A Few Things Ill Considered

Okay, the “Globally and Seasonally averaged” thread has grown to over 500 comments and thus reached its point of diminishing return in terms of the time it would take to read it and the utility of doing so. And while on the one hand I don’t like to feed what is drifting towards to troll-like behaviour, the conversation continues and I don’t want to stifle it. It began with a comment of mine at Judith Curry’s blog about who is a denier and who is a sceptic. See the update in the original article for why Richard clearly falls out of the sceptic category.

So I am going to close that thread and move it over here by responding to Richard’s finally devoting some of his time to one of the main thrusts of the original post: why do his (alledged) findings disprove that CO2 plays any role in the current warming trend in globally and seasonally averaged temperatures?


Richard answers:

“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.”

Of course this is not an answer. It is just a paraphrase of “because it must be”. It has come out in the discussion that when Richard talks about falling summer temperatures he is actually just plotting a single point for each year. Aside from how this must effect the statistical significance of his trend, there is a very legitimate question as to why should one prefer doing that to the normal practice of computing June-July-August average and calling this the summer temperature to be compared with December-January-February as the winter temperature? Do we learn more by looking at less data? I don’t see how. And does this (alledged) decline in summer maximum daily temperature really tell us that there are fewer heat waves?

What is a heat wave? Something like love, I know that, but how is it defined? According to the WMO, (paraphrase from Wikipedia), a heatwave is “when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 Celsius degrees”. So it is not hard to figure out from this that you can have a heat-wave, even a record setting heat wave, without out exceeding the single highest maximum temperature from the last year, or even any year in the instrumental record. You do not have to set a record high for every day, or any day for that matter, as achieving 5oC above the average meets the criterion.

He’s right that the climate models predict an increase in heat waves around the globe. And according to the IPCC an increase has been observed.

Since 1950, the number of heat waves has increased and widespread increases have occurred in the numbers of warm nights. The extent of regions affected by droughts has also increased as precipitation over land has marginally decreased while evaporation has increased due to warmer conditions

Richard goes on to disagree with these statements: “if global warming was driven by the sun, we should see summer warming faster than winter” and “greenhouse warming predicts nights should warm faster than days while solar warming is the other way around”. The latter statement was dismissed as “an assumption” the former rejected this way:

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).

Aside from the irrelevance of some alledged “upper ceiling” (what is it and why? are we there already?), there is some seriously convoluted thinking here! Apparently there is this mechanism that redistributes heat around the globe if and only if that heat is the result of solar forcing. If we do observe that heat distribution (Richard’s claim) then it shows it can not be from CO2 forcing because…because…well, just because I guess.

Regardless of the existence of some mystical convection that only affects air warmed by a surface heated by direct sunlight and not heated by an enhanced greenhouse effect, AGW theories do in fact predict nights will warm faster than days, and winters will warm faster than summers. See these articles, here and here, from Skeptical Science. Once again, the observations match the expectations and CO2 fits the required mechanism whereas solar forcing does not.

Anyway, I don’t really expect much better from Richard in a new thread, but I am of the firm conviction that we can still learn from having these discussions.

Comments

  1. #1 Chris S.
    December 3, 2010

    From the update to the previous post: “there is also the possibility of Chris S coming back with his own analysis of Richard’s data.”

    Those analyses will be coming. These things take time to do properly. Not sure if I’ll have much before Christmas though.

  2. #2 skip
    December 4, 2010

    Coby:

    Richard, in his delusion of course, now regards it as a “victory” that his obstinacy has repelled Mandas and the rest who’ve given up engagement with him out of disgust.

    As you well know I am willing to watch someone like RW continue to exhibit his epic charlatanism and hector him for it indefinitely, although the point of diminishing returns was probably reached long ago. (Besides, I have a shit load of end-of-the-semester grading.) That’s something I suppose I should work on recognizing, but like Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito) said in *Miller’s Crossing*, “I never let a man walk.”

    So while I will keep an eye on RW as long as he posts, I would like to offer my version of a summary in the form very simple true-or-false questions to Richard:

    Richard:

    1. You have no formal training in climate science—or *any* science for that matter—true or false?

    2. Your only peer reviewed publication was a refutation of a geologic claim made by a creationist that appeared in a low level geology journal—true or false?

    3. The only alleged peer reviewed support (Zhang et al) of your claim of the flattening of summer Tmax and subsequent convergence of winter and summer temperatures in all of Canada only confirmed your finding for *southern* Canada—true or false?

    4. You have argued that the mere *claim* of dissent—even by sources you admit to having not read—constitutes a credible challenge to the idea of an AGW “consensus”—true or false?

    5. You have claimed that “appeal to authority” is an invalid argument, yet have on multiple occasions linked us to material that you have not even read—true or false?

    6. You have repeatedly used straw man argumentation, such as accusing your disputants of having “blind faith that ONLY CO2 changes the climate”—true or false?

    7. You have been caught brazenly demanding that we “get the data and check it out” in regard to an analysis that you yourself could not even have accessed at the time you made the demand—true or false?

    8. Even in cases where you have not specifically *admitted* to having not read a particular source you cite, on more than one occasion that particular source has been proven to contradict your own position—true or false?

    9. On more than one occasion you have cited sources that specifically contradict *each other*—true or false?

    10. You have been caught citing as “proof” of “how irrational [the AGW] side has become, anti human” a source which admitted he *invented* his damning quotes—true or false?

    11. You have never even *acknowledged* that AGW theory *predicts* winters cooling faster than summers—true or false?

    12. You have repeatedly refused to answer direct questions, such as the ones enumerated above—true or false?

    13. You will ignore this post and all of *the questions above*—true or false?

    Anyone who knows Richard and the now archived thread knows that the honest and quite embarrassing answer to all of these questions is, of course

    “true”.

    (Except for one—I threw it in because I want to give Richard the chance to cherry pick a question and show his hypocrisy.)

    And that is sad. For all we know Richard in his prime risked his life to save people from burning buildings, or at least rescued treed cats for crying little Canadian children. I’m a tenured college professor but in my retirement I would be *way* prouder to be able to say I had been a fireman! He could be enjoying his retirement as a member of the intellectually honest, engaged, and scientifically literate community.

    Instead he’s worked himself into this Ahabian frenzy, determined to vindicate the following self-perception:

    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 . . . [it won’t be] the first time I’ve taken on someone with a degree who thought he was right. I had no formal training in geology, spent 2 years teaching myself first, then solved the enigma that no one else could. Richard, GASA #22.

    In the end I regret that Richard chooses to waste his life this way, but that being said, if he keeps posting his ignorant horseshit I’m not going to spare his feelings. As I told Richard before: my children have to inherit the world he’s helping to create.

  3. #3 wagdog
    December 4, 2010

    For more insight into denialism of the Wakefield kind, you can have a look at his Youtube channel:
    http://www.youtube.com/jrwakefield
    and place a face to his user ID. He is only human.

    This should help to keep a mental image of him when next you find yourself tempted to belittle his beliefs.

  4. #4 Richard Wakefield
    December 4, 2010

    Coby, I gotta love your selective quoting from that wiki article. You failed to include this:

    In the United States, definitions also vary by region; however, a heat wave is usually defined as a period of at least two or more days of excessively hot weather.[5] In the Northeast, a heat wave is typically defined as three consecutive days where the temperature reaches or exceeds 90 °F (32 °C)

    My criteria for a heat wave day was any day over 29.9C. So my analysis fits that US criteria. My observations, from every station I have seen so far, from across the country, is those numbers are DROPPING. There are fewer days 30C and above today than in the early 1900′s. By 1/3 fewer.

    Second graph http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/03/specific-stations-4333-ottawa.html

    “Number of days 30C and above” here: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/11/station-2973-muenster-saskatchewan.html

    How do you explain this?

    when Richard talks about falling summer temperatures he is actually just plotting a single point for each year.

    Yes, the hottest day of the year, which AGW claims should be increasing, but it is not. How can the planet get warmer, with hotter summers if the hottest days of the year are dropping? How come the vast majority of record setting days are before 1950?

    Aside from the irrelevance of some alledged “upper ceiling” (what is it and why? are we there already?),

    Let me ask you this. Look at the first graph here: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/09/summer-of-2010-hottest-on-record-not.html

    That red line at the top is the highest daily temp reached for the period 1900-2009. Each point is one day on that line (so 365 points make up that red line) regardless of the year. It represents the hottest it has gotten for each day between 1900 and 2009. Notice the shape, and above all notice the peak. That’s July. This is the question. If AGW is correct and summers must get hotter, that red line would have to slowly rise. But that’s not happening. Do you see the posibility of the next years coming to go past that line and into 40C TMax temps? If so, how come the past 30 years has not already breached that line?

    and the bottom graphs here: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/07/summer-record-temperatures.html

    Same thing. This is just July. Each black dot is a record breaking day of some year (doesn’t matter which year). Notice the curve shape. Again, do you see subsequent year’s breaching that line and going above 40C?

    Look at the scatter graph with the dates on it above these three. The X axis are each July day. The Y axis is temperature. Each dot with a date is a record breaking day. Notice NOTHING after 1995, and it was a LOW TMax, with several years in the early 1900s well above that. The three highest years near 38C: 1913, 1921 and 1916.

    Summers today are not even close to breaking those July records.

    Apparently there is this mechanism that redistributes heat around the globe if and only if that heat is the result of solar forcing.

    I never said that. I never said ONLY solar forcing. I said there is an upper limit to how much the planet heats up, as convection and winds redistrubute that heat to cooler regions. Or do you not think warm fronts and cold fronts do this?

  5. #5 Richard Wakefield
    December 4, 2010

    Those analyses will be coming. These things take time to do properly. Not sure if I’ll have much before Christmas though.

    I can do this in a few mins Chris using SQL statements, what’s the problem?

    BTW, anyone following what’s going on in Europe? Record cold and snow for this time of year. 48 people have froze to death so far. Global warming at work.

  6. #6 Richard Wakefield
    December 4, 2010

    As I told Richard before: my children have to inherit the world he’s helping to create.

    Yes, a world of cooler summers, more comfortable, warmer winters, lower heating bills, and a longer growing season to grow more of your own food.

    Now, if you wish to accept solar scientists view of the future, they are predicting COLDER decades ahead.

    Cold kills, warmer doesn’t.

    Oh, and Skip, you don’t need a PhD in climatology to plot temperature data. It’s so easy even you can do it. Though looks like not Ian, he screwed it up.

  7. #7 skip
    December 4, 2010

    Oh Jesus Christ.

    You are so right, Wag. I know I should be a better, more charitable man and not laugh, but I couldn’t help it.

    http://www.youtube.com/jrwakefield#p/u/11/muqesEDKRfs

    The bird pacing back and forth, the belly hanging out . . . .

    I have to admit, this much, Richard: You’ve got balls sack guys like me only bluster about over beer.

  8. #8 Richard Wakefield
    December 4, 2010
  9. #9 Marco
    December 4, 2010

    Wakefield, you are being very disingenious again. You claim that solar scientists are predicting colder decades ahead. Which solar scientists, Richard? Not all. In fact, not even most. You even have to look with a magnifying glass to find those solar scientists that predict colder decades ahead.

    And yes, Richard, it’s cold in parts of Europe. How does that contradict global warming again? Ah, that’s right, it’s the same jumping up and down as last year’s cold snap, where most of Canada was anomalously warm, where MOST parts of the world were anomalously warm, but some people simply cannot see the difference between regional and global. Richard is apparently one of the latter. And if you think warmer does not kill, tell the people in Moscow that. The death rate doubled during the heat wave this year. In case you wondered, that’s an excess 300 people dying…a day.

  10. #10 Richard Wakefield
    December 4, 2010

    Heat waves across all Ontario are getting fewer. http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/heat-wave-trends-across-canada.html

    Go ahead, try and dismantle what I have done. Find the flaw in this analysis.

  11. #11 skip
    December 4, 2010

    13. You will ignore this post and all of *the questions above*—true or false?

    Shocker here . . .

  12. #12 Richard Wakefield
    December 4, 2010

    And if you think warmer does not kill, tell the people in Moscow that. The death rate doubled during the heat wave this year. In case you wondered, that’s an excess 300 people dying…a day.

    Thank you for falling into the trap I set. I figured someone would.

    You don’t even see the hypocrisy of your own statement. I can’t use this one example against AGW, but you can use one example to support it.

    And the year is not out yet, so don’t count on Canada being abnormally warmer. This was one of the coolest and wettest summers for the prairies in decades. I will be checking all across Canada come Jan.

    Take note of my recent post on heat waves in Canada. They are dropping.

  13. #13 Richard Wakefield
    December 4, 2010

    For all we know Richard in his prime risked his life to save people from burning buildings, or at least rescued treed cats for crying little Canadian children.

    I rescued a dog from the basement of a burning house once, it was almost dead, but we revived it. The worst incident I had was a 2 year old run over by a neighbour’s truck as he backed out of the drive. The entire family saw it. The child died. Arrived at one incident in time to see a birth, but I had already seen 4 of my own. Was at a murder once, woman cut up her cheating husband. When we arrived she was in the kitchen having tea with blood all over her and the knife on the table. He was in the bedroom, blood everywhere. She sure made a mess of him.

    We wern’t allowed to rescue cats in trees.

  14. #14 Richard Wakefield
    December 4, 2010

    Q & A

    1. no

    2. true

    3. false, all of Canada

    4. true

    5. false

    6. false you do have blind faith that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature change.

    7. no idea what you are refering to.

    8. false

    9. Show examples

    10. false, eco-nutcases are anti-human. Go see Dieoff.org.

    11. false, you do, some have claimed it. I have no idea if their models predict this accurately since models can’t accurately predict anything.

    12. true, not worthy of answering

    13. false, obviously

  15. #15 Chris S.
    December 4, 2010

    “Those analyses will be coming. These things take time to do properly. Not sure if I’ll have much before Christmas though.”

    “I can do this in a few mins Chris using SQL statements, what’s the problem?”

    As I said: These things take time to do properly. I think therein lies a problem for you perhaps? Dashing your graphs off in “a few minutes” without taking the time to actually analyse the data properly.

  16. #16 coby
    December 4, 2010

    skip, lets forget the stuff about personal appearances, okay?

    Richard, did you read the post? How have you determined there are fewer heat waves? A heat wave does not require a new TMax for the year, month or day.

    [please note the above was asked before I saw Richard's lengthy unapproved comment #4. His criterion was a day above 29.9oC, based on a definition used in the NE US. I don't think it is justifiable to apply that to Canada, even S. Ontario]

    If it were true that Southern Ontario were having fewer heat waves (at what statistical significance level?) what would this say about the globe?

    Chris S said it takes time to analyse data properly. You analyze data very quickly with elementary SQL queries. Does it really need to be spelled out for you that explicitly? It just isn’t as simple as you imagine it to be as evidenced by your choices of what to look at (a single TMax for each year) and your conclusions (winters are warming faster, and if that continues winters will be warmer than summers therefore CO2 is not a greenhouse gas).

    So record* cold in Europe? And this contridicts AGW theories of global and seasonal average temperature rising but not your own theory of winters warming summers cooling in all locations…

    Fascinating and hilarious.

    * a record for the last several decades, not an all-time record shattering once in 1500 year event like Moscow’s heat wave last summer.

  17. #17 coby
    December 4, 2010

    All: A comment from Richard, now appearing above as #4, was stuck in moderation.

    Richard: I will have to look at it later.

  18. #18 Richard Wakefield
    December 4, 2010

    I added some more analysis to today’s post. Very interesting looking at things this way, down at the bottom. So show me where AGW predicted this!

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/heat-wave-trends-across-canada.html

  19. #19 Richard Wakefield
    December 4, 2010

    As I said: These things take time to do properly. I think therein lies a problem for you perhaps? Dashing your graphs off in “a few minutes” without taking the time to actually analyse the data properly.

    You better be damn sure you can back up that alligation. Just look at the new post I did today. Couple hours at best to run and make sure it’s right.

    Don’t tell me I’m not doing this properly when I have been doing this kind of analysis professionally for 25 years unless you can PROVE IT.

    All the SQL for today is there.

  20. #20 Richard Wakefield
    December 4, 2010

    Chris S said it takes time to analyse data properly.

    BULLSHIT IT DOES!

    Elementary, give me a break. Go through the SQL from today and tell me that is “elementary.” This is pure bullshit. You obviously have no clue how to use SQL to analyze data. It’s real easy to do with very large recordsets. You can do almost anything you want (In all my 25 years of doing this I have yet to not be able to query data the way I want. Sometimes with 20 or more joined tables, and three or four statements deep.)

    This is it guys. There is nothing complex about this. There is nothing that needs more than a few minutes of work and knowledge of how to use SQL. So quit with the condescending attempts to belittle my work, AND PROVE ME WRONG!

  21. #21 Marco
    December 4, 2010

    Richard, you claimed colder kills, warmer does not, I showed you wrong. Instead of accepting you were wrong, you try to move the goalposts. Have you not yet learned we do not fall for such poor argumentation skills?

  22. #22 skip
    December 4, 2010

    First off I acknowledge the chastisement from Coby regarding my comment about the protruding Youtube “belly” and apologize for drawing attention to this irrelevant detail, Richard.

    That being said, lets do a tally of the quality of your answers:

    Ok good 1 and 2 were softballs: You make no claim to formal expertise but you’re not ashamed of this anyway.

    Honest Answers 2
    Possible Honest Incompetence 0
    Full Blown Lies 0

    3. The only alleged peer reviewed support (Zhang et al) of your claim of the flattening of summer Tmax and subsequent convergence of winter and summer temperatures in all of Canada only confirmed your finding for *southern* Canada—true or false?

    false, all of Canada

    Possibly a lie. More likely the result of utter incompetence. You either never read Zhang et al, didn’t understand it, or are simply indifferent to truth and reality.

    Honest Answers 2
    Possible Honest Incompetence 1
    Full Blown Lies 0

    4. You have argued that the mere *claim* of dissent—even by sources you admit to having not read—constitutes a credible challenge to the idea of an AGW “consensus”—true or false?

    true

    An honest answer and an exemplary demonstration of your irrationality–but I appreciate the honesty.

    Honest Answers 3
    Possible Honest Incompetence 1
    Full Blown Lies 0

    5. You have claimed that “appeal to authority” is an invalid argument, yet have on multiple occasions linked us to material that you have not even read—true or false?

    false

    A naked lie, and in contradiction to the admission in question 4. You have even *told* us you didn’t in multiple cases; now you’re changing your story. You’re lying.

    Honest Answers 3
    Possible Honest Incompetence 1
    Full Blown Lies 1

    6. You have repeatedly used straw man argumentation, such as accusing your disputants of having “blind faith that ONLY CO2 changes the climate”—true or false?

    false you do have blind faith that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature change.

    A lie. You have been told on multiple occasions that none of us believes this.

    Honest Answers 3
    Possible Honest Incompetence 1
    Full Blown Lies 2

    7. You have been caught brazenly demanding that we “get the data and check it out” in regard to an analysis that you yourself could not even have accessed at the time you made the demand—true or false?

    no idea what you are refering to.

    A lie. You even tried to cover your tracks by posting Watts’s explanation for the debacle without comment.

    Honest Answers 3
    Possible Honest Incompetence 1
    Full Blown Lies 3

    8. Even in cases where you have not specifically *admitted* to having not read a particular source you cite, on more than one occasion that particular source has been proven to contradict your own position—true or false?

    false

    Possibly not up the grade of full lie; you might have actually convinced yourself of this. But the evidence is clear with Ollier’s cites, Laken, and Judith Curry.

    Honest Answers 3
    Possible Honest Incompetence 2
    Full Blown Lies 2

    9. On more than one occasion you have cited sources that specifically contradict *each other*—true or false?

    See thread on your JC link.

    10. You have been caught citing as “proof” of “how irrational [the AGW] side has become, anti human” a source which admitted he *invented* his damning quotes—true or false?

    false

    A lie. The record is clear: You cited Delingpole. He admitted the quotes were contrived.

    Honest Answers 3
    Possible Honest Incompetence 1
    Full Blown Lies 4

    11. You have never even *acknowledged* that AGW theory *predicts* winters cooling faster than summers—true or false?

    [N/A this was suppose to be the trick question but Richard obviously didn't get it.]

    12. You have repeatedly refused to answer direct questions, such as the ones enumerated above—true or false?

    true, not worthy of answering

    Honest, but pathetic. Any fool can make that claim.

    with a bonus of 1 for 13 we have:

    Honest Answers 5
    Possible Honest Incompetence 2
    Full Blown Lies 4
    N/A 2

    On balance more honesty than overt lies, but the problem is all the honest answers are miserable reflections on you, Richard: You have no scientific capacities other than the ones you claim to have personally acquired, no scientific vitae of note in an any subject–let alone climate, a conviction that intangible disagreement of unverified quality and origin can be regarded as disproof and that simply declaring an inquiry as “unworthy” constitutes a retort. Furthermore even in cases where your *intent* is defensible it only is so on the grounds of likely incompetence.

    But thank you, Richard.

    I just wanted all that on record.

  23. #23 skip
    December 4, 2010

    Ah. I’m glad I caught this.

    Richard’s answer “false” was the lie, but his rephrasing of the position is a partial *truth*.

    false you do have blind faith that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature change.

    He switched the wording to “primary driver” from what he really said before (the straw man that AGW believers have “blind faith that ONLY CO2 changes the climate.”)

    This was slimy on Richard’s part (he knows he made the strawman before so is pretending he said something else now), but I should have been more attentive in the first place.

  24. #24 coby
    December 5, 2010

    Richard in #4,

    coby said: “when Richard talks about falling summer temperatures he is actually just plotting a single point for each year.”

    Yes, the hottest day of the year, which AGW claims should be increasing, but it is not. How can the planet get warmer, with hotter summers if the hottest days of the year are dropping?

    Can you please provide a citation for what you claim AGW predicts here?

    AGW predicts that the globally and seasonally averaged temperature will rise. The maximum daily temperature is influenced by extremely large variabilities relative to the ~.15oC/decade observed rise (that is called weather). There is absolutely no justification for prefering to plot the single maximum daily temperature over a monthly average or an average for June-July-August (aka summer).

    Why don’t you try an experiment and calculate the trend in *average* summer temperatures and tell us why this is not a meaningful number.

    Also, can you please explain to us how it is that heat waves can only occur in July? That is surely a novel bit of news to me!

  25. #25 Mirc indir
    December 5, 2010

    Ya geçen hafta oyuncuların da bol olduğu bir masada sohbet muhabbet derken, ciddi ciddi Ezel’in senaryosunun değiştirilip 8′i yani Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ’u yeniden diriltmeye çalıştıkları konuşuluyordu.
    -
    Ben refleks olarak öyle bir “Yok artık, çüş!” demişim ki, masadakiler irkildi. Evet evet vallahi yanlış duymadınız. Ezel ‘in reytingleri düştüğü ve seyirci Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ, yani 8′i dizide görmek istediği için senaristler de onu diriltmenin yollarını arıyormuş. Ah ah vallahi dönerse çok büyük kahkaha atacağım.

  26. #26 Richard Wakefield
    December 5, 2010

    But thank you, Richard.

    I just wanted all that on record.

    You have quite the fixation on me don’t you.

  27. #27 Richard Wakefield
    December 5, 2010

    Can you please provide a citation for what you claim AGW predicts here?

    Oh, I see, so all the chatter in the MSM and econutcases that there will be more extreme heat because of AGW is wrong?

    AGW predicts that the globally and seasonally averaged temperature will rise. The maximum daily temperature is influenced by extremely large variabilities relative to the ~.15oC/decade observed rise (that is called weather). There is absolutely no justification for prefering to plot the single maximum daily temperature over a monthly average or an average for June-July-August (aka summer).

    Nonsence. You are trying to deflect the facts because you cannot fathom that hotter days are getting fewer. In science you must look at ALL the facts, not just that which fits your theory. That includes looking at the length of the growing season, and the number of extreme high temp days.

    The question has to be reversed, why ONLY the average temperature?

    I really wish you people would look at my graphs and read my text before making such comments. It’s all spelled out there.

    Also, can you please explain to us how it is that heat waves can only occur in July? That is surely a novel bit of news to me!

    REALLY!!! You’ve got to be kidding right? Are you serious, or are you just a baffon! Look at the graphs!!! How many times do I have to say that!

    What is the highest temperature point of the year? Which month is that?

  28. #28 Richard Wakefield
    December 5, 2010

    Somehow this got lost in the posting:

    Why don’t you try an experiment and calculate the trend in *average* summer temperatures and tell us why this is not a meaningful number.

    I really wish you people would look at my graphs and read my text before making such comments. It’s all spelled out there.

  29. #29 Richard Wakefield
    December 5, 2010

    I have definitely seen this here. You guys must have this flow chart on the wall above your computer:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/agw_def_flow.png

  30. #30 Richard Wakefield
    December 5, 2010

    I hate to take this off topic, but it is related to my claim that there is a ceiling to how hot the planet can get:

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/05/confidence-in-radiative-transfer-models/

    Whenever somebody claims to have performed detailed radiative transfer calculations on real atmosphere data, be VERY skeptical about the conclusions that may be drawn from such analyses. This is because it is beyond the capabilities of any measurement system to fully (and accurately) measure the entire atmospheric temperature profile, the entire water vapor profile – ground through stratosphere, the entire ozone profile, also the vertical distribution (and radiative properties) of aerosols and clouds. Also, the top-of-the-atmosphere ERBE OLR measurements are not really a measurement of outgoing LW flux (that is impossible to do). Instead, the SW and LW TOA “fluxes” are inferred from theoretical and empirical “angle” models based on inferred atmospheric cloud structure and the observed radiance measurements. Also note that the ERBE inferred fluxes are highly unlikely to coincide with any radiosonde or ground based measurements, and even if they did, they would have incompatible spatial resolution. This is why it is not possible to have a credible set of “closure” measurements to directly “validate” climate GCM performance.

    There is no recourse then but to rely on statistical analysis and correlations to extract meaningful information. However, any conclusions, particularly if they do not have a clear physical basis, will be subject to large uncertainties.

    On the other hand, radiative analyses performed in the context of climate GCM modeling, have the capability of being self-consistent in that the entire atmospheric structure (temperature, water vapor, ozone, etc. distributions) is fully known and defined. Clearly, the GCM atmosphere is not an exact replica of the real world – consider it an ‘Earth-like’ atmosphere.

    This makes it possible to establish physical relationships within the climate system (such as the global warming caused by increasing CO2), rather than having to deduce them from a noisy climate system using incomplete and imperfect measurements that require considerable statistical analysis and modeling input to extract the relevant information.

  31. #31 skip
    December 5, 2010

    You have quite the fixation on me don’t you.

    Believe that if you wish; in any event I need no longer be “fixated” because I’ve caught you lying on record, and more important, admitting to the most embarrassing of truths.

  32. #32 skip
    December 5, 2010

    I hate to take this off topic, but it is related to my claim that there is a ceiling to how hot the planet can get:

    http://judithcurry.com . . . .

    Judith Curry. The same source which completely repudiates your position on CO2 and your earlier zombie-blogged source, Miskolczi.

    Brilliant self-annihilation, Richard.

  33. #33 Richard Wakefield
    December 5, 2010

    Skip, you definitely have that flowchart memorized. Instead of asking how this quote relates to my claim of there being a ceiling, you deflect the target. That’s why you are fixated on me, because you are unwilling to look at the evidence. If you spent as much time looking at the data I provided for Chris to analyze than you do on your feable attempts to discredit me, you would have discovered by now that I’m right. Summers are cooling.

    Why are you avoiding dealing with that? What evidence do you have that my analysis is wrong? Be specific, or admit you are not capable of understanding what I’ve done.

  34. #34 skip
    December 5, 2010

    What evidence do you have that my analysis is wrong?

    I have never claimed to have any–other than the testimony of the overwhelming number of climate specialists whose entire careers are devoted to studying an issue in which you admit–even boast that–you have absolutely no scientific training.

    The point, Richard, is that any non-expert, as I freely admit myself to be, has to decide which alleged authorities to believe.

    As I have a day job, I cannot independently verify the claim of every self-proclaimed consensus-shatterer with a knack for Excel, whether its on the issue of climate, evolution, 911, the Kennedy assassination, the moon landings, or any other field or topic in which a body of expertise has emerged that demonstrates overwhelming evidence in favor of one general interpretation of the truth.

    What I *can* do is observe your capacities and inclinations on issues I *do* have the time and ability to test, such as:

    (a) whether you can consistently recognize something as mundane as if a source actually supports or refutes your position (you can’t).

    (b) whether you cite sources and render arguments that are internally consistent (you don’t).

    (c) whether you actually *read* your sources in the first place (you often have *not*, by your own admission, despite later pleas to the contrary.)

    (d) whether you can answer a simple question without overt avoidance or lame dismissal (you often don’t).

    (e) whether you can be relied on not to blatantly lie, when it suits your purposes (you can’t.)

    So no, Richard. I’m not going to download your your data and see if, on *that* particular point, you’re both competent and honest; I have a dearth of time and a surfeit of proof that you are divested of one or both of those qualities regarding too many other issues.

  35. #35 Richard Wakefield
    December 5, 2010

    overwhelming number of climate specialists whose entire careers are devoted to studying an issue in which you admit–even boast that–you have absolutely no scientific training.

    Are you insinuating that only climate PhD’s are allowed to analyze raw temperature data?

  36. #36 skip
    December 5, 2010

    Not at all, Richard.

    I’m glad you enjoy your hobby. I just can’t put any stock in your data claims when I know you’re an unreliable source in other regards.

  37. #37 Richard Wakefield
    December 5, 2010

    I’m glad you enjoy your hobby. I just can’t put any stock in your data claims when I know you’re an unreliable source in other regards.

    So there is no point in me saying anything because I always lie. Normal, I’m lying!

  38. #38 skip
    December 5, 2010

    I suspect you often tell the truth.

    It really boils down to the fact that you’re demonstrably unreliable on *some* issues, and unable even to admit it except when you inadvertently fail to cover your tracks.

    I don’t know . . . wait to chat with Chris about your data. Maybe he’ll confirm that you’ve discovered something no one else considered and the entire AGW paradigm will crumble into shambles, slain and humiliated at your feet (although I doubt it).

    If that’s the case, Chris will be the first to tell us all. I know this Richard, because Chris has *never* blithely referenced a source that contradicted him, *never* demanded deference to a source he had not even read himself, and has never, *ever* been caught in a lie.

    This is how it works, brother. Credibility is built and granted, not seized by force of demand and passion.

  39. #39 Richard Wakefield
    December 5, 2010

    This is how it works, brother. Credibility is built and granted, not seized by force of demand and passion.

    Credibility only works if the other person is perceiving the replies correctly, you never asked why I answered the way I did on questions you assumed I’m lying about.

    I guess we have to wait a month for Chris to do his magic (clean, homogenize, sanitize the data to hide the decline?) Not sure why his MetOffice super computers take a month to calculate what my desktop does in a few seconds.

  40. #40 skip
    December 5, 2010

    you never asked why I answered the way I did on questions you assumed I’m lying about.

    Well, the question would answer itself, Richard. You didn’t want to say the truth.

    hide the decline.

    You have no idea what this means, but if you want to discuss it Coby has an appropriate thread.

  41. #41 blueshift
    December 5, 2010

    Richard a quick note:
    Your trap in #12 has no teeth. You made the simplistic claim that “Cold kills, warmer doesn’t”. Marco simply pointed out an example of a warmer than normal event caused many many deaths. He didn’t claim that the Russian heat wave or Pakistani flooding, or any other individual event was the direct result of AGW. You made that leap all on your own.

  42. #42 Richard Wakefield
    December 5, 2010

    He didn’t claim that the Russian heat wave or Pakistani flooding, or any other individual event was the direct result of AGW. You made that leap all on your own.

    Tell that to the MSM, and environmental NGO’s that were all over those as prime examples of global warming. Did any of you refute that?

  43. #43 Snowman
    December 6, 2010

    Skip, I used to think you were not a bad guy – deluded certainly, and a bit of an obsessive personality, but basically okay.

    I now realise you are the most insufferably conceited twerp.

    On what basis do you swagger about making your childish accusations (telling people they have no idea what hide the decline means). I am quite certain that Richard knows precisely what it means. It is not, after all, a particularly arcane concept. Yet somehow in your vanity you have persuaded yourself that you alone, with your mighty intellect, are capable of comprehending these matters.

    Although I have refrained from commenting before, this is not the first time you have displayed this fault. Kindly correct it.

  44. #44 Chris S.
    December 6, 2010

    “I guess we have to wait a month for Chris to do his magic (clean, homogenize, sanitize the data to hide the decline?) Not sure why his MetOffice super computers take a month to calculate what my desktop does in a few seconds.”

    Two points here Richard.

    1) You really should read with more understanding I said I was VISITING the Met Office, not working there & using their computers.

    2) I take exception to your insinuations of data fraud here: “clean, homogenize, sanitize the data to hide the decline?” and expect a full retraction.

    As a placeholder I’ve looked at the top 100 Tmax records at Meunster here: http://wakefieldiswrong.blogspot.com/2010/12/top-temps.html

  45. #45 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    Warmest Year On Record?

    The Truth Is Global Warming Has Stopped

    But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications – not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole. Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.—David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 5 December 2010
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/What-happened-warmest-year-record-The-truth-global-warming-halted.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    Looking more closely at the Met Office data reveals a different picture. 2010 will be remembered for just two warm months, attributable to the El Nino effect, with the rest of the year being nothing but average, or less than average temperature. There is no evidence whatsoever that the lack of warming seen in the global average annual temperatures seen in the last decade has changed. –David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 3 December 2010

    http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1973-2010-an-unexceptional-el-nino-year.html

  46. #46 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    2) I take exception to your insinuations of data fraud here: “clean, homogenize, sanitize the data to hide the decline?” and expect a full retraction.

    Only after I see the results of your analysis amd you have done it right. You are all accusing me of fraud with mine arn’t you. Once you are done and you see what I see, declining summer temps, I expect a full appology from you, and Coby. I don’t expect to get one ever from skip or Ian.

    I do have one question. What is it you plan to do “properly” with this data that you cannot do with your desktop? Be specific. I want to know what you plan to do with the data.

  47. #47 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    So, Chris, what does this mean to you in your graphs. Looks to me than the highest temp is DROPPING! If you didn’t notice your graph is the same as mine here:

    Highest of summer TMax:
    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/11/station-2973-muenster-saskatchewan.html

    How much influence should the 41.1 degree C maximum temperature on the 19th July 1941 have on the interpretation of the 100+ year record?

    Oh, I see, we should start to REMOVE data points because it doesn’t make the trend the way YOU want it to be?! You are now starting to “clean” the records. How far do you take that? How many records do you remove? Should you not also remove the 1989 as it is anomalous too? Keep removing points until you get an increase in TMax? The lengths you people will go. If I did that you would be all over me!!

    BTW, very nice the name of your blog, assume I’m wrong BEFORE you do the analysis. That shows your true motives right there.

  48. #48 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    Also, Chris, stop using scatter plots for this. It’s impossible to see what is happening. The graphs I have for the same datapoints clearly shows what’s happened.

    TMax increased until the mid 1940′s and has dropped since. You can even see the 1945-1975 decline in temps quite clearly in my graphs, but not yours.

    Scatter plots which are supposed to be used to see correlation between two fields of records, is inappropriate for this application. Are you using scatter plots to deliberately hide detail?

  49. #49 Chris S.
    December 6, 2010

    “Only after I see the results of your analysis amd you have done it right. You are all accusing me of fraud with mine arn’t you.”

    Show me where I’ve said anything of the sort.

    “So, Chris, what does this mean to you in your graphs. Looks to me than the highest temp is DROPPING! If you didn’t notice your graph is the same as mine here…Oh, I see, we should start to REMOVE data points because it doesn’t make the trend the way YOU want it to be?!”

    Richard, that last post is not an analysis, it is an example to show the dangers of naked-eye analysis. The removal of the datapoint is an illustration of how the eye misleads – by having that high value near the start the data looks like it’s going down, remove it and it looks a lot flatter. It’s also not the same as your graph – there are quite huge differences if you look. I do find it amusing though that the bar chart I posted actually supports your claim to some extent but you can’t get past attack mode to see that.

    “What is it you plan to do “properly” with this data that you cannot do with your desktop? Be specific. I want to know what you plan to do with the data.”

    I plan to do some real analysis of the data, mainly polynomial regression but other analysis if I feel the need – possibly some bootstrapping and/or jack-knifing, though it seems that if I try to normalise the data or otherwise manipulate it you will just cry foul so I will probably just work with raw data only. I will be finding the curve that gives the best statistical fit. I will look at the Highest Tmax that you have hung your hat on, but I will look at some other metrics too, I’ve already shown Tmax is going up. I plan to look at mean annual Tmax and possibly, if I can be bothered, mean summer Tmax and mean decadal Tmax. I may also look at Tmean & Tmin if I can maintain an interest.

    “BTW, very nice the name of your blog, assume I’m wrong BEFORE you do the analysis.”

    Richard, my first post showed you were wrong, that regression was performed before I started the blog (In case you forgot your initial claim was Tmax was dropping at all sites. My first post showed Tmax increasing at Meunster, this was before you shifted to just looking at the extreme of highest annual Tmax of course). I also may use the blog to look at the MMR claims of Andrew Wakefield – and he is definitely wrong – is he any relation?

  50. #50 Chris S.
    December 6, 2010

    “Scatter plots which are supposed to be used to see correlation between two fields of records, is inappropriate for this application. Are you using scatter plots to deliberately hide detail?”

    I’ll call bullshit on this. Drawing a line between points fools the eye – as you have so consistently demonstrated. Scatter plots are the best way to avoid this.

  51. #51 Chris S.
    December 6, 2010

    “I plan to do some real analysis of the data, mainly polynomial regression”

    Like this: http://wakefieldiswrong.blogspot.com/2010/12/highest-annual-tmax-at-meunster.html

  52. #52 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A. & Mamassis, N. (2010) A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55(7), 1094-1110.

    CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

    It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.

    However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms. Several publications, a typical example being Rial et al. (2004), point out the difficulties that the climate system complexity introduces when we attempt to make predictions. “Complexity” in this context usually refers to the fact that there are many parts comprising the system and many interactions among these parts. This observation is correct, but we take it a step further. We think that it is not merely a matter of high dimensionality, and that it can be misleading to assume that the uncertainty can be reduced if we analyse its “sources” as nonlinearities, feedbacks, thresholds, etc., and attempt to establish causality relationships. Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart.

  53. #53 blueshift
    December 6, 2010

    Richard,
    This latest exchange with Chris S. has me wondering just what analysis you have done on the data beyond simply plotting them. Your graphs don’t show SD or trend lines. What tests have you done?

  54. #54 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    This latest exchange with Chris S. has me wondering just what analysis you have done on the data beyond simply plotting them. Your graphs don’t show SD or trend lines. What tests have you done?

    Standard deviations are there on the graphs. They are the orange lines. http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/11/station-2973-muenster-saskatchewan.html

    I do trends, 10 year moving averages and linear trends.

    Plotting the highest TMax doesn’t need SD.

    What other tests do you have in mind?

  55. #55 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    Show me where I’ve said anything of the sort.

    Your continued accusation that I havn’t done this right. Your site name implies that! That only YOU can do a proper analysis on the data, not me. I must therefor be a fraud, as Ian claims I am.

    I will be finding the curve that gives the best statistical fit.

    Instead of removing data to make it fit, how about smoothing the data with a 10 year moving average, like I did. That’s a curve fit too, and shows it is dropping.

    mainly polynomial regression but other analysis if I feel the need – possibly some bootstrapping and/or jack-knifing, though it seems that if I try to normalise the data or otherwise manipulate it you will just cry foul so I will probably just work with raw data only.

    That’s funny, polynormal regression on 100 highly variable datapoints. Excel does that too with trends, it won’t fit. That takes a fraction of a second to do in Excel.

    And yes, don’t even think about “normalizing” the data, that’s just code to make it fit what you want.

    Richard, my first post showed you were wrong,

    BULLSHIT YOU HAVE! No you have NOT, you have shown me to be CORRECT. I posted that the AVERAGE of TMax is INCREASING across the year. So you have CONFIRMED what I’ve done.

    No he is not any relation.

  56. #56 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    I’ll call bullshit on this. Drawing a line between points fools the eye – as you have so consistently demonstrated. Scatter plots are the best way to avoid this.

    Oh, I see so when stock prices are drawn on graphs like I did with temps they are wrong? Give me a break. Fool the eye, what crap. If anything your scatter plot is fooling the eye. Do a scatter plot with lines joining each point. It will look IDENTICAL to mine.

  57. #57 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    So, Chris, I guess this chart is drawn wrong according to you:

    http://66.38.218.33/scripts/hist_charts/daily_graphs.cgi

    It should be a scatter plot, eh? Better contact them and tell them they are wrong.

  58. #58 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    “I plan to do some real analysis of the data, mainly polynomial regression”

    Like this: http://wakefieldiswrong.blogspot.com/2010/12/highest-annual-tmax-at-meunster.html

    Very cute, choose a polynormal that makes the points APPEAR to be rising, nice trick Chris. Nice trick indeed to hide the decline.

  59. #59 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    “Very cute, choose a polynormal that makes the points APPEAR to be rising, nice trick Chris. Nice trick indeed to hide the decline.”

    Sorry for the sp, polynomial. How do you know that that polynomial is an accurate description of how the world actually works, and not just you trying desperately to find anything to make declining data appear to be increasing? You don’t and you are verging on being fraudulent doing this.

  60. #60 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    Hey, Chris, I have a stats test for you to do. Take all the TMax temps for months 6, 7 and 8 for each year and do a correlation coefficent on the data. Should be 9342 points. Tell me what you get and then tell me you if can do ANY polynomial analysis on data with that CC.

  61. #61 skip
    December 6, 2010

    Another set of links that masterfully demonstrates the gullibility and sloth of Richard Wakefield.

    Stupid Argument Number 1: UK versus World Climate

    From David Rose:

    “A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction . . . ‘Our experimental
    decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far – 1998.’”

    Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap

    I like the efficiency–save everyone time and get right to being stupid: “Britain is cold right now, therefore the world is not getting warmer.”

    Stupid Argument Number 2: No “significant” Warming.

    Rose Continues:

    But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown . . . for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.

    Rose resumes this same line of argumentation later in the poorly organized rant, so skipping forward:

    Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year’s ‘Climategate’ leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been ‘no statistically significant warming’ since 1995.

    Technically true, but completely misleading. From Jones’s interview with the BBC (your favorite source, Anthony Watts, was kind enough to have it cited as I was looking for the exact quote):

    Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming.

    A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    The “no significance” argument over a 15 year period is another straw man, because climate scientists do not insist that trends over that short of a period are meaningful, anyway.

    Continuing on . . .

    Stupid Argument Number 3: Whats so special about 2010?

    My guess is Rose . . .

    The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.

    . . . is regurgitating Whitehouse:

    2010 will therefore be no higher than the third warmest year, possibly lower.

    The 2010-is-not-the-warmest-year argument has become the new favorite denier straw man. When the forecasters say 2010 is projected to be the hottest year on record, they are simply looking at the data and making a best estimate, they are not claiming that AGW theory rests or stands on that empirical observation. And the idea that 2010 being “only” the third highest somehow “disproves” dangerous AGW is an argument so stupid, Richard, that I would have hesitated to think even *you* would believe it.

    Stupid Argument Number 4: Whats so special about 2010?–revisited)

    Furthermore, Whitehouse’s comparison of 2010 month averages with other years was a breathtaking exercise in self-delusion. To prove that “The pattern is therefore of an unexceptional year [for 2010] except for a Spring/early summer El Nino that elevated temperatures,” he compares–get this–2010 month averages against *only years from 1998 and later*. Its a superficially inane procedure, since of course many of those years will have individually hotter, say, Septembers, than 2010, because *those are also among the hottest years on record*. But the record of interest goes back *150 years*, as Whitehouse pointed out in his *own introduction*:

    If the media headlines are to be believed 2010 is *heading to be either the warmest or in the top three warmest years since the instrumental global temperature records began 150 years ago* [my emphasis], and proof that the world is getting ever warmer. But looking more closely at the data . . .

    (And bonus points for comical sophistry added to the stupidity.)

    Blatant Lie Number 1: Mann on the MWP

    But this was the best part from Rose:

    Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann – for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous ‘hockey stick graph’ showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase – made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ‘ medieval warm period’ around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.

    A lie. This is probably why they didn’t cite the paper–to cover their tracks. But I found it.

    What Mann and colleagues really said (in *Science*, 27 November 2009: Vol. 326 no. 5957 pp.

    1256-1260):

    Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade . . .

    which is where everyone in denial simply stopped reading the abstract, but Mann continues on to say:

    . . . *in some regions*, but *which falls well below recent levels globally*.

    Rose lied, Richard. Rose lied and you believed him.

    And on with the same tired bullshit . . . Trenberth’s “travesty” (answered and explained ad nauseum) . . . . uncited research about water vapour . . . the same tired rants about unproven political motivations and dogma of the IPCC. But I won’t score those against you, Richard. There is no more point.

    Stupid argument Number Five: Undetermined Climate Models

    From the abstract of your article by Anagnostopoulos et al:

    However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms.

    No one claims climate is “predictable in deterministic terms”.

    This is the whole straw man argument that the models are “wrong” if they don’t predict temperatures exactly.

    Its another stupid argument that you found persuasive, Richard. You believe stupid things because you have no capacity for and/or interest in recognizing them.

    Total number of stupid arguments uncritically swallowed by Richard: 5

    Total number of lies uncritically accepted: 1 (and possibly more, but after a few preliminary investigations I saw no more point in critiquing these links.)

    I will give you this much credit, Richard. You cited sources that actually agreed with you this time. But then again you’ve shown yourself to be capable of prolific incompetence and dishonesty; why shouldn’t your sources as well?

  62. #62 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    Chris, what does a second order polynomial show? I can see why you chose a third order over a second order. The second order didn’t fit what you wanted did it.

    Skip give it up, I don’t even read your posts any more. Do something meaningful and analyze the data.

  63. #63 skip
    December 6, 2010

    Skip give it up, I don’t even read your posts any more.

    Of course not!

    Often you don’t even read your own, Richard. That’s the point.

    You believe stupid things written by incompetents and liars.

    Why should I trust the data analysis of someone so gullible?

  64. #64 Snowman
    December 6, 2010

    Skip, you should desist with these thousand-word rants. You are starting to sound a bit unhinged.

  65. #65 skip
    December 6, 2010

    Assume I am, Snowman.

    How would you know its a “rant”; of course you didn’t read it. Its the simple documentation of reality.

    Richard, like you, accepts with the faith of a fundamentalist arguments made by children. His posts prove it.

    I’m just the messenger, Snowman.

    Since neither of you will dare read it, I’m done for the nonce.

  66. #66 blueshift
    December 6, 2010

    Hi Richard,
    So your Tmax analysis is simply to plot it? No regression or anything?
    I honestly don’t know what the appropriate analysis is. Looking at annual Tmax seems like it would skew the distribution.
    Certainly just throwing annual Tmax onto a chart with other variables and eyeballing the result won’t tell you much.

  67. #67 Chris S.
    December 6, 2010

    Richard, a quadratic shows a less good fit than a cubic, hence I didn’t use it. Sheesh

  68. #68 Snowman
    December 6, 2010

    Whether or not your documentation – as you rather grandly call it – reflects reality is neither here nor there, Skip. No rational person writes these interminable diatribes.

    Tell me, did you actually think that anyone would wade through all that guff with those sub-headings and different type faces? You seem to think you are making devastatingly clever arguments. What you are actually doing is making us all think you are a bit deranged.

  69. #69 skip
    December 6, 2010

    Statements such as this show your abject ignorance and blindness, how silly your world view, how childish your epistemology, how delusional your faith in the quality of your position.

    It took me about 90 minutes to research and compose that post; it would take you about 3-6 minutes to read it.

    If you understood anything–anything at all–about how scholarship and academia work, you would laugh at your own words.

    We routinely peer review articles 35-40 pages long, making comments several fold the size of my post. It takes *weeks* to compose an article for peer review, often months more to get it revised and completed for publication.

    You’re just naive; there is nothing more to it, and Richard shares your naivete. He thinks he is going to topple a worldwide consensus established by culmination of hundreds of peer-reviewed articles in which scholars who dwarf his intellect spent lifetimes refining a scientific theory, but he can’t be bothered to read 4 pages of critique of two silly editorials whose sophomoric arguments bested him like a child fooled by a stupid card trick.

    What would he say to the peer reviewers when they come back with 3–or 4–or 5 separate 3-6 page comments, explaining why his spreadsheet analysis is rejected from a journal?

    I think we’ve seen it:

    give it up, I don’t even read you more. Do something meaningful and analyze the data . . .

    And then he will claim he was a victim of the breakdown of the peer review process and be a hero for Lord Monckton.

    No, Snowman. It is you are “deranged”. You are so ignorant of what scholarship, research, science, and intellectual investigation is that if you had even a remote idea how silly your statements appear you would change your post name in shame.

  70. #70 snowman
    December 6, 2010

    But Skip, we aren’t talking about your wretched peer reviewed articles (although I can guess at their pomposity and leaden prose). We are talking about your astounding prolixity. For some unfathomable reason, you actually seem to have convinced yourself that we should care about your tedious deconstruction of an article in a British newspaper.

    Oh, and kindly remember that you are not lecturing to your halfwitted students here. Do give us a break with the ‘epistemology’. Nobody’s impressed.

  71. #71 skip
    December 6, 2010

    you actually seem to have convinced yourself that we should care about your tedious deconstruction of an article in a British newspaper.

    Why did you not chastise Richard by asking him why we should *care about the articles in the first place* when he posted them?

    Oh my God . . . you didn’t know, did you? Ha ha! Now I get it. You thought I just critiqued them out of the blue! Oh my god what a clown you are.

    Keep posting, Snowman. Ha ha!

    Oh, and kindly remember that you are not lecturing to your halfwitted students here.

    I can never forget. You make me miss them.

    Do give us a break with the ‘epistemology’.

    Your insecurities are showing Snowman. And perhaps they should. I really don’t care either way; that probably reflects poorly on me. I’d rather not hurt your (or Richard’s) feelings all things being equal, but if you are going to post stupidity I am *more* than willing to expose it as Climate Denial Dimwittedness Exhibit 1.

  72. #72 Snowman
    December 6, 2010

    Of course I knew Richard had posted it. How can I get it through your head, Skip, that it is your verbosity I am trying to correct?

    Here is a word of advice to guide your future attempts at writing: do try to remember that less is often more.

    I know we have to make allowances. You are, after all, an ‘academic’, a legendarily verbose tribe with the ability to say nothing at extraordinary length.

    Just try to bear it in mind, nevertheless. No need to thank me.

  73. #73 skip
    December 6, 2010

    Of course I knew Richard had posted it.

    Then why this silly comment?

    you actually seem to have convinced yourself that we should care about your tedious deconstruction of an article in a British newspaper.

    Step 1. Richard links articles.
    Step 2. Skip reads said articles.
    Step 3. Skip recognizes superficial absurdity in much of said articles; slightly deeper investigation reveals even more absurdity and at least one outright lie.
    Step 4. Skip posts *documented* critique of said articles for specific purpose of enlightening all current and prospective readers of the exact quality of argument that Richard finds convincing.

    Step 4 takes *time*, Snow. There is no other way to do it. Thats why its called *investigation*, *inquiry*, and *research*.

    This is the fundamental difference between an academic mindset and a populist one, and why the correlation between the factors (populism and global warming denial) is so high.

    Simple answers convince you, Snow. I am *not* saying this because I think you’re dumb, let me hasten to add. Its not because you’re dumb; its because those simple answers are *attractive*. Combined with your inexperience with genuine scholarly investigation, it makes you vulnerable to the silliest of AGW denier talking points.

    The same is true of Richard; hence he cites Rose and Whitehouse, and exposes himself as a complete amateur in the process.

  74. #74 Snowman
    December 6, 2010

    Skip, as your latest post seems to be conciliatory, let me reply in the same spirit. I generally find that almost everything I write is improved by being shorter. So I bash something out fairly quickly then see how I can compress it. I do a precis, in other words. Of course the result shouldn’t be stilted or inelegant. But to use more words than necessary is to intrude upon the patience of your readers – or so it seems to me.

    Commentators on this side of the Atlantic sometimes point out that while the US Declaration of Independence contains – what is it? – fourteen hundred words or so, the European Union rules on the importation of root vegetables seem to run to as many volumes.

    In this context, Skip, I often think about the magnificent prose of the founders of your nation: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident..’ and on the Statue of Liberty ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses…’ Ideas that stir men’s souls are seldom lengthy. And they always employ straightforward language. Don’t you agree?

    Anyway, talk about getting off topic. Coby will shortly be reprimanding me, and rightly so.

  75. #75 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    So your Tmax analysis is simply to plot it? No regression or anything?
    I honestly don’t know what the appropriate analysis is. Looking at annual Tmax seems like it would skew the distribution.
    Certainly just throwing annual Tmax onto a chart with other variables and eyeballing the result won’t tell you much.

    Read all the posts on my site with all the text in them. It is all laid out for you to see and read. Trends, moving averages highest, lowest, averages, standard deviations. Just TMax, full year temp ranges, TMin. I cover it all. I pick certain temperature ranges depending on the context I’m using it for.

    What you should be asking is why the AGW graphs of just the average of the yearly mean anomalies don’t have their full range of data. Why do they leave out the standard deviations?

    I can tell you why they do, ask.

  76. #76 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    Richard, a quadratic shows a less good fit than a cubic, hence I didn’t use it. Sheesh

    LOL ROTFL!!! Right!! Because you EYE BALLED IT IT DOES!! This is your “proper” analysis? Sheesh!

  77. #77 blueshift
    December 6, 2010

    Richard,
    You should know by now that I don’t find your explanations or labeling clear.

    So when you analyze annual Tmax, what test are you applying that allows you to say that it is clearly dropping?

  78. #78 Chris S.
    December 6, 2010

    Richard, I don’t have the values with me at the moment but the p and Adjusted Rsquared values were worse. No eyeballs involved. Get a clue please.

    Meanwhile, Hussey has fallen, just a matter of time…

  79. #79 Chris S.
    December 6, 2010

    Richard, I don’t have the values at the moment but the p and Adjusted Rsquared were both worse for the quadratic. No eyeballs involved. Get a clue please & stop grasping at straws.

  80. #80 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    Chris, I just noticed something with your graphs as I was drafting a reply for my blog. You don’t have any points below 34C. Yet when I do a plot of the highest TMax for each year I get values as low as 27.8.

    Why did you leave the lower points out?

    I will hold off publishing my reply until you clearify why those points are missing from your graph.

  81. #81 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    So when you analyze annual Tmax, what test are you applying that allows you to say that it is clearly dropping?

    The ten year moving average, which smooths the swings of the early data. You can clearly see we are not as hot today as we were in the mid 1940′s.

  82. #82 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    Richard, I don’t have the values with me at the moment but the p and Adjusted Rsquared values were worse. No eyeballs involved. Get a clue please.

    So in your mind a 13% R Squared is a good fit? Please… That’s pathetic, and shows NO correlation to your curve. Try a forth or a fifth order and see what it does. They are meaningless, so is your curve. Your own R Squared proves it.

    Did you bother to do a projection of say 50 years from now based on your curve? 50C by 2050, right. Your curve is a great depiction of reality — NOT!

  83. #83 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    I see what you have done, you have screwed up. You took the top 100 records when there are 104 years in the dataset. Those dates are 1905 at 28.9C, 1907 at 9.4C which is likely due to missing data, 1913 at 27.8C and 1916 at 28.9C. For the sake of 4 records why would you exclude them?

    But even still there is something seriously wrong with your dataset. You have nothing below 34C. Yet when I get all the years highest TMax I get 66 records below 34C. Your polynomial graph has the correct dataset, but not your first post. What gives? What did you do to the data?

    This is your example of “proper” analysis?

    This dataset is a progressive time series, choosing just the top 100 records loses years. This is why scatter plots are inappropriate for this analysis. You should be including ALL years.

    You should be using this SQL to get all the records:

    SELECT [Station Data].Year, Max([Station Data].[Max Temp]) AS [MaxOfMax Temp]
    FROM [Station Data]
    GROUP BY [Station Data].Year
    ORDER BY [Station Data].Year;

  84. #84 Richard Wakefield
    December 6, 2010

    I missed two, there’s 6 missing years. 1926 at 28.9C and 1960 at 25C. What the hell does “actually the top 107 taking into account equal placings” mean exactly?

    There’s 106 records.

  85. #85 skip
    December 6, 2010

    Say what you want about my “loquacity”, Snowman.

    Notice how Richard has stopped posting zombie links?

  86. #86 Chris S.
    December 7, 2010

    To quote the post you’re now complaining about: “So, as a bit of fun I’ve plotted the top 100 temperatures against the year recorded at Meunster (actually the top 107 taking into account equal placings).”

    Evidently this is not clear enough – I plotted the top 100 Tmax records for the complete dataset. As the 100th record was tied with the next seven (33.5 degC) I plotted the top 107 records. I thought that the fact that I showed there were 20+ records in the 30s, 40s & 80s and specifically stated 8 of the records were from 1961 this would be understood – I obviously overestimated you.

    This was a bit of fun as part of my exploration of the data – not a proper analysis. My next post (Highest annual Tmax at Meunster) did plot the highest temperature for each year.

    Richard I’m using your own chosen metric here, I don’t see any reason why single-point highest temperature should tell you anything. You complain that Tmean is meaningless, but in my view highest Tmax is even more so. I tried to illustrate that with the Top Temps post, your argument effectively rests on the fact that 1941 was hot and (for Meunster) the 19th July was the warmest day on record. This is just another version of the “warming stopped in 1998″ argument ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm ). Now, can you justify the use of highest Tmax in your ‘analysis’* rather than, say, mean Tmax?

    *It seems that for Richard analysis = joining dots on a graph.

  87. #87 Chris S.
    December 7, 2010

    “can you justify the use of highest Tmax”

    Looking at this paper ( https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/1477/1/Stephenson.pdf ) may show the reason:

    “Table 1 also shows that these changes are field significant for all the temperature indices except annual maximum daily maximum temperature (TXx) … The coldest minimum temperature (TNn), the warmest minimum temperature (TNx), the coldest maximum temperature (TXn) and the hottest maximum temperature (TXx) have also increased
    in the latter half of the 20th century but the difference between the 1951–1978 and 1979–2003 time periods is less obvious … Of the indices that can be defined seasonally, maximum daily minimum temperature (TNx), maximum daily maximum temperature (TXx) and diurnal temperature range (DTR) are the least spatially coherent.”

    You may want to read that paper Richard, they’ve already done all the analysis you are doing and much much more. Their findings?

    “Results showed widespread significant changes in temperature extremes associated with warming, especially for those indices derived from daily minimum temperature. Over 70% of the global land area sampled showed a significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights. Some regions experienced a more than doubling of these indices. This implies a positive shift in the distribution of daily minimum temperature throughout the globe. Daily maximum temperature indices showed similar changes but with smaller magnitudes.” (h/t to mandas)

    ‘Nuff said I think, I’m off to find some Aussies to talk about cricket.

  88. #88 Snowman
    December 7, 2010

    Skip, Richard strikes me as a pretty independent character who makes up his own mind about what to post. I wouldn’t be so quick to take credit for changes.

    But leave that aside. What upset me, Skip, and what led to my rather immoderate comments last night, was your attitude to Richard. By all means attack his methods and his conclusions if you think they are nonsense. But I have to say your remarks were ungracious.

    Here is a guy who, by his own admission, is entirely self-taught and has no formal training. Yet he succeeded in having an article accepted by a peer-reviewed journal. Rather than acknowledging his achievement you choose to belittle it, and him. To paraphrase Jane Austen: ‘It was badly done indeed, Skip.’

  89. #89 skip
    December 7, 2010

    Skip, Richard strikes me as a pretty independent character who makes up his own mind about what to post.

    But he doesn’t. He trolls the web looking for “proofs”, zombie-blogging the likes of Anthony Watts.

    By all means attack his methods and his conclusions if you think they are nonsense.

    I never said his “methods” were nonsense (although I have grave doubts that more informed voices have better articulated; see below). I simply said there is no point in verifying the radical claims he bases off them since he cannot even be trusted to understand/read his own sources or maintain a coherent position.

    But I have to say your remarks were ungracious.

    And they will continue to be. What grace is owed to someone who:

    (1) changes his claims when they are demonstrated to be false (see his subtle switch from “all stations in Canada” to “every station I looked at” and his exchange with Ian regarding the starting points of Sachs Harbour temperature trends), and

    (2) zombie-cites a link which doesn’t even function at the very moment he demands any challengers to debunk it (proving that he himself did not even verify it; see his link to Watts on temperature trends and my response), and

    (3) cites sources that make vacuous and absurd arguments (see his links to Rose, Whitehouse and my response), or which even themselves ignorantly cite material that directly refutes him (see his link to Ollier and my response), and

    (4) cites sources that directly contradict his other links/sources (see his post on Judith Curry and my response for one example and Mandas’s summary post for a greater exposition), and

    (5) cites sources which specifically *refute* his position (see his zombie link of Laken from Watts and my response), and

    (6) makes a hypocritical demand that all 50 pages of his website’s “research articles” be scoured in detail when he cannot even be troubled to respond to a 4-page post, and

    (7) simply ignores any direct question whose honest answer would expose to himself and his audience that all the above assertions are true, and/or

    (8) is willing to blatantly lie in the same program of evasion.

    Now, I have and can again document *all* of these assertions, but then you will just say its a “rant”, because documenting it takes time and space.

    Add to all this the simple point that Coby and others have pointed out (which I always thought made at least intuitive sense to me but is of course that is all I can claim because I am not an expert) that Richard uses a bizarre metric for measuring “summer heating”–the maximum maximum daily temperature per year: Because this doesn’t rise (or is falling, depending on which version of his argument Richard employs at the moment) in two stations in Canada, this (somehow) proves that CO2 is not a heat forcing agent.

    There is no way to be both honest and “gracious” with someone like this, despite your desire to believe that he’s a new anti-AGW hero:

    Hi Richard. Snowman here. I just wanted to say how much I admire your courageous and spirited defiance of the climate gang . . . I particularly liked Skip’s foaming indignation. How dare this upstart not acknowledge my superior intellect and answer my questions, he rages. #Snowman, old GAS thread #373

    This is just the latest in your history of backing losers, Snowman, and its telling that you would encourage his evasions as if that were a triumph. Next time, evaluate the quality of someone’s arguments, not their conclusions, before throwing in your huzzahs.

  90. #90 Richard Wakefield
    December 7, 2010

    From that paper:

    “rather than viewing the world as getting hotter it might be more accurate to view it as getting less cold.”

    Gee isn’t that what you all laughed at me about!!!

    Chris, you complain to me asking if the extreme of TMax is appropriate. That average is better. Then you better tell these guys that!

    What do I get from this paper? That I have done the analysis CORRECTLY. For Canada at least, TMax is DROPPING!

    Thank you Chris for confirming I’m right. Now I expect the apologies to start to flow in. I expect for you all to admit I have been right from the beginning, and you have been wrong.

    So now people, how can global warming from our CO2 make the world “less cold” and if not lower TMax, at least keep it flat? Guess there is a ceiling after all.

    Now, with your claim you were just playing around. You did not answer the question.

    Why do none of your point go below 34C?

    If this first post of yours is incorrect, which it sure looks to be, either fix it or drop it.

  91. #91 Richard Wakefield
    December 7, 2010

    Re: Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation

    Notice that one of the authors, Zhang, is the same guy from Toronto that did the 2000 paper I posted.

    Now you AGW faithful have another major problem on your hands. This in the conclusion:

    “the evidence suggests complex changes in precipitation
    extremes but which supports a generally wetter world.”

    So what do we have from this paper.

    1) winters are getting less cold WORLD WIDE

    2) summers are flat or dropping in extreme TMax, so FEWER heat waves WORLD WIDE

    3) Thus because of 1 and 2, the growing season is increasing WORLD WIDE

    4) WORLD WIDE the general trend is more precipitation, so LESS DROUGHTS, the exact opposite of the claims of the Faithful of AGW. (also good for crops)

    5) Because of all of the above, what we have is a fture of BETTER climate WORLD WIDE.

    Seems to me AGW has serious flaws.

    Not that any of this will impact any of you. That’s what dogma is all about, right Coby?

  92. #92 Chris S.
    December 7, 2010

    You missed the start of the quote Richard – “As the decreases in extreme minimum temperatures are greater than the increases in extreme maximum temperature…”

    Yes Richard, they used Highest Tmax – just like you.

    They also used highest Tmin, Lowest Tmax & Tmin, Cold Nights, Cold Days, Warm Nights and Days, Diurnal Temperature Range, Frost Days, Summer Days, Ice Days, Tropical Nights, Growing Season Length, Warm spell Duration, Cold Spell Duration, Maximum 1 & 5 day Precipitation, Simple Daily Intensity, Heavy and Very Heavy Precipitation Days, Consecutive Wet & Dry Days, Annual Total Precipitation and Very Wet & Extremely wet days – just like you, oh no wait hang on…

    “What do I get from this paper? That I have done the analysis CORRECTLY. For Canada at least, TMax is DROPPING!”

    1) Good to see you’re now restricting your claims to Canada.
    2) How do you get that from a paper which says “hottest maximum temperature (TXx) have also increased in the latter half of the 20th century”
    3) Dropping, except at Meunster? except at the site Ian looked at?

    “Why do none of your point go below 34C?”

    Do I really have to spell this out? The top 107 Tmax records across the timespan were all 33.5 degrees C or above.

    (Note that Richard in #91 has managed to turn a rise (albeit small) into flat or dropping in point 2. What was that about dogma?)

  93. #93 Richard Wakefield
    December 7, 2010

    Snowman, Skip is a prime example of a True Believer in the AGW faith. The entire global warming scam is collapsing around him (ie Cancun) yet, years from now, while freezing, skip will still keep the “world is warming, be afraid, be very afraid” faith. Of all his dribblings, he has said nothing of any evidence to support his faith.

  94. #94 skip
    December 7, 2010

    Notice that one of the authors, Zhang, is the same guy from Toronto that did the 2000 paper I posted.

    Which did indeed affirm his claim for southern Canada–and nothing else. He didn’t read it, Snowman.

    Observe the cherry-picked response to Chris, and Chris’s riposte.

    And observe how Richard makes no attempt to address any of the points I made, except to say,

    Of all [Skip's] dribblings, he has said nothing of any evidence to support his faith.

    Because what I have done–and this is the real reason Richard selectively ignores me–is show there is no basis to have any faith in *Richard*. And as for my own “evidence” to support my *belief*, I never claimed to provide it any of these exchanges. That’s for a different set of threads (e.g., there is no consensus, etc.)

    This is what it boils down to, Snowman. You can latch on to Richard as the latest anti-AGW Messiah, or you can honestly and rationally examine the quality of his character and his other arguments to have the next-best-thing to refuting his claims without actually disentangling the data yourself (as no one has time to do except pros like Chris).

  95. #95 Chris S.
    December 7, 2010

    “Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to Journal xxx. I have now received referees’ reports and an assessment from the Associate Editor who handled the review process. All are positive about the study but express doubts about the presentation here. I have re-read the paper and agree with their assessment.

    Since a new manuscript addressing these concerns would be much altered, it would probably need to be re-reviewed. In these circumstances, it is Journal policy to reject the current manuscript but to invite resubmission once the problems have been resolved. This carries no commitment to eventual publication but provides an opportunity for re-evaluation by this Journal.

    I am sorry not to be more positive at this stage but please let me know if you wish us to consider a new version. Any resubmission should be submitted to the website within four months of this message. Should you decide to take this option, you should address the referees’ comments in full in the new version of your manuscript. At resubmission, you should upload a file explaining how you have responded to the various criticisms and including a point-by-point description of how you have addressed the various comments.”

    Looks like I’ll have less spare time than anticipated in the next few months so won’t be doing anything else on the data for a while.

  96. #96 skip
    December 7, 2010

    At least you didn’t get this one:

    Date: *******

    From the Editor of the Journal of ********

    To: ********

    Dear ******

    Thank you very much for your submission to the Journal of **************. Unfortunately, after serious consideration, the external reviewers have concluded that the piece is not appropriate for the journal. While we have provided the reviewers’ comments (where available—see below) in their entirety, a few in particular stand out that help summarize their overall estimation of the paper. For example, Reviewer 1 asked, “Why was this abomination even submitted to a journal, let alone sent out for peer review? I believe the time I wasted reviewing this intellectual atrocity would have been better spent counting the crane flies in my front lawn.” Reviewer 2 said that the process of examining the manuscript was “a psychic assault akin to being rent on the rack of charlatanism before being burnt at the stake of abysmal scholarship,” and later that, “The authors should not be allowed to breed.” Reviewer 3 simply returned the review package without comment after having apparently urinated on the manuscript. We interpreted this as a rejection.

    We greatly appreciate your interest in the Journal of ************** and wish you the greatest success in your future scholarly endeavors.

    Sincerely,

    **********, Editor
    Journal of **********

    (And no, it was not sent to me, personally!)

  97. #97 Snowman
    December 7, 2010

    I think you misunderstand me, Skip. I offer no opinion on the validity or otherwise of Richard’s work, because I am not qualified to judge it. However, I do know mean-spirited behaviour when I see it. You will know what I am referring to, of course.

  98. #98 Richard Wakefield
    December 7, 2010

    Do I really have to spell this out? The top 107 Tmax records across the timespan were all 33.5 degrees C or above.

    So you didn’t do a time series. Your plot is not a progression of each year because you will have SEVERAL points for the same year on that graph. Hence your plot is NOT the highest TMax for each year. You blew the analysis big time. Nice going Chris. So much for your superior abilities.

  99. #99 Richard Wakefield
    December 7, 2010

    Looks like I’ll have less spare time than anticipated in the next few months so won’t be doing anything else on the data for a while.

    Not surpising that reply seeing how you screwed up simple data analysis on temperature data. Nice going Chris, bailing out when it gets too hot for you, eh?

    I demand you remove your stupid blog posts, or I will rip you to shreds on mine. That’s how pissed off you have got me.

  100. #100 Snowman
    December 7, 2010

    Richard, I have no specialist knowledge of these statistical arguments. However, I absolutely love the way you are not taking any crap from these guys. Normally, they form a mutual admiration society and spend their time telling each other how clever they are. When somebody comes along with a mind of his own they start to shriek and foam at the mouth.

    Naturally, they assumed that you were a patsy who would grovel and beg to be forgiven once they ganged up on you. But slowly, the terrible truth is dawning on them: they have got into the ring with Mike Tyson, and you can smell their fear.

  101. #101 skip
    December 7, 2010

    Nice going Chris, bailing out when it gets too hot for you, eh?

    Unlike yourself, Richard, Chris is constrained by the process of legitimate science, intellectual honesty, and the rigors of peer review.

  102. #102 skip
    December 7, 2010

    they have got into the ring with Mike Tyson, and you can smell their fear.

    I thought you said,

    I offer no opinion on the validity or otherwise of Richard’s work, because I am not qualified to judge it. — Snowman

    This just shows again, Snowman, that for you its nothing more than a battle of polemical assertions.

  103. #103 Chris S.
    December 7, 2010

    Re: 98 “Hence your plot is NOT the highest TMax for each year.”

    Please tell me where I claimed it was.

    Please tell me why I would point out there were eight records for 1961 if I was trying to claim it was.

    I’ve told you at least three times it wasn’t a time series I can’t believe it took that long to sink in. Mike Tyson? A punch drunk Audley Harrison perhaps.

  104. #104 Chris S.
    December 7, 2010

    Skip, I’m glad I’ve never got anything as bad as your #96. My favourite rejection from a reviewer was because the paper was too good for the journal I submitted to! I had to disagree.

  105. #105 skip
    December 7, 2010

    Ha ha.

    Uh, no. I’ve never gotten that one. In fact I’ve had to sneak a few past “top” (for my field) journals’ reviewers a couple of times in what some might regard as a Soon-and-Baliunas kind of manner.

    Guys like me would rather be lucky than good any day.

  106. #107 Richard Wakefield
    December 7, 2010

    Please tell me where I claimed it was.

    Yeah, I incorrectly assumed you would be doing as you claimed you would be, doing a “proper” analysis. Read my blog post.

  107. #108 wagdog
    December 7, 2010

    BTW, anyone following what’s going on in Europe? Record cold and snow for this time of year. 48 people have froze to death so far. Global warming at work.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTR-xzA8xLk

    Really? Really?

  108. #109 wagdog
    December 7, 2010

    “An increase in global temperatures will lead to an intensification of the hydrological cycle. This is because an increase in surface air temperature causes an increase in evaporation and generally higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere. In addition, a warmer atmosphere is capable of holding more water vapor. The excess water vapor will in turn lead to more frequent heavy precipitation when atmospheric instability is sufficient to trigger precipitation events.

    “The largest changes in precipitation are expected at mid- to- high latitudes (Kattenberg et al., 1996). Climate models predict an increase in average precipitation in winter at high latitudes due to poleward transport of evaporated moisture from lower latitudes. There is also an increase in the expected frequency and areal extent of intense precipitation over the continents.”

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-3.html

    This explains why record snowfall in the northern hemisphere at this time of the year is consistent with global warming models.

  109. #110 GGMcGready
    December 7, 2010

    Is the plotting of annual Tmax (and annual Tmin), as RW has done it, a statistically relevant methodology that holds water within climate science?
    If no, then let’s move on from this thread.
    But if yes, then it appears to me, that in the case of Meunster, RW seems to be generally correct (I say that on the basis of what I can discern from his website) that Tmax data for Meunster shows a flat-ish trend over recent years and Tmin shows a generally increasing trend.

    However, to RW:
    * How is this generally inconsistent with the overall premise of AGW?
    * Why do you believe the Meunster trend would even hold regionally, let alone globally, when other posters here have linked to published articles that show otherwise?

    I think it is unfortunate that another poster here has applied very amateurish data analysis to try and refute RW’s Meunster trend, thereby only emboldening RW further in his postulate that such a trend is global and that the greater increase in minimum temps compared to maximum temps invalidates the entire AGW theory.

    RW:
    I would be happy to concede credit to you on elements of your data trending, should that methodology be shown to have relevance within climate science. But I do not appreciate your political posturing on AGW, and linking to the likes of the Daily Mail and James Delingpole does nothing for your credibility. Skip has taken great time and care to call you out on a number of matters. If you want anyone with an open mind to pass any heed on your data analysis, you will have to take a more considered approach to your interactions.

  110. #111 Richard Wakefield
    December 7, 2010

    * How is this generally inconsistent with the overall premise of AGW?

    The prediction over the years is AGW should lead to more heat waves, ie higher temperatures in the summer. At the last US congressional hearing on the subject, one of the AGW scientists claimed that the number of heat temperature records in the future would be 20:1 to cold temp records. She stated outright that summer temps would rise because of AGW.

    My analysis shows that to not be true. Plus the analysis of that paper Chris linked to shows that not to be true. Which also shows this is world wide.

    Why do you believe the Meunster trend would even hold regionally, let alone globally, when other posters here have linked to published articles that show otherwise?

    I have shown this is a Canada wide phenomenon, and at least in Ireland where TMax is dropping too. Chris’ link shows the same, less cold is more correct, not more hot.

    Problem is, you cannot claim that this is EXCLUSIVELY from AGW just because it predicts it (or now claiming to predict it, we have seen the moving goal posts in AGW before).

    AGW would need discriminatory evidence to bolster the theory, less cold winters is not discriminatory. Normal cyclic variation also predicts that. I can go into the reasons why, and have done in the other thread. Basically it involves what is considered “normal” in the climate. If the normal state of the climate is tropical, then what is happening now is moving towards that normal state. Very cold winters being abnormal. A 500 year or so pendulum is swinging back to the normal, less cold, state.

    If you want anyone with an open mind to pass any heed on your data analysis, you will have to take a more considered approach to your interactions.

    I was fine doing just that until the tone here fell into throwing insults at me, Re Ian and skip. That happened within the first few days. So don’t blame me, take it out on them.

  111. #112 skip
    December 7, 2010

    I was fine doing just that until the tone here fell into throwing insults at me, Re Ian and skip. That happened within the first few days. So don’t blame me, take it out on them.

    Add this to the list of lies.

    He dodges me because he knows he embarrassed himself. To answer my questions (and those of many others; I don’t want to overstate my performance in this) forces him to either (a) lie again or (b) face an awful truth he cannot process.

  112. #113 Snowman
    December 7, 2010

    The difference between us, Skip, is that while it is patently obvious you have no understanding of the technicalities lying behind this debate, you pretend otherwise. You keep nagging Richard with your silly little questions that interest nobody but you. Why don’t you dig into his argument and demonstrate why he is wrong? I think we all know why you don’t.

  113. #114 skip
    December 7, 2010

    Finally! I found it:

    http://www.funnycorner.net/funny-pictures/4905/funny-demotivational-pictures/canadians.html

    I’ve been looking for this link for weeks. It proves beyond all doubt, Richard, that you are

    (a) totally wrong about your temperature analysis, and
    (b) that I am correct about everything in our dispute

    Glad that is finally settled.

    If you have any problem with this source, take it up with the author, not me.

    Furthermore, I’m not going to respond to any of your “refutations” of the viability of my source and what it allegedly proves, because you’ve insulted me. Again, if you have a problem, take it up with them; its out of my hands now.

    If you cannot see how this proves you wrong, it simply shows that you are devoted to your anti-AGW religion as a mindless believer; you are unable or unwilling to brook any challenge to your dogma.

  114. #115 skip
    December 7, 2010

    I think we all know why you don’t.

    I know; I told you. No one has the time to conduct their own independent credibility check of any fool with a spreadsheet and an agenda.

    You’d be quite a boxing judge, Snow. You regard an opponent with broken nose, missing teeth, and swollen eyes who never punches back as “Mike Tyson”.

    The goal of boxing is to swing *back*, Snowman. You cheer Richard for his obstinate refusal to respond to questions that embarrass him. He’s not Mike Tyson. He’s a punching bag with one operational organ: a mouth.

  115. #116 Snowman
    December 7, 2010

    Skip, despite your huffing and puffing, you suffer from a rather serious drawback: you haven’t a clue about the statistical complexities. How funny to hear you splutter that you haven’t refuted Richard’s argument because you don’t have the time.

    Richard, you have picked your opponents off one by one and left them senseless on the canvas. Will Skip lurch back to his feet, or will he be counted out?

  116. #117 skip
    December 7, 2010

    I see Richard has been destroyed by my link!

    Behold the fop’s silence!

    And you, Snowman, cringe from the distance, crying as your false hope and fake champion drowns in his own tears of defeat and pain!

    Ha ha! I have struck another blow for the AGW Truth! See my foes scatter . . . behold my fury . . . my wrath . . . my . . . !

    You see, Snowman. Any dipshit can argue the way you do. Only people of reason and honesty can do it the way I do. This is the difference between us. You’re not honest, least of all with yourself.

  117. #118 Richard Wakefield
    December 7, 2010

    you have picked your opponents off one by one and left them senseless on the canvas.

    Thanks Snowman, but I really can’t take credit. If you recall the original reason for these threads, it was my claim, and that of a good many others, on Curry’s site that the True Believers of AGW are quite dogmatic in their support for the faith. I challenged Coby to not be dogmatic in his beliefs and look at my analysis. Hence his invitation for me to come here and defend my analysis. I fully knew what was going to happen, nothing from their side surprised me here, simply confirming their dogmatism.

    I didn’t defeat these people, they defeated themselves. From Ian’s ranting that I do nothing but lie, to skip’s fixation on me and any faults he could conjure up, to Chris’ amateurish attempts to discredit my analysis.

    It is very clear indeed from all those here who have attempted to discredit my work that the dogma is a live and well entrenched in these people.

    The AGW ship is sinking, both from the empirical side and the public relations side. Not even the AGW faithful can deny that, well, some of them anyway. Cancun may indeed be their last attempt as country after country call their bluff and pull out of any binding agreements. Agreements that anyone with a clear head knew were death sentences to western culture.

    But those here will still be standing screaming “the sky is falling!” long after the rest of the public gets over being had, and the planet carries on as it always has, not following their alarmist predictions.

    The monetary damage these people have done in the name of “saving the planet” is huge. One can only hope not irreversible.

    If I can play a small part in turning the numbers away from AGW, then I’m satisfied with that accomplishment.

  118. #119 skip
    December 7, 2010

    Richard,

    Chris destroyed you in your interpretation of the Alexander et al, article.

    And I noticed you’ve quickly left the topic of Zhang et al.

    Snowman, who does not even understand the simplest mathematics of a trend line (I have proof), is not the kind of admirer you want to accumulate.

    All you have left is bluster and fraud, Richard, and its sadly appropriate that you’ve found a soul mate in our resident Snowman, who admires evasion as much as incompetence. Although we are disputants for the nonce I would ask you as a fellow human being to consider if you really want to spend the rest of your days this way.

    Good will aside, just to expose you again on one example: What does it say about you that you cited Laken after you skimmed Watts’s blog–only to have me track down both the source and the man himself, and find that he utterly repudiates your position?

    Your imminent craven silence on this matter will tell more truths than 100 peer reviewed articles, and I’m going to enjoy watching it.

  119. #120 Snowman
    December 8, 2010

    Richard, all of us who value independent thought admire your achievements. How ironic to see Skip decrying you at every opportunity, when his idea of intellectual rigour is to parrot what others have said.

    It is really rather ironic that when someone who has carried out original work appears on this blog the abuse of the true believers knows no limits. It is simply remarkable that, challenged to show why you are wrong, Skip bleats that he hasn’t the time. Somehow he has convinced himself that this is victory.

    Oh, and Skip, kindly stop saying ‘for the nonce’. The phrase you want is ‘for now’, or, if you must, ‘for the time being’.

  120. #121 GGMcGready
    December 8, 2010

    Richard,
    I wouldn’t be too quick to claim ‘victory’ if I were you. You have failed to answer a large number of reasonable questions posed to you by Skip and others. I don’t necessarily blame you for not being able to answer all queries – I wouldn’t be able to either, because none of us on this forum are climate scientists. In my opinion, you would be better off saying something like, “Guys, I feel pretty confident in my ability to collate and present data and I *think* I may have found something interesting here – can you guys help me see if there’s anything to this that I can explore further?”
    Starting from your own dogmatic position that AGW is a fraud isn’t a great way to frame a debate.
    I accept, on the basis that your methodology can be shown to have relevance within climate science, you are generally correct in your interpretation of the Meunster trends. But you have a *long* way to go to extend such conclusions even regionally. Zhang et al is just one of likely very many published studies that have been carried out that will not support your conclusions that *everywhere* shows flat max summer temps and rising min winter temps. You need to be a bit more critical of your own analysis before taking issue with others about their interpretations. And you shouldn’t be surprised if people are deeply skeptical that an Excel analysis of extremes of summer and winter temperatures at a few sites in Canada is going to “take down” the entire body of work of thousands of climate scientists all around the world. Again, maybe show some humility for your own limitations in approach and analysis.
    It seems like this thread is mostly left to you and Skip now. Unless it very quickly reverts to an adult, scientific discussion, where enquiring minds seek to explore an issue in an unbiased and ego-free way, then I won’t be lurking on this thread any further.
    So since it is mostly you and Skip, I offer both of you a way forward: On the specifics of Richard’s analysis, Skip ask one question and one only, and Richard respond ONLY to this query. And stick with the question until a fair answer is given. Note: a fair answer can be “I don’t know, but I’m willing to have someone help me find out”.

  121. #122 skip
    December 8, 2010

    ironic to see Skip decrying you at every opportunity, when his idea of intellectual rigour is to parrot what others have said.

    Um, Snowman. Richard is the one who zombie-blogged Watts . . . .and Ollier . . . and Delingpole . . .and Rose . . . and Whitehouse–not to mention a few which specifically refuted him, such as Laken . . . and Curry . . . and Zhang et al. And all you do is cheer *him*.

    “Och! Polly says global warming is a sham! Och!”

    It is simply remarkable that, challenged to show why you are wrong, Skip bleats that he hasn’t the time.

    In Richard’s own words:

    First that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station. Summers are cooling. Richad GAS thread #3

    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). Richard GAS thread #38

    No, Snowman. No one has three months on his hands except an . . . eccentric (a good compromise word) like Richard. What I *do* have time to do is verify his various claims of vindication of his analysis (Zhang et al., Alexander et al.) that specifically refute his finding. And I have.

    But you live in a Deniallusion, Snowman, where Richard alternating between self-refutation and utter nonsense is “rigor”. Its to be expected.

    GG: Sorry that the thread devolved to this disappointing point for you. If you were to look at my earliest posts to Richard, you would have seen a very different tone. But he obstinately disengages whenever the discussion takes a threatening turn, and now that he has Snowman to cheer him, I suspect this will continue indefinitely.

    The value in refuting in Richard is almost certainly not for his benefit. Its for people of reason to see his example and say, “Wow. I don’t want to be like that guy.”

    So no Snowman, I don’t have three months to independently verify the claims of a man who cannot even recognize friend from foe in debating an issue.

    Richard has the 2 minutes required to explain himself regarding Laken. But watch: he won’t.

  122. #123 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    “Guys, I feel pretty confident in my ability to collate and present data and I *think* I may have found something interesting here – can you guys help me see if there’s anything to this that I can explore further?”
    Starting from your own dogmatic position that AGW is a fraud isn’t a great way to frame a debate.

    How about from their side to look at the evidence objectively and not a priori dismiss it out of hand? I see no criticism from you about that.

    But you have a *long* way to go to extend such conclusions even regionally.

    Then you have not seen the rest of my posts on my site. Please, read them. This is ALL ACROSS CANADA. Example: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/heat-wave-trends-across-canada.html

    and

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/04/canadian-summer-trends.html

    And you shouldn’t be surprised if people are deeply skeptical that an Excel analysis of extremes of summer and winter temperatures at a few sites in Canada is going to “take down” the entire body of work of thousands of climate scientists all around the world.

    All it takes in science is one bit of evidence to bring down an entire theory. And it’s not just me that is exposing serious flaws in AGW, as you are well aware I’m sure.

    Assuming this increase in temps is because of AGW (which can ONLY be in the last 40 years) then you have to ask yourself:

    1) is this bad? Milder winters, cooler summers, longer growing season seems quite nice to me.

    2) what other weather related effects have changed in the last 40 years? Answer: None. There is no change in any weather related events that is beyond normal variation. Not one.

    3) are future AGW predictions going to be accurate? Not a chance.

    Do you agree with these 3 points? And yes, let’s stick to the science. That’s all I’ve wanted to do.

    BTW, my “bias” that AGW is a faith based theory is nothing more than a counter to their dogmatic belief that EVERYTHING happening in the climate today is because of our emissions of CO2. That’s a worse bias than me calling AGW a faith.

    But just for you I willing suspend that if you are willing to stick to the science.

  123. #124 GGMcGready
    December 8, 2010

    Richard,
    I’m sorry, I can’t answer your questions, because I simply don’t know the answers. And it would take me such a long time to research the literature to find out, and even then I would be giving a non-expert’s interpretation of an expert field. I can only hope to follow the arguments of those much more knowledgeable in the subject. That’s not a cop-out to avoid your questions, it’s just the truth.
    Let me be clear – none of your detractors have done an adequate job of either proving or disproving your data analyses, but be fair; to do so would take quite an amount of time, probably too much than is available to guys who are simply tuning into a blog to harmlessly pass away an hour or so in the evening. I think some fairness could have been applied in comments concerning your data analysis, but in this regard you did yourself no favours, coming across as very strident from the outset. The original thread degenerated into farce very quickly. It is a shame, because I personally would like to know whether your analysis really holds any water.
    To that end, I’ll give you the chance to give an answer to a genuine enquiry: what research have you done, and what can you present, to show that your methodology of choosing annual Tmax and Tmin is appropriate and relevant to the examination of long-term temperature trends in the world’s climate?
    [Please note again that I am not knowledgeable in the finer points of climate science. Neither am I in any way a prolific poster like you and Skip. Hence, my query is only to try to set an example for how a discourse might proceed. This may be my only question to you, but at least it will allow me to see how much stock I should put in your analyses. Please try to keep the political statements and previous offences committed in this thread out of your answer; such flaming rhetoric on both sides has gotten us to around 650 posts on this thread and the last one with almost no progress]

  124. #125 skip
    December 8, 2010

    Sorry, GG, but observe:

    their dogmatic belief that EVERYTHING happening in the climate today is because of our emissions of CO2.

    See the the same straw man? Richard has to tell himself this nonsense because he has nowhere else to go.

    This is what you get trying to reason with RW, although I’m not diminishing your efforts.

    Richard has the 2 minutes required to explain himself regarding Laken. But watch: he won’t.

    [Richard's] imminent craven silence on this matter [regarding his citation of Laken] will tell more truths than 100 peer reviewed articles, and I’m going to enjoy watching it.

    As enjoyable as I knew it would be–for the *nonce*.

    This is your Mike Tyson, Snowman. Quite a talent scout, you.

  125. #126 GGMcGready
    December 8, 2010

    Skip,
    Yes, I know the point you are making. But I’ve followed this thread and the last one since the start, and I’m just trying to see if what you have previously referred to as intellectual honestly will be applied to a genuine enquiry.

    Although maybe impossible to do at this late stage, I would be interested in you parking all your frustrations to one side and asking one question of Richard, well-meaning and genuinely presented, and give him the opportunity to honestly answer you. Maybe we can find out whether there is anything to his data analysis or not. If he is right (even to an extent) then he is right irrespective of his politics. If he wrong, then he is just wrong. Maybe we’ll find out.

  126. #127 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    I can only hope to follow the arguments of those much more knowledgeable in the subject.

    That’s assuming they are telling you the truth. How can you possible accept people like Hansen as a “knowledgeable” individual on the subject when he wants the UK to stop using coal right now, which would freeze people to death? You are assuming those knowledgeable people themselves have no ulterior motives to be biased on AGW future scenarios.

    to show that your methodology of choosing annual Tmax and Tmin is appropriate and relevant to the examination of long-term temperature trends in the world’s climate?

    The claim here is that the averaged mean is a better indication of trend than extremes. Except one problem. The mean is calcuated from those extremes only. The daily mean is not the daily average of hourly temps, it’s just the (TMax+Tmin)/2. I have shown the two are not the same: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-mean-temp-is-meaningless.html

    So any average anomaly graphs of the temp are already using extreme temps in the average calculations.

    Since the AGW claim is more heat waves in the future, then that must mean that the summer’s highest temps must be increasing, or at the least more hotter days. That is exactly what the Canadian Evironment Commissioner said in an interview yesterday on CTV. He said AGW would make for longer and hotter summers in Canada.

    He is flat wrong. And only by showing the extreme TMax temps can one show he is wrong. Besides, that 2006 paper that Chris noted https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/1477/1/Stephenson.pdf also looked at summer extreme TMax. So if it was approprate for them, it is for me.

    And since that study was world wide, using those seasonal extremes of TMax and TMin are quite relevant.

    I plan to look at winter TMin and Tmax in detail for all of Canada to see exactly what temperature ranges in the winter are changing.

    You seem smart enough to me to follow this, so I want you to think about this for a moment.

    AGW theory’s basic default postion is that cold is normal, and hotter/warmer is abnormal. Moving to a warmer climate regeme is bad. Adding more heat, even with an increasing TMin in the winter, is bad. Hell, even increasing summer nighttime TMin is bad! They are all “adding” heat.

    But what if the reverse is true? Cold is abnormal and moving to a warmer climate regeme is returning to the normal state. Warming winters is not getting warmer, it means there is less heat lost. Thus warming is not adding new heat, it is replacing LOST heat.

  127. #128 skip
    December 8, 2010

    I would be interested in you parking all your frustrations to one side and asking one question of Richard, well-meaning and genuinely presented, and give him the opportunity to honestly answer you. Maybe we can find out whether there is anything to his data analysis or not.

    I have done this a dozen times. But since you bring it up:

    Richard, question:

    What, if anything, is the implication of the geographic locations of the stations selected for your analysis of Canadian “heat waves”?

  128. #129 Ian Forrester
    December 8, 2010

    GGMcGready, I will answer some of your questions. I will not respond to Wakefield since he has been and continues to be scientifically dishonest in his useless posts. As I said early on in the previous thread it is impossible to have a rational discussion with some one who is irrational and dishonest.

    Firstly, his use of annual Tmax is almost useless. Why should we think that what happened on one day a year will tell us anything about global warming? For example, a station may have a maximum of one day at 35 C on one day in 1960 and the next highest might be 30 C. In 2009 it may have one day at 35 but 100 days at 34. Which would you assume was the warmer year? Obviously the year with one day at 35 and 100 at 34 but Wakefield’s analysis says that they are both the same therefore no global warming (neglecting of course that you can’t project global trends from one station).

    I have analyzed two stations from Canada, Sachs Harbour and recently Coral Harbour. Both show high rates of warming for the annual Tmax for the past 50 years.

    Wakefield used one station in southern Ontario to base his hypothesis on. Everyone in the literature agrees that Southern Ontario does appear to be cooling in the summer over the past few years. However, to extrapolate this finding to even suggest that Canada is doing the same is just bad science and it is even worse science to say that the data from one station abolishes AGW.

    Wakefield consistently cherry-picks and when he is called on it either ignores it or cherry-picks again.

    Now I admit that I have only analyzed data from two stations but (I just don’t have the time or patience to waste on the likes of Wakefield by doing any more).

    What this thread has shown, I hope, is that using as many data points, stations and countries as possible is necessary to get a true picture of what is happening to global temperatures and that it is being mostly caused by the addition of fossil carbon from the burning of fossil fuels. Data from one station does not give you any information and deliberate cherry-picking is dishonest.

    It is interesting to note that Wakefield uses actual temperatures when all climate scientists switch to anomalies to describe what is happening. The huge amount of data and subsequent data analyzes required to do this makes it an impossible task for anyone who is not doing it full time. That is why people like Wakefield should be very careful in what they are doing. Unfortunately, Wakefield is not taking care nor being honest in his analyzes. He will not admit the shortcomings in what he is doing.

    Since Wakefield linked to an error filled article by David Rose I will offer a quote by George Monbiot on that article:

    I don’t have time to deal with every one of the mistakes his article contains – it takes 100 times as long to show why a claim is wrong as it does to make it.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-rose-climate-science

    That is why scientists get so frustrated and angry with deniers like Wakefield, it is very easy to spew nonsense but it takes a long time and a lot of effort to disprove it. That is why science blogs should have active moderation to keep the S/N ratio reasonable. That is why blogs such as Deep Climate, Open Mind, RC get much more scientific content than those which do not moderate. The deniers take over, just see Judith Curry’s blog (though I am inclined to think that is what she in fact wanted).

  129. #130 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    What, if anything, is the implication of the geographic locations of the stations selected for your analysis of Canadian “heat waves”?

    I have picked stations with the longest records from locations across Canada that are in different regions. Well indicted on my site.

  130. #131 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    Ian, I thought you were done here. I guess the 2006 paper noted above is also wrong because they too looked at the highest TMax.

    Oh, and you are lying about me only using southern ontario. Anyone who looks at my site can see I use stations across Canada. And I have used anomalies too. So another lie on your part.

    Your Sachs Harbour is not increasing, unless you think a flat trend from 1940 is increasing. Here you are misrepresenting the facts on SH.

    But I’m willing to bet GGMcGready will see right through you on your assertions.

  131. #132 GGMcGready
    December 8, 2010

    Thank you Ian.
    So it sounds like a case where the use of one variable (Tmax) leads to more conclusions than are justified by the data.
    And I take it, as you say, that this is why climate science focuses on the anomalies, rather than the absolute temps.

    Good post. If Tmax is not a prudent basis for the methodology presented, then I can safely move on.

    Ian, since I am generally interested in how climate science treats the temperature data that scientists collect, any link you can provide that discusses this will be appreciated. [You can assume that I will be looking for the same information myself, but you seem to be particularly good at quickly accessing useful scientific material.]

  132. #133 Ian Forrester
    December 8, 2010

    Is anyone surprised why I get so angry with Wakefield. Sachs Harbour is not flat from 1940, it doesn’t even have any data for 1940, the first complete year of data is 1956. I plotted annual Tmax from 1956 to 2006 and showed a positive increase in annual Tmax of 0.043 degrees C per year. I have done the same for Coral Harbour (1960 to 2009) and found an increasing rate for annual Tmax of 0.057 degrees C per year.

    Wakefield is a liar and lies about what people here have posted.

    Dishonesty in science makes me very angry – oops I said that already. It is time some one acted on Wakefield’s dishonesty and moderated him into isolation, otherwise honest people will not waste their time reading such dishonest rubbish on a supposedly science blog.

  133. #134 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    Firstly, his use of annual Tmax is almost useless. Why should we think that what happened on one day a year will tell us anything about global warming?

    Ian, the claim is that summers should be getting hotter, there should be more heat waves. That cannot be tested with anomalies. The highest TMax will tell us that. So will the count of days above the second upper standard deviation. Both of which I have done for across Canada.

    If that is wrong, how else should I be measuring heatwaves over time? How would YOU test that?

  134. #135 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    Good post. If Tmax is not a prudent basis for the methodology presented, then I can safely move on.

    Then how come it was a good enough evaluation in the 2006 paper I noted? Seems an important measure for them. If highest TMax, or deviations above the summer second standard deviation is not an valid way to test for heat waves, then what is?

  135. #136 skip
    December 8, 2010

    Well indicted on my site.

    Freudian?

    First of all, you listed 14, not 17 as your site says. And I mapped them all. 6 were clustered within a few hundred miles of each other in the vicinity of Ottawa.

    The other 8 were indeed “across” Canada, but in essentially four couplings: central/western BC, another near Grand Prairie, and another two in central Saskatchewan and Manitoba. None are farther north than Grand Prairie.

    Do you agree with my characterization so far?

  136. #137 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    Sachs Harbour is not flat from 1940, it doesn’t even have any data for 1940, the first complete year of data is 1956. I plotted annual Tmax from 1956 to 2006 and showed a positive increase in annual Tmax of 0.043 degrees C per year.

    Yes, my err. It’s flat since 1970. http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/sachs-harbour.html You still have not answered my question. Is it flat since 1970? And how is that not relevant?

    I have done the same for Coral Harbour (1960 to 2009) and found an increasing rate for annual Tmax of 0.057 degrees C per year.

    I will check that location too, Ian. No comment until I check it.

  137. #138 GGMcGready
    December 8, 2010

    Richard,
    I am not writing you off just yet. I am going to read the 2006 paper you linked to. It’s 22 pages and I’m a notorious slow reader of scientific texts. The paper says in the introduction: “However, analyzing changes in extremes, such as changes in heat wave duration or in the number of days during which temperature exceeds its longterm 90th percentile, requires daily data in digital form”. I accept that you have referred to these requirements yourself. So, yes, I am skeptical of your approach, but generally open-minded enough to reserve judgment. I might post what I think of the 2006 paper if I feel I have anything of note to add.

  138. #139 Ian Forrester
    December 8, 2010

    GGMcGready be very careful of Wakefield’s sophistry. He manages to distort meanings and definitions to confuse the unwary reader. Wakefield uses annual Tmax whereas the 2006 paper uses daily Tmax, a very different kettle of fish (red herrings in Wakefield’s case). With Wakefieled’s definition you only get 40 data points in a 40 year period, with Stephenson et al‘s definition you get 3680 data points (92 for JJA times 40).

  139. #140 GGMcGready
    December 8, 2010

    Duly noted Ian.
    Unfortunately, the link given in 2.3, which defines the indices used is not working. I’d like to know how they define the warm spell duration index, which is reported as having a significantly increasing trend.
    I’m having a bit of trouble interpreting Figure 2, both for the maps and the plots. If you can assist, please do!

  140. #141 blueshift
    December 8, 2010

    Hello Ian,

    Yes, I’ve been wondering about the use of “annual Tmax”, and what probability distribution that would have. On a recent post Tamino mentioned “Extreme Value Theory”, but I don’t know if this Tmax would qualify or what effect that would have.

    Clearly this annual Tmax will exhibit much higher variability, and Richard has acknowledge that he doesn’t perform any statistical test to support his claims of cooling.

  141. #142 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    “However, analyzing changes in extremes, such as changes in heat wave duration or in the number of days during which temperature exceeds its longterm 90th percentile, requires daily data in digital form”. I accept that you have referred to these requirements yourself.

    90th percentile and above is beyond the second upper standard deviation. I did that exact analysis you quoted here:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/heat-wave-trends-across-canada.html

    As for:

    With Wakefieled’s definition you only get 40 data points in a 40 year period, with Stephenson et al’s definition you get 3680 data points (92 for JJA times 40).

    Ian is flat wrong. If you look at my graphs of full ranges, which I include, you will see a red line, the highest TMax for each year, a bottom blue line, the lowest TMin for the year, a black line which is the averaged TMean and two orange lines above and below the black lines. Those are standard deviations from the mean. To get that you have to use the full year’s temp data. So he is wrong, each year with a full range shown is 365×3 data points.

    If I use summer I will indicate if I use June, July and Aug, or if I’m looking for just the highest temps I will use July. What I pick for a range depends on the context of what I’m looking for. No point in including May in a summer only analysis.

    What you have to be carefull of with Ian is his cherry picking of stations. Notice both of them have short recordsets. Ian, how about picking a station with a recodset that starts at least before 1910.

  142. #143 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    Clearly this annual Tmax will exhibit much higher variability, and Richard has acknowledge that he doesn’t perform any statistical test to support his claims of cooling.

    What tests do you want me to perform? The ones Chris did and screwed up?

  143. #144 Ian Forrester
    December 8, 2010

    Wakefield stop your insulting and dishonest remarks. I did not cherry pick I picked two at random. I will not waste my time by working on all the stations, all I needed was one to show that your very first statement on the previous thread was wrong. Canada’s summers are not “cooling”, one small part is (southern Ontario).

    I will not respond to this thread as long as Wakefield is allowed to insult and smear anyone who contributes and shows that he is either wrong or dishonest (my bet is both).

    Coby, please act now to save your blog from being overrun by deniers since no-one wants to be treated in the manner Wakefield is doing. Deniers like Wakefield want to do nothing else but flood science blogs with their anti-science rubbish and chase away honest posters by insulting them and smearing them. If this is what you want on your blog then I’m afraid I won’t be contributing any more. I have spent a considerable amount of time on showing how out of touch with scientific reality Wakefield and others are but I have reached my limit.

  144. #145 skip
    December 8, 2010

    Richard,

    When you get a chance I’d like to see if you agree with my geographic generalizations regarding your heat wave analysis I mentioned in #136.

  145. #146 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    all I needed was one to show that your very first statement on the previous thread was wrong

    Right… take me to task for using one station for all Canada, but it’s OK for you to use one station to refute me. One station with half the records. Nice hypocrisy.

    Your trend for Sachs Harbour is ONLY since 1956. Not indicative of the whole century. What if the 1920′s was warmer Ian? Your increasing trend evaporates to a decreasing trend. That’s my point.

    You did not pick at random, you picked two with short ranges. The site pops up the range of years before you download, you can easily choose one with 100 years. That’s what I made sure I did, always pick the locations with the longest number of years.

  146. #147 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    I have spent a considerable amount of time on showing how out of touch with scientific reality Wakefield and others are but I have reached my limit.

    You left once, feel free to leave again any time. I’m sure people are sick of your insulting rants.

  147. #148 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    Sorry, didn’t see 136. Yes, as of yet I have not downloaded all the data from the NWT, Yukon or the east coast. I plan to do so. Just takes so long to get it, month or more. Have been busy with other projects over the summer.

    That said, the lattitudes of the locations is quite varied, and weather systems range over them the same. Example, Calgary vs Fort McMurray. The latter will be colder but I suspect the over all trends to match.

    However, Ian’s choice of Sachs Harbour is a pretty good indicator that since at least the 1970′s there has been no change in summer TMax. However, that location is right on the Arctic Ocean. Bodies of water tend to moderate temperatures as I saw in Belleville.

    That said, since all the rest of the locations are showing the same trend I would not expect the ones I don’t yet have to deviate from that any more than I would expect locations in Southern Ontario which have short records to deviate either.

    I did do Monkton NB for someone and it too showed a decrease in summer TMax.

  148. #149 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    Also skip, a heat wave in the NWT is anything over 25C. Hardly hot. I think what would be more important would be the end and begin times of the frost. That will affect permafrost. The longer the non-freezing time occurs the more permafrost will melt.

    So for up there “hot” periods are less likely to be important. Frost duration would be.

    That analysis has to be done using daily data, so cannot be determined with Ian’s data of Sachs Harbour.

  149. #150 skip
    December 8, 2010

    Ok, fair enough.

    But for now is it fair to say that “every station” is best interpreted as “every station you looked at?”

    I ask because I thought I saw both renditions of this point. Just asking for clarification . . . not trying to start a row.

  150. #151 Richard Wakefield
    December 8, 2010

    But for now is it fair to say that “every station” is best interpreted as “every station you looked at?”

    And I have said both, but mean the latter. I would assume that since the wide regions I have noted are doing the same thing and when I look at another station it is confirmed, one can easily project that every station will hence have the same or similar trend. (actually any differences in trends would need an explanation as to why) Problem is most stations don’t have long enough records to confirm. But with one location with a short dataset within a few hours drive of another location with a long dataset, I can safely say the first location would match the trend.

    That’s certainly better than the climatologists who use datasets from one location to project what another would do several thousand miles appart. Too much variation. Hell even between Ottawa and Harrow (7 hours from each other) can have a 10C difference in temps at the same time.

    So the daily temp ranges would be different, but the over all trends are the same.

  151. #152 skip
    December 8, 2010

    That’s certainly better than the climatologists who use datasets from one location to project what another would do several thousand miles appart. Too much variation.

    I guess it just seems . . .well . . .Hey look: here its almost bedtime in Reno. I’ll pick this up tomorrow after I give a final, ok Richard?

    In all sincerity sleep well.

  152. #153 coby
    December 8, 2010

    GGMcGready,

    There is something you need to consider when evaluating refutations of Richard’s claims and that is the difference between errors in his SQL, errors in his methods and errors in interpretation of his results.

    Richard’s repeated challenge to “show me where it is wrong!” in his SQL code puts the focus entirely on the trivial matter of “did the code do what I wanted it to do”. Richard’s flippant dismissal of Chris for wanting to take time to do his analysis properly shows he does not understand the importance of choosing his methods. Richard’s breathless conclusion that AGW has been “disproven” based on an alledged decline in annual maximum daily temperature shows a reckless overinterpretation of his results.

    Most of us here have been focusing on his methods and his conclusions, not on his actual analysis.

    Richard has yet to provide evidence that an apparent decline (to date) in the single highest daily temperature acheived in a calendar year disproves anything. He reasonably concludes that a year on year increase in globally and seasonally averaged temperatures should at some point result in that feature in the majority of regions around the world, but he incorrectly assumes that it must be discernable now and incorrectly assumes that the trends he is seeing must continue. (even as he acknowledges that they cannot, so it is not clear what that says about anything).

    Now, Richard has provided us another post, here: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/heat-wave-trends-across-canada.html in an attempt to expand his analysis (at my request) and answer the question “are there more heat waves?”

    I looked at that post and it becomes problematic very quickly. His step 1 says to use only July temps. Why? What is the justification for this? It is not stated. Does he think that heat waves can only happen in July? I don’t think this is reasonable if that is what he thinks.

    He has also decided to use only stations with continous 109 year records. This again seems arbitrary, but I understand it is good to have long records. But this leaves him with only 17 stations across the entire country and he describes them as having “good representation across the country”. This is simply an unsupportable statement. He has one station from all of Quebec, only two from British Columbia, nothing from any of the maritime provinces and nothing from the northern territories. His blog title is “Heat Waves Trends Across Canada” but he has not got nearly enough data to make any claim about that topic whatsoever.

    At this point, why should anyone read any further? His SQL queries are by design not informative so it does not matter if he did them right or not.

  153. #154 skip
    December 9, 2010

    Ok, Richard, I just want to *ask*–without any presumption that I’m making a profound point or insinuating you don’t have a sound reply–for a clarification on some things you’ve said. I honestly cannot reconcile them; so I’ll ask you to explain it to me.

    If this [summer and winter temperature convergence] is happening in Canada, then it must be happening in the US since the effects of AGW would not be altered by political boarders. Richard, GAS thread #21

    And

    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. Richard GAS #46

    (By the way its not a substantive issue but i’m a spelling/grammar Nazi and it grates me to see “border”–as in boundary–spelled “boarder”, as in one who rents a room, gets breakfast, and tries to screw the proprietor’s daughter.)

    That’s [referring to your method; and it brings up other question I have but I'll table those for now] certainly better than the climatologists who use data sets from one location to project what another would do several thousand miles apart. Too much variation. Hell even between Ottawa and Harrow (7 hours from each other) can have a 10C difference in temps at the same time. Richard GAS continued thread #151

    Question clear?

  154. #155 GGMcGready
    December 9, 2010

    It wouldn’t be fair for me to pass any comment until I know how the 2006 paper defines the Warm Spell Duration Index (WSDI). The link in the paper that gives these indices definitions isn’t working. Anyone know how they defined WSDI? Is it directly related to what we would think of as “heat waves”?

  155. #156 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    I looked at that post and it becomes problematic very quickly. His step 1 says to use only July temps. Why? What is the justification for this? It is not stated. Does he think that heat waves can only happen in July? I don’t think this is reasonable if that is what he thinks.

    July is the hottest month in Canada. I can certainly add more months, june and aug, but that would bring down the upper second standard deviation because june is a transition up to the highest, and aug is a transition down from the highest.

    If you want I can do each month separately, though I find it difficult to believe Jans will have any heat waves.

    He has also decided to use only stations with continous 109 year records.

    Yes, the longest possible years to get the best trend possible. If I choose more stations, I have to DROP off data from the longer stations to match up the start year. Wanna bet if I add more stations the drop trend will change to an increasing trend? yeah, right it will.

    Coby you are grasping at straws. It is very clear you consider dropping summer temps a real threat to AGW or you would not be spending so much effort to try and dismiss my analysis.

    Chris’ “analysis” is bogus bordering fraud. Interesting you support his pathetic attempt. Dogma at work.

  156. #157 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    Warm Spell Duration Index

    http://ontario.hazards.ca/maps/trends/wsdi-e.html

    In Canada, meteorological “heat waves” are defined by Environment Canada as:

    Three or more consecutive days in which the maximum temperature is greater than or equal to 32°C.

    Hence since the number of days above 30C has been dropping in Canada so too will the Warm Spell Duration Index. But if I’m forced to defend that I can certainly run tests on the data to do that. BTW, this would only be in June July and Aug.

  157. #158 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    Skip I’m not sure what you are asking for. All three of those are givens.

  158. #159 skip
    December 9, 2010

    Further clarifying what seem to be the key points from your quotes and your clarifying response:

    If this is happening in Canada, then it must be happening in the US . . .

    This is the first given?

    The continent is a single climate regime.

    This is the second given?

    . . . climatologists who use data sets from one location to project what another would do several thousand miles apart . . . [are using a methodology inferior to your own].

    This is the third given?

  159. #160 blueshift
    December 9, 2010

    #143 “What tests do you want me to perform? ”

    Richard, at a minimum you need a valid test of statistical significance if you are going to claim, as you do, that annual Tmax is dropping. If it is statistically indistinguishable from a flat line then you can’t make that claim.

    Now, my statistical knowledge is basically limited to normally distributed data and it seems like annual extreme values wouldn’t be normally distributed. I don’t know that though, so you should do some of the standard tests to see what sort of distribution you have.

    On a slightly different topic, you make a serious error in #142 when you say “90th percentile and above is beyond the second upper standard deviation.”

    No. Two standard deviations captures over 95% of the population. (Z-score of 1.96=95% to be precise). *But* that is split between the two tails of the distribution, so your two standard deviations is looking at ~ the top 97.5 percentile and above.

    Your analysis shows that daily Tmax is going up while the extreme Tmax *seems* to be going down. So if you look at the top 90 percentile as heat waves you may well replicate the results of the paper.

  160. #161 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    If this is happening in Canada, then it must be happening in the US . . .

    This is the first given?

    The continent is a single climate regime.

    This is the second given?

    All I can say about these two is to watch the weather channel and observe how systems move across the US and Canada. I do that every morning. It’s really quite interesting to see how systems move around. Pay particular attention to the jet stream and how it is altered by frontal systems, and how low pressure systems track the jet stream.

    . . . climatologists who use data sets from one location to project what another would do several thousand miles apart . . . [are using a methodology inferior to your own].

    This is the third given?

    If you check EC’s site you will see they have an over all picture of temperatures in Canada. Problem is there arn’t stations all across Canada. In fact the number of active stations is less than 1/4 of what they were in the 1980s. I can get the actual count for you if you want it. But it begs the question, how do they know what the temperature trend has been in Northern Ontario where there are no stations? They use lower lattitude stations and “project” the data with equations. In other words, they are inventing data that does not exist.

  161. #162 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    Now, my statistical knowledge is basically limited to normally distributed data and it seems like annual extreme values wouldn’t be normally distributed. I don’t know that though, so you should do some of the standard tests to see what sort of distribution you have.

    Not sure what more you want me to do than this:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/heat-wave-trends-across-canada.html

    Understand that 100 years is really quite short to show anything long term. And that goes for the average of the yearly anomaly means too.

    On a slightly different topic, you make a serious error in #142 when you say “90th percentile and above is beyond the second upper standard deviation.”

    No. Two standard deviations captures over 95% of the population. (Z-score of 1.96=95% to be precise). *But* that is split between the two tails of the distribution, so your two standard deviations is looking at ~ the top 97.5 percentile and above.

    Your analysis shows that daily Tmax is going up while the extreme Tmax *seems* to be going down. So if you look at the top 90 percentile as heat waves you may well replicate the results of the paper.

    Fair enough, will correct that, and I will check that 90% trend. Don’t count on it changing.

    Not sure how you get that TMax is increasing. Where do you see that?

  162. #163 skip
    December 9, 2010

    I appreciate the additional commentary but does that mean “yes” to all three?

  163. #164 blueshift
    December 9, 2010

    “Not sure what more you want me to do than this:”

    Richard, I was referring to your statements about annual Tmax dropping. Quickly scanning the link you gave it looks like that is your heat wave analysis. You said earlier that your Tmax analysis is a plot of the 10 year average. I’m saying that is not a statistical test.

    “Not sure how you get that TMax is increasing.”

    I thought you agreed that if you plot the *daily* Tmax and fit a straight line, there is a statistically significant increase.

  164. #165 blueshift
    December 9, 2010

    Richard,

    It would be very helpful if you would always identify which Tmax you are referring to, i.e. annual or daily. I’ll try to do the same.

  165. #166 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    Blueshift. I use ONLY daily TMax. (except Ian’s Sachs Harbour that has only monthly).

    I did the 17 station july data at above the 10% percentile. I got the top 10% of records for each station and dumped them into a single table, and did a count for each year.

    It’s the top graph:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/heat-wave-trends-across-canada.html

    Trend is down. The linear trend has only a 3% R2, so not significant. The other line is a 10 year moving average. The trend of that is also down.

    Canada has fewer heat waves, no matter how you look at it the result is the same. So when are you going to admit this?

    I thought you agreed that if you plot the *daily* Tmax and fit a straight line, there is a statistically significant increase.

    No there is no increase in the full set of daily TMax. See second graph as an example:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/11/station-2973-muenster-saskatchewan.html

  166. #167 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    I appreciate the additional commentary but does that mean “yes” to all three?

    Yes it does.

  167. #168 skip
    December 9, 2010

    Ok cool.

    Let me ponder that a bit.

  168. #169 skip
    December 9, 2010

    Lets hold these questions for a moment.

    I have a question about your data, Richard, and might in fact ask you to send it to me as well. (I won’t be doing anything like Chris will attempt.)

    But anyway, its possible to use the data to find the exact *date* of the Tmax for any month of any year, right?

  169. #170 blueshift
    December 9, 2010

    “Blueshift. I use ONLY daily TMax.”

    Richard, again there seems to be confusion regarding terms. If I understand you correctly, you are using daily Tmax for this current heat wave analysis. That seems appropriate.

    However, this is not what I was talking about. Except in regards to 2 SD’s and the 90th percentile (and kudos to you for redoing that portion of your analysis). I was talking about your main claim in the prior thread which was that the annual Tmax is declining. You said clearly that this annual Tmax was declining based solely on plotting the 10 year moving average. It is this annual Tmax analysis that I’m saying needs further work. You need to 1) determine the distribution of the values, 2) apply a statistical test to see if the decline is distinguishable from the null hypothesis.

    “Canada has fewer heat waves, no matter how you look at it the result is the same. So when are you going to admit this?”

    After I have time to review heat wave analysis in detail and be certain that I understand what you’ve done and agree with the methods. Note that I’ve never said anything one way or the other about Canadian heat waves. So asking me to “admit” something about them is a loaded term.

  170. #171 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    But anyway, its possible to use the data to find the exact *date* of the Tmax for any month of any year, right?

    Of course.

    But wait a bit for me to send it, I’m going to change the July only temps by adding june and aug so I can do a proper count of the number of summer heat waves (as per the EC definition) for those 17 stations.

    I have to write two small routines to do that.

  171. #172 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    1) determine the distribution of the values, 2) apply a statistical test to see if the decline is distinguishable from the null hypothesis.

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/11/station-2973-muenster-saskatchewan.html second graph is the full range of summer TMax temps for that location.

    Red the highest, blue the lowest, black the average, and orange the SD. The Correlation Coefficient of the entire data set is about 3%. So very widely varied, and a straight line meaningless.

    After I have time to review heat wave analysis in detail and be certain that I understand what you’ve done and agree with the methods.

    I’m doing that now. I’m loading June and Aug records as well as the July. Keep in mind that each station is a separate MDB file, To do a bunch of stations together I have to write a routine to move the records I need into a single MDB file. The July temp data was all stations I have in one table for just July. I will be reloading that same table with June and Aug so I can count the heat waves per EC definition.

    But because of family visits this weekend I likely won’t get it done before monday.

  172. #173 blueshift
    December 9, 2010

    “second graph is the full range of summer TMax temps for that location.

    Red the highest”

    So the red line, which is also your third graph, is also what you call the “highest Tmax”, or what I call the annual Tmax? That is, the single highest recorded value per year.

    Am I getting all of that right?

  173. #174 skip
    December 9, 2010

    Better yet . . .

    Richard I know this is asking a lot after all we’ve been through, but . . . could *you* do it? Could you just have Excel catch and list the *dates* of the all the days that were in the (as Blue pointed out; I hadn’t thought of it) positive 2.5% tail of the distribution?

    What I’m interested in are the exact *dates* of the all the days that were counted as in that extreme tail of the distribution that formed the basis of the annual totals and thus the trend lines you showed in your heat wave days analysis. Make sense?

  174. #175 GGMcGready
    December 9, 2010

    Gosh, almost seems like some civility has broken out, if the last dozen posts or more are anything to go by.

    Richard, to be fair to you, that 2006 paper does use the annual Tmax (from daily Tmax) records as a measure of climate change. Same for your Tmin. And the way you are constructing your data trends *seems* to be generally okay (I’ll incur some wrath for that loose statement I have no doubt . . .) In fact, I would say that your regional trends that I have seen so far generally support part of the 2006 paper’s findings, i.e. that the world is becoming both less cold and more hot, but that the rise in Tmin is faster than the rise in Tmax. Your contention that Tmax shows a declining trend *everywhere* is not supported by the paper, not at all. Note also the field significance the authors were able to apply to the Warm spell duration (WSDI). While it is *possible* that parts of Canada might be showing fewer heat waves (I really don’t know, you are going to do more work on this it seems), the 2006 paper indicates otherwise for a global trend.
    Like I said before, you have a ways to go in your own data analysis before you can make anything like definitive statements, but according to what the paper itself says, your own findings are actually not that controversial with respect to the tenets of AGW: “The changes in temperature extremes documented here are what one would generally expect in a warming world: decreases in cold extremes and increases in warm extremes. As the decreases in extreme minimum temperatures are greater than the increases in extreme maximum temperature, these results agree with earlier global studies . . . and regional studies.”

    Don’t use linear regression (or polynomials!) to determine a trend’s direction. Too crude. Use the Mann-Kendall non-parametric test, or other relevant techniques, though note the authors’ caution on autocorrelation, etc.

    You can actually help yourself here by maybe dialing down your expectations of your own analyses until you have shown some rigor in those analyses. Try to keep the strident tones and the vitriol out of your language, including your blog (and yes, I know, there are guilty parties on both sides, etc) and you will find that not all folk are bad, even those who don’t necessarily agree with your world view.

  175. #176 Harold Pierce Jr
    December 9, 2010

    FWIW: Here is one of my recent post on WUWT

    Steven Mosher says on October 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm:

    Its simple: C02 warms, how much is the question.

    As a matter of fact, CO2 does not cause warming of near surface air.

    Go to the late John Daly’s website “Still Waiting for Greenhouse” at:

    http://www.John-Daly.com.

    On the home page scroll down at click on “Station Temperature Data”

    On the world map click on the USA. In the “Pacific” section click on “Death Valley”. The temperature data is from the weather station at Furnace Creek. Death Valley is driest and hottest region in North America.

    A desert is an aired region with low relative humidity, low biomass of plants and animals, little or no free standing or running water, and cloudless skies. After sunrise, the land and air heat rapidly because there are few plants to block sunlight. The air heats mostly by conduction and convection. Some heat is lost from the surface by emission of out-going, long wavelenght IR (OLIR).

    After sunset the air temperature falls rapidly because the land cools mostly by conduction and convection and there is little water vapor to absorb OLIR or clouds which can confine rising warm air and absorb the OLIR.

    If increasing concentration of CO2 has any efffect on warming the air near the weather station, we would anticipate a small but descernible increase in mean temperature over time. The graph shows that the trend lines for the four seasons are essentially flat. Thus we can conlude that CO2 does not cause warming of the air at this weather staton.

    We do not know the actual atmospheric concentraion of CO2 in Death Valley only that it will increase over time as indicated by data from Mauna Loa. Since the air is densier in the winter than in the summer, we would anticipate that the trend line for former should have a slightly greater slope than the later. The trend lines for these two seasons are flat, and this is additional evidence that CO2 has no detectable effect on warming surface air.

    Check the graphs for Tombstone and Dodge City and for weather stations in Utah. Alice Springs is one other site that has shown no increase in annaul mean temperature at the Old Post Office for over a century.

    -=-Harold the Chemist

    PS You guys waste too much time posting comments on the climate blogs. Don’t you some “chores” to do?

  176. #177 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    So the red line, which is also your third graph, is also what you call the “highest Tmax”, or what I call the annual Tmax? That is, the single highest recorded value per year.

    Am I getting all of that right?

    Correct, SUMMERS only, june, july aug. With the blue line the lowest TMax (summer nights), the black line the average TMax. The span between the highest and lowest would be the number of days in those three months reflected in the average and the two SD.

  177. #178 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    What I’m interested in are the exact *dates* of the all the days that were counted as in that extreme tail of the distribution that formed the basis of the annual totals and thus the trend lines you showed in your heat wave days analysis. Make sense?

    I will get that with the reloaded data.

  178. #179 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    Thanks Harold, very interesting indeed, will check it out. This may also be nice evidence to show that there is an upper limit on how hot any single place can get. The day length is simply not long enough to let any more solar radiation be captured and built up, even for CO2. The amount of maximum absorbtion of CO2 would be high noon, from then on the sinking sun would have less for CO2 to capture.

  179. #180 Richard Wakefield
    December 9, 2010

    Skip, you are not going to believe this, but you have provided me with something I never thought to look at. I thank you very much. Check this out:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/heart-beat-of-hottest-day-of-year.html

    This is the hottest day in july for each year. The Y-Axis is the days in July. Each dot is the highest day reached for that year. VERY INTERESTING AND SIGNIFICANT! See anything familiar? Want to guess why it is significant?

  180. #181 Ian Forrester
    December 9, 2010

    Wakefield is wrong again:

    I did the 17 (14 actually, you can’t even count) station july data at above the 10% percentile. I got the top 10% of records for each station and dumped them into a single table, and did a count for each year.

    It’s the top graph:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/heat-wave-trends-across-canada.html

    Trend is down. The linear trend has only a 3% R2, so not significant. The other line is a 10 year moving average. The trend of that is also down.

    Canada has fewer heat waves, no matter how you look at it the result is the same. So when are you going to admit this?

    So you think that the hottest temperature only occurs in July, do you? Well, I have to inform you that that is completely wrong.

    I have only done one station but I would expect other stations to show similar results.

    I did Ottawa (MacDonald-Cartier Airport; 6106000; WMO 71628) since it seems to be your favourite.

    During the period 1970 to 2010 annual Tmax’s were distributed as follows:

    May 2
    June 9
    July 14
    August 13
    June and August 1
    July and August 2

    You had better rethink and redo your “heat wave trends across Canada” graph.

    It just goes to show that someone can use Excel and write squiggly code but they don’t have a clue about weather or climate.

    Some day in the future some archeo-climatologist will stumble over Wakefield’s web site and think that it is a good job honest people did not believe in what he was doing otherwise we wouldn’t have prepared for and prevented AGW.

  181. #182 skip
    December 9, 2010

    I will get that with the reloaded data.

    Right sporting of you; I’m indebted. Thanks for saving me the time/effort during finals week.

    Skip, you are not going to believe this, but you have provided me with something I never thought to look at.

    Well, hey. This is what I do.

    VERY INTERESTING AND SIGNIFICANT! See anything familiar? Want to guess why it is significant?

    I’ll take a stab: Tmax in July has leveled/appears to show an upper limit? Am I warm? Am I cold?

    [at this point I would appreciate courtesy laughter on my pun from all . . . ]

    Is that what you’re driving at? If not I still want an A for effort. (I’ve been swamped and harangued by needy students the last two days and its affecting my mindset.)

  182. #183 Richard Wakefield
    December 10, 2010

    Ian, you missed the boat again. I never said July was the hottest. July is the peak summer month. Dosn’t mean other months don’t have high temps, but the crest of summer, mid summer, is July. I am redoing it today with june july and aug, but I’m sure you will find something in that to call me a liar.

    I thought you where done with this?

    And if you think it is possible to prevent AGW, well that says volumes about being a True Believer of the AGW Faith.

  183. #184 Richard Wakefield
    December 10, 2010

    I’ll take a stab: Tmax in July has leveled/appears to show an upper limit? Am I warm? Am I cold?

    Warm, yes. Actually because of Ian’s rant it shows two things.

    First, this is not just from July’s data, it’s ALL data from 2971. It shows that the highest temp always falls in July, which makes July having the hottest day of the year.

    Second, what I find interesting is that swing back and forth across the month. (The Y-Axis is days in July) When one year has the hottest day at the beginning days of July, the following year it swings to the end of the month. If not immediately the next year, it tracks in that direction. Just like a pendulum. It makes it almost predictable the day the following year will have as the highest temp.

    The over all trend however, linear line through the points, is towards the end of July, but the R2 is only 2%. The 10 year moving average trends towards the end of July. But I suspect there is a heart-beat like pattern to that with a period of over 100 years. Aug can’t have the highest temp of the year, so the long term trend would have to reverse and head back to the beginning of July.

    From this, however, one could claim that AGW is moving the hottest day of the year into Aug. But as I have noted, and you seem to reject, correlation is not evidence of causation. This is a nice example of that axiom.

  184. #185 skip
    December 10, 2010

    Hm.

    Lot of questions about the above post, but does this statement . . .

    Aug can’t have the highest temp of the year, so the long term trend would have to reverse and head back to the beginning of July.

    follow from this:

    [The graph]It shows that the highest temp always falls in July, which makes July having the hottest day of the year [for station 2971].

    Does this then refute Ian, in your view?

  185. #186 Richard Wakefield
    December 10, 2010

    Does this then refute Ian, in your view?

    What is shows is my use of July as the hottest month of the year is correct. Doesn’t mean there are no hot days outside July.

  186. #187 skip
    December 10, 2010

    Well, I have to say I’m still a bit puzzled but I need to unclog the P-trap under my wife’s shower basin. Marriage . . . .

    Anyway, will be delighted to see those significant days dated. Thanks again.

  187. #188 Richard Wakefield
    December 10, 2010

    Skip, I screwed up. To get those dates I used a query I had already saved, as to get this data one needs to run a number of subqueries first. As I was getting your dates I noticed I left the critia for the month at 7. So that previous link was incorrect, and has been deleted. Ian will be jumping for joy over this.

    Here is the correct graphs and your data:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/hottest-day-of-year.html

    The hottest day ranges quite wildly across the summer, but still a heart-beat like pattern, with 1952 having the hottest day of the year Apr 28 of all dates. So I plotted that year’s full range of temps. That summer was quite flat. This tends to support my premise that the summer can only get so hot.

    So when I do the heat wave data as per the definition at EC I will be including data for 17 stations from May to Sept.

  188. #189 coby
    December 10, 2010

    Richard, in #183 you said “I never said July was the hottest.” And in #186 you say “What is shows is my use of July as the hottest month of the year is correct.”

    I am sure I am not the only one who is finding you to be a bit confusing. These are clearly contradictory statements, or you are using the same language all over the place but meaning different things.

    Now, you are claiming to be plotting the trend in hottest day of the year, but only use July data. At least I think that is what you are doing. Ian has found that the hottest day of the year occurs in July less than half the time in the one weather station he looked at. You have not even made it clear whether you accept that statement as accurate or not.

    If you continue to post can you please try to define your terms clearly and use them consistently?

    It is true that the hottest month of the year ON AVERAGE is July. Yet July can not be counted on to always, or even usually, have the hottest day of the year. So what this tells you is that your metrics are too eratic, they are dominated by weather not climate signal and have no statistical significance.

  189. #190 coby
    December 10, 2010

    I would also like to note for the record that Richard has not tried to defend himself about the lack of coverage his data has. He said “17 in all. Good representation across the country.”

    This is simply an unsupportable statement. He has one station from all of Quebec, only two from British Columbia, nothing from any of the maritime provinces and nothing from the northern territories. His blog title is “Heat Waves Trends Across Canada” but he has not got nearly enough data to make any claim about that topic whatsoever.

    What he is really analysing is the occurence of hot days in July in a stations scattered across the southern half of Canada from the western to the central provinces.

    There is no reason to expect any meaningful signal to come out of that.

  190. #191 skip
    December 10, 2010

    P-trap fixed! I think . . .

    Thanks Richard I will check that out and get back sometime over the weekend.

  191. #192 skip
    December 10, 2010

    Hottest Day of the year

    Station 2973 hottest day of each year.

    Richard this was the top of the post that came up when I hit your link.

    Is this what you wanted me to see? I ask because what I was really interested in was the dates of the tail-of-the-distribution days from your Canadian Heat Waves analysis. That would mean all 14 (I think most of us are assuming 17 was a typo) of the stations used for that particular analysis.

    If its not feasible to do this owing to time constraints I understand.

  192. #193 Richard Wakefield
    December 11, 2010

    At least I think that is what you are doing. Ian has found that the hottest day of the year occurs in July less than half the time in the one weather station he looked at.

    That will be shown on Monday when I finish the new analysis.

    This is simply an unsupportable statement. He has one station from all of Quebec, only two from British Columbia, nothing from any of the maritime provinces and nothing from the northern territories.

    And why did I pick only those 17 stations, Coby? It’s right on the posting. They are the ONLY ones I have that start at 1900, that’s why. Most stations in Canada have their start years in the mid 1980s. There are only a handfull of stations that start in the early 1900′s. To get the best possible timeframe to see any trends you have to choose the longest time possibe. If I choose stations that start in the 1920′s, then I have to remove records prior to that for those stations with longer records, otherwise the early years gets skewed because of lack of station data.

    Does that not make sense?

  193. #194 Richard Wakefield
    December 11, 2010

    Is this what you wanted me to see? I ask because what I was really interested in was the dates of the tail-of-the-distribution days from your Canadian Heat Waves analysis. That would mean all 14 (I think most of us are assuming 17 was a typo) of the stations used for that particular analysis.

    If you want the highest temp data for all 17 stations then it will be a three dimentional matrix of days since jan 1 as Y, years as X and stations as Z with each cell the date. Each station will have its own year’s highest temp date.

  194. #195 skip
    December 11, 2010

    Let’s settle one thing first because its driving me batty.

    I counted 14 on the list. Is that the correct number?

  195. #196 Richard Wakefield
    December 11, 2010

    It should be 17, must have not copied them all for the pasting. The analysis was done with 17, just checked. The next one will be 17.

  196. #197 skip
    December 11, 2010

    ok.

  197. #198 Harold Pierce Jr
    December 11, 2010

    Coby at 190

    FYI it is difficult to find _remote_ weather stations in Canada that have been at one site for a long time–like for 100 years and have an unbroken station records

    In BC recorded keeping at Quatsino begin in 1895, but there a number of months with no records. Also there are many months that don’t have a complete record.

    In my study of the weather data from the Quatsino station I had to use some data from nearby Cape Scott.

    There is a Lightstation at Quatsino, but since record keeping began in 1979 the data is not particulary useful.

    For a useful analysis of weather data for North America, stations that began record keeping before ca 1930 are required, i.e., before the start of the Dust Bowl Drought.

  198. #199 coby
    December 12, 2010

    Richard, the reasons you had for trimming your data to those 17 stations are utterly irrelevant to the fact that it is not enough data to make your claims.

    No one said it was easy…well accept for you. Are you starting to understand why Chris said it takes time to do a proper analysis? You have to intelligently balance your choices. In your case you have chosen a long unbroken record above all other considerations and have made huge leaps from woefully inadequate evidence.

  199. #200 Richard Wakefield
    December 12, 2010

    Richard, the reasons you had for trimming your data to those 17 stations are utterly irrelevant to the fact that it is not enough data to make your claims.

    No one said it was easy…well accept for you. Are you starting to understand why Chris said it takes time to do a proper analysis? You have to intelligently balance your choices. In your case you have chosen a long unbroken record above all other considerations and have made huge leaps from woefully inadequate evidence.

    This is all the data we have. How would YOU do it differently? How would YOU balance this?

    Look at the bottom graph here:
    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/03/precipitation-trends-for-all-canada.html

    This is precipitation, but that data is in with the temp data, thus the number of records is the same for each station. Notice the shape.

    So how would YOU choose the data to look for trends!? NO amount of time by Chris or anyone will change this. What possible “proper” analysis can Chris do to fix this? Unless that is Chris is working on a way to create, ex nihilo, records where none exists today.

  200. #201 PaulinMI
    December 12, 2010

    by Richard Foot, Canwest News Service January 21, 2010
    _________________________________________________________

    . . . only one station — at Eureka on Ellesmere Island — is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists%20using%20selective%20temperature%20data%20skeptics/2468634/story.html
    __________________________________________________

    Sounds like he is in good company -

  201. #202 coby
    December 12, 2010

    Richard: This is all the data we have. How would YOU do it differently? How would YOU balance this?

    This is one approach: Trends were computed for 1900–1998 for southern Canada (south of 608N), and separately for 1950–1998 for the entire country, due to insufficient data

  202. #203 skip
    December 12, 2010

    Paul,

    If you really, really want to discuss this stale biscuit (of which there have been at least two versions as Smith and D’aleo backtracked from their original claims) from the great minds at SPPI, then I’ll meet you at the “There is no reason to believe the Earth is Warming Thread”.

    Richard,

    As of tonight, your Canadian heat waves link still lists 14 specific stations in total. Do you want to just tell us what the missing three are?

  203. #204 Richard Wakefield
    December 13, 2010

    separately for 1950–1998 for the entire country, due to insufficient data

    In other words only 48 years, no long term trend for the rest of the country, nice. If I tried that from the beginning you would be all over me for not getting a long enough recordset to see a longer term trend.

    Coby I get the feeling from you that I can’t win regardless of what I do. You will claim I’m doing it wrong. That to me spell volumes as you just cannot accept that summers are cooling. So that must really be a threat to AGW.

  204. #205 Richard Wakefield
    December 13, 2010

    As of tonight, your Canadian heat waves link still lists 14 specific stations in total. Do you want to just tell us what the missing three are?

    I’ll be doing it tonight, all new page, that one will be deleted.

  205. #206 Ian Forrester
    December 13, 2010

    Wakefield’s biggest lie:

    That to me spell volumes as you just cannot accept that summers are cooling.

    There are many lies, distortions and misrepresentations by Wakefield on the two threads devoted to his nonsense and on his web site.

    However, the biggest lie of all is his claim that “summers are cooling” as anyone who has read other researchers’ reports or done their own research can testify to.

  206. #207 skip
    December 13, 2010

    Is this also going to (and again I don’t know how feasible this is) have some sort of report on the *dates* of the heatwave days by station?

  207. #208 Richard Wakefield
    December 13, 2010

    This is one approach: Trends were computed for 1900–1998 for southern Canada (south of 608N), and separately for 1950–1998 for the entire country, due to insufficient data

    Hey Coby, you just confirmed I’m doing it correctly with my 17 stations. They are all from southern Canada.

  208. #209 skip
    December 13, 2010

    Hey Coby, you just confirmed I’m doing it correctly with my 17 stations. They are all from southern Canada.

    But I thought you were making generalizations about the whole country from your 17, not just southern Canada? Did I misunderstand you?

  209. #210 coby
    December 13, 2010

    Claim: “Heat waves accross Canada are declining”
    Reality: “There are fewer extreme heat days in July in a handful of stations in southern Canada”

    Criticism: “you do not have enough data to claim what you are claiming”
    Defense: “That is all I have”

    It can not be put much simler than that, Richard.

  210. #211 Richard Wakefield
    December 13, 2010

    It can not be put much simler than that, Richard.

    If that is going to be your position, then you cannot claim ANYTHING from the data. Not hotter summers, not warmer winters, NOTHING. It goes both ways.

  211. #212 coby
    December 13, 2010

    Agreed. (ie can not claim anything from the count of extreme hot and cold days in your 17 stations)

  212. #213 Ian Forrester
    December 13, 2010

    Wakefield whined:

    If that is going to be your position, then you cannot claim ANYTHING from the data. Not hotter summers, not warmer winters, NOTHING. It goes both ways.

    Wakefield fails logic 101 again. Nobody, except you in your erroneous claims, is claiming anything from the limited data you provided. Except of course that the data describe what is going on in a very small segment of the whole earth. That you will extrapolate your findings from such a small area to the whole globe just shows how wrong your whole exercise in climate science has been.

    By the way, I noticed on your rainfall data page (referred to in post #200) that Cartwright, NL, has an annual rainfall of 30,000-40,000 “something or others”. You omit including units (as is your normal MO). Please tell me what the “some thing or others” are, curious minds want to know if the people in Cartwright should be building an ark or not. Did you include this huge number in your calculation of average over Canada?

  213. #214 Richard Wakefield
    December 13, 2010

    I’ve started:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-1.html

    The number of stations I had to drop to 15 from 17 because 2 of the stations had way too many holes even though the start date was 1900. One had several years missing in the 1910′s and 1920′s.

    Will be doing part 2 and 3 next.

  214. #215 Richard Wakefield
    December 13, 2010

    Agreed. (ie can not claim anything from the count of extreme hot and cold days in your 17 stations)

    No, by your logic not from ANY of the stations taken together. If the time frame is too short for most of the stations, how can you get ANY meaningful trends?

    I suspect you will not find my logic in the new post convincing either, because you are so afraid that I’m right, that TMax is dropping, and a real threat to AGW, that there isn’t ANYTHING I can do that will convince you.

    We are back to the dogma again.

  215. #216 Richard Wakefield
    December 13, 2010

    Ian, I thought you were done with this, threating Coby and all. Just can’t help yourself can you.

  216. #217 Ian Forrester
    December 13, 2010

    Wakefield, no comments on the rainfall at Cartwright yet? You are so full of nonsense and hatred towards science.

    And what on earth does “threating Coby and all” mean?

    I will add linguistically challenged to your long list of subjects in which you need to take remedial course work to get your self up to at least the level of junior high.

  217. #218 Richard Wakefield
    December 13, 2010

    Wakefield, no comments on the rainfall at Cartwright yet

    Why don’t you check what the rain fall units are that EC uses. What is the most common rainfall units used in meteorology? They are all the same units.

    Go to the EC site and enter that station number.

  218. #219 Richard Wakefield
    December 13, 2010

    Doing a record count on these 15 stations, I noticed that only 4 go to 2009, the end of my range of data. Some of these others are also missing years inside the 1900-2009 range. Thus all I can do to the trend for summer heat waves using all the stations together is anomalies.

    Doing that the summer TMax trend is still down from 1900. Summers are still cooling no matter how I look at the records.

  219. #220 Ian Forrester
    December 13, 2010

    Wakefield, have you even looked at the graph you have on your site for Cartwright? Do you honestly believe that it gets 40,000 mms of rain per year?

    You are so stupid, even elementary students are told to look over their work before handing it in.

    And since when is Calgary in “Central Canada”?

  220. #221 coby
    December 13, 2010

    Richard, I am sure there are whole textbooks written on how to combine measurements from sources of varying quality and coverage. The global datasets don’t remove every record that is not of perfect length missing absolutely no days or years, they intelligently analyze the data they have and use advanced statistical techniques to see what information and at what certainty can be teased out. ‘it just is not as simple as you imagine. For starters, you could include stations that start a little later, all it does is increase uncertainty. Look at the error bars on the GISS analysis, the error range is .2oC at the beginning, diminishing to .1oc at the end. They don’t simply draw a straight line the use 5 year smoothing. CRU uses 22 year smoothing.

    you are so afraid that I’m right, that TMax is dropping

    Actually, Richard, I have said several times that I simply do not find it significant what is happening to such a small set of data points representing a small region of the globe. Now, if this (alledged) trend continued for some length of time that was statistically very improbable given a rise in average OR if this (alledged) trend were indeed global I would find it very interesting. But there have been studies of global extreme weather events that show significantly more highs than lows.

    You also still have never clearly articulated why a rising average temp driven by nighttimes and winter would not be important OR how this would prove that CO2 is not the driver of the changing climate.

  221. #222 skip
    December 13, 2010

    You also still have never clearly articulated why a rising average temp driven by nighttimes and winter would not be important OR how this would prove that CO2 is not the driver of the changing climate.

    Coby,

    In Richard’s defense, he actually has provided a rationale of sorts for both of these propositions (not that either has convinced me yet): Milder winters and less colds nights are pleasant; winter and summer temperature convergence must end eventually, which (somehow) demonstrates these patterns are not caused by CO2 and/or other GHGs.

    I’m going back to his blog to look at the updated heat waves analysis . . . .

  222. #223 skip
    December 13, 2010

    Ok Richard I checked it out.

    A few questions:

    Is Chilliwak (735) the added station from the original list of 14?

    Recall that the warming trend that the AGW proponents says is happening is increasing in temps from 1850 to 1945, then a drop until 1975, then an increase since 1975.

    Clarifying your view of “AGW proponents’” position: Do you think AGW proponents think that CO2 caused temperatures to rise, then drop, then rise again?

    So starting the analysis too far from 1900 will not show a proper over all trend. Especially if, as we have seen in some of the stations, the warmest and coldest years were in the mid 1920′s.

    Do you mean “some of the stations” of the 15 analyzed for your heat wave analysis? Are there other stations for which the 1920s were *not* the “warmest and coldest years”?

    And that also brings up another point about this statement from your blog on the revised link:

    Thus if you want 50 stations in the analysis it would have to start in year 1911 to prevent the lower number of stations before that data skewing the results. If you wanted 100 stations, it would have to start in 1930.

    Out of curiosity, does this mean you’ve run these analyses?

  223. #224 Richard Wakefield
    December 14, 2010

    Wakefield, have you even looked at the graph you have on your site for Cartwright? Do you honestly believe that it gets 40,000 mms of rain per year?

    Fuck, Ian. Do you think I make these numbers up? That’s what comes from EC data!! That’s TOTAL precip. If you think I’m lying GO DOWN LOAD THE FUCKING DATA YOURSELF!

  224. #225 Richard Wakefield
    December 14, 2010

    I am sure there are whole textbooks written on how to combine measurements from sources of varying quality and coverage. The global datasets don’t remove every record that is not of perfect length missing absolutely no days or years, they intelligently analyze the data they have and use advanced statistical techniques to see what information and at what certainty can be teased out.

    In other words inventing data that does not exist. I will show why that is not realistic to do. The errors are too high, uncertainty too high. Interesting that you accept this method of data ex nihilo to show global trends, but not when individual stations are shown.

    You also still have never clearly articulated why a rising average temp driven by nighttimes and winter would not be important OR how this would prove that CO2 is not the driver of the changing climate.

    You have not clearly articulated why a DROPPING of summer TMax is predicted by AGW. You have been completely silent on that question.

    This data trend is NOT definitive evidence of anything. Natural variation, pendulum cycles within cycles on 100 year time scales can also explain this, including summer drops. This is NOT discriminatory evidence for AGW. That’s what you need and it does not exist.

    What evidence do you have in the temperature records that can ONLY be explained by AGW? What would the planet be doing right now if there was no FF emissions of CO2?

  225. #226 Richard Wakefield
    December 14, 2010

    Is Chilliwak (735) the added station from the original list of 14?

    I’d have to check. I’m pausing this analysis as I need to do a bulk data count. I’m still seeing to many holes in the data.

    Clarifying your view of “AGW proponents’” position: Do you think AGW proponents think that CO2 caused temperatures to rise, then drop, then rise again?

    Well, that is the billion dollar question. Ask this group what they think. Did our CO2 emissions from 1850-1945 cause that increase in temps? I have ask that here several times and no one is willing to take on that question.

    Do you mean “some of the stations” of the 15 analyzed for your heat wave analysis? Are there other stations for which the 1920s were *not* the “warmest and coldest years”?

    Not so far, all the stations I have plotted that go back that far shows the 1920s were hot summers and very cold winters.

    Out of curiosity, does this mean you’ve run these analyses?

    Not yet. That graph is based on the start year for each station which I did by looping through all the station’s database files, running a query to get the first year, and updating the master file with those years.

  226. #227 Richard Wakefield
    December 14, 2010

    Mann and Schmidt at RC:

    The problem of anthropogenic climate change cannot be settled by a purely statistical argument. We can have no controlled experiment with a series of exchangeable Earths randomly assigned to various forcing levels to enable traditional statistical studies of causation. (The use of large-scale climate system models can be viewed as a surrogate, though we need to better assess this.) Rather, the issue involves the combination of statistical analyses and, rather than versus, climate science.

    http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/8369?confirm=30abb49d

  227. #228 Richard Wakefield
    December 14, 2010

    Hansen’s “Hottest Year Ever” Is Primarily Based On Fabricated Data

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/hansens-hottest-year-ever-is-primarily-based-on-fabricated-data/

  228. #229 Richard Wakefield
    December 14, 2010
  229. #230 skip
    December 14, 2010

    Really interesting link, Richard.

    Let me ask a couple of questions about it:

    Would you tie your own credibility to that of Steven Goddard? I mean, after all you did cite his link.

    Let me rephrase–and this is just for the sake of argument–if Goddard’s critique of the GISS data and “Hansen” was shown to be flawed (perhaps even buffoonish?), how would that reflect on you?

  230. #231 Ian Forrester
    December 14, 2010

    Wow, notice how Wakefield goes all potty mouthed when backed into a corner. I never accused him of being a liar (at least not in the comment he is talking about). The minute I saw the number 40,000 (something or others) on his web site for annual precipitation at Cartwright, NL I knew that something was wrong. That is why I asked him what units he was using since 40,000 mms is ridiculous. I asked him if he believed that that value could be correct since a scientist always thinks about what his data mean.

    Instead of providing a link so I could check to see if EC had, in fact made an error (I had already checked other sources and found that annual precipitation for Cartwright is approximately 1000 mms) he told me to check for myself and see that he is right. No link so I don’t know who made the error but chances are, based on previous history (e.g. 400,000,000 windmills) that it is Wakefield, who is not too careful or accurate in his copying and pasting or arithmetic skills, who was the one who screwed up.

    He responds to my honest request with a post filled with potty mouthed expletives.

    Anyone who wants to see what the annual precipitation for Cartwright in the period 1971 to 2000 can view it at:

    http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?StnID=6773&autofwd=1

    Now, if Wakefield cannot or refuses to provide a link to this erroneous EC data then I will call him a liar.

    Wakefield’s dodging and squirming when challenged reminds me of this quote by a famous Scottish poet:

    Oh what a tangled web we weave,

    When first we practise to deceive! (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.)

  231. #232 Richard Wakefield
    December 14, 2010

    Let me ask a couple of questions about it:

    Would you tie your own credibility to that of Steven Goddard? I mean, after all you did cite his link.

    Don’t understand why my credibility, ability to do temperature analysis is based on someone else’s posting. I posted it because it provides alternatives to what is presented by the faithful here. 1, that 2010 is the hottest year on record (right with record cold going on world wide) 2) that CO2 was much higher in the geological past with no ill effects and no increase in temps.

    Let me rephrase–and this is just for the sake of argument–if Goddard’s critique of the GISS data and “Hansen” was shown to be flawed (perhaps even buffoonish?), how would that reflect on you?

    Irrelevant on me, hellova problem for AGW faithful who use Hansen as the High Priest of AGW.

  232. #233 Richard Wakefield
    December 14, 2010

    I have done a bulk analysis of the 570 stations I have data for. http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-2.html You can download the spreadsheet of the 570.

  233. #234 adelady
    December 14, 2010

    Record cold worldwide, Richard? Not here.

    Perhaps worldwide should read – places-I-take-notice-of.

  234. #235 Richard Wakefield
    December 14, 2010

    Just to let you all know I have emailed Zhang asking his opinion on how cooler summers is from AGW, and how he dealt with such a poor recordset.

  235. #236 Richard Wakefield
    December 14, 2010

    Record cold worldwide, Richard? Not here.

    Perhaps worldwide should read – places-I-take-notice-of.

    Europe, Canada, US east coast and mid west. Care to show which countries are NOT setting cold temps, that are “warmer” than normal?

  236. #237 Ian Forrester
    December 14, 2010

    Wakefield is wrong once again:

    Europe, Canada, US east coast and mid west. Care to show which countries are NOT setting cold temps, that are “warmer” than normal?

    Lots of them Wakefield, just look here:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/fig1.pdf

    By the way, I’m still waiting for that link to EC that shows that the annual precipitation at Cartwright, NL is over 35,000 mms. I’m not surprised that you are having a hard time finding it.

  237. #238 Richard Wakefield
    December 14, 2010

    Right, Ian. Those very graphs have been shown to have been fabricated.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/hansens-hottest-year-ever-is-primarily-based-on-fabricated-data/

    I’ll wait for the year to end and see how it trended with the rest of the last century.

  238. #239 Ian Forrester
    December 14, 2010

    Wakefield your comments are actionable. If I was associated with that work you would be in trouble. The likes of Goddard and yourself who shamelessly circulate slanderous and libelous comments are absolutely despicable. Do you live the other parts of your life in such a dishonest manner?

    You are pathetic.

    Coby, why do you allow the likes of Wakefield to pollute this site with his inflammatory and slanderous comments? It really lowers the quality of Science Blogs to have to sift through his drivel and dishonesty.

  239. #240 skip
    December 14, 2010

    Irrelevant on me, hellova problem for AGW faithful who use Hansen as the High Priest of AGW.

    I’m terribly confused, Richard. Please explain:

    If Goddard is shown to be flawed/buffoonish, how does this hurt Hansen?

    And since you cited Goddard , how would that not reflect poorly on you–again, in the hypothetical case?

    I am referring now to the Goddard you *cited* in your link. You knew that right–his name was Goddard? Of course you did; you cited him.

    Just need clarification.

  240. #241 skip
    December 14, 2010

    I posted it because it provides alternatives to what is presented by the faithful here. 1, that 2010 is the hottest year on record

    Out of curiosity, did you read what Hansen and the GISS people really say about 2010, or did you only read what the *author* Goddard said?

    I’ll rephrase. Who has said that “2010 is unequivocally the hottest year on record”–or words to that effect, and what is the implication if it turns out not to be?

  241. #242 skip
    December 14, 2010

    Ok, Richard more important stuff to ask about. From your site after the discussion of the problem of missing data in the temperature records:

    The claim is made that one can fill in gaps in one station with records from a near by station, combining the two into one recordset.

    Well, not sure that is how the NOAA people would word it but lets hold off on that for a moment.

    If that was even possible to get anything meaningful from doing that, this data suggests one can’t hope to be able to do that until well into the 20th century, losing the beginning years.

    Ok aside from the editing then lets clarify something. My question: Does this mean, then, that it is always inappropriate to interpolate/extrapolate temperature data from one station to another?

    Lets give a hypothetical example. So if you had a missing record problem for, lets say . . . I don’t know . . . Regina, but you did have records for say, some vicinities within a hundred miles of Regina for the years of missing data, then it would still be *in*appropriate to use some procedure of interpolation to *estimate* what the temperature of Regina was, within some confidence interval, for the years of missing data?

    Is that a fair characterization of your position?

  242. #243 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    Ian if you were a normal person, you would have said “Richard, it appears the Cartwright scale is wrong, can you please check it out?” and I would have said “Thanks Ian, yeah something weird happened there, I’ve corrected it.”

    But instead you went on with the ranting you always do, so I just shovel it right back at you.

  243. #244 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    If Goddard is shown to be flawed/buffoonish, how does this hurt Hansen?

    No possibility that Hansen is the buffoon? Yeah, I think so. How will your credibility suffer linked to Hansen?

  244. #245 skip
    December 15, 2010

    I’m not citing Hansen.

    You are citing Goddard. Hence the question.

  245. #246 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    Ok aside from the editing then lets clarify something. My question: Does this mean, then, that it is always inappropriate to interpolate/extrapolate temperature data from one station to another?

    Wait for part 3 because we are going to do that very experiment to see what happens.

    The main complaint I have is this practice is when it is used it is never stated that is what they do, and never stated as to the errors that adds to the data. Errors are multiplied together. For example, your two cases being added. If, for sake of argument, that the error is 10% once those two stations are added together. Then another station has the same problem, and it is matched to a near by station also, with another 10% error. Now when you combine all these stations into an anomaly, if I recall Physics 101 correctly, the combined error is the Pythagoras of the two errors Sqr(10%^2 + 10%^2) to give an error for the anomaly data. But one never sees these error bars on such plots, for very obvious reasons, it would swamp their plots.

  246. #247 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    I’m not citing Hansen.

    You are citing Goddard. Hence the question.

    Ian explicity did and so do the rest here implicity since Hansen is *THE* kingpin.

    If Goddard is wrong, so be it. But until then what he shows stands as a chalenge.

    I plan to test Hansen’s graph claims come the new year since he has some “hot spots” in Canada.

  247. #248 skip
    December 15, 2010

    I’m not totally following where you’re getting your notion of “error”.

    Again, I freely admit to not being a climate scientists, but I suspect that when interpolating missing data in temperature reconstructions climate scientists use confidence intervals of some sort.

    This idea of “error” as an additive quantity . . . not sure where this comes from or where you’re going with it.

  248. #249 Ian Forrester
    December 15, 2010

    Wakefield, are you being dishonest again or just showing your ignorance of how GISS calculates their data? Probably both.

    I suggest you go to the GISS website and look it through. It tells you how they calculate anomalies. Read carefully the part where they discuss how they use a grid system so “errors? are not added up ad infinitum as you are proposing.

    Where is the EC link? Why not admit you made a mistake (note I didn’t say “honest” mistake) and fess up that you screwed up?

  249. #250 skip
    December 15, 2010

    Hansen is *THE* kingpin.

    I don’t understand what alleged “kingpin” status has to do with science. Could you elaborate on the term and its implications?

  250. #251 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    “…data on the Met Office’s and CRU’s own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.

    They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system’s acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz18CDldD8Y

  251. #252 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    This idea of “error” as an additive quantity . . . not sure where this comes from or where you’re going with it.

    When you do measurments there is always an error component due to the scale of the instruments used to do the measuring.

    When you combine two locations’ temperature data together there will also be an “error”. That error will come from the fact that the two locations will not have the same temperatures at the same times of the day. Where records match together, you can see how much the two locations will differ and what the standard deviation of that difference is. That SD can be used to denote an error range. So if you combine two locations to get a summer average temp of 25C, there may be as much as 5C or more standard deviation. So the real temp of the combined locations is 25C+/-5. So 65% of the time the combined temp will be between 20 and 30C.

  252. #253 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    I don’t understand what alleged “kingpin” status has to do with science. Could you elaborate on the term and its implications?

    Implications are that AGW would not exist were it not for Hansen. Gore would not be the eco-rich he is if not for Hansen (since Gore pays him to be his advisor).

    On more than one occation Hansen has been caught inventing the data and had to change it. Hansen is to AGW as Billy Graham is to fundementalism Christianity.

  253. #254 skip
    December 15, 2010

    Um, Richard . . .

    Is #251 an effort to answer my questions in 241?

    Also, the link you provide in #251 has special significance. Can you imagine why?

  254. #255 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    This is why using one station to fill another’s gaps has major problems:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-3.html

  255. #256 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    The link shows there has been no warming for 15 years inspite of 50% more CO2 emitted by us. The CRU admits it. So much for 2010 being the warmest on record.

  256. #257 skip
    December 15, 2010

    From your link:

    The difference in the Tmean between these two locations [Belleville and Ottowa] is:

    Ottawa was as much as 8.1C warmer than Belleville on the same day. Belleville was as much as 11.7C warmer on a different day, with the average difference of -0.63C and a standard deviation of 2.20C.

    I mean, well . . . again, hey. I’m not a climate modeler, but given that the average difference is *well* within a one sd confidence interval, doesn’t it seem that if you didn’t have one or the other station you could at least make a *reasonable* estimate of the other–on average, anyway and/or regarding annual data?

  257. #258 skip
    December 15, 2010

    Re: 256.

    Ok I understand very clearly what the link claims.

    But my *question* is: Is this your response to #241?

    My other question is: Is this particular link special in some way? (I think it is.)

  258. #259 Ian Forrester
    December 15, 2010

    More lies from Wakefield:

    The link shows there has been no warming for 15 years inspite of 50% more CO2 emitted by us. The CRU admits it. So much for 2010 being the warmest on record.

    That is a blatant lie. Here are the data from CRU for the past 15 years:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/trend

    So stop your lying. You are pathetic. Interesting that deniers used to tell everyone to ignore CRU data because “it was fraudulent.” Now that it shows the lowest level of warming for all the major groups showing global temperature data it is the one being promoted by you selfish deniers. What happened to your use of UAH graphs? Oooh I forgot, they were shown to be in error. Now that the errors have been corrected UAH data are warmer than CRU. You are so stupid and that you do not see the contradictions in your position.

    And where is the link to the EC data? Why do you keep linking to your dishonest and error-filled site? It only shows your dishonesty and incapability of even the simplest understanding of climate science. Why do you hardly ever link to or read real science, you know, the papers that are found in the scientific literature?

    Why keep on wading, in over your head, in the slimy sludge at Goddard’s site, Watt’s site and other dishonest denier sites? Doesn’t it leave a disgusting taste in your mouth? Your drivel sure leaves a nasty taste in my mouth when I think of what will happen if people actually do what you desire and allow the earth to become very unpleasant.

    Do you know what real hunger and starvation feels like? I very much doubt it but that is what you and your scumbag friends are wishing on many hundreds of millions of people. Famine and mass starvation will be the first really nasty results of global warming. Unfortunately, it will be the people who had the least contribution to global warming who will suffer while you feast in your comfy lifestyle being completely dishonest and encouraging their fate. You are indeed a nasty piece of work.

  259. #260 PaulinMI
    December 15, 2010

    My kook meter just exploded

  260. #261 Ian Forrester
    December 15, 2010

    PaulinMI said:

    My kook meter just exploded

    Yes, reading Wakefield’s posts will do that.

  261. #262 skip
    December 15, 2010

    My kook meter just exploded

    This invites any number of classless ripostes.

    I’ll desist, but I feel like you owe me one, Paul.

  262. #263 Snowman
    December 15, 2010

    Glad to see that Ian Forrester has lost none of the graceful charm that has won him so many admirers around the blogosphere.

  263. #264 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    I mean, well . . . again, hey. I’m not a climate modeler, but given that the average difference is *well* within a one sd confidence interval, doesn’t it seem that if you didn’t have one or the other station you could at least make a *reasonable* estimate of the other–on average, anyway and/or regarding annual data?

    No, because you don’t understand the error factor’s influence on the new data you are creating. For example, Station A is missing a year, Station B is very short but has that year. You deturmine by correlating the overlapping years that the degree of difference between the two stations is +/-4C. That means when you fill in the full missing year of A with B a summer day would be 25+/-4C. So for all the years EXCEPT the one missing we have records of temps with error less than 0.1C except that one year now becomes +/-4C. That can make the difference of being in a heatwave range or not.

    Plus, take stations C and D, with C missing the same year as A. D fills in that year but its difference is +/-3C. Now when you go to do an anomaly using A and C that year where the new data has been spliced in has an error range of +/-5C [sqr(4^2 + 3^2)]. So as you splice in more data, adding more and more stations, the +/-N error increases considerably.

    Splicing in data means you also cannot do daily analysis, say how a single month is changing for A.

    Lastly, analyzing this data has nothing to do with understanding climate science. This data could be anything, poll results, human hieght measurements, stock numbers. All we are doing is analyzing numbers to look for trends. Doesn’t matter the source.

  264. #265 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    Nope, more stariving people today is a direct result of sending them food aid:

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/fore-e/rep-e/repafrifeb07-e.pdf

    If anything warmer winters, longer growing season, cooler summers, higher CO2 will more more food production. Ian is now showing his true reasons for accepting AGW — redistribution of wealth in classic communistic fashion.

  265. #266 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    I have what might be a compromise. If I choose only stations with 95% or more of their data which start prior to 1920. I get 29 stations that meet that criteria spread across the provinces as such:

    Province CountOfStnID
    Alberta 9
    British Columbia 4
    Manitoba 2
    New Brunswick 1
    Ontario 5
    Prince Edward Island 1
    Quebec 2
    Saskatchewan 5

    If that is acceptable as a group to do the heat waves with I will proceed on those stations.

  266. #267 skip
    December 15, 2010

    I’ll have to think about this without rushing to judgment. By all means conduct your analysis and report it.

    In any event, I still would like to know your answers to 241:

    I posted it because it provides alternatives to what is presented by the faithful here. 1, that 2010 is the hottest year on record.

    Out of curiosity, did you read what Hansen and the GISS people really say about 2010, or did you only read what the *author* Goddard said?

    I’ll rephrase. Who has said that “2010 is unequivocally the hottest year on record”–or words to that effect, and what is the implication if it turns out not to be?

  267. #268 Snowman
    December 15, 2010

    Skip, you are clearly an intelligent fellow. You marshall your thoughts logically and write lucidly (a trifle pompously, perhaps, but hey, nobody’s perfect). Given that, I find it difficult to understand why you keep nagging Richard with your debating-club questions. What does it matter who he thinks said what? He has proposed something far more interesting and important. Why not concentrate on that?

  268. #269 skip
    December 15, 2010

    Given that, I find it difficult to understand why you keep nagging Richard with your debating-club questions.

    Why do you ask *me* questions–such as the ones you just asked?

  269. #270 wagdog
    December 15, 2010

    This data could be anything, poll results, human hieght measurements, stock numbers. All we are doing is analyzing numbers to look for trends. Doesn’t matter the source.

    If all of science and technology applied Wakefield’s methodology to their data, we’d have to throw out a lot of science and much of the technology we depend on. It would not just be climate science that we cannot trust. And very many Nobel laureates would fall into the same category as Hansen who Wakefield labels as fraudulent.

    Reconstruction using datasets with gaps is very common practice in the medical field for instance, and is becoming more important for data analysis in biotechnology. One would wonder if climate change denialists put much trust in their doctors, or the pharaceuticals, or the food they eat.

    Just do an internet search for reconstruction using missing or gappy data, and it pops up in chemistry, material science, aerodynamics, geology, astronomy, etc. If Wakefield, his sources, and data analysis methods are correct, then we cannot trust the products we buy, the buildings we live in, the jets we fly in, the ground we walk on, or even where the hell this planet really is in the known universe.

  270. #271 Snowman
    December 15, 2010

    I ask you these questions, Skip, in the hope – the vain one, I fear – that you will drop these irrelevant matters and let Richard concentrate on something that is really quite interesting.

  271. #272 skip
    December 15, 2010

    these irrelevant matters

    If irrelevant, then why did you not chastise Richard when her first brought them up himself?

  272. #273 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    his sources, and data analysis methods are correct, then we cannot trust the products we buy, the buildings we live in, the jets we fly in, the ground we walk on, or even where the hell this planet really is in the known universe.

    Huge difference between those other aspects of life and climate science’s use of fudging the numbers. Climate science is much closely related in this regard to economics. And we all know how accurate economics is. I trust economic numbers as much as I trust climate numbers when both are using fudge factors and ex nihilo data.

    Climate is far more complex than other aspects of life. We can easily model aircraft flight simulations, but not climate simulations, not even a week out.

    Interesting, however, was a show I watched on Nova last night on how fractal geometry is even changing how we look at medicine.

  273. #274 crakar24
    December 15, 2010

    Hey Paul if your Kook meter is broken i have a bovine excrement meter you can borrow.

  274. #275 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    Analysis done:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-4.html

    TMax is dropping across the country, summers are getting cooler.

  275. #276 Ian Forrester
    December 15, 2010

    How can anyone believe all that irrelevant data from Wakefield when he still tells us that Cartwright NL gets 35,000 to 40,000 mms of precipitation per year.

    Are all your data this far off i.e. 40 times or is some of it only out by a factor of 20? I suggest you read up on QA/QC.

    What a joke.

  276. #277 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    Also added this:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-4b.html

    Not only is the top TMax dropping, but the number of days within each degree above the baseline are getting fewer.

    Summers are cooling all across the country.

  277. #278 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    Ian, go check Cartwright again since you are unable to take a hint.

  278. #279 Ian Forrester
    December 15, 2010

    Wakefield and anyone else who would like to see the real precipitation numbers for Cartwright only have to look here to see that Wakefield is lying (I already gave Wakefield this link in post #231 above).

    http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?StnID=6773&autofwd=1

    Yes, Wakefield, I am calling you a liar on this one since I have given you ample opportunity to provide a link to the site that you claim shows 35,000 to 40,000 mms precipitation.

    Are all the data you provide as fraudulent and dishonest as your Cartwright data? Whether it is just incompetence or dishonesty the end result is the same, you are posting rubbish on your site and your extrapolations from southern Canada (yes, he has nothing even close to Northern Canada in his list of stations) to the whole globe is laughable.

  279. #280 Richard Wakefield
    December 15, 2010

    Ian you are a real piece of work. I fixed it asshole.

  280. #281 Ian Forrester
    December 15, 2010

    Wakefield you are just a piece of scummy sludge. Why no apology for your errors or dishonesty?

    Wakefield from post #224:

    Fuck, Ian. Do you think I make these numbers up? That’s what comes from EC data!! That’s TOTAL precip. If you think I’m lying GO DOWN LOAD THE FUCKING DATA YOURSELF!

    The answer to your question of course, based on your history here, is YES! I did go and check the data and showed that your numbers were out by a factor of approximately 40.

    You are definitely not a scientist, in fact you show a hatred of science and scientists. Why do you pretend to be one?

    Changing data is considered a very big no no in science unless you admit that you made a mistake and apologize for the misinformation. Just changing a table or figure without notification shows how dishonest you are.

  281. #282 PaulinMI
    December 15, 2010

    RW,

    [preconceived worldview ALERT]

    How much of this temperature effect in Canada do you expect is being caused by PDO?
    see http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ or http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

    And would be a temporary and relatively local impact on an otherwise upward trend?

  282. #283 skip
    December 15, 2010

    Et tu, Paule?

    Don’t worry, Richard. Paul rarely gives aid and comfort to the enemy like this.

    Richard, if its a pain in the ass to do so I totally accept that, but again what I want to do is track the exact dates of the Tmax’s used in your analysis/es.

    Is the data you left for download useful for this purpose? If you say it is I’ll just believe you but I don’t want to waste my time.

  283. #284 Richard Wakefield
    December 16, 2010

    And would be a temporary and relatively local impact on an otherwise upward trend?

    Wow, you really dislike the fact that summers are cooling. What upward trend? I don’t see any hint of any upward trend, where do you see one? Or are you hoping that somewhere in there, hidden, is an upward trend to summer temps?

    It’s clear then that you fully expected summers to get hotter, but they are not. Now you have to explain why CO2 isn’t making summers hotter, or admit AGW theory is flawed.

    Maybe this long term narrowing of the yearly temps has nothing to do with PDO, AGW, but is just the effects of random variation pedulum swings with periods of more than 100 years.

  284. #285 Richard Wakefield
    December 16, 2010

    but again what I want to do is track the exact dates of the Tmax’s used in your analysis/es.

    Yes, that would be a useful test since we saw in the one station the highest day wass migrating towards Aug. Will do that this aft.

  285. #286 skip
    December 16, 2010

    Maybe this long term narrowing of the yearly temps has nothing to do with PDO, AGW, but is just the effects of random variation pedulum swings with periods of more than 100 years.

    Interesting that we both are eying a similar interpretation but with potentially radically different implications.

    But thanks and kudos for dating those Tmax days. I just don’t want to bother, to be frank.

    By the way, Richard, Paul is a tentative AGW “acceptor” but with reservations about the appropriateness of state-planned response. He’s not keen on believing the prevailing science, as I understand him; he’s just made his peace with it and is wondering what if any social response is justified.

  286. #287 Richard Wakefield
    December 16, 2010

    Interesting that we both are eying a similar interpretation but with potentially radically different implications.

    Like what?

  287. #288 Chris S.
    December 16, 2010

    So my paper rewrite is going well and I have managed to spend some lunchtimes doing a bit more on the Meunster site. I’ve bunged everything I’ve done so far here: http://canadatemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/summers-are-cooling-richard-wakefield.html (note the migration to a blog site with a less provocative title).

    It’s all there, have at it. In no way is it a finished analysis but I thought it would be interesting for some as it stands.

    In short it appears that Richard has found a metric that, being heavily influenced by high temperatures in the 30s & 40s (did I hear someone say dust bowl? no? OK), shows little or no trend. However it is also a metric that is pretty much random so whether anything meaningful can be gleaned from it in isolation is questionable.

    I’m now off to the land of no internet. Happy Xmas everybody, see you all in 2011.

  288. #289 Chris S.
    December 16, 2010

    Just glancing through I see that the improved growing season canard has been deployed again. Some interesting studies on that front here:

    http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/climatemonograph_advance.pdf

    http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr21.pdf

    Full disclosure – I’ve read neither fully. But the summaries make a strong case e.g. this from the second link: “…The results of the analysis suggest that agriculture and human well-being will be negatively affected by climate change: In developing countries, climate change will cause yield declines for the most important crops. South Asia will be particularly hard hit; Climate change will result in additional price increases for the most important agricultural crops–rice, wheat, maize, and soybeans. Higher feed prices will result in higher meat prices. As a result, climate change will reduce the growth in meat consumption slightly and cause a more substantial fall in cereals consumption; By 2050, the decline in calorie availability will increase child malnutrition by 20 percent relative to a world with no climate change…”

  289. #290 skip
    December 16, 2010

    Interesting that we both are eying a similar interpretation but with potentially radically different implications.

    Like what?

    Chris intimated at it. My concern, Richard, is that your “cooling/flattening” summer trend is a statistical feature of record setting heat in large swaths of North America–including a host of locations in Southern Canada–in the 1930s, and not a planet-wide feature of climate.

    This is why I am interested in the precise dates of station-specific Tmaxes.

  290. #291 blueshift
    December 16, 2010

    Hi Chris, thanks for the update.

    Quick note in case you’re still around. The formatting your site makes it difficult to see the links, particularly links that have already been followed.

  291. #292 Richard Wakefield
    December 16, 2010

    Looks like Chris has had to eat some crow. So much for summers getting hotter like AGE claims is should be.

    I will take issue with two statments Chris made in his blog:

    One year does not even predict the next. The sample spectrum indicates that Highest Tmax is a pretty much random event.

    Not so. It looks very much like a heartbeat like pattern. I will write a program to go through the points and note what the following years were after a peak year. I’ll bet there is a patterm.

    I think the next step will be to look at mean Tmax to get a fuller picture of what temperature was doing outside the really hot days.

    No. If you want to see if this is a trend other than at the highest, you should quantize the temps into integers and count the number of days at each degree. I did this for the anomalies for the 29 stations here http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-4b.html. This shows that there is a downward shift not in just the highest temps for the year, but each degree past the baseline is also having fewer days in them since 1920. This shows that the drop in TMax is systemic, not an anomaly of the highest temps.

  292. #293 Richard Wakefield@mcswiz.com
    December 16, 2010

    Here is the hottest days of each year for each station. The spreadsheet with the actual values is a link in this:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-4c.html

    As for the claim that food crops will suffer, I find that very hard to accept. There are a number of other significant factors that reduce crop production, lack of irrigation water (because deep fossil water has been all but pumped out), and land degradation due to over farming. More CO2 will boost plant growth.

    This paper shows the longer growing season has been a net benefit:

    Qian, B., Zhang, X., Chen, K., Feng, Y. and O’Brien, T. 2010. Observed long-term trends for agroclimatic conditions in Canada. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 49: 604-618.

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N39/C2.php

  293. #294 skip
    December 16, 2010

    In regard to the long term agricultural implications of climate change Chris argued . . .

    South Asia will be particularly hard hit; Climate change will result in additional price increases for the most important agricultural crops . . .

    Which Richard refutes with . . .

    A set of agroclimatic indices representing Canadian climatic condition . . . (from the abstract of Qian et al.

    Richard, let’s assume Canada makes out like bandits on climate change. How does this help Laos?

  294. #295 Ian Forrester
    December 16, 2010

    Deniers’ mantra “higher CO2 and higher temperatures will be good for agricultural” is just not right. These conditions may be good for some plant species but not necessarily agricultural crops because of two lines of research.

    Firstly, actual field tests with various crops and secondly metabolic research at the enzymatic level. Both sets of tests show negative effects of BAU CO2 emission pathways.

    Firstly, one crop which has been studied a lot is rice since it is the staple for a very large number of people. One of the major problems found with AGW is the effect of warmer nights. Rice requires low minimum night time temperatures for maximum growth. As night time temperatures increase there is a reduction in yield. The paper by Peng at al. shows a 10% decrease in rice yields for every 1 degree C raise in minimum temperatures. Not good for millions maybe even billions of people.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.full

    Secondly, when carbon fixation aka photosynthesis is studied at the enzymatic level some disturbing results are found. The early studies showed that the enzymatic activity of isolated RUBISCO (the enzyme responsible for the fixing of CO2 into organic metabolites) was increased at higher temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. They argued that this would be good for agriculture since it would allow for higher yields (forget about water and available nitrogen for now). However, there were always problems in getting reproducible levels of RUBISCO activity (preparations had to be aged and/or treated to give maximum activity).

    Later research has shown that there is another layer of regulation affecting RUBISCO activity (as is common with many enzyme system). A new enzyme, RUBISCO activase, was found to be responsible for converting “inactive” to “active” RUBISCO. And, surprise surprise, this new enzyme was found to be inhibited by higher temperatures and also inhibited by higher CO2 concentrations.

    This finding is probably responsible for the contradictory results found in experiments where varying temperatures and CO2 concentrations on plant growth have been conducted.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/24/13430.full.pdf

  295. #296 blueshift
    December 16, 2010

    Richard,
    1) Am I misremembering you saying that there had been no increased precipitation or flooding events?

    2) Why are you not linking to the original article? Are you not worried that your site may be biasing their interpretation of the paper?

  296. #297 Richard Wakefield
    December 16, 2010

    South Asia will be particularly hard hit; Climate change will result in additional price increases for the most important agricultural crops . . .

    I watched a political show up here, every day at 5pm, and they had a statistician on the show who has written a book about predictions. Apparently he went back decades into the literature about predictions from a wide range of subjects, economics, climate, etc. He found that 95% of the time predictions were wrong, some very wrong (ie the opposite). He also noted the more someone is claimed to be an expert on the subject, the WORSE they were in predicting.

    Hence, I give no credence at all when I see predictions about the future which has the words “will be”, “might be”. etc. You can bet that 95% of the time that “will be” is actually “won’t be.”

  297. #298 skip
    December 16, 2010

    I watched a political show up here, every day at 5pm, and they had a statistician on the show who has written a book about predictions Richard #297

    . . . watch the weather channel and observe how systems move across the US and Canada. I do that every morning. It’s really quite interesting to see how systems move around. Richard #161

    . . . the more someone is claimed to be an expert on the subject, the WORSE they were in predicting . . . Hence, I give no credence at all when I see predictions about the future which has the words “will be”, “might be”. etc Richard #297

    Its hard not to gather, from statements like these, Richard, that you feel we’d all be better off ignoring experts and watching more television. I’m sorry but the apparent basis of your world view is disturbing to me.

  298. #299 Richard Wakefield
    December 16, 2010

    There is a pattern to the swings in highest to lowest TMax for each year. It’s not entirely random as Chris claims.

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-4d.html

    It’s closer to being a pendulum, as I have noted many times.

  299. #300 Richard Wakefield
    December 16, 2010

    Its hard not to gather, from statements like these, Richard, that you feel we’d all be better off ignoring experts and watching more television. I’m sorry but the apparent basis of your world view is disturbing to me.

    No you take expert predictions with a very large grain of salt. Their batting averages are not good. That is a fact. Hence I do not trust such predictions, especially in climate science and economics. Too much random chaos.

  300. #301 PaulinMI
    December 16, 2010

    . . . that you feel we’d all be better off ignoring experts and watching more television,

    Skip, with all due respect, care to name a few of those experts who made out like bandits profiting from the economic collapse in 2008?

    “Experts” may know how to do things, but when it comes to predicting the future, or guarding against unintended consequences, I am not so sure.

    And you got me about right,
    - AGW by CO2, yes.
    - Source, strength and direction of feedbacks, not well understood.

    - My capability to challenge an expert’s assertions, 0.
    - My capability to be cautious about the desire of the state to accumulate more power in a crisis, perceived or real, 100.

  301. #302 skip
    December 17, 2010

    care to name a few of those experts who made out like bandits profiting from the economic collapse in 2008?

    I simply don’t understand where this question is coming from.

    “Experts” may know how to do things, but when it comes to predicting the future, or guarding against unintended consequences, I am not so sure . . .

    . . . Source, strength and direction of feedbacks, not well understood.

    . . . My capability to challenge an expert’s assertions, 0.

    Other than to say you’re “not so sure” about their predictions and planning, or that the problem of AGW feedbacks is “not well understood”, right?

    So you don’t want to come across as a guy who thinks he can challenge expert projections about the dangers of AGW, but you still want to challenge expert projections about the dangers of AGW.

    Paul, if you want to resume our discussion on policy I am willing to indulge you, as you well know, on the “Acting on Climate Change is Suicide” thread.

  302. #303 skip
    December 17, 2010

    Richard,

    Is there any chance you remember the name of your “statistician” you saw on your news show?

  303. #304 Richard Wakefield
    December 17, 2010

    Is there any chance you remember the name of your “statistician” you saw on your news show?

    No, and it’s frustrating as I would like to read the book. I was in the can when the interview started so missed about half of it. Don’t even remember the book title, was going to search the net it’s gotta be there.

  304. #305 skip
    December 17, 2010

    Is this it?

    *Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail and Why We Believe*, by Dan Gardner, who was inspired by Philip Tetlock, a business management professor at Berkeley, who himself wrote

    *Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?*

  305. #306 Richard Wakefield
    December 17, 2010

    Yeah, I think that was it. Nice find.

    So, are we settled on Canadian TMax temps, they are dropping since 1900?

  306. #307 Ian Forrester
    December 17, 2010

    Wakefield whined:

    So, are we settled on Canadian TMax temps, they are dropping since 1900?

    NO

    Since you made elementary errors in your precipitation data and refused to admit it (in fact insulted me when I pointed it out to you) why would you expect any sane and knowledgeable person to accept any more of your “statistics and Excel games”?

    You have a vast history of simple mistakes in your mathematical and logical abilities. So I do not accept your statement. In fact, when Chris and I looked at three stations we found all three did not fit your vision of “global cooling in the summer”. Your response was juvenile and childish since you insulted and tried to smear us as incompetents. You are the one who lacks ability and has no logical reasoning skills at all.

  307. #308 blueshift
    December 17, 2010

    “So, are we settled on Canadian TMax temps, they are dropping since 1900?”

    Richard,
    Did I miss where you did the significance test on this claim?

    Are you going to reply to my questions in #296?

  308. #309 Richard Wakefield
    December 17, 2010

    Did I miss where you did the significance test on this claim?

    Chris did this “significance test” on one station and came up with the same conclution I did, and he admitted he did. That station was hotter in the 1930s and 1940′s than today, and since then has been no increase.

    Now I have done across Canada with 29 stations together and got the same result. 1930-1940 was hotter than today, we are cooler since.

    Sounds to me more like you do not WANT this to be true. Guess you will have to wait for Chris to analyze that data too, which I can make available.

    As for 296, which paper are you referring to? And I only did that one page on precipitation, no over all change anywhere in the country.

  309. #310 Richard Wakefield
    December 17, 2010

    You are the one who lacks ability and has no logical reasoning skills at all.

    If you are so smart show me where I went wrong. Don’t say it, PROVE IT!

  310. #311 blueshift
    December 17, 2010

    “Chris did this “significance test” on one station and came up with the same conclution I did, and he admitted he did. That station was hotter in the 1930s and 1940′s than today, and since then has been no increase.”

    So the answer is that no, *you* haven’t done a statistical test.
    On his site Chris S. says “The sample spectrum indicates that Highest Tmax is a pretty much random event” and “This tells you that there are no significant trends in the data as a whole, p=0.994″. So where exactly did he show that Tmax is dropping since 1900?

    “Now I have done across Canada with 29 stations together and got the same result. 1930-1940 was hotter than today, we are cooler since.”
    Again, what test have you applied that permits you to state this so confidently?

    “As for 296, which paper are you referring to? ”

    The paper you referenced in 293. Which says “Extreme daily precipitation amounts and 10-day precipitation totals during the growing season have been increasing.”

    “And I only did that one page on precipitation, no over all change anywhere in the country.”

    So you disagree with the results of the paper you linked to?

    Also, please note that the site you linked to cut off the last sentence of the abstract which reads “The benefit of the increased precipitation may have been offset by an upward trend in evaporative demand; however, this would depend on the amount of growth and productivity resulting from increased actual evapotranspiration.”

  311. #312 Richard Wakefield
    December 17, 2010

    Again, what test have you applied that permits you to state this so confidently?

    I guess the obvious drop in the anomaly is not enough for you. You will just have to wait for Chris, I’m not going to do further tests just because you are unsatusfied, nothing will change your mind will it.

    As for “random”, no I showed it is not. It is more like a pendulum swinging. Random would mean any temp has equal odds, but I have shown that not to be true.

    So you disagree with the results of the paper you linked to?

    No, they are refering to rainfall, which has increased at the expense of snowfall, the over all trend is unchanged:

    “Precipitation has a steady increasing trend from the 1920s to 1970, while the major increase in cloud cover occurred during 1936–1950 in mid-latitude Canada (Henderson-Sellers, 1989). The precipitation trend appears to have stopped in about 1970 for the annual time series but not for seasonal time series. There were increasing trends in winter and autumn, decreasing trends in spring and no trend in summer (not shown). The ratio of solid to total precipitation has also increased; but the trend is not significant.”

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

    Now having said that, precip measurements are very difficult to do. Here is an example why. I’m in London Ontario. We got 3 ft of snow in 36 hours due to stringers off Lake Huron. My son’s place 20 minutes west of me got nothing. 20 mins east in Woodstock same, almost nothing. Along the major highway from London to Sarnia, 10 mins north of my son’s, go so much show the highway was shut down for 5 days, hundreds of cars stuck on it with people trapped all night on the first of this dump.

    None of that will show up in precip stations because it didn’t happen where they are. Rain here does the same thing. It can downpour an hour north of me during the summer, yet not one drop here for weeks. Localized deviations play a big role, hence those precip numbers are suspect.

  312. #313 wagdog
    December 17, 2010

    There is a pattern to the swings in highest to lowest TMax for each year. It’s not entirely random as Chris claims.

    It’s closer to being a pendulum, as I have noted many times.

    How to prove the roll of a die acts like a pendulum. The Wakefield method:

    Given a die has just rolled X what is the probability P the next roll will be higher?
    X = 1, P = 5/6
    X = 2, P = 4/6
    X = 3, P = 3/6
    X = 4, P = 2/6
    X = 5, P = 1/6
    X = 6, p = 0/6

    Plot this graph, and similarly for the probability of the next roll being lower.

    Next roll the die about 20 times, makking a note of the outcome on paper. Now look at the sequence. Look for the numbers that immediately follow a 3, and divide into two groups (higher than 3, lower than 3) and make a note of the min/max in each group. Repeat for the other die rolls 1, 2 4, 5, and 6. Plot your results.

    Look over your sequence again. Find when two adjacent rolls have been higher than the previous. What is the next number? Is it lower or higher than the previous roll?
    Is the number of times it is lower greater than the number of times it is higher?

    Now post your results. Do those graphs resemble anything Wakefield has posted on his blog?

    Congratulations, you’ve just proven that a die is more like a pendulum than random.

    Now reward yourself by looking up these resources:
    “Fooled by Randomness” by Nassim Taleb
    “The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives” by Leonard Mlodinow
    Apophenia
    “Superstition in the Pigeon” – B. F. Skinner

  313. #314 blueshift
    December 17, 2010

    “I guess the obvious drop in the anomaly is not enough for you.”

    Richard, anomaly has a specific meaning in climate. You are misusing the term.

    “You will just have to wait for Chris, I’m not going to do further tests just because you are unsatusfied, nothing will change your mind will it.”

    “Further” implies that you have done any. You have done *zero* tests of the statistical significance of the supposed decline in highest Tmax. You need to know the probability that the apparent pattern isn’t purely random or you can’t make any claims about it. But you insist that highest Tmax is decreasing.

    “As for “random”, no I showed it is not. It is more like a pendulum swinging. Random would mean any temp has equal odds, but I have shown that not to be true.”

    I don’t see how you have done that. Looking at your page on this you say for example that “At 27C, it’s only a 5% chance the next year will be cooler, but a 70% chance it will be hotter”. Well what percent of the records are below 27C? Because the obvious first thought is that your “pendulum” is simple reversion to the mean which would be expected for unrelated events.

    You have the data already, so it should be easy to check that percentage.

  314. #315 Richard Wakefield
    December 17, 2010

    wagdog nice try but wrong analogy. A dice has equal probability of a 6 than it does a 1 or a 3. The temperature data doesn’t. There is more probability that a middle temp will occur than a high one. High TMax is rarer than a middle TMax. Not so on a dice. All numbers have equal probability and will be evenly spaced in their counts over successive rolls.

    This is the distribution of temps for station 4333 for years 1990 to 2010:

    TMax Count of Days
    12 1
    13 5
    14 9
    15 7
    16 15
    17 25
    18 58
    19 62
    20 72
    21 112
    22 123
    23 157
    24 166
    25 220
    26 172
    27 203
    28 154
    29 119
    30 93
    31 75
    32 40
    33 23
    34 16
    35 2
    36 2
    37 1

  315. #316 Richard Wakefield
    December 17, 2010

    You need to know the probability that the apparent pattern isn’t purely random or you can’t make any claims about it. But you insist that highest Tmax is decreasing.

    You are so convinced that TMax cannot be dropping that not even the 10 year moving average drop is enough for you.

    Well what percent of the records are below 27C?

    I will do that for you, but it will look like the station I did in the previous post. Random would mean an equal chance for any temp, like a roll of dice, but that is not what is seen.

    It will be a normal distrubution curve, similar to human hieght.

    If you wish to go on this random trend for temps, you have a serious problem with AGW then. If winter temps are rising, how is that not just a function of randomness as well as TMax? But you have claimed that increase in winter temps is predicted by AGW. You can’t have it both ways. If the temp ranges in a time series are completely random, then there is NO INFLUENCE from CO2.

  316. #317 blueshift
    December 17, 2010

    “You are so convinced that TMax cannot be dropping that not even the 10 year moving average drop is enough for you.”

    Look Richard, you are trying to do science here. That means you don’t make claims that can’t be proven. Eyeballing 10 year moving averages is not proof.

    “Random would mean an equal chance for any temp, like a roll of dice, but that is not what is seen.

    It will be a normal distrubution curve, similar to human hieght.”

    If I pick a random person from the population and they happen to be 5 feet tall, I’d be happy to bet that my next random pick will be taller. No pendulum, just basic probabilities.

    “If the temp ranges in a time series are completely random, then there is NO INFLUENCE from CO2.”

    Except I never claimed that the time series is completely random. I said that you need to do the significance test to determine whether or not random variation could account for any perceived trend.

    Also, yes greater temperature increases in winter than summer in general is a AGW prediction. That does not mean that such a difference will be distinguishable from chance on short time scales over small regions. You need to first look at the magnitude of the predicted effect, and the variability of the data before you can say when you would see a clearly distinguishable signal.

    This all highlights why, as Chris S. said, you need to actually stop and think about what you are doing how to do it appropriately.

  317. #318 blueshift
    December 17, 2010

    “I will do that for you, but it will look like the station I did in the previous post.”

    Forgot this part. Richard, my quote regarding 27 degrees was from your analysis here:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-4d.html

    Since your analysis and this discussion was based on the highest Tmax, the daily Tmax’s aren’t relevant. So no it shouldn’t look like the station in your previous post.

  318. #319 skip
    December 17, 2010

    So, are we settled on Canadian TMax temps, they are dropping since 1900?

    I’ll wait to see how the discussion of significance plays out, but even so, I repeat my concern stated above that the exceptional North American heat waves of the 30s likely explain whatever downward “trend” in Tmax appears in the data.

    At the moment I have another concern: A book you haven’t read (which focuses on economic and other social science forecasts by prominent *media* figures) by a guy you saw interviewed on TV is the basis for

    Hence, I give no credence at all when I see predictions about the future . . .

    Richard. This is just loopy. You’re confident in the fallibility of climate forecasting because of an interview of a guy whose critical focus is on “experts” who attract media coverage precisely because of their outspoken positions on singular issues. I haven’t read the book either, but I saw no indication that climate forecasting was even discussed.

    This is right up there with declaring all of North America a singular climate “regime” based on diligent attention to the weather channel.

  319. #320 MarkB
    December 17, 2010

    The dustbowl summers were an interesting regional anomaly that affected the middle of North America (including parts of Canada) the most. 1930′s summer comparison to the recent decade…

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0603&year1=2001&year2=2010&base1=1931&base2=1940&radius=1200&pol=reg

    Causes of the dust bowl:

    http://weather.about.com/od/weatherfaqs/f/dustbowl.htm

    It seems likely that such unique conditions will exist again in North America this century. We also have the background global warming trend that is likely to greatly enhance such events, much like we saw with the unprecedented Russian heatwave of 2010.

    Trying to use seasonal average temperature in one region as “evidence” against global warming (sorry deniers, regional variation doesn’t disappear with global warming) is pretty silly. Trying to claim that a trend in high temperature on a single day over one region is meaningful is ultra-silly.

  320. #321 wagdog
    December 18, 2010

    No pendulum, just basic probabilities.

    And if one were to plot the temperature histogram data that Wakefield has so kindly included in his comment, you get a nice normal distribution.

    And according to Central Limit Theorem, averaging a large number of random variables will also be normally distributed.

    Hence, using Wakefield logic, totalling five dice throws will act like a pendulum. In fact when one uses the same Wakefield analysis on a sum of five dice throws — repeating this 1000 times for the sequence, the graphs look eerily similar in shape to what Wakefield has on his Tmax pendulum blog post.

    I’d suggest calling this effect The Wakefield Randomness-Pendulum Duality principle.

  321. #322 wagdog
    December 18, 2010

    If winter temps are rising, how is that not just a function of randomness as well as TMax? But you have claimed that increase in winter temps is predicted by AGW. You can’t have it both ways.

    If a casino suspects that someone is swapping their fair dice with loaded dice that exhibit this uneven probability distribution:
    1 : 1/8
    2 : 1/8
    3 : 1/4
    4 : 1/6
    5 : 1/6
    6 : 1/6

    Which method will detect the fraud sooner?
    (a) monitor how often a 6 is being thrown
    (b) monitor how often a 1 is being thrown
    (c) monitor the average of the last 10 throws

    An even more interesting question is this:
    If you want to live in denial that the casino is being defrauded, which method would you choose?

  322. #323 skip
    December 18, 2010

    Haha.

    If I followed the analogy properly, Wag, its actually quite clever. (Well, it might still be clever even if I am not.)

    I assume (a) to remain in denial (which, if I’m seeing the analogy right, would be like looking at some version of Tmax as a way of detecting temperature tendencies).

    The instability of small numbers with regard to the possible outcomes (a six-sided die)and the number of trials for option (c) make it harder for me to envision the quicker way to
    detect the fraud. Both will work eventually, right? If I’ve done my math right the average of the loaded die will be about 3.63 as opposed to 3.5 for a fair die. Taking multiple 10-roll averages over time you will quickly see if you’re over 3.5 more often than under. I honestly can’t tell if this is faster than tallying the 1s, because while there is still a 12.5 percent chance of rolling a 1 in the dirty die compared to about a 17 percent chance for the fair die, and any trend even after 100 or more rolls might look like noise, a shrewd row boss might still spot it and our cheat gets his legs broken. I mean, I’m guessing you’d put more faith in the 10 roll averages (more data is always better) but the specific analogy has me hung up.

    A possible limitation of the analogy is that the loaded die in question is locked toward a particular central value. What if our crooked gambler was progressively substituting dice increasingly loaded toward a higher average, but with 6 always having a 1/6 chance of being thrown–would that be more to the point of your analogy, Wag?

  323. #324 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    Trying to use seasonal average temperature in one region as “evidence” against global warming (sorry deniers, regional variation doesn’t disappear with global warming) is pretty silly. Trying to claim that a trend in high temperature on a single day over one region is meaningful is ultra-silly.

    Are you claiming all of Canada is “regional”?

  324. #325 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    Except I never claimed that the time series is completely random. I said that you need to do the significance test to determine whether or not random variation could account for any perceived trend.

    Also, yes greater temperature increases in winter than summer in general is a AGW prediction. That does not mean that such a difference will be distinguishable from chance on short time scales over small regions. You need to first look at the magnitude of the predicted effect, and the variability of the data before you can say when you would see a clearly distinguishable signal.

    Would you say that this is a distinguishing signal? Or is this “trend” just random walking?

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-4e.html

  325. #326 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    Hence, using Wakefield logic, totalling five dice throws will act like a pendulum. In fact when one uses the same Wakefield analysis on a sum of five dice throws — repeating this 1000 times for the sequence, the graphs look eerily similar in shape to what Wakefield has on his Tmax pendulum blog post.

    To make sure I understand you, this graph is nothing but random variation?

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-4e.html

    Oh, and would you get a normal distribution curve rolling dice 1000 times?

  326. #327 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    What if our crooked gambler was progressively substituting dice increasingly loaded toward a higher average, but with 6 always having a 1/6 chance of being thrown–would that be more to the point of your analogy, Wag?

    Take that one step further. These dice can change the weight and center of gravity of the load over a 100 throw period. Include in that a second load inside the dice which moves about with a 500 throw period. What would you expect to see?

    Keep this going boys, because you are sending these analogies in the right direction. TMax change is just normal variation (randomness) of cycles within cycles.

    BTW, over the holidays I’m going to write a simulation program so you can see clearer what I mean about cycles within cycles in random values.

  327. #328 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    ANALYSIS PREDICTS STATIC OR COOLING CONDITIONS FOR NEXT THREE DECADES FOLLOWED BY MODEST WARMING TO 2100

    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

  328. #329 MarkB
    December 18, 2010

    Using the gambling analogy, a roulette player bets on red or black 100 times. The casino has the statistical edge, but the chances of the casino being ahead is not a lot greater than 50%. Now if the player has 100 sessions of 100 rounds, the odds improve greatly for the casino. If the player plays 100 sessions of 100 rounds at 100 casinos, even better. A truly incompetent casino analyst would only focus on a single 100-round session, and might come to the erroneous conclusion the casino doesn’t have an edge or the player is cheating. Maybe the casino analyst is not really stupid, and wants an excuse to escort the player to a room for a good beatdown.

  329. #330 skip
    December 18, 2010

    ANALYSIS PREDICTS STATIC OR COOLING CONDITIONS FOR NEXT THREE DECADES FOLLOWED BY MODEST WARMING TO 2100 — Richard #328

    From the link to ICSC Richard provided on the Akasofu paper:

    “The view presented in this paper predicts the temperature increase in 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2°C, rather than 4°C ± 2.0°C predicted by the IPCC.”

    From Richard, Post 300

    . . . I give no credence at all when I see predictions about the future which has the words “will be”, “might be”. etc. You can bet that 95% of the time that “will be” is actually “won’t be.”

  330. #331 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    Another test. http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-4e.html

    This time I’ve counted the number of days for all those stations which are at each degree deviation from the station’s baseline. You will see that not only is the highest TMax dropping, but also each degree deviations above the baseline are also dropping. That is, fewer days are landing above the baseline today than they did in the 1930′s and 1940′s. We are cooling in the summers across all temps above the baseline.

  331. #332 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    A truly incompetent casino analyst would only focus on a single 100-round session, and might come to the erroneous conclusion the casino doesn’t…

    Now apply that same logic to AGW, which only has at the most 100 years or data, but only really 40 years, the last 40 years, to claim CO2 is changing the climate. Hence I could rewite that with this:

    A truly incompetent [climate scientist] would only focus on a single 100-[year] session, and might come to the erroneous conclusion the [climate] doesn’t [have natural cycles].

    And yes Skip, my position on predictions stands. That link did say something about “if the trend continues.” I posted this as a counter to the predictions of the IPCC.

  332. #333 skip
    December 18, 2010

    I understand Richard, but according to an author whose name you didn’t remember from a TV interview regarding a book you didn’t read we can both be confident that

    . . . 95% of the time predictions were wrong, some very wrong (ie the opposite). . . the more someone is claimed to be an expert on the subject, the WORSE they were in predicting.

    What is to prevent me from situationally applying this principle to Akasofu?

  333. #334 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    What is to prevent me from situationally applying this principle to Akasofu?

    Nothing as long as you also apply it to the same degree to the IPCC.

  334. #335 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217&JournalID=69#abstract

    Akasofu’s paper.

    “We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. ” Then the last 40 years of climate change cannot be from AGW.

  335. #336 Ian Forrester
    December 18, 2010

    Wakefield, if you were really a “skeptic” rather than an idiot denier you would have found that Akasofu’s paper is junk. He is not a climate scientist and has never done any work in the field except for junk science. Sounds a bit like you, a raving Dunning Kruger sufferer.

  336. #337 blueshift
    December 18, 2010

    Richard in 325,

    “Would you say that this is a distinguishing signal? Or is this “trend” just random walking?”

    I wouldn’t say one way or the other without determining how to distinguish between a real trend and a random walk. I know that there are such tests, but I don’t know what they are, how much data they require etc. etc.

    Are you going to tell me how many Tmax days are below 27 C?

    “A truly incompetent [climate scientist] would only focus on a single 100-[year] session, and might come to the erroneous conclusion the [climate] doesn’t [have natural cycles].”

    Richard, you can’t possibly believe that AGW is based simply on our ability to distinguish a signal over the last 100 years. Can you?

  337. #338 skip
    December 18, 2010

    Then the last 40 years of climate change cannot be from AGW.

    The paper doesn’t say that.

    It argues that we must consider this presumed recovery in estimating the *extent* of AGW.

    In any event, I am *not* saying Akasofu is certainly wrong, because I personally am not competent to say. What I will say is that, as an individual whose specialty is *not* climate science–and his is not–I will not cavalierly accept his reduced estimate of warming over the consensus of the specialists of whom he is not even a peer.

    My point is that saying predictions have been wrong in the past justifies dismissing current climate predictions now is just a subcategory of the lazy and ignorant argument that you constantly get from deniers: “Scientists have been wrong before . . . about something. Therefore I can safely assume climate scientists are wrong now.”

    Intellectual sloth wedded to and sustaining scientific illiteracy. Its a hick argument for people that want to hold a forceful opinion without any justification beyond a vague hunch.

  338. #339 Snowman
    December 18, 2010

    Slightly off the precise topic, perhaps, but in the indulgent spirit of the season perhaps Coby will permit this entertaining little sketch from a recent BBC comedy programme.

    Merry Christmas to all.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk

  339. #340 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    Are you going to tell me how many Tmax days are below 27 C?

    Below the baseline yes, it’s coming, but why 27?

    “A truly incompetent [climate scientist] would only focus on a single 100-[year] session, and might come to the erroneous conclusion the [climate] doesn’t [have natural cycles].”

    Richard, you can’t possibly believe that AGW is based simply on our ability to distinguish a signal over the last 100 years. Can you?

    Actually, no because it is admitted that only the 40 years has there been an influence from CO2. Or do you think that 1850-1945 increase was from CO2 emissions?

    Interesting you are back away from that graph I posted. It’s not different than the ones before, and you claimed that was just randomness. Why is this one different. Looks pretty straight forward, the trend is down. More so with this one than the others I’ve posted.

  340. #341 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    Akasofu’s paper is junk.

    Then go tell that to the editors of Natural Science. Why don’t you prepare a rebuttle and submit it to them. Until you get such published your opinion is worthless.

  341. #342 Richard Wakefield
    December 18, 2010

    My point is that saying predictions have been wrong in the past justifies dismissing current climate predictions now is just a subcategory of the lazy and ignorant argument that you constantly get from deniers.

    Ah, I see, only the IPCC can accurately predict tens of years into the future, especially since its track record over that past 10 years is pathetic. Let’s see, some 10 years ago the CRU predicted the UK would be snow free all year round by now. Tell that to those now suffering the worst snowfall in record history there.

    Your double standard is showing clearly.

  342. #343 Ian Forrester
    December 18, 2010

    Wakefield whined:

    Then go tell that to the editors of Natural Science. Why don’t you prepare a rebuttle (sic) and submit it to them. Until you get such published your opinion is worthless.

    It is not my opinion but the opinion of honest scientists who work in the field. Of course you know that but deniers have to stick together. You are a perfect example of someone who has a bad case of Dunning Kruger Syndrome. I wonder if any psychologist is studying this thread for a perfect case study.

  343. #344 skip
    December 18, 2010

    Let’s see, some 10 years ago the CRU predicted the UK would be snow free all year round by now.

    I know the alleged source of this claim. Do you?

  344. #345 blueshift
    December 18, 2010

    “Below the baseline yes, it’s coming, but why 27?”

    My god Richard. Your page “proving” that there was a “pendulum” like rhythm used the chance of a year following one with an annual Tmax of 27C. Do you still not understanding that you need to know what the chance of any randomly selected annual Tmax being below 27C is to know whether your analysis means *anything*.

    “Actually, no because it is admitted that only the 40 years has there been an influence from CO2. Or do you think that 1850-1945 increase was from CO2 emissions?”

    Only you say that Richard. You have been corrected on this point multiple times. Climate change follows changes in the *net* radiative forcing. Always. Changes in CO2 concentrations always contribute to that forcing. Statistically disentangling the relative contribution may not be possible until recently when other forcings are flat or negative and we have much more accurate measurements of those forcings and the temperature. *But* that doesn’t mean the radiative properties of CO2 have changed in any way.

    “Interesting you are back away from that graph I posted. It’s not different than the ones before, and you claimed that was just randomness.”

    I have done neither. For me to claim it was just randomness would require proving the null hypothesis.

    “Looks pretty straight forward, the trend is down.”

    Oh yeah? And what are the p and r2 values Richard?

    Again, you can’t make these sorts of statements if you haven’t done the tests of significance. How can you not understand this? Have you taken a basic stats course?

  345. #346 skip
    December 18, 2010

    Snowman:

    Bah humbug.

    You don’t get to spend the year reveling in your role as the Tokyo Rose of this forum and then switch to holiday cheer because you want get off Santa Claus’s naughty list.

    If you want to engage in civil debate, answer direct questions, and treat this serious subject with respect and sobriety it deserves, *then* I’ll reciprocate your yule time niceties. If you’re *really* good I might even arrange via Coby to send you that ultimate symbol of American Christmas sentiment, the inedible fruitcake–next year. In the mean time don’t blame me for the lump of coal in your stocking.

  346. #347 Snowman
    December 18, 2010

    Goodness me, Skip, bah humbug indeed.

  347. #348 Snowman
    December 19, 2010

    Oh, and by the way, Skip, I’m shocked at your implied approval of the lump of coal in my Christmas stocking. Do I really need to remind you that coal is a fossil fuel, and that we have it on no less an authority than the sainted Hansen that coal trains are ‘death trains’?

  348. #349 Richard Wakefield
    December 19, 2010

    It is not my opinion but the opinion of honest scientists who work in the field.

    And such was published where?

  349. #350 Richard Wakefield
    December 19, 2010

    I know the alleged source of this claim. Do you?

    Of course not, what does that have to do with the prediction that turned out to be completely wrong? A pediction based on their understanding of AGW. Or are you going to force me to get the exact quotes.

  350. #351 skip
    December 19, 2010

    Or are you going to force me to get the exact quotes.

    I can’t force you of course. I’m just curious if you’re capable.

  351. #352 Richard Wakefield
    December 19, 2010

    Oh yeah? And what are the p and r2 values Richard?

    R2 is right on the graph, 18%. How can you do a chitest on the values when you don’t know what the expected temps should be? This is not like throwing dice when you know what the expected distribution should be. We DON’T know what the distribution SHOULD be with TMax.

  352. #353 Richard Wakefield
    December 19, 2010

    I can’t force you of course. I’m just curious if you’re capable.

    Is it true or not? Did the Met Office via the CRU, some 10 years ago, claimed that by this time the UK would be snow free? That snow would be a “rarity”?

  353. #354 skip
    December 19, 2010

    You’re sounding less sure all the time.

    What’s happening here, Richard, is that you’re misinterpreting another one of your links you never read.

    I’ll let you figure out which one. Its about time you actually read the things you cite.

  354. #355 Snowman
    December 19, 2010
  355. #356 Richard Wakefield
    December 19, 2010

    That’s it. Hey, Skip if you know David Viner, maybe you can ask him about his prediction 10 years ago now. If the lack of snow was evidence of AGW, what does the lst two year show? The answer: Global warming…

  356. #357 Richard Wakefield
    December 19, 2010

    And this week in the Independant for comparison:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/elderly-at-risk-as-money-for-heating-help-runs-out-2162635.html

    Office for National Statistics figures show that 28,160 deaths were related to the cold weather over four months last winter, and charities – which point out that the UK has the highest winter death rate in northern Europe – fear the figure will rise this year. Earlier this month, two pensioners in Cumbria – Lillian Jenkinson, 80, and William Wilson, 84 – were believed to have frozen to death at home.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/britain-braces-for-weeks-of-transport-chaos-2162638.html

    The Royal Mail said it was experiencing the worst December conditions for 30 years.

  357. #358 michael
    December 20, 2010

    Hi fellas,
    I haven’t posted for a while…
    I have read this thread with interest; with interest indeed!
    Hi Richard, nice to read you.
    Hi Skip, and welcome back Snowman!
    IAN! HELLO! (you are not so abusive these days… I hope I had a hand in that…)
    (ahem!)
    I’d like to know what you make of these two videos.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_kmp3vUJhzI
    (please watch part 2 as well)

  358. #359 skip
    December 20, 2010

    Ah, well, the holiday wine wears off, I get up early, and I see that Richard and Snowman have been busily revelling together in their latest triumph over AGW.

    The whole thing is a case study in Denierthink: Declare the downfall of AGW, then “find” something that vindicates the declaration. But by all means do not actually READ the alleged proof.

    Richard starts out brazen . . .

    Let’s see, some 10 years ago the CRU predicted the UK would be snow free all year round by now. Richard #342

    . . . then fear compromises his grammar even more than usual. . .

    Did the Met Office via the CRU, some 10 years ago, claimed that by this time the UK would be snow free? That snow would be a “rarity”? Richard #353

    But that font of scientific rigor, Snowman, comes to the rescue–with a link supplied by Anthony Watts, boldy posting . . .

    Is this the article you had in mind, Skip?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment . . .

    The coup is consumated by Richard’s declaration of victory:

    That’s it. Hey, Skip if you know David Viner, maybe you can ask him about his prediction 10 years ago now. Richard #356

    Snowman . . . a friend in need, eh Richard? The rout is on! High fives for Richard and Snowman! Ha ha! In your face, Skip! End of story, right?

    Oh, um, but . . . ah gee. There is the tiny, minor, itty bitty matter of what what Viner *really* said:

    According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.

    Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

    Viner never acted as official spokesman for the CRU–let alone the MET office. He never said “The winter of 2010 will be snow free.” He said his predictions would become manifiest in 20 years, not 10. He never denied that snowfall could still strike England.

    This, Richard and Snowman, is what happens when you choose illiteracy and ignorance as a lifestyle. Things that prove nothing in reality prove the worldview of Anthony Watts in his and your minds.

    The lesson–not that either of you will learn it–is the axiom of Ricky Roma (played by Al Pacino) from the film *Glengarry Glen Ross*:

    “You wanna know the first rule? You’d know it if you’d spent a day in your life. You NEVER open your mouth, unless you KNOW what the shot is.”

  359. #360 Richard Wakefield
    December 20, 2010

    Children just aren’t going to know what snow is. –Dr David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

    Despite the cold winter this year, the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future. The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850. –Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, 25 February 2009

    Why did the Met Office forecast a “mild winter”? –Boris Johnson, Major of London, The Daily Telegraph, 20 December 2010

    December 2010 is “almost certain” to be the coldest since records began in 1910, according to the Met Office. –The Independent, 18 December 2010

  360. #361 Richard Wakefield
    December 20, 2010

    He said his predictions would become manifiest in 20 years, not 10

    No, back in 2000 he predicted the UK to be show free in 8 years.

  361. #362 blueshift
    December 20, 2010

    “R2 is right on the graph, 18%. How can you do a chitest on the values when you don’t know what the expected temps should be? This is not like throwing dice when you know what the expected distribution should be. We DON’T know what the distribution SHOULD be with TMax.”

    Its like you know which words to use, but not how to use them. I asked for the p value, and yes you can get that when doing a linear trend estimate.

    You are right that we don’t know what the annual Tmax distribution should look like. In fact I told you quite a while ago that you should do some tests of the data to see if it violates assumptions of normality. Its funny that you suddenly say we don’t know the distribution of the data that you’ve been relying on.

    Richard, if you don’t know how these values should be distributed, then how in the world can you say that they are clearly falling?

    However, you could use a Chi Square test for your “pendulum” theory. Just pull the # of annual Tmax below 27C and use that as your expected frequency. You already stated the observed frequency on your website.

    I’m certain there are better and more powerful ways to test this. Maybe a more knowledgeable poster will point them out. On the other hand, this would be very easy and if you didn’t get a signficant result would be pretty good evidence IMHO.

    http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage28.htm

  362. #363 Richard Wakefield
    December 20, 2010

    I’d like to know what you make of these two videos.

    UHIE doesn’t exist according to the AGW faithful, they will find fault with it.

    Interesting the Russian data is on line, definitely going to check it out.

  363. #364 Richard Wakefield
    December 20, 2010

    Richard, if you don’t know how these values should be distributed, then how in the world can you say that they are clearly falling?

    That’s funny. So the 10 year moving average isn’t dropping in that graph on the top of this page: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/canadian-heat-waves-part-4e.html

    So I understand you correctly. Your position is that one cannot tell if this series of temps is dropping without rigorous stats testing, is that your position?

    Second, on the normal distribution. I’m preparing an animation of each year’s TMax distributions. It will be VERY interesting to watch. So much for “normal” distributions and what that SHOULD be. Should have it done today or tomorrow.

    I’m also writing a simulator, using a series of random number generators, which should nicely simulate the temperature profiles.

  364. #365 skip
    December 20, 2010

    No, back in 2000 he predicted the UK to be show free in 8 years.

    You’re just making shit up, Richard. He never said there would never be snow. Your other quotes had nothing to do with Viner.

    And even so, who cares what Viner says? And even if predictions by some individuals of the regional effects of climate change have been wrong in the past, how does that disprove the overall theory of AGW? No rigorous AGW scientists thinks the manifestations of the phenomenon can be precisely forecast. All they’re saying is the temperatures, in the long run, will go *up* on average.

    This is not just a distortion of the record, its guilt by false association: “A climate change believer once made a flawed prediction, therefore AGW is false.”

    Again, Richard, your worldview is the fruit of illiteracy. You watch the weather channel and talk shows and conclude you have the world figured out. For confirmation of your biases you troll the web for headlines–or let Anthony Watts (in this case via Snowman) do the trolling for you.

  365. #366 Snowman
    December 20, 2010

    What a deeply strange fellow you can be at times, Skip. You challenged Richard to produce a certain article. I did so, and asked, quite genuinely and with no hint of triumphalism, if this was the one you had in mind. And for my troubles I am traduced as someone who chooses illiteracy and ignorance.

    Incidentally, I don’t know what this has to do with Anthony Watts. Did he once post it on his blog? I have no idea, but if he did, so what? The article appeared in the Independent newspaper.

  366. #367 blueshift
    December 20, 2010

    “Your position is that one cannot tell if this series of temps is dropping without rigorous stats testing, is that your position?”

    Richard, do you understand why science employs stats and significance testing? My position is that if you want to claim something or other is “clearly” happening (as you have done repeatedly) then you had better be damn certain that the effect isn’t the result of random noise. You have done absolutely nothing, nothing at all, to do so. I have been trying to help you do this but you seem determined not to test the null hypothesis on your data.

    Frankly, I find it hypocritical that you claim on the one hand you can’t do basic significance testing because we don’t know what the distribution should be and on the other that a 10 year moving average can be used to make definitive statements about what is happening. Basically you want to play T-Ball but make us all pretend your hitting in the majors.

  367. #368 Richard Wakefield
    December 20, 2010

    Blueshift, this is why there is no normal distribution to TMax. http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/does-temperature-profile-follow.html

    Watch the video and tell me what you think you see.

    I’ve been leading you all this time because I want to make absolutely sure what your postions is. I’m preparing another post.

  368. #369 skip
    December 20, 2010

    And for my troubles I am traduced as someone who chooses illiteracy and ignorance.

    No. It is for your historic embodiment of both those qualities.

    I asked Richard to produce proof that

    10 years ago the CRU predicted the UK would be snow free all year round by now. Richard # 342

    He then sent out the following distress signal:

    Did the Met Office via the CRU, some 10 years ago, claimed that by this time the UK would be snow free? Richard #353

    I said

    you’re misinterpreting another one of your links you never read.

    When you provided your link to the Independent article, what did dear Richard say?

    That’s it. Hey, Skip if you know David Viner, maybe you can ask him about his prediction 10 years ago now.

    The problem–one that would be resolved through the simple attributes of literacy and genuine inquiry–is that this article does not prove Richard’s claim.

    The irony of all this, Snowman, is that given a chance to make a reasonable claim–that climate science is imperfect, that climate scientists are fallible–you’re both pissing it away with this outrageous straw man.

  369. #370 Richard Wakefield
    December 20, 2010

    Blueshift, I’m done.

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/exposing-faithfuls-double-standard.html

    Nice job of exposing the double standard.

  370. #371 wagdog
    December 20, 2010

    So everyone’s playing the Quote Mining game, now.

    Dr. Viner turned out to be correct that heavy snow would return occasionally, but it only took 10 years for it to cause chaos. He obviously could not predict economic austerity leading to under-investment in snow clearing equipment. But economics isn’t an exact science.

    If we can drop the Transactional Analysis Games for one moment, and consider two factors contributing to record snow falls in the UK:

    1. Speeding up of the hydrological cycle, implies increased precipitation which often is in the form of rain, but takes the form of snow if the air is cold enough.

    2. This cold air is being driven over the UK from the Arctic by “one of the most bizarre patterns in recent memory”. As cold air leaves the Arctic, abnormally mild air from Canada is taking its place. In the last decade, climate researchers have noticed anomalies with unusual north-south circulatory patterns in the Arctic atmosphere which may be linked to the loss of sea ice due to global warming. Whether this current weather pattern is part of the Arctic Dipole Anomaly remains to be seen.

    While one cannot attribute any one single regional weather event to AGW, it is still consistent with a changing climate in a warming planet.

  371. #372 skip
    December 20, 2010

    Richard, your triumphant little trick (flipping the Tmax graphs) to ferret out the “double standard” is at least amusing.

    At the beginning of that thread at that site, when I initially showed my temp profiles, these people had no problem in accepting that winter TMin was increasing. That, they said, was well within AGW theory. So for these people this graph of increasing TMin is quite acceptable:

    And in fact it *is* increasing, as per your data and your claim.

    If they claim that TMax is not dropping but has to be “properly” stat tested, then they also MUST apply this to TMin, which they fully accept that AGW would produce.

    I thank the guys at illconcidered for playing the game and being test subjects.

    Richard, you’re living in a dream world.

    There is probably *one* “guy” contributiong to this site who even looked at your fricking flipped graph–Blueshift. (I know I didn’t.) He probably never even *saw* the original Tmax “downward trend” graph. This silly conflation of all of “us” into the “faithful” just shows how clueless your are about how we arrived at our conclusions.

    I don’t recall *anyone* saying that they accepted the upward trend of Winter Tmins as “statistically signifcant”. Most of the contributors, such as myself didn’t a give a *shit*, Richard.

    Your entire point was that “Its not getting warmer; its getting less cold.” And the main response was, fine–*so what*? Whether upward winter Tmins are statistically significant or not, for the sake of argument lets assume–*as you claim*–they are occuring. So what? Because this is completely consistent with AGW theory.

    Repeat, Richard, *you’re the one* who brought up the increasing winter Tmins, not us.

    And what of the *real* summer Tmax plot? Does it really show a trend as profoundly downward as your fake graph? It doesn’t, does it, Richard? That’s what blueshift is questioning.

    Richard, you’ve duped *no one*. Except yourself.

  372. #373 Snowman
    December 20, 2010

    Skip, I genuinely don’t know what you are talking about. You should take some deep breaths. I have made no claims and set up no straw man. I merely posted a link to an article that had been discussed.

  373. #374 blueshift
    December 20, 2010

    Richard, Richard, Richard. Pay attention please.

    1) I am asking you about your frequent claims regarding the annual Tmax. The distribution of the daily Tmax is not the same thing.

    2) I have said from the beginning that annual Tmax is probably not normally distributed and that you should test it.

    3) There are tests that you can apply *even when the data isn’t normally distributed*. I linked to a page that you ought to be able to use to calculate the Chi Square goodness of fit for your data.

    “I’ve been leading you all this time because I want to make absolutely sure what your postions is.”

    I’m pretty confident that you couldn’t accurately state my position even now.

  374. #375 skip
    December 20, 2010

    I genuinely don’t know what you are talking about.

    Such deficits in your comprehension are pervasive.

  375. #376 snowman
    December 20, 2010

    Then perhaps, Skip, you will enlighten me. What, precisely, is the Snow Man that I have supposedly set up? As you have reminded us on many occasions of the importance of honesty in debate, I am sure you will answer the question without prevarication.

  376. #377 Snowman
    December 20, 2010

    Nice freudian slip there: for Snow Man read Straw Man.

  377. #378 blueshift
    December 20, 2010

    Oh Richard.

    Skip has responded nicely, so I’ll try not to repeat him.

    “This shows so clearly their bias against TMax dropping. They will go to any lengths to discredit it.”

    Sure, if “any lengths” means doing a basic statistical test that would be required for any publication. I guess I’m just a zealot that way.

    “Increasing TMin is OK, no stat test needed because it fits the theory, but oh no, we must apply rigorous stats to prove TMax is dropping.”

    Let’s review.

    *You* claimed that annual Tmax was clearly dropping. Further you stated that this was a big deal and had major implications for AGW theory.

    I asked you whether the decline was statistically significant. I explained why this question mattered and tried to point you towards some ways of answering the question.

    You avoided doing this repeatedly.

    Finally, you say “aha you don’t know if the Tmin increase is significant, so your a hypocrite”.

    So now I say, “But Richard, I never said it was. It might not be since you are looking at a small portion of the globe. It isn’t relevant to your central claim, and even if I were a hypocrite about this *you still haven’t proven your basic claim*.”

  378. #379 skip
    December 20, 2010

    Your problem, Snowman (if I might put it so directly) is that you seem to feel I am under some sort of obligation to respond to your hectoring.

  379. #380 Snowman
    December 20, 2010

    Touche, Skip. However, I thought that as you had lectured us so sternly on this matter, you might relish the opportunity to demonstrate your moral superiority. (Still, good riposte; I grant you that.)

  380. #381 skip
    December 20, 2010

    I must likewise reluctantly acknowledge your ability to remember your own words, at least.

    I make no claim of *overall* moral superiority that would induce any relish at the prospect of demonstrating it. I stick by what I always have said. I feel a compulsion to be intellectually honest. You don’t.

  381. #382 Snowman
    December 20, 2010

    As you feel a compulsion to be intellectually honest, perhaps you will permit me to repeat my question: what, precisely, was the straw man that I supposedly set up?

  382. #383 skip
    December 20, 2010

    You aided and abetted Richard in his dubious claim about the CRU’s/Met Office’s prediction.

  383. #384 Snowman
    December 20, 2010

    You disappoint me, Skip. If you look back through this thread you will see I did nothing of the kind. I merely posted a link to an article that had been raised in discussion.

    But you know that, and that is why your answer is equivocal and evasive. Little sign there, I fear, of your intellectual honesty.

    I repeat: where is the evidence that I set up a straw man? Either present it, or kindly concede that you were wrong.

  384. #385 skip
    December 20, 2010

    I merely posted a link to an article that had been raised in discussion.

    Oh, bullshit. You thought you were scoring a point for Richard. So did he. Give it up, Snowman.

    And kindly provide evidence that the subject of AGW has become fatally politicized, the result of moral blackmail and tribalism that has corrupted independent inquiry, as proven by climate gate.

    Either present it, or kindly concede that you were wrong.

  385. #386 Snowman
    December 20, 2010

    Skip, someone of your oft-proclaimed intellectual honesty should be embarrassed by your lack of integrity. Challenged to produce evidence to justify your accusations, you resort to coarse language and vulgar abuse.

    Everyone reading this, including those on your side, will be saying to themselves: ‘Don’t continue to dig yourself into a deeper hole, Skip. Just admit you made a mistake and it will be forgotten.’

    Although that is sound advice, I am very much afraid you won’t take it. Oh well, I suppose we will all just have to remember this incident the next time you climb aboard your moral high horse. It’s disappointing, all the same. Incredible though it now seems, I had actually thought better of you.

  386. #387 skip
    December 20, 2010

    I had actually thought better of you.

    I cannot repay the compliment. I never thought highly of you.

    Quit trying to make like the civil disputant, Snowman. Its too late.

  387. #388 Snowman
    December 20, 2010

    Oh, and Skip, as you are forever taking others to task for their grammar, I do wish you would learn the difference between its and it’s.

  388. #389 skip
    December 20, 2010

    Heh.

    Noted.

  389. #390 Richard Wakefield
    December 20, 2010

    Repeat, Richard, *you’re the one* who brought up the increasing winter Tmins, not us.

    Yes, that is what I posted, the lowest TMin is increasing. Your side, including Coby, said that was expected under AGW and ASKED FOR NO STATS TO BACK IT UP. In other words the graphs were taken as a given.

    And what of the *real* summer Tmax plot? Does it really show a trend as profoundly downward as your fake graph? It doesn’t, does it, Richard? That’s what blueshift is questioning.

    They most certainly do show a drop, just not as much as TMin is increasing. The purpose of the excersize was not to know which graph is doing what, it was to ferrit out that you all wanted “proper” analysis done on TMax but not Tmin. When I shows a flipped TMin I was told I needed to do more stats on it to show a drop. Yet no one requests that for an increasing TMin.

    Hence the double standard.

    If I need to prove TMax is decreasing with stats, then I should also need to prove TMin is increasing with those same stats.

    I can be asured that if I had found TMax increasing with my methods you would all be enbracing me and saying “Thankyou Richard for providing more evidence of global warming.”

    But since it is not, the knives are out trying to figure out what I did wrong.

  390. #391 Richard Wakefield
    December 20, 2010

    1) I am asking you about your frequent claims regarding the annual Tmax. The distribution of the daily Tmax is not the same thing.

    Well, it is, because it was asked of me what the full range of TMax was doing. So what you want is for me to make another animation of just the highest of each year’s TMax for 29 stations. Thus each year is only going to have 29 points, not much of a bar graph. But I will endure. Will take a few days to complete.

    2) I have said from the beginning that annual Tmax is probably not normally distributed and that you should test it.

    That is exactly what I did, not one year is a normal distribution, you can see that in the animation. But what you are asking for is for each year what is the mean, median, standard deviation and skewness of each distribution curve. Those will show hoe far off a normal disribution each year is. And then what does that mean to you? To me it means just random cycles.

    3) There are tests that you can apply *even when the data isn’t normally distributed*. I linked to a page that you ought to be able to use to calculate the Chi Square goodness of fit for your data.

    Chi Squared requires one to have a predicted table. How do you predict what TMax profiles SHOULD be? Not one of them, except for maybe 1977 is close to a “should be.” Do you propose I GUESS at what the profile should be?

  391. #392 skip
    December 20, 2010

    They most certainly do show a drop, just not as much as TMin is increasing.

    I’m almost speechless.

    Richard, you’re missing so many subtleties here. First off, no one was *ever* that “threatened” by your study of select Canadian Tmaxs. No one. People were questioning it not because its a frightful challenge to their beliefs, because it isn’t. Its that it is statistically dubious *anyway*.

    Second, you can’t accuse people of a double standard when you tell them something that does not even contradict their position.

    Richard, people did not eagerly *believe* your comment about Tmins in winter. People didn’t give a rats ass either way. Winters getting warmer because of AGW is something the better educated contributors of this forum *already knew*, Richard, and they knew it for way better reasons and on way better evidence than anything you’ve provided.

    We don’t give a shit about *your* confirmation of warming winters, Richard. We never did.

  392. #393 Richard Wakefield
    December 20, 2010

    You* claimed that annual Tmax was clearly dropping. Further you stated that this was a big deal and had major implications for AGW theory.

    I asked you whether the decline was statistically significant. I explained why this question mattered and tried to point you towards some ways of answering the question.

    Yes or no. The same tests on TMax should be applied to TMin before any proclamation is made.

  393. #394 Richard Wakefield
    December 20, 2010

    Richard, people did not eagerly *believe* your comment about Tmins in winter. People didn’t give a rats ass either way. Winters getting warmer because of AGW is something the better educated contributors of this forum *already knew*, Richard, and they knew it for way better reasons and on way better evidence than anything you’ve provided.

    1) Is increasing TMin an indicator that AGW is true?

    2) Should not TMin be put under the same tests as TMax?

    3) If TMax is shown to be nothing but random cycles of variation, would that not also apply to TMin?

    4) If the drop in TMax is shown to be statistically correct, how does AGW explain that?

  394. #395 Marco
    December 20, 2010

    1. It would be one of many indicators, but it will have to be a global phenomenon (i.e., globally averaged phenomenon)

    2. Sure

    3. Not necessarily.

    4. Again, it will have to be a globally averaged phenomenon. It may be due to increased cloudiness during the day, or even a lower solar output.

  395. #396 skip
    December 21, 2010

    It would be one of many indicators, but it will have to be a global phenomenon (i.e., globally averaged phenomenon). — Marco

    Exactly, Richard. (Marco has an uncanny ability to beat me to these.)

    Your rising winter Tmins in certain Canadian stations is *consistent* with AGW. No one who read your report pounced on it as “proof” of AGW. This is the key thing you’re missing and why your eager interpretation of yourself as the protagonist in a theory-killing melodrama is so delusional.

    To be blunt, Richard, I do not have complete confidence in your data or your methods. However, for the sake of argument I, along with many others contributors, have allowed your claims of rising winter Tmins and falling summer Tmaxs to stand.

    By your own admission/analysis, winter Tmins have risen faster than summmer Tmaxs have “fallen”. Within 14 . . . or 17 . . . or whatever the number is today . . . southern Canada weather stations.

    Again, your disputants are *not* adopting one part of your analysis as proof on the one hand but questioning the “threatening” part. With the exception of Blueshift, they are granting your claims and questioning their implications. (S)he is simply asking for a statistical verification of *either* “trend.”

    Thats a fair an interesting point, but I don’t care and never did.

  396. #397 Richard Wakefield
    December 21, 2010

    3. Not necessarily.

    That’s interesting, I would be most interested to know how TMax can trend down through natural variation, but not TMin. If that is the case, then there would be an upper limit to how “hot” it can get.

    4. Again, it will have to be a globally averaged phenomenon. It may be due to increased cloudiness during the day, or even a lower solar output.

    It is global, I’ve shown it is happening in Ireland, and will be doing Russian data if I can get it and Australian data. It also has to be the case in the upper states.

    So you are admitting that natural forcings are trumping CO2 forcings when it comes to TMax. Hence AGW will not cause more heat waves as predicted.

  397. #398 Richard Wakefield
    December 21, 2010

    In light of the renewed failure to prepare the UK for a prolonged and harsh winter, the following questions need to be addressed in order to avoid future debacles:

    1. Why did the Met Office publish estimates in late October showing a 60 per cent to 80 per cent chance of warmer-than-average temperatures this winter? What was the scientific basis of this probabilistic estimate?

    2. Has the October prediction by the Met Office that this winter would be mild affected planning for this winter? If so, what is the best estimate of how much this has cost the country?

    3. Last year, the Met Office predicted a 65% chance that winter will be milder than normal. Has the Met Office subsequently explained what went wrong with its computer modelling?

    4. What is the statistical and scientific basis for the Met Office’s estimate of a 1-in-20 chance of a severe winter?

    5. Has the Met Office changed its view, or its calculations, following the harsh winters of 2008, 2009 and 2010?

    6. Is the Met Office right to claim that the severe winters of the last three years are not related?

    7. Which severe weather alerts were issued by the Met Office and when?

    8. Although the Met Office stopped sending its 3-month forecasts to the media, it would appear that this service is still available to paying customers, the Government and Local Authorities for winter planning. What was their advice, in September/October, for the start of winter 2010?

    9. Has the Met Office been the subject of any complaints from its paying customers regarding the quality of its advice?

    10. Is it appropriate that the chairman of the Met Office is a member, or a former member of climate pressure groups or carbon trading groups?

    11. Should senior Met Office staff (technically employed by the MoD) make public comments advocating political action they see necessary to tackle climate change?

    12. Has the government evaluated different meteorological service providers and has it ensured that it is using the most accurate forecaster?

    13. What plans has the government to privatise the Met Office?

    http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/2086-gwpf-calls-for-independent-inquiry-into-met-offices-winter-advice-.html

  398. #399 Richard Wakefield
    December 21, 2010

    In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.
    Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

    ‘This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz18kx7CsPQ

  399. #400 skip
    December 21, 2010

    [Viner] said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event. –Richard

    Let’s see, some 10 years ago the CRU predicted the UK would be snow free all year round by now. –Richard

    No, back in 2000 he predicted the UK to be show free in 8 years. — Richard

    You dug, and dug, didn’t you Richard? You were dying for that “8 year” prediction, but just couldn’t find it, so you just repeated the “few years” quote, which was a paraphrase by a journalist, and was never meant by Viner to mean that it was inconceivable that 2010 could have a harsh winter.

    I would rub it in but your ineptitude with sources is so well documented now there’s no point.

  400. #401 Richard Wakefield
    December 21, 2010

    Skip, how many more years of snow will it take in the UK for him to be wrong? Oh, and I will find the 8 year quote.

    The fact is the Met Office and the CRU have been wrong virtually every year with their predictions, and those mistakes are costing the UK ecomony.

  401. #402 blueshift
    December 21, 2010

    “I asked you whether the decline was statistically significant. I explained why this question mattered and tried to point you towards some ways of answering the question.”

    Richard, here is what I said: “My position is that if you want to claim something or other is “clearly” happening (as you have done repeatedly) then you had better be damn certain that the effect isn’t the result of random noise. ”

    Do you see any exemptions there, because I don’t. However; 1) I’ve been trying to understand the basis of your claims. You are the one that thinks this apparently falling annual TMax is so important. Not anyone else here. 2) Coby already pointed out to you that the restrictions you’ve placed on the data make it unlikely for you to make any claims one way or the other regarding temperature trends.

    “Well, it is, because it was asked of me what the full range of TMax was doing. So what you want is for me to make another animation of just the highest of each year’s TMax for 29 stations. Thus each year is only going to have 29 points, not much of a bar graph. But I will endure. Will take a few days to complete.”

    No, stop (unless I missed someone else asking you for that). The distribution and standard deviation of the daily Tmax values will not be the same as the annual Tmax.

    Here is what I am asking you to do:
    1) For your annual Tmax plot, the one where you have simply done 10 year moving averages, test the annual Tmax values for normality. Based on the results run the appropriate regression and give us the R2 and P values, or 95% confidence or some other legitimate quantification of the uncertainty of the apparent cooling.

    2) Regarding your “pendulum” theory, you have essentially said that an extreme annual Tmax predicts a less extreme next year. That sounds like simple reversion to the mean to me. What you need to do is determine if the year following an extreme Tmax is more likely to be less extreme then a randomly selected annual Tmax would be.

    You have already found that “At 27C, it’s only a 5% chance the next year will be cooler,”, so of the annual Tmax what is the chance that a randomly chosen year will be lower than 27C?

    These are very simple requests and should be easy to do. I can’t make it any clearer what I think you need to do to make any sort of definitive statements about your data. If you don’t do these I will assume that you are either too incompetent or afraid of the results to do so.

  402. #403 skip
    December 21, 2010

    The fact is the Met Office and the CRU have been wrong virtually every year with their predictions, and those mistakes are costing the UK ecomony.

    Since you can’t document your “8 year” claim, why not document this one and try for .500?

  403. #404 Marco
    December 21, 2010

    Richard, apart from the fact that some have already pointed out to you that not all Canadian stations show what you claim, others have already pointed out that Australia doesn’t show what you claim is a “global phenomenon”.

    Regarding my “not necessarily”: it is all a matter of magnitude and spatial distribution. Blueshift also has a few challenges for you.

  404. #405 Richard Wakefield
    December 21, 2010

    1) I’ve been trying to understand the basis of your claims. You are the one that thinks this apparently falling annual TMax is so important. Not anyone else here.

    So you have no problem with a cooler summer trend with increasing CO2 even though AGW theory predicts more heat waves? How so? So yes, I do think a dropping summer trend is VERY significant, it falsifies a major prediction of AGW.

    2) Coby already pointed out to you that the restrictions you’ve placed on the data make it unlikely for you to make any claims one way or the other regarding temperature trends.

    What restrictions have I placed on the data? I’ve only displayed what is.

    1) For your annual Tmax plot, the one where you have simply done 10 year moving averages, test the annual Tmax values for normality. Based on the results run the appropriate regression and give us the R2 and P values, or 95% confidence or some other legitimate quantification of the uncertainty of the apparent cooling.

    I have posted the R2 for every graph. They run from 5% to 15%, some specific stations a little higher. How can I check the highest TMax for normality when I don’t know what “normal” is supposed to be?

    Regarding your “pendulum” theory, you have essentially said that an extreme annual Tmax predicts a less extreme next year. That sounds like simple reversion to the mean to me. What you need to do is determine if the year following an extreme Tmax is more likely to be less extreme then a randomly selected annual Tmax would be.

    I did that in my last analysis. I am going to post some tests I’m doing over the next day or two.

    You have already found that “At 27C, it’s only a 5% chance the next year will be cooler,”, so of the annual Tmax what is the chance that a randomly chosen year will be lower than 27C?

    Randomly chosen year will require a range to choose from. If the range is 0 to 100 then the odds of an equally weighted selection would be 27% of the time under 27C. If the range is what only occurs during the summer, then the odds of a temp being below 27C is 5% from what I see.

  405. #406 Richard Wakefield
    December 21, 2010

    Marco, all Canadian stations show either a drop in TMax since 1900 or flat. None show an over all increase since 1900.

    As for the rest of the world:
    https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/1477/1/Stephenson.pdf

    “rather than viewing the world as getting hotter it might be more accurate to view it as getting less cold.”

  406. #408 Ian Forrester
    December 21, 2010

    Wakefield once again shows his ignorance of both climate science and statistics:

    all Canadian stations show either a drop in TMax since 1900 or flat. None show an over all increase since 1900.

    The fact that you make this stupid statement just shows your ignorance. Drawing a straight line trend from 1900 or earlier to today and claim this to be an AGW trend is just plain wrong. There have been a number of changes in climate during that period, the causes for which are pretty well known. The sun was the major forcing til about 1950 or so, volcanic activity was an other factor early in the last century. At about 1955 the change in solar iradiance changed from a positive trend to a negative one and the CO2 anthropogenic forcing emerged from the background as a statistically significant trend. Thus if we want to see how climate has changed due to CO2 led forcing we only need to look at the past 40 to 50 years since this is the time period when CO2 forcing is discernible.

    Thus my data on Sachs Harbour and Coral Harbour, which show an increase in Tmax during that period supports AGW. Your ridiculous Excel games show nothing of any scientific relevance. In fact, you are acting like the proverbial monkeys at the proverbial typewriters. If you plot enough Excel graphs, maybe one will be useful. I haven’t seen any yet but keep plugging away, maybe by the turn of the next century you will have provided us with a graph which is meaningful and accurate. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone’s time.

  407. #409 blueshift
    December 21, 2010

    “What restrictions have I placed on the data? I’ve only displayed what is.”

    Only choosing data from stations with a long enough continuous record, analyzing annual extremes.

    “I have posted the R2 for every graph.”
    Which says nothing about the statistical confidence we can place in your results.

    “How can I check the highest TMax for normality when I don’t know what “normal” is supposed to be?”
    You don’t know what a normal distribution is supposed to be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_test

    “I did that in my last analysis.”
    No you didn’t unless you’ve done something new that you haven’t linked.

    “Randomly chosen year will require a range to choose from. If the range is 0 to 100 then the odds of an equally weighted selection would be 27% of the time under 27C. ”
    The range and “weighting” to compare to is that of all the annual Tmax values.

    “If the range is what only occurs during the summer, then the odds of a temp being below 27C is 5% from what I see.”
    So you’ve just killed your pendulum theory.
    Do you have any idea why I say that?

  408. #410 skip
    December 21, 2010

    As for the rest of the world:
    https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/1477/1/Stephenson.pdf

    Um, Richard. You’ve cited this before. Remember what happened?

  409. #411 Marco
    December 21, 2010

    skip, the fact he cites this again, and completely ignores that it notes a positive Tmax trend (just smaller than the positive trend in Tmin), indicates to me he suffers from confirmation bias. I’ll leave him to you guys, I’m not that interested in redebunking nonsense umpteen times on the same thread.

  410. #412 michael
    December 22, 2010

    FORRESTER!
    Ian Patrick James Forrester!
    You are being abusive again!
    Why can’t you be nice? (I thought I had noticed a change in you. How wrong I was!)
    If you have the data and evidence to back up your reply to Richard, why can’t you just reply to him in a firm but polite way?
    Why do you feel the need to begin your post with just his surname, (like a school-kid) and use words like “ignorance” and “stupid”?
    I’ve said this to you previously haven’t I?
    You’ll be grounded if you’re not careful Mister!

  411. #413 skip
    December 22, 2010

    Coby:

    You’re probably about done with this subject–again. As it stands I think Richard has completely dug himself into a hole so deep that a “final final” summary thread can be done and that can close the door on Richard Wakefield for purposes of this blog. He’ll of course declare victory in his own mind but then again we’ve seen how that mind works.

    Let me know if you agree and/or want help on a closing entry. I suppose in the interest of fairness you should give Richard the final word if you choose to go this route.

  412. #414 Richard Wakefield
    December 22, 2010

    Thus my data on Sachs Harbour and Coral Harbour, which show an increase in Tmax during that period supports AGW.

    Blueshift, are you going to give Ian the same lecture that you have been giving to me about providing statistical evidence before one can make any trend claims?

  413. #415 skip
    December 22, 2010

    He was using your criteria, your rules, Richard. You had loudly proclaimed the same trend for “EVERY STATION”. Ian’s showed the opposite–statistically significant or otherwise.

    Coby, just put Richard out of his misery and we’ll do a summary post. I volunteer to help if you wish.

  414. #416 Snowman
    December 22, 2010

    “I think Richard has completely dug himself into a hole so deep that a “final final” summary thread can be done and that can close the door on Richard Wakefield for purposes of this blog.”

    What insufferable, breathtaking arrogance. Try as I may, I can’t recall Coby appointing you, Skip, to decide when a thread should be closed. Amazing.

  415. #417 skip
    December 22, 2010

    What insufferable, breathtaking arrogance. Try as I may, I can’t recall Coby appointing you, Skip, to decide when a thread should be closed.

    Nor if you read, had I claimed to be so appointed, but the error is forgivable given your inherently constrained grasp of reality.

    Here, however, is true arrogance advertising itself in print, first from someone who is bested by the simplest mathematics of trend lines:

    I suspect that belief in AGW cannot last more than another couple of years, and perhaps even less. –Snowman on Hockey Stick Open Thread #30

    And this one from a bold commentator who never read any of the CRU emails, as proven by his inability to answer direct questions regarding them:

    Skip, that these ‘enquiries’ [into Climategate] are regarded by everyone in the UK as an acute embarrassment –Snowman

    And the best of all, from a man now claiming to defend the integrity of a discussion thread on a forum about which he’s already expressed this assessment:

    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) . . . –Snowman

    Oh, yeah: arrogance. Interesting how fast you are to see it in someone else, Snowman. At least if I ever was arrogant I’d have a *few* reasons to be.

  416. #418 Snowman
    December 22, 2010

    I’m beginning to fear for Skip, I really am. Of course, we’ve seen this before. We know that, sooner or later, all warmists lose their grip on reality. Read the last couple of articles by Monbiot in the Guardian. Mad as a hatter. And now Skip. It is so very, very sad.

  417. #419 skip
    December 22, 2010

    As much as I appreciate your concern; I’m doing fine.

    If I were you I’d work on trend lines, and maybe remembering what you said in the past before firing off your mouth again.

  418. #420 Richard Wakefield
    December 22, 2010

    Only choosing data from stations with a long enough continuous record, analyzing annual extremes.

    Oh, I see I should be narrowing the years to get a long term trend, please explain how that would work.. Fewer years means LESS ability to show a trend no matter how many records you have.

    This isnt my imposing of restrictions, this is working within the limitations of the data.

    And I have NOT done just the extremes, I have also done ALL the TMax daily temps on many of my graphs.

    You don’t know what a normal distribution is supposed to be?

    Of course I know what normal distribution is. What we do not know is what is “normal” for TMax. Chi Test requires an expected dataset to compare to. What in TMax is “expected”. What do we test against?

    “If the range is what only occurs during the summer, then the odds of a temp being below 27C is 5% from what I see.”
    So you’ve just killed your pendulum theory.
    Do you have any idea why I say that?

    You are thinking in one dimention. I’m preparing a mathematic model test of normal random variation with additional random cycles add in and see how the trend is working. Almost got it working.

    “I did that in my last analysis.”
    No you didn’t unless you’ve done something new that you haven’t linked.

    I will try again, run the video: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/does-temperature-profile-follow.html This is ALL TMax from May to Sept for those 29 stations. Each year has about 5000 records.

  419. #421 mandas
    December 22, 2010

    skip

    I agree with you about drawing an end to this pointless discussion – but I guess it is coby’s site and its up to him what he does with it.

    I grew bored with it ages ago when I realised that all Dick did was lie and move the goalposts, and is completely out of his depth in regards to statistics and scientific methodology. On top of which the discussion is completely moronic anyway. The numbers that are being argued about are from a tiny corner of the world and are not representative of everywhere else, and are completely irrelevant as determinants of whether or not AGW is a valid theory. Who cares whether the absolute maximum / minimum each year is increasing / decreasing? For all the REAL indicators (increasing mean temperature, increasing number of hot days/nights, decreasing number of cold days / nights, etc), observations match predictions, so why everyone has spent over 900 posts arguing over the minutae of irrelevant data is simply beyond me.

    I note that marco has just grown sick of it and said he won’t be back. Might I suggest that you (and everyone else) do likewise. Coby may not feel inclined to kill him off, but maybe Dick will die or simply fade away if people stop feeding him.

  420. #422 Richard Wakefield
    December 22, 2010

    He was using your criteria, your rules, Richard. You had loudly proclaimed the same trend for “EVERY STATION”. Ian’s showed the opposite–statistically significant or otherwise.

    He did nothing of the sort. Ian chose a station with half the records to see a long term, since 1900, trend. Because of that there is no way there is any trend except in his mind. Secondly the increase in Sachs Harbour was from the mid 1950s to the 1970′s where it ended and has been flat since. Hence Ian proved nothing of the sort specifically if Ian has to just through the hoops that Blueshift demands.

    Sounds to me you want to cut off this thread for fear I will be shown to be statistically correct.

  421. #423 Richard Wakefield
    December 22, 2010

    For all the REAL indicators (increasing mean temperature, increasing number of hot days/nights, decreasing number of cold days / nights, etc),

    Show me the data where the “hot days/nights” around the world are increasing.

  422. #424 mandas
    December 22, 2010

    If I do, will you promise to publicly admit you are wrong, do so on your own website, then shut the fuck up and go away never to return?

  423. #425 skip
    December 22, 2010

    Ian chose a station with half the records to see a long term, since 1900, trend.

    And you’ve used 14 . . . or 17 . . . or twentysomethingish . . . from Southern Canada to declare a worldwide one. Sauce for the goose, Richard.

    Because of that there is no way there is any trend except in his mind.

    Wrong.

    There *was* a trend in the available data, which directly contradicted your claim about the universality of your alleged trend. You’ll never escape this inherent contradiction in your position, Richard: No stations other than the ones you’ve selected will ever satisfy the arbitrary selection criteria, but this in turn *limits your generalizations to those stations.*

    And the generalizations don’t mean shit anyway, because there is no rule that Southern Canada can’t have a leveling/declining Tmax within an overall global AGW signal.

    Again, on the one hand you have–whether through conscious machination or blind arbitrariness–selected stations that fit your (impotent) hypothesis. If no other stations fit the selection criteria, then you’re *prevented* from making generalizations beyond your selection. No escaping it, Richard.

  424. #426 mandas
    December 22, 2010

    skip

    I guess that’s fair! I stepped on your toes now your stepping on mine!! But you did castigate me once for giving Dick an excuse to change the subject, so you should be consistent and not give him one to escape my clutches!

    I’ve got him in the corner and on the ropes, and was about to deliver the knock out blow, and now you’ve tagged me! (yeah – mixed wrestling and boxing metaphors there. Sorry!)

  425. #427 Richard Wakefield
    December 22, 2010

    mandas bring it on. You are going to provide daily summer TMax temps, right.

  426. #428 Richard Wakefield
    December 22, 2010

    skip, please show here http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/sachs-harbour.html where Ian has shown an increasing trend. Also, find a station in Canada that is not level, not dropping in TMax. My choice of stations and ranges is because of record limitations, not my bias. If only 6 stations in all of Canada have complete records since 1900, how am I supposed to do to get more? If only 29 stations have data from 1920, am i supposed to invent it?

  427. #429 mandas
    December 22, 2010

    Dick

    Not so fast. You have to meet the criteria I discussed. You have to show the level of integrity I would expect from a scientist (yes, I know you aren’t one, but we are discussing science here). That is, when you are shown the evidence, you will publicly admit you are wrong, both here and on your own website. You will then drop this subject and never raise it here again.

    Agreed?

  428. #430 mandas
    December 22, 2010

    Oh – and I have temperature data (daily minimum and maximum temperatures – not just summer maximums) for every Australian station going back for as long as records were kept.

    Good enough?

  429. #431 skip
    December 22, 2010

    Ok my bad.

    Skip out.

  430. #432 Richard Wakefield
    December 22, 2010

    That is, when you are shown the evidence, you will publicly admit you are wrong, both here and on your own website. You will then drop this subject and never raise it here again.

    I always go with the evidence. If your data shows different from Canada, I will post it on my site. But I want access to the data.

  431. #433 Richard Wakefield
    December 22, 2010

    FIY, Mandas as I have noted before, my name is not Dick.

  432. #434 mandas
    December 22, 2010

    And my name isn’t mandas either.

    And I’m still waiting for you to agree to my condition. When the evidence shows you are wrong, you have to publicly admit you are wrong – both here and on your website.

    Its a pretty simple condition based around honesty and a demonstration of scientific integrity. So how about you just simply state that you agree?

  433. #435 Snowman
    December 23, 2010

    ‘You will then drop this subject and never raise it here again.’

    This is the sort of deal the Inquisition once offered to heretics. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

  434. #436 coby
    December 23, 2010

    Snowman, you are good for comic relief, I’ll give you that! Here I thought the inquisition was about torturing confessions out of people before executing them and all along it was about demanding people admit they were wrong when confronted with empirical evidence…

    But now that you mention it, yea, what a coincidence!

    I don’t mind shutting down the thread, but would rather it just peter out on its own.

    Richard has revealed his lack of understanding of his subject many times over, I am happy to let that stand for itself but people are free to continue efforts in various directions to help him see it, or ensure followers of the discussion see it. For me, there is not much more revealing than this statement from him not far above:

    “It is global, I’ve shown it is happening in Ireland, and will be doing Russian data if I can get it and Australian data. It also has to be the case in the upper states.”

    He is declaring a “global” discovery based on scant data in southern Canada, Ireland and an assurance that it simply must appear everywhere else once he gets around to looking. That is not scepticism and does not rise to the level of evidence a sceptic would require to overturn 150 years of physics and atmospheric science research.

    Maybe mandas will be able to make some headway with Richard with Australian data…mandas, do you need any extra tools? I have some equipement left over from my Al Gore climate science training sessions.

  435. #437 Snowman
    December 23, 2010

    Glad to hear you find my modest contributions diverting, Coby. In that spirit I have a suggestion to make.

    I offer this thought with due deference and humility, alert to the danger of sounding like the egregious Skip, forever trying to take control of your blog (and, incidentally, I can only admire your patience on that score; many would have given him his marching orders long ago).

    Here is my suggestion: as the end of the year and the start of a new one is a time for predictions, why not invite thoughts on the next 12 months of climate news? I wasn’t thinking of global temperatures, arctic ice and the like (I expect we would all agree that random variation makes a single year impossible to predict). No, I was thinking of relevant political and media matters. Will the US Congress become really aggressive in its hostility to climate ‘science’? Will the mainstream media around the world begin to turn sceptical (as they already have in the UK); will the Governments of the Aussies and the Canucks become openly sceptical – will, in short the whole governmental/media consensus start to fall apart?

    What do you think? Would this be a thread worth creating?

  436. #438 Richard Wakefield
    December 23, 2010

    When the evidence shows you are wrong, you have to publicly admit you are wrong – both here and on your website.

    How can I possibly be wrong about evidence I have not yet seen. What is happening in Canada is happening in Canada, Australian data won’t change that. And Australian data won’t tell us what is happening in Africa, Russia, the EU. So there would be little to admit to.

    So, let’s see it. Why have you held back on this for so long?

  437. #439 skip
    December 23, 2010

    I wasn’t thinking of global temperatures, arctic ice and the like (I expect we would all agree that random variation makes a single year impossible to predict). –Snowman

    Not that it prevented you from extrapolating a *trend*, genius.

    Comic relief indeed.

  438. #440 skip
    December 23, 2010

    How can I possibly be wrong about evidence I have not yet seen. — Richard now

    Quite simply. If you make a prediction about it that is falsified, such as . . .

    If this is happening in Canada, then it must be happening in the US . . . Again, had you continued with the site you would have found reference to the exact same thing found in Ireland and Australia . . . My prediction is this trend is world wide. If world wide, AGW is dead in the water. — Richard then

    But see Richard now, continued:

    What is happening in Canada is happening in Canada, Australian data won’t change that. And Australian data won’t tell us what is happening in Africa, Russia, the EU. So there would be little to admit to. Richard now, continued

    This is the key problem with written debate/discussion, Richard. There is always some inescapable prick such as myself who remembers everything you wrote. (Ask Snowman.)

    Now notice, I am *not* making any predictions, because I have *not* analyzed Australian temp station data. As a genuinely skeptical non expert I have to allow for that nonzero probability that your analysis is both valid and can be extrapolated worldwide. I have grave doubts based on your demonstrated competence in other matters, but I’ll have to wait until you and Mandas both present your varied interpretations of the Aussie data.

  439. #441 Snowman
    December 23, 2010

    ‘There is always some inescapable prick such as myself……’

    Skip, there is no need to be so hard on yourself. You should work on your self esteem. I’m sure you have some very good qualities.

  440. #442 skip
    December 23, 2010

    I have plenty, but they aren’t intended for your observation.

  441. #443 Richard Wakefield
    December 23, 2010

    Skip, read my quote you posted:

    “My **PREDICTION** is this trend is world wide. **IF** world wide, AGW is dead in the water.”

    I didn’t say this trend is world wide, if it is… I have no problem being shown wrong, however, if I am right, is AGW dead? Do you have a problem beng shown wrong?

  442. #444 skip
    December 23, 2010

    My **PREDICTION** is this trend is world wide . . . I didn’t say this trend is world wide . . .

    This is an argument?

  443. #445 blueshift
    December 23, 2010

    Mandas,
    I’m happy to yield the floor to you. I am now convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Richard is either too willfully obtuse or incompetent to understand the very basic questions and suggestions I have for him.

    Richard,
    My final response to you. I have stated very clearly what you should do. If you think my approach to finding statistical significance is flawed, that’s fine. I have no doubt there are more appropriate methods out there. They will *not* be the ad hoc approaches you have been taking, and simply graphing figures and telling the world to look at them without standard testing won’t ever suffice.

  444. #446 mandas
    December 23, 2010

    Well, it looks as though everything everyone has said about Dick is right. Being very equivocal there Dick.

    As I said, I have access to the data from EVERY Australian met station going back as far as records have been kept. And I will be happy to deliver it into Dick’s hands. All he has to do is to demonstrate a degree of integrity and it is his.

    I am not asking him to admit he is wrong – yet! All I am asking is for a statement of principles. All he has to do is to state that if and when the data shows he has been wrong, then he will publicly admit it, both here and on his own website.

    Its not an onerous requirement. As I said, it is just a statement of integrity and good faith that any scientist would be prepared to state. That when the evidence shows he is wrong, he admits it and withdraws his thesis. Simple really.

    As I – and others – have tried to point out, the observations from Canada are NOT repeated worldwide. I have unequivocal evidence to show that all the observations from Australia are as I suggested. Increasing number of hot days / nights. Decreasing number of cold days / nights. Longer hot spells. Less cold spells. Increasing temperatures. Etc. Etc. Etc. I have a number of papers which discuss this phenomenon and put it into the context of global observations and AGW. And I have access to all the source data. And I am willing to provide it all. As long as the information is used with integrity – and a statement of that integrity is stated up front.

    Over to you Dick.

  445. #447 skip
    December 23, 2010

    Mandas:

    He doesn’t like being called Dick. Now watch: this will be the excuse to equivocate.

    Way to go . . .

  446. #448 Richard Wakefield
    December 23, 2010

    They will *not* be the ad hoc approaches you have been taking, and simply graphing figures and telling the world to look at them without standard testing won’t ever suffice.

    Blueshift, you will likely not believe me, that I’m trying to get out of your requests, but what I’m about to explain happened this afternoon.

    My son’s wife is an profrssional engineer working for a road building company (second largest in the province). She is responsible for calculating and measuring what is required to build a road from the first scraping to the final paving. They are here now for Xmas. So I showed her my graphs. She has no problems see a trend. She said when they do their stats they just do basic linear regression, occational correlation coefficient, and some distribution graphs. They NEVER look at R2, they don’t need it. She said their measurments are often more scattered than what I show, higher variation, but they get trend lines, which they use to make projections, and go on those projections knowing the degree of error in that. She said they rarely have problems with their projections, usually when evironmental conditions change (more rain for example).

    She does not understand your fixation on wanting more stats to prove something that, to her, is obvious. She is currently working on her PhD.

    Argument from authority, yes, but an expert opinion on the usage of stats. Basically, higher stats is academic mostly, not of practical use.

  447. #449 Richard Wakefield
    December 23, 2010

    Over to you Dick.

    I don’t know who “Dick” is, if you are refering to me, use my correct name.

  448. #450 mandas
    December 23, 2010

    skip

    As you suggested: “Quod Erat Demonstratum”

  449. #451 skip
    December 23, 2010

    Oh . . . God.

    Richard, I don’t want to distract you from your dialogue with Mandas, but I have to ask: What do you *think* will be the response to #448? I mean, what do you *expect* people will say regarding your secondhand account of a relative’s perfunctory assessment of data on a subject that is completely outside her alleged expertise?

    Is this the part where you think someone like Blueshift or Mandas will say, “Ah shit, well. That’s good enough me. Based on your description of your daughter-in-law she sounds like a pretty smart cookie. Sorry we gave you so much trouble about it.”?

    I’m sorry but I’m sitting here in stunned disbelief at what you just wrote.

  450. #452 mandas
    December 23, 2010

    skip

    No problems – we don’t seem to be having a dialogue. #448 is absolutely hilarious – but let’s leave that aside for a little while.

    I just asked Dick to demonstrate a modicum on integrity, and he has spectacularly failed to do so.

    I am offering him a chance to prove his case beyond a shadow of a doubt. I will give him access to the data from Australia that he has said – repeatedly – that he is waiting for. He has – repeatedly – said that he has a friend who is getting it for him. And he has said – repeatedly – that as soon as he gets it he will use it to demonstrate that what he has observed in Canada is in fact a worldwide phenomenon, and that it will disprove AGW. Actually, he has already suggested it IS a worldwide phenomenon, without the evidence to back up his claims. But I will allow a small benefit of the doubt here for the time being.

    Well Dick. Here’s your chance. I have access to the data. More than you need. I will give you access to all the weather observations from every Australian met station for as long as records have been kept. Daily maximum temperatures from EVERY day in EVERY year that records were kept. You will get minimum temperatures. You will get rainfall data. You can even have recent information on wind, atmospheric pressure, evaporation rates, and humidity.

    The only thing I am asking is for you to promise to use the data with integrity, and that IF the data proves that your thesis is incorrect, that you act like a real scientist and admit it, both here and on your own website. Why is that so difficult for you?

    So please, prove to everyone here that I am both mistaken in my assessment of you, and that you do possess the level of integrity that would be expected of any scientist.

    And by the way, I don’t give a flying fuck whether your name is Dick or Richard, or whatever you want to call yourself. I am going to keep calling you Dick – just get over it.

    You need to stop equivocating and changing the subject. Either you want this data and you want the chance to prove your case, in which case you need to make the ethical promise that I require. Or… you will act like the completely disengenuous denialist arsehole that we all suspect you are, and continue to equivocate and change the subject. In which case coby would be quite within his rights to ban you forever, and to post your equivocation on every single blog site he can find. Because sure as shit, if he doesn’t, I will (and I suspect there may be a few others – Ian and Chris spring to mind – that might assist me in my endeavours).

  451. #453 mandas
    December 23, 2010

    Well, its lunchtime on xmas eve. I am about to leave the office and go home and eat lobster, prawns, oysters and crab, and drink lots of good wine and have other forms of mind altering substances. Its a beautiful warm day here in Adelaide. 34 degrees, blue skies, and perfect summer weather to go for a swim and have a typical Australian xmas.

    In regards to this discussion, it looks as though the case for the prosecution can rest. Dick has proved conclusively that he has no interest in any evidence other than his small, cherry picked data set, and he has demonstrated that he would be completely unwilling to admit he could be wrong, even if he could be shown contrary evidence.

    I have offered to provide the information that the mythical ‘friend in Australia’ was going to provide – but it seems the data would not fit Dick’s preconceived worldview and it is far better to change the subject and stick fingers in ears and yell ‘lalalalalalala’ than to accept it. Interestingly enough, I know the REAL reason why Dick doesn’t want me to provide the data – and that makes the equivocation even more hilarious. You know the real reason too don’t you Dick? Why don’t you share it with us? Or would you rather me explain the truth? No worries, I will!

    The truth is, Dick has had access to the data all along and knows that it doesn’t support his position. That is why he has banged on about the ‘friend in Australia’ and has focussed the entire discussion on irrelvant data points from Canada, and tried to extrapolate that to the rest of the world by belligerence rather than evidence.

    There is NO friend in Australia, because getting the information doesn’t require one. We live in the internet age, and it is no more difficult for someone in Canada to get the data than it is for someone in Australia. But we all know that. Anyone who wants Australian met office data can get it simply and for free. It is freely available on-line. Dick knows this – has known it all along. He just doesn’t want to use it because he knows what it says.

    RW is not even up the level of being a Dick, and is beneath contempt. He has no ethics, no integrity, and should be ignored or castigated for his failures wherever he shows his face on the internet. I know I will remind him of his pitiful nature if I ever come across him again.

    To everyone else, have a merry xmas, happy chanuka, happy holidays, enjoyable solstice, or whatever you celebrate this time of year. I am going on a break until early in the new year. Fishing on Sunday, diving on Monday, golf on tuesday, then I might relax for the rest of the week.

  452. #454 Richard Wakefield
    December 23, 2010

    that is completely outside her alleged expertise?

    How is doing statistics, which she was trained to do, “out of her expertise”?

  453. #455 Richard Wakefield
    December 23, 2010

    And by the way, I don’t give a flying fuck whether your name is Dick or Richard, or whatever you want to call yourself. I am going to keep calling you Dick – just get over it.

    So you don’t mind if I call you Cunt then, eh?

  454. #456 mandas
    December 23, 2010

    Not in the slightest. Indeed, cunts are among my favourite things in the whole world.

    Thanks for the compliment.

  455. #457 Snowman
    December 24, 2010

    Hi guys. I would like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas.

    I mustn’t dilly-dally, however. I have preparations to make. The BBC – that hotbed of denialism – has just advised us that temperatures in the UK tonight will drop to ‘truly exceptional levels’ and may even break all-time records.

    Thank heavens we have Monbiot to reassure us that these brutally cold conditions are a certain sign of global warming. Otherwise we might reflect that this is the third successive very cold winter in Europe, each colder than the one before. We might look at the ominous sun, again free of spots. The term ‘Dalton Minimum’ might even start to drift into our consciousness.

    Fortunately, as I say, we have Monbiot, not to mention Skip and pals, to prevent us from falling into such a foolish trap – and I, for one, am most grateful.

    Compliments of the season.

  456. #458 skip
    December 24, 2010

    What? No holiday salutation for the Mike Tyson of climate change denial, Snowman?

    Or have you finally faced the fact that you backed another loser and are already hoping to forget it? (Don’t worry; I won’t let you.)

    Maybe therein lies a New Year resolution in the making–no more huzzahs for amateur posers just because they say what you want to hear.

    But happy holidays all, especially you, Mandas. Even though in the southern hemisphere it will be hard to a have a pristine, *Dick*ensian Christmans. (*Cun’t* resist that one.)

  457. #459 Snowman
    December 24, 2010

    Fear not, Skip, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people.

    CO2 is a trace gas that has little if any discernible effect on climate. That is the truth that will become evident to all within a short time.

    Go in peace.

  458. #460 skip
    December 24, 2010

    And the rum was just a trace component of the 7 toddies you downed before you posted the above, but its effect was evident the instant you put fingers to keyboard.

    I would tell you to go peacefully but that ship sailed.

  459. #461 Opus
    December 28, 2010

    One night recently, while fighting insomnia, I started wondering whether one of these epic threads could be scored like a boxing match. This one has about 1000 posts in all, over both threads. If I treated it like a ten-round boxing match I could total up the swings, hits, misses, knockdowns, etc. for each block of 100 comments. In my sleep-deprived state it seemed like it would be an interesting, fun exercise.

    However, in the cold light of day it proved impossible. Boxing has no room for one phenomenon which occurred with regularity in this particular event: the self-administered knockout punch. One of our protagonists persisted in performing this maneuver time after time. Richard, when he insisted on quoting sources who discredit his thesis, and whose work he had not read, knocked himself down & out of the fight in the early rounds, based on the three-knockdown rule.

    In a way it’s a shame it turned out that way; it would have been interesting trying to score another situation also unknown to boxing. This occurred in the later rounds when one of Richard’s corner men, Snowman, cold-cocked him. To my knowledge it’s never happened in the history of pugilism. . .

  460. #462 Snowman
    December 28, 2010

    ‘If I treated it like a ten-round boxing match I could total up the swings, hits, misses, knockdowns, etc. for each block of 100 comments.’

    You need to get out more, Opus.

  461. #463 skip
    December 28, 2010

    God forbid someone’s view of the debate should result from actually reading it.

  462. #464 suzanne
    December 29, 2010

    We all need to do our part to reduce emissions and CO2 and to conserve our natural resources, which are finite. Take advantage of the sun and wind, which are forever and free! The Organic Mechanic http://www.organicmechanic.com/ has a great selection of products for home and car to do just that.

  463. #465 PaulinMI
    December 30, 2010

    (sorry in advance to Skip, I just couldn’t stand it anymore)

    suzanne,
    Please explain this hoarding, er, I mean conservation thing and how it works. (for example, compare to the free market allocation of resources)(and maybe, include in your discussion the natural gas wall heater I see on your website)

    And perhaps, ask Spain about the “free” wind and sun power.

    [CAUTION - Once you explain the above, you may realize why you don't need to worry about "conserving".]

  464. #466 Richard Wakefield
    December 30, 2010

    we expect an increased likelihood of extreme rainfall events and an increased likelihood of extreme summer temperatures.

    Dr. Andrew Weaver is Canada Research Chair in climate modeling and analysis at the University of Victoria, and has authored or coauthored nearly two hundred peer-reviewed studies in climate, earth science, policy, and education journals. He is an editor emeritus of the Journal of Climate, published by the American Meteorological Society. He has been named a Guggenheim Fellow, a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a member of the Order of British Columbia, and one of the top 20 scientists in Canada under the age of 40.

    He was a lead author in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the group that, with Al Gore, won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He is the author of two books, Keeping Our Cool (2008), and the upcoming Generation Us (April 2011).

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/qa-can-canada-cope-with-climate-change/article1846426/

  465. #467 Richard Wakefield
    December 30, 2010

    Take advantage of the sun and wind, which are forever and free!

    That entirely depends on where you are. Here in Ontario in the summer half the time wind produces less than 7% name plate, 30% of the time in the summer they produce nothing at all. And the costs for that power is more than double.

    Solar is worse for us, 5% name plate in the winter, worthless when we have weeks of cloudy days. Add to that even more expensive, by TEN TIMES! for power.

    Hence these “renewables” for us are completely worthless. WE already get 22% of our power from renewables, real cheap — hydro.

  466. #468 skip
    December 30, 2010

    Uh huh.

    I see.

    Richard, do you agree with everything Weaver says in the interview?

  467. #469 skip
    December 30, 2010

    And Paul:

    If you want to resume this discussion about conservation take it back to the Action on Global Warming is Suicide Thread.

  468. #470 PaulinMI
    December 30, 2010

    tell it to your friend suzanne

  469. #471 skip
    December 30, 2010

    Fair enough.

    You heard him, Sue.

  470. #472 blueshift
    December 30, 2010

    Skip #468,
    Isn’t obvious? Dr. Weaver has all the AGW cult credentials and he said we expect X to happen, but Richard has clearly proven X isn’t happening.

    Therefore all of AGW is false.
    QED.

  471. #473 Richard Wakefield
    December 31, 2010

    Isn’t obvious? Dr. Weaver has all the AGW cult credentials and he said we expect X to happen, but Richard has clearly proven X isn’t happening.

    Therefore all of AGW is false.

    You are starting to catch on.

    Weaver thinks, because of his understandings of the predictions made in his own climate models, that summer TMax will increase. But is that the trend right now? You can answer that now. It’s not is it.

    If you understand the role of falsefiability you will know that it only takes one observation to destroy an entire theory. How would AGW be falsified? What observations would render the theory false?

  472. #474 Richard Wakefield
    December 31, 2010

    would this falsify AGW?

    Global Cooling Consensus Is Heating Up – Cooling Over The Next 1 To 3 Decades

    http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/

  473. #475 skip
    December 31, 2010

    Weaver thinks, because of his understandings of the predictions made in his own climate models, that summer TMax will increase. –Richard

    we expect an increased likelihood of extreme rainfall events and an increased likelihood of extreme summer temperatures. — what Weaver said

    Therefore all of AGW is false. –Richard

    Um, Richard . . . Even *if* we accepted your claimed trend of Tmax, and even *if* we accepted that it can be extended beyond your (14 . . . 17 . . . whatever today’s number of southern Canadian stations is), what Weaver said, and what you’re saying he’s saying, are not the same thing.

    Repeat: What Weaver says and what you want to believe he’s saying are not the same thing.

    Your capacity to see what you want to see despite simple categorical distinctions is utterly stunning.

    Richard, you simply live in a fantasy world, where an article you don’t read can be used to prove anything you wish and a statement you don’t understand can be interpreted in any manner you prefer. I don’t know if you lack the capacity for critical thought or have simply chosen to forsake it in the pursuit of this delusion of being to AGW as Einstein was to Newtonian physics, but your are divested of the capacity nonetheless.

    That you are a hero to Snowman is the ultimate demonstration of this.

  474. #476 skip
    December 31, 2010

    Hmm.

    So, Richard, do you agree with all the experts Gosselin lists?

  475. #477 mandas
    December 31, 2010

    Well Dick is back for the new year – just as ignorant and delusional as before.

    Its a pity he is too gutless to put all the Australian data into a spreadsheet. As I said before, he knows it proves him wrong. I guess that just goes to show how unethical he is – discarding facts that don’t fit his hypothesis.

    Oh well, I made the offer. But of course, my prediction about Dick’s lack of credibility came to pass. How about you crawl back under the rock from whence you came Dick. Liars and disengenuous arseholes aren’t welcome.

  476. #478 adelady
    December 31, 2010

    I realise Richard doesn’t live in Manitoba, but this perhaps should give cause to pause.

    http://www.canada.com/technology/Close%20encounter%20with%20free%20bears%20shocks%20Coca%20Cola%20exec/4037056/story.html

  477. #479 Richard Wakefield
    January 2, 2011

    Skip what does this mean to you?

    increased likelihood of extreme summer temperatures.

    if not TMax going higher then what?

    we will find out cause i’m going to email him

  478. #480 Richard Wakefield
    January 2, 2011

    Adelady, Polar Bears are not threatened by any “loss of ice”. Their population is 20,000 higher today than they were in the 1950′s when the population was 5,000. They are not declining, and have survived interglaial periods over the past 200,000 years, periods with ice free summers.

  479. #481 Richard Wakefield
    January 2, 2011

    mandas, i have the url to get my own AU temp data, I won’t be trusting you on anything. Once I finish some other projects I will write the program to download the data myself. I don’t need you to provide me with anything. If you had anything you would just show it instead of playing stupid games.

  480. #482 skip
    January 2, 2011

    Richard:

    Extreme temperatures can simply be a greater frequency of higher temperatures within the known range. It does *not* require that Tmax rise–especially since AGW theory specifically predicts greater warming in winter as opposed to summer, although I suspect it does not preclude the possibility. (This again, does not even consider the limitations of your chosen data source.) I suspect Weaver’s answer to you will be, “Sure, maybe Tmax would rise, maybe not. It probably would *vary by region* and depending on time frame. Whatever; I’d never thought of it as a critical issue.”

    So, I’ll ask again, even though you won’t answer because I enjoy watching you squirm and equivocate: Do you agree with all the sources Gosselin cited in your link? (I’ll dispense with the perfunctory question of whether you even read your own link because of course you did not.)

  481. #483 skip
    January 2, 2011

    Richard:

    What is the basis of your distrust of Mandas?

    Has he ever, in your interactions with him . . .

    1. cited material which specifically refutes his position?
    2. cited material which specifically contradicts other material he cites?
    3. demanded refutation of material which could not even be accessed?
    4. lied?

    And if someone ever did any of the above, what level of trust should a reasoning observer invest in *that* person?

  482. #484 mandas
    January 2, 2011

    Goodonya Dick

    You go and get that Australian data from the ‘URL’ that you now have. Has to make everyone wonder though – who or what was the ‘friend’ from Australia who you were waiting on for the data?

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and state categorically that there was no ‘friend’ from Australia, for two reasons.

    One – anyone anywhere can get the data. Dick knows it and has known it all along. But he has been lying and equivocating because he knows it doesn’t support his thesis. I will make a prediction here – Dick will NEVER produce the results from Australia, because he is a lying disengenuous arsehole with no ethics or integrity.

    Two – He has no friends.

    It hasn’t been me playing games. I offered to provide access to the Australian BOM data, and to provide papers which have already analysed it, and the BOM’s own graphical representations of the data. But Dick demonstrated his unworthiness by refusing to state that he would admit he is wrong when the data showed he is wrong. Only a denialist liar with no integrity would refuse to admit an obvious error.

    QED Dick.

    Oh – from post #481 it now appears that Dick has become a wildlife scientist. We can add that to the list of subjects where he has no talent and no credibility.

  483. #485 mandas
    January 2, 2011

    Oh – and happy new year to everyone (Except liars like Dick. I hope he has a miserable year and all his lies come home to haunt him)

  484. #486 PaulinMI
    January 2, 2011

    It’s gonna be a long year.
    (And probably in the top five hottest on record.)

  485. #487 Richard Wakefield
    January 3, 2011

    What is the basis of your distrust of Mandas?

    anyone who resorts to blackmail, who insults, and refuses to call people by their real names, after being asked, isn’t worth even replying to.

    The only thing hot for 2011 will be the hot-heads here who can’t fathom that natural randomness plays a signficant role.

  486. #488 skip
    January 3, 2011

    anyone who resorts to blackmail . . .

    Blackmail?

    . . . who insults, and refuses to call people by their real names, after being asked, isn’t worth even replying to.

    A legitimate and debatable point, but my questions were regarding trustworthiness, not individual repugnance.

    Answers?

  487. #489 skip
    January 3, 2011

    who can’t fathom that natural randomness plays a signficant role.

    I can fathom it, although this is probably not what you want to read or believe.

    This, Richard, is simply another example of your ongoing mission of convincing yourself of silly things to sustain the delusion that your anti-AGW mission is insightful and significant.

    Another example is the need to convince yourself that AGW believers claim that only CO2 affects climate.

    Yet another is the desperate quest for a statement by a proponent of AGW that precludes the possibility of flat/declining Tmax in Southern Canada.

    Sadly, it isn’t even clever or subtle:

    “I don’t care what you say! *This* [insert straw man here] is what you *really* believe!”

  488. #490 mandas
    January 3, 2011

    Awww skip, you have cut me to the quick! Repugnant? Moi?

    I prefer to think of myself as a magnifying mirror, revealing the imperfections and flaws in people. In the case of your dickish friend, I am highlighting the blackness of his soul which has been caused by his constant disengenuous lying, his total lack of any ethics, and his breathtaking hypocracy.

    What’s the matter Dick? Did my nasty name calling hurt your precious sensitivities? From someone who is not above calling others names (calling me a cunt springs to mind), you are remarkably sensitive to so-called insults.

    How about you (Dick) prove that you are above the pettiness and insults that you decry, and show how ethical you can be by stating categorically that if data is provided that proves you wrong, you will admit as such. Why would anyone resist that?

    Come on Dick. Its easy. Just say – ‘If and when I am shown data which proves that my observations from Canada are not representative of the rest of the world, I will publicly admit I am wrong and withdraw my claims about AGW’. Its not a big ask – just a demonstration of integrity.

  489. #491 blueshift
    January 3, 2011

    “If you had anything you would just show it instead of playing stupid games.”

    Lol!

  490. #492 skip
    January 3, 2011

    For the record, repugnance was suggested as a legitimate point of contention, not a declaration.

  491. #493 mandas
    January 3, 2011

    Oh – LEGITIMATE point of contention huh? Oh well, I guess I’ll go with that.

    One of the most interesting aspects of this debate about climate change is the way that denialists like Dick grossly misuse statistics, and how ‘skeptical’ myths propagate around the internet without any scientific credibility whatsoever. We see it over and over again. It works something like this:

    Idiot denialist blogger completely misreads (or deliberately misrepresents) the findings of some legitimate research, and publishes his (or her) totally eroneous conclusions (or lies) on his website / newspaper article.

    This misrepresentation is then picked up by denialist blogger after denialist blogger, until it becomes such a staple of the denialist community that it is no longer questioned – it becomes fact (even though it is NOT fact).

    Eventually, one of these idiot denialists comes in here, and cuts and pastes the relevant fact (ie lie) here, and proclaims to all and sundry that it is proof that AGW is dead / a conspiracy/ etc.

    Dick is just the latest in a long list of idiot denialist to cut and paste stuff he hasn’t read, from questionable sources, on a subject he knows nothing about; when a few minutes REAL research will reveal the truth. And the subject in this case is….. Polar Bears!!!!

    As well as being a piss-poor climatologist and woeful statistician, Dick (in post #480) has now revealed he is an appalling wildlife scientist. His claims about quadrupling of population numbers over the last 50 years – and of the evolutionary longevity of polar bears – are simply wrong.

    Estimates of polar bear numbers are – even now – fairly uncertain, but respected researchers such as Thor Larsen (Norway’s University of Life Sciences) suggests that the ‘guesstimate’ of numbers in the 60s was 20-25,000. Andrew Derocher (University of Alberta) agrees, and states that no realistic attempt was made to estimate population numbers until the 70s, but counting wild animals is difficult at the best of times (and I can personally atest to this!) and the first estimates were highly questionable.

    One thing every scientist agrees on though – polar bear numbers most probably did recover following the restrictions in hunting which came into force in the 50s – 70s, but the recovery was nowhere near the ‘quadrupling’ suggested by AGW deniers for their political purposes. More worrying, recent attempts to estimate polar bear populations have seen animals disappearing from parts of the previous range – and this is ALWAYS a sign of a population in decline.

    The polar bear is suspected to have evolved from brown bears which were isolated during the mid-Pleistocene. Their evolution from brown bear to polar bear would have COMMENCED between 100 – 250k YBP, but as recently as 10k YBP BP they STILL had some brown bear morphology (particularly teeth). So the CRAP about the species surviving interglacials is just that – CRAP.

    I don’t expect Dick will apologise for his errors. I would only expect that from someone with integrity. And Dick has categorically proven he has none.

  492. #494 mandas
    January 3, 2011

    Ok – I know I haven’t been following this thread all along, so maybe I missed something. Could someone explain this to me please.

    About 100 posts ago, there was an argument about a prediction that the UK would be snow free in ten years (20 years?), or that snow would be less frequent, etc. I won’t go into the exact argument because it is immaterial but there was Dick and Snowman (was that a deliberate pun?) on one side castigating the relevant climatologist (Viner) for supposedly predicting that AGW would cause the end of winter as we know it. And since it is a cold winter in the UK this year, then this guy is obviously wrong and AGW is falsified.

    That may not be the most accurate reconstruction of the discussion and you may correct me if you want, but it doesn’t really matter for the sake of this point.

    This is where you come in Dick. Isn’t it one of you observations that winter Tmin is increasing, and as a consequence you have stated that the world is not warming, it is just becoming less cold. And this is a good thing (you said on numerous occasions). Milder winters, longer growing seasons etc.

    Sooooo……. can you all see where I am going with this one? It would appear that Dick AGREES with this Viner character. There WILL be warmer winters and less snow in places like the UK. Dick has confirmed this with observations and has used those observations to make predictions (warmer winters, ‘less cold’, etc).

    So what was the argument about again?

  493. #495 skip
    January 3, 2011

    can you all see where I am going with this one?

    Chuckle.

    I hadn’t thought of that. Good point, debatably repugnant one.

  494. #496 adelady
    January 4, 2011

    I like that one, mandas. In fact, it wouldn’t take much for the atmosphere to work a bit differently (clouds spring to mind as a mechanism) for a warming world to have a different statistical profile.

    Show very little more than historical fluctuations in daytime Tmax worldwide, but for nights to show a steady increase. (In fact, as a non-scientist I believe that all those ‘declines’ during the 20thC were only in Tmax and that oceans and nights were doing their inexorable warming thing.)

    So we could have lots of Richards all over the world displaying perfectly accurate graphs – while ice melts and oceans warm – and plants and crops fail for lack of frost or nights below 10C or whatever.

    And the world would still be warming – I’d just have fewer, less exhausting heatwaves to contend with. And there’d be less snow in NH winters.

  495. #497 Richard Wakefield
    January 4, 2011

    Polar bear evolution:

    “Polar bears probably first appeared 200,000 years ago during the Pleistocene and were much larger than they are today. They are the most recent of the eight bear species.”

    http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/bear-essentials-polar-style/adaptation/evolution

    see also: http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=polar+bear+evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

  496. #498 Richard Wakefield
    January 4, 2011

    and plants and crops fail for lack of frost

    Fail because of no frost? Where did you get that one? Crop plants fail due to frost. The longer the growing season, the better the crop production.

    The snow free claim by the Met Office shows that their predictions, based on computer models, is wrong. That was the point. Their computer models can’t predict anything.

    If, as many scientists are now claiming, we are heading back into a 1700′s style cold period for the next 30 plus years, would reverse the trend seen in the past 100 years.

    Hey, Skip. Why don’t you email Weaver and get his meaning from him directly. If I do it and report back I will just be callled a liar. http://www.climate.uvic.ca/people/weaver/weaver.html

  497. #499 Richard Wakefield
    January 4, 2011

    See also this:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17447.full.pdf+html

    Note the phylogenetic tree Fig 5, Point #8. They have the split of the Polar Bear at between 200,000 and 500,000 years from the brown bear. That is, phylogenetically distinct species at 200,000 years ago.

  498. #500 Ian Forrester
    January 4, 2011

    Wakefield’s dreaming again:

    If, as many scientists are now claiming, we are heading back into a 1700′s style cold period for the next 30 plus years, would reverse the trend seen in the past 100 years.

    See:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/not-so-cool-predictions.html

    for a rebuttal to this piece of denier rubbish.

  499. #501 Ian Forrester
    January 4, 2011

    More mindless ramblings from Wakefield:

    Fail because of no frost? Where did you get that one? Crop plants fail due to frost. The longer the growing season, the better the crop production.

    Wakefield now shows that in addition to all the other areas of science that he has absolutely no knowledge about he doesn’t know anything about plants too. Is there anything in the whole field of science that you could have an honest discussion about without wandering into your world of nonsense, lies and distortions? Somehow I doubt it.

    Scientists predict that average temperatures could increase by two degrees centigrade over the next 50 years. This would push temperate growing zones progressively more north. Mr Thornton-Wood explained that although those two degrees may seem like a minor change, they could have a significant impact on growing conditions for all types of plants. Indeed, in parts of Europe, some fruits and plants require frost early in the season in order to grow properly.

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=187551&sectioncode=26

    Keep it up Wakefield, you are batting zero for a very large number in your ignorance about science, typical for a dishonest denier.

  500. #502 skip
    January 4, 2011

    back in 2000 he [Viner] predicted the UK to be show free in 8 years. Richard #361

    Oh, and I will find the 8 year quote. Richard # 401

    This, of course, was never produced. Not that this deters you from making the same idiotic argument again:

    The snow free claim by the Met Office shows that their predictions, based on computer models, is wrong. That was the point. Their computer models can’t predict anything. #498

    Now you’re reduced to recycling the same argument on which you’ve already been refuted. Richard your delusions are boundless.

    Richard, you don’t understand Mandas’s argument, do you?

    If, as many scientists are now claiming, we are heading back into a 1700′s style cold period for the next 30 plus years, would reverse the trend seen in the past 100 years.

    The scientists from your link?

    I’ll repeat my question yet again: Do you agree with all of the ones listed?

    I know you won’t answer. That’s not the point anymore.

    If I [email Weaver] and report back I will just be callled a liar.

    Only if you lie.

  501. #503 skip
    January 4, 2011

    Richard:

    Some part of you realizes that you are an objective of ridicule and contempt for good reason. I know it. There is no way you are completely oblivious to this fact. Its impossible. You would have to have Aspbergers or some similar condition not to see it.

    I know you won’t answer to me but at least answer to yourself: Why do you persist in this absurdity? Pure pride? Somehow you think your arguments are not absurd as long as you never admit it? Somehow a revealing and damning question loses its potency as long as you never answer it?

    You are fascinating to observe; I’ll admit that. Far more than myself I am sure.

  502. #504 Richard Wakefield
    January 4, 2011

    Wakefield now shows that in addition to all the other areas of science that he has absolutely no knowledge about he doesn’t know anything about plants too.

    Qian, B., Zhang, X., Chen, K., Feng, Y. and O’Brien, T. 2010. Observed long-term trends for agroclimatic conditions in Canada. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 49: 604-618.

    “the occurrence of extremely low temperatures has become less frequent during the non-growing season, implying a more favorable climate for overwinter survival,”

    “the total numbers of cool days, frost days, and killing-frost days within a growing season have a decreasing trend,”

    “crops may also be less vulnerable to cold stress and injury during the growing season.”

    BTW, bees do much better the mider the winter, who as you know are essential for pollination.

  503. #505 Richard Wakefield
    January 4, 2011

    The scientists from your link?

    I’ll repeat my question yet again: Do you agree with all of the ones listed?

    Skip you don’t gt it. The point is there is no consensus that the planet is going to heat up in the future as per AGW. Doesn’t matter what I think.

  504. #506 Richard Wakefild
    January 4, 2011

    You are fascinating to observe; I’ll admit that. Far more than myself I am sure.

    I’ll take that as a complement. And correct, the dogma shown here, the hostile knee jerk reactions, are nothing out of the normal from the True Believers in the AGW faith.

  505. #507 mandas
    January 4, 2011

    The mindless drivel that pours from Dick’s fingers is simply staggering. His error with regard to the evolution and threatened status of polar bears was pointed out to him, so he comes back with a paper on cave bears to try and argue with me, yet the paper agrees with everything I said, and nothing that he said.

    A split in a phylogenic tree is exactly that – it is the START of the evolutionary divergence, not the end. Do you really think that one day the bears are all brown, omnivorous bears, then they wake up the next day and low and behold – a white, fully carnivorous polar bear with all that entails? Well, as a wildlife scientist, I am going to tell you unequivocably that isn’t the case. But then, it shouldn’t take a wildlife scientist or biologist to point out something that would be obvious to a five year old.

    As I suggested, the divergence between brown and polar bears BEGAN in the mid pleistocene (100 – 250k BP), which agrees quite nicely with the estimate from your paper. Note I said estimate. Bon et al is a 2008 paper which sampled cave bear DNA, and based the estimate of the differences between cave bears / brown bears and polar bears on a 2007 paper by Saarmu et al. No sequencing of polar bear DNA was conducted as part of the study. But of course, that is all pretty obvious to anyone who actually read the paper and understood it.

    More recent studies conducted in 2009/10 put the divergences – for there were more than one – at much more recently; less than 200k BP, as follows:

    “…..The robust phylogeny and the close position of the subfossil polar bear specimen to the polar/brown bear split offer an ideal opportunity to ultimately settle a time of origin for the polar bear. Our Bayesian analyses with different datasets returned a divergence date for the entire brown bear/polar bear lineage to a mean of less than 500 ky (Fig. 3A; see also Table S2), which is consistent with recent estimates using deeper fossil calibration in the Ursidae (3). Within this clade, we estimated the mean age of the split between the ABC bears and the polar bears to be 152 ky, and the mean age for all polar bears as 134 ky, near the beginning of the Eemian interglacial period and completely in line with the stratigraphically determined age of the Poolepynten subfossil (11). Analyses of an extended dataset of 39 mtDNA control-region sequence fragments from a number of carbon-dated brown bears (26) and modern polar bears, importantly including four from Svalbard, provided comparable, although slightly older (190 ky for the ABC/polar bear split), divergence time estimates (Fig. S5). Although mtDNA capture cannot be excluded to have happened between ABC bears and polar bears, these estimates nevertheless affirm with strong support a very recent divergence of polar bears from brown bears. Even more surprising, the age of the modern polar bear crown group (the clade containing the last common ancestor of all extant members) is estimated to be less than 45 ky, slightly older than the age of the ABC bears (Fig. 3A), a date that is also found with the expanded dataset of control-region sequence fragments (Fig. S5). These estimates suggest a very recent and rapid expansion of modern polar bear populations throughout the Arctic since the Late Pleistocene, perhaps following a climate-related population bottleneck, although data from more modern and Holocene polar bear specimens will be required to establish this…..”

    (source: Lindqvist et al 2010 http://www.pnas.org/content/107/11/5053.full)

    So in future you might want to do a little more reading before offering an opinion on a subject you clearly no nothing about.

    Oh, and how about you comment on the more important point about the decline in the polar bear populations (but do some reading first). No? Doesn’t agree with your twisted world view? An inconvenient truth?

  506. #508 skip
    January 4, 2011

    The point is there is no consensus that the planet is going to heat up in the future as per AGW.

    By this logic there is no consensus on anything. There are Ph.Ds who dispute evolution, relativity, and even the roundness of the Earth. One of the greatest scientists of his age–Lord Kelvin–disputed the idea of an ancient earth based on nothing but his own ignorance–in his case of atomic physics.

    The *existence* of disagreement does not mean that disagreement is meaningful.

    Your statement, of course, is a backhanded admission that you never even read the link. If you had you’d be even more embarrassed.

    Doesn’t matter what I think.

    We might finally have found a point of agreement, although this is in stark contrast to:

    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. — Richard GAS original thread.

    Your own admitted ignorance and irrelevance *now*, Richard, is not a defense against the stupidity or inherent self-defeat of the things you cite. You still cited them.

    You’ve clearly reached the point where you’re just flailing, stabbing at anything that might score a “point” in your favor. In a weird way I don’t blame you . . . you can’t really sink any lower.

  507. #509 mandas
    January 4, 2011

    skip

    Dick is clearly bi-polar or schizophrenic (or the greatest hypocrite I have ever witnessed). Just check out posts 504 and 505.

    504 – “…the occurrence of extremely low temperatures has become less frequent during the non-growing season, implying a more favorable climate for overwinter survival”
    “…the total numbers of cool days, frost days, and killing-frost days within a growing season have a decreasing trend,”
    “…crops may also be less vulnerable to cold stress and injury during the growing season.”

    505 – “…there is no consensus that the planet is going to heat up in the future as per AGW.”

    So which is it Dick? Is the planet warming or not? Or both – depending on the point you are trying to prove at the time.

  508. #510 Richard Wakefield
    January 4, 2011

    A split in a phylogenic tree is exactly that – it is the START of the evolutionary divergence, not the end.

    Of course, in evolution, there is no “end”. It also depends upon which species concept you are using. In the phylogentic species concept one only has to have a single gene mutation in an isolate population to make the new species. Others all that counts is reproductive isolation. It seems pretty clear polar bears split through allopatric speciation, cut off from brown bears some time around 200,000 years ago. When did they look like today? Seems clear from the papers, not long after. It’s called punctuated equilibrium.

    Seems to me with your quote you are agreeing that polar bears are at least 145k years old, long enough to make it through several interglacial periods warmer than today, and they survived.

    as for declining:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/21/polar-bears-no-longer-on-thin-ice-researchers-say-polar-bears-could-face-brighter-future/

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/06/28/polar-bear-testimony-suppressed-due-inconvenient-truths

    http://www.nnsl.com/northern-news-services/stories/papers/sep17_07bear.html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/09/the-precarious-state-of-the-u-s-polar-bear-population/

  509. #511 Richard Wakefield
    January 4, 2011

    By this logic there is no consensus on anything.

    That’a why there is NEVER consensus in science, only evidence.

  510. #512 Richard Wakefield
    January 4, 2011

    Mandas, you haev completely missed my entire premise from the begining. Winters are getting less cold, while summers are cooling.

  511. #513 Ian Forrester
    January 4, 2011

    Wakefied, there are more plants than just wheat and barley. I suggest you take an elementary course in botany before showing your ignorance in this area.

    Spend time reading up on how plants prepare for winter and how endodormancy is induced by shortened photoperiods resulting in a state in which internal factors prevent growth. Low and subzero temperatures simultaneously release buds from endodormancy and result in buds that are hardened and ecodormant. These buds maintain a hardened resting state ready for proliferation when the conditions become supportive for growth in the spring. Thus without the frost periods the buds will not be as strong and growth ready as they should be.

    Why do you keep on showing your ignorance about things which you are so willing to discuss? Do you think that we are even more ignorant of these things than you are?

    There is an old saying “it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”. We have no doubts about how foolish you are.

  512. #514 mandas
    January 4, 2011

    I’ve missed nothing. It’s you who have missed everything.

    “…..That’a why there is NEVER consensus in science, only evidence….”

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
    Evidence is nothing without analysis. That’s the core of science. You have to show what your evidence and data suggests. We have been trying to make you understand this for over a 1,000 posts.

    So here’s your chance to do some science. What does your evidence mean? What is causing the changes you say you have observed? You reckon Tmax is decreasing and Tmin is increasing. Why?

    And no – just saying AGW is flawed is NOT an explanation, nor is saying vaguely that it is ‘natural variation’. You have to come up with a causal mechanism for your observations. THAT’S what science is all about. Any idiot can plug some numbers into an Excel spreadsheet and produce pretty graphs. But a scientist comes up with an explanation.

    So what are you? Idiot or scientist?

  513. #515 mandas
    January 4, 2011

    And try to use the language of a scientist – or at the very least stop putting spin on your results. This sentence:

    “…. Winters are getting less cold, while summers are cooling….”

    Is unadulterated crap. Watch me rewrite it:

    “…..Winters are getting warmer, while summers are getting less hot….”

    Note that it says EXACTLY the same thing.

  514. #516 Ian Forrester
    January 4, 2011

    Wakefield continues to regurgitate his erroneous conclusions:

    Mandas, you haev (sic) completely missed my entire premise from the begining (sic). Winters are getting less cold, while summers are cooling.

    You have been shown by numerous posters that this statement is not correct. Only a very few isolated stations have shown no warming, others are definitely warming.

    You also make a huge error in your 13 or is it 17 or whatever number of stations in southern Canada which you “studied”. You made the grievous error of averaging temperatures. This is not what climate scientists do since it is meaningless. You should be averaging anomalies. You do know what anomalies are don’t you? Most deniers don’t.

    I just can’t believe that any rational person would keep on showing how ignorant they are by constantly repeating their nonsense over and over again after being shown that it is wrong.

  515. #517 skip
    January 4, 2011

    That’a why there is NEVER consensus in science, only evidence.

    And for you such “evidence” can include a link you haven’t even read–as long as it says what you want to hear, even if it makes a claim that contradicts you (yet again) as Mandas deftly pointed out.

    I can’t know for sure that you don’t have Aspbergers or are, as Mandas suggests, bipolar, but I’m guessing not.

    It might just be that you have a toxic combination of a highly creative mind mixed with superhuman stubbornness. You analyzed your Canada data, swiftly concluded from it that you are a paradigm-shattering genius, and nothing will shake you from this self flattering appraisal.

    My advice is try humility, Richard. Its ultimately *easier* on your self esteem. The moment you knighted yourself as the Man Who Took Down AGW was when the self-inflicted misery began.

    Mandas, Ian, Blue, Adelady, Chris, Coby, myself and the others are just the messengers, Richard.

  516. #518 Chris S.
    January 5, 2011

    I’m back from the wild wifi-less wastelands of West England. What did I miss?

    Any Aussies talking about cricket yet?

  517. #519 skip
    January 5, 2011

    What did I miss?

    You’ve got some catching up to do, Rip Van Winkle. Wake up and get with the program. Richard’s arguments finally convinced everyone.

    The keys to scientific understanding are

    (1) Define as “authority” and/or “evidence” anything you think vindicates you–all the while maintaining that “appeal to authority means nothing”.
    (2) Never read a source; its confusing. Just assume it proves you correct.
    (3) Don’t answer difficult questions; doing so leads to uncomfortable conclusions and discomfiting challenges to the viability of (1) and (2).
    (4) Abolish the word “wrong” from one’s personal vocabulary.

  518. #520 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    Wakefied, there are more plants than just wheat and barley. I suggest you take an elementary course in botany before showing your ignorance in this area.

    Explain how these plants made it through the MWP and the RWP.

  519. #521 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    So here’s your chance to do some science. What does your evidence mean? What is causing the changes you say you have observed? You reckon Tmax is decreasing and Tmin is increasing. Why?

    Natural variation cycles within cycles. Natural factors, natural forcings.

    Your side has to show that AGW is a better explanation, with evidence, not models. And that evidence must be discriminatory evidence that cannot have another explanation. AGW doesn’t have any. What specific evidence can ONLY be explained by our CO2?

    How does AGW explain TMax decreasing when all the models, all the predictions claim it should be increasing?

  520. #522 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    Note that it says EXACTLY the same thing.

    Depends if the glass is half full or half empty.

    I suggest you contact those authors where they also claim:

    “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

  521. #523 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    . You should be averaging anomalies. You do know what anomalies are don’t you?

    False. I did use anomalies. I got a base line average TMax for each station using the years 1961 to 1990. If you read the sql statements you can see where I did that. You do know what sql is don’t you?

  522. #524 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    I’m back from the wild wifi-less wastelands of West England. What did I miss?

    Enjoying all that snow and cold the Met Office claimed 10 years ago would be rare?

    Have a look at this:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/simulating-random-variation/

    Will be moving my blogspot posts to here, superior.

    Care to do your magic analysis on this data?

  523. #525 Ian Forrester
    January 5, 2011

    Wakefield, do you honestly (difficult for you I know) believe that any rational person reading this blog believes a word that you say regarding your “Excel games”? You are so dishonest I’d be surprised if your real name is in fact JR Wakefield.

  524. #526 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    Emeritus professor Garth Paltridge wrote an essay at Tech Central Station entitled “Climate Models and Consensus Science” [2] in which he cautioned against relying too heavily on climate models and stated “we have to get away from simply running models and comparing their final output in some sort of search for a consensus on the results. Consensus is not science. Consensus tends to the politically correct. Consensus is not the sort of thing on which sensible people put their money.”

    http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Consensus_science

  525. #527 skip
    January 5, 2011

    How does AGW explain TMax decreasing when all the models, all the predictions claim it should be increasing?

    You have never produced any prediction by “AGW” that precludes the possibility of non-rising Tmax in your data.

    Nor will you ever. This is your key delusion, Richard. You think you “found something” and now you’re on the make to find somewhere that “AGW” forbids this “something”. You will search the rest of your life in futility.

    And I see the delusion about another alleged “prediction” is compounding:

    back in 2000 he [Viner] predicted the UK to be show free in 8 years. Richard #361

    Oh, and I will find the 8 year quote. Richard # 401

    The snow free claim by the Met Office shows that their predictions, based on computer models, is wrong. That was the point. Their computer models can’t predict anything. #498

    Enjoying all that snow and cold the Met Office claimed 10 years ago would be rare? Richard, #524

    So, Richard: Where is the “8 year quote” about which we hear so much and see so little?

  526. #528 skip
    January 5, 2011

    Richard:

    Do you agree with Professor Paltridge’s position regarding the role of carbon in affecting climate?

  527. #529 mandas
    January 5, 2011

    “….So here’s your chance to do some science. What does your evidence mean? What is causing the changes you say you have observed? You reckon Tmax is decreasing and Tmin is increasing. Why?
    Natural variation cycles within cycles. Natural factors, natural forcings….”

    Wow Dick – your stupidity knows no bounds does it? Read my post again, and try to do some science.

    I said – quite clearly:

    “…..And no – just saying AGW is flawed is NOT an explanation, nor is saying vaguely that it is ‘natural variation’. You have to come up with a causal mechanism for your observations. THAT’S what science is all about. Any idiot can plug some numbers into an Excel spreadsheet and produce pretty graphs. But a scientist comes up with an explanation……”

    So what is your explanation?: “natural variations”

    I guess that was extremely predictable and I am not surprised at any level.

    It is NOT contingent on us to explain your observations. YOU have made the observations, now you have to explain them. Read this next part VERY carefully.

    YOU HAVE MADE SOME OBERVATIONS OF TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS AT A FEW SELECTED MET STATIONS IN CANADA. WHAT IS CAUSING THOSE VARIATIONS?

    If you want to claim ‘natural variations’, you have to show WHICH natural variations, and what the causal relationship is between the forcing mechanism and the changes you have observed.

    You reckon you have observed Tmax decreasing and Tmin increasing. Ok – let’s just assume for the sake of the argument that you are 100% correct. So….. why is this happening? What is causing it?

    Until and unless you can answer this really basic question – which by the way is the HEART of EVERY science paper ever published by ANY science journal (you know – the DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION to the paper which is located after the method and results) – you are just someone who has produced some pretty graphs from some numbers you downloaded from a website.

    We have been saying this to you for over 1000 posts. If you think we are lying, take your results to your closest university and speak to a scientist there and have a chat to him/her. I know categorically that you will be told the same thing.

    You claim to want a rational debate and to demonstrate that you have made a discovery that has either eluded climate scientists for decades or that they know about and are deliberately covering up. Ok – act rationally. Develop a hypothesis – a REAL hypothesis – for your observations.

    Once you have done that, we will have a rational debate about your hypothesis. We will treat it like a REAL science discussion. But so far you have NOTHING worth discussing. Just some graphs that you claim show that Tmax is decreasing and Tmin is increasing.

    WHY??????!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And here’s another tip. You reveal your bias and prejudices when you throw in issues that have NOTHING to do with your research, and which you know NOTHING about. All this crap about polar bears and CO2 being good for plants etc is completely irrelevant to your research, and is better left to people who actually know something about the subjects.

    Stick to your findings, produce a causal mechanism and show what the relationship is and how it has produced the findings you have observed, THEN we can have a discussion.

  528. #530 mandas
    January 5, 2011

    Chris

    We can discuss cricket if you like – but there is not much to discuss (much as it pains me).

    Just a very good side putting a very mediocre side to the sword.

  529. #531 Chris S.
    January 5, 2011

    “Just a very good side putting a very mediocre side to the sword.”

    Are you still talking cricket here? At least the Aussies have shown good grace in defeat (mostly).

    I see there’s some confusion above about the randomness of the highest Tmax data. In the last of my Canada Temps posts the important plots in this respect are the Autocorrelation plots and the Spectrum analysis.

    The former is essentially a plot of all the correlations between each year’s records plotted against lag (distance in years between records). The two horizontal dotted lines show the correlation coefficient of 2.5, anything outside those lines indicates some autocorrelation (correlation between years x years apart). As the plot shows the only correlation is that at 0 year lag (each year is correlated with itself). There is the merest hint of some correlation at around 30 years lag but it is only barely over the line and cannot be regarded as a clear result.

    The Spectral plot is a visual representation of a Fourier analysis. The high peak at 0 indicates white noise – randomness in other words. If there was some spectral signal, blue or red noise for example, then there would be distinct peaks further to the centre and/or right of the plot. There isn’t, suggesting there is no pattern to the data (not necessarily no trend, just no cycles of any kind around the trend – pendulum or otherwise). This (to me) is quite surprising, it may be interesting to regress highest Tmax against NAO & PDO indices and see whether that shows anything that explains the variance…

  530. #532 Chris S.
    January 5, 2011

    Erratum: “at around 30 years lag” should read “20 years”

  531. #533 mandas
    January 5, 2011

    Chris

    Yes – we are talking about cricket. England was just too good, and our bowlers lacked any penetration at all. Back that up with a total inability of the top order to score any runs…. and well, the result was pretty predictable and a fairly good indication of the state of our national team at the moment. But we will be back.

  532. #534 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    Where is the “8 year quote” about which we hear so much and see so little?

    Are you saying the prediction never happened? I have provided the links to it.

    Now explain to me how AGW produces cooler summers.

  533. #535 Richard Wakefeld
    January 5, 2011

    If you want to claim ‘natural variations’, you have to show WHICH natural variations, and what the causal relationship is between the forcing mechanism and the changes you have observed.

    So in your view there cannot be any randomness? Why is random variation not viable?

  534. #536 mandas
    January 5, 2011

    “….So in your view there cannot be any randomness? Why is random variation not viable?….”

    Random variation is just that – random. Are you seriously suggesting that everything you have observed is just random? If so, why are we even having a discussion about this?

    But…..you have claimed to have observed a trend. You do know the difference, right?

    Trends have causes. What has caused the trend you have observed? Until and unless you can answer this question, your data is meaningless.

  535. #537 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    WHY??????!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Random variation. I have produced a simulation on how that can happen. Just chaotic randomness in various cycles. Or do you expect the planet to be perfectly predicable like a clock?

    Now, for the moment, let’s take that explanation out. You want to know why.

    When gravity was shown to actually be a force pulling on objects, when the planets’ orbits were shown to be following the rules of gravity, they did not know why gravity works. Having an observation does not a priori mean you MUST have an explanation why.

    Not having a natural “why” is not a licence to invoke the god of the gaps and claim our CO2 is the “why”.

  536. #538 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    So Chris, are you saying that the variation you see is just randomness, and is hence mandas’ “why”?

  537. #539 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    But…..you have claimed to have observed a trend. You do know the difference, right?

    Trends have causes. What has caused the trend you have observed? Until and unless you can answer this question, your data is meaningless.

    Not so. Ask Chris now, as he seems to verify that randomness has a significant component. And, btw, randoness and chaos can have patterns and direction, that’s what fractals are about. The climate is following a fractal like pattern that has a much longer period than our few years of measurements.

  538. #540 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    Trends have causes. What has caused the trend you have observed? Until and unless you can answer this question, your data is meaningless.

    BTW, much of early science was done, observed and measured, without knowing the why for a long time. Mendel is a prime example. Was his data meaningless just because the “why” of his observatons had to wait until the discovery of DNA? Not at all. It was quite meaningfull. By your logic much of science was meaningless until the “why” was discovered.

  539. #541 mandas
    January 5, 2011

    Dick, I haven’t invoked the ‘god of the gaps’, CO2, the sun, or anything. I haven’t made any claims. It is you who have made the observations, and you who has to explain them.

    It would appear from your statement about ‘random variation’ that you have changed your claim about ‘summers cooling’ and ‘winters becoming less cold’ etc then? Because – to me and I suggest everyone else here – that suggests a trend. If it was random, it will go up and down with no discernable pattern (after all – I am pretty confident that’s what the word ‘random’ means).

    That conflicts with your statements about longer growing seasons and milder winters. And it is completely at odds with your claims about the sun (yes – I remember them). But I guess you are withdrawing those as well now.

    However, I like your last sentence:

    “….The climate is following a fractal like pattern that has a much longer period than our few years of measurements….”

    Its good that you have finally come up with a hypothesis. Thanks for finally answering my (and others) question. It will provide a much better focus for our discussions.

    We can now move forward with a detailed discussion of Dick’s hypothesis.

    My first question (and I haven’t had time to look at this in detail, so bear with me – I will have lots more), what sort of timeframe are we talking about?

  540. #542 Richard Wakefield
    January 5, 2011

    what sort of timeframe are we talking about?

    Not just one, but many of differing periods. Think of waves on the ocean, seemingly chaotic and random, but in fact they are different cycles of motion in specific directions interacting with each other, with random chaos thrown in.

    Some of these cycles are just within the atmosphere itself, others from the sun. The sun has steady cycles, but also other cycles with differing periods. These produced the RMP, and the subsequent cool period, then produced the MWP, and the subsequent LIA, and the current warm period, which you have all agreed must be natural from 1800-1975 was from this cycle, the first phase of it. The current continuation of this cycle swamps any forcing CO2 might have.

    Further in the past we have other cycles, producing the ice ages and the interglacial periods.

    All part of the random variation with appearent direction.

    If it was random, it will go up and down with no discernable pattern (after all – I am pretty confident that’s what the word ‘random’ means).

    Random can have the appearance of direction if the cycles are longer than what we have been measuring. For example, with cyclic variation with a 50 year period, caused by a fractal like pattern, it would appear to be directional with a time frame of only 100 years. But look at it over 1000 years and that cycle pattern will appear more random and flat trended.

    What are experiencing at any given time is the interaction of all these cycles and randomness. My experiment with such cycles and randomness shows how it can work: http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com. I’d like to take this further adding more of what I think is going on. But it’s a good start.

  541. #543 mandas
    January 5, 2011

    Oh – just a few more teensy questions.

    Over at the previous thread, you started off by saying that “unknown” natural forcing mechanisms were causing your observed changes. If I may quote:

    “…..Someday a natural mechanism will be shown to be the cause of this “warming” and then your faith will come crashing down….”

    You obviously then had an epithany, and determined that the sun was driving all the changes. You were absolutely convinced of this, and made numerous references to it:

    “….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…..”

    “….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….”

    “….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…..”

    (in response to this suggestion) 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)…..”

    From those quotes we can have no doubt – you believed, and had papers to support your view – that the changes you have observed to Canadian Tmax and Tmin were caused by changes in solar irradiance.

    So, given that you were convinced that the sun was such a significant influence driving the changes you have observed, and that ‘…I accept the evidence…’, what changed your mind? Why do you now ‘reject the evidence’?

    And will you admit your earlier error?

  542. #544 Ian Forrester
    January 5, 2011

    Wakefield, wake up you are dreaming. Do you believe in the first law of thermodynamics? The global energy content (note that is a much more reliable parameter to discuss than air temperature) is increasing. How does your “randomness” account for increasing energy?

    You are being very unscientific in your discussions. How on earth can a small set of stations (ones you probably cherry picked) have any status in concluding that there is no AGW? You do know what the G in AGW stands for don’t you? It does not stand for “a few cherry picked stations which support my stupid hypothesis”.

    You are so far off the mark with just about everything you write about. You know next to nothing but you keep on producing graph after useless graph. You have deep seated problems. Everyone who is knowledgeable in this area shows where you are wrong (wrong is hardly the word for something so diametrically opposed to scientific reality) that one wonders about your mental health.

    Are you so stubborn and lacking in ability in other areas of your life? You are a sad example of an AGW denier. At least others move onto greener pastures when they have been shown to be wrong instead of continually showing everyone their stupidity and lack of scientific ability.

  543. #545 Ian Forrester
    January 5, 2011
  544. #546 skip
    January 5, 2011

    Are you saying the [8 year] prediction never happened? I have provided the links to it.

    I am.

    You live in a fantasy world. You produced “quotes”. But–and this is key Richard–they did *not* support your claim. This is because you mindlessly link things you do not read. (Relying on Snowman as a backup man did not help your cause.)

    Repeat, Richard: Your “8 year” quote is a fantasy, a delusional concoction of your irrational mind.

    Now explain to me how AGW produces cooler summers.

    Straw man. I never said AGW “produces cooler summers.” I said *even assuming Canadian* summers in your select stations have gotten “cooler”, it has *nothing*–repeat, *nothing* to do with the overall Anthropogenic *Global* (as Ian points out)Warming hypothesis.

    One more thing, Richard, since you’re reading my posts:

    When would you like to resume a discussion of. . . oh, whats his name . . . . let me think . . . oh yeah!

    Benjamin Laken?

    Hoping to forget that one, weren’t you?

    I probably have my own personality defect in all this: sadistically torturing a hack with questions he cannot answer because he cannot face them, but we all have our vices.

  545. #547 mandas
    January 5, 2011

    “……which you have all agreed must be natural from 1800-1975 was from this cycle, the first phase of it. The current continuation of this cycle swamps any forcing CO2 might have……”

    Ummmmm no. Warming in the first half of the 20th century was largely because of changes to solar irradiance, which was all agree is natural. No-one disputes that or has ever disputed that. It’s even stated as such in the IPCC reports.

    However, as everyone also knows, for the second half of the century TSI has been virtually flat – even decreasing slightly, and obviously CAN’T swamp any CO2 forcing, because – as you have observed – mean temperatures are increasing.

    So try again.

  546. #548 mandas
    January 5, 2011

    “…….Random can have the appearance of direction if the cycles are longer than what we have been measuring. For example, with cyclic variation with a 50 year period, caused by a fractal like pattern……”

    And no again. You do know the difference between “random” and “cyclical” and “patterns”, right?

    In case you don’t – and from your claims that would appear to be the case – “random” means without cycles or patterns.

    Try again.

  547. #549 mandas
    January 5, 2011

    Dick (521) “….Your side has to show that AGW is a better explanation, with evidence, not models. And that evidence must be discriminatory evidence that cannot have another explanation…..”

    Dick (537) “….Random variation. I have produced a simulation on how that can happen. Just chaotic randomness in various cycles….”

    So let me get this straight. Proponents of AGW are not permitted to use models and can allow no alternate explanations for their theories, but apparently you can?

    Does the phrase, “fucking hypocrite”, mean anything to you?

  548. #550 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    So, given that you were convinced that the sun was such a significant influence driving the changes you have observed, and that ‘…I accept the evidence…’, what changed your mind? Why do you now ‘reject the evidence’?

    Of course, one is always allowed to change views when new evidence comes to light. My random simulation seems to suggest that there is pure random fluctuations, as well as cyclic randomness. The sun would be a significant supplier of the cyclic changes with many periods. So yes, the sun is the major contributor of the forcing of the climate. Everything else would be secondary.

  549. #551 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    Ian your hatred for me is so strong you are no longer objective. I have CLEARLY stated why I picked the stations I did. I will spell it out again in the hopes it MIGHT finally sink in.

    THEY HAVE THE LONGEST CONTINUOUS RECORDSET!!!

    Now do you understand?

  550. #552 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    Straw man. I never said AGW “produces cooler summers.” I said *even assuming Canadian* summers in your select stations have gotten “cooler”, it has *nothing*–repeat, *nothing* to do with the overall Anthropogenic *Global* (as Ian points out)Warming hypothesis.

    Oh, I see, AGW is responsible for the increase in TMin, but not for the decrease in TMax. So what is driving TMax down then, over riding the forcing of CO2?

  551. #553 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    However, as everyone also knows, for the second half of the century TSI has been virtually flat – even decreasing slightly, and obviously CAN’T swamp any CO2 forcing, because – as you have observed – mean temperatures are increasing.

    Since TMean is just the difference between the daily TMax and TMin (TMean is not a measurement), and since that increase is because TMin is increasing faster than TMax is dropping, then which of the two is this forcing from CO2 changing? Both, just TMax or just TMin? If only one, what is driving the other?

  552. #554 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    In case you don’t – and from your claims that would appear to be the case – “random” means without cycles or patterns.

    Read up on fractals. Random also means we are unable to deturmine the outcome because there are too many parameters. Don’t think about cards or dice. Far too simple. Have a look at the cloud pattern on Jupiter. Patters, and cycles, all from random chaos with the sun as the energy input (and maybe a little from its own).

  553. #555 adelady
    January 6, 2011

    Thought I’d check for myself about Canada’s temperatures.

    Well, well, well. 2010 Jan – Nov is the hottest on record. But I did like this display on seasonal temperatures. Summers are not getting cooler overall (for all I know they may be in a few locations) but check out the winter and spring anomalies from 1998 onwards!

    http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=en&n=A96E94CA-1

  554. #556 Ian Forrester
    January 6, 2011

    Wakefield continues with his regurgitated garbage:

    Since TMean is just the difference between the daily TMax and TMin (TMean is not a measurement), and since that increase is because TMin is increasing faster than TMax is dropping, then which of the two is this forcing from CO2 changing? Both, just TMax or just TMin? If only one, what is driving the other?

    Wakefield, when are you going to get it through your thick skull that 13 stations in a small part of Canada is not a reflection of what is happening globally? There are numerous papers which have been linked in the past 1000+ posts which have shown your “conclusions,” more likely “delusions” are not valid globally.

    I hate people like you who are dishonest, incapable of learning, slander and libel honest scientists etc. You are a despicable person in your continuing distortion of what is happening to climate globally. You have posted endlessly on rubbish which you seem to think disproves the science behind human induced global warming. How many times and how many intelligent and knowledgeable people will have to tell you this before you join the rational part of the human community?

    This nonsense has gone on long enough.

  555. #557 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    So let me get this straight. Proponents of AGW are not permitted to use models and can allow no alternate explanations for their theories, but apparently you can?

    If you read that post carefully, I make no such claim. I never said this was a climate model. I said it was an example of what random variation couplied with various cycles would look like. It’s not a model, it’s an experiment with randomness which has a striking resemblance to what TMax does. Makes one wonder how much randomness plays in the temps. I think a lot.

    There is more than enough literature on climate models, general circulation models, that shows they leave much to be desired. They can’t even predict the past.

  556. #558 Ian Forrester
    January 6, 2011

    More hilarity from Wakefield:

    They can’t even predict the past.

    Are you having a bad day or are you just showing your normal level of stupidity?

    Models are “trained” on the past. You do understand how models are constructed don’t you? Sorry, the obvious answer to that question is “no” since you are so scientifically challenged.

  557. #559 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    “Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) Climate Choices web site (published in 2006) says: “here in the Northeast, the climate is changing. Records show that spring is arriving earlier, summers are growing hotter, and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. ”

    Yet, that is not what is happening. Take note of the graphs:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/union-of-concerned-scientists-unwarranted-concern-about-the-northeast-us/#more-30657

  558. #560 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    Models are “trained” on the past.

    I was hoping you would take the bait.

    Paper checking climate models to past climate, they fail:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-just-how-bad-the-climate-models-are/

  559. #561 Ian Forrester
    January 6, 2011

    Coby, why are you allowing Wakefield to spam denier nonsense from sites like wattsuphisbutt? This is a science blog and such nonsense should not be allowed.

  560. #562 Ian Forrester
    January 6, 2011

    Here is what experts in the field (as opposed to junk scientists) have to say about an earlier paper by the same authors:

    With that in mind, I now turn to the latest paper that is getting the inactivists excited by Demetris Koutsoyiannis and colleagues. There are very clearly two parts to this paper – the first is a poor summary of the practice of climate modelling – touching all the recent contrarian talking points (global cooling, Douglass et al, Karl Popper etc.) but is not worth dealing with in detail (the reviewers of the paper include Willie Soon, Pat Frank and Larry Gould (of Monckton/APS fame) – so no guessing needed for where they get their misconceptions).

    I would be very surprised to find that the paper Wakefield referred to via a denier site is not of the same quality.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/hypothesis-testing-and-long-term-memory/

  561. #563 Snowman
    January 6, 2011

    ‘Coby, why are you allowing Wakefield to spam denier nonsense…’ demands Ian Forrester.

    It’s an odd question from someone who spends his entire life prowling the internet like the Witchfinder General, looking for climate heretics to denounce. Just think, Ian, how dull your existence would be without Richard.

  562. #564 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    Coby, why are you allowing [Ian] to spam [AGW] nonsense from sites like [realclimte]? This is a science blog and such nonsense should not be allowed.

    RC is a front for Hansen, paid by the Goracle and Environmental Media Services, a radical left wing lobby group who’s income comes from litigating environmental cases. They lie, misrepresent and routinely censor posts.

    It does not surpise me that Ian has swallowed RC’c coolaid.

    Ian, going to acknowledge that you were wrong and I did use anomalies? Didn’t think so.

  563. #565 skip
    January 6, 2011

    Just think, Ian, how dull your existence would be without Richard.

    As dull as yours is in any event?

  564. #566 skip
    January 6, 2011

    Oh, I see, AGW is responsible for the increase in TMin, but not for the decrease in TMax.

    Yes, Richard, its entirely possible. The explanation for you observations in your regionally limited Canadian dataset within an overal AGW signal is simple, obvious, even dreary.

    But you think you’re Albert Einstein and you won’t let yourself face this painfully mundane fact.

    Take note of the graphs:

    The same thing you asked us to do once when *your graphs never existed*, Richard. Fool me twice shame on me.

    Quoting Anthony Watts again I see, which reminds me: Isn’ that where you first read about . . . . Benjamin Laken??

    So, Richard, what do you think of Benjamin Laken these days?

    I’m enjoying this too much. I admit it. I have a problem but I cannot stop myself.

  565. #567 Ian Forrester
    January 6, 2011

    Wakefield shows once again that he does not understand the difference between real science (real climate) and junk science (wattsuphisbutt).

    As for whether you used anomalies or not your description of your “research methods” is so juvenile and incomprehensible that it is not surprising that people may be mistaken in what you do. If you submitted your “Excel games” as a high school project it would be thrown back at you and you would be told to rewrite it in intelligible sentences. Your graphs are ridiculous, you have no description on the axes as to what they represent. No wonder you come to wrong conclusions when your work is so muddled and full of sloppiness.

    Remember that a few stations in southern Canada do not represent the whole of the globe, why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Also you have been shown that other stations in Canada do not conform to your “hypothesis”.

  566. #568 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    Yes, Richard, its entirely possible. The explanation for you observations in your regionally limited Canadian dataset within an overal AGW signal is simple, obvious, even dreary.

    Then it’s also quite possible that CO2 isn’t responsble for either.

    As for the graphs on WUWT, they shows flat temperatures since 1900 for the east coast of the US. Max and min.

  567. #569 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    RC is real science, ROTHL!!! In your dreams.

    Ian, only your inablity to read makes my presentations look sloppy. I describe what each graph represents. The anomaly procedure was spelled out in the text and sql statements, which looks like you can’t read. As expected you will not apologize, as expected. I thougt you were finished here?

  568. #570 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    Re Laken, Skip I have no idea why you want my comment on his work. It’s evidence that shows there is more going on in the climate than just the sun, co2 or even random variation. So what?

    I’ve gone through his site, I’ve read his posts at WUWT. What is your point?

  569. #571 skip
    January 6, 2011

    It’s [Laken] evidence that shows there is more going on in the climate than just the sun, co2 or even random variation. So what? — Richard backtracking, blatantly, pathetically, now.

    What [the Laken article] does show is your blind faith that ONLY CO2 changes the climate, has major effects on climate, is false. — Richard Old GAS thread, chest beating then #352

    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. –Benjamin Laken on his own work

    Laken does *not* say that AGW believers have “blind faith that only CO2 changes climate”. (That’s your delusion, Richard, not his.)

    Laken does *not* deny that “CO2 has major effects climate.” That’s you inventing an interpretation of a work you did not read. But of course you do this all the time so no surprise there.

    He specifically *refutes* the idea that CRF explains recent warming.

    Richard, you were gullible enough to believe dipshit Watts without even investigating his source. It shows you are a mindless believer in Watts and anything else that you think supports your amateurish position. When you make accusations of “dogma” Richard, its always an empty assertion devoid of evidence. When I accuse you of it, I document it.

    That’s the key difference between us, Richard. You will not or cannot distinguish the difference between objective reality and your personal preference.

    The Laken debacle is an epic embarrassment to you that you are desperately trying to forget and deny, but you can’t.

  570. #572 Ian Forrester
    January 6, 2011

    Wakefield shows his ignorance over and over again. Let this be a lesson to anyone who believes in self teaching. It is a losing proposition, it will turn out idiots like Wakefield who is ignorant of so many things. He thinks he is an expert because he is “self taught.” What a joke.

  571. #573 mandas
    January 6, 2011

    Well it looks as though Dick has – once again – predictably demonstrated his total inability to comprehend even the most basic scientific concepts. Its good he now has a hypothesis – that the climate is undergoing random variations – but of course, his hypothesis is so flawed it is barely worth discussing. Then there are all the other politically motivated claims which lack evidence, so where do you start?

    So to summarise.

    Dick took some data from a few selected met stations in southern Canada, determined (accurately or otherwise) that Tmax was staying flat or falling slightly, Tmin was increasing significantly, and on that basis declared that “if this is happening in Canada it must be happening in the rest of the world” and declared the theory of AGW to be deceased.

    Interestingly, although Dick had NOT checked data from other parts of the world (Australia for example – since I am from there), he proclaimed that he had a friend who was getting the data for him (no such friend has yet arisen – but I offered to give him the data and he declined). Of course, this meant that any prediction of what was happening in the rest of the world was pure supposition totally devoid of any evidence. This lack of evidence was no barrier to Dick forcefully expressing his opinion on the issue.

    Dick was also adamant that the cause of the trends he observed was an ‘unknown natural forcing mechanism’. Interestingly, he later changed this opinion to believe that the driving force behind his observations was the sun. This was unequivocal, because he had the evidence, and had science papers proving it and how dare we question them. Of course, he now believes there is NO trend to his observationss, and that they are purely random variations occuring in a long term or cyclical or fractal pattern. Despite the strange dissonance between “random”, “cyclical”, and “patterns”, he has not stated why he now rejects the earlier evidence that he found so persuasive. I will take a leaf out of Dick’s book here, and tell him that he should write to the authors and publications concerned with his criticisms of the works, because unless he does that his criticism means nothing. But could you at least tell us please Dick. Why do you reject the evidence you previously accepted.

    I know you have said (in response to my earlier question in this regard): “…Of course, one is always allowed to change views when new evidence comes to light….”

    So, given that you were convinced that the sun was such a significant influence driving the changes you have observed, and that ‘…I accept the evidence…’, what changed your mind? Why do you now ‘reject the evidence’? What is the “new evidence” that has come to light? Surely not your simulations? I hope it is actual data.

    I would also be interested to know how Dick’s hypothesis takes into account many of the other observations related to climate. CO2 is of course a favourite bogeyman of the average denialist, yet CO2 has undeniable radiation absorption properties. Given that CO2 IS increasing, why is there no apparent CO2 signal in Dick’s hypothesis? There should be. Every other scientist – including those who are not proponents of catastrophic climate change such as Lindzen – accept that CO2 is a current driver of climate. I would like Dick to explain why he thinks they are wrong.

    We also know, from observations, that the Earth’s energy budget has been increasing, so you would think this would have some effect on climate. I would be interested to know how Dick’s hypothesis deals with that.

    Of course, Dick’s hypothesis means that EVERY paper that has ever been written recently suggesting an alternative explanation for CO2 driven climate change (cosmic ray flux for example – which Dick did link to at one stage; sunspots; etc) must be wrong. I would love to hear his explanation for this.

    I also assume that, given that Dick now has a workable hypothesis, he will now turn this into a paper and submit it for publication. At least Dick is not one of these who believes the peer review process is broken – he is a published author himself! So what about it Dick? Or do you think you might try and get some other data (say from Australia, or South America, or Africa etc) to see if your hypothesis holds true for places other than your tiny corner of the world? That would be my suggestion – but what would I know?

  572. #574 Snowman
    January 6, 2011

    ‘I have a problem but I cannot stop myself,’ concedes Skip.

    For once something we agree on.

  573. #575 skip
    January 6, 2011

    Every other scientist – including those who are not proponents of catastrophic climate change such as Lindzen – accept that CO2 is a current driver of climate. I would like Dick to explain why he thinks they are wrong. Mandas above.

    So is another one he recently cited, although he has yet to answer this question:

    Do you agree with Professor Paltridge’s position regarding the role of carbon in affecting climate? Skip #528

    Nor, I expect, will we receive one.

  574. #576 skip
    January 6, 2011

    It is what it is, Snowman.

    Just remember its as fun to expose your hypocrisy and ignorance as Richard’s.

  575. #577 Snowman
    January 6, 2011

    Speaking of ignorance, Skip, you really must do something to improve your grasp of English grammar. I see, for example, that you have yet to make progress in understanding the difference between it’s and its. Disappointing.

  576. #578 skip
    January 6, 2011

    Disappointing you doesn’t bother me.

  577. #579 Snowman
    January 6, 2011

    ‘Disappointing you doesn’t bother me.’

    Nor should it. But such a woeful failure to understand even rudimentary English grammar is, surely, a little surprising in a college ‘professor’. What on earth must your students think?

  578. #580 mandas
    January 6, 2011

    I mentioned Richard Lindzen in my previous post – and he is a very interesting case in point here.

    Those of you who have been following this debate for some time will recall that Dick was full of hope that Lindzen’s testimony before Congress on 17 November would reveal AGW as a scam. He even provided a link to Lindzen’s testimony.

    Unfortunately for Dick, what Lindzen really said was this:

    “….The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to…..”

    Now, Dick had been saying that CO2 played NO part in the warming trend he had observed. And he HAD observed a trend, and repeatedly said so – although he initially said it was natural and later said it was the sun, as per:

    “….Oh dear, another paper that shows the sun caused this warm trend….” (18 November)

    This obviously raised a question in my mind, because Lindzen was disagreeing with Dick’s position. But interestingly enough, when questioned about it, Dick AGREED with Lindzen (ie that CO2 was playing a part in the warming trend).

    Now of course, Dick is saying there is NO trend, with the obvious implication that neither the sun or CO2 can be playing a part. So Dick, can you tell us why Lindzen is wrong please?

    And finally, in 18 November last year, NOAA issued this statement:

    “…..2010 is set to be the warmest on record…..”

    And despite Dick having (at that time) thought he had observed a warming trend in Canada (but had no evidence from anywhere else in the world, he proclaimed:

    “…..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…..”

    I wonder what he thinks now, especially given that NASA has come out and said it WAS the warmest year on record.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/nasa-2010-meteorological-year-wa.html (press release – apologies)

    So Dick, is NASA wrong or were you wrong? If you think the former, what is your evidence? If you think the latter – will you apologise for your earlier statement?

  579. #581 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    yet CO2 has undeniable radiation absorption properties. Given that CO2 IS increasing, why is there no apparent CO2 signal in Dick’s hypothesis? There should be. Every other scientist – including those who are not proponents of catastrophic climate change such as Lindzen – accept that CO2 is a current driver of climate. I would like Dick to explain why he thinks they are wrong.

    And that increase in CO2 is changing what in the climate? What is changing now, not future speculation.

    We also know, from observations, that the Earth’s energy budget has been increasing, so you would think this would have some effect on climate. I would be interested to know how Dick’s hypothesis deals with that.

    First the energy balance of the planet is not solved.

    Second, what you are refering to is that the planet is RETURNING to a more normal state as it emerges from the LIA. Warmer climate is normal, not cold. Warmer is also better that colder.

    Of course, Dick’s hypothesis means that EVERY paper that has ever been written recently suggesting an alternative explanation for CO2 driven climate change (cosmic ray flux for example – which Dick did link to at one stage; sunspots; etc) must be wrong. I would love to hear his explanation for this.

    You don’t think any other factors are at play in the last 30 years except CO2.

    Of course I intend to look at other locations. Funny though tat you don’t just supply your data, you have to attach conditions on its release.

    If you think that CO2 is the cause, and potentially bad, do you agree with David Shearman, Assessor for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report and the Fourth Assessment Report, on what should be done about it?

  580. #582 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011
  581. #583 Richard Wakefield
    January 6, 2011

    Now of course, Dick is saying there is NO trend, with the obvious implication that neither the sun or CO2 can be playing a part. So Dick, can you tell us why Lindzen is wrong please?

    You certainly put interesting spins on the truth. As far as Lindzen is concerned, CO2 may not play ANY role at all, hence his notation of ” how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to” That how much could ery likely be zero if the solar scientists are right and weare heading into 20-30 years of cooling because of the drop in the sun’s output. Speaking of which, when was the sun not part of nature and not part of the natural climate drives?

    I have been consistent, there is no evidence increased CO2 has changed anything in the climate. Even if there was some heat retention due to the more CO2 (which is not linear, more CO2 means less increased heat absorbtion), it is being swamped by other natural factors.

    I wonder what he thinks now, especially given that NASA has come out and said it WAS the warmest year on record.

    If that comes from Hansen, which I think it was, then I do not trust anything that radical socialist says. I’ll be downloading the data when I’m finished another project.

    The question has to be turned about, do YOU agree with Lindzen?

  582. #584 mandas
    January 6, 2011

    “…..Second, what you are refering to is that the planet is RETURNING to a more normal state as it emerges from the LIA. Warmer climate is normal, not cold. Warmer is also better that colder…..”

    That has to be the most spectacularly stupid thing I have ever read. There is no such thing as ‘normal’ climate. But of course, you – and your random natural variations – agree. A system that goes though random unexplanable changes can have NO normal state. And warmer is better for who? Just because you live in a frigid hole doesn’t mean everyone does.

    “….You don’t think any other factors are at play in the last 30 years except CO2…”

    And you got that from where? I can’t remember ever saying it. And why does it matter what I think. We are discussing what YOU think here.

    “….Of course I intend to look at other locations….”

    You do? So are you admitting that you have formulated your hypothesis purely on the basis of a limited sample which probably is not representative of the population. That’s a pretty damning admission, and demonstrates that your conclusions and criticisms of other works completely lack any degree of evidence or credibility. I would strongly suggest you go away and do a hell of a lot more work. Then when you have something which is worth discussing – because you just admitted you don’t have that yet – come back and we can continue. An ETHICAL scientist would describe your current findings as preliminary, and requiring further investigation before any definitive conclusions could be drawn. Slightly different to your own assertions don’t you think?

    “….Funny though tat you don’t just supply your data, you have to attach conditions on its release…..”

    Its not my data – its the Australian BOM’s data. I just offered to provide the access you said your mythical ‘friend’ was providing for you (and on 12 November you said you were emailing him/her – what was the response please?). And do you mean the condition about asking you to admit that you are wrong if the data shows that you are wrong? Why is that a problem for you?

    “….If you think that CO2 is the cause, and potentially bad, do you agree with David Shearman, Assessor for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report and the Fourth Assessment Report, on what should be done about it?…..”

    I have no idea what he says should be done about it, and I don’t particularly care. Stop trying to redirect the discussion. We are discussing your work here; what your observations suggest and why you think that alternative explanations are wrong. What I think about someone else’s opinion is completely irrelevant.

    So how about you attempt to address my questions regarding your hypothesis now, instead of just making assertions about my opinions.

  583. #585 mandas
    January 6, 2011

    “…..Even if there was some heat retention due to the more CO2 (which is not linear, more CO2 means less increased heat absorbtion), it is being swamped by other natural factors…..”

    And they are????

    And once again, it doesn’t matter whether or not I agree or disagree with Lindzen. We are discussing your hypothesis here, not my opinions.

    Try and focus on the discussion at hand and stop trying to redirect.

  584. #586 skip
    January 6, 2011

    A mindless cut and paste of a link is not an answer, Richard.

    Its a dodge and a silent admission that you cited Paltridge without reading him, don’t understand his position, and have no idea what in all hell you’re talking about.

  585. #587 mandas
    January 6, 2011

    Well Dick,

    You may recall that coby said up front that he wanted everyone to be nice, and you have said that you want a discussion on the science, and that the only thing that matters is the evidence.

    Whilst that has not always been the case – and both you and I are as guilty as anyone of failing to meet those criteria – if you want to make a go at it then here’s your chance.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but you have done a statistical analysis of a few (13? 17?) met stations from southern Canada, and your results suggest that there is a significant increasing trend in Tmin for all stations, and a flat or possible decreasing trend for Tmax at all the stations as well – but the significance of this has been questioned by others. Is that a fair summary?

    You can argue that there is statistical significance in your Tmax trend – but there does appear to be some contention there. Nevertheless, I will accept that you are right for the point of this discussion, and leave it to blueshift and Chris to carry the discussion there.

    Ok – so your results are sound. But like any science discussion – so what? In any science discussion or paper, the object is not just to produce data; it is to interpret that data in order to draw a conclusion to explain why something has occurred and to develop a theory that can be used for future predictions. This point has been hammered home for quite some time, and you have changed your position several times. But you now appear to have settled on a hypothesis that the climate is undergoing random natural changes, possibly in a cyclical or fractal pattern. And this then means that the theory of AGW – that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing an increase in global temperatures – is invalid. Once again, is that a fair summary?

    But the question must then be asked – is your hypothesis valid? I would like to suggest that there are a number of major questions about your data and results that you need to address before we even look at your hypothesis, and I will throw a few in here:

    In any statistical analysis, there are a couple of fundamental questions. Is your sample size sufficient to be able to draw conclusions, and is your sample representative of the population? Now, I will admit that I haven’t crunched the numbers here, but I am going to suggest that 13 (17?) is far too small a sample size, and that southern Canada is NOT representative of the rest of the world. Would you agree or disagree? Why (not)?

    Now, we can go on with the discussion from here, but I am going to suggest that unless your sample IS a useful dataset from which to draw robust conclusions, there isn’t a lot of point. I know for a fact that the data from Australia does NOT support your hypothesis. But of course I also know that doesn’t mean anything. You would need to include a fairly large sample, with data from a large range of climatic regions, before you could determine anything to any degree of confidence. And you just don’t have that.

    What you DO have is some preliminary findings which can be used a basis for further research. But that needs to be done first.

    I would also like to suggest that your apparent concentration on a limited set of data points (Tmax) is leading you to spurious conclusions. For example, if I was trying to determine whether summers were getting hotter, I would look at other indicators such as whether the number of hot days/nights was increasing, and the summer Tmean. I will use a sporting analogy to explain. In a cricket team, if one batsman scores 100 runs, but the others all get out for less than 10, the team score will be less than 200, and that’s a low score (typical for Australia at the moment). But if all 11 batsman score 50s, then the team score will be 500 (unusual unless you are playing against Australia at the moment). The absolute HIGHEST score (ie Tmax) may be lower, but the overall team score (ie overall summer heat) is much higher.

    Finally, I am going to strongly suggest that you show that your research is based on science, rather than a political worldview. You appear to have adopted the position that AGW is flawed, and are now hunting around for something – anything – to support your already determined conclusion. This is VERY obvious in your statements about CO2 being good for plants, and polar bears not being threatened etc. NONE of those issues is in any way related to your research, and you have no evidence or credibility to support your assertions.

    And stop linking to things you haven’t read, just because you think they lend support to your political position. If you want to link to things that are relevant to your research, then go ahead and do so. But READ and UNDERSTAND them first. And don’t link to junk science like the crap produced by the morons like the SPPI. It has NO credibility. Use journal articles.

    Stick to the facts or your research, and I would also like to suggest that if you do, we will do the same.

  586. #588 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    There is no such thing as ‘normal’ climate.

    Sure there is. Normal is what happens most of the time. What the planet was like for 500 million yeara before this glaciation period. Glacial periods are rare in the geological record, hence not normal. Normal for the planet is no winters.

    Life does much better in tropical climates than temporate. Humanity did much better during the RWM and the MWP than we did during the LIA when crop failures starved millions.

    And you got that from where? I can’t remember ever saying it. And why does it matter what I think. We are discussing what YOU think here.

    LOL, that’s funny. This is a oneway street eh? Don’t want to subject your own opinions to scruteny eh? Very typical. No this is not a forum just to bash be around. Your views are fair game. Your views are so flimsy you’re affraid to defend them? Answer the question.

    I would strongly suggest you go away and do a hell of a lot more work. Then when you have something which is worth discussing -

    Recall I said that data fom places like Africa is lacking long term. South Africa: http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/TempTrendInSouthAfrica.pdf Now before you jump up and down with joy, note the range of years. I would expect this trend within that time frame.

    And do you mean the condition about asking you to admit that you are wrong if the data shows that you are wrong? Why is that a problem for you?

    I never have a problem with what the data shows. So post your link.

    What I think about someone else’s opinion is completely irrelevant.

    No,this is a two way street. You must have something to hide.

  587. #589 blueshift
    January 7, 2011

    Mandas #587,
    I’m mostly following this thread for laughs now, but perhaps someone can salvage something here. So I have two points in response to “and a flat or possible decreasing trend for Tmax at all the stations as well – but the significance of this has been questioned by others. Is that a fair summary?

    You can argue that there is statistical significance in your Tmax trend – but there does appear to be some contention there. Nevertheless, I will accept that you are right for the point of this discussion, and leave it to blueshift and Chris to carry the discussion there.”

    First, you ought to specify which Tmax you mean every time. From the context, it seems you are talking about the annual Tmax’s, but Richard has repeatedly interchanged daily and annual in his discussion (and at least once used the daily Tmax distribution for analysis of the annual Tmax). Don’t let that sloppiness spread.

    Second, I gave up on carrying the discussion long ago. Richard simply refuses to test his results for any kind of statistical significance. He’s had weeks and hundreds of posts to do so, but either can’t or won’t.

    I’ll be interested to see what Chris S. does, and I got some suggestions over at Tamino’s on how to explore some of my ideas here. But I simply see no reason to engage with Richard.

  588. #590 skip
    January 7, 2011

    Ok Mandas that was a very detailed and civil effort to engage Richard and I am willing to stand down and simply observe this. I am also willing to suggest that Chris and Ian et al. do the same. However, I need to make a couple of parting points before.

    Finally, I am going to strongly suggest that you show that your research is based on science, rather than a political worldview. — Mandas

    In Richard’s defense, Mandas (I know, perish the thought), this is a false dichotomy, to some extent subjective, a straw man, and requires Richard to prove a negative: “So, are you doing science as I understand it Richard, or are you just an ideological bullshitter?”

    Richard, as I understand him, believes he is apolitical and simply engaging in heterodox science. Any arguable deficiency in his scientific technique does not perforce prove that his motivations are political.

    Furthermore, I can’t speak for Richard, but you lost me at the word “cricket”. Come up with a hockey or curling analogy for our hyperborean disputant.

    Finally, to Richard: I fully encourage you to attempt a detailed dialogue with Mandas from this starting point. I especially encourage you to focus on some of the key points for him–the ability to extrapolate from a select number of southern Canadian stations to the rest of the globe, the definition of “cooler” and/or “flat” in summer temperature trends, and what interpretation is to be attached to particular empirical observations (which is related to point one.)

    However (and this is where I, for one, will be watching like a vulture), ensure that your responses to him are consistent with your earlier statements, empirical claims, and cited sources.

    If they are not, then learn this simple act of finesse and humility: *Admit it*.

    Changing your mind in the face of new evidence and arguments is an indispensable attribute of scientific inquiry. Its what all of us who call ourselves empirical investigators try to cultivate within ourselves, and the very purpose for which the scientific process of investigation and verification was developed.

  589. #591 Chris S.
    January 7, 2011

    “I am also willing to suggest that Chris and Ian et al. do the same.”

    Sure thing, I have nothing to add until I’ve done some analysis on the full Tmax and compared that to highest Tmax.

    One parting shot: What do you call an Aussie with a hundred to his name? A bowler.

    On a more serious note, Australia were worryingly poor & don’t seem to be able to replace any of their top players from the last decade. World cricket needs a strong Aussie side so here’s hoping they bounce back soon.

  590. #592 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    Correct me if I am wrong, but you have done a statistical analysis of a few (13? 17?) met stations from southern Canada, and your results suggest that there is a significant increasing trend in Tmin for all stations, and a flat or possible decreasing trend for Tmax at all the stations as well – but the significance of this has been questioned by others. Is that a fair summary?

    If you want a civil discussion of the issue, my name is not Dick, it’s Richard.

    The anomaly of extreme summer temps used 29 stations. Generally you are correct. Understand that the few stations was because only a few statrions have a long period, which I have explained in detail.

    And this then means that the theory of AGW – that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing an increase in global temperatures – is invalid. Once again, is that a fair summary?

    If not invalid, at best insignificant. Swamped by the natural variarion.

    Now, I will admit that I haven’t crunched the numbers here, but I am going to suggest that 13 (17?) is far too small a sample size, and that southern Canada is NOT representative of the rest of the world. Would you agree or disagree? Why (not)?

    The low number is no choice, thats all there is, And if that small number of stations is not good enough, then that also applies to the increase in TMin. Few stations is a problem to everyone, every position. I would contend that Canada is a fair representation of the northern temporate zone subject to testing.

    You would need to include a fairly large sample, with data from a large range of climatic regions, before you could determine anything to any degree of confidence. And you just don’t have that.

    No one does. If this is your position, then AGW cannot claim the planet is heating up. There isn’t sufficient coverage of the planet for a long enough period to make their claims. Hence I completely agree with you, and you now do not agree with AGW.

    For example, if I was trying to determine whether summers were getting hotter, I would look at other indicators such as whether the number of hot days/nights was increasing, and the summer Tmean.

    I did that. I showed that the number of days above 30C for various locations was dropping. Significant drop, 1/3 less. Tmean in the summer is not a measurement, it’s entirely dependant on daily TMax and TMin.

    The absolute HIGHEST score (ie Tmax) may be lower, but the overall team score (ie overall summer heat) is much higher.

    Then you have a problem with TMean. It is JUST (TMax+Tmin)/2. That is, the highest of the day, and the lowest of the day. If you average each hour’s temp to get an average for the day you get a number that is lower than TMean. I’ve already tested that. So that means TMean is TOO HIGH.

  591. #593 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    but Richard has repeatedly interchanged daily and annual in his discussion (and at least once used the daily Tmax distribution for analysis of the annual Tmax). Don’t let that sloppiness spread.

    Annual TMax *IS* a daily TMax, and I have been clear on which TMax is dropping. Summer TMax.

    Second, I gave up on carrying the discussion long ago. Richard simply refuses to test his results for any kind of statistical significance. He’s had weeks and hundreds of posts to do so, but either can’t or won’t.

    That’s pure BS. I’ve done what is needed to be done. Chris shows that I’m correct, the general trend in TMax is dropping, but is quite variable, DUH! Have a look at the South African analysis. They did the same thing I did.

  592. #594 blueshift
    January 7, 2011

    Ok, one last try.

    “That’s pure BS. I’ve done what is needed to be done. Chris shows that I’m correct, the general trend in TMax is dropping, but is quite variable, DUH!”

    For the trend line on the annual Tmax what is the slope and 95% confidence intervals?

  593. #595 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    “Four out of five ARGO data studies now show Ocean Heat Content declining”

    Recent energy balance of Earth
    R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
    Abstract
    A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find
    by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.

    See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/new-paper-on-argo-data-trenberths-ocean-heat-still-missing/

  594. #596 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    For the trend line on the annual Tmax what is the slope and 95% confidence intervals?

    All year or just a season?

  595. #597 blueshift
    January 7, 2011

    “All year or just a season?”

    Annual Tmax, as I said.

  596. #598 blueshift
    January 7, 2011

    Or how about this. You have the values of the yearly Tmax. Can you post a down-loadable spreadsheet on your site that has those values for a few of your sites? I’m imagining something that looks like this:

    Year Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
    1900 X1 X2 X3
    1901 X4 X5 X6
    1902 X7 X8 X9
    ….
    2000 X301 X302 X303

  597. #599 Ian Forrester
    January 7, 2011

    Wakefield’s trawling of rubbish science journals snags a new low. The “Journal” he quotes is published by an outfit called “Scientific Research Publishing”. For information on this organization and its stable of journals and its fraudulent techniques see here:

    http://improbable.com/2009/12/22/strangest-academic-journals/ (h/t to Ben at http://tinyurl.com/246q988).

    This is the sort of stuff Watts and Wakefield spend their time dredging through (Watts has posts on at least two papers from this “non-journal”).

    No wonder anyone with any knowledge of science and how it is conducted become so annoyed with the likes of Wakefield.

  598. #600 skip
    January 7, 2011

    Richard’s latest link to Watts on this latest “study” is remarkable for all kinds of reasons.

    Since he did not read it, does not understand it, never gave it even passing thought, he won’t see the problems it presents him, but I’ll wait till Mandas gets tired of this again.

    Just for the record, Richard–its been noted and will not be forgotten.

  599. #601 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    Annual Tmax, as I said.

    But that is going to be highly varying, from below zero in winter, to over 30 in the summer. That will make the R2 very small and the confidence value very low. Especially meaningless if the winter TMax is increasing but the summer TMax is dropping.

    You can’t even use june or aug for the summer, because the beginning of june TMax is increasing as it comes into summer, while in aug the opposite, TMax is starting to drop heading into fall. That will make the range of summer TMax highly variable, again dropping R2. That leaves only July TMax to get the tightest range of TMax.

    And I can easily supply the xls files.

  600. #602 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    The “Journal” he quotes is published by an outfit called “Scientific Research Publishing”.

    Ian is incapable of refuting the analysis, so he resorts to the usual AGW faithful defence, shoot the messenger.

  601. #603 blueshift
    January 7, 2011

    “But that is going to be highly varying, from below zero in winter, to over 30 in the summer. That will make the R2 very small and the confidence value very low. Especially meaningless if the winter TMax is increasing but the summer TMax is dropping.”

    Clearly we are having definitional problems here. When I say annual Tmax, I mean the single highest value for the year. It has been one of your core claims that what I call “annual Tmax” is going down. For example, in #294 of the previous thread you said “Second graph is the summer months TMax variation (6,7,8). Highest of TMax is CLEARLY dropping. The lowest of TMax is flat.”

    “And I can easily supply the xls files.”

    Please do. You are clear on what I’m asking for now, right? For each station (however many you want to do), a column with the single highest value for the year. Unless I have misunderstood what you meant by “Highest of TMax”.

    Mandas,
    Just let me know if you think I’m distracting for a more important conversation.

  602. #604 Ian Forrester
    January 7, 2011

    Wakefield, I wont waste my time critiquing rubbish like that. It has three strikes against it.

    1. It was cited by you, that almost automatically means it is junk.

    2. It was written up on wattsuphisbutt, that means it really is junk.

    3. One of the authors is a well known “denier” scientist.

    As I said, with all those going against it, it is not worth my time reading it in detail.

    Why do you never read papers that are written up in the established and respected journals? Ooooh I forget you are only looking for papers that support your fantasy hypothesis. Well you wont find any in the reputable scientific press. So continue to make yourself look stupid in the eyes of scientists everywhere with your support for dishonest “studies”.

    Talking about dishonest studies, are you related the that other dishonest Wakefield, you know the one whose work linked MMR vaccination to autism? He shares the same honesty in regards to science as you do. His work has just recently been labeled as fraudulent by a leading medical journal.

  603. #605 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    Can you post a down-loadable spreadsheet on your site that has those values for a few of your sites

    I have posted the raw data a while back that Chris used. You will have to specify which station.

    In the meantime, I did a 95% confidence value for the station Chris picked up, 2973. I included subranges, and all the data from the sql that obtained the max of TMax for each year:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/station-2973-summer-tmax-stats/

    Notice the CL is low, barely above the R2. My plots have had the slope and R2 on them.

    The xls was based on this method: http://people.stfx.ca/bliengme/exceltips/regressionslopeconfidence.htm This way you can see I’ve done it right.

  604. #606 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    He shares the same honesty in regards to science as you do.

    I’m sure if I bothered to look through the list of incarcerated murderers I will find a Forrester, would you be related to one of them? And would that person reflect who you are? Ian, you are nicely showing a prime example of a True Believer in the Dogma. You are the reason why this and the previous thread fell into the gutter.

  605. #607 mandas
    January 7, 2011

    “…..The anomaly of extreme summer temps used 29 stations. Generally you are correct. Understand that the few stations was because only a few statrions have a long period, which I have explained in detail…..

    There are a hell of a lot more than 29 met stations in the world. You can’t just use Canada – as EVERYONE has tried to explain to you.

    “….and this then means that the theory of AGW – that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing an increase in global temperatures – is invalid. Once again, is that a fair summary?
    If not invalid, at best insignificant. Swamped by the natural variarion….”

    And your data for this assertion is…..what?/where? You can’t just make statements like this without evidence.

    So go away and get the evidence!!! And from ALL over the world. I will keep saying this over and over until you get it:

    You have made a few observations from a limited number of met stations in one type of climatic region in a tiny corner of the world which is NOT representative of the world as a whole. That is a simple fact and I know your observations – valid or otherwise – are NOT repeated in Australia. Until and unless you can expand that set of observations to a larger sample size covering a range of climate types – ie your sample is both robust and representative – you have nothing.

    And you cannot make claims or assertions without evidence. If you want to claim the CO2 signal is “swamped”, you need to show how and why you believe that – WITH DATA.

    Right now you have just a bunch of pretty graphs. If you want to turn them into some form of meaningful science, you need to do a hell of a lot more work.

  606. #608 Ian Forrester
    January 7, 2011

    Wakefiled tries to be smart:

    I’m sure if I bothered to look through the list of incarcerated murderers I will find a Forrester, would you be related to one of them? And would that person reflect who you are?

    NO

    As I have said numerous times, honesty is the number one attribute for a scientist that is why you are no scientist. When you were teaching yourself all that you know did you omit the pages on honesty and ethics?

  607. #609 mandas
    January 7, 2011

    And RW – a few weeks ago you were absolutely adamant that there WAS a warming trend, and that the sun was the cause. You provided links to a number of papers “proving” this, and you were scathing of anyone who dared to criticise them.

    Indeed, you stated that our criticisms of the papers meant nothing unless we wrote to the authors with our criticisms.

    So, given that you now say there is NO trend, and that the changes are just because of random natural variations, what has changed your mind?

    What about the papers that you previously linked to is incorrect? Why do you think they are wrong?

    And I assume that you will be writing to the authors with your criticisms?

  608. #610 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    And your data for this assertion is…..what?/where? You can’t just make statements like this without evidence.

    That applies to both sides. There is no evdence that CO2 is changing anything in the climate beyond normal variation.

    That is a simple fact and I know your observations – valid or otherwise – are NOT repeated in Australia.

    Don’t tell me, show me.

    Until and unless you can expand that set of observations to a larger sample size covering a range of climate types – ie your sample is both robust and representative – you have nothing.

    Near impossible with such little valid data around the world. South Africa doesn’t have valid data before 1960. So how does one do ANY claims around the world with such scant data, including AGW?

    So, given that you now say there is NO trend, and that the changes are just because of random natural variations, what has changed your mind?

    I didn’t say there is no trend, the trend is fewer hot days since 1900, and milder winters since 1900. I also said that random variations, as well as cyclic oscellations (some from the sun), have more effect than CO2 has. You asked me for evidence, where is the evidence that CO2 is changing the climate?

    BTW, do you understand my meaning when I answered your one question with the response on whether the glass is half full or half empty?

    And what about what is “normal”, do you agree that what is normal is what has happened most of the time?

  609. #611 mandas
    January 7, 2011

    RW

    You keep answering my questions with vague statements and assertions. Yo

    “….That is a simple fact and I know your observations – valid or otherwise – are NOT repeated in Australia.
    Don’t tell me, show me….”

    But you claimed to have the URL for the Australian BOM data. So you obviously know this – or is your claim about having the data incorrect?

    “….I didn’t say there is no trend, the trend is fewer hot days since 1900, and milder winters since 1900. I also said that random variations, as well as cyclic oscellations (some from the sun), have more effect than CO2 has….”

    Your hypothesis is that your observations for Canada are the result of ‘random natural variations’. So is there a trend or not? Are you really saying that your ‘random variations’ have been generally in one direction for over one hundred years?

    And are you invoking the sun or not? If so, you need to show the causal relationship between your observations and the sun. How does the sun cause winters to get warmer, and summers to get cooler? I would have thought it was the other way around (but I will await your explanation – I may be wrong). But it is fundamental to your hypothesis that you can demonstrate this – with data and evidence.

    “….Near impossible with such little valid data around the world. South Africa doesn’t have valid data before 1960. So how does one do ANY claims around the world with such scant data, including AGW?….”

    Don’t cherry pick. Australia has data going back to 1850. But you know this, because you have the URL. What about the rest of the USA? Europe? New Zealand? Get what you can.

    “….And what about what is “normal”, do you agree that what is normal is what has happened most of the time?….”

    No I don’t. Most of WHAT time? And under what conditions? ‘Normal’ climate will be determined by the composition of the atmosphere, solar irradiance, the position of the continents, etc, etc. Change any of those variables, and ‘normal’ also changes. And since those variable are constantly changing (and we are changing the composition of the atmosphere – I presume you agree), then there is no such thing as ‘normal’. And besides, if, as you assert, the climate is undergoing ‘random natural variations’ constantly, there is obviously no ‘most of the time’.

  610. #612 Ian Forrester
    January 7, 2011

    Wakefield shows his denial of science once again:

    There is no evdence (sic) that CO2 is changing anything in the climate beyond normal variation.

    That is a blatant lie. Did you teach yourself about radiative physics when you “taught” yourself science? Seems that you did not.

    The radiative physics of CO2 is a well established fact of science. No wonder you idiots are called deniers. Why do you not go and get yourself a proper science education if you want to play at being a scientist. That way people will be able to have a rational discussion with you rather than just simply putting down your stupid hypothesis.

    You are pathetic and are getting more and more pathetic with every post.

  611. #613 blueshift
    January 7, 2011

    Richard #605,
    “In the meantime, I did a 95% confidence value for the station Chris picked up, 2973. I included subranges, and all the data from the sql that obtained the max of TMax for each year:”

    Great, thank you. This is almost exactly what I’ve been looking for (ignoring for the moment whether the data violates any of the assumptions of the test.

    I see that for this station, even the 1943 to 2009 subrange does not show cooling as the upper bound of the confidence interval includes a positive slope.

    No big deal-I don’t expect a single station would have enough data even *assuming you are correct*. So you need a way to gain more statistical power by looking at more stations.

    Anyone have a suggestion for how to do that? My ideas right now aren’t very satisfactory.

  612. #614 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    But you claimed to have the URL for the Australian BOM data. So you obviously know this – or is your claim about having the data incorrect?

    I have the site, I have not written the code to download it yet.

    Your hypothesis is that your observations for Canada are the result of ‘random natural variations’. So is there a trend or not? Are you really saying that your ‘random variations’ have been generally in one direction for over one hundred years?

    and..

    Are you really saying that your ‘random variations’ have been generally in one direction for over one hundred years?

    I would have thought my explanation was clear, guess not. You are fixated with the notion that randomness has no direction. It can if the vibration period is long and the measurement period is short. If there is oscillation, vibrations in the randomness, it will appear to have a direction if the time frame is shorter than the period.

    And are you invoking the sun or not? If so, you need to show the causal relationship between your observations and the sun. How does the sun cause winters to get warmer, and summers to get cooler? I would have thought it was the other way around (but I will await your explanation – I may be wrong). But it is fundamental to your hypothesis that you can demonstrate this – with data and evidence.

    It’s not that simple. There is much more going on in the climate. The sun *IS* the primary energy source, everyone agrees with that. The question is what happens to the climate system. The sun heats only a small portion of the planet at any one time, that heat is trying to get to cooler areas via winds, frontal systems and ocean currents. The climate’s response to the sun’s input also lags. Summer solstice is June 21, but the hottest month is July. A nice example of a chaotic event with a period is el nino, and la nina. The sun provides the primary energy for these, but their period and intensity is random. They are one of the oscillations I was referring to.

    Don’t cherry pick. Australia has data going back to 1850. But you know this, because you have the URL. What about the rest of the USA? Europe? New Zealand? Get what you can.

    Small parts of the world, most of the topics do not have sufficient data, if at all.

    How many glaciations periods have there been in the last 500 million years? What percent of the last 500my is this glacial period?

  613. #615 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    Ian, what physical measurable effects has CO2 produced in the climate?

  614. #616 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    So you need a way to gain more statistical power by looking at more stations.

    I will apply this to the anomalies for the 29 stations. Also apply to winter TMin. If there is no significant trend in either since 1940s, what does that do for AGW?

  615. #617 Ian Forrester
    January 7, 2011

    Wakefield shows his ignorance and denier persona by asking the following question:

    Ian, what physical measurable effects has CO2 produced in the climate?

    All honest scientists including the large majority (97%) of climate scientists understand that because of the radiative properties of CO2 it absorbs IR wavelengths of EMR. The energy of the IR is passed on through molecular collisions to other molecules in the air (oxygen and nitrogen in case you are ignorant of that too). This causes WARMING. Since the increase in CO2 comes mostly from burning of fossil fuels the associated warming has come to be known as anthropogenic global warming (since it is observed on a global scale) or human caused climate change. Take your pick.

    Jees, how anyone can try and discuss AGW without knowing these basic facts is a wonder to me. You truly are an ignorant and arrogant person.

  616. #618 blueshift
    January 7, 2011

    Richard #616,
    “I will apply this to the anomalies for the 29 stations.”

    I’d say hold off for a moment, unless this you have this automated. Each individual station is going to have a large confidence interval and won’t tell you anything (probably). You need to combine the analysis somehow to even expect a result. But since these are annual highest Tmax values, neither averaging or converting to anomalies makes sense. There must be a reasonable method- but I don’t know it off hand.

    “Also apply to winter TMin. If there is no significant trend in either since 1940s, what does that do for AGW?”

    I don’t think you can say anything about AGW with this small of an area and without examining the mechanisms behind AGW predictions. But that’s a whole separate discussion and other posters are addressing this.

  617. #619 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    Ian, LOL, you really have swallowed the coolaid. In other words, you have nothing that has changed. Warming, WHAT WARMING?! You mean the flat trend of the global mean since 1998. And the downward trend of summer TMax in Canada? And this “warming” is bad how?

    Has there been anything else, rain changes, snow changes, storm changs, anything like that? Nope. Nothing.

    “97%” of climate scientists, you mean all 75 of them http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax

  618. #620 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    Each individual station is going to have a large confidence interval and won’t tell you anything (probably).

    I assume you would like to see each station’s slope and range and see what they all look like collectively. I was thinking about doing this a while back, and see what the slope looks like by region. That is not a easy task to automate, I’d have to write a program to drop the values into an xls template, and extract the slope values, and place those in another sheet. I’ve done this before, it’s a pain.

    That said, I expect there to not be much deviation from that station. They will all be close.

  619. #621 Ian Forrester
    January 7, 2011

    Wakefield you are getting more and more dishonest and more and more arrogant.

    You know nothing about climate science if you stand by the nonsense in your last post.

    Cherry picking (1998) is not honest science. Look at the decadal averages over the past few decades. Each one shows a higher and higher temperature anomaly. 2010 meteorological year, was the warmest in modern times. Check the GISS site, oops you think Hansen is a hoaxer. Well you are wrong, he is infinitely more honest than you and your denier friends. ?also, even with your cherry picked year of 1998 all four major temperature analyses show warming. if you choose 1997 or 1999 the warming is even greater.

    People, discussing science with Wakefield is a waste of time, he is resorting to his dishonest persona that I warned about over 1000 posts ago.

    When is someone going to put an end to the farcical “science” that Wakefield is ranting on about. This is a science blog!

  620. #622 Ian Forrester
    January 7, 2011

    Can we trust Wakefield to do this either honestly or without an error?

    That is not a easy task to automate, I’d have to write a program to drop the values into an xls template, and extract the slope values, and place those in another sheet. I’ve done this before, it’s a pain

    Past history says NO.

  621. #623 Richard Simons
    January 7, 2011

    Each individual station is going to have a large confidence interval and won’t tell you anything (probably).

    I assume you would like to see each station’s slope and range and see what they all look like collectively. I was thinking about doing this a while back, and see what the slope looks like by region. That is not a easy task to automate, I’d have to write a program to drop the values into an xls template, and extract the slope values, and place those in another sheet. I’ve done this before, it’s a pain.

    The simplest way is probably to perform an analysis of variance, extracting a linear contrast from the effect due to years. Before doing this, of course, you would have to check that the errors are normally distributed and perform a transformation if necessary.

  622. #624 Richard Wakefield
    January 7, 2011

    Ian, have you programmed excel with VB? I didn’t think so. Just a bit beyond you. Take another gulp of the coolid and admire the picture of your idle Hansen on your wall.

  623. #625 Ian Forrester
    January 7, 2011

    Wakfield, doing “Excel Games” does not make you a scientist. Honesty and knowledge are required. You fail miserably in both cases.

    People, why are you pretending that Wakefield has anything useful to say? His “hypothesis”, even if it is correct does not and will not falsify AGW. AGW is correctly described by simple chemistry and physics. What happens in a small part of the globe is immaterial to AGW. If Wakefield had read some of the papers presented in these two threads he would have seen that his “hypothesis” does not apply globally.

  624. #626 skip
    January 8, 2011

    Just for the record . . . .

    Richard, your linking of Solomon on the critique of the Doran et al study–which shows that neither you nor Solomon read the study–has also been noted for future discussion.

  625. #627 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    Ian’s hero in 1986:

    “Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=n39JAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pgsNAAAAIBAJ&pg=4671,5141658&dq=james-hansen+desert&hl=en

    Keep drinking that coolaid Ian!

  626. #628 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    “The Central England Temperature record is one of the longest continuous temperature record in the world extending back to the Little Ice age in 1659. December 2010 was the coldest December in 120 years with an average of -0.7C just short of the record of -0.8C recorded in December 1890 and the Second Coldest December Temperature in the entire record (352 years). ”

    “Germany has experienced the coldest December in more than 40 years, the German Weather Service (DWD) said.”

    “According to the Swedish meteorological agency SMHI, several parts of Sweden, including the southern region Gotaland and eastern Svealand, experienced “the coldest December in at least 110 years.” ”

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/december_2010_a_december_to_remember_part_1_europe_and_asia/

  627. #629 Ian Forrester
    January 8, 2011

    No wonder Wakefield doesn’t understand global climate change, he doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate.

    Go and get an education you are only making a fool of yourself with all the nonesense you keep repeating from your favourite denier sites.

  628. #630 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    If there are any here with a open mind (that counts you out Ian).

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/07/wheres-the-missing-heat/#more-1866

  629. #631 skip
    January 8, 2011

    Still lurking and observing . . .

    Again Richard cites as an authority (Curry) a person who specifically contradicts his own position.

    Keep posting and linking, Richard! The fun never ends.

  630. #632 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    Mandas, I’ve downloaded Darwin station TMax. What did you find it was doing?

    Flat since 1942, no data before that: http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/darwin-jan-tmax/

  631. #633 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    Again Richard cites as an authority (Curry) a person who specifically contradicts his own position.

    And how does Curry contradict my position? She has commented that my analysis was very interestng.

  632. #634 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    I’ve been looking for more stations in AU at this site: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/ The nice feature they have is the ability to see the number of records available. It’s pathetic. And I thought Canada was bad. I’ve updated my post with Melbourne, also a flat trend in Summer TMax.

    Perth only has records since the 1950′s, not long enough. So, mandas, unless you have something different to show, I can conclude that with those two stations, and likely the entire continent, summer TMax has not changed at all, just normal fluctuations.

    Now with all you people’s complaining I can’t speak for the rest of the globe, you have been shown wrong. I now can. There has been NO INCREASE in summer temps in Canada or Australia. TMax in Canada has been dropping, in AU it’s flat.

  633. #635 Ian Forrester
    January 8, 2011

    Wakefield stop lying. I showed you that Coral Harbour and Sachs Harbour, both in Canada the last time I checked, are not following your stupid “hypothesis”.

    Melbourne is definitely not “cooling” as you said every station was doing on the very first few posts (over 1000 ago). And as others have told you time and time again AGW theory predicts that summers will not warm as quickly as winters so what is the point in your “analysis” except to waste everyone’s time to show that you are a certifiable nut case.

    As for the Knox and Douglass “paper”. You did read it didn’t you? Did you see the obvious cherry pick that they used? It was so blatant that I would have though that even some one of your lowly scientific skills would have seen it.

  634. #636 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    I showed you that Coral Harbour and Sachs Harbour, both in Canada the last time I checked, are not following your stupid “hypothesis”.

    Only in your mind. You showed nothing of the sort. The dataset was way too short, and since the 1970′s has been flat.

    So, going to show me any climate events changing because of AGW? Or just ignore the question?

  635. #637 Ian Forrester
    January 8, 2011

    Wakefield I am getting tired of your continuing lying and lack of scientific ability. The effects of CO2 are just recently emerging from the other forcings causing temperatures to vary. Solar has been decreasing for the past 50 or so years so we only need to look at the past 40 to 50 years to see if CO2 is having an effect on temperatures since we know that other factors were involved before that time. Why do you pick 1970 for your data start point when much earlier data are available? That is cherry picking and you know it, that is why you are called out on your dishonesty.

    Get over it, humans are causing a massive increase in CO2 emissions, CO2 concentrations are rising because of this, CO2 is a green house gas and is causing an increase in average global temperatures (aka an increase in energy content), the warmer temperatures from CO2 are amplified by increasing water vapour (because water vapor is also a GHG) resulting in a temperature increase of approximately 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 concentrations.

    You may not like it but that is what the science is telling us. Anything to the contrary is from denier lies, distortions, cherry picks and other forms of scientific malfeasance.

  636. #638 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    If no or little increase in summer TMax is predicted by AGW, then how come these prodictions:

    Deadly Heat Waves More Likely
    http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=251

    google “more heat waves expected”

  637. #639 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    So, Ian, you are admitting that nothing abnormal is happening now, it’s all speculation of a possible future based on flawed computer models that can’t predict anything. Thank you for admitting that. Now, how much longer must no change happen before you give up on AGW? Or is it even possible for you to give up the Faith?

    Not likely when your idol is Hansen and your “science” comes from RC.

  638. #640 Ian Forrester
    January 8, 2011

    Wakefield stop being so obtuse. You are the only person who continually goes on about “annual Tmax”. Climate scientists talk about the average of “daily Tmax”, which is completely different as has already been shown to you by other posters.

    Summer temperatures are increasing just read some scientific papers published in a reputable journal not the fish wrap where deniers are found.

    And no-one is saying “no or little increase in summer TMax is predicted by AGW”.

    That is a complete lie (surprise, surprise). What climate scientists are saying is that summers will warm at a slower rate than winters will warm. That is completely different from what you are saying.

    Why do you continually lie?

  639. #641 Ian Forrester
    January 8, 2011

    Wakefield garbles posts:

    So, Ian, you are admitting that nothing abnormal is happening now, it’s all speculation of a possible future based on flawed computer models that can’t predict anything. Thank you for admitting that. Now, how much longer must no change happen before you give up on AGW? Or is it even possible for you to give up the Faith?

    I never said anything close to what you are saying. Your English comprehension skills are as low as your science skills. Or are you just being your usual dishonest self? It is hard to distinguish between your stupidity and ignorance of science and when you are being completely dishonest.

  640. #642 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    so we only need to look at the past 40 to 50 years to see if CO2 is having an effect on temperatures since we know that other factors were involved before that time.

    And what has Sachs Harbour TMax done in that time Ian? 40 years ago *IS* 1970. So I chose YOUR time frame.

  641. #643 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    Updated the page with Sydney July TMax (winter). Flat since the 1920′s. No increase at all in Ian’s 40-50 year time frame.

  642. #644 skip
    January 8, 2011

    And how does Curry contradict my position? She has commented that my analysis was very interestng.

    Since you don’t read in general, and haven’t even read Curry, you of course don’t know.

    She doesn’t know what you believe. *I* think your analysis is “interesting”, Richard. I also know it proves nothing you think it does. I also know that Curry would agree.

    This is because I have actually read Curry.

  643. #645 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    a temperature increase of approximately 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 concentrations

    Since our CO2 emissions are doubling every 25 years, you are saying in the next 100 years the temp will increase by 12C? Our summers here will be in the 40′s? Australia in the 50s?

  644. #646 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    What climate scientists are saying is that summers will warm at a slower rate than winters will warm.

    Show me which places in the world have an increase in summer temps in your 40-50 year time frame. Not in Au and not in Canada. True or false, 1970 is within your 40 year time frame and Sachs Harbour shows no increase.

  645. #647 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    Since you don’t read in general, and haven’t even read Curry, you of course don’t know.

    That’s funny. Her blog is on my daily must read list, and I have posted there several times, and why I’m here in the first place, Coby ready my post there!

    So be specific, what has she said that contradicts what I have posted? From her posts she seems quite the AGW skeptic to me.

  646. #648 Ian Forrester
    January 8, 2011

    Poor scientifically and logically challenged Wakefield does not understand the difference between emissions and concentrations:

    Since our CO2 emissions are doubling every 25 years, you are saying in the next 100 years the temp will increase by 12C? Our summers here will be in the 40′s? Australia in the 50s?

    Do you understand anything about science, maths or logic? Obviously the answer is NO.

    By the way, have you discovered the huge cherry pick in the Knox and Douglass paper? Didn’t think so, even if it is obvious to most it obviously is way too challenging for you to understand.

    Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself?

  647. #649 skip
    January 8, 2011

    Fair question, Richard.

    She specifically disputes your position on the effects of carbon on the atmosphere.

    She specifically repudiates other sources you have cited as authorities.

    You would know this based on other posts I have made, but that would require you to . . . .read.

    She would *not* accept your extrapolation from southern Canada to the world. She would never embarrass herself thus.

    No, Richard. The type of adherent you attract is Snowman.

    Her blog is on my daily must read list.

    So is Watts. That’s what led to your epic humiliation on the Laken quote.

    Furthermore, she is not on your “must read list”, because you don’t read. She is on your mindless-copy-and-paste list. If you had actually *read* her posts–including the ones you have so ineptly linked here–you would never have cited them as authorities.

  648. #650 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    Updated to show the record high TMax years for Melbourne. There is no increase in record setting days in the past 50 years, most are in the early 1900′s. Highest temp year was 1939.

  649. #651 adelady
    January 8, 2011

    Richard 646 “Since our CO2 emissions are doubling every 25 years, you are saying in the next 100 years the temp will increase by 12C?”

    The ‘doubling’ referred to is CO2 concentration, not emissions. At least half of our emissions are absorbed by oceans and other sinks.

    And the ‘doubling’ commonly referred to is from 280ppm to 560ppm. So far the concentration has increased to near 390. So for 110ppm concentration increase, we’ve had 0.7C temperature increase. If that ratio holds, we can expect another … how much? … for a further 170ppm increase in concentration.

    Do the maths for the ratio holding steady. Then do some more for increasing response from oceans releasing a bit / absorbing less heat and /or CO2 as things go on.

  650. #652 Richard Wakeield
    January 8, 2011

    Skip, cite the post and comment number to back up your claims. If you know them so well, you must have them.

  651. #653 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    Ok, Ian, how long will it take us to double the concentration?

  652. #654 Richard Wakefield
    January 8, 2011

    we’ve had 0.7C temperature increase.

    Do you see that in any stations I have presented? Is that theoretical or measured?

  653. #655 skip
    January 8, 2011

    Cite the post and comment number to back up your claims. If you know them so well, you must have them.

    I’ve already done it once. If you didn’t read them then, what basis would I have to assume you would read them now?

  654. #656 skip
    January 8, 2011

    Did you see the obvious cherry pick that they [Knox and Douglas] used?–Ian #635

    Don’t worry, Ian. I did.

    I *read* it.

  655. #657 skip
    January 9, 2011

    Did anyone catch this?

    I can conclude that with those two stations [Perth and Melbourne], and likely the entire continent, summer TMax has not changed at all . . . I now can ["speak for the rest of the globe"]. Richard

    Richard, have you run this by Judith Curry yet?

  656. #658 Richard Wakefield
    January 9, 2011

    Richard, have you run this by Judith Curry yet?

    Skip. I could do the entire planet but one station and you would not accept it. How come you accept it when climatologists extrapolate a few station to the whole planet? How many more stations do I have provide you with before this becomes preditable for the planet?

    What does Curry have to do with it?

    Is Australia’s TMax increasing, yes or no? Are there more hot days in the past 30 years relative to the previous 100? Yes or no?

    Mandas claimed he had the numbers and said TMax was increasing, was he right?

  657. #659 skip
    January 9, 2011

    How come you accept it when climatologists extrapolate a few station to the whole planet?

    You are the only person I am aware of who extrapolates from a few stations to the whole planet.

    What does Curry have to do with it?

    I would ask you the same question in reference to the numerous times you’ve copied and pasted from her blog.

    But more important, you claim she’s “must read” material for you and are proud to inform us that she has declared your analysis “interesting.” I simply wonder what you suspect she would make of your declaration about “the rest of the globe.”

    I fully confess to knowing *nothing* about overall climate patterns in Australia.

    Its a skill you would do well to cultivate: Shutting your mouth until you’ve read something.

  658. #660 mandas
    January 9, 2011

    Yes – mandas is right.

    He is also bored with this whole discussion.

    Goodbye.

  659. #661 Richard Wakefield
    January 9, 2011

    He is also bored with this whole discussion.

    Well isnt that rich, and very typical. Challenge me to check Australia, that AU data doesn’t match what is happening in Canada, take me to task for not checking elsewhere, and when I do, when I show that AU data shows no increase in summer TMax, you tuck your tail and run. How utterly typical of a close-minded True Believer of the faith.

    I suspect you never had any AU data to begin with, it was a bluff, I called it, and you folded you cards leaving the table.

  660. #662 Richard Wakefield
    January 9, 2011

    You are the only person I am aware of who extrapolates from a few stations to the whole planet.

    No, the entire climate community does. Or do you think there are stations every few hundred kilometers everywhere on the planet? Not only do they extapolate to distant places, they manipulate the data from one station and use it to fill in holes in other stations. How else can Environment Canada make their claim when they are using the exact same station data I did, since it came from them?

    I simply wonder what you suspect she would make of your declaration about “the rest of the globe.”

    We are going to find out, I’m writing a piece on heat waves and will be submitting it to her.

  661. #663 crakar24
    January 9, 2011

    Hello Richard,

    I, like you would be considered a denier and are treated with contempt by most people on this site so dont get too upset with what i am about to say.

    I think after 662 + posts on this subject you have made your point and you could churn through another 662 posts but you still will not convince anyone of the above posters that you are right.

    My advice would be to call this a draw and move on to another topic. Now dont get me wrong i think you have done yourself proud i certainly could not withstand the barrage for this long and God knows i have tried.

    Coby has countless threads just waiting to be visited so why dont you pick one and we can give these believers a run for their money, what do you think?

    Cheers

    Crakar

  662. #664 Ian Forrester
    January 9, 2011

    More lies from Wakefield:

    No, the entire climate community does. Or do you think there are stations every few hundred kilometers everywhere on the planet? Not only do they extapolate (sic) to distant places, they manipulate the data from one station and use it to fill in holes in other stations.

    The surface data is so accurate it agrees exactly with the satellite data. How do you explain that? And before you start accusing more scientists of fraud don’t forget that the UAH satellite data are produced by Spencer and Christy, two avid AGW deniers. Remember that they used error filed data manipulation to produce results which showed cooling? It took them ages to admit that they were wrong and deniers still quote these results as if they were factual.

    Wakefield, it is time you moved into the honest reality of science and left your dishonest life behind you. You will be a better person for it.

  663. #665 mandas
    January 9, 2011

    crakar @663

    Actually, its over 1200 posts now (there is an earlier continuation thread) – hence my boredom.

    You can’t convince someone who ignores evidence and just keeps repeating dogma. You know – a creationist.

  664. #666 blueshift
    January 9, 2011

    Richard,

    Richard Simons in #623 seems to have the right idea for the next step in your statistics. (Where we stand now, is that for the individual station you analyzed the trend was definitely positive from ~1900 to ~1940, but could be either positive or negative since then and for the overall record.)

  665. #667 Richard Wakfield
    January 10, 2011

    Hi Crakar

    Now that I have shown these True Believers that Au data also shows no increase in summer TMax, I think my claim that this applies to the rest of the world holds true. If they had station data of summer TMax increasing they would have produced it by now. But not one of them has done that. Now we have Mandas, who challenged me to a duel, and lost, runs for the hills, I suspect you are correct to call this thread done. But that’s up to Coby.

    I’m working on a new post to expose the lie from the AGW community that more heat waves are the future (which the True Believers here deny is a prediction of AGW).

    Just getting started:

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/more-heat-waves-expected/

    I’ll check out some of Coby’s other posts I haven’t bothered previous.

  666. #668 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    Richard Simons in #623 seems to have the right idea for the next step in your statistics.

    I answered that post. There is no error in the data. The wild swings are not error. The measurement error is less than .1C. For example, a particular thermometer reading is either 28.8 or 28.9C, especially for older records.

    The linear fit to the data, as wild as it is,*IS* the best fit. Having a plus/minus for that slope is not applicable for this problem. If the swings in the data was due to measurement error, then sure, the slope would be with that range of plus/minus. But these swings are readings, actually happened. Hence the slope is the trend for that time frame. Of course the time frame is way too short as the summer TMax undulates around a random walking mean. That slope will change the longer the measurement period.

    But the imporant point of all of this is that summer TMax is *NOT* increasing. It’s either flat or falling. AGW predicts hotter summers. It’s not happening in Canada, and not happening in Australia. If you have station data that shows summer TMax is increasing, show it. Otherwise, one can now with a much higher degree of confidence claim that NO WHERE on the planet is having summer TMax increasing. And that *does* falsify AGW.

  667. #669 skip
    January 10, 2011

    You’ve declared victory with the same aplomb you cited Laken, Ollier, and all the other “authorities” which either contradict or embarrass you, Richard. It must feel good for you in a way I’ll never understand.

    I have to grudgingly agree that Mandas talked big then vanished with regard to Aussie data.

    But Richard, your biggest mistake is assuming you have something worth disproving.

    It only makes logical sense that many (and who knows perhaps even most) temperature stations with data going back to 1900 will show flat/insignificant summer Tmax trends, for the simple reason that early 20th century average temperatures were higher than the mid-20th for reasons that are well understood and no threat to the late 20th century AGW hypothesis.

    Furthermore, as part of the alleged cause of early 20th century temperature is solar variation, it only makes sense that that part of the century would have relatively high summer Tmaxs because daytime temps in the summer would be disproportionately affected by the sun. All of this has been pointed out to you before, but you don’t read.

    Your only response to this is to plug your ears and insist that AGW proponents believe only CO2 affects climate, which is self-immolating absurdity. We don’t believe that. This is simply a stupid thing that you hold your breath and keep telling yourself because without this straw man your silly arguments collapse.

    Now, I will say this: If there are *no* stations that show at least insignificant summer Tmax rise *anywhere* on Earth from the time frame 1900 to now, then that would be way interesting. I mean, even if AGW were *false* I wouldn’t expect that to be the case just from the sheer weight of probabilities.

  668. #670 blueshift
    January 10, 2011

    Richard #669,

    “I answered that post. There is no error in the data. The wild swings are not error.”

    Umm, error doesn’t mean quite what you think it does in statistics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_and_residuals_in_statistics

    “But the imporant point of all of this is that summer TMax is *NOT* increasing. It’s either flat or falling.”

    According to the confidence intervals you’ve calculated so far, the only thing you can say is that highest annual Tmax increased over a short period. That is it.

    “But the imporant point of all of this is that summer TMax is *NOT* increasing. It’s either flat or falling. AGW predicts hotter summers. ”

    The highest summer Tmax is somewhat interesting, but does not tell us all that much. Chris showed that the daily summer Tmax is increasing. You *may* show that the most extreme values haven’t gone up.

  669. #671 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    Skip, on the new blog post i linked earier, you will see claims in peer reviewed papers that AGW means higher summer temps. Just Google “More Heat Waves Expected”.

  670. #672 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    According to the confidence intervals you’ve calculated so far, the only thing you can say is that highest annual Tmax increased over a short period. That is it.

    Where do you get that from? Every station I’ve looked at is either flat trend or falling, NONE show increase.

    Chris showed that the daily summer Tmax is increasing. You *may* show that the most extreme values haven’t gone up.

    Chris showed nothing of the sort. His “effort” was pathetic. The trend for that station is up from 1900-1940, then DOWN. http://cdnsurfacetemps.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/figure-3.jpg

    So how about the Aussie data. See any increase in that? Nope nothing. Yet the High Priests of AGW claim we should be seeing more heat waves. How many times do these guys have to be falsified before you stop beleaving in it. Is there anything that the planet can do to falsify AGW?

  671. #673 Mlax
    January 10, 2011

    Mandas @665,
    Looks like your bluff has been called alright; otherwise, given your usual nauseating level of sanctimonious self-preening (“Listen to me everyone – because I am a *Scientist*. . .”), you would surely have presented a checkmate move to undo RW’s thesis.
    So unless you go ahead and produce this checkmate move, I suggest you admit that *you* are wrong, in which case you can bugger off and not hog this site with endless comments, as you did before RW showed up, leaving Witchsmeller Ian Forrester to brand you a liar (which you must be if you won’t produce that Aus data). However, if I.F. calls you out on this, I will truly eat several hats. Brothers-in-arms and all that.
    Although RW’s analysis is too limited to hold any significant merit, any lurker here will surely conclude that he is mostly correct, since no one here can show otherwise, despite the collective bluster and self-righteousness of the self-declared climate intelligentsia that infects this blog.
    Hopefully this will soon be the end of this god-awful thread.

  672. #674 blueshift
    January 10, 2011

    Richard #672,
    “Where do you get that from? Every station I’ve looked at is either flat trend or falling, NONE show increase.”

    I get it from the confidence intervals that *you* calculated. The upper limit for the overall record and the sub-ranges that you chose are all positive. Therefore you can’t exclude an increasing trend. *You can’t say what the highest Tmax is doing based on the analysis that you have done to date*.

    “Chris showed nothing of the sort. His “effort” was pathetic. The trend for that station is up from 1900-1940, then DOWN. ”

    That looks like highest annual Tmax. I said daily summer. You have previously linked a paper which also showed daily Tmax increasing. Are you saying that paper was wrong?

  673. #675 skip
    January 10, 2011

    On the new blog post i linked earier, you will see claims in peer reviewed papers that AGW means higher summer temps.

    Richard, you’re simply refusing to understand because if you did you would realize that you’ve wasted half a retirement on this nonsense.

    AGW *does* predict higher summer temps, but this does *not* exclude the possibility that these will rise more slowly than winter temps (in fact that is predicted by the theory), or that that it necessarily means *Tmax* will rise from 1900 to 2000.

    You made this “discovery”, which is easily accounted for in the theory, and now you’re trying to find a way that its profound.

    This is why you don’t read the things you cite; they don’t really say what you want them to.

    Furthermore, AGW theory says that the anthropogenic signal overwhelms all others in the *late 20th century*. So even if we accept your definition of “summer heat”, it would be most appropriate to look for changes in that variable in the late 20th century, not 1900 on.

    This is where you shot yourself in the foot with your latest goofy link to Watts on global heat trends. I’m sure you don’t know why.

  674. #676 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    So even if we accept your definition of “summer heat”, it would be most appropriate to look for changes in that variable in the late 20th century, not 1900 on.

    And I did just that to which Ian claimed I was lying by cherry picking dates. You two need to get your act togther and figure out what is and is not acceptable.

    BTW, from Ian’s use of 40-50 years back, TMax is FLAT or dropping. There is no increase.

    And rubish that AGW doesn’t predict hotter summers, the High Priests have said so, repeatedly, on 1,260,000 websites. Thus it’s YOUR attempt to some how explain away a flat TMax as not a threat to the theory. If they are not talking about increased TMax, what does “more frequent and more intense heat waves” actually mean? How would that manifest itself in the form of changes in TMax?

    You just simply cannot accept that a prediction of AGW is false (one of many).

  675. #677 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    I get it from the confidence intervals that *you* calculated. The upper limit for the overall record and the sub-ranges that you chose are all positive

    That is just absolutey false. Some of your lurkers are now claiming you are wrong. Get over it. TMax is dropping, everyone can see that no matter how you try and stats it away somehow. Look at the 6 graphs I have so far, 3 stations, with 3 different measures each. It’s NOT getting hotter, the vast majority of record days are before the 1950′s. The number of hot days is dropping.

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/more-heat-waves-expected/

    Admit it, no increase in summer TMax refutes what the High Priests of AGW have written in peer reviewed papers. You are now spinning your wheels in the deep snow, going nowhere.

  676. #678 blueshift
    January 10, 2011

    “That is just absolutey false.”

    Its your own analysis Richard, whether you understand that or not. From here:
    http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/station-2973-summer-tmax-stats/

    1904-2009. Slope lower limit -0.00702081, upper limit 0.024868573. So your test tells you the slope could be either positive or negative.

    1943-2009. Slope lower limit -0.041589655, upper limit 0.016280373. Again, the slope could be positive or negative.

    As I told you, this is not unexpected for a single station and if you combine all the stations properly you *may well find confirmation of what you have been claiming*. Richard Simons told you how to do this, but you apparently didn’t understand what he was saying because you aren’t familiar with basic statistical definitions.

    Your tripping over the most basic aspects of analysis and I don’t care about any potential implications until you can get it right.

  677. #679 Ian Forrester
    January 10, 2011

    Wakefield disproved again. I plotted the annual Tmax for Penticton from 1970 to 2009 and found an increase in annual Tmax of 0.208 degrees C per decade, which is a higher trend than the global average (0.15 degrees C per decade).

    The data can be downloaded and extracted from:

    http://scraperwiki.com/views/canada-weather-station-map/full/

    So I have looked at three Canadian stations and all three have increasing annual Tmax. When will Wakefield come to his senses and realize that his “hypothesis” has been shot down in flames?

    And he seems to think that increasing summer temperatures are the only ones causing problems. Tell that to the people whose livelihood depends on the forestry industry where warm winters are allowing Western pine beetles to devastate huge swaths of Western Canadian and Western US forests.

  678. #680 skip
    January 10, 2011

    And rubish that AGW doesn’t predict hotter summers.

    Who said it didn’t? This again, is another of your straw men.

    This is the key thing you’re trying so hard to not realize. Summers *can* be hotter without your Tmax significantly increasing. And they don’t *have* to be hotter within the time frame and in the region you chose to analyze.

  679. #681 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    1904-2009. Slope lower limit -0.00702081, upper limit 0.024868573. So your test tells you the slope could be either positive or negative.

    No. The trend is not in that range, the slope is the best fit, period.

    If you were taking measurements and the crude appliance you were using had a huge error variation, then that range of the slope would be appropriate. But the swing in TMax is not from error measurements, it’s actual measurements accurate to less than 0.1C. Hence the range of the slope is inappropriate for this situation. The confidence value in this case is a measurement of the probability of any given temp measurement is within the standard deviation.

    Try as you might you will never get a flat or dropping slope to increase.

    Why don’t you apply this same criteria to your own High Priests of AGW. What is their range of slope for the world’s average yearly Tmean? In fact, we NEVER see any ranges at all, just a nice line of a meaningless number.

  680. #682 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    if you combine all the stations properly you *may well find confirmation of what you have been claiming*.

    You mean like this: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/heat-wave-trends-across-canada.html

    Sure looks like a defintive drop in TMax anomaly.

  681. #683 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    Summers *can* be hotter without your Tmax significantly increasing.

    HOW???? Explain that. BTW, the High Priests *ARE* saying significant increase in summer temps.

    And they don’t *have* to be hotter within the time frame and in the region you chose to analyze.

    You will need to explain this with an example. Not speculation off the top of your head. Don’t say it, show it.

  682. #684 crakar24
    January 10, 2011

    Skip in 680,

    I think i understand what you are saying:

    Summers could be hotter if Tmax stays the same but Tmin increases this will increase the average is that what you meant?

    Your second point is correct it was the coolest year here in Australia since 2001 and yet 2010 was the hottest or near to it globally. Also London had its coldest December in over 350 years so regionally in this time frame the Tmax was definitely not hotter.

    Hope this helps

  683. #685 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    Congradulations to Ian!!! He found ONE station in all of canada that has an increasing summer TMax. A round of applause for Ian.

    Now how many stations did you go through to get that? I guess AGW is only affecting that one location in Canada.

    And, wow, look how “Hot” 2010 was! 4th coldest summer since 1941. So much for the hottest year on record.

    Oh, and BTW, here are the stats for the full range:

    slope 0.021 ± 0.029
    lower -0.008034042
    upper 0.050927927

    According to blueshift, that could still be a negative slope.

    Two questions. Why did you cheery pick from 1970 when the dataset goes back to 1941?

    Second,question, is the last 40 years hotter than the 1930′s? Oh, that data does not exist, in fact I just checked EC database for close by, and that station has the longest, so we will never know.

    I do have fort st james, also in the interior, but north. It has a dataset from 1900, notice it is completely flat http://cdnsurfacetemps.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/figure3a.jpg

    So how do you explain the difference?

  684. #686 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    December in over 350 years so regionally in this time frame the Tmax was definitely not hotter.

    And Western Canada had one of the coolest summers on record. Ontario was warm, but not beyond the upper standard deviation, so where was it hot enough to make the world hotter over all?

    No where, it’s a fraud.

  685. #687 crakar24
    January 10, 2011

    Here is an interesting story about what a man with a laptop and a copy of excell can do.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/laptop-beats-met-supercomputer-soi-index-scores-a-win/#more-12757

    I hope you enjoy this RW

  686. #688 Ian Forrester
    January 10, 2011

    More Wakefield lies:

    He found ONE station in all of canada that has an increasing summer TMax. A round of applause for Ian.

    That is the most egregious lie you have told yet. I looked at three stations and all three showed increasing annual Tmax.

    Why are you so dishonest?

    I have also found a report which supports mandas’ claim that summers in Australia are warming. Remember, you’re very first post stated that you had found that summers were not warming but were cooling? When that was shown to be wrong you switched to daily Tmax, then when that was shown to be wrong you switched to annual Tmax. Well none of your assertions are correct. They have been shown to be completely wrong. Where are you going to shift the goal posts now?

  687. #689 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    Hey, Ian, have a look at Kamloops, just up from your station. Include 2010 in the data and the trend is completely flat since 1951. So looks like AGW is happing only in Penticton! Looks like you indeed kept checking until you found the only station that has its summer TMax increasing, makes one wonder if there isn’t a problem with the station.

  688. #690 Richard Wakefield
    January 10, 2011

    Myth of the Pine Beetle.

    “Global warming activists have been quick to seize on the pine beetle ‘epidemic’ as a sign of things to come and an impending ecological disaster. In truth, drawing the line between manmade climate change and the pine beetle outbreak is a stretch that few experts make. Rather, most see the outbreak as a natural function of forests and in many ways it is Mother Nature correcting man’s previous mistakes.”

    Continue reading on Examiner.com: Pine beetles as a harbinger of manmade climate change destruction – National Climate Change | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/climate-change-in-national/pine-beetles-as-a-harbinger-of-manmade-climate-change-destruction#ixzz1AhAEhlAA

    Ian, you really should keep up to date.

  689. #691 blueshift
    January 10, 2011

    “No. The trend is not in that range, the slope is the best fit, period.

    If you were taking measurements and the crude appliance you were using had a huge error variation, then that range of the slope would be appropriate. But the swing in TMax is not from error measurements, it’s actual measurements accurate to less than 0.1C.”

    Richard, you’ve proven once again that you don’t have even a rudimentary understanding of what you are trying to do.

    I’m going to talk to my kitchen table, it will be as productive as this.

  690. #692 Richard Simons
    January 10, 2011

    #668:

    Richard Simons in #623 seems to have the right idea for the next step in your statistics.

    I answered that post. There is no error in the data. The wild swings are not error. The measurement error is less than .1C.

    Oops! I assumed you had some basic statistical knowledge. In statistics, ‘error’ does not mean that some mistake has been made. It refers to the more or less random deviation a measure has from the theoretical ‘ideal’ or expected value.

    Perhaps I should have anticipated this difficulty, as when you were referring to normal distributions I was far from convinced that you actually understand that a normal distribution is not just an everyday distribution, but has a precise equation. Ask your statistical relative for clarification on both of these points.

  691. #693 skip the preening faux-intellectual
    January 10, 2011

    Re: Beetles.

    So, Richard, can you tell me: Has summer BeetleMax declined in southern Canada since 1900?

    While you’re formulating an answer I’ll be looking in the mirror and preening.

  692. #694 Richard Wakefield
    January 11, 2011

    It refers to the more or less random deviation a measure has from the theoretical ‘ideal’ or expected value.

    And with Tmax what is the “ideal” or “expected” value?

  693. #696 crakar24
    January 11, 2011

    Skip,

    The Beatles have been in decline since the 70′s latest estimates are that their numbers have been cut in half.

  694. #697 Richard Simons
    January 11, 2011


    It refers to the more or less random deviation a measure has from the theoretical ‘ideal’ or expected value.

    And with Tmax what is the “ideal” or “expected” value?

    The error is e (usually written as epsilon) in the equation txy = m + ax + by + e
    where txy is the temperature at location x in year y, m is the overall mean and ax and by are the effects due to location and year respectively.

    I do not plan on taking you any further through the process as dealing with linear contrasts is not typically covered until at least two earlier statistics courses have been completed and you clearly do not have the background to handle it. As I suggested earlier, consult the statistics relative you claim to have in your family. It is much easier to explain face to face with someone. You will need a copious supply of paper and pencils.

  695. #698 skip
    January 11, 2011

    I couldn’t find the paper that predicted an increase in Tmax in Southern Canada from 1900 to the present.

    Did I miss that one, Richard?

  696. #699 Ian Forrester
    January 11, 2011

    Wakefield post #690

    You obviously know as little about forestry as you do about climate science – ZERO.

    Time you gave up showing how stupid and ignorant you are.

    By the way I just did another Canadian station, Kuujjuarapik. Annual Tmax is rising at a rate of 0.168 degrees C per decade. I have done four stations and found that all four have rising annual Tmax. Do you still stand by your very early statement:

    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.

    That is just utter rubbish.

    As for Australia, here is a quote from an Australian Government Report:

    The 2004 east Australian heatwave occurred against a background of a long-term increase in the frequency of hot days and nights and a decrease in the number of cold days and nights in Australia (Figure 2; Collins et al. 2000; Nicholls and Collins, 2006) and more generally across the western Pacific–eastern Asia region (Manton et al., 2001). Griffith et al., (2005) reported almost universal increases in maximum and minimum mean temperature across the Asia–Pacific region, along with decreases in the frequency of cold nights and cool days. Most stations showed an increase in the frequency of hot days and warm nights

    So are you going to admit that you are completely wrong in your assertion that summers are cooling all over the globe when the only two countries you have picked to prove your “hypothesis” have been shown to be doing the opposite of what you claim?

  697. #700 Richard Wakefield
    January 11, 2011

    Ian, how come Kamloops is flat trended when your station just a few kilometers south shows increase. Explain.

    How do you explain Melbourne Au shows no increasing trend at all in Tmax, number of hot days, or record temp days.

  698. #701 Richard Wakefield
    January 11, 2011

    Re Kuujjuarapik.

    Ian, interesting you failed to note that that location is missing the following years:

    1947
    2007
    2006
    2008
    2004
    2003
    1938
    1939
    1945
    1946
    1956
    1954
    2009
    2010

    All you can claim is there is an increase from 1957 to 2002. Since it is well known that 1945 to 1975 was cooler than 1980′s onward, then yes that short range would be expected to show some over all increase. But after 2002 there is NO DATA so you cannot make any long term claim. Nice cherry picking. Proves nothing with missing data. This is the best you can do?

    For someone who wanted to exit early on, you sure are spending a lot of time looking for a station that is increasing. How many stations have you rejected because there is no increase?

    Keep looking if you must, but what ever station you present here I will check.

  699. #702 Richard Wakefield
    January 11, 2011

    Ian I can play this game too. Stations with a drop or flat in Summer Tmax:

    Kenora (drop)
    Gander NFD (flat)
    Moncton, B (flat)

    I could go on, but you are beginning to realize that there are very few stations with good data aren’t you.

  700. #703 Ian Forrester
    January 11, 2011

    How long do we have to put up with all this rubbish from Wakefield? He is making a mockery out of science, climate science and statistics.

    He does not have a clue about anything he is discussing but will continue to spout rubbish ad infinitum.

    Coby, you are doing your blog readers a disservice by allowing this to go on. You are tacitly supporting Wakefield’s junk science by allowing him to post it on your blog.

    I must side with mandas as I have spent enough of my time trying to correct all Wakefield’s mistakes. He will never admit that he is wrong. So enough is enough.

    Please do the responsible thing, otherwise your blog will loose all the respect it once had.

  701. #704 coby
    January 12, 2011

    Ian, Richard’s posts speak loudly and clearly about his ignorance of basic statistics and lack of logical reasoning. His personal shortcomings are no threat to science, climate science or statistics. While it is also my personal preference that this thread just dry up, others are still participating and I am not inclined to pass judgement on all and declare there is nothing left worth saying.

    If you do like mandas and voluntarily withdraw, it will soon come to an end on its own. No one whose opinion is worth respecting will think that whoever has the last word must be right, we can let him have the last word.

  702. #705 Richard Wakefield
    January 12, 2011

    Richard Simons. My daughter-in-law is an engineer for Miller Paving, one of the largest in the country. They don’t use anything past linear best fit. They have no need to go “deep” in statistics because in the real world the slope is more than enough for them to project from. Thus all this cry of yours for more stats is academic. The fact is, summer TMax is *NOT* increasing which the High Priests of AGW claim it should. No amount of statistics is going to make these trends increase. Theories rise or fall on their ability to predict. That’s where your faith fails.

  703. #706 Richard Wakefield
    January 12, 2011

    Coby, this thread originally started because you did not like my claim on Curry’s site that the followers of AGW are doing nothing but practicing dogma. Nothing has changed other than your site heavily confirms that premise. Do you honestly believe that TMax is still increasing? Did you even bother to check Ian’s two locations? He refuses to explain his choices, instead doing what the faithful do when cornered, ad hominen attacks. That is one of the hall marks of a deep dogmatic True Believer. What is a threat to your site is your giving safe haven to people like Ian and Mandas.

  704. #707 Snowman
    January 12, 2011

    Most neutrals who have followed this thread would, I think, call it a points verdict to Richard. It is surely not enough to repeat endlessly that he is an idiot, knows nothing about statistics and so on. His detractors must show that he is wrong, and – although it is possible that I have missed it – no one has done so. Mandas, of course, claimed to have the killer facts, but beat a hasty retreat when challenged, even by Skip, to put up or shut up.

    Some, such as Coby, have taken a more subtle approach. If I understand them correctly, they are saying that it is irrelevant whether or not Richard’s figures and calculations are correct: they are of no significance and do nothing to challenge AGW theory. I have no idea if this is true, but I am inclined to give Coby, who strikes me as a pretty straight sort of person, the benefit of the doubt.

    But to return to Ian, Skip, Mandas et al, they have emerged from this with little credit. Their sacrcasm and abuse demonstrates, for many of us, precisely why the AGW industry is losing this debate in the wider world. A little more humility, not to mention courtesy, would have made their arguments more convincing.

  705. #708 Richard Simons
    January 12, 2011

    They don’t use anything past linear best fit. They have no need to go “deep” in statistics because in the real world the slope is more than enough for them to project from. Thus all this cry of yours for more stats is academic.

    I would not call the determination of contrast in analysis of variation as being ‘deep in statistics’. However, I can see that it is more than is required by most businesses. I am not aware of having called for more statistics. It seemed to me that people asked you to provide a statistical justification for your claims and you did not know how to combine data from different sites. I gave one way it can be done.

    The fact is, summer TMax is *NOT* increasing which the High Priests of AGW claim it should.

    No. You have shown that you could not find an increase in Tmax over the past c100 years for a limited number of places in a restricted part of the world. Others claim (and I have not looked at their results) to have found increases in Tmax over the last few decades at other locations.

    You have a small sample size (although it was probably not easy to collect), there is wide variability in Tmax from year to year and the expectation from basic physics is that Tmax will be increasing. If global Tmax is truly increasing at the expected rate what is the probability of obtaining your observed results purely by chance? If you calculate this and find a low value of P you may persuade people that your claim has some validity.

    BTW It occurred to me that the mean of observations tends to be normally distributed. Instead of using individual years, find the mean Tmax for groups of, say, 5 years and use these values as your observations. They are likely to be close enough to being normally distributed for your purposes and save you the hassle of determing if the original data were normally distributed.

  706. #709 Richard Wakefield
    January 12, 2011

    Richard S., have provided not only two continents worth of data, some too short, not only have I shown that Ian’s locations are either full of holes (missing data), or a time frame too small, or an increase in TMax with a neighbouring location less than an hour’s drive away flat, others surrounding this location are also flat, but you have not demanded from people like Ian to also provide the same stats you demand of me to bolster their claim. Why is that?

    It appears to me that you are holding on to some kind of hope that summer TMax should be increasing, and because it is not, it is rather uncomfortable for you.

    Anyone in the sciences, who are looking for what is really going on, not what one WANTS to be happening, would look into this deeper, look at more locations instead of demanding of more and more and more and more to “prove” what is obvious! Every time i’ve been demanded to show another dimention of the stats I have provided it, and every one shows no increase in TMax. Yet it is not enough for you or anyone else here who are True Believers. You need to explore why it is you cannot accept the obvious. AGW’s pediction of hotter summers is false.

  707. #710 skip
    January 12, 2011

    The fact is, summer TMax is *NOT* increasing which the High Priests of AGW claim it should.

    Where, Richard?

    Do you [Coby] honestly believe that TMax is still increasing?

    Where did Coby say this?

    call it a points verdict to Richard. Snowman

    Snowman, you haven’t even read the thread.

    Here, Snowman: I’ll prove it.

    Quote what *you* think was Richard’s most effective argument.

    Quote it. You haven’t read this thread and you know as little about Richard’s position as you do about AGW in general. You see a guy thrashing at air and call him Mike Tyson.

    Hilarious.

  708. #711 Richard Wakefield
    January 12, 2011

    RS. As for normal distribution, I have done that too with this animation. http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/does-temperature-profile-follow.html

    To the rest. Put aside your distane for WUWT and read this careully:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/12/earths-changing-atmosphere/

  709. #712 crakar24
    January 12, 2011

    Hey Snowman nice to see you survived your second coldest winter in 353 years.

    Maybe you can help me here, i read the other day that the MET office in keeping with tradition totally screwed this winter prediction aswell by claiming this winter will be mild.

    Suffice to say many people have been giving the MET a hard time over this, the MET then turned around and said they made it all up because the UK Gubbermint told them to keep quiet about the extreme cold bearing down on them.

    The BBC who are made to look like folls everytime the MET get it wrong through blind support have now issued FOI requests to the gov. to try and get to the bottom of it.

    This news story has seen very little coverage (at least here in the back blocks of nowhere) so tell me is this just a storm in a tea cup or is the good ship AGW heading into stormy waters?

    Crakar

  710. #713 Snowman
    January 12, 2011

    You’re right, Crackar, it is potentially a very interesting story. The allegation is that the UK Government told the Met Office to keep its mouth shut because they didn’t want any talk of extreme cold with the Cancun conference just around the corner. The latest is that the BBC has reputedly put in a freedom of information request to find out if this is true or not. However, this FOI story has not been corroborated, so we will just have to wait to see if it is accurate. It is hard to imagine that the AGW propagandists of the BBC would demand the truth on a climate story but stranger things have happened, I guess.

  711. #714 crakar24
    January 12, 2011

    Well either the UK Gov. are going to look like religious idiots who have lost their way or the MET are going to be show the world that it does not matter how much money you have or no matter how big your computer is you still cannot predict the weather from one month to the next. Disclaimer, this has no bearing on the accuracy climate models or so they say.

  712. #715 skip
    January 12, 2011

    I knew it, Snowman.

    You don’t read the thread; all you know is Richard fights AGW, so you mindlessly label him Mike Tyson.

    And uh, why don’t you two climate prodigies take this ingenious line of discussion to the Its Cold Today in Wagga Wagga thread?

  713. #716 crakar24