

You didn’t understand his post re: Lindzen, but then again its clear you don’t even read/understand your own sources.

I’m sure if I were to spend the time mandas did rereading all the posts I could cherry pick even more of his dishonest tactics.

And If I were to set a monkey to typing randomly it would eventually type the proof that I Am Right About Everything, Richard. Can you prove that said hypothetical monkey or aforementioned proof cannot exist?

Your “I could cherry pick” claim is right up there with you know for a fact that you can extrapolate your southern Canada data to the world (whatever *that* would prove, even if you could). Any fool can claim anything he wishes under these terms.

The key theme from Mandas’s excellent post is his documentation of what all of us have observed from you: the whirlwind of contradictions in your ongoing scattershot approach to trying to topple AGW.

You claim “appeal to authority” is invalid, yet constantly appeal to authorities you either have not read, do not understand, or are embarrassments to your stance.

You claim there is an as-yet-not-understood mechanism that explains climate change, then mindlessly blog a source you *think* proves that the explanation is the sun.

You link us to Richard Lindzen’s testimony before Congress, in which Lindzen (as he always has) affirms the fundamental science of carbon-induced warming–yet before you had linked us to a source that claimed CO2 causes *cooling*.

And so on . . .

I’m not trying to steal Mandas’ thunder; he did all the leg work in documenting what Coby has previously called the “fracturing” of your debate lines. I’m just summarizing the gist for cogency.

Yeah, you’ve been insulted, Richard. I’ll grant you that. But also remember that Coby has allowed you to post here *freely*, and you’ve had every chance to respond directly to the numerous lines of critique you’ve attracted.

When you go public claiming that your spreadsheet has toppled a scientific paradigm you don’t get to cry foul when you’re raked over the coals for obvious flaws in your arguments.
#332 Chris S.
November 23, 2010

Re Ian @#330.

And in future, when Wakefield turns up elsewhere people can be directed to this thread, devoted to him, which demonstrates exactly what he’s about.

This wouldn’t have happened if Wakefield wasn’t given enough rope to hang himself several times over & enough space to expose his shoddy arguments for what they are.

Besides, I think skip, at least, has had some fun. I’m sure others have too.

(Coby: The summaries of his twisted logic, question avoidance, quote mining, cherry picking and zombie argumentation provided by skip, mandas and myself that punctuate this thread could possibly be put front & centre to further highlight them?)
#333 Richard Wakefield
November 23, 2010

Chris, have you given up on the temp analysis?
#334 wagdog
November 23, 2010

(Coby: The summaries of his twisted logic, question avoidance, quote mining, cherry picking and zombie argumentation provided by skip, mandas and myself that punctuate this thread could possibly be put front & centre to further highlight them?)

Even better if this included appropriate cross referencing to the denialist’s deck of cards.
#335 skip
November 23, 2010

Chris, have you given up on the temp analysis?

You’ve got to be kidding, Richard.

After everything else thats transpired in the past two days you’re going to bring *that* up?

Chris: You’re right. Coby needs to archive all this and spare someone else the time and effort, because no, it wasn’t “fun” in the having-a-great-old-time-of-it sense.
#336 Chris S.
November 23, 2010

Richard, of course I haven’t given up – if you recall I did say it’d take a few months.

I’m intrigued though that you say “So let’s look at these graphs in detail. The first one is the full range of yearly temps, with summer TMax in red, Winter TMin in Blue, the TMean in black, orange are the standard deviations. The mean is a meaninless number, all that counts is the trend in the TMax and TMin. TMin is increasing, very clearly. TMax however is dropping after 1945.”

1) I thought we were looking at the full dataset, not the post-1945 set?
2) Tmax since 1945 is statistically indistinguishable from a straight line (p=0.135)
3) The mean is not a meaningless number – why do you assert it is?
4) Have you any words on the range of values of Tmax & Tmin? I’d be interested to see what you say…

I have some co-authors comments to attend to for the rest of the week (and will be staying up very late to listen to how badly we poms are going to be beaten this winter down under) so won’t be doing too much on this for a while.
#337 Richard Wakefield
November 23, 2010

1) I thought we were looking at the full dataset, not the post-1945 set?

We are. Guess you havn’t looked at the graphs, sigh. I was pointing out that there is a rise until the mid 1940′s then it drops after that. Is this the way you will be handling this?

2) Tmax since 1945 is statistically indistinguishable from a straight line (p=0.135)

Don’t do just a straight line, do a 10 year moving average, as seen in the graphs. And also, do JUST the summers for TMax, not the whole year. TMax in the winter does not show how the hottest months are doing.

3) The mean is not a meaningless number – why do you assert it is?

Why do you think it is a meaningful number? From just the mean how do you know what is causing the mean? Do you know how the mean is calcuated with EC data?

4) Have you any words on the range of values of Tmax & Tmin? I’d be interested to see what you say…

It’s what I have been saying all along. Summer TMax and Winter TMin are converging, getting narrower in the yearly swings. TMax in the summer is dropping within cycles, TMin is going less cold in the winter. The number of heat waves is over all dropping with large, heart beat like, swings.
#338 Richard Wakefield
November 23, 2010

Chris. Go to this:

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/hourlydata_e.html?Prov=XX&timeframe=1&StationID=4337&Month=11&Day=1&Year=2010&cmdB1=Go

Get the hourly data for the temp for this location. For that day get the average of all the hours, get the max and min and what the mean would be.

Then go to the data you picked up from me and see where the mean comes from: (TMax+TMin)/2.

Tell me why the mean is different from the average for Nov 1 and which is a better indicator of the daily average.

If you don’t like this day I randomly picked, pick any day you want and do the same thing.
#339 blueshift
November 23, 2010

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-human-fingerprint-in-the-daily-cycle.html
#340 Chris S.
November 24, 2010

Re 337:
1) Sigh, yes I did look at your graphs, they tell us nothing as you haven’t done anything other than eyeball them – where are the stats on your “clearly dropping after 1945″ claim. And where is the “error” in the data?

2) I’ll do what I think necessary to determine the trend. What I won’t do is put up some graphs and then claim that my eyeball can determine the trend, I will do some analysis. I’ve started with basic linear regression, I will likely go on to other stats, I might even try some GAMs or a REML. Why just a 10 year moving average by the way, did you experiment with 5-year, or 20-year? Have you looked at relationship to NAO or (whisper it) sunspot cycles? If not, why not?

3) Why do I think it is a meaningful number? As you demonstrate Tmean is a straight calculation of the relationship between Tmin & Tmax. This can be very important in, e.g. determining a trend. If Tmin & Tmax are trending towards each other at a similar rate then Tmean will remain a flat line. Tmean is going up which tells us that the overall signal of Tmin & Tmax combined is rising. This means that either both Tmin & Tmax are rising, or that one is rising faster than the other is falling, or that one is rising and the other is showing no trend.
That is why I think it is a meaningful number, I am at a meeting at the UK Met Office next week, I shall get a definitive statistical reason behind the use of Tmean for you then if you like?
One further point on Tmean, referring to your comment #338 – how long did it take you to calculate the average for one day? Compare that to how long it takes to get Tmean. Tell me whether the difference between the two numbers makes it worthwhile (in your view) to calculate the average for every day in the dataset.

4) You’ve answered a question I didn’t ask. I asked you for words on the range of values, not the trend. It’s obviously something you’ve thought about as the link you gave shows. The range of summer Tmax according to your link is (roughly) 35 degrees, what is the range of Tmin?

Addendum: #294 “TMin is increasing, very clearly. TMax however is dropping after 1945.
Second graph is the summer months TMax variation (6,7,8). Highest of TMax is CLEARLY dropping. The lowest of TMax is flat.”

It is not clear to me at all. Make sure you are not letting yourself be decieved by end effects and anomalies. When I plot data I don’t join the dots as the lines can lead the eye in to making mistakes. I challenge you to provide the same graphs as scatter plots and make the same claim of clarity.

(For other readers, the link in question is here: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/11/station-2973-muenster-saskatchewan.html hands up if you can see the cherrypick*)

*Why has Richard separated the highest summer Tmax from the rest of the data? Why did he not do a 10-year running average through ALL of the summer data? Why did he not do it through the lowest summer Tmax data?
#341 Richard Wakefield
November 24, 2010

1) Sigh, yes I did look at your graphs, they tell us nothing as you haven’t done anything other than eyeball them – where are the stats on your “clearly dropping after 1945″ claim. And where is the “error” in the data?

Error in the data? What the hell are you talking about? There is no “error” because these are ALL THE NUMBERS!! I didn’t “eyeball” anything!! This is an example of you people being grossly dishonest. Do you now know what a moving average is? That’s what is there!

3) Why do I think it is a meaningful number? As you demonstrate Tmean is a straight calculation of the relationship between Tmin & Tmax. This can be very important in, e.g. determining a trend.

No it’s not. See why: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-mean-temp-is-meaningless.html

Why has Richard separated the highest summer Tmax from the rest of the data? Why did he not do a 10-year running average through ALL of the summer data? Why did he not do it through the lowest summer Tmax data?

Which I have done for other locations on other posts. I can certainly do it for this location, but the trend will be the same as the other locations. I left them out because the claim here is I’m wrong about summer temps dropping. Clearly they are dropping. Go ahead and use different moving average periods. The longer the period the closer to a linear line you get. Interesting, you acknowledge that I use a moving average but claim I’m “eyeballing” the points.

Oh, and a scatter plot is going to show what? Since each day is the same length of time, a scatter plot is not appropriate. The two plots will look exactly the same.
#342 Richard Wakefield
November 24, 2010

Chris, I’ve added winter TMin so you can quit complaining about that: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/11/station-2973-muenster-saskatchewan.html
#343 Richard Wakefield
November 24, 2010

Tmean is going up which tells us that the overall signal of Tmin & Tmax combined is rising. This means that either both Tmin & Tmax are rising, or that one is rising faster than the other is falling, or that one is rising and the other is showing no trend.

Without realizing it you just proved my case. I have stated all along that TMean by itself HAS NO CONTEXT. You just admitted that without TMax and TMin included you have no idea what TMean is representing. Yet that is what you are all doing, using JUST TMean without the context of what is causing TMean’s trend. Thankyou for confirming my position.
#344 Richard Wakefield
November 24, 2010

Greenland Temp history: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

from: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
#345 Chris S.
November 24, 2010

Richard Wakefield post #342: “Error in the data? What the hell are you talking about? There is no “error” because these are ALL THE NUMBERS!! I didn’t “eyeball” anything!! This is an example of you people being grossly dishonest. Do you now know what a moving average is? That’s what is there!

Richard Wakefield post #294: “Chris, I hope you are not running linear regressions through the TMax, there is error in the data, as you can see in the graphs I posted of this station:”

So, who is being “grossly dishonest”?
#346 Chris S.
November 24, 2010

“The two plots will look exactly the same.”

No they won’t. If you can’t see why then you shouldn’t really be shouting about who knows what a 10-year average is. But then, you demonstrate in your subsequent comments at #342 & #343 that you didn’t understand my argument there either. (Hint, where in post #341 do I “complain” about you not plotting Tmin?)

Why don’t you wait and see what my results are before trying to teach me how to suck eggs?
#347 Richard Wakefield
November 24, 2010

Richard Wakefield post #294: “Chris, I hope you are not running linear regressions through the TMax, there is error in the data, as you can see in the graphs I posted of this station:”

So, who is being “grossly dishonest”?

I wondered later if that is what you refered to. No, what I meant there was your linear plot would be in error because there is missing data in the recordset. That will skew any regression.

No they won’t. If you can’t see why then you shouldn’t really be shouting about who knows what a 10-year average is.

OK, what are the X and Y axis of your scatter plot? Because when I use the number of years since 1900 as the X in a scatter I do get the exact same graph. Isn’t a scatter plot used to check the correlation of two fields?
#348 Richard Wakefield
November 25, 2010

Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes

B. A. Laken1,2, D. R. Kniveton1, and M. R. Frogley1
1Department of Geography, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, England, BN1 9QJ, UK
2Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, 38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

Abstract. The effect of the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) flux on Earth’s climate is highly uncertain. Using a novel sampling approach based around observing periods of significant cloud changes, a statistically robust relationship is identified between short-term GCR flux changes and the most rapid mid-latitude (60°–30° N/S) cloud decreases operating over daily timescales; this signal is verified in surface level air temperature (SLAT) reanalysis data. A General Circulation Model (GCM) experiment is used to test the causal relationship of the observed cloud changes to the detected SLAT anomalies. Results indicate that the anomalous cloud changes were responsible for producing the observed SLAT changes, implying that if there is a causal relationship between significant decreases in the rate of GCR flux (~0.79 GU, where GU denotes a change of 1% of the 11-year solar cycle amplitude in four days) and decreases in cloud cover (~1.9 CU, where CU denotes a change of 1% cloud cover in four days), an increase in SLAT (~0.05 KU, where KU denotes a temperature change of 1 K in four days) can be expected. The influence of GCRs is clearly distinguishable from changes in solar irradiance and the interplanetary magnetic field. However, the results of the GCM experiment are found to be somewhat limited by the ability of the model to successfully reproduce observed cloud cover. These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship. From this analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric precursor conditions.
#349 Richard Wakefield
November 25, 2010

A regional approach to the medieval warm period and the little ice age

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/24/a-regional-approach-to-the-medieval-warm-period-and-the-little-ice-age/

“The presently available palaeotemperature proxy data records do not support the
assumption that late 20th century temperatures exceeded those of the MWP in most regions, although it is clear that the temperatures of the last few decades exceed those of any multidecadal period in the last 700–800 years. Previous conclusions (e.g., IPCC, 2007) in the opposite direction have either been based on too few proxy records or been based on instrumental temperatures spliced to the proxy reconstructions. It is also clear that temperature changes, on centennial time-scales, occurred rather coherently in all the investigated regions – Scandinavia, Siberia, Greenland, Central Europe, China, and North
America – with data coverage to enable regional reconstructions. Large-scale patterns as the MWP, the LIA and the 20th century warming occur quite coherently in all the regional reconstructions presented here but both their relative and absolute amplitude are not always the same. Exceptional warming in the 10th century is seen in all six regional reconstructions.
Assumptions that, in particular, the MWP was restricted to the North Atlantic region can be rejected. Generally, temperature changes during the past 12 centuries in the high latitudes are larger than those in the lower latitudes and changes in annual temperatures also seem to be larger than those of warm season temperatures. In order to truly assess the possible global or hemispheric significance of the observed pattern, we need much more data. The
unevenly distributed palaeotemperature data coverage still seriously restricts our possibility to set the observed 20th century warming in a global long-term perspective and investigate the relative importance of natural and anthropogenic forcings behind the modern warming.”
#350 skip
November 25, 2010

Richard, it is *so* obvious what is going on here. You were over at Wattsup—mindlessly believing everything Anthony publishes. And its also *so* obvious that there is not even a *whiff* of objectivity in Watts and his Wattslings, such as yourself, in their exultation over what they *think* this article “proves”.

Two questions, Richard:

1.Do you claim to understand the scientific nuances of this article?

(I, by the way, am not.)

2.Did you attempt to read through it to understand everything it says?

(I did.)

3.How is this *not* an “appeal to authority”?

The completely a-scientific approach of Watts is pungent in his blog—no wonder he appeals to you, Richard.

He cannot even control himself:

“Something to be thankful for! At last: Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes” — Posted on November 25, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Some additional quotes from the Wattlsings:

“So, it’s the sun after all. Who would have thought that…

Can we now put the CAGW-theory to rest, please? I truly hope so.”

“Excellent news if confirmed by other studies too.”

Hip Hip Huzzah! Its not carbon! Its not carbon!

Nyah Nyah Ny-Nyah Nyah! Its not carbon!

Nothing but blind belief and faith by the Wattsup crew, all ideologically driven, blind to all evidence except what they think “proves” their position.

In their conclusion, Laken et al were *far* more modest.

This work has demonstrated the presence of a *small but statistically significant* [my emphasis] influence of GCRs on Earth’s atmosphere over mid-latitude regions . . . The climatic forcings resulting from such solar – terrestrial links *may* [my emphasis] have had a significant impact on climate prior to the *onset of anthropogenic warming* [my emphasis], accounting for the presence of solar cycle relationships detectable in palaeoclimatic records (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Neff et al., 2001; Mauas et al., 2008). *Further detailed investigation is required* [my emphasis] to better understand . . . .

They do *not* conclude that GCR itself is the mechanism accounting for warming.

They do *not* conclude that CO2 is not a driver of global warming.

They do *not* deny anthropogenic climate change.

They do *not* believe their current article is the final word on this subject.

But none of that makes any difference to you, does it Richard?
#351 skip
November 25, 2010

Ok so a history professor declares there to have been a global medieval warm period, contrary to the findings of paleo-climate scientists.

Assuming he’s right, what *exactly* do you think this proves, Richard?

One more question, Richard:

What happened to your empty threats of rebuttal to post 184 (skip)? Or 27 (Ian)? Or 327 (mandas)?

You will not answer questions because you can’t.

You’re not a scientist, Richard. You lack either the capacity, the inclination, or both, for real factual inquiry.

Mindlessly cutting and pasting Wattsup is just another disgrace.
#352 Chris S.
November 25, 2010

Greengyre has a post up germane to skip’s post #350 above: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/another-top-international-denier-silliness-or-two/

Of course, Richard has “checked the original paper to ensure accuracy and relevance” … or has he?
#353 Richard Wakefield
November 26, 2010

But none of that makes any difference to you, does it Richard?

What is does show is your blind faith that ONLY CO2 changes the climate, has major effects on climate, is false. What this shows is there is MUCH more going on in the climate than the effects of CO2. Including the ability of the system to counter the effects of CO2.

But none of that makes any difference to you, does it Skip? Your childish laughing is enough to convince me of that.

Unlike you I’m willing to allow all evidence to have weight.
#354 Richard Wakefield
November 26, 2010

Assuming he’s right, what *exactly* do you think this proves, Richard?

It shows that

1) this warming is not unnatural, we’ve been here before.

2) this warming won’t be a disaster, we’ve been here before.

Interesting that you assume this science analysis isn’t right. Who’s doing the cherry picking?
#355 Marco
November 26, 2010

A common strawman argumentation thrown onto a blog by Richard Wakefield. “We”, and I’m certain that includes skip, do not ‘believe’ CO2 is the only factor affecting the climate.

Of course, the supposed ability of ‘the system’ to counter the effects of CO2 are well known. Problem in that argumentation is that you appear to assume that ‘the system’ WILL counter the effects of CO2, but don’t explain why it would then not counter the effects of ANY forcing. It’s in essence the whole problem Miskolczi’s problem: he claimed increasing CO2 is countered by decreasing water vapor, but that would mean we have to explain the temperature increase during interglacials by an ENORMOUS sensitivity to solar influence. Much more sensitivity than we have observed during the 20th century. And this also does not explain the longevity of interglacials.
#356 Richard Wakefield
November 26, 2010

Examination of CRU data suggests no statistically significant warming

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/26/examination-of-cru-data-suggests-no-statistically-significant-warming/#more-28326

Let the attacks on this begin! Before you do maybe you should get the data and check it out for yourself.
#357 skip
November 26, 2010

What is does show is your blind faith that ONLY CO2 changes the climate.

Marco beat me to this. Its a total straw man.

What does it suggest about you, Richard, that you need to resort to blatant straw man argumentation. I mean really, what does it say about you?

Unlike you I’m willing to allow all evidence to have weight.

False.

You copy and paste from — of all sources — *Watts*. Not that I necessarily mind that so much. We need to know what he’s up to, but it speaks incalculable volumes that you’re gullible for his horseshit.

It shows that

1) this warming is not unnatural, we’ve been here before.

False.

It proves *nothing* of the sort. This is just the exhausted, illogical argument from incredulity that we hear *all* the time, Richard: “Climate variation is natural! Look, temperature has varied in the past for reasons that have nothing to do with carbon emissions, therefore any warming now is ‘natural’ in the sense of not being anthropogenic.”

Its the purest of fallacies, Richard. The fact that *other* things have warmed and cooled the Earth’s climate in the past does *not* preclude the role of human activity in causing warming *now*.

2) this warming won’t be a disaster, we’ve been here before.

Confidence born of nothing but preference. And I certainly hope you’re right, but there is substantial reason to believe you are deadly wrong. But that is the subject of a different thread.

Interesting that you assume this science analysis isn’t right.

False.

I have my doubts to be sure (a historian taking on the consensus of paleoclimate specialists–sort of like taking on climatology with a spreadsheet analysis.) But my question *granted* the presumptive truth of it for the sake of argument.

And you accuse *us* of not reading posts.

Examination of CRU data suggests no statistically significant warming . . .

[followed by a link to Watts up. Groan.]

Let the attacks on this begin! Before you do maybe you should get the data and check it out for yourself.

Oh *really*, Richard?

Really?!!?

Because when I just checked it, uber-genius Watts had dicked up the html code and you can’t even open his *graphs*!

Remember saying this to Chris?

Guess you havn’t looked at the graphs, sigh.

Richard, once again you’ve exposed yourself as a mindless believer. You’re telling me to check the validity of an analysis that if you’d actually checked yourself you would know is not even *available*. You’re not living this one down, either. I’m sure Watts will fix it in a few hours or so but once again we’re given insights into how you (don’t) think.

I’ll finish with the ongoing and growing list of unanswered questions in your queue:

What happened to your empty threats of rebuttal to post 184 (skip)? Or 27 (Ian)? Or 327 (mandas)? #351

1.Do you claim to understand the scientific nuances of [the Laken et al] article?

2.Did you attempt to read through it to understand everything it says?

3.How is [citing it] *not* an “appeal to authority”? #350
#358 skip
November 26, 2010

By the way, Richard and all:

I had a recent email exchange with young Dr. Benjamin Laken, lead author of the article Richard cited in #348. (Its always fun to talk to young scholars and ponder what might have been if only I had genuinely exceptional talent.) I asked him a couple of questions about the paper and he directed me to his website . . .

http://www.benlaken.com

. . . where he has posted a general letter for public consumption:

In the paper, my co-authors and I show evidence of a process which may contribute to climate variability. Many factors contribute to the day to day variability of the climate, and this is very different from suggesting that our findings show a trend in the climate, such as that resulting from the effects of anthropogenic emissions. In our work we find a statistical relationship between changes in the rate of the Cosmic ray flux, and cloudiness over middle latitudes: rate is key here. There has been no long term trend in the rate of Cosmic ray flux over the last several decades, and consequently, this observation does not support ideas that Cosmic rays are responsible for recent global warming.

Unlike you I’m willing to allow all evidence to have weight. — Richard #352

How about the author’s own view of his own research–does that carry any weight, Richard?
#359 wagdog
November 26, 2010

Richard Wakefield:
It shows that … this warming is not unnatural, we’ve been here before.

Very flawed logic as was highlighted long ago on another blog:

“However, the logic is fatally flawed. It is akin to a defense lawyer arguing that their client can’t possibly have committed a particular murder because other murders have happened in the past that were nothing to do with them. That would get short shrift in a courtroom, and the analgous point gets short shrift in the scientific community too.”

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/cold-case-vs-csi/
#360 pough
November 26, 2010

Because when I just checked it, uber-genius Watts had dicked up the html code and you can’t even open his *graphs*!

To be fair, I think he has linked to images from another website that is currently down.

Best comment on that post comes from Steve Mosher, of all people:

Further, you might want to head over to the cosmic ray thread and explain to them that there is no warming for the rays to explain.

He seems to be aware of the conflict inherent in agreeing with everything that goes against the idea that our extra CO2 is, has been, and will be holding in a little more warmth!

Which brings me to my shorter Richard Wakefield:

bool GoodScience = (!CO2) ? true : false;
#361 skip
November 26, 2010

11:30 am Pacific time and Richard’s Watts-graphs still don’t exist.

Yes I’m being pedantic, but just in case Richard tries to play innocent about Watt’s bungled graphic argument about temp trends that doesn’t load, I’ve copied and pasted some of the comments from the Wattslings regarding this:

November 26, 2010 at 9:33 am

I get only the Jan-Dec global mean temperature graph. The others all had the dreaded red-x mark. (I opened the article twice with the same result.)

IanM
#
BSM says:
November 26, 2010 at 9:33 am

There appears to be something wrong with the graphs and their links. Or maybe a problem with my browser (IE 8.0.76).
#
Anthony Jackson says:
November 26, 2010 at 9:37 am

The graphs are absent. Do I need to download some software?
#
steveta_uk says:
November 26, 2010 at 9:37 am

I can’t see any graphs – is it just me?
#
Neal Asher says:
November 26, 2010 at 9:38 am

Uh, the graphs aren’t visible???
#
Douglas DC says:
November 26, 2010 at 9:38 am

Same here, got problems with the loading
#
phil says:
November 26, 2010 at 9:39 am

Your images are not showing for some reason . . .

Morley Sutter says:
November 26, 2010 at 9:40 am

Unfortunately, my computer won’t show any but the first of the graphs in your post.

And so on and so on.

Brilliant link, Richard.
#362 Richard Wakefield
November 26, 2010

wagdog it does not surprise me that you drink the coolaid provided by the liars at RC. Boy, you people will believe anything to keep the faith alive.

That has got to be the lamest analogy I have ever heard. A more correct analogy would be if that same person (same entity) was convicted in the past for murder using the same methods, would weight heavily against that same person for a second murder. The cops would be quite justified to go after the same person who committed the second murder when the MO matches exactly.

The same entity (this planet) went through a world wide warm period in the past (not once, but several times) all naturally (the MO). So today we have warming, which you all here agree was natural between 1800 and 1945 (the same MO). The only change in MO you claim is happening is that short period 1975 to 1998. Because it has not “warmed” since.
#363 skip
November 26, 2010

Boy, you people will believe anything to keep the faith alive.

At least we link to sources that actually *work* before telling others to consider them.

The cops would be quite justified to go after the same person who committed the second murder when the MO matches exactly.

But that is exactly what is at issue. They would be bigger fools to assume the MO was the same if there was overwhelming evidence that it is *not*.

I can see chief Wiggam now:

“The suspect killed the victim. Several other murder victims were killed last year. Looks like the same MO to me!”

The only change in MO you claim is happening is that short period 1975 to 1998. Because it has not “warmed” since.

According to an analysis I know you didn’t even *read* because it did not even work when you linked it!

Richard, you’re just embarrassing yourself now.

Oh, and one other thing: Answers?
#364 Ian Forrester
November 26, 2010

Wakefield lied again:

The only change in MO you claim is happening is that short period 1975 to 1998. Because it has not “warmed” since.

Wakefield that is a blatant lie. It also shows your lack of scientific curiosity since it would have been very easy for you, yourself, to confirm by checking on what denier scientists Spencer and Christie have to say about the recent warming.

Here is a plot of the UAH data for 1998 to 2010:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend

Can you see it Wakefield? Which way is the trend going? Please answer this question since it can’t be too hard to tell which way it is going.

Also, remember, this is a plot from two dishonest scientists who consistently showed “wrong” data for many years and helped convince many people that global warming was not occurring. Are you one of the gullible people who was misled by their “wrong” data? Or is it your political and selfish beliefs that make you a dishonest denier?

It’s time you started answering some questions. I’m sure you must have well researched rebuttals in place by now to show that honest scientists are wrong.
#365 Richard Wakefield
November 27, 2010

Ian. First, that is the MEAN, a meaningless number. What is TMax doing? Second, what I see is a straight line through part of a cycle.

TMax in all the Canadian data is FLAT since 1998.

http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/04/canadian-summer-trends.html
#366 Richard Wakefield
November 27, 2010

The cops would be quite justified to go after the same person who committed the second murder when the MO matches exactly.

But that is exactly what is at issue. They would be bigger fools to assume the MO was the same if there was overwhelming evidence that it is *not*.

But it is the same. You admit that the warming from 1800 to 1945 was natural right (same MO as the MWP)? Other’s here have.

I can see chief Wiggam now:

“The suspect killed the victim. Several other murder victims were killed last year. Looks like the same MO to me!”

Boy, what a stretch. Guess you don’t know how police work is done. They have EVIDENCE!!!

The only change in MO you claim is happening is that short period 1975 to 1998. Because it has not “warmed” since.

According to an analysis I know you didn’t even *read* because it did not even work when you linked it!

“UPDATE: The StataSphere server can’t handle the load of interest, I’ve take the images offline from this article, and disabled the link to it. Once he gets the server up and running again I’ll put them back – Anthony”

The summer data from Canada shows that TMax has not increased since 1998.
#367 Richard Simons
November 27, 2010

I still don’t understand why you have the obsession with Canadian maximum summer temperatures, when people have been consistently saying that the greatest effects of global warming will be on winter and night-time temperatures.

Looking at your link, I was interested to discover that Calgary had an international airport in 1911, which raises a couple of points. Which of these stations have been resited in the meantime and how do you know that improved instrument shelter designed has not reduced diurnal variation?
#368 skip
November 27, 2010

Guess you don’t know how police work is done. They have EVIDENCE!!!

Um, that was *my* point, Richard. Such hypothetical oafish police work is what *you* have done when you claim a global MWP proves no modern anthropogenic signal. Hence the analogy–which you didn’t get at all.

And I am indifferent to whether *you* know how police work is done; more pertinent is that you *don’t* know how climate science is done, because climate scientists have EVIDENCE!!!.

“UPDATE: The StataSphere server can’t handle the load of interest, I’ve take the images offline from this article, and disabled the link to it. Once he gets the server up and running again I’ll put them back – Anthony”

Oh no no no noooooo. Too late, Richard. And another blatant dodge. This ship sailed and you already scotched it. The fact that Watts finally pulled his head of his ass doesn’t clean the egg of *your* face. You hadn’t even *read it yourself* when you were telling me

Let the attacks on this begin! Before you do maybe you should get the data and check it out for yourself.

Repeat: You hadn’t even read the post yourself when you were citing it as “evidence” and daring us to deconstruct it.

Don’t worry; when its available for real go ahead and tell me and I will examine it, but the larger proof of how you operate doesn’t change: You mindlessly believed something that was not even *accessible* based on what you *hoped* it proved. Again, you’re not living this one down.

So, Richard when will you answer the extensive and growing list of questions in your queue. To wit:

What happened to your empty threats of rebuttal to post 184 (skip)? Or 27 (Ian)? Or 327 (mandas)? #351

1.Do you claim to understand the scientific nuances of [the Laken et al] article?

2.Did you attempt to read through it to understand everything it says?

3.How is [citing it] *not* an “appeal to authority”? #350

Unlike you I’m willing to allow all evidence to have weight. — Richard #352

How about the author’s own view of his own research–does that carry any weight, Richard? #358
#369 Ian Forrester
November 27, 2010

Here is a link to down-loadable (Excel) data from Canadian weather stations:

http://scraperwiki.com/views/canada-weather-station-map/full/

Anyone can check the data and compare it to Wakefield’s. I wouldn’t be surprised to find significant differences.

H/T to drj at Skeptical Science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/twice-as-much-canada.html#31631
#370 Richard Wakefield
November 27, 2010

I still don’t understand why you have the obsession with Canadian maximum summer temperatures, when people have been consistently saying that the greatest effects of global warming will be on winter and night-time temperatures.

Then why are heat waves blamed on AGW? Like Russia this last summer, and France a couple years ago? The claim of the AGW is that we should be seeing MORE heat waves and MORE heat related deaths. Or do you deny that is what has been one of the claimed effects of AGW?

I guess I will have to get back references of those claims.

BTW, the UHIA can also increase TMin.
#371 Ian Forrester
November 27, 2010

Wakefield whined:

Then why are heat waves blamed on AGW? Like Russia this last summer, and France a couple years ago?

The reason is very simple, at least to intelligent and scientifically literate people. The reason is that you are lying, summers are not cooling globally, heck they are not even cooling in Canada as you would see if you ever get around to reading the Zhang et al. paper (Fig 4, page 407).

Also see my question to you in my post #27:

For example, Wakefield, how do you explain this recent finding in the US if, as you claim, summers are getting cooler?

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/04/endless-summer-hottest-september-record-high-temperatures/

You are a pathetic liar who doesn’t have a clue about climate science but just loves to post nonsense which other illiterate acolytes will lap up. Well, Wakefield, you are on the wrong blog for that. Any scientific malfeasance will be shot down on a science blog.
#372 Richard Wakefield
November 27, 2010

Anyone can check the data and compare it to Wakefield’s. I wouldn’t be surprised to find significant differences.

Are you implying I’ve invented all this data? I didn’t download it from Environment Canada?

I checked his data. It’s by month, not for every day. So it’s already aggregated. Get the DAILY RAW DATA.
#373 Snowman
November 27, 2010

Hi Richard. Snowman here. I just wanted to say how much I admire your courageous and spirited defiance of the climate gang.

Of course, the very idea of someone puncturing their smug consensus has them fainting in coils and reaching for the smelling salts. And, naturally, their outrage knows no bounds. I particularly liked Skip’s foaming indignation. How dare this upstart not acknowledge my superior intellect and answer my questions, he rages.

Of course, they will continue to shriek and hurl abuse. But many of us will be silently cheering you on. Illegitimi non carborundum.
#374 pough
November 27, 2010

Hi skip and Ian. pough here. I just wanted to say how much I admire your courageous and spirited defiance of the denialist gang.

Of course, the very idea of someone puncturing their smug contrarian superiority has them fainting in coils and reaching for the smelling salts. And, naturally, their outrage knows no bounds. I particularly liked Richard’s foaming indignation. How dare these scientists not acknowledge my superior intellect and answer my questions, he rages.

Of course, they will continue to shriek and hurl abuse. But many of us will be silently cheering you on. Puellae reginam non timent.
#375 Snowman
November 27, 2010

Dull, Pough, dull. You really must try harder to come up with something original.
#376 Ian Forrester
November 27, 2010

Wakefield shouted:

Get the DAILY RAW DATA.

Why not plot the hourly data, or let’s try for minute by minute data or if we want to show even more cooling let’s try for second by second data, since by your flawed logic the shorter the time intervals the cooler it will get. Your logical stupidity knows no bounds.
#377 skip
November 27, 2010

It is perfectly predictable, Snowman, that you would express admiration for someone who, like you, disingenuously avoids answering direct question again, and again, and again.

I see how you pick your role models and things become just a little clearer.
#378 Richard Wakefield
November 27, 2010

Why not plot the hourly data, or let’s try for minute by minute data or if we want to show even more cooling let’s try for second by second data, since by your flawed logic the shorter the time intervals the cooler it will get. Your logical stupidity knows no bounds.

I just might download the entire hourly dataset. Let’s see, 3 months to get the daily data, times 24… See you in 6 years…

But if you want to get a true picture, then that is what one should be doing. With monthly you can’t do much of what I have done. But go head Ian, pick a station (notice how many of them have missing data, LOTS!) and check it against my observations. Don’t tell me I’m wrong, show me!. So far not one of you has shown where my analysis is wrong.
#379 Ian Forrester
November 27, 2010

Wakefield, cherry pick all you want but the globe is warming and it is mostly caused by release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. You are in denial, why don’t you admit it?
#380 skip
November 27, 2010

So far not one of you has shown where my analysis is wrong.

Nor will I attempt to since you cannot even answer the basic question of *how its inconsistent with AGW theory*–other than the muddled non sequiter, “correlation does not equal causation.”

You cannot answer my questions above, can you, Richard?

You simply have no answers and that’s the end of it.

But keep on posting on this blog. As a poster child of AGW irrational denial you serve a useful purpose, I suppose.

Richard, its quite simple: You don’t answer because you can’t.
#381 pough
November 27, 2010

Dull, Pough, dull.

I thought it was hilarious. That’s why I copied it. I do love me some denialist ham. The inevitable “Oh! they must be sooo scared! Oh! They’re such meany-pants! Oh! They only get angry when they’re wrong!” Uh-huh. Maybe we can start a pool on which Glorious Victory for Truth will be achieved first – the climate deniers’ or the evolution deniers’. Same language. Same hope.

You really must try harder to come up with something original.

That’s a strange thing to say. It’s not as if the pretentious crankery you continually present is a breath of fresh air. What, no hoity-toity dead language to close off your post? Nothing says “I’m original” like Latin does.

I’m not sure how original it is for someone to analyse Canadian weather data usefully, but that’s not going to stop me from pointing it out:

http://clearclimatecode.org/canada/
http://clearclimatecode.org/analysis-of-canada-data/
#382 Snowman
November 27, 2010

As ever, Pough, you gloriously miss the point. It’s not Latin. It’s mock Latin, pretend Latin – what is technically known as a joke.
#383 skip
November 27, 2010

. . . what is technically known as a joke.

Don’t fret, Snowman; I’m right with you, and interpret pretty much everything you post as exactly that.
#384 Snowman
November 28, 2010

Excellent, Skip. I never doubted it for a moment. I knew that as a member of a band of warrior monks you would understand completely. By the way, your’re up late, aren’t you?
#385 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

The reason is that you are lying, summers are not cooling globally, heck they are not even cooling in Canada

Yet you cannot find any fault with the methods of my analysis. The FACT is summer TMax is dropping everywhere in Canada. The FACT is the number of days of heat waves has been dropping.

Get the data and prove me wrong. Otherwise you are just making yourself look the fool by trying to keep your faith alive at all costs, including throwing out unproved accusations. It’s easy enough to claim someone is lying, it’s another matter to prove it. Prove it! Do the analysis and SHOW me where I’m wrong. Put your money where your big fat mouth is.
#386 pough
November 28, 2010

As ever, Pough, you gloriously miss the point

As ever? Really? I don’t recall any previous times that you’ve pointed out to me that I’ve missed the point. As ever, Snowman, you simply use and abuse language to score rhetorical points regardless of the truth.

It’s not Latin. It’s mock Latin, pretend Latin – what is technically known as a joke.

Of course I missed that. I don’t know Latin. Well, except for the Latin phrase I used. Did you happen to get my Latin “joke”, or did you gloriously miss the point, as ever?

BTW, I love your use of “gloriously”. When you used that word, did you mean “a nice, knock-down argument“, or am I missing the point?
#387 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

Wakefield, cherry pick all you want but the globe is warming and it is mostly caused by release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. You are in denial, why don’t you admit it?

And the Pope proclaims that Jesus Christ died for our sins. I reject anything that has no evidence. You have a theory, that has contorted itself into a religous myth. So yes, I deny the myth as you stated it.

Maybe you can show me tropical data from around the globe going back to the 1800′s that shows it’s warming there, eh? Do you have such data? Oops, no you don’t because no one does. So we have no idea what has happened in the tropics.
#388 pough
November 28, 2010

No evidence? No evidence of average global temperatures increasing? No evidence of CO2′s status as a greenhouse gas? None? And you wonder why we call you a denialist?

Wow.

Anyways, I’m curious. Do you happen to think that the ice ages were all about Canadian TMin? What’s your obsession with the max temps? I was under the impression that the whole climate change thing was about averages, which – if I’m not mistaken – are more important to the ecology than the odd extreme.

Is it because it’s your only piece of evidence that you have to pretend that it’s not only relevant, it’s the most relevant?
#389 Marco
November 28, 2010

Richard, try and grasp this paper:

http://www.cmos.ca/Ao/articles/v440205.pdf
#390 skip
November 28, 2010

Ok, Richard, let’s go through the silly ritual again so you can embarrass yourself with further silence:

Do you have any intention of addressing my questions listed above–post 368?

If not, why not?

And as a general consideration, what does it say about a disputant who dodges the same questions again and again? Is this objectivity? Intellectual inquiry? Science?

I know you won’t answer because of course you’ve been exposed as purely dogmatic, but I’ve learned that’s just part of the dumb game you have to play with pre-committed climate denialists.

Richard, Richard. Anyone reading these exchanges knows why you are ignoring me. Is it really so easy to delude yourself into believing that such evasion is a successful debating tactic?

How is pure spite part of factual inquiry?

Its just amazing . . .
#391 Snowman
November 28, 2010

What is amazing, Skip, is that you keep demanding that Richard Wakefield answer your questions without making any attempt to show why his analysis is wrong. It is his findings that matter, not your high school debating team attempts at point scoring.

Of course, you do so because you lack the technical and analytical skills to challenge Richard directly. No shame in that. I lack them, too. The difference is that I admit it, and do not raise pointless red herrings.
#392 skip
November 28, 2010

Skip, is that you keep demanding that Richard Wakefield answer your questions without making any attempt to show why his analysis is wrong.

Snowman, you don’t even know what his analysis *claims*, let alone how he arrived at it.

Furthermore, he has *never* explained how his analysis is inconsistent with AGW theory, other than to parrot the non sequiter that correlation does not equal causation. Why should I bother to prove “wrong” an analysis that *does not even challenge the fundamental science of AGW?*

And its an absurd argument, Snowman, because no one has the time to download gigabytes of data and make their own conclusion about a scientific claim like global warming. No layperson can reasonably be expected to derive their own opinions this way. This is why advanced civilizations train and employ *experts*, of which Richard is not one by any stretch. He’s a retired fireman with no scientific training whose claim to fame–in his view–is that he single-handedly toppled a creationist claim about “young earth” isotopes.

The whole thing is a joke, Snowman. Your participation seems appropriate somehow.
#393 Ian Forrester
November 28, 2010

Wakefield lied again:

The FACT is summer TMax is dropping everywhere in Canada.

First station I sampled I can show you are wrong. I plotted the extreme temperature maximums for Sachs Harbour.

I found that the yearly maximum temperatures have been increasing at a rate of 0.43 degrees C per decade for the period 1956 to 2006.

Are you saying that Sachs Harbour is not in Canada or will you admit that you are just either plain wrong (I don’t know where you went wrong and I don’t care since you were wrong) or that you are just being dishonest?

And don’t accuse me of cherry picking, all I had to do was show one station which was warming in the summer to show that your repeated statement:

The FACT is summer TMax is dropping everywhere in Canada.

IS WRONG.
#394 Snowman
November 28, 2010

So I am right, Skip. You are not prepared to demonstrate why Richard is wrong because you are unable to do so. You cannot take refuge in calling him ridiculous, an amateur and so on. If Richard is in error, explain why. Otherwise simply concede that you are out of your depth. No one will think the worse of you. In fact, we will admire your honesty. I am not attacking you, Skip. On the contrary, I am trying to help you out of a difficult spot.
#395 skip
November 28, 2010

Yawn.

As usual, Snowman, you are dodging.

I am *not* saying Richard is “wrong” in his temperature analysis. I don’t *know* either way, although given his outrageous statement that he has observed a uniform trend for “every station” in Canada I have my doubts.

What I have asked him–again and again and again–is to explain how his findings–even *assuming they are valid*–contradict the AGW hypothesis. He never has.

I know you understand this distinction and right now you’re just being your usual self, but go ahead: Be another poster child of denialist evasion and intellectual dishonesty. The more your like publicly embarrass yourselves the better, I say, so have at.
#396 skip
November 28, 2010

And I now see Ian has challenged the findings for Richard’s sweeping claim about Canada temp trends; it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

By the way Richard, you should know the quality of the cheer leading you’ve attracted.

Snowman here once humiliated himself beyond all description by showing utter mathematical ignorance of how trend lines worked–after gloating and preening when he foolishly thought he was making a brilliant point.

He also once hip hip huzzahed that we all should respond to the claims of another disputant. It turned out that said disputant’s “comments” were plagiarized fraud, as he later even admitted. Snowman and he both (temporarily) fled the forum in shame.

Friends like these, huh?
#397 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

Ian either you blind or the liar now. EVERY STATION SHOWS HIGHEST TMAX IS DROPPING! That is a fact.

SHOW me that isn’t happening, otherwise you are showing your true colours — you are the fraud.
#398 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

Ian Sachs Harbour is station 1794, EC did not return any data for that station. Where did you get it? I will try again to get that station.

Are you going to check other stations, or just that one?
#399 Ian Forrester
November 28, 2010

Wakefield you are a scumbag. Do you actually think that I, being, a scientist would post data that were not true? Everyone is not as dishonest as you.

I challenge anyone to go to:

http://scraperwiki.com/views/canada-weather-station-map/full/

Click on the icon for Sachs Harbour (you can locate it on a map of Canada can’t you, Wakefield?) Download the data (it’s already in Excel format) and select the “Extr Temp Max” (it’s in column J in case you can’t find it) for each year from 1956 to 2006. Put the extracted data into a new Excel worksheet and plot the data and calculate the linear regression for the data. The results show an increasing Temp Max of 0.43 degrees C per decade, which is approximately 3X the global average which is to be expected for northern areas of the globe). It’s probably not statistically significant but I wouldn’t expect your data to be statistically significant either.

Once you, or anyone else, has done that please tell me whether you found my analysis to be correct or not. That will prove that Wakefield is the liar (but, hey, I knew that all along without going through this time wasting exercise).
#400 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

I was under the impression that the whole climate change thing was about averages, which – if I’m not mistaken – are more important to the ecology than the odd extreme.

As Chris here has already admitted, averages are meaningless without the context that gives those averages. I will repeat it. You can have an increase in the average temp even if the hottest days of the year are dropping as long as the coldest days of the year are getting less cold.
#401 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

He’s a retired fireman with no scientific training whose claim to fame–in his view–is that he single-handedly toppled a creationist claim about “young earth” isotopes.

Well, Skip, you are not entirely correct. You left out the fact that for 25 years I wrote software and designed databases, and did statistical analysis in the private sector (all self taught). Doing this is nothing new to me. I was paid nice bucks to do this kind of work.
#402 Ian Forrester
November 28, 2010

Wakefield said:

and did statistical analysis in the private sector (all self taught). Doing this is nothing new to me. I was paid nice bucks to do this kind of work.

I just hope that none of your former clients are reading this thread or they will be asking for their money back.
#403 skip
November 28, 2010

Ok, fair enough, I neglected these aspects of your credentials.

So, answers to questions?
#404 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

What I have asked him–again and again and again–is to explain how his findings–even *assuming they are valid*–contradict the AGW hypothesis. He never has.

Yes I have, several times. I have noted that TMax dropping and TMin increasing means they are converging. This means projected into the future the two (summer daytime max temp and winter nighttime min temp) would have to meet (it’s some 700 to 800 years in the future). After which the winter would be hotter than the summer.

Since that is physically impossible to happen, then regardless how much CO2 we emitted, the two must change direction and start to diverge (warmer summers, colder winters, like what happened up to the 1940s).

This means that what we are seeing is normal cycling, cycles within cycles.

What you, and the rest here, have yet to explain is how increasing CO2 would make summers cooler when the AGW faith claims there should be more heat waves. There arn’t they are fewer.

You, and the rest here, have already admitted that CO2 did not cause the increase in average temp 1800 to 1945. So the only window of increased temps that you can have any hope of tagging to CO2 is 1975 to 1998.

What you and the rest here have not shown is what tropical temperatures have done since 1900. Since that data does not exist, you cannot claim the entire planet is warming.
#405 pough
November 28, 2010

As Chris here has already admitted, averages are meaningless without the context that gives those averages. I will repeat it. You can have an increase in the average temp even if the hottest days of the year are dropping as long as the coldest days of the year are getting less cold.

And? So? What’s your point, that summer TMax in Canada is more relevant than global average? That a few lower max temps in one part of the world will have more effect on ecology than higher overall averages globally?

By the way, if we go beyond your Canada blinders…

Eighteen extreme national high temperature records have been set in 2010. This year now ranks first place for the most number of countries that have set extreme heat records, according to a list supplied to Jeff Master of Weather Underground by Chris Burt. One-third (33%) of those heat records were set in the past ten years. Ten years have had extreme heat records set at five or more countries:

2010: 18 records
2007: 15 records
2003: 12 records
2005: 11 records
1998: 9 records
1983: 9 records
2009: 6 records
2000: 5 records
1999: 5 records
1987: 5 records

Not relevant? Coo loo coo coo coo coo coo coo…
#406 skip
November 28, 2010

EVERY STATION SHOWS HIGHEST TMAX IS DROPPING! That is a fact.

Why make such an extreme claim? If just *one* does not then it shows you to be at best factually in error. Besides if *most* of them do, then that by itself would support your claim about temp average convergences–not that that in any way refutes AGW (but that’s a separate issue).

Why not just say “most” or a “preponderance” or the far more believable “in the aggregate”?

Because, Richard, you’ve set yourself up for yet another failure. Its counter-intuitive to think *every* station would go one direction or the other *whatever* the truth of AGW. It requires your audience to believe something that is bizarre to begin with, implies you’ve checked *every* station record, and all in the hope of proving a point that doesn’t even prove anything anyway.

Its this extreme zealotry that shows the mentality we’re dealing with here.
#407 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

Click on the icon for Sachs Harbour

Ian I have already pointed out that that site lists MONTHLY AGGRGATED data. It’s not daily raw data. The numbers ONLY show up using daily data. You can’t see the number of days at each degree TMax with this.

But I will give it a try. just for you.

Now you are now so good with this, pick another station. East coast, Ont. Que, out west. Then tell us what you find.
#408 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

Ten years have had extreme heat records set at five or more countries:

That’s funny. That you would think record Tmax in January would be “extreme heat”!! That’s what is happening. Does he break that down by month or season?

TMax in Canada is more relevant than global average

There isn’t a long enough record of tropical temps to know what the global average has been doing since 1900.
#409 skip
November 28, 2010

That was an attempt at an answer. Amazing.

Since [winter temperatures fully converging and overtaking summer temps] is physically impossible to happen, then regardless how much CO2 we emitted, the two must change direction and start to diverge (warmer summers, colder winters, like what happened up to the 1940s).

Complete nonsense, Richard. It assumes that the exact expression of climate in Canadian temperature trends will hold in the future, and there is *no* reason to assume that. None.

Direct question, Richard. Has it dawned on you that the outcome of AGW, in the long run, is warmer winters *and* warmer summers? The fact that southern *Canada* has shown less winter cooling and not significantly more summer warming in its *current* response to climate change has no bearing, not just on the rest of the world, but for the long term impact of warming on *Canada*.

This entire argument rests on the outrageous assumption that there is no possibility of long term *summer* warming to accompany the winter warming.

On what possible basis can you make this daring assumption?
#410 Ian Forrester
November 28, 2010

Wakefield, stop being so stupid. The monthly averages are shown in column D. Column J shows the most extreme temperature in a given month, what you refer to as Tmax. Therefor, taking the highest will give the yearly maximum temperature which is what I plotted.

The data show that Tmax (which is also the summer temperature, surprise, surprise) is increasing. Why do you continue to tell lies? Most, even semi-sensible people, realize that when in a hole it is best to stop digging. You are the exception to that rule.
#411 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

pough I had a look at that site. Pretty funny. Did you notice the names of the countries in that list?

I wonder how long the temperature record is for Niger, Zambia, Chad, Sudan, Qatar, etc. This has nothing to do with increasing temperatures and everything to do with accounting. I’ll bet you their “historical” records are few and far between. Notice NOT ONE modern country that has long records (except maybe Russia, but how many stations with long records exist for Siberia?) is in that list. They are almost all fea bitten third world counties with poor record keeping.

Oh, and that killer tornado list, that’s funny too. Guess this guy doesn’t realize that the population has grown and more people live in tornado alley.

There are lots of peer reviewed papers that show hurricanes are way down, tornados are also way down (the most the US had was in the mid 1970′s).

BTW, if the Arctic is warming there will be FEWER tornados. Do you know why?

I guess you like the taste of the coolaid the site prepares.
#412 Ian Forrester
November 28, 2010

Wakefield shows his ignorance and lack of logical reasoning skills once again:

The numbers ONLY show up using daily data. You can’t see the number of days at each degree TMax with this.

Wakefield, Tmax only occurs once a year. We don’t need to know which day it occurred on only that it was the maximum temperature reached during the year and it is also the Tmax for the summer which disproves all your nonsense about “summers cooling”.

The rest of the nonsense you are posting would not make it through a junior high school science project. You are an embarrassment to yourself. I would sue whoever taught you science and logic, oops, my bad, you are “self taught”. Explains a lot.
#413 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

Complete nonsense, Richard. It assumes that the exact expression of climate in Canadian temperature trends will hold in the future, and there is *no* reason to assume that. None.

Then why do you expect the same thing when the IPCC says their trends show continued increase?

This entire argument rests on the outrageous assumption that there is no possibility of long term *summer* warming to accompany the winter warming.

On what possible basis can you make this daring assumption?

Because of two reasons.

1) there is no indication at all that summers are heating up, the opposite has been the case since at least the mid 1940′s. Any claim that will reverse is speculation, period.

2) the summer can only get so hot. If you read up on meteorology you would know why, which for some reason climate scientists have forgotten.

There is a ceiling to how hot it can get in the summer. We see it happen here ever year. High pressure system moves in, temps rise. What happens? More evaporation, cumulous clouds form due to convection which takes the hot air from the ground and puts it high up into the atmosphere were it hits cold air cools and forms clouds. We then get thunderstorms, and the ground temp cools (the rain taking that heat and putting it in the ground). Night time comes and also cools the ground temp. So for us here there is an upper limit as to how hot it can get.

Have a look at this:

http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/09/summer-of-2010-hottest-on-record-not.html

This is the daily data showing the full range of TMax for the year. Note the red line. That’s the highest Tmax that occurred regardless of the year for each day of the year. That’s the ceiling. (Notice 2010 here didn’t come close except on a few days, and Ian your site can’t give you this data)

See also: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/07/summer-record-temperatures.html The graphs at the bottom with the black dots. Each dot is a record breaking day in July regardless of the year. That’s the ceiling.

Summer temps here cannot go past that as the planet’s normal thermostat properties kick in and keep the temp down.

Notice NOT ONE modern record temp is in the black dots. 2010 is the yellow dots. So much for the “hottest” year on record.
#414 wagdog
November 28, 2010

Wakefield: that short period 1975 to 1998. Because it has not “warmed” since.

Some people may not trust the so-called “liars at RC”. Instead of relying on self-taught statisticians, there is a very simple method to find out what widely accepted methods in statistical analysis actually say about the temperature trend. It involves giving the data to statisticians who are not climate scientists, and furthermore to remove all doubt of bias, taking care not to tell the statisticians that it is global temperature data that they are analysing. Fortunately for us, The Associated Press has already done this blind experiment back in 2009.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA’s year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of “people coming at the data with preconceived notions,” said Peterson, author of the book “Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis.”

So does this mean that even statisticians who are not climate researchers should not to be trusted either?
#415 skip
November 28, 2010

Then why do you expect the same thing when the IPCC says their trends show continued increase?

I expect nothing specific except a general increase in temperature–*however* that increase is expressed. The IPCC projections are about the *future*; you’re attempting to dismiss those predictions based on geographically limited analysis of the *past* because you think its a profound point when *no one* who studies this issue professionally would find it shocking *at all*.

1) there is no indication at all that summers are heating up, the opposite has been the case since at least the mid 1940′s. Any claim that will reverse is speculation, period.

You base this inference on data from southern Canada, but even *assuming* its a worldwide trend, it does *not* change the key problem for you: There is no reason that AGW theory precludes this possibility in the short run. It only says average temperatures will rise, and *even your own data* show they have!

2) the summer can only get so hot. If you read up on meteorology you would know why, which for some reason climate scientists have forgotten.

Terrible argument. The atmosphere *in general* can only get “so hot”, based on the physical limits of incoming solar energy and the ability of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans to absorb it which is determined *among other things*, by the concentration of GHGs in including carbon. That fact of such a limit exists does not mean either (a) that CO2-induced heating is not causing it, or (b) the effects of such warming are not deleterious to the environment–which is again a different subject.

Have a look at this:

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Another brilliant link, Richard. The data source for this was “Station 4333, Ottawa.”

Thats just brilliant. Cite a link which shows temperature records for *one station*.

*One station*, Richard. And even if these temperature patterns *were* global–which they are not, what would it even *prove*? That . . .

Summer temps here cannot go past that as the planet’s normal thermostat properties kick in and keep the temp down.??

Because this is only half right. They place an upper limit to any additional *warming*.

So much for the “hottest” year on record.

Yet another inane declaration of triumph. Because Ottowa didn’t have the hottest year on record (as if *anyone* predicted that that must necessarily happen for AGW to be true), AGW is falsified in the mind of Richard Wakefield.

Keep posting, Richard.

But more important, you *are* reading my posts, and selectively responding based on where you *think* you have a profound point to make. In light of this,

When will you answer my questions repeated multiple times above, Richard?
#416 skip
November 28, 2010

I neglected to note the one small compliment I owe you regarding your last post, Richard:

Your links–in which you had so much ill-placed confidence–actually worked this time.
#417 pough
November 28, 2010

I wonder how long the temperature record is for Niger, Zambia, Chad, Sudan, Qatar, etc. This has nothing to do with increasing temperatures and everything to do with accounting. I’ll bet you their “historical” records are few and far between. Notice NOT ONE modern country that has long records (except maybe Russia, but how many stations with long records exist for Siberia?) is in that list. They are almost all fea bitten third world counties with poor record keeping.

Choices:

1. Find out the answer to your question.
2. Make arrogant assumptions based on your overwhelming confidence in your superiority.

Hmm… I guess that is an easy choice.
#418 Chris S.
November 28, 2010

Can I refer people back to post #291?

… Site 2973 (Meunster).

For the whole series Tmax, Tmin & Tmean all show significant increase …

For the months May – August … Tmax is also significantly increasing …

“As Chris here has already admitted, averages are meaningless without the context that gives those averages.”

I said nothing of the sort.

Off to the Met Office tomorrow so I’ll have a more definitive explanation of the uses of Tmean later in the week.
#419 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

For the months May – August … Tmax is also significantly increasing …

Are you blind???? Can you not see the graphs I posted showing TMax is DECREASING??? Show me your graphs and the how you manipulated the data to get it.

And yes you did say that averages can be altered by different trends of Tmax and Tmin, do I have to go back and make you eat your own words?
#420 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

Hmm… I guess that is an easy choice.

Yep, it does not require much brain power to realize that Chad will not have locations of temperature data back to the early 1900′s. In fact, I know this for a fact for Ghana as I know someone there who has friends in government. He told me “save temperature records? Why would we do that? It’s the same temp here all year long.” He said they do not have such records.

Now you are grasping at straws to save your faith.

Intresting comparison. I’m currently on an email thread discussing young earth creationism with a creationist. A clergyman on the list said:

Most “true believers” in biblical inerrancy are not open enough to consider a viewpoint other than their “truth” and so even this theological argument will not touch them.

Take heed.
#421 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

So does this mean that even statisticians who are not climate researchers should not to be trusted either?

For you to say that means you must think what I have done is wrong. Show me. Show me why this is wrong: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/03/specific-stations-4333-ottawa.html

Show me specifically where I have erred in the data. Go ahead, this is not rocket science. I have made this station and one other’s raw data available. Download it and plot the data yourself.

This is not advanced stats needed to do this. This is three fields of temperature data, TMax, Tmean and TMin.

What advanced stats is needed to plot what TMax is doing in the summer?

You guys keep trying to claim I’m wrong, but not one of you has shown how I am.

Also your continued attempts to question my methods means you do not like what I have uncovered. You must be scared this will impact your faith in AGW.
#422 Richard Wakefield
November 28, 2010

But more important, you *are* reading my posts, and selectively responding based on where you *think* you have a profound point to make. In light of this,

When will you answer my questions repeated multiple times above, Richard?

Your posts are way too long to answer in detail. I skip them because I do not have the time to get into such details when I’m also answering others here who have shorter replies. I can answer them very clearly. I just choose not to because you are running around in circles. Many of your questions have been answered above.

And if I do answer them, you will just go off on another long post that would need even longer replies.
#423 skip
November 28, 2010

Also your continued attempts to question my methods means you do not like what I have uncovered. You must be scared this will impact your faith in AGW.

I have granted, for the sake of argument, what you’ve claimed to have “uncovered.” You don’t even understand what it does *not* imply.

It is your continued, disingenuous, evasion of my questions (I’ve asked approximately six times now, most recently explicated in #368) that shows who’s truly “scared” Richard: You.

Richard, evasion like that just shows that whatever part of you still grasps the concepts of honesty, facts, and logic, realizes that you picked a loser position and its shown to be a sham.

Just do yourself a favor and quit embarrassing yourself. Just because you can convince yourself that blatant evasion is a legitimate argument tactic doesn’t mean anyone else is fooled.

Oh, the humanity . . .
#424 skip
November 28, 2010

Many of your questions have been answered above.

Bullshit. Where?

Where, oh where, Richard, are your answers to the questions I posed in 368?

If you already answered, then you can just *cut and paste* the relevant material that you’ve already written, right?

The questions, again are:

What happened to your empty threats of rebuttal to post 184 (skip)? Or 27 (Ian)? Or 327 (mandas)? #351

List the post numbers (approximate investment of time, 5 minutes)

1.Do you claim to understand the scientific nuances of [the Laken et al] article?

A yes or no answer would suffice here. (5 seconds)

2.Did you attempt to read through it to understand everything it says?

Another five seconds to answer a yes or no question.

3.How is [citing it] *not* an “appeal to authority”? #350

One minute to explain.

How about the author’s own view of his own research–does that carry any weight, Richard? #358

A yes or no answer (five seconds) with an optional two or three to explain, if you wish.

Don’t give me the empty claim of “I answered before” along with the horseshit excuse of “it takes too long”.

Pure excuses from someone who’s been caught citing a link which didn’t even function, showing he didn’t even read it himself, appealing to an “authority” which does not *even agree with his position.

And I just *love* how you replied to Wagdog with the same dippy Ottowa data from *one station* to challenge what professional statisticians have concluded about *global* data.

Beyond all belief.
#425 Ian Forrester
November 28, 2010

Wakefield lies again:

In fact, I know this for a fact for Ghana as I know someone there who has friends in government. He told me “save temperature records? Why would we do that?

This is just rubbish, there are lots of temperature data for Ghana.

See C.E. Stephens, “Some Indications of Warming in Ghana”, Environmental Conservation (1995), 22: 174-175:

The present work is mainly in response to this; it comprises analyses of the temperature changes taking place in Ghana, from 1931-60 to 1961-90. Monthly maximum and minimum temperatures for 1931-60 and 1961-90 have been abridged as the overall monthly means in Table Ia for 11 synoptic stations in Ghana.

Stephens was in the Department of Botany, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana when he wrote the paper.

If you read the paper you will find references to other workers who have collected temperature data in Ghana over a relatively long period of time.

Wakefield, why do you lie all the time, especially when your lies are so easily exposed?

You are pathetic.
#426 crakar24
November 28, 2010

Post 396,

To my dearest Skip the following statement by you needs to be addressed.

He also once hip hip huzzahed that we all should respond to the claims of another disputant. It turned out that said disputant’s “comments” were plagiarized fraud, as he later even admitted. Snowman and he both (temporarily) fled the forum in shame.

Friends like these, huh?

Sorry Skip but Richard and i are not friends in fact we have never spoken, it should also be clear to you that i have not expressed my views towards Richards findings. Having said that intelligence was never a strong point of yours was it?

The primary reason why i no longer bother posting here is because of your stalker like attraction to me, i was hoping now that you have Richard to play with your fascination with me would die a slow death but it looks as though i was wrong. If you had a set of tits i would be enjoying this very much but as you dont i find all this a little freaky and would appreciate it if you would build a bridge, get over me and move on.

By the way i heard the other day that if you buy a “pick-up truck” in the good ole US of A the salesman will throw in an AK-47 for free, where i come from free registration is considered a great deal. The AK-47 is not noted for its accuracy but is legendary for its rate of fire and reliability which means it is the weapon of choice if one has the urge to fire randomly into shopping mall crowds, packed schools or even peak time traffic in a subway station so it appears the car salesman has done his homework.

In other words for all those people who have felt the end of Skips sharp tongue dont be too harsh on him…..yes i know he is fucked up but then again look at the fucked up country he lives in….who the fuck gives away free AK-47′s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS, Dont waste your precious time with Richard by responding to this post, what ever we had its over Skip OK its over.
#427 skip
November 28, 2010

As you can see, Richard, you continue to attract an impressive coterie of supporters.
#428 skip
November 28, 2010

The primary reason why i no longer bother posting here is because of your stalker like attraction to me.

I was enjoying the forum just fine without you. My guess is so was everyone else. If you would go back to playing hard to get you will see how little I stalk.

i find all this a little freaky and would appreciate it if you would build a bridge, get over me and move on

Um, Crakar, you’re the one that posted and brought it up. I never mentioned you by name.

I have to commend you though, for having followed the forum for so long without comment up till now.

Fair warning: If you read so much and speak so little, you might be in danger of learning something.
#429 zman
November 28, 2010

Having just read through the entire comment list up to Nov 28, 9:18pm, I have to thank you all for the discussion, Richard Wakefield and skip especially. I see some points of agreement for both:

1) Analysis of the Canadian data shows an increase of Tmin and flat or decreasing Tmax for Tmin/Tmax as defined by Richard. (Note: both flat and decreasing Tmax have been stated by Richard)

2) Mean global temperatures have been increasing.

Richard and skip, do you concur?
#430 zman
November 28, 2010

Starting with 1) Canadian Tmin/Tmax converging trends and 2) global Tmean increasing trend, we can take a few more logical steps. Please tell me when I err too badly (baldly?)…

Tmean is an average that does not inform specific Tmin or Tmax trends, but does provide a measure of total heat in a system.

If Tmean is increasing while Tmax is flat in a system, then Tmin must converge on Tmax. If Tmin ever reached Tmax, one of the trends would have to fail. Either Tmean stops increasing or Tmax must increase.

So, extrapolating Richard’s data to the global level, we are left with a situation where either global warming stops or Tmax increases. In other words, Tmax will have to increase at some point if there is a continuing increase in Tmean.
#431 zman
November 29, 2010

Assume Tmean and CO2 are increasing and consider the consequences.

Pros:
- Higher temp = fewer freezes = more growing days
- Higher temp = polar regions more habitable
- Higher CO2 = faster plant growth = more oxygen

Cons:
- Higher temp = more heat waves and more storm energy available
- Higher temp = Climate change = changing weather by region and season (e.g. wetter in some times/areas and drier in others)
- Rapid climate change = adaptation challenges for plants and animals
- Rapid climate change = adaptation challenges for human land use practices

Of the above, rapid climate change seems to have the greatest impact. Richard has mentioned above that the earth has seen similar changes before. He is correct.

I would like to float the idea that it is the timescale of the change that is important. My preferred analogy is being hit by a ball travelling at 1mph versus one travelling at 100mph; you get dramatically different results.

Richard, do you believe that climate change will occur as a result of increasing global mean temperature?
#432 zman
November 29, 2010

RE: climate cycles, natural causes,and “less cold” data

Final Wrapup

Climate cycles – absolutely, clearly happening; affected and influenced by a multitude of factors.

Natural causes – The sun and axial tilt are obvious culprits for much climate variability, as that is what controls our incoming energy. The other side of total energy in a system is outgoing energy, which is affected by clouds, dust, albedo and atmospheric gases. After that, it is how the energy is distributed, with moisture and topography being major factors.

“Less cold” data – Richard has confirmed in his analysis a trend of increasing Tmin and relatively steady Tmax for Canadian data. This can be used as evidence of a changing Canadian climate.

Where does this leave us?
- Climate cycles have occurred and are occurring.
- We are seeing an increase in average global temp.
- The increase in global temp seems to be changing climate.
- At issue is the cause of the increasing global temp, not whether it is good or bad, happening or not.

If you have a mystery, you search for clues. What could be causing this pesky global temp increase? What factors influence global temp? Ah, increased incoming energy and/or decreased outgoing energy would elevate global average temp.

Well then, what increases incoming energy? The sun and axial tilt do. Axial tilt hasn’t changed much, afaik. The sun has passed it’s cyclical peak in 1978 and is now entering a minimum. So, negative correlation regarding incoming energy for the last decade. Nix those suspects.

How about decreasing outgoing energy? Clouds, dust, albedo and atmospheric gases affect how much energy is radiated back out into space hence how much energy stays on Earth and its atmosphere. Any others?

OK, one by one:
- Clouds/Dust – daytime decrease and/or nighttime increase would keep more energy – any changes?
- Albedo – less ice/snow means less lost energy – any changes? yes, total area of ice/snow cover is decreasing – why? oh, increased global temp – so not a cause, but a symptom that creates positive feedback
- Atmospheric gases – carbon dioxide and methane are known to increase temp – any changes? yes, dramatic increase of CO2 – why? various sources of CO2, from volcanoes and rotting plant matter, to melting permafrost and burning fossil fuels – man or nature?

So, we are left with one known suspect that has the ability and has been placed at the scene. A good detective won’t stop there, but will also ask “are there any other suspects that I don’t know about yet?”, continuing to explore other possibilities while gathering evidence. However, he will keep the one known suspect under close supervision, possibly with restraints applied.

But, what about areas that get colder, more snow, less cold? Global warming is an increase in global average temperature, so more temps go up than go down on average. This means there will be areas that have a decrease or lateral change in temperature, as Richard’s analysis of historical Canadian temperatures and AGW model predictions support.
#433 Chris S.
November 29, 2010

“Are you blind???? Can you not see the graphs I posted showing TMax is DECREASING??? Show me your graphs and the how you manipulated the data to get it.”

http://wakefieldiswrong.blogspot.com/2010/11/tmax-at-site-2973-meunster.html

I used the raw data that you provided. (Note this isn’t my final say on the subject, just a quick & very dirty graph to illustrate the point – I haven’t even got round to changing the date axis from day number to actual date). Can you show where you did any analysis on this (and no, putting a moving average through a time series is not analysis, its just drawing).

“And yes you did say that averages can be altered by different trends of Tmax and Tmin, do I have to go back and make you eat your own words?”

You need to read with more understanding, please do go back and refind the post, perhaps you can answer the questions I asked there at the same time? Unfortunately the tube strike meant I couldn’t get to Exeter so I won’t be asking them directly, I have sent an email pertaining to this and will come back to you. Until then – calculated from Tmin & Tmax =!= meaningless…
#434 skip
November 29, 2010

Chris:

I enrolled as the first “follower” (I’m sure Richard will get his barbs in on that) on your new link, but right now I see no explanation with the graphs.
#435 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

Note this isn’t my final say on the subject, just a quick & very dirty graph to illustrate the point

Quick and dirty is right, and your conclusion is quite wrong because of this sloppy work. You are not pulling the data correctly. First, the graphs are unreadable. Second, the top graph is all year. Meaningless when the TMax in winter is rising and the TMax in summer is not. You do not see the proper details this way.

The second graph. You have confirmed I’m right, but you don’t see it. Look at the VERY TOP points. Those are the highest TMax for the summers. IT’S DROPPING!!! Thank you for verifying my position.

That increase you are seeing, the one you are claiming TMax is increasing, isn’t. What you are seeing is a NARROWING of the highest Tmax and the lowest TMax in the summer. That rather full plot of points, which is unnecessary and clearly a wrong plot to use for this, is this graph of mine. http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/11/station-2973-muenster-saskatchewan.html It’s the second graph down “Summer full range of TMax”. This is your scatter plot done properly. That is showing the highest, lowest, average and BOTH STANDARD DEVIATIONS of summer TMax!

BTW, my summer was 6, 7 amd 8, what monhts did you use?

The very top points on your scatter IS the top line on my graph.

You have confirmed my analysis with your own, but done it so poorly that you can’t see it.

But what this does clearly show is you jump to a conclusion based on a very limited cursory view of the data without looking deeply at it. I can’t even zoom in to get a better look. In other words, sloppy work on your part.
#436 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

zman you forgot one other check for evidence. Past changes. Specifically the MWP and RWP both of which “warmer” than today, but not from CO2.

You also missed out on evidence we do not have. Such as records from the tropics that does not exist and hence our “global” temperature is being skewed, biased, by the data we do have. So we really do not know for sure what is going on globally. What if the tropics from 1900 to 2000 has been cooling offsetting any “warming” in the temperate zones? We have no way of knowing that. So jumping to the conclusion that we are “warming” with such little quality data is a tad premature.

The last aspect you missed is that it has already been admitted here and within the AGW community, that the “warming” from 1800 to 1945 is all natural and not from our CO2. The only time frame that CO2 can have any influence if it does, is 1975 to today. Just 35 short years.
#437 Ian Forrester
November 29, 2010

Re Wakefield’s post #436. He really has hit the jackpot this time. I think this is the most dishonest of all his posts. Who can even count the lies and distortions in this post.
#438 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

- Higher temp = more heat waves and more storm energy available

False. Not more heat waves since the highest of the summer max temps is dropping.

FEWER storms with more heat. This is basic meteorology. Storm intensity is a function of the difference between a warm front and cold front. An increase in the mean temp will mean warmer Arctic, and hence not as cold fronts coming south. Thus storms would be LESS intense.

- Higher temp = Climate change = changing weather by region and season (e.g. wetter in some times/areas and drier in others)

As has happened in all of earth history. 55myo the Sahara was a tropical rain forest.

- Rapid climate change = adaptation challenges for plants and animals

Rapid changes happen all the time. Look at the 35 year study of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Hurricanes hitting the coast and causing damage is a rapid change. Also check out the study done by Bumpus on House Sparrows due to a rapid ice storm. Organisms can handle it.

- Rapid climate change = adaptation challenges for human land use practices

Something we have had to endure and adapt to for 500,000 years. Many times in the past humans have lost that battle (Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse).

Of the above, rapid climate change seems to have the greatest impact. Richard has mentioned above that the earth has seen similar changes before. He is correct.

I would like to float the idea that it is the timescale of the change that is important. My preferred analogy is being hit by a ball travelling at 1mph versus one travelling at 100mph; you get dramatically different results.

That’s just speculation, would have to provide evidence to support it. Good luck, others have tried and failed in that quest. Seems the temp run up to the MWP was just as rapid as this one is.

Richard, do you believe that climate change will occur as a result of increasing global mean temperature?

I don’t believe anything. I let the evidence do the suggesting. That evidence suggests that warm is better, and cold kills. That’s why the greatest biodiversity is in the tropics, and the lowest in the Arctic.
#439 skip
November 29, 2010

Richard, I will follow with interest the statistical disentangling of data from Muenster, or Ottowa, or whatever other *single* station you think proves something about *global* warming.

But several unavoidable facts remain:

1. Richard, you’ve been caught mindlessly citing a resource which explicitly refutes your position because you were gullible enough to believe that epic bullshitter, Anthony Watts. (I noticed his link is still on your site. My God, have some pride, man!) It shows that *you* are the dogmatists, despite all the rhetoric about AGW “religion”.

2. Richard, you’ve been caught citing–and arrogantly demanding critique of–a resource you yourself could not have examined because *it was not even accessible*, again showing your mindless acceptance of anything that you *think* fits your preconceived dogma.

3. Richard, you’ve been caught zombie blogging arguments that are not even *consistent* with each other.

4. Richard, you’ve engaged in an intellectually dishonest and dishonorable program of blatant evasion, using the lame excuse of “time constraints” and utterly dishonest references to “questions addressed”.

This is the legacy that you have made for yourself and it will haunt you like Marley’s ghost until you finally learn to come clean, admit you don’t know shit-all what you’re talking about, and quit deluding yourself into believing that you’ve toppled a scientific paradigm with an Excel sheet.

One final rhetorical question, Richard:

Does it bother you at all that in your proud sorties against creationism, you have the preponderance of specialists in the field on your side, but that in climate studies you’re in the exact *opposite* position?

Who do you *really* think you have more in common with–the scientists with advanced training and impeccable credentials who overwhelmingly affirm the fundamental truth of macro-evolution–or the bible-thumping quacks who challenge this consensus with arguments from the likes of Duane Gish and Henry Morris?
#440 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

So, extrapolating Richard’s data to the global level, we are left with a situation where either global warming stops or Tmax increases. In other words, Tmax will have to increase at some point if there is a continuing increase in Tmean.

Or TMin turns around as well and the two start to diverge, making TMean decrease.

Changing TMean is nothing but a measure of the distance between TMax and TMin. It’s not any indicator of what the temperature is actually doing. I have already explained that TMax may hit only for a minute in the hole day, same with TMin. If there are more hours of lower temp during that same day, then TMean will be higher than TAvg.

Thus TMean is not a measure of how much heat there is if there are more hours in the day below that. Tavg is.

Here is an example. The day is 30C from 2 to 4pm, but at 3:10 briefly it hits 32C. That becomes now TMax. Then at 5pm, a cold front comes through and the temp plumits down to 15C at midnight. That is now TMin. The night before it might have been lowest at 20C. By 12:10 the cold front drops it to 14C, and by mid day recovers to 28C.

So in this example there is LESS heat as seen in the Tavg than what is implied by TMean. TMin is set because of our artifical date change at midnight, not the coldest point of the night which is what TMin should be.

TAvg may or may not be changing along with TMean. That would have to be tested.
#441 Ian Forrester
November 29, 2010

More distortions from Wakefield:

Seems the temp run up to the MWP was just as rapid as this one is.

Wakefield, either give valid scientific cites for your outrageous cliams or STFU!
#442 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

Who do you *really* think you have more in common with–the scientists with advanced training and impeccable credentials who overwhelmingly affirm the fundamental truth of macro-evolution–or the bible-thumping quacks who challenge this consensus with arguments from the likes of Duane Gish and Henry Morris?

If you have cared to read my previous posts and have them sunk in, yu will recall: I DON’T CARE who’s on my side. All I care about is the evidence. Chris has confimed what I have been saying. The highest TMax is dropping. The number of heat wave days is dropping. His own graph shows that.

And, BTW, there are many professional scientists on “my side”, and the list is growing.
#443 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

Wakefield, either give valid scientific cites for your outrageous cliams or STFU!

No, Ian, I wont shut the fuck up, your quite an ignorant person arn’t you.

So why don’t we look at a rapid increase in average temp which you all here have admitted is not from our CO2. 1800-1945. That was more of an increase and just as fast as 1975-2010. And that previous period of rapid increase was all natural. Yes or no.
#444 Ian Forrester
November 29, 2010

Wakefield, careful you don’t hurt your back with all that heavy lifting. Moving goal posts must be hard work.

You spout rubbish about the rate of warming prior to the MWP, when challenged to provide proof you change to talking about the period 1800 to 1945.

You are pathetic. I will repeat a comment I made in the Medicinal mavericks thread:

Why are AGW deniers also pathological liars?
#445 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

2) Mean global temperatures have been increasing.

Richard and skip, do you concur?

Kinda. The NUMBERS show an increaing trend in the average of the yearly average of the daily means on those stations where data exists. I will not concur on the following:

1) that this means the planet is getting hotter. It doesn’t.

2) that this shows anything other that normal cycles and occelations.

3) that it is even a valid measure of what the planet is doing since there is so much missing data.
#446 coby
November 29, 2010

Richard, your self contradictory trains of thought are remarkable to behold. In 436 you claim we don’t even know if the world actually is warming today becasue of a lack of weather station records for the tropics and yet in 438 you assert that not only was the MWP warmer but it warmed faster. Where are the tropical weather staion readings to support that? You’re a hypocrite.

Richard #442 “All I care about is the evidence.” Hardly.
#447 coby
November 29, 2010

Richard, you claim to have read the IPCC reports. Why don’t you tell us what it says about the cause of pre 1950 warming?
#448 skip
November 29, 2010

I DON’T CARE who’s on my side.

How could you be troubled to care since you don’t even *know* who’s on your side in the first place?! You cite as an authority a source which is explicitly are NOT “on your side”.

All I care about is the evidence.

Bullshit balls simmering in a horseshit rue.

If you cared about the evidence so much you would make sure it even *existed* before demanding that it be considered, and verify your sources before you cite *them* as “evidence”. It shows pure dogmatism, Richard, and absolute *disregard* for the evidence.

Reality is indifferent to your preferences, Richard.

You are *proven* to be:

(a) a fraud (citing things that don’t even support you),
(b) a bungler (citing things that don’t even *exist* when you cite them)
(c), impervious to rational discourse, (blatantly dodging questions whose honest answers expose you),
(d) prevaricator (trying to argue that you’ve already answered damning questions when we all know you have not)

These are facts, Richard, and the “evidence” about yourself that you better start to *really* care about.
#449 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

Ian:

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kobashi1000yr.pdf

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N47/C2.php

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WPN-4SSP77F-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ebe57eddccdcf5a4b03aa4721e16072a

http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2009GL041281.shtml

To start if you don’t like these.
#450 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

Where are the tropical weather staion readings to support that? You’re a hypocrite.

I didn’t write the papers, when you approve my set of links, go take out your rant against them.
#451 skip
November 29, 2010

I didn’t write the papers . . . go take out your rant against them. –Richard above

I accept the evidence, not who claims to be an “authority.” Argument from authority means nothing in science. — Richard #300

And on it goes . . .

Richard: You won’t answer because you can’t. Its over, and has been over for about a week now, but if you’re determined to keep humiliating yourself I’m more than willing, as I assume is anyone else, to expose your folly for public consumption.

Ultimately you have to make your own way, I guess, Richard. If immortalizing yourself as trying to be The Man Who Brought Down Global Warming with Excel is how you want to be remembered, nothing much I can do for you.
#452 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

Richard, you claim to have read the IPCC reports. Why don’t you tell us what it says about the cause of pre 1950 warming?

You mean something like this:

“Simulations of the response to natural forcings alone (i.e.,the response to variability in solar irradiance and volcanicn eruptions) do not explain the warming in the second half of the 20th century (see for example Figure 4a). However, they indicate that natural forcings may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half of the 20th century.” Pg 10 at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/scientific-basis/scientific-spm-en.pdf

Or do you have some other link you specifically were thinking of?

Don’t forget just after the Climategate broke Jones admitted the first half of the 20th century was natural. Kinda had to when that is what they put in the emails.
#453 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

nothing much I can do for you.

Your closed mindedness, your unwillingness to look at other evidence, your stead fast guarding of the Faith clearly shows that there isn’t much ANYONE can do for you.
#454 Richard Simons
November 29, 2010

Have I got this correct? A couple of dozen sites in Canada are sufficient to show that Tmax is decreasing world-wide, but data from all of the world’s reporting met stations and satellites are not adequate to show that global temperatures are increasing?
#455 Richard Wakefield
November 29, 2010

Ian, Re: See C.E. Stephens, “Some Indications of Warming in Ghana”, Environmental Conservation (1995), 22: 174-175:

You’ve got to be kidding. Did you even look at what that “analysis” did? They took monthly highs and lows from 1930-1960, and aggregated them together into a mean. Then they did the same thing for the period 1961 to 1990 to get more means. So just two numbers for each month to compare to over two 30 year periods. Real detailed, garbage!

They then looked at the two sets of data and concluded there is warming? Right. No indication at all what the TMax has done each month of each year. Not there. No indication of what TMin did each month of each year. Not there. So there is no way of knowing what the temperature profile was.

Nice example of poor work Ian, way to go!
#456 coby
November 29, 2010

Richard, your standards are completely different for evidence against AGW versus evidence for. When it comes to evidence showing warming, you demand full station data from all parts of the globe and ignore the many varied and independent indicators of global change.

When it comes to denialist talking points you don’t care what the papers are based on and admit to not even reading some of the ones you cite. In the case of the claim of warming as rapid as today bringing us to a MWP warmer than today you have not even offered any papers.

That is called hypocrisy and is a fine example of a self proclaimed sceptic actually engaging in transparent denial.

Where is your evidence supporting your statement in #438: “Seems the temp run up to the MWP was just as rapid as this one is.”? Why do you claim that?
#457 Ian Forrester
November 29, 2010

Wakefield, I am loosing patience with you. You are the most ignorant, arrogant and dishonest person I have had the misfortune to come across on the internet.

My reference to Stephen’s paper was in response to your assertion:

In fact, I know this for a fact for Ghana as I know someone there who has friends in government. He told me “save temperature records? Why would we do that?

The fact that I could find many references to temperature data in Ghana within a couple of minutes proved that you are a liar. The accuracy or otherwise of the paper had nothing to do with the fact that you lied.

In fact, you are also wrong with your assessment of that paper. Just shows your ignorance of how to interpret climate data. They took an average temperature over 30 years, the span which is acknowledged as the time required to determine average climate and compared that with the average temperature over the next 30 years. They showed that the second set of data showed a higher temperature than the first and concluded (correctly) that warming had occurred.

What in blazes is wrong with that approach? It sure beats your “data manipulation” which no one can duplicate. Is that because, once again, you are being dishonest about your data handling?
#458 blueshift
November 29, 2010

Richard,
I thought you cared about the *science*. So why are you linking to the SPM- surely you should at least go to the details behind the bullet points for policy makers.

No matter though. You shoot yourself in the foot with your quote. “However, they indicate that natural forcings may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half of the 20th century.”

Anyone can spot the difference between that and what you said at 443:
“So why don’t we look at a rapid increase in average temp which you all here have admitted is not from our CO2. 1800-1945. That was more of an increase and just as fast as 1975-2010. And that previous period of rapid increase was all natural. Yes or no.”

Also, did you follow my link above? The narrowing of the temperature range is evidence of the enhanced greenhouse effect and contradicts a solar explanation. That is, your analysis is incompatible with your alternative theory.
#459 skip
November 29, 2010

Your closed mindedness, your unwillingness to look at other evidence . . .

Can’t blame when your own “evidence” does not even exist.

Answers to questions?

Of course not. Richard, you don’t answer because you can’t.
#460 Don Smith
November 29, 2010

Richard,

You and your denialist friends are the worst kind of frauds I know of. You will do anything to deny that the world is warming, humans are causing it and/or it could be disastrous, just so you can ride around in your pickups on cheap gasoline. This is NOT normal.

You keep referring to conditions millions of years ago. Humans did not depend on agriculture to survive millions of years ago. There were not 6 billion people needing to be fed.

You keep referring to a tropical paradise. Have you ever been in a tropical rain forest? It’s hot, humid, dark and filled with biting insects. Also, have you noticed where most large-scale agricultural production takes place? Hint: not in tropical rain forests. Those lovely pictures in travel brochures of sandy beaches and blue water don’t really make up that much of the tropics. Waiters bringing fruity drinks are even less widespread.

So what if you are right and we do the “wrong” thing (in your eyes) and embark on a massive program to move towards renewable energy. Consequences are that some economic hardship may ensue. But maybe, just maybe, the massive investment will create jobs and stimulate the economy and the hardship won’t last long. I can’t say for sure but I’d be willing to take that bet. And we’d also get off our dependence on fossil fuels before they run out. Even if there is no climate change, your tactics will only delay the inevitable. We will have to move to renewable energy sooner or later. Why wait?

Another benefit: [unintentionally offensive comment removed at the request of its author].

But Richard, just think. What if you are wrong? Climate change is happening. Droughts, floods, hyperstorms, sea-level rise, dead oceans, agricultural collapse, and the death of billions of people. Not to mention the wars over water rights, what’s left of the arable land, food resources (ok, maybe slightly redundant). These are some of the possibilities. This is what scares us. This is why we respond so passionately to your idiocy.

I predict you will just call these scare tactics and call me all kinds of names (I edited out most of mine). You will claim I did not consider your arguments. I did follow a couple of your citations and they did not say what you claimed they said, so you are either lying or have a reading comprehension problem. Your methods are fundamentally flawed. I did not have to read your stuff to see that. (Apparently you have plotted summer Tmax data for one station in Canada, without calculating p-values, and extrapolated to the entire globe – I live in North America and my climate is definitely different from Canada’s: 85°F here today.) Others here have pointed out the many flaws but you will not listen to them.

Bottom line is, if you are wrong, you will have abetted the policy inertia and thereby caused the deaths of billions of people. If we are wrong, you will have spent a lot of money earlier than you would have been forced to anyway. Which choice would a sane person pick?
#461 GGMcGready
November 30, 2010

@ #459
“This is why we respond so passionately to your idiocy”.
In particularIan Forrester and Skip, and Mandas until he lost the will to live, have done sterling work in exposing Wakefield’s politically-motivated logical fallacies with respect to his opinion of AGW.
Ian Forrester also took time to recently respond on another thread, highlighting some truly bizarre claims that Monckton – that Doyen of Deniers, is making (on his CV) in relation to some drug that he has discovered, claims that I thought there would be some law against putting in print, since they are so outrageous and without substantiation.

Now, let’s look at your claims:

“Another benefit: We can stop sending our money to the middle east so they won’t be able to afford the funding of Jihadis”
Ah, excuse me? Care to elucidate? As a person of Middle Eastern extraction, I find your blatantly racist slurring of an entire race somewhat offensive.

“Hyperstorms . . . dead oceans . . . the death of billions of people . . .”
Really, adding more heat than light to the argument is to do nothing more than give Wakefield and his sympathisers an excuse to raise Strawman arguments and continue their evasion of the many questions Skip, Ian, and others are trying to get them to face up to. Questions based on science, on fact, on reasoned argument.
Your hysterical hand-waving is not helpful. Please desist. Also, I expect a retraction and apology for the racist slur mentioned above. Otherwise, I will email Coby and ask him to delete your post.

[offending portion of his comment was retracted and apologized for by its author and deleted by me. I hope this satisfies all parties and readers. - coby]
#462 skip
November 30, 2010

GG:

In fairness to Don, I and many other conservationists have also made the argument that its in the strategic interests of all Western democracies to avoid sending money to the middle east.

By this I certainly don’t mean that all Arab peoples are “Jihadis.” (According to Wiki links most Sunni Arab governments want stability and loath the current Iranian leadership, for example.) And I am sure Don if pressed would insist he didn’t mean to imply as much.

Right, Don?

That being said, you are well within your rights to call out any potentially racist language and insist upon clarification if you feel insulted. I’m sure Don and everyone else posting on this blog will be more than happy to keep on the topic of climate.
#463 Richard Wakefield
November 30, 2010

But Richard, just think. What if you are wrong? Climate change is happening. Droughts, floods, hyperstorms, sea-level rise, dead oceans, agricultural collapse, and the death of billions of people.

Come on Don. NONE of that is happening because of our CO2. Yes, there are major major problems we face as a civilization. One you mentioned is “dead oceans”. Read http://www.endoftheline.com. Nothing to do with our CO2 and everything to do with feeding us.

Not one person has died because of our elevated CO2.

So because of lumping all these together does that mean you want humanity to be removed from the planet?
#464 Richard Simons
November 30, 2010

“Not one person has died because of our elevated CO2.”
What techniques did you use to determine that no-one has died because CO₂ has increased or is this just another evidence-free assertion?
#465 skip
November 30, 2010

Not one person has died because of our elevated CO2.

But people do and *will* die from drought, adverse weather, and wars over resources as a hotter climate makes these phenomena more common on a regional basis. This argument hides behind the impossibility of disentangling *specific* cause and effect (e.g., was Katrina caused/exacerbated by global warming or was it a normal feature of natural hurricane cycles? We can’t know for sure; all we know is in the long run warmer oceans and a more energetic atmosphere *will* cause more violent atmospheric events.)

So because of lumping all these together does that mean you want humanity to be removed from the planet?

Trying to force the debate into the environmentalists-hate-people meme. Not even a nice try.

And I noticed, Richard, that Don’s post was 534 words, yet you miraculously found time to respond when you thought you could make a nifty point or two.

My questions in post #368 constitute a total of *86 words*, yet you cannot be troubled to respond on the grounds of “time constraints”.
#466 Richard Wakefield
November 30, 2010

In the case of the claim of warming as rapid as today bringing us to a MWP warmer than today you have not even offered any papers.

Yes I did, they are in your cue. Also go to CO2Science they have a database of MWP papers.
#467 skip
November 30, 2010

From the vault:

And yes, Skip I will be dealing with your lengthy comment [in 182] once I get my references sorted. #310

That was a week ago, Richard, and as empty a threat as I knew it would be.

Since you don’t even *read* your own sources I can’t imagine it should take so long to “sort” them.
#468 Marco
November 30, 2010

Richard, why has CO2science not compiled those papers into a single global reconstruction?

I do know why:
a) the MWP is not globally synchronous
b) several papers use proxies that end somewhere early 20th century, thus not including the temperature increase since then
c) several papers are of very questionable character, where the proxy cannot be compared to current temperatures, or, even worse, where the proxy may be very sensitive to very short-term noise (as in a few warm weeks, a wetter season, etc.).

If you don’t believe me, Richard, why don’t YOU create a global reconstruction and show us the result? Consider that a challenge. Note that I challenged quite a few people over the last year with the same request. So far nil response.
#469 coby
November 30, 2010

Richard, reviewing the four links provided in #449:

one is about a single location in the N atlantic from 2.4K years ago. Another is about a single location in Greenland and does not even show for that region a rise as rapid and pronounced as the global change occuring now (fig 17 [PDF]). Another is about Greenland for the last century only. Another is about one region of Canada, is not synchronous with Greenland’s MWP and does not comment on the rapidity of any change, only the general climate at the time. And lastly, this abstract says:

Twenty-three published proxy temperature series over China spanning the last 2000 years were selected for an uncertainty analysis in five climate regions. Results indicated that, although large uncertainties are found for the period prior to the 16th century, high level of consistency were identified in all regions during the recent 500-years, highlighted by the two cold periods 1620s–1710s and 1800s–1860s, and the warming during the 20th century. The latter started in Tibet, Northwest and Northeast, and migrated to Central East and Southeast. The analysis also indicates that the warming during the 10–14th centuries in some regions might be comparable in magnitude to the warming of the last few decades of the 20th century which was unprecedented within the past 500 years.

I leave it to readers to decide if this supports Richard’s confident statement about global temperatures in #438: “Seems the temp run up to the MWP was just as rapid as this one is.”
#470 Don Smith
November 30, 2010

To GGMcGready,

I do apologize because what I said was racist and not what I meant. Jihadi was definitely the wrong term to use because it can mean many things. The term has been co-opted by terrorists and I used it in that sense without thinking of the other meanings.

Also, it was not a blanket accusation of all middle easterners though it did sound that way. I do know that most middle eastern people are just trying to live their lives.

I would like to have that statement removed if possible. It adds nothing to the discussion. It was just the old wound of the WTC attacks resurfacing again.

I am sorry for that.

Don
#471 skip
November 30, 2010

Thank you for that clarification, Don.

GG: Is this an acceptable qualification?

(Not meaning to co-opt the role of administrator, Coby; just trying to save you some time.)
#472 coby
November 30, 2010

Thanks for the retraction, Don, I have elided that part of your comment. I hope that will assuage GGMcGready.
#473 Don Smith
November 30, 2010

Thank you Sir. And thank you GGMcGready for smacking me upside the head.

I’ll try not to post while angry again. I just don’t have any tolerance for the willfully ignorant.

And Guys,
It’s been 472 posts. Your plaything is not going to answer your questions. He’s not even going to read any of these.
#474 Dappledwater
December 1, 2010

Yes I did, they are in your cue. Also go to CO2Science they have a database of MWP papers.

Yes Richard, I’m sure we’ve been over that with Crakar in the past. CO2Science’s MWP jumps back and forth in time, like Dr Who’s Tardis.
#475 GGMcGready
December 1, 2010

@ #473
Thanks Don. And also Coby and Skip.
Don, I have an American mother and a Middle Eastern father and I live in the U.K. I know the source of your frustrations very well. And I am probably quite sensitive to the political issue you mentioned because of that. Like you, I get angry too, at all sorts of things, including at RW on this thread! Skip, Coby, Ian and others have done an excellent job in exposing RW’s politically-motivated anti-AGW drivel. While, like you, I see no hope of resolution in this thread, I am enjoying seeing the logic and the science win out.
#476 skip
December 1, 2010

Oh, Yeah.

RW is just an epic bullshitter, but I will follow his Canadian temp blog, which is just a localized offshoot of Wattsup, using the same inane style of argumentation (Here’s the data from station X that does NOT show warming. Hahahahaha!!!!) and zombie-citation of non-proofs.

Speaking of which . . . .Coby: Ever thought of having a thread devoted to particular denier dipshit blogs, like:

“Watts up with Watts?”
“Jo Nova Novelties”
“Climate Audities” or, alternately “Climate Fraudit”

Anyone with interest can read their blogs, post comments on the appropriate threads, and then we can cut out belligerent middle men like RW and Crakar who have to accompany every zombie copy and paste with their bluster about the “death of AGW”.
#477 skip
December 1, 2010

I just considered that “Jo Novalties” is pithier.
#478 GGMcGready
December 1, 2010

@#476
“Climate Audities”
Ooh, very clever. Nice one.
#479 Richard Wakefield
December 1, 2010

the MWP is not globally synchronous

Adhikari, D. P. and F. Kumon, 2001: Climatic changes during the past 1300 years as deduced from the sediments of Lake Nakatsuna, central Japan. Limnology, 2, 157-168.

Chu, G., J. Liu, Q. Sun, H. Lu, Z. Gu, W. Wang, and T. Liu, 2002: The “Mediaeval Warm Period’ drought recorded in Lake Huguangyan, tropical South China. The Holocene, 12, 511-516.

Cook, E., T. Bird, M. Peterson, M. Barbetti, B. Buckley, R. D’Arrigo, and R. Francey, 1992: Climatic change over the last millennium in Tasmania reconstructed from tree-rings. The Holocene, 2, 205-217.

Goto, S., H. Hamamoto, and M. Yamano, 2005: Climatic and environmental changes at southeastern coast of Lake Biwa over past 3000 years, inferred from borehole temperature data. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 152, 314-325.

Gupta, A. K., M. Das, and D. M. Anderson, 2005: Solar influence on the Indian summer monsoon during the Holocene. Geophysical Research Letters, 32.

Holmgren, K., P. D. Tyson, A. Moberg, and O. Svanered, 2001: A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 97, 49.

Khim, B.-K., H. I. Yoon, C. Y. Kang, and J. J. Bahk, 2002: Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Research, 58, 234-245.

Li, Z., Y. Saito, E. Matsumoto, Y. Wang, S. Tanabe, and Q. L. Vu, 2006: Climate change and human impact on the Song Hong (Red River) Delta, Vietnam, during the Holocene. Quaternary International, 144, 4-28.

Looks world wide from these references.
#480 Richard Wakefield
December 1, 2010

But people do and *will* die from drought, adverse weather, and wars over resources as a hotter climate makes these phenomena more common on a regional basis.

Hundreds of thousands of people die from living along active tectonic zones, and millions more will die in the future living there. So why are not not as vocal about moving all settlements away from earthquake zones? Shouldn’t we spend trillions moving all those cities?

We don’t hear a peep about doing that and saving lives.
#481 blueshift
December 1, 2010

So Richard,
Are you telling us that you have reviewed the data in all those paper and they show the MWP occurring at the same time at all the different sites?

You do understand what “globally synchronous” means, right?
#482 Richard Wakefield
December 1, 2010

What techniques did you use to determine that no-one has died because CO2 has increased or is this just another evidence-free assertion?

What evidence do you have that people have died because of increased CO2?

If you choose to use some weather event you had better be able to back up that that weather event was directly caused by increased co2 emissions.
#483 Richard Wakefield
December 1, 2010

Are you telling us that you have reviewed the data in all those paper and they show the MWP occurring at the same time at all the different sites?

You do understand what “globally synchronous” means, right?

Why don’t you just check them out and tell us.
#484 Richard Wakefield
December 1, 2010

(Apparently you have plotted summer Tmax data for one station in Canada, without calculating p-values, and extrapolated to the entire globe – I live in North America and my climate is definitely different from Canada’s: 85°F here today.) Others here have pointed out the many flaws but you will not listen to them.

If I were Ian I’d call you a liar. But I won’t I will assume you just did not look at all the posts on that site. NOT JUST one station. Every station across Canada I looked at has the same trend, dropping TMax in the Summer. Chris proved I’m right even with his sloppy graph.

No one has been able to find a flaw in any of those posts and my analysis. No one.
#485 Dappledwater
December 1, 2010

Why don’t you just check them out and tell us.

Figures. He hasn’t even read them.
#486 Richard Wakefield
December 1, 2010

This is how irrational your side has become, anti human.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html

See also:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100065917/mass-suicide-now-the-only-option-left-say-cancun-scientists/
#487 skip
December 1, 2010

Going through your citations now, Richard.

And its obvious that Dappled is correct; You never read them.

Oh, and everyone, watch how well trained Richard is:

Richard, by all means *do not* answer any of my questions about Ollier or Laken, because when you don’t answer you aid the cause of exposing the ignorance and obstinacy of climate change deniers.

Repeat: I specifically order you to say *nothing* about our exchanges regarding Ollier and Laken, because it facilitates your exposure as a microcosm of anti-science dogma.

Watch as he obeys through cringing silence.
#488 Ian Forrester
December 1, 2010

Wakefield is lying again:

If I were Ian I’d call you a liar. But I won’t I will assume you just did not look at all the posts on that site. NOT JUST one station. Every station across Canada I looked at has the same trend, dropping TMax in the Summer. Chris proved I’m right even with his sloppy graph.

The only person Ian will call a liar is you and any other dishonest denier who supports your obviously dishonest posts.

You claimed (numerous times):

Every station across Canada I looked at has the same trend, dropping TMax in the Summer.

I picked one station and showed that the Tmax summer temperatures were increasing at a faster rate than the global average temperature increase. Chris’ graph does not show what you claim, it shows a very slight increase not a decrease as you keep on claiming. Are you blind, dishonest or incapable of interpreting scientific data? Probably all three.

Anyone else notice Wakefield’s shifting of the goal posts in his definition (or lack of) and use of the term “Tmax”? He uses it in at least two different ways without letting on that he has done so. That is dishonest, surprise surprise.
#489 Richard Simons
December 1, 2010

@482

What techniques did you use to determine that no-one has died because CO2 has increased or is this just another evidence-free assertion?

What evidence do you have that people have died because of increased CO2?

I have never made this claim. Now how about justifying your claim?
#490 Richard Simons
December 1, 2010

Sorry – blockquote fail. I’ll retry.

@482

What techniques did you use to determine that no-one has died because CO2 has increased or is this just another evidence-free assertion?

What evidence do you have that people have died because of increased CO2?

I have never made this claim. Now how about justifying your claim?
#491 skip
December 1, 2010

This is how irrational your side has become, anti human.

Oh, wow, Richard, quite exemplary humanity-hating furor from your first link:

Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.

“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”

The insanity! The fanaticism! Global warming believers HATE HUMAN BEINGS!!”

Oh my god, and in your second link you cite–get this:

James Delingpole a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything.”

But wait a minute . . . . I thought

I accept the evidence, not who claims to be an “authority.” Argument from authority means nothing in science.–Richard #300

In any event, I’ve come across this fool before.

Here’s your hero, Delingpole openly admitting his screed is baseless.

Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said today in a quote I’ve made up but which is only slightly less absurd than what he actually said . . .

Translation: “What he really said doesn’t prove my point. So I’ll put words in his mouth that do.”

Another made-up quote:

Meanwhile, a spokesman for David Cameron said he believed an outbreak of mass extinction would be “Great for Britain. Great for jobs.”

Pure, unadulterated bullshit. This man is a record idiot, Richard, and *you* believed it.
#492 Richard Wakefield
December 1, 2010

Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory

http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6/ref=sr_1_1?amp;ie=UTF8&m=A7B2F8DUJ88VZ&s=books&qid=1290761070&sr=8-1

Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.

Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.

By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed then shattered.

This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.
#493 Richard Wakefield
December 1, 2010

I have never made this claim. Now how about justifying your claim?

I find it highly hypocritical that you demand justification from me but not Don Smith’s ascertion that billions will die from AGW. Why is that?
#494 skip
December 1, 2010

Nice and obedient, as I predicted.

Hey Richard: Did you read your own book?

I think we all know the answer . . . .
#495 Richard Wakefield
December 1, 2010

Meanwhile, a spokesman for David Cameron said he believed an outbreak of mass extinction would be “Great for Britain. Great for jobs.”

Pure, unadulterated bullshit. This man is a record idiot, Richard, and *you* believed it.

Obviously I don’t just exposing the anti-human eco-nutcases that support your view. There are lots of them out there calling for a return to hunter gather lifestyle with a population cull of 99% to save the planet. These are the same people who share your AGW bed with you.
#496 skip
December 1, 2010

Obviously I don’t just exposing the anti-human eco-nutcases that support your view.

Hey Richard: You don’t get it, do you? Your moron source *admits* that he manufactured the quotes.

You didn’t even read the editorial and now you look like an even bigger incompetent than ever–were that possible.
#497 Richard Wakefield
December 1, 2010

I picked one station and showed that the Tmax summer temperatures were increasing at a faster rate than the global average temperature increase. Chris’ graph does not show what you claim, it shows a very slight increase not a decrease as you keep on claiming.

Chris, when are you going to clarify this? What is the trend of the TOP POINTS (the highest of the TMax) doing? Increasing or decreasing? In your graph is looks decreasing to me.

And Ian I do intend to check that station. I do not trust you to have done it right. And if you READ CAREFULLY, which you have a hard time doing, I said every station I looked at. That station did not download any data from EC when it was called.
#498 Ian Forrester
December 1, 2010

More Wakefield lies – here is Wakefield’s first comment (#3) on “summers cooling”:

First that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station. Summers are cooling.

Second time he lied (post #20)

Every station that has a long data set (more than 50 years) shows the trend. I checked them all. Some of which I posted in separate posts. Those with not enough data still shows the trend but not to the degree, which would be expected.

Third time he lied (post #397):

Ian either you blind or the liar now. EVERY STATION SHOWS HIGHEST TMAX IS DROPPING! That is a fact.

You are a pathological liar, Wakefield. you tell lies, you change meanings of terms that you use, you move goal posts, you refuse to answer questions which show that you are a fraud and a liar.

Please, it is time you learned some science.

You are pathetic.
#499 blueshift
December 2, 2010

So Richard,
Your “Tmax” is only the Max Tmax (“the highest of the Tmax”)?

How many data points are you counting then- for example in the station that Chris S. looked.
#500 Richard Wakefield
December 2, 2010

Ian, I have downloaded Sachs Harbour and ran the numbers. I’m going to give you a chance to redeem yourself before I post what I see.

What is the trend of the highest TMax in the summer?

How many records of this data are missing?

What is the range of years for this data?
#501 Richard Wakefield
December 2, 2010

How many data points are you counting then- for example in the station that Chris S. looked.

Summer: 90days. Years: 110. Count of Highest TMax for each year: 110. Total TMax Records 9,900.
#502 skip
December 2, 2010

Richard, I have read Ollier and Laken (and Delingpole . . .and your other link supposedly proving AGW believers are “inhuman”). I’m going to give *you* what is roughly your *12*th chance to redeem *yourself* before I post what *I* see (again): A bullshitter who cites things he never read that don’t even support his position or are an embarrassment to it.

I’ll also give you a chance to back track on your inane pronouncement about your Medieval Warm Period cites.

You just scanned titles without reading the abstracts, didn’t you?

Come on, now, Richard. Honesty really is the best policy. Just come clean for once.
#503 Ian Forrester
December 2, 2010

Wakefield, go ahead, but don’t put it on your ridiculous website, submit it to a reputable journal for publication in the scientific literature (then post the reviewers comments since we all need a good laugh now and again).

Why are you so worried about “missing data”. Do you use that as an excuse to eliminate stations that don’t agree with your ridiculous conclusions?

You are pathetic.

By the way, I plotted yearly Tmax in my plot. I wasted enough time doing that that plotting daily maximums was not warranted. You have claimed that yearly maximums are also decreasing which is also rubbish.
#504 blueshift
December 2, 2010

Richard I am even more confused now by what your “highest Tmax” means and what exactly you are analyzing/claiming. Summer is 90 days, but your using 110 Tmax records? Please clarify what you are looking at.
#505 skip
December 2, 2010

Ian and Blue (Chris):

Why are you guys even bothering? Why reconstruct the data analysis of a guy who can’t even answer a direct question about resources he cites that specifically *refute* him?

It would be one thing if RW had his basic shit together, then maybe I’d give a good goddamn about how his station analyses played out. But he’s shown himself to be such a quack on the mundane issues that it seems pointless to pursue his argument on the more subtle ones.
#506 Richard Wakefield
December 2, 2010

By the way, I plotted yearly Tmax in my plot. I wasted enough time doing that that plotting daily maximums was not warranted. You have claimed that yearly maximums are also decreasing which is also rubbish.

That’s what I figured you’d say. You are not interested in the truth. So read and weap my friend, you are WRONG. Summer TMax is FLAT for Sachs Harbour. And if you do not know the significance of what missing data does then you, well, I won’t be as nasty as you are.

http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/sachs-harbour.html
#507 Richard Wakefield
December 2, 2010

blueshift, this isn’t rocket science. The highest TMax of each year is the highest daily temp reached for that year. In mathematical terms when you aggregate the data for each year this is what the formula is Max(TMax).

For example, using Sachs Harbour to get the TMax range I used this SQL:

SELECT MonthlyTemps.Year, Max(MonthlyTemps.[Extr Max Temp]) AS [MaxOfExtr Max Temp], Avg(MonthlyTemps.[Extr Max Temp]) AS [AvgOfExtr Max Temp], Min(MonthlyTemps.[Extr Max Temp]) AS [MinOfExtr Max Temp]
FROM MonthlyTemps
WHERE (((MonthlyTemps.Month)=6 Or (MonthlyTemps.Month)=7 Or (MonthlyTemps.Month)=8))
GROUP BY MonthlyTemps.Year
ORDER BY MonthlyTemps.Year;
#508 Ian Forrester
December 2, 2010

Wakefield, why did you start your data analysis at 1970? Was that the only starting point that would confirm your shoddy pre-determined conclusions?

Try starting at 1960 and you will get a substantial increase in yearly Tmax of 0.043 degrees C per year. I chose 1960 because you claim to need 50 years of data.
#509 skip
December 2, 2010

So read and weap my friend, you are WRONG.

I wish I could reciprocate the bluster, except you don’t read, Richard–not even your own “authorities”.
#510 blueshift
December 2, 2010

Richard, I’m sorry but that isn’t any clearer to me. Are you talking about the highest Tmax per year or the daily Tmax during summer periods? In 506 you refer to summer temps, but 507 you say you are taking only the Max temp for each year.

In 501 you say 9,900 Tmax records, which is apparently all summer days multiplied by the 110 years of recordings. But that means you aren’t excluding any data points and there aren’t any missing records.

So what precisely do you mean by “highest Tmax”.

Skip-I don’t know. I can’t stop picking at scabs either.
#511 Richard Wakefield
December 2, 2010

Wakefield, why did you start your data analysis at 1970? Was that the only starting point that would confirm your shoddy pre-determined conclusions?

Try starting at 1960 and you will get a substantial increase in yearly Tmax of 0.043 degrees C per year. I chose 1960 because you claim to need 50 years of data.

Ian you are blind. Look at the first graph of temps. Starts from the start of data.

Do you deny that from 1970 to the end of that record there is no increase in TMax? 40 years of CO2 increasing (doubling in that time frame) and the temps in the Arctic have not gotten hotter.
#512 Ian Forrester
December 2, 2010

Wakefield you are lying once again. Your temperature graphs for Sachs Harbour start at 1970. You are lying, I am not blind.

Your figures are meaningless anyway since there is no description of what the various coloured lines mean. What are the lines in your last figure supposed to represent? They are all increasing.

Missing data do not “skew data”. Where on earth did you get that piece of nonsense? Every graph you plot in Excel has an infinite number of “missing data” (hourly, minute by minute or even second by second is missing).

You are pathetic.
#513 Richard Wakefield
December 2, 2010

Richard, I’m sorry but that isn’t any clearer to me. Are you talking about the highest Tmax per year or the daily Tmax during summer periods? In 506 you refer to summer temps, but 507 you say you are taking only the Max temp for each year.

In 501 you say 9,900 Tmax records, which is apparently all summer days multiplied by the 110 years of recordings. But that means you aren’t excluding any data points and there aren’t any missing records.

I can’t be any clearer. The highest TMax is the hottest day of the year, which will be in the summer.
#514 Richard Wakefield
December 2, 2010

Wakefield you are lying once again. Your temperature graphs for Sachs Harbour start at 1970. You are lying, I am not blind.

Blind or stupid. First graphs tarts 1955. Second graph starts 1955, third graph starts 1970, forth graph starts 1955.

Your figures are meaningless anyway since there is no description of what the various coloured lines mean. What are the lines in your last figure supposed to represent? They are all increasing.

You can’t read either, obviously. Read the text explains the graphs. What does it say about the last graph. Boy, you really need to be spoon fed. Not capable of figuring this out yourself? Guess not since you screwed up the trend to begin with.

Anyone else have a problem with these graphs?
#515 skip
December 2, 2010

Anyone else want Richard to answer direct questions?
#516 skip
December 2, 2010

I can have no faith in either your competence or your honesty, Richard, given your blatant evasions and mindless zombie-citing of things you at times even *admit* you have not read and at other times which *explicitly* refute you. Thus I make no comment on the quality of the your Sachs Harbour data analysis, but I had to laugh again at this ongoing theme in your conclusions:

But the trend is flat until about 1990, and a not as cold trend since. So just like the rest of Canada, Sachs Harbour is showing no increase in summer temps, it’s a flat trend . . .

*. . . with winters definitely not getting as cold.*

Everybody including scientists have a word for what this means for average temperatures, Richard. Its called *warming*.

Unbe-fuckin-lievable.
#517 Ian Forrester
December 2, 2010

Wakefield, you get an F for graph drawing. What on earth is in your first figure? No indication of what it means, I doubt very much if it is showing temperatures.

Second graph, no number on X axis, I thought that they were the dame as the third figure, hardly surprising that I would think that.

Fourth figure, what on earth are your various coloured lines meant to represent?

Your whole effort at illustrating data is so juvenile, I expect elementary students are better at graphing than you are.

Of course, by not labeling things and changing definitions allows you to move the goal posts at will. That is scientific dishonesty. Please tell me why you chose to start at 1970 and not earlier since you have now shown that you have the data for earlier years. You are pathetic.
#518 blueshift
December 2, 2010

Thanks Richard,
Yes that is a clear statement of what you mean by “highest Tmax”. It’s also clear that you are analyzing 110 data points not 9,900.

Skip,
I admire your efforts to focus the discussion on basic direct questions and answers. If I’m distracting from that, just say so and I’ll hush up.

One point though. Your summaries have said that RW claims his results upend AGW because “correlation is not causation”. Actually though he has also said that it is because the trends he has found can’t continue. See your response in #409.

I don’t see how this challenges AGW in any way, but if you update your list of questions I’d say you should focus on why he thinks he does.
#519 skip
December 2, 2010

Actually though he has also said that it is because the trends he has found can’t continue. See your response in #409.

This is true. However, Richard then left that discussion and has never returned to it. His whole angle is that (a) there is an upper limit on how hot the earth’s atmosphere can get (which is not disputed), and that eventually current winter not-being-as-cold trends cannot continue indefinitely, because if they did, they would eventually overtake summer temperatures, which cannot happen. (He’s extremely proud of himself for deducing this reductio ad absurdum.)

This (somehow) means carbon dioxide isn’t making the winters “less cold”. (He might have thrown in that “alarmists” have predicted scalding summers; that didn’t happen in Ontario, and thus he wins, in his mind.)

Besides being intellectually dishonest and evasive (he’ll never answer my questions because he realizes he embarrassed himself beyond all measure), Richard has another more crippling flaw:

He *thinks* he’s a fucking genius.

Taking down global warming with his spreadsheet is his chance to relive the glory of getting his cheesy geologic refutation of a creationist published in a 4th tier science journal. The difference this time is that the weight of science is against, not for him. But he cannot process this possibility. So when I ask him a question that exposes his incompetence, ignorance, and dogmatism, he does the only thing a delusional person can: He shuts down and ignores me:

For example, watch this. Its always good for a laugh. (I freely confess that the increasing amusement I take in this reflects poorly on me.)

Hey, Richard, when you refuse to answer my questions in 359 it suggests that you’re incapable of facing reality. Why not give it a try?

Now watch: He’ll probably respond to the earlier part of this post and ignore the bold and the questions. This is the mind of a dogmatist at work, and its perversely amusing in a watching-a-performing-bear-at-the circus kind of way.
#520 adelady
December 2, 2010

I wonder if rj would accept that his records demonstrate one of the major consequences of the original global warming theory.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-human-fingerprint-in-the-seasons.html
#521 skip
December 2, 2010

Good link, Ad.

Although Richard has been told this excellent point before by one of our other posters above; if he responded I missed it.

What I did not realize–although it makes perfect sense when you read the explanation your link provides–is that the predicted disproportionate affect of warming on winters was an original part of the theory going back to the 19th century.
#522 Richard Wakefield
December 3, 2010

Yes that is a clear statement of what you mean by “highest Tmax”. It’s also clear that you are analyzing 110 data points not 9,900.

That’s not entirely true. Those other records for each year are used to caclulate the standard deviations and the average of TMax.
#523 Richard Wakefield
December 3, 2010

Wakefield, you get an F for graph drawing. What on earth is in your first figure? No indication of what it means, I doubt very much if it is showing temperatures.

Ian, just for you I explained more, since your little brain is incapable of figuring it out.
#524 Richard Wakefield
December 3, 2010

I wonder if rj would accept that his records demonstrate one of the major consequences of the original global warming theory.

Obviously I have to explain this, AGAIN, as I have already many times. How can more CO2 causing “global warming” make summer’s highest temps fall? How can it make extreme hot days FEWER? That’s the trend.

AGW claims is that there will be more heat waves, not fewer.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10383286/More-Extreme-Heat-Waves–Global-Warmings-Wake-Up-Call

http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/07/28/global-warming-makes-heat-waves-the-new-normal/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-05/summer-heat-waves-and-global-warming-are-here-to-stay/

as some examples.

I have a real bone to pick with that link of yours. First, he is using the AVERAGES, not the full range of daily temps. Let’s see the full range in those graphs.

“If global warming was driven by the sun, we should see summer warming faster than winter.”

Not true. He is missing the fact that winds and frontal systems attempt to even out the planet’s temperature from the hotter regions to the colder regions. Since there is an upper ceiling on how hot the planet can get, it means that the winters would have to warm more beause the summers cannot get any hotter. Convection and systems circulation moves that summer air into the colder regions (summer in the south means winter in the north).

“greenhouse warming predicts nights should warm faster than days while solar warming is the other way around.”

Again, that is an assumption. With no other warm period to compare to this is speculation. Did this also happen during the MWP? We don’t know. If it did AGW “prediction” isn’t. Besides, the UHIA is also known to keep nighttime temps warmer.

Of course the last point that I have made since the beginning: and this trend is bad how? How is less cold winters bad (cold kills more people than hot days)? How is a longer growing season bad? How is less hot summers bad?
#525 Richard Wakefield
December 3, 2010

New paper:

White, J.W.C., Alley,R.B., Brigham-Grette, J., Fitzpatrick, J.J., Jennings, A.E., Johnsen, S.J., Miller, G.H., Nerem, R.S. and Polyak, L. 2010. Past rates of climate change in the Arctic. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 1716-1727.

“thus far, human influence does not stand out relative to other, natural causes of climate change.”

“strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered,”

“that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change.”
#526 Marco
December 3, 2010

Ah, Richard Wakefield cherry picking. I can do that too. From the abstract of the paper you cite:
“Human-forced climate changes appear similar in size and duration to the fastest natural changes of the past, but future changes may have no natural analog.”

I.e, in the last 150 years or so (and in reality mostly the last 50 years) we have already caused fluctuations that are of the same rate and size as natural changes in the past. But it will likely become anomalous in the future.

People may also be interested in reading this draft book chapter (essentially a prior version of the article):
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/public-review-draft/sap1-2-prd-ch6.pdf
#527 Ian Forrester
December 3, 2010

Wakefield offers insults and makes me laugh at his juvenile efforts to try and convince everyone that he is not as stupid, arrogant, biased and wrong as he actually is.

Start answering questions, you are well past “your best before date”. And stop moving the goal posts every time you are shown to be wrong.

Why did you cherry pick your start date and not use the complete data set as I did? And don’t say it was because of missing data because any missing data would actually lower the summer Tmax if the summer months for that year were missing because the actual Tmax would be missing and a lower one substituted (at least that is what I did; one could also leave it out all together without compromising the data too much). If other months were missing that would not affect the summer Tmax.
#528 skip
December 3, 2010

Now watch: He’ll probably respond to the earlier part of this post and ignore the bold and the questions.

I didn’t the first prediction right, but as for ignoring the questions . . . Disco!
#529 Richard Wakefield
December 3, 2010

Why did you cherry pick your start date and not use the complete data set as I did?

How is starting from 1955, the start of the data set, not using the complete data set?
#530 blueshift
December 3, 2010

There are actually two relevant posts at Skeptical Science. One is the recent seasonal fingerprint and the other is the daily fingerprint from Nov 20th.
#531 Richard Wakefield
December 3, 2010

But it will likely become anomalous in the future.

Pure speculation.

BTW, this is an excellent discussion on the greenhouse effect: http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/#comment-17908
#532 Ian Forrester
December 3, 2010

Come on, it’s time this liar was made accountable for his dishonesty.

Wakefield lies again:

How is starting from 1955, the start of the data set, not using the complete data set?

Go and check his ridiculous “paper” in his ridiculous web site. Look at his figure 3 (it’s not labeled, you will have to count) and you will see that the data he uses to calculate the trend in summer Tmax starts in 1970. The data I used starts in 1956 or 1957 (the complete data set).

He tells lie after lie to try and support his discredited thesis that “summers are cooling therefor AGW is a hoax”.

Wakefield please answer questions and be more honest. Now is the time to admit your dishonesty and own up to it, that way you will not be forced into more and more dishonesty to try and cover up for your lies.
#533 Richard Wakefield
December 3, 2010

Go and check his ridiculous “paper” in his ridiculous web site. Look at his figure 3 (it’s not labeled, you will have to count) and you will see that the data he uses to calculate the trend in summer Tmax starts in 1970. The data I used starts in 1956 or 1957 (the complete data set).

I know it must be difficult for you to count up to three.

Ian, let me see if I have your logic correct here.

Someone gains 25lbs of weight between 1955 and 1970. But since 1970 their weight has stayed constant. It’s not relevant to note that SINCE 1970, 40 years, that person has not gained weight? With your logic, that person is still gaining weight regardless of the fact that the weight gain was only in the first 15 years of the past 65 years.

Is the last 40 years of no weight gain important or not?
#534 skip
December 3, 2010

BTW, this is an excellent discussion on the greenhouse effect . . . Richard #530

And, what do we find in Richard’s *own* link?

That’s right! More proof that Richard doesn’t know, read, or understand *his own sources*. And its an “excellent discussion” indeed.

Remember this little exchange?

A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638(8), November 1, 2000) – Heinz Hug

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071132/The-Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory-of-Ferenc-Miskolczi — Richard # 221

Hold on. Did Wakefield just reference Miskolczi unironically? . . .

Indeed he did!

. . . even Spencer think’s he’s full of it. — Pough #236

And, what do we find in Richard’s *own* link?

Quoting Judith Curry:

Andy Lacis summarizes the main concerns with the skeptical arguments [about carbon dioxide as an atmospheric heat forcing agent]:

Actually, the Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Claes Johnson, and *Miskolczi* papers [my emphasis] are a good test to evaluate one’s understanding of radiative transfer. If you looked through these papers and did not immediately realize that *they were nonsense* [my emphasis], then it is very likely that you are simply not up to speed on radiative transfer . . .

Uh oh!

The notion by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the second law of thermodynamics forbids the operation of a greenhouse effect is nonsense . . . *Miskolczi, on the other hand, acknowledges and includes downwelling backradiation in his calculations, but he then goes and imposes an unphysical constraint to maintain a constant atmospheric optical depth such that if CO2 increases water vapor must decrease, a constraint that is not supported by observations.*[my emphasis]

Richard’s muddled and self-contradictory statement from before?

This is what I get from a carefull read [of Spencer v. Miskolczi]. We do not understand what is going on in the climate system. — Richard #242

Curry’s Summary from Richard’s *own link*:

While there is much uncertainty about the magnitude of the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 and the magnitude and nature of the various feedback processes . .

*the fundamental underlying physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect (radiative plus convective heat transfer) is well understood.*

And we have a winner, folks! Congratulations, Richard, on retaining your champion’s position, and don’t forget to join us tomorrow on “You, Too, Can be a Climate Ignoramus”!
#535 Richard Wakefield
December 3, 2010

Ian you are so convinced that I do nothing but lie, that it is not possible for you to know when I’m telling the truth. Everything I say is a lie.

Wakefield lied to you, Norman. Everything Wakefield says is a lie. Remember that, Norman. *Everything* he says is a lie.

Now I want you to listen to me very carefully, Norman. I’m… lying.
#536 Ian Forrester
December 3, 2010

Wakefield stop being so stupid. The longer trend shows temperatures are rising. Therefore shorter time lines do not show what is really happening.

Please try and learn some science, maths, logic and statistics fundamentals before so that you won’t keep on showing how ignorant of these subjects you are. If you believe that you are so much smarter than all the honest climate scientists why do you not try and get your rubbish published in a reputable journal? Every time you quote something it is from a thoroughly discredited source. Does that not tell you something about your “knowledge” of climate science?

Where are your answers to all the questions that you have been asked? We all know why you don’t answer. Your answers will only show that you are wrong or you are dishonest, probably both.
#537 Ian Forrester
December 3, 2010

Wakefield is honest for once:

Now I want you to listen to me very carefully, Norman. I’m… lying.

By the way, who the heck is Norman?
#538 skip
December 3, 2010

Norman Bates from *Psycho* played by Anthony Perkins.

Come on, Ian. Its Hitchcock and your generation!
#539 Richard Wakefield
December 3, 2010

Not Norman Bates. I, Mudd. If you haven’t seen that Star Trek episode you missed the meaning and joke.

Norman subsequently says:

You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because you always lie… illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human; only humans can explain! Illogical!

Norman is a robot, he blows his transistors trying to figure out the paradox. I can see Ian how, smoke rising out of his ears!

Therefore shorter time lines do not show what is really happening.

So the person who hasn’t gained weight since 1970′s is still gaining weight? illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human; only humans can explain! Illogical!

Because you think nothing I say is true you are contorting yourself so much that even basic truth and logic is lost on you. You are now the denier. Yep I can see the smoke from here!
#540 Ian Forrester
December 3, 2010

Wakefield, more distortions and faulty logic.

Wakefield wants only data from stations that have more than 50 years of data, why? So he can go back as far as possible so that he can show less warming. However, when he gets over 50 years of data from Sachs Harbour he decides that that is too long so he cherry picks a shorter period of time so that he can show no warming. That is dishonest. You cannot pick and choose data to give you the desired answer. Why do you do that when you have been told over and over again that it is dishonest? And you wonder why I call you a liar and a fool.
#541 Ian Forrester
December 3, 2010

Let’s put Wakefields rubbish to rest once and for all.

Wakefield at post #3:

Interesting is your comment about this being just Southern Ontario where I see this converging trend of TMax and TMin. I would have expected from science when something like this is brought forth to be “Gee, that’s very interesting, does that happen everywhere?”. Instead I got your answer. Which to me means you are making a prediction that the rest of Canada does not show this trend.

Well, your prediction is false. If you took the time to look through the whole site you will have seen two things. First that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station. Summers are cooling. Second, you would have found on my site a scientific paper published in Canada in 2000 that shows the exact same thing. Their conclusion was that Canada is not getting hotter, it’s getting less cold. They also note in the paper that they cannot find ANY AGW signal in the data. That means this narrowing of the yearly range is NORMAL VARIATION.

If this is happening in Canada, then it must be happening in the US since the effects of AGW would not be altered by political boarders.

But what of the rest of the world?

Note he specifically refers to “summers are cooling”.

Well, Chris and I showed that his conclusions were not true for at least two Canadian stations, Sachs Harbour, NWT, and Muenster, Sask. No evidence of “summers cooling” over the past 50 years.

What about his conclusions on the rest of the world? Well I haven’t done a global study but I did look at monthly temperature trends for the Northern Hemisphere (1960 to 2009).

Here are the data:

(Month; rate of temperature increase degrees C/year)

January; 0.0210
February; 0.0211
March; 0.0220
April; 0.0203
May; 0.0171
June; 0.0172
July; 0.0172
August; 0.0181
September; 0.0173
October; 0.0183
November; 0.0177
December; 0.0180

Does anyone see any evidence of “summers are cooling” in these data? Summers are warming just a little bit slower than winters are warming and that is not the same at all.

Please can we put this thread to bed now that Wakefield’s thesis has been shown to be wrong?

Please note that I used monthly means and not yearly maximums to plot the data. I believe that is a better method anyway than Wakefield’s use of yearly maximums but I would think that both would show roughly the same i.e. temperatures are increasing throughout the year not just in the winter.
#542 Richard Wakefield
December 3, 2010

Does anyone else here agree with Ian’s portral of the temperature at Sachs Harbour? Just curious as to how many people think a flat trend in the last 73% of the years means the the trend is increasing because of the first 27% of the years.

Ian, how do you explain that there are fewer hot days in the summer now than there was in the early 1900′s? How do you explain that the record breaking hot days are clustered before 1940. Or are you going to deny this is fact?

And when are you going to answer how someone can be considered to still be gaining weight when only the first 15 years shows increase and the last 40 do not?

Why don’t you pick up station 4333 data and show me I’m wrong on summer TMax.
#543 Ian Forrrester
December 3, 2010

Wakefield, I’ve wasted enough of my time pointing out your rubbish.

This is my last post on this thread. Everyone can see that you are:

a) dishonest

b) completely out to lunch on your interpretation of global temperature data.

I expect a bunch of insults and smearing after this post but it will only show how arrogant and rude you are. I won’t be responding.
#544 skip
December 3, 2010

And when are you going to answer . . .

A question asked of you many times, Richard.

In this case the answer to your question is simply employ all the data when calculating a trend.

What are *your* answers to the questions I’ve posed about a half dozen times above?

Respect begets respect, Richard.
#545 skip
December 3, 2010

how many people think a flat trend in the last 73% of the years means the the trend is increasing because of the first 27% of the years.

I do.

Its a simple principle of mathematics–and I comprehend this as a lowly social scientist.

Richard, you don’t get to claim

that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station.

if its flat out false, and then switch the argument to what it does from 1970 on when your fraud is exposed.
#546 Richard Wakefield
December 3, 2010

Right, skip. For the last 40 years of no gaining weight you are claiming over their life they are still gaining wait.

So if someone pays you $10 30 years ago, but nothing for the past 30 years, the trend is you are still getting money.

And this is why you have so easily taken the AGW coolaid. Basic logic means nothing, the Faith is everything. Ian can’t take it he’s out because he knows he is wrong. Chris is out because he knows he is wrong on the trend. Coby is gone because he can’t deal with it. You going too now?
#547 skip
December 3, 2010

You going too now?

Oh no, no, no, no.

I’m right here.

You can’t answer my questions, can you?

Your dipshit link to JC made you look even stupider, didn’t it?

Richard, I can do this the rest of our lives and trust me I will.

Your abject self-destruction is something that, all things being equal, I would just assume you avoided. But since you insist on humiliating yourself I will grasp at whatever chance there is that your example will deter others from taking your inane path.

Repeat: You can’t answer my questions, can you?
#548 coby
December 3, 2010

This thread is now closed. Discussion can continue over here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/12/global_and_seasonal_thread_sum.php

There is also an update/summary in this post, Richard it is not flattering but it is well deserved.

National Geographic SocietyIn partnership with

Advertisement

Science Blogs

Search National Geographic

A Few Things Ill Considered

Global and seasonally averaged means seasonally and globally averaged

Comments

Search This Blog

My Best Work (yes, it is old)

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 41

Another Week of Anthropocene Antics – May 19, 2013

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 40

Another Week of Anthropocene Antics, May 12, 2013

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 39

Sitemeter

Archives

Categories

Meta

National Geographic SocietyIn partnership with

Advertisement

Science Blogs

Search National Geographic

A Few Things Ill Considered

Global and seasonally averaged means seasonally and globally averaged

Comments

Search This Blog

Subscribe

My Best Work (yes, it is old)

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 41

Another Week of Anthropocene Antics – May 19, 2013

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 40

Another Week of Anthropocene Antics, May 12, 2013

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 39

Sitemeter

Archives

Categories

Meta