Matthew England challenges the climate science skeptics at the Ultimo Science Festival

Matthew England will talk about climate models this Sunday 23rd August in the Powerhouse Museum as part of the Ultimo Science Festival. The press release says:

Climate modeller challenges skeptics

With the Government's emissions trading legislation now delayed, one of Australia's leading climate scientists, UNSW Professor Matthew England has thrown down the gauntlet to climate skeptics to update their thinking.

"Those that deny basic climate science question climate modelling and fundamental climate physics. But each of their arguments is wrong, outdated, or irrelevant. Most of their claims have long been refuted by the scientific community, the national academies, and so on. Others need no refuting: they fly in the face of basic geophysical measurements, or they are so appallingly wrong they go against simple high-school physics,'' England says.

The award-winning oceanographer, who is co-director of UNSW's Climate Change Research Centre, will discuss the whys and wherefores of climate modelling and provide the most up-to-date climate predictions out to the year 2100 (since the IPCC report of 2007), at the Ultimo Science Festival on Sunday.

"This talk will show the step by step of how the models work, how they have evolved over the past 50 years, where they can be trusted, and what their uncertainties are. I will also address many of the skeptics' claims and show why they are wrong," England says.

But the latest research is not a pretty prediction, according to England.

"We need a fairly dramatic change in the way we power this planet, away from the old carbon-intensive technologies and into a new era of clean energy. We need to do this very quickly to give us any chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

"Alarmingly, even at that level of warming we will lose most of the world's coral reefs and around 20 to 30 per cent of species will face potential extinction. The Greenland ice sheet is likely to disintegrate completely if we warm in excess of 2.5 degrees C, that's a seven-metre sealevel rise" he says.

England says we have already emitted half the greenhouse gases we can if we are to have a reasonable chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

"Every year that there is inaction, this locks in a greater level of climate change. Climate change is now unavoidable, but we can determine, to some extent, what level of change we are prepared to commit to," says England. "If we care about minimising the impact on heat extremes, bushfires, human health, our ecosystems and our capacity to produce food and have a secure freshwater supply, greenhouse gas emissions need to peak in the next decade and then decline rapidly."

More like this

The headline for this post is stolen verbatim from a section headline in a paper on climate change just published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. It's yet another depressing read by NASA's Jim Hansen and five co-authors from the University of California, Santa Barbara and the…
Well, that headline's a little unfair. I wrote it to lure in those who jump on every opportunity to prove that climatologists are frauds. What I really mean to say is: "Where the most recent assessment by the IPCC has been superceded by more recent findings. It's all in a new report, The Copenhagen…
Previously, I've noted the major hole that the IPCC digs itself by releasing its consensus reports on Fridays, only to be lost in the weekend news cycle. Back in February, the timing of the IPCC report helped contribute to what I described as a "massive communication failure" in generating wider…
First, as I've mentioned before, there is a Reddit "As Me Anything" (AMA) going on right now with Stephan Lewandowsky, and if you are into Reddit AMA's and climate change related issues you should check it out. Lewandowsky is a co-author of the famous Frontiers Retracted paper, though the subjects…

Douglas McClean (#499)

Are you saying the anomaly plots do not magnify the true mean global temperature profile?

Okay, let us forget for a second this cursed temperature and think of some another analogy.

You have on your computer screen the profile of a 14 story high mountain. You cut the top 1 story high portion of the mountain profile and stretch it vertically to fill your screen. Have not you magnified the true profile of the mountain 14 times?

Sincerely

Dave(496)

You wrote,

why is the temperature axis relative to the freezing point of water rather than absolute values in Kelvin?

Because the public hears the daily temperature in deg C "relative to the freezing point of water".

Girma, its 14 stories high compared to the freeing point of H20. It is not 14 stories hight compared to the mean temp of planet. It is the mean temp of the planet. the Freezing point of H2O is not an optimal reference point in this case.

By your logic is it OK to deceive people about the Arctic mean temp but not the global mean temp? Shouldn't you be up in arms that know one is alerting the public to the >300% rise or even 2900% rise in Arctic temp (by your rationale)?

Why are you so carefree about the 300% or 2900% rise in Arctic temp. Don't the people have a right to be informed. And if the media isn't telling the people, don't you have a duty to raise the alarm?

On second thoughts, you'd better not switch sides. Your in the right place as it is.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

MarkG (#495)

You wrote, If you choose to display this data so that small changes are difficult to distinguish then you are being deliberately deceptive or ignorant.

What I have issue is with the magnification. If there is a magnification as in the case of anomaly plots acknowledge it. That is all I am asking.

I accept as a FACT that the anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14.

>why is the temperature axis relative to the freezing point of water rather than absolute values in Kelvin?
>>Because the public hears the daily temperature in deg C "relative to the freezing point of water".

Girma, the daily weather varies from -80 to +60 degrees celcuis. We are extinct with change an order of magnitude smaller than that.

>What I have issue is with the magnification. If there is a magnification as in the case of anomaly plots acknowledge it. That is all I am asking.
I accept as a FACT that the anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14.

What do you mean by magnification? Magnified compared to the distance between the mean annual temp and the freezing point of H2O? That is not magnification that is using a readable scale. You are employing minimisation by using an inappropriate scale that hides massive critical change.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

>What I have issue is with the magnification. If there is a magnification as in the case of anomaly plots acknowledge it. That is all I am asking.

Your statement is at best, disingenuous. This is not all you are asking. You have asserted serious misconduct on the part of scientists who have used residuals to display data relationships; It is your assertion that such plots are deliberate attempts to inflate the magnitude of global mean temperature changes. I have no patience for your brand of sophistry.

There is no "magnification". These are simply residuals. The residuals are plotted on the same scales as arguably dangerous changes in global temperature. This is normal, expected and common across all fields of the sciences including engineering.

Girma #410 and BPL #434 have a "debate" going about Girma's ludicrous 10,000 mL model atmosphere "(no) thought experiment," summed up by BPL thus:

Your one milliliter of CO2 would have a mass of about 1.8 x 10^-16 kilograms. Take as an example the wavelength 14.278 microns, at which CO2 has an absorption coefficient of 16.3 square meters per kilogram. If your 10,000 ml container is a cube, it is about 21.54 cm on a side. The specific mass is then 3.88 x 10^-5 kilograms per square meter. The optical depth would then be 16.3 x 3.88 x 10^-5 or 6.32 x 10^-4 and the transmissivity 0.9994. Only 0.06% of the light falling on your cube at that wavelength is absorbed. Naturally you would notice no difference in temperature.

Now, if the entire atmosphere were at standard conditions, it would be about 8,000 meters high. This is 37,100 times the height of your cube, which means the specific mass would be 1.44 kilograms per square meter. The optical depth would be 23.5, and the transmissivity about 6.22 x 10^-11. Nearly 100% of the light at 14.278 microns would be absorbed.

It is the total mass of absorber in the path of the light beam that counts, not the volume fraction.

I was going to say "solve for P and you can both be right", but then my lawyer stopped by and advised me that suggesting you build a benchtop neutron star (mass of atmosphere is 5 * 10^18 kg, divided by 10 L is 5 * 10^20 kg/m^3) might raise some liability issues. ;)

By Douglas McClean (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma, #503, said:

You have on your computer screen the profile of a 14 story high mountain. You cut the top 1 story high portion of the mountain profile and stretch it vertically to fill your screen. Have not you magnified the true profile of the mountain 14 times?

Yes, I have magnified it, so now we can see better the details in the shape of the top. You may notice that magnifying things is often useful for seeing them better. In fact, you may notice that models and drawings of topography so frequently use this exact technique, because it is necessary to perceive elevation changes on human-relevant scales, that it has been named.

It's not deceptive, any more than it was deceptive for you to refer to a 14 story mountain as a 14 story mountain. I'm certain you'll find that (radius of earth + height of mount everest) / (radius of earth) is a very small percentage increase, about .1%. The earth is in fact smoother than a normal billiard ball. Perhaps you'll agree that this doesn't mean that falling off a cliff would be perfectly agreeable. You might even agree that the weather atop Mount Everest is somewhat different from the weather at the bottom. Perhaps you might even explain for the class why that is?

Why do you not take issue with a normal picture of a mountain? Why do you not take issue with a normal description of a mountain by its height relative to sea level?

By Douglas McClean (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Janet Akerman (#503)

You wrote, Girma, its 14 stories high compared to the freeing point of H20. It is not 14 stories hight compared to the mean temp of planet. It is the mean temp of the planet. the Freezing point of H2O is not an optimal reference point in this case.

Are not all of us, every day of our life, hear the days maximum and minimum temperature relative to the "Freezing point of H2O"? And is this not our temperature reference point in our daily communication in the media and in public?
Why change that ingrained reference?

Janet, please give me a DIRECT answer to this question:

You have on your computer screen the profile of a 14-story high mountain image. You cut the top 1 story high portion of the mountain profile and stretch it vertically to fill your screen. Have not you magnified the true profile of the mountain 14 times?

MarkG (#507)

Come on Mark, are you really confident that the general public could differentiate between "residuals" and true mean global temperatures?

For their own study, the scientists could use any graph they like, but for the general public they should show either the true mean global temperature plot or use the anomaly plot with the acknowledgement that its profiles are magnified about 14 times.

Douglas McClean

Thanks Doug.

That is all I asked. To acknowledge that the profile of the anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14.

Thanks again.

Dave (#512)

Do you dispute that the anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14?

Dave (#512)

You showed a thermometer that has a range from 35 deg C to 42 deg C.

[Doctorâs Thermometer]( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Clinical_therm…)

For the same inner tube diameter, the spacing for 1 deg C is the same whether the range of the thermometer is form 0 to 100 deg C or from 35 to 42 deg C. There is no magnification of the spacing between successive marks. The only difference is the doctorâs thermometer is much shorter.

The anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14.

>Come on Mark, are you really confident that the general public could differentiate between "residuals" and true mean global temperatures?

Yep.

>For their own study, the scientists could use any graph they like, but for the general public they should show either the true mean global temperature plot or use the anomaly plot with the acknowledgement that its profiles are magnified about 14 times.

No. This peculiar notion that you have invented is a red herring. I reject both your suggestions. The residuals show the magnitude of the change in temperature on the same scale as the scale of the problem. That said the science community can definitely do a better job in educating the public in this matter. There is a lot of deliberate misinformation out there however, and this makes the task more difficult than normal.

Even more peculiar is your decision to bring this "debate" here. Surely your crusade would be better aimed at the science organisations publishing the science in question?

#514,
They don't have a magnification of "about 14," they have a magnification of about 300 or so, depending on the exact axes. Again, for the billionth time, absolute temperatures are relative to absolute zero which is -273.15 degrees Celsius, not to the freezing point of water.

Also, this "magnification" (as you call it) is not deceptive, but highly useful, for reasons I outlined in a bunch of places up thread and which you have done nothing whatsoever to address, much less rebut.

(You?) posting under the name "Dave" in rebuttal to "Dave" at #516 said:

For the same inner tube diameter, the spacing for 1 deg C is the same whether the range of the thermometer is form 0 to 100 deg C or from 35 to 42 deg C. There is no magnification of the spacing between successive marks. The only difference is the doctorâs thermometer is much shorter.

This is exactly the situation with anomaly plots. You will notice that they are correctly marked in degrees C of anomaly. Each degree C space represents 1 degree C of change, with "no magnification of the spacing between successive marks." The human thermometer analogy is perfectly on point.

By Douglas McClean (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Dave (#512)

For thermometer liquids, increase in temperature is proportional to the change in volume or the displacement (for a given diameter tube) of the top of the liquid.

Girma once again shows he knows SFA about physics.

Girma, the volume of the bulb is what is important. The larger the bulb the bigger the expansion.

You are so stupid you are comical. By the way, have you been unemployed since 2004? Doesn't surprise me.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Douglas McClean (#518)

You wrote, This is exactly the situation with anomaly plots. You will notice that they are correctly marked in degrees C of anomaly. Each degree C space represents 1 degree C of change, with "no magnification of the spacing between successive marks." The human thermometer analogy is perfectly on point.

How can this be true? In the anomalies you need to magnify them to see temperatures of magnitude as small as 0.3 deg C. Any way, I will prepare plots that shows how the anomaly plots are obtained by stretching the true mean global temperature plot in the vertical direction.

Ian Forrester (#520),

I have not attacked you. Why do you attack me by calling me STUPID and UNEMPLOYED?

Cheers

@Girma

> There is no magnification of the spacing between successive marks.

Compared to what? There may very well be magnification compared to the mini thermometer I keep in my car. There is no absolute "this is the true spacing between marks, and all others are lies", as you yourself go on to say:

> For the same inner tube diameter, the spacing for 1 deg C is the same whether the range of the thermometer is form 0 to 100 deg C or from 35 to 42 deg C. There is no magnification of the spacing between successive marks. The only difference is the doctorâs thermometer is much shorter.

Truncating the viewable range and changing the diameter on the innertube is precisely the same as the truncate + stretch exercise described in your ludicrous mountain example above.

A much taller garden thermometer, with a different inner diameter and a different range, would be doing so because it is *useful for visualising a much larger range of data*. Neither are wrong because they just represent the same information in the most appropriate way.

Do you agree that to a doctor it is generally irrelevant to have a human thermometer that reaches 0 degrees C because it is wasted information that only serves to obfuscate relevant information?

Do you agree that a variance of 2 - 3 degrees either side of the mean human body temperature is relevant and serious?

Do you agree that if I change the aspect ratio of my monitor and then view a graph of mean global temperature it does not become wrong?

Dave (#523)

Do you agree that to a doctor it is generally irrelevant to have a human thermometer that reaches 0 degrees C because it is wasted information that only serves to obfuscate relevant information?

YES

Do you agree that a variance of 2 - 3 degrees either side of the mean human body temperature is relevant and serious?

YES

Do you agree that if I change the aspect ratio of my monitor and then view a graph of mean global temperature it does not become wrong?

NO.

As I demonstrated in the 14 high story mountain profile analogy, the anomaly profile is magnified and when communicating to the public this must be acknowledged or only the true mean global temperature only must be shown.

[True Mean Global Temperature](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/TrueMeanGlobalTemperature…)

Girma said:

I have not attacked you. Why do you attack me by calling me STUPID and UNEMPLOYED?

You have attacked honest scientists with your dishonest and ridiculous comments.

Your web page only lists employment up to 2004. Why do you not list your present employment, if you are in fact employed?

If you do not like being told the truth about your behaviour why don't you act in an honest manner? If you continue to say stupid things we can only assume you are, in fact, stupid.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Wow, Girma has opened up a whole new world of deception to me.

Those damn doctors have been showing us 'magnified' pictures of bacteria and viruses. Turns out that they are actually really small. You can't even see them! Does the public know this? Just imagine if doctors had to show people viruses without Evil Magnification(TM) - there'd be no H1N1 panic or bird-flu hysteria.

502 Girma,

Not if you're American*. If you are, then you are told (and think of) temperatures on a bizarre antiquated scale where zero is well below the freezing point of water, boiling is 212°, human body temperature is almost 100°, water boils at 212°, and 70-80° is a nice for most people. This is a ridiculous distortion and should be abandoned immediately!

*Also applies to some antiquated Brits. A friend of mind recently had a fever of over 100°. Obviously an extreme exaggeration.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Ian Forrester (#525)

Believe it or not, I consider my self to be one of the most honest and gentle persons on earth.

I just cannot make my self believe that the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into a 2000ml transparent plastic exposed to infrared radiation causes any significant warming of the air in the container. This in no way can be considered personally attacking scientists.

As for my employment, I am doing very well thank you. I just have not updated my website in a long-time.

515 Girma,

Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over? Can't you think of another way of saying it?

The "public" are not aware of temperature anomalies. All they know about, and are told about, is temperatures in everyday terms. They are told if temperatures are low, average, or high for the time of year, or have broken records.

Slight changes of less than a degree are of little interest to most people, but when they describe changes in average temperatures over large areas and long periods of time, they are important because all life is affected to some degree. People who are interested in these changes prefer to use a method that concentrates on the _changes_ and even, as you say, "exaggerates" them to represent their true importance in how the earth is affected. You consider them unimportant but you are not working in those fields. Why should anyone care what you think?

Changes in global average temperatures of only a few °C matter a lot and it is entirely correct that these are represented in an appropriate way.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

You have on your computer screen the profile of a 14 story high mountain. You cut the top 1 story high portion of the mountain profile and stretch it vertically to fill your screen. Have not you magnified the true profile of the mountain 14 times?

Girma, you really are a gormless wonder.

Let me explain it in little words so that you might understand. It matters not what is "cut" off the 'bottom of the dataset, or how much the remaining data is "stretched" on a graph. Why? Simply because there is a thing called a 'scale' on another thing called an ordinate a 'y axis', and this 'scale' tells the observer person looking at the graph exactly what the relationships of the data points are to each other.

The same thing is done for the abscissa x axis.

Best of all, there is a word for this 'scale'. It is called a 'range'. Can you say that word Girma? Raaange...

In your alleged degrees did you construct every graph with the x and y axes starting at the origin zero?

What I have issue is with the magnification. If there is a magnification as in the case of anomaly plots acknowledge it. That is all I am asking.
I accept as a FACT that the anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14.

There is a no "magnification", because there is a scale indicating range for both the x and the y axes. The graphical illustration of the data points is always fixed to the range, and thus the values of the data points do not change. Can you really not understand this?

And please, can you explain why it is valid science to derive percentages from a relative scale rather than from an absolute one? Conversely, can you explain why it is not valid to do so?

Tell us â when you did your alleged PhD, did you sit for a viva? If so, what background subject matter were you quizzed on? I cannot believe that anyone who supposedly has a PhD could really be this ignorant of graphing conventions, and of why there is no reason for these conventions not to be as they are. If there are any issues of distorted perception, such issues lie in the innumeracy of the perceiver, and not of mathematical practice that has been around from the time of Descartes and before.

In fact I seriously doubt that anyone could pass through to a postgraduate degree and be this dumb-arse ignorant and uneducated. You are just a troll.

Be careful though Girma Orssengo â your trolling shows the world your professional malfeasance.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

TrueSceptic (#515)

When I looked at the anomaly graphs for the first time the changes are scary. When I looked closer at the range on the y-axis it is actually only about two deg C and the long term mean is subtracted from the yearly mean and it is this difference that is plotted on the y-axis. Do the public know this?

As I see these graphs, they are truncated graphs from 13 deg C to 15 deg C and stretched vertically to fill the screen. As a result they have magnification.

As a result, it is distortion to present this graph to the general public.

[Mean Global Temperature Anomaly Plots](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi)

528 Girma,

The following is all taken from your posts here.

It is a position that plots the mean global temperature graph with the integer parts chopped off and called anomalies in order to magnify the temperature variation to give the incorrect perception of larger temperature variation (like looking at a profile of a surface through a magnifying glass).

AGW is just belief without evidence.

In this âGlobal Warming Swindleâ an organization called the Inter GOVERNMENT Panel on Climate change was formed by GOVERNMENTS to summarize the so called âpeer reviewedâ papers written and reviewed by people whose projects are all funded by GOVERNMENTS to come up with results that give GOVERNMENTS more economic power and revenue. Would you believe the summaries if I replaced GOVERNMENT in the above sentence with BUSINESS? Why?

Fortunately, the global mean temperature has refused to match their computer prediction (proof of garbage in â garbage out) by not increasing since 1998 as shown in the link above. What do you call a belief contrary to reality? What do you call Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)?

You AGW believers, I dare you to use the term âGlobal Warmingâ instead of âClimate Changeâ. You would not, because you will always win when you use âclimate changeâ: cooling is climate change, warming is climate change, forest fire is climate change and so on and so forth.

The only issue was âIncrease in CO2 causes global warmingâ. Unfortunately, now global warming has been replaced by âclimate changeâ and CO2 by âcarbonâ. The deception continues.

There is no catastrophic global warming. It is just delusion!

Thanks Russia, China & India for possibly saving us from the self-destruction of the west by the greens!
The greens say they are for forest, but they make it only ready for the next forest fire.
Similarly, they say they are for the poor, but we will see energy price skyrocket and cause misery on millions of people all over the world.
guess when the AGW camp first plotted the TRUE mean global temperature, they found it flat. So they devised the method of in effect chopping the integer part of the mean global temperature and plotting the decimal parts called anomalies to exaggerate the perception of change in global temperature by 14 times
The Greens donât want others to drive cars, but they do. They donât want others to fly, but they do. They donât want others to sit on a chair made of wood cut from a tree, but they do. They drink clean water, but they hate the chemicals that made the water clean. They donât want others to use paper made of wood chip, but they do. As a result, I find them to be hypocrites.
They also, in effect, donât like the human species. They say, nature can continuously release CO2 along the edge of the tectonics of the earth, but humans cannot. Elephants can bring down trees, humans cannot. Beavers can build dams, humans cannot. Ants can build high-rise dwellings, humans cannot.
Finally, they are a party that is founded on human fear, not human self-confidence. They say you cannot use GM, because it risky. You cannot use nuclear energy, because it risky. They might say, Columbus, donât cross the Atlantic because it is risky. Wilber and Albert, donât try to fly because it is risky. Neil, donât go to the moon because it is risky. In short, they are saying: man, donât live.
In any species, the young is fearful, and the Greens have their support. I hope the time comes when self-confidence of humans reigns, which will obviously bring the end of the Greens and AGW.

Why I am a skeptic of CO2 being the knob of Global Warming.

Believe it or not, I consider my self to be one of the most honest and gentle persons on earth.

It is clear that you are convinced that AGW is a conspiracy by the evil "Greens". Or is it the GOVERNMENTS? You hate these "Greens" because they want to kill hundreds of millions. You hate them because they have taken over most of the world's scientific institutions and GOVERNMENTS. You hate them because they distort percentages and temperatures. Anyone else who "believes" AGW must be either as evil as the "Greens" or gullible and stupid. It's all deception and delusion.

It's comforting to know what a high opinion you have of so many people but care to tell us how the "Greens" managed to do all this?

And what does "CO2 being the knob of Global Warming" even mean?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Bernard J (#530)

For your info, I have a famous published mathematical formula called orssengo-pye formula. Search for it on the web.

Cheers

By Girma Orssengo (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

531 Girma,

Scary? But surely you can read graphs and understand what scale is used?

Again, what the "public" knows is irrelevant in this case. The only ones who look at graphs of anomalies are scientists and interested amateurs, who appear to understand them just fine.

Once more, members of the general public don't see these graphs unless they make the effort. Have you ever seen one on the TV news or on a billboard?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

TrueSceptic(#532)

How do you change public opinion then?

These anomaly graphs have been extremely important on shaping public opinion on global warming.

Grima asks:"When I looked at the anomaly graphs for the first time the changes are scary. When I looked closer at the range on the y-axis it is actually only about two deg C and the long term mean is subtracted from the yearly mean and it is this difference that is plotted on the y-axis. Do the public know this?"

The "public" thinks summer is hotter because the earth is closer to the sun. The public doesn't even know what the difference between temperature and anomaly is. Your recommended approach is misleading, because the concern about global warming is not the temperature, but the temperature increase. Such a small increase leads to hardiness zones moving hundreds of miles this past century. That may seem slow to you, but it is infinity % faster than the sprint speed of your average pine tree.

By t_p_hamilton (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma said:

For your info, I have a famous published mathematical formula called orssengo-pye formula. Search for it on the web.

Hmmm I just did a search and the very first hit was not an endorsement of your "famous published mathematical formula."

Here is a quote from that paper:

LASIK treatment causes a significant reduction in measured GAT intraocular pressure (IOP) values. The Orssengo-Pye formula, which attempts to correct for GAT error associated with individual variation in CCT, appears to yield misleading results in these circumstances.

Evaluation of the Orssengo-Pye IOP corrective algorithm in LASIK patients with thick corneas
Optometry - Journal of the American Optometric Association, Volume 76, Issue 9, Pages 536-543
E.Kirstein, A.Hüsler (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1529183905000965)

Are you always that dishonest in your work? Seems like researchers are not as excited about your formula as you are.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

535 Girma,

You are 'begging the question'.

Change it from/to what? How can these graphs be "extremely important on shaping public opinion on global warming" if hardly anyone sees them?

I ask again: have you ever seen an anomaly graph on TV news?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

537 Ian,

I found that too but have failed to find the formula itself. Anyone? Girma?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

536 t_p_hamilton,

I'm sure you're right about the public's beliefs about the seasons. Quite how they accept that the NH and SH have opposite seasons has always puzzled me, and what would they make of perihelion being on 3 Jan if they knew?

Then again, most daily newspapers still run horoscopes, at least in the UK. :D

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Do you agree that to a doctor it is generally irrelevant to have a human thermometer that reaches 0 degrees C because it is wasted information that only serves to obfuscate relevant information?

Girma:

YES

OK, so since you want a global average temperature graph to reach 0 degrees C, you want wasted information included that only serves to obfuscate relevant information. I'm glad we all agree that your objective is to obfuscate relevant information.

I just cannot make my self believe that the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into a 2000ml transparent plastic exposed to infrared radiation causes any significant warming of the air in the container.

If you get 0.000025 deg C of warming over each 0.1 m of atmosphere, I'd say the total warming down from 12,000 m altitude to the ground of 3 deg C is significant. Unless you can measure 0.000025 deg C, your experiment is completely useless.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma,

One more thing. If you haven't already done so, I suggest you go to Anthony Watts's blog and suggest your "real temperatures, not anomalies" idea there. I think that Anthony might be quite receptive as it would fit in well with his Surface Stations project.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

In my view, the anomaly plots are the mean global temperature profile from 13 deg C to 15 deg C stretched vertically to fill the screen. Because of this stretching, there is magnification (visual) of the profile.

[Mean Global Temperature Anomaly Plots]( http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi)

Blog members do you, at last, agree with the above statement or not?

543,

No. The baseline temperature is subtracted. This is not 13°C for the yearly figures. It might be 13°C for an individual month or 2 in some datasets, though.

But it doesn't matter. "Magnifying" is what those interested find useful. Small changes in global averages are important.

I say again: try your idea with Watts.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma:

the anomaly plots are the mean global temperature profile from 13 deg C to 15 deg C stretched vertically to fill the screen.

Did all the experimental graphs you ever made at school include the value zero? Oh wait, I forgot your objective is to obfuscate relevant information.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

TrueSceptic (#538)

As I mentioned before, there is visual magnification in the anomaly graphs and they are scary. When I first saw it, I was uneasy about global warming. However, when I plotted, for myself, the true mean global temperatures I found them to be nearly flat and found them comforting.

Did all the experimental graphs you ever made at school include the value zero?

By the way Girma, if your graph was your submission on a science project, you'd lose a lot of marks for poor presentation.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

546 Girma,

Exactly: what _you_ find "comforting". I sometimes think you simply don't read most of the replies here. 529 is one. There are many others.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

@Girma

> As I mentioned before, there is visual magnification in the anomaly graphs and they are scary. When I first saw it, I was uneasy about global warming. However, when I plotted, for myself, the true mean global temperatures I found them to be nearly flat and found them comforting.

I know exactly what you mean. I once saw a picture of the Ebola virus taken through a microscope and it looked really big and scary. However, once I saw the size of a specimen next to a human being, I them to be invisible and I found it comforting.

@Girma

> > Do you agree that if I change the aspect ratio of my monitor and then view a graph of mean global temperature it does not become wrong?

> NO.

Priceless.

How about if I stand slightly further away from the screen?

Girma said:"

>As I mentioned before, there is visual magnification in the anomaly graphs and they are scary. When I first saw it, I was uneasy about global warming. However, when I plotted, for myself, the true mean global temperatures I found them to be nearly flat and found them comforting."

Dave said:"I know exactly what you mean. I once saw a picture of the Ebola virus taken through a microscope and it looked really big and scary. However, once I saw the size of a specimen next to a human being, I them to be invisible and I found it comforting."

Also, the Ebola virus is only 0.0000001% of the size a human, clearly insignificant!

By t_p_hamilton (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

What I have issue is with the magnification. If there is a magnification as in the case of anomaly plots acknowledge it. That is all I am asking. I accept as a FACT that the anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14.

even this is false. "magnification" is a FACTOR. but to get the desired result (ie, people can see what is relevant in the graph) you can t just multiply the values with 14.

and i really have to repeat my post #494, as Girma did obviously nor understand it:

the most funny thing is this:

the "Girma experiment" will actually show catastrophic warming! (because of the greenhouse effect of the bottle, of course and not because of the added CO2)

but because Girma insists, that the only relevant comparison of his "CO2 experiment" is to 0°C and NOT the anomaly towards another bottle without the extra CO2, in his own little universe, he has demonstrated how catastrophic CO2 is!

ps: in some parts of Germany, it is a habit among guys to drink a small glass of spirit with every beer. this habit tends to cause problems with alcohol intoxications over a night of drinking, occasionally. but how can such a small amount of additional alcohol cause any problems? i did a thought experiment, and drank one beer and one glass of spirit. no problem!

Well everyone,

After scrolling through the last two hundreed or so entries here over the past few days it certainly seems that Marc Marano has met his work targets for this week. I bet he is pleased, especially at finding such willing proxies to act for him such as Girma.

However, I think marano's efforts at subverting sites such as this is going to backfire on him because the innocent lurkers will read Girma's not-so-innocent posts and see right through them for both their content and intent and realise that denialism is a road to be avoided.

Girma:

We shall save the billions of the world poor, who barely survive now, from destruction as a result of the proposed increase in energy price.

We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the blog.

We shall show that the addition of 1.66ml of CO2 into a 1,000,000 ml of transparent plastic container exposed to solar radiation does not result in a catastrophic rise in the temperature of the air in the container.

We shall not flag or fail.

We shall never surrender.

We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight them on the beachheads. Maidenheads. No! Think about something else.

We stand foresquare and staunch against the AGW Communists. We shall prove that adding miniscule amounts of plant food to the water does not blow up cities.

Are they trying to steal my wee-wee? They are. But I shall not let them!

We shall resist their attempts to control our mind with radio signals. We have a helmet constructed out of aluminum foil which will repel all their cruel attempts!

We will save the world. Not unlike Superman. Those muscles! Beachhead... maidenhead... No! No girls! No yucky girls!

AGW = Communism = pollution of Our Purity of Essence. With God on our side, we shall prevail! Venceremos!

Girma:

I hope, I have impressed on your mind the fact that the anomaly plots are a magnification of the true mean global temperature profile by 14 times (for a long term global mean temperature of 14 deg C).

Well, no. Anomalies are generally smaller than temperatures. And addition and multiplication are two different operations.

Girma:

I don't know how to get and add exactly 1 ml of CO2 into a 1,000,000 ml transparent plastic container, how to expose it to infrared radiation, and how to measure the temperature.

It wouldn't matter if you could. (You measure the temperature with a thermometer, by the way.) Yes, the warming from a trivial amount of CO2 is very very small. But there isn't a trivial amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, there are three quadrillion kilograms up there.

Volume fraction doesn't matter.

Absolute amount matters.

Google "Beer's Law."

Grima:

Blog members do you, at last, agree with the above statement or not?

No. And we never will. No matter how many times you post the question, no matter how many ways you think of to ask the question, the answer will always be no. We will not agree to something that is wrong, false, incorrect, and patently stupid.

554 TOI,

Thanks.

Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine the true intraocular pressure and modulus of elasticity of the human cornea in vivo. The cornea was modeled as a shell, and the equations for the deformations of a shell due to applanating and intraocular pressures were combined to model the behavior of the cornea during applanation tonometry. At certain corneal dimensions called the calibration dimensions, the applanating and intraocular pressures are considered to be equal. This relationship was used to determine the modulus of elasticity of the cornea and the relationship between the applanating and intraocular pressures. The true intraocular pressure (IOPT) was found to be related to Goldmannâs applanating pressure (IOPG) as (IOPT = IOPG/K, where K is a correction factor. For the calibration corneal thickness of 0.52 mm, the modulus of elasticity E in MPa of the human cornea was found to be related to the true intraocular pressure IOPT in mmHg as E = 0.0229IOPT. The generalization of the ImbertâFick law that takes into account the effect of corneal dimensions and stiffness was found to be given by IOPT = 73.5W/(K A), where W is the applanating weight in gf (gram force) and A is the applanated area in mm2. The calculated true intraocular pressure and modulus of elasticity were found to agree with published experimental results. The mathematical model developed may therefore be used to improve results from applanation tonometry and to estimate the mechanical property of the cornea in vivo.

I note that the paper concerns modelling the cornea using physical laws. Unless an analogue is used, I assume this is a computer model. I trust that the code passed all SQA standards.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

556 BPL,

I'd appreciate it if you addressed post 443.

Thanks.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

"For your info, I have a famous published mathematical formula called orssengo-pye formula - Girma.

Sadly, this rules out stupidity as an excuse for the volumes of nonsense you have posted. Dunning-Kruger on the other hand.......or just plain dishonesty.

Hey Girma, I have a 'thought experiment' for you. Take your favoutite graph and paint it on the side of a very large building, making the physical scale 1m for reach degree C.

Now stand back and look and the line at the end - is this 'Evil Magnification'(TM)? Now take a cane and whip your back until it bleeds for doing 'magnification' (it will make you blind).

559,

I omitted this.

Girma J. Orssengo1 and David C. Pye1

(1) School of Optometry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia
Received: 18 June 1998 Accepted: 21 February 1999

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

There is visual distortion in the global temperature plots as looking at the [anomaly plot profile](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureAnom…) is a scary one, but looking at the [true mean global temperature profile](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/TrueMeanGlobalTemperature…) is a comforting one.

Instead of you always asking me, I ask you now to tell me what is the source of this difference in perception from these two plots?

It is not fair for all of you to put me under pressure to come up with an answer.

Cheers

>In my view, the anomaly plots are the mean global temperature profile from 13 deg C to 15 deg C stretched vertically to fill the screen. Because of this stretching, there is magnification (visual) of the profile.

>Blog members do you, at last, agree with the above statement or not?

Girma: This is not really your question, as you well know. Persisting in this rather tawdry argumentative tactic is not getting you anywhere and is not honest. If a first year physics student presented charts such as your version of global mean temperature change when we needed to see the small scale change I would require them to redo it. If such a student did not do so a bad grade is likely.

Do you agree that your plots of "True Mean Global Temperature" hide the small scale change in global temperature?

> It is not fair for all of you to put me under pressure to come up with an answer.

Fair? Jebus.

It's not fair for you to disregard a century and a half of physics you don't understand and assert a hamfisted experiment you haven't even run will prove you right - in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

It's not fair for you to state that a centuries old statistical technique is in fact an evil ploy dreamt up dishonestly by a global cabal of green interests/governments/scientists/lizardmen or whatever.

It's not fair for you to dismiss the work of thousands of scientists who actually know what they're doing, in favour of something you threw together because you find it "comforting".

It's not fair for you to utterly ignore responses which point out the massive glaring errors in your reasoning, and to simply repost the same garbage again and again.

It's not fair that you should adopt the position of the wounded party suffering unfair personal attacks when you have - lacking any evidence or reason at all - impugned the honesty of thousands of scientists, clinging to wild, plainly false and utterly impractical conspiracy theories.

It's not fair that you've ignored pertinent analogies accessible to the layman, and careful handholding through the mathematics alike, instead choosing to simply reassert your opinion from a position of pure faith, lacking any evidence or reason whatsoever.

To answer your question: the second one is drawn at an inappropriate scale, such that the fine detail of the graph is pretty well invisible to the naked eye - certainly the variance is minimised drastically in comparison to the huge, pointless white tracs filling the bottom 90% of the graph. Hence you will find it comforting because you are a) unaware of the fact that small changes to the mean temperature are highly relevant, b) you are essentially standing so far back from the data it may as well be a straight line, and c) lacking enough cognitive ability to discern the problems in your graph, you will believe it matches your prejudices - hence the false comfort it provides you. It's been pointed out to you why this is foolish and wrong many many many many times, but you ignore those responses.

One could very well draw a similar plot of human body temperature and find it comforting - except that at some point the patient died of hypothermia, a detail that would not easily be apparent due to the ludicrous axes used.

In summary - everything you've posted is drivel of the highest order, and you've shown no willingness to learn whatsoever. You are a veritable brick wall of denial. I've seen worst cases, but frankly you're a textbook example. Perhaps future generations will study this thread in wonder.

"There is visual distortion in the global temperature plots as looking at the anomaly plot profile is a scary one, but looking at the true mean global temperature profile is a comforting one.

Instead of you always asking me, I ask you now to tell me what is the source of this difference in perception from these two plots?" - Girma

This simply means you are deluded.

Both graphs convey the same information, but the anomaly graph represents the analysis of data. And that is the relevant distinction - the squiggly lines themselves are not the point. Statistical analysis of the data is where we get our understanding. How a graph looks does not matter, but what it means. I've never seen a scary looking scatterplot, but run a regression line through it and....

Your argument is facile, and you look foolish for continually parroting it.

Given Girma's professional field,why is he complaining about visual distortion? A pair of rose-tinted,scale correcting spectacles should be no problem...

MarkG (#564)

You wrote, Do you agree that your plots of "True Mean Global Temperature" hide the small scale change in global temperature?

Yes, I agree.

However, who choses to suppress the true mean global temperature plot but show the anomaly plot?

Girma (#563),
Why not might as well plot the temperature with the scale -15 to 15, why only from 0? This is okay since temperature scale in celcius can be negative, then you will even be more comforted.. since it now looks a straight line. But is this logical?

This kind of thinking and interpretation that you have demonstrated is very dangerous and deceptive, particularly when this issue concerns the world community.. all of us, the future of mankind, yourself, your family and your generations to come.

>You wrote, Do you agree that your plots of "True Mean Global Temperature" hide the small scale change in global temperature?

>Yes, I agree.

Well then I think we're done then. Hiding data from people is bad. Residuals hide nothing. Therefore they are useful.

But since you agree that your plots hide the changes in global mean temperature is it your assertion that the science community should hide these changes from the general community?

"However, who choses to suppress the true mean global temperature plot but show the anomaly plot?" - Girma.

The evil cabal of international green scientists who are plotting to kill billions of poor people.

The black helicopters are coming for you next Girma.

MarkG,

It's all about feelings. Science isn't data analysis and hypothesis testing to describe reality.

Emotional reactions are how we understand science - if it's "comforting" then that is good and we can do nothing. If it's "scary", that's bad, and bad is not "comforting" so we need to hide the bad stuff using appropriate visual aids (see True Mean Global Temperature Profile) and get back to doing nothing.

"I agree it is all about emotion.
Why colour the positive anomaly values with the scary RED?
" - G.

Good point Girma.

I'm sure it's that evil cabal of international scientists at it again - using red to indicate increased temperature. What a scam! Who's ever heard of such a thing?.....well my car a/c has red for heating and blue for cooling, but I'm sure that's a coincidence.

But yes, RED is SCARY. Scary is bad. We need "comforting".

An increasing anomaly is POSITIVE. Oh yes, I like that. I feel comforted now. Positive is good, let's Do Nothing.

Even better - the more positive the anomaly, the more we should Do Nothing!!

Oh, science is such fun!

Michael (#574)

Unless you show me the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into 2,000 ml of air causes significant increase in the temperature of the air when exposed to infrared radiation, I will remain a proud denier of CO2 driven global warming.

>I agree it is all about emotion.

It isn't. (I did not write #572 btw). It's simply basic physics and maths. Neither care what you, I or anyone else feels.

Girma, you have not answered my question at #570.

MarkG (#570)

You wrote, But since you agree that your plots hide the changes in global mean temperature is it your assertion that the science community should hide these changes from the general community?

Mark, did not you refer to "small scale change" in your post? I agree this is all about perception, not actual data.

I extend my sincere thanks to all blog members for the exiting dispute I had in the last couple of days and for mellowing me a bit in my positions. I enjoyed it very much. Thanks also for the battering you gave me as it will help me to question my own position. Wish you happiness, health and wealth to you all.

With Love

How much time have we just spent arguing with Girma about his demand?

Girma demands the removal of the temperature anomaly charts. What is his reason for this? He would prefer the mean temperature change shown relative to the distance between the mean temp and the freezing point of H2O.

Why the freezing point of H20? Because people see their daily weather in this format. Does it matter that daily weather ranges from -80 to +60? I don't know Girma won't address that.

Does it matter that the the mean temp of the earth has varied less than a degree for the past 1000 years? Don't know Girma wont address that either.

Does it matter that a rise of 0.7 degrees has seen massive changes to the earth? Don't know Girma wont address that. Does it matter that there are huge risks if will allow the planets mean temp to approach a 2 degree rise? Don't know Girma won't address that.

What are we expecting by continuing to debate Girma? What is the point in arguing with someone who says a 0.7 degree global mean temperature rise is magnified 14 times?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

It appears Girma has signed off while I was writing my post #579.

Bye Girma, good luck.

(I'm sure that the greens that you smeared also send their love, even if they read what you wrote about them).

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

>You wrote, But since you agree that your plots hide the changes in global mean temperature is it your assertion that the science community should hide these changes from the general community?

>Mark, did not you refer to "small scale change" in your post? I agree this is all about perception, not actual data.

You are avoiding the question. Do you wish to plot global mean temperature so that changes of between 0.0 to 1.0 degrees (or so) are not apparent to the general public?

Is this your intention?

Grima is clueless:

> Unless you show me the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into
> 2,000 ml of air causes significant increase in the
> temperature of the air when exposed to infrared radiation,
> I will remain a proud denier of CO2 driven global warming.

Are you aware that one of the predictions of global warming is that the stratosphere is COOLING? Evidently not.

By t_p_hamilton (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

As I mentioned before, there is visual magnification in the anomaly graphs and they are scary. When I first saw it, I was uneasy about global warming. However, when I plotted, for myself, the true mean global temperatures I found them to be nearly flat and found them comforting.

The graphs certainly are scary, but not because of any vertical 'distortion' â there is no 'distortion'. They are scary purely because of the rate of change of mean global temperature, and of what this rate of change means for the physiological functionings of species and ecosystems.

"Nearly flat"?! Compared to what? Once again, why do you not consider the mean global temperature in degrees Kelvin starting at absolute zero â this would give you a very 'flat' graph.

Except that it won't. The rate of temperature change will remain exactly as it is, and it is this rate of change that is the problem. If you have difficulty understanding the import of such (apparently small) rates of change in the context of bioclimatic envelopes, then you are simply displaying, as is your wont, your absolute ignorance of fundamental scientific matters.

There is visual distortion in the global temperature plots as looking at the anomaly plot profile is a scary one, but looking at the true mean global temperature profile is a comforting one.

For the umpteenth time, there is no 'distortion', because the scale on any and ever anomaly graph indicates the range. And person sufficiently competent to interpret a graph will understand how to compare the distribution of the data point to the ranges of both axes.

And remember too that the graphs are titled with "anomaly" â this tells the observer exactly what parameter is being illustrated. Or are you saying that anomalies should not be used in developing and communicating understanding of the science behind changes in mean global temperature?!

The only distortion that exists is in your own mind, and it results from your ideological prejudices against the idea of human impact upon climate. You need to get over it.

And if merely changing the scale on a graph gives you comfort, when in fact all the underlying parameters remain exactly as they are, then you are not in any way a scientist, and you should not be involved in the practise of science.

Instead of you always asking me, I ask you now to tell me what is the source of this difference in perception from these two plots?

The source is your scientific ignorance and your non-science based ideology

It is not fair for all of you to put me under pressure to come up with an answer.

Oh, but it is. You make an outrageous claim â you put up the evidence.

And by the way... I notice that you repeatedly link to your ridiculous graph â are you trying to increase your SE rank by upping your hits? If so, I suggest that Tim Lambert remove all but one of your links â if you want to keep redirecting traffic to your own site, you should be forced to link back to that one permitted link, so that readers realise that it is always the same page that you are directing them toward.

Nick notes:

Given Girma's professional field,why is he complaining about visual distortion? A pair of rose-tinted,scale correcting spectacles should be no problem...

Given Girma's professional field, I would be extremely concerned as his employer that he is so confused about the science and the conventions of graphing, and of what a genuine visual distortion is. His would be one contract that I would not want to renew.

I wonder if any of his colleagues realise what guff he is posting here â I am sure that he would be the butt of much tea-room derision...

Unless you show me the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into 2,000 ml of air causes significant increase in the temperature of the air when exposed to infrared radiation, I will remain a proud denier of CO2 driven global warming.

Do you even understand how many errors of scientific logic and fact you have made in this one sentence?!

You may be a proud denier of AGW, but you are also a recalcitrantly ignorant one.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

"Unless you show me the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into 2,000 ml of air causes significant increase in the temperature of the air when exposed to infrared radiation, I will remain a proud denier of CO2 driven global warming" - G

You've had this explained several times, quite clearly.
Your inability, or refusal (my guess), to learn reflects poorly on you.

But I guess we need to thank you for one thing - another startling demonstration of the denialists aversion to honest attempts at understanding.

Michael, Bernard,

Girma certialy has the ability to stay on message. He'd make a real politician.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma (#581):

There is no 0.7 deg C rise. It was only +0.34 deg C for last year of 2008.

The 0.34 anomaly is a comparison with the average for 1961-1990, bonehead.

Girma:

Unless you show me the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into 2,000 ml of air causes significant increase in the temperature of the air when exposed to infrared radiation

At the 575th post you have still not told us what you mean by "significant". As I pointed out before, even 0.000025 deg C warming per 1 litre cube of air will produce significant warming of the surface.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

With Billions of government money spent on global warming (aka climate change), how come 1 million can not be spend on the following experiment?

Show the effect of the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 on the temperature of 2,000 ml of air when exposed into infrared radiation.

I will stay where I am, or move to the other side if there is more than 0.1 deg C increase in the air temperature.

Girma,

You've just completely ignored the relevant information that Chris provided for you.

Are you rude or just obstinantly ignorant?

Girma, this question has been aswered: your experiment would vastly underestimate the cumulative warming from the billons of tonnes of CO2 in a 100km think atmosphere. You could do it, but what would it prove? It would likely prove you need a more accurate thermometer?

Why do you ignore [these important questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

>Show the effect of the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 on the temperature of 2,000 ml of air when exposed into infrared radiation.

>I will stay where I am, or move to the other side if there is more than 0.1 deg C increase in the air temperature.

Clarity would be enhanced if you would show us the maths you did to work out that .1C is the correct scaled temperature change to look for in your scaled atmospheric model.

Or more generally give us some guidance if there are any questions you will answer on all this? Pointing you at the questions already asked and not answered does not appear to be working.

Girms, are you really trying to say CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation? Or just that it doesn't absorb enough to make signicant difference to global surface temperature? Seriously?

Girma, I might be a fool for asking but:

Is a temperature rise of 0.1 deg C magnified 14 times?

And is a temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius magnified 14 times?

Is any global mean temperature anomlay measured in degrees Celsius magnified 14 times?

And why arn't you addressing [these questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

MarkG (#594), Gaz(#595)

Instead of spending billions on unverifiable computer model of the whole climate, why not spend millions to experimentally study on a scaled lab model the effect of increase in CO2 on the temperature on the air and publish this result so that we deniers have anything to stand on.

We don't thrust the computer climate models as they are unverifiable and they can not predict El Nino and L Nina.

Mark Byrne (#596)

Why are you putting me on the spot? I have tried to explain but have failed.

Now let me ask you for a change. Why do the anomaly plots look scary while the true mean global temperature look comforting?

Please answer me?

Girma,

Again, you've been told this already. I think it might have been Chris who earlier provided a link to some simple lab experiments that demonstrate the undeniable warming effect of CO2.

A proven fact.

Girma, you're at it again.

Ignoring valid questions put to you, while re-stating your questions that have been answered repeatedly.

You prefer to ignore the empirical evidence in favour of your deeply flawed 'thought experiment' and value your ludicrous 'scary'/'comforting' dichotomy over bog-standard statistical analysis.

Any pretense by you that you have an interest in science and knowledge is simply dishonest.

Girma,

> I have tried to explain but have failed.

No, you've explained - again and again and again - your position really isn't hard to grasp. Its just so wrong it beggars belief.

I'm tired of repeating answers to you in this thread if you're just going to repeat the same question.

> Why do the anomaly plots look scary while the true mean global temperature look comforting?

[Answer here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)

Girma, were did you get your ideas about greens and goverment? What media do you consume and what types of communty do you mix in, Church etc?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

To all of you:

I concede that that there is no distortion in the anomaly plots in the scientific sense. Congratulation!

However, there is visual magnification.

Let me try to explain.

For an anomaly plot with a range from -1 deg C to 1 deg C and a global long term mean temperature of 14 deg C, the anomaly plot is obtained first by translating the true mean global temperature profile from 13 deg C to 15 deg C to the axis (y = 0) and then stretching the profile to fill the screen. Along the y axis, though the labels for the temperature tick marks have not changed, the spacing between successive marks has increased because of the vertical stretching, and this result in the visual magnification we observe when we look at the anomaly plots. This visual magnification makes me dislike anomaly plots.

Cheers

Excuse my drive-by de-lurk, but there's got to be something in a Phd in lens mechanics being so maniacally obsessed with magnification. I know it's not very scientific...

Janet Akerman (#603)

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand? Says it all. Girma is just another right wing libertarian with no concept of collective responsibility. Rand's ideas were never relevant, but become even more redundant with a burgenining human population and huge inequities in wealth. Moreover, if unfewttered libertarisn agendas were the order of the day in the day over most of a planet dominated by rapacious corporate greed, then we'd be seeing even fasater destruction of our global ecological; life support systems than we alread are. Libertarianism of this kind is a recipe to speed up the process of destruction.

Girma lost any credibility with me when he earlier claimed that C02 is not a pollutant but a nutrient. This is grade school level science. Any element or nutrient in excess amounts becomes a pollutant. Look at nitrogen. Lakes in the US upper midwest were once oligo- or mesotrophic. Due to immense inputs of nitrogen from fertilizers, many of these lakes have become hyper-eutrophic, covered in dense algal mats during the summer and seriously anoxic.

The Rand quip confirms Girma's neophyte status, yet he persists. His criticism of AGW has nix to do with science but everything to do with clarion cry of the RW libertarians that any regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions are a denial of liberty (in effect, they reduce profit margins).

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma,

This visual magnification makes me dislike anomaly plots.

Don't you realise a graph of temperatures in degrees Celcius is also an anomaly plot? It shows the anomaly compared with +273.15 K.

You're just squirming around trying to find a way to deny the global surface temperature has increased by an amount that will make a real difference to our world.

Sorry we can't help you.

At the risk of changing(?) the subject, was anyone at Matthew's talk on Sunday. If so, how did it go?

Neil White

By Neil White (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Instead of spending billions on unverifiable computer model of the whole climate, why not spend millions to experimentally study on a scaled lab model the effect of increase in CO2 on the temperature on the air and publish this result so that we deniers have anything to stand on.

[Emphasis mine]

And there you have hoisted yourself by your own petard.

In a scaled experiment, what is your thought on what temperature increase will be observed in a bottle? What issues of time, of radiation type, and of independence from outside of the system, did your 'thought experiment' take into account?

Hmmm...?

However, there is visual magnification...

This visual magnification makes me dislike anomaly plots.

Do you not understand that it does not matter that the "spacing between successive marks has increased"? The whole point of graphing data is for the observer to comprehend the relationships between the independent and the dependent variables. Changing the 'space' between units has no mathematical effect on the interpretation, and anyone who has passed one lesson in graphing should know this.

Seriously, if you have not reached this basic (= beginner) level of understanding of data representation, you should not be involved in science, and especially in scientific commentary.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Jeff Harvey (#607)

After several years of searching, I found what I was looking for in the writing of Ayn Rand:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute

I am immensely indebted to her.

(#596): Why do the anomaly plots look scary while the true mean global temperature look comforting?

That's why 'look' is not so relevant.. need to look deeper. When we understand the concept of a system, understand how the system itself behaves.. the dynamics.. then we see the reason, the mechanism. And then we have mathematics, statistics.. an invaluable tool that we use to quantify, analyse, and formulate things - a tool that needs to be used thoughtfully.

Girma writes:

>After several years of searching, I found what I was looking for in the writing of Ayn Rand:

>>*My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute*

>I am immensely indebted to her.

Yes we can see you are.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma:

After several years of searching, I found what I was looking for in the writing of Ayn Rand:

You were looking for a reason to ignore scientific facts because they're inconsistent with your desire to do whatever the fuck you want, so why the big search - why not just join the National Party?

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Yes, Ayn Rand the classic denialist - able to hold four mutually exclusive positions at one time.

I am immensely indebted to her.

For giving you an excuse to ignore reality? I'll bet you are.

@Muzz

> Excuse my drive-by de-lurk, but there's got to be something in a Phd in lens mechanics being so maniacally obsessed with magnification. I know it's not very scientific...

I think you have something there.

Perhaps there is some sinister purpose in redefining all graphs to the point that they become illegible without the proper lenses?

In fact, now that I'm a student of Girma's approach to logic and reason, I believe that this proves Girma is part of a sinister lens cabal, trying to damage scientists' eyesight and bring the agenda round to lensing techniques needlessly at terrible cost to untold billions of lives in the third world. I conducted a thought experiment in which a small lens failed to magnify Girma's temperature graph sufficiently for it to become legible, and from not having done this experiment I deduce it will actually be impossible to magnify any small text to the point of legibility through the use of lenses of any size. I find this comforting, therefore it is FACT.

If any of you have any questions, I'll be glad to interpret them as personal attacks, ignore them and repeat the above paragraph.

The Beginers Guide to [Ayn Rand]( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand):
>*The only proper, moral purpose of a government is to protect manâs rights, which means: to protect him from physical violenceâto protect his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to his own property and to the pursuit of his own happiness. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.* (Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness)

That would sounds consistent with acting to prevent dangerous global warming.

>*When I say âcapitalism,â I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalismâ¦*(Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness)

Mmm, The GFC was caused by too much regulation. So address the problems such asâToo-Big âTo-Failâ with more deregulation?

>*Capitalism is the only system where such men are free to function and where progress is accompanied, not by forced privations, but by a constant rise in the general level of prosperity, of consumption and of enjoyment of life*(Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness)

Mmm, perhaps she means the [richest 20% ](thttp://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/2008/03/SWA08_Wages_Figure…) are free to function by getting in with the Oligarchs.

> *Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression âindividual rightsâ is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in todayâs intellectual chaos). But the expression âcollective rightsâ is a contradiction in terms.*

She obviously is downplaying of is unaware that in US law Corporations have gained the rights of an individual (cept they can live forever). And when you can atomise the workers more and more, guess what happens in the [gap between](http://media.photobucket.com/image/change%20in%20the%20real%20hourly%20…) productivity and [wages]( http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/444018067_a091f455c7.jpg)?

Girma, what do you think of the recent bankerâs self-imposed bonus?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

TrueSceptic,

I believe that in a time series, you have to have the same base for each measurement. I don't think it's correct that there's a different base level for each month's observations.

Girma:

Unless you show me the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into 2,000 ml of air causes significant increase in the temperature of the air when exposed to infrared radiation, I will remain a proud denier of CO2 driven global warming.

That's because you're a fucking moron.

I've explained in careful detail why your assertion is irrelevant to the problem. You either haven't read it or haven't understood it. You believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it.

Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is not. And militant ignorance, of the sort you display, is stupidity. Period.

Girma:

why not spend millions to experimentally study on a scaled lab model the effect of increase in CO2 on the temperature on the air and publish this result so that we deniers have anything to stand on.

It's been done. In 1859.

Tyndall, J. 1859. âNote on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies.â Proceed. Roy. Soc. London 10, 37-39.

Girma:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute

I am immensely indebted to her.

Then maybe you could explain the use of "reason" behind her

1) Justifying her extramarital affairs, but calling it "betrayal" when her boyfriend played around on her,

2) Her rejection of relativity and quantum mechanics,

3) Her claim that pollution was a good thing because it showed "progress," and

4) Her contention that the architect of a building has a right to destroy the building if his employers alter his blueprint.

One of my most favourite passages is Ayn Randâs on Original Sin:

To hold, as manâs sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold manâs nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

Girma, it might come as a surprise to you, but during a discussion, you are supposed to react to what others say, to acknowledge their points and to reply to their questions.

you seem to be incapable of doing any of that. the most friendly word for your behaviour is troll.

Barton (#620)

Barton, I don't support everything Ayn Rand did.

I found the writing of all other philosophers makes me sleepy and hard to read. In contrast, I have read here books several times with ease and pleasure. For me, she is the best writer of all time.

Try to read "For The New Intellectual" & "Philosophy: Who Needs It"

I threw the first book away the first time I read it because it was the opposite of what I learnt from the society. But she worked on me here magic and I am her eternal admirer.

Sod (#622),

It is only bashing that I get. Is it not sometime better to absorb it and keep quite?

I have acknowledged that there is no distortion in the scientific sense with the anomaly plots. However, no one from the AGW side has acknowledged that there is visual magnification with the anomaly plots. Why blame only me?

621 Girma,

What on Earth does this have to do with this thread? Original Sin is a religious concept, nothing more.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Why does everyone keep calling me stupid? Why can't people understand that I find some graphs scary and others comforting? Why does everyone treat me like a child just because I find green less scary and more comforting than red? Why are some books nice and comforting but others are hard to read and make me sleepy? Why can't everyone see how gentle and honest I am?

Why do I get names mixed up? It's not fair!

Mark Byrne

Instead of learning about Ayn Rand second hand, why not just read each word of the Original Sin paragraph I posted earlier (#621) and judge for yourself the power and precision of writing.

Still better, why don't you get and read her book, "Philosophy: Who Needs It"

She might perform her magic on you too!

To all Blog Members:

As a result of two days of debates, this blog has concluded that the anomaly plots have no magnification in the scientific sense.

However, Girma still maintains that the anomaly plots have "visual magnification"

Do blog members agree or disagree with Girma's assertion?

> To all Blog Members:

> Do blog members agree or disagree with Girma's assertion?

> However, Girma still maintains that the anomaly plots have "visual magnification"
> Posted by: Girma

Try sitting further away from the monitor.

...and if I look at them on my 22 inch screen, there is even more magnification??

There is no cure for stupid this profound.

Girma, I read your quote, it was bazaar in that it was so out of context. I've started reading Rand and have conclude she is an over-simplistic utopian. I suspect she is well known because of the concentrated (disproportionate) power of those who's interests are served by her fiction and ideology.

Your commendation of *"magic on [me] too"* does not energise me to return to Rand's stories.

Re your magnification question, Are you asking if the 0.7 degree mean global temp anomaly is visually magnified?

I don't understand this question. The anomaly is a number used to measure temperature change. How can this number be magnified?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

@Girma

I look forward to collating your posts here and elsewhere on the web and posting them as an illustration of stupidity and malicious trolling in action.

If you really have used your real name, I do hope it comes to the attention of future employers.

Kind regards.

Guys,

Maybe Girma's got me fooled but I think he is sincere. My guess is Girma is being frank and honest about what he thinks.

If is in a troll then he's exceptionally skilful at chewing up blog time.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

What I deplore about Rand's objectivism is the notion - that esepcially now should be on the scrap heap of history - that selfishness is good and any activity that is altruistic is evil (she would have loved Gordon Gekko). Last years economic collapse, essentially based around the aspects of human nature that Rand strongly advocated, should drive a stake through the arguments of those who continue to promote her nonsense.

Later in her life, Rand wrote this jibberish:

*Ecology as a social principle . . . condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates menâs return to ânature,â to the state of grunting subanimals digging the soil with their bare hands*

This is utter drivel. Basically Rand was saying that environmentalism would undo all of the progress man had made since the industrial revolution. These words seem utterly embarrassing now, when it is clear that humans are extracting too much from natural systems, destroying a range of critical ecosystem services that sustain civilization and life in a manner that we take for granted. The evidence is all around us: the loss of deep rich agricultural soils, fossil age groundwater supplies and biodiversity, the latter representing the working parts of our global ecological life support systems. Scientists like myself have never constructed the kind of straw men that Rand and her libertarian followers have: what we are saying is that things are going in the wrong direction and we ought to do soemthing about it. A metaphor for Rand's argument would be to say that we are driving faster and faster in the dark towards the edge of a cliff that we *know* lies ahead somewhere (based on volumes of empirical evidence), while being encouraged to ignore the threat that we are being told does not exist by those with power and influence who are reaping the short-term benefits of the journey.

If people want to read her various books, fair enough, but save me the sermons on how objectivism is good for humanity.

Michael Prescott has some choice words about Rand:

http://authormichaelprescott.blogspot.com/2005/03/was-ayn-rand-evil.html

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2005/04/my_la…

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Jeff, what struck me when reading Rand on ecology, is that her arguments are at the forefront of denilalism now. She's been dead for 30 years and her distorted arguments are still at the front.

Similar story with Julian Simon arguments, though he's only been dead for a decade.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Bernard might like this quote from Jeff first link:

>*it is awfully hard to tell a devout Objectivist from a narcissistic, manipulative sociopath.*

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Please Read Rand yourself. Donât insert an intermediary between yourself and an original. Read this morsel on philosophy:

As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation â or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

Who else writes with such power, with such precision?

You will not like everything she writes, but some are timeless.

@Girma

> Please Read Rand yourself.

Says the one filling this thread with "unwarranted conclusions" and "false generalizations", copy and paste nonsense and total unreason.

An 80 word sentance is precision????

More like a load of self-improvement psycho-babble.

I have picked up many, many books in my time, and there are very few that I put down having been unable to rouse myself to finish.

Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' is one such book. Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code' is another.

I put them down quickly not because I disliked the author's philosophy or what they were saying (if this were the case I'd never have gritted my teeth through Fukuyama's 'Our Posthuman Future' or Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom') but because neither Dan Brown nor Ayn Rand know how to write.

Rand's style is simply impossible to battle through. Her overblown rhetoric (perfectly demonstrated in #638 above) is less annoying than her laughable attempts at advancing her philosophy through her fiction, which takes the form of her villainous socialist characters saying something rather naive or easily parodic and her heroes glancing a knowing eye in their direction before embarking on the kind of patronising corrective speech which, if it were said in real life, would have any nearby listeners scattering across the nearest street before it was halfway through.

The example in post #638 is the very opposite of precise, lacks any kind of self-awareness or humility, and, far from being the product of a uniquely gifted mind, could have splurted whole from the keyboard of any self-indulgent internet blogger. Possibly or possibly not whilst intoxicated.

I encountered a lot of followers of her Objectivism on the old IIDB discussion boards. To a man (and somewhat creepily, they were all males) they demonstrated the same lack of self-awareness, as well as an empathetic deficiency that was almost pathological. Only one, a 16-year old who was trying the philosophy on to see how it fitted him, ended up abandoning it after a long personal discussion in which I tried to explain others' hostility towards extreme economic libertarianism.

I doubt there are many people around who need lessons in Rand from her adherents.

(And btw, to all of you, I'm aware of the irony of explaning why Rand can't write by means of the nigh-on unreadable sentence in my fourth paragraph. You don't have to point it out).

617 BPL,

That's what I thought when I first started looking at this a few years ago but you need to explain the following:-

Global Mean Monthly Surface Temperature Estimates for the Base Period 1901 to 2000

J F M A M J J A S O N D Annual

12.0 12.1 12.7 13.7 14.8 15.5 15.8 15.6 15.0 14.0 12.9 12.2 13.9

Jul - Jan = 15.8 - 12.0 = 3.8

(from [here](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php), where it says,

The global monthly surface temperature averages in the table below can be added to a given month's anomaly (departure from the 1901 to 2000 base period average) to obtain an absolute estimate of surface temperature for that month.

It is clear that you must add the anomaly for _each_ month to the base temperature for _each_ month.

2 examples of monthly anomalies from [here](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.d…)

1988 1 0.4590
1988 2 0.2942
1988 3 0.4029
1988 4 0.3672
1988 5 0.3046
1988 6 0.3239
1988 7 0.2847
1988 8 0.2479
1988 9 0.2499
1988 10 0.2321
1988 11 0.1616
1988 12 0.2789

Jul - Jan = 0.2847 - 0.4590 = -0.1743 (negative!)

1998 1 0.5657
1998 2 0.8288
1998 3 0.6059
1998 4 0.7107
1998 5 0.6309
1998 6 0.6404
1998 7 0.6980
1998 8 0.6697
1998 9 0.5007
1998 10 0.4393
1998 11 0.3604
1998 12 0.5124

Jul - Jan = 0.6980 - 0.5657 = 0.1323

If the monthly anomalies use the same base temperature for all months, how can the differences between, say, Jan and Jul anomalies be so small, when the absolute temperatures differ by several degrees?

Lastly, why does [GISS](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt) say

Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14C = 57.2F,
so add that to the temperature change if you want to use an absolute scale
(this note applies to global annual means only, J-D and D-N !)

That is, you cannot use this single figure for monthly anomalies as each month has its own base temperature.

In short, Courtney was right: absolute monthly average temperatures vary by several degrees and monthly anomalies in themselves do not, and cannot, show this.

I'd like to hear from Eli too, please. :D

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Mark Byrne at #637.

High five!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Let us not underestimate the value of the indicator.

When was the last time you met a Rand-toter who was educated in the natural sciences? Right - nev-er.

So quoting Rand is a very useful data point. That is: I usually need very little additional data (other than Rand-toting/quoting) to know that discussing natural science with someone quoting Rand is futile.

And their numbers are not many - they just have lots of energy and appear numerous.

Best,

D

Why does everyone keep calling me stupid? Why can't people understand that I find some graphs scary and others comforting? Why does everyone treat me like a child just because I find green less scary and more comforting than red? Why are some books nice and comforting but others are hard to read and make me sleepy? Why can't everyone see how gentle and honest I am?

Why do I get names mixed up? It's not fair!

OK, this demonstrates such puerile juvenility that it cannot be sincere.

Girma Orssengo is either a troll with a long-line, or he has a whole mob of 'roos in his top paddock. Either way, he is evidencing a pathological psychology of the sort that really does not further deserve the attention we grant him, and with which he is stoking his little woody-fest.

If this bloke is not an impostor, then his employer really needs a tap on the shoulder so that something is said to old Wormtongue â his rantings are a serious indication of impending trouble in his work where it involves any science.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

645 Bernard,

Note what Girma did at 623 and 624. Do you think _someone else_ might've played the same trick?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

It is very sad that some people post under my name. Extremely sad!

647 Girma,

So who posted 623 and 624?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

@646 TrueSceptic

...

I hadn't even considered that - Doh!

Please Read Rand yourself. Donât insert an intermediary between yourself and an original.

Like saying, please read Goebbels yourself. Donât insert an intermediary between yourself and an original.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

649 Dave,

I'm sure that when the author(s) of 623 and 624 own up, the author of 627 will also do so.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

The hostility towards Rand is unbelievable.

1. Happiness
2. Productivity
3. Reason

These are what she advices in hear writings for individuals to achieve in their life. What is wrong with them?

The hostility towards her is irrational.

May be some people donât want others to be happy, productive and rational!

The irrationality of the hostility towards her is beyond believe.

Girma,

Any thoughts on 648?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

TrueSceptic at #648.

And not to forget that the same name-typing clumsiness occurred at [#516](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).

I cannot believe that someone other than an impostor would post so much garbage, and make so many repeated mistakes, unless the person had taken leave of their faculties (assuming of course that they had any faculties to speak of in the first place).

In Girma Orssengo's case it isn't so much leave as a sabbatical, and more probably early retirement.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

To all:

#627 is not my post.

If it is intentional, it is very sad.

Girma:

We don't thrust the computer climate models as they are unverifiable and they can not predict El Nino and L Nina.

Perhaps because they're not supposed to predict individual weather events like El Niños and La Ninas. Hint: they're called CLIMATE models, not WEATHER models. Girma is so ignorant.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

My mistake.

I posted #623 and #624; Sorry!

655 Girma,

Answer the question: do you know who wrote 516, 623, and 624?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

TrueSceptic at #651.

Damn! I was Poed at #627! I wonder who that might have been...

Nevertheless, prior to that post I did wonder if Girma in general was an impostor. Now that I see that #627 is (perceptibly, but barely) distinct from the other postings, I am rather more convinced that the troll-Girma is genuine - which is a worry indeed...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

TrueSceptic

#516 is also mine. Sorry.

657 Girma,

At last! That wasn't so hard, was it? And they weren't deliberate attempts to misrepresent others? Why didn't you explain immediately?

Unlike 627, were I parodied you to make a point!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Chris (#656)

you wrote, Perhaps because they're not supposed to predict individual weather events like El Niños and La Ninas. Hint: they're called CLIMATE models, not WEATHER models. Girma is so ignorant.

I can not accept the distinction between weather and climate. If you can not predict the short term, how on earth can you predict the long term?

Can I say if I launch a rocket to the moon, my accuracy increases as it moves away from the point of launch?

Climate is a chaotic system. And like all chaotic systems, say the stock market, it is unpredictable.

"Who else writes with such power, with such precision?"

Girma, the quote you posted reads like a lot of convoluted jibberish to me. If this kind of rhetorical jargon impresses you, then so be it.

See Dano's post above. As usual, he nails it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

*Climate is a chaotic system. And like all chaotic systems, say the stock market, it is unpredictable*

Competely and utterly wrong. Because it operates over immense scales, climate maintenance is a largely deterministic system. To chnage such a system in the time scale currently under discussion would require a massive forcing.

Girma's inability to interpolate scale into deterministic and stochastic processes is evidence of someone who lacks basic scientific acumen. Think of the properties of a gas: the gas as a whole exhibits predictable properties but the molecules that make up the gas are highly unpredictable. Deterministic processes emerge from ecosystems and biomes, but small scale community effects are stochastic.

We must hand it to Girma, though: in spite of one argument after another of his being shredded he persists. He's like the old Bayonne bleeder, the boxer Chuck Wepner, who was knocked around the ring a lot (see his Ali fight) but just kept getting up.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

655 Jeff,

Or Monty Python's Black Knight.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma:

Show the effect of the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 on the temperature of 2,000 ml of air when exposed into infrared radiation.
I will stay where I am, or move to the other side if there is more than 0.1 deg C increase in the air temperature.

A temperature differential of 0.1 deg C between the bottom and the top of every 2 litre cube of air from the ground up to the tropopause would produce an enormous difference between the ground and the tropopause. Girma doesn't realize that the temperature difference between the top and bottom of EVERY layer of the atmosphere is increased by the presence of CO2. The temperature rise accumulates as you go down through the atmosphere. The steps involved in going from the measured absorption of infrared by CO2 to the atmosphere's temperature sensitivity to CO2 are explained in The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Jeff Harvey (#663)

I am indebted to Rand as she explained to me in a straight forward way, after several failed trials reading other authors, the branches of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics & esthetics. It is always a pleasure to read her books in philosophy.

Jeff, how about this quote on how to control others from Rand:

Don't allow men to be happy. Happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient. happy men have no time and no use for you. Happy men are free men. So kill their joy in living. Take away from them whatever is dear or important to them. Never let them have what they want. Make them feel that the mere fact of a personal desire is evil. Bring them to a state where saying âI want' is no longer a natural right, but a shameful admission. Altruism is the great help in this. Unhappy men will come to you. They'll need you. They'll come for consolation, for support, for escape. Nature allows no vacuum. Empty man's soul â and the space is yours to fill.

She is my teacher of philosphy. She is a genuis.

Girma:

I can not accept the distinction between weather and climate.

Of course. You're an ignoramus. Find a definition of climate and you might be able to understand the difference.

If you can not predict the short term, how on earth can you predict the long term?

Proof of the error you're making by counterexample:

Even though you can't predict what an individual dice roll will give, you can predict with a particular degree of confidence what the average of many dice rolls will be.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Empty man's soul â and the space is yours to fill.

Girma:

She is my teacher of philosphy. She is a genuis.

Rand has clearly filled Girma's space.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

I say again:

Some time back I bandied about the idea of a new type of performance art, played out on comment threads. Never got it off the ground for various reasons, but one outcome would have been very similar to this thread, with the made-up character (Girma, made perhaps by multiple commenters) running around the earnest regulars. Truth is stranger than fiction, and funnier than what I could have come up with.

Nonetheless, I like the Chuck Wepner/Black Knight analogy, save for the fact that the target doesn't know it is hit. This certainly is the place to see that phenomenon played out every few weeks, isn't it? Flesh wound! Come back and get what's coming to you!

Best,

D

671 Eli,

You do realise that showing Courtney to be right and BPL and you to be wrong was not exactly what I expect anyone to need to do?

Where? Over at Rabett Run?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

> I can not accept the distinction between weather and climate. If you can not predict the short term, how on earth can you predict the long term?

I saw an analogy I quite like that I'll repeat for you now (fruitlessly, no doubt).

Predicting the weather is like observing a single bubble forming at the base of a pan of boiling water, and then predicting where on the surface of the water the bubble will burst, and how large it will be.

OTOH, the climate is like observing the average rate and magnitude at which bubbles are bursting on the whole surface, and predicting how that rate will change as you turn up the gas under the pan.

They believe 1.66 molecules of CO2 causes warming in 1,000,000 molecules of air.

[CO2 at Mauna Loa]( http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)

They believe, for last year of 2008, a 0.34 deg C increase in global mean temperature above the 30 year long term average is CO2 driven global warming. Could this increase be caused by expansion of cities and growth of population as a result of increased asphalt roads, concrete buildings, brick houses, deforestation etc?

[Anomaly Data]( http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/gl…)

They believe in the unbelievable.

But they call those who donât believe in the unbelievable deniers.

I donât believe in the unbelievable. Let them call me whatever they like.

Why not wait just another ten years to find out whether the anomaly will still be around 0.34 deg C?

If they donât want to wait, their motivations are just their faith and their goals.

@Girma

> They believe

No. They have shown experimentally. 150 years ago. As has been pointed out to you again and again.

> I donât believe in the unbelievable.

You also don't believe in reading.

The way that some Girma posts are repeated, in whole or in part, many times, that responses are rarely addressed in the way we would expect, and that the set of denialist memes is being used in turn, suggests that we might have a TTC here.

Can anyone convince me otherwise?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma is a sad case.

He has at least had the benefit of some science education, so has no claim on ignorance. He simply chooses to elevate some dodgy economic dogmatism above scientific fact.

It's been, at turns, hilarious and depressing, to see a live example of ideological denial.

No matter how well the science is epxlained Girma will keep repeating the same mantra, at least until he gets over his juvenile infatuation with the 'philosophy' of some strident libertarian.

679 Michael,

I'm sorry but I am being deliberately obscure. Tim Lambert or John Mashey would know (but might disagree with my suggestion).

I'll explain tomorrow if other messages don't beat me to it!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe the addition of 1.66ml of CO2 into 1,000,000ml of air causes any measurable increase in the air temperature when exposed to infrared radiation.

>> [Girma] I can not accept the distinction between weather and climate. If you can not predict the short term, how on earth can you predict the long term?

>I saw an analogy I quite like that I'll repeat for you now (fruitlessly, no doubt).

For my own taste I prefer the actual physics (no criticism of the analogy intended). The boundary layer of the atmosphere is the turbulent boundary layer of the larger scale flow where the larger scale flow interacts with the surface. The larger scale and longer time series dynamical behaviour becomes less impacted by this turbulence (and other sources of turbulence) as you increase the scales. So as you go to climatic scales things get more predictable. Conversely we can predict things like the average temperature next winter, but predicting the temperature in 5 days in your backyard is much more challenging.

Anyway, this is probably all beside the point, since Girma appears to be immune to all reason and ignorant anything done in physics since the 19th century.

This discussion is useful however, as a case study. I hope others get some elightenment from it.

Girma,
Can't predict weather, so can't predict climate?

I don't think so.

I propose the following challenge to find out. There are lots of weather monitoring stations in the United States. I propose that for each of them whose temperature on July 15th of next year is higher than the temperature at the same station on July 16th of next year, I pay you $1. In return, you pay me $1 for each station whose temperature on July 15th of next year is higher than the temperature of the same station on December 15th of next year.

If weather and climate are equally unpredictable, you expect to earn $0 from this experiment, so to sweeten the pot I will pay you $50 to participate.

If you'd like, we can repeat it for every pair of days in July (1/2, 3/4, 5/6, ...) and pairs of odd-numbered days between July and December (July 1 / Dec 1, July 3 / Dec 3, ...) to reduce variance and thereby increase the chance that if your $0 expectation value is correct that you will get to keep most of that $50 payment.

Let me know.

By Douglas McClean (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma writes:
>It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe the addition of 1.66ml of CO2 into 1,000,000ml of air causes any measurable increase in the air temperature when exposed to infrared radiation.

I agree. Now answer what the cummulative effect will be if we add [174 Pg of carbon](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html) to the atmosphere? (174 PgC = 174 x10^15 g Carbon = 174 giga tonnes of C).

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Mark G (#682)

You wrote, Anyway, this is probably all beside the point, since Girma appears to be immune to all reason and ignorant anything done in physics since the 19th century.

It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe one can predict the strength and direction of ocean circulation from the cold waters in the deep oceans and the cold ocean waters near the north and south poles with the warm ocean surface water in the tropics.

The earthâs climate depends to a significant degree on ocean circulation.

Girma:

It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard

for Girma

to believe the addition of 1.66ml of CO2 into 1,000,000ml of air causes any measurable increase in the air temperature when exposed to infrared radiation.

For a climate sensitivity of 3K/CO2 doubling, 1.66 ppm of CO2 added to 288 ppm of extant CO2 produces an ultimate warming of 0.02 deg C.

Yes, 1.66 ppm of CO2 produces a very difficult to measure temperature rise but your argument is just a strawman. No-one is proposing only increasing CO2 by another 1.66 ppm. The expected rise is going to be a lot more than 1.66 ppm nomatter what.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma:

They believe in the unbelievable.

Which part or parts in the chain of evidence described in "The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps" don't you get? The only reason you think it's unbelievable is because you have a closed mind that ignores the evidence.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe the addition of 1.66ml of CO2 into 1,000,000ml of air causes any measurable increase in the air temperature when exposed to infrared radiation.

Once again, the professional incompetent Girma Orssengo makes multiple errors of science in one sentence.

In [2008](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) â in one single year - 1.66ppm CO2 were added to the atmosphere. The average for the last ten years is 1.88ppm/year, and for the last 15 years is 1.98ppm/year.

No-one is concerned about one or two ppm in isolation, but when one considers that humans have already added two orders of magnitude more CO2 to the atmosphere than the number that you cherry-picked (id est, >100ppm), then there is something to be concerned about.

And all the more so given the rate at which we are adding it to the atmosphere.

Further, it is not just a matter of infrared radiation â the physics of warming involves both long wave and short wave radiation.

To top it all off, it seems that you did not learn [your lesson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) about the effects of minute quantities of substances on systems.

Science is not something that you have any sort of a grasp of, is it Girma? It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe that you can genuinely mean the crap that you spout. I continue to be ever more staggered that you have even a Bachelor degree, let alone a Masters or a PhD.

I would be very curious to see if you could prove that you really are Girma Orssengo...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Chris (#686)

You wrote, For a climate sensitivity of 3K/CO2 doubling, 1.66 ppm of CO2 added to 288 ppm of extant CO2 produces an ultimate warming of 0.02 deg C.

Please show me how you arrived at the value 0.02 deg C.

It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe the addition of 1.66ml of CO2 into 1,000,000ml of air causes any measurable increase in the air temperature when exposed to infrared radiation.

Once again, the professional incompetent Girma Orssengo makes multiple errors of science in one sentence.

And like most intellectual wannabees, he does seem to have the thesaurus cracked wide open

Bernard J. (#688)

You wrote, Once again, the professional incompetent Girma Orssengo makes multiple errors of science in one sentence.

In 2008 â in one single year - 1.66ppm CO2 were added to the atmosphere. The average for the last ten years is 1.88ppm/year, and for the last 15 years is 1.98ppm/year.

I respond:

It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe the addition of 1ml of CO2 into 10,000ml of air causes 1 deg C increase in the air temperature when exposed to infrared radiation.

You also wrote, I would be very curious to see if you could prove that you really are Girma Orssengo...

I respond:

Please play the ball, not the man. Thank you.

Chris O'Neill (#687)

I will study the info: "The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps."

Thank you

Mark Byrne (#684)

Mark I really don't know the answer for that.

I am just posting the obstacles and questions I have to accepting CO2 driven global warming.

Mark I really don't know the answer for that. I am just posting the obstacles and questions I have to accepting CO2 driven global warming.

the 1.66 ppm increase in CO2 that you keep talking about would NOT be a problem for climate. the over 100 ppm increase over the years is a problem.

this is utterly obvious, and it is extremely strange, that we have to explain this to you over and over and over again.

Sod (#695)

You wrote, the 1.66 ppm increase in CO2 that you keep talking about would NOT be a problem for climate. the over 100 ppm increase over the years is a problem.

this is utterly obvious, and it is extremely strange, that we have to explain this to you over and over and over again.

I respond:

It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe the addition of 1ml of CO2 into 10,000ml of air causes 1 deg C increase in the air temperature when exposed to infrared radiation.

Girm, why do you suppose [your question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) (I cite in 684), is an *obstacle...to accepting CO2 driven global warming*? That a small change in 1 or 2 litres of air will not produce warming that can easily be measured. How do you think this contradicts AGW?

With AGW are talking about cummulative warming resulting from adding billions and billions of tonnes of heat trapping gas.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

Mark Byrne (#697)

Mark, is the heat trapping effect of CO2 different when there is 1ml of CO2 in 10,000ml compared to when there is 100ml of CO2 in 1,000,000ml of air?

The ratio of CO2 to air in both cases is 0.01%.

Girma@699

> Mark, is the heat trapping effect of CO2 different when there is 1ml of CO2 in 10,000ml compared to when there is 100ml of CO2 in 1,000,000ml of air?

> The ratio of CO2 to air in both cases is 0.01%.

Girma, Barton answered this already back at 557.

> Volume fraction doesn't matter.

> Absolute amount matters.

> Google "Beer's Law."

It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe the addition of 1ml of CO2 into 10,000ml of air causes 1 deg C increase in the air temperature when exposed to infrared radiation.

it is NOT extremely hard, to believe what basically every scientist with some knowledge on the subject is telling you.

Mark, is the heat trapping effect of CO2 different when there is 1ml of CO2 in 10,000ml compared to when there is 100ml of CO2 in 1,000,000ml of air? The ratio of CO2 to air in both cases is 0.01%.

a thought experiment with a glass and a bottle of vodka might help: there is 40% of alcohol in both. will it make any difference, when you drink one or the other?

a better comparison with CO2 is air (or water) with a few visible particles in it. (dust, for example)
just place one litre cube on the ground, and the light will still move through it next to unhindered. but staple 100 of them above each other, and you might start to see a difference.

the CO2 effect is (sort of) additive in each layer of the atmosphere. small lab experiments can only confirm the general properties of CO2. (it warms more than air, when hit by infrared light) the effect over the whole atmosphere must be CALCULATED. (it is the same with basically every bridge that is build: individual parts, like screws, can be tested in lab. but that the whole bridge will not collapse is only tested before by calculation)

Girma asks:

>*is the heat trapping effect of CO2 different when there is 1ml of CO2 in 10,000ml compared to when there is 100ml of CO2 in 1,000,000ml of air?*

[Yes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) say Barton

[Yes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) says Dave.

[Yes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) says Chris.

[Yes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) says Mark.

The thickness counts(layer on layer: each layer trapping, radiating and retrapping the heat). The pressure counts at different altitudes, the humidity counts.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 25 Aug 2009 #permalink

@Girma

You seem to be under the misapprehension that warming will be evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, because you simply don't understand how CO2 induced warming actually works - in spite of lengthy and patient explanations and useful links.

In simple terms, once again: the point is that here, right at the bottom of the atmosphere, we have gigatons of CO2 above us. That's more molecules that the IR has to travel past without hitting in order to get radiated out into space - and the more there are, the more likely that the IR will be blocked en route.

The warming you get at the bottom of a 10,000 ml cylinder will be different to that at the bottom of a 1,000,000 ml cylinder, which again will be different to the warming at the bottom of a cylinder the height of the atmosphere - even if the volume fraction of CO2 is the same in each case. The important thing is the total mass of CO2 the IR has to make its way past in order to get radiated out into space.

Hence the stratospheric cooling that we observe, as predicted.

Grima:

I can not accept the distinction between weather and climate. If you can not predict the short term, how on earth can you predict the long term?

By that reasoning, casinos don't exist. After all, you can't predict how one hand of blackjack will come out, so how can a casino predict anything at all?

Can I say if I launch a rocket to the moon, my accuracy increases as it moves away from the point of launch?

No. What relevance does that have to the discussion?

Climate is a chaotic system. And like all chaotic systems, say the stock market, it is unpredictable.

Many chaotic systems can be predicted statistically, just like the performance of a casino.

Let's get specific.

Weather is day-to-day variation in temperature, wind speed, humidity, precipitation, etc. It is chaotic and cannot be predicted accurately beyond about a week.

Climate is a long-term statistical AVERAGE of weather. The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more. Climate is deterministic and can be predicted far in advance if you specify the starting conditions. (Obviously we can't predict how much CO2 will be generated in 30 or 50 years, but if we assume a given path, we can make projections.)

Here are two examples to distinguish weather and climate.

I don't know what the temperature will be tomorrow in Tripoli, Libya (weather). I do know that it will almost certainly be higher than the temperature in Oslo, Norway (climate).

I don't know what the temperature will be in Cleveland on August 10th, 2010. I don't know what it will be on February 10th, 2010, either. (Weather.) I do know that it will almost certainly be higher in August than in February. (Climate.)

Grima:

They believe, for last year of 2008, a 0.34 deg C increase in global mean temperature above the 30 year long term average is CO2 driven global warming. Could this increase be caused by expansion of cities and growth of population as a result of increased asphalt roads, concrete buildings, brick houses, deforestation etc?

No. Check out these analyses of the urban heat island effect:

Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Imhoff, M., Lawrence, W., Easterling, D., Peterson, T., and Karl, T. 2001. "A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change." J. Geophys. Res. 106, 23947â23963.

Parker, DE. 2004. "Large-scale warming is not urban." Nature 432, 290.

Parker, DE. 2006. "A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban." Journal of Climate 19, 2882-2895.

Peterson, Thomas C. 2003. "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found." J. Clim. 16(18), 2941-2959.

Peterson T., Gallo K., Lawrimore J., Owen T., Huang A., McKittrick D. 1999. "Global rural temperature trends." Geophys. Res. Lett. 26(3), 329.

Sod (#701)

You wrote, a thought experiment with a glass and a bottle of vodka might help: there is 40% of alcohol in both. will it make any difference, when you drink one or the other?

My answer is it will not make a difference. What matters is the number of sips or volume I consumed. Don't you agree?

Barton

Thanks for #704 & #705

> My answer is it will not make a difference. What matters is the number of sips or volume I consumed. Don't you agree?

> Posted by: Girma

Nope, since you can take 1000 sips from the vodka bottle but you cannot stretch a shot glass to a thousand sips.

> Please show me how you arrived at the value 0.02 deg C.

> Posted by: Girma

It's in this bit:

> For a climate sensitivity of 3K/CO2 doubling, 1.66 ppm of CO2 added to 288 ppm of extant CO2 produces an ultimate warming of 0.02 deg C.

There's the working out.

Thanks Barton, Dave, Chris, Mark & Sod

So the lab result for CO2 can not be scaled up?

Grima:

It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe the addition of 1ml of CO2 into 10,000ml of air causes 1 deg C increase in the air temperature when exposed to infrared radiation.

Is this the 22nd time Grima has made this pseudo-point, or the 37th? How many times does he have to bring it up before we internalize the information that he doesn't care what we answer? He's a troll. Either he's astoundingly stupid, or astoundingly evil, and either way, we are wasting our time answering him. Either Tim should ban him or we should all just ignore him from now on.

I wish there was a formula like

Increase in air temperature = function (volume of CO2, volume of air, infrared radiation)

so that any one can calculate the effect of increase in CO2 on air temperature.

It is not easy!

Is "Girma" a Turing Test Candidate?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

I wish there was a formula like

Increase in air temperature = function (volume of CO2, volume of air, infrared radiation)

so that any one can calculate the effect of increase in CO2 on air temperature.

It is not easy!

Girma Orssengo, professional incompetent, it would not matter what formulæ you were given, because you would not know how to use it properly. You have been presented with much introductory science in the hundreds of posts that you have jammed Deltoid with, and you have not absorbed any grain of scientific knowledge in the whole time.

You are not here to learn. You are not here to understand. You are not here to participate in any serious science, and you are a disgrace to any teriary qualification that any institution might have accidentally bestowed upon you.

Whilst it is not impossible that an individual who has stepped once onto a university campus could be so absolutely incapable of even junior high school-level comprehension, I acknowledge that you might be one such individual. However, my strong suspicion is that you actually do know why the crap that you post is crap, and therefore you can only be a deliberate and mendacious troll.

Which is your perogative, but if you really are Girma Orssengo, you will discover in the future that being such an idiot on a medium that documents such behaviour forever was not a clever career move.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Sod (#701)wrote
>>, a thought experiment with a glass and a bottle of vodka might help: there is 40% of alcohol in both. will it make any difference, when you drink one or the other?

Girma repsonds:
>...it will not make a difference. What matters is the number of sips or volume I consumed. Don't you agree?

Heat escaping from the earth has got to go through the whole bottle, it can't opt for sips. The Atmosphere is either a shot-glass deep, or it is a bottle deep. In which world do you 'travel through' more alcohol?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Bernard J. (#714)

I cannot bring myself to believe in the unbelievable. AGW is just faith!

I am not alone. Read what the expert in the field says:

fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.

Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds.

John R Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, US

I repeat:-

Is "Girma" a Turing Test Candidate?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Bernard J (#714)

Please just play the ball, not the man. Thank you.

>I cannot bring myself to believe in the unbelievable. AGW is just faith!

For goodness sake Girma, where is your shame.

Would you like us to list-off the bogus claims you have pronounced your faith in on this thread alone? And how many times have we provided evidence to correct you and you accuse other of "just faith".

TS, What is a Turing Test Candidate, cos I'm hoping there is some payoff for dealing with Girma.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma.

You are pitching dog turds, not balls.

One cannot but help wonder what sort of person would pitch dog turds.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma,

You've had some excellent advice and information, so I'm intersted if you've bothered to take any of it in.

Several people here have pointed to Beer's Law to point out the flaw in your 'thought experiment'.

Have you now looked at Beer's Law and understood it and your error?

Mark Byrne (#720)

Please play the ball, not the man!

Here is the ball in our game.

I say AGW is faith, and I provide evidence why it is unbelievable.

You say AGW is fact, and you provide evidence why it is believable.

The person Girma or Mark are immaterial. Next century we both will not be here, but the ideas that we help establish now will be.

Michael (#722),

Yes. I have now doubts whether I can scale up the lab experiment.

You guys please give me a break. It is my first week of blogging here, so I have a lot yet to learn. So please don't be harsh.

OK Girma, Lets look at some evidence. Here is as taste of the evidence that you do not present accurate information.

Girma writes:
>*The result of the [IPCC] summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming, ignoring the effects of 1) variation in solar radiation, 2) variation in the orbits and tilt of the earth, 3) variation in the green house effect of from 1% to 4% water vapor in the atmosphere, 4) variation in the circulation in the atmosphere, 5) variation in the circulation of the sea and 6) variation in other variables that affect global temperature.*

Do you agree that you did misrepresented the science and the IPCC in your quote above?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Step 1 Girma makes a bunch of false calms about the science of climate change.

Step 2 Girma is provided with evidence and many links to correct the claims he made.

Step 3 Repeat steps 1 and 2 a few more times.

Setp 4 Girma acknowledges that he has learned some thing

Step 5 Ayn Rand is a 'genius'.

Step 6 Repeat step 3.

Step 7 Girma learns about the problem in scaling up his 'thought experiment'.

Step 8 Girma tells the people who have provided him with evidence (evidence which corrected his untrue claims) that they are acting on faith.

Step 9 Girma gets called on the shamefulness of this step 8 in the context of steps 1-though-8.

Step 10 Girma asks not to be called on the shamefulness of his step 8, and asks me to play the ball not the man.

Girma, have I been unfair in this ten step summary?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

> One cannot but help wonder what sort of person would pitch dog turds.

> Posted by: Bernard J.

A shitckicker, I would suggest.

(A genuine term in the US midwest).

Girma, read these two sentences:

@717
>*AGW is just faith!*

@725
>*You guys please give me a break. It is my first week of blogging here, so I have a lot yet to learn. So please don't be harsh.*

Do you think you should be making the first statement given the level of your knowledge>

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

> You guys please give me a break. It is my first week of blogging here, so I have a lot yet to learn. So please don't be harsh.

You've posted the same drivel elsewhere at least as far back as September 2008, according to google.

> So the lab result for CO2 can not be scaled up?

> Posted by: Girma

The lab experiment is not the atmosphere.

Your lab experiment can prove that CO2 absorbs IR and how readily.

But your bottle experiment is only one layer of the atmosphere since the pressure at the bottom is the same as the pressure at the top. This is not the case in a real atmosphere.

What you need is a model: each layer of about the same temperature is taken as your bottle. But the next layer above gets the effect of all the layers below it added to its flux to impede.

When you do so, as Gilbert Plass did in 1956, you find that such a model where only CO2 is modified produces a sensitivity to CO2 doubling of about 6.5 Celsius.

Do the maths yourself. It required the power of a '56 era mainframe computer but you get that power now in your programmable calculator now.

And when you've done so, does the idea that even if you take ALL POSSIBLE cooling feedbacks and minimuse the warming ones to their minimum that you won't see less than 2.5C per doubling seem unconscionable a leap?

"Yes. I have now doubts whether I can scale up the lab experiment. - Girma.

Excellent.

And, in relation to Beer's Law, you understand how your 'it's only 0.01% CO2' statement is wrong?

Everyone seems to have missed this from Grima:

> is the heat trapping effect of CO2 different when there is 1ml of CO2 in 10,000ml compared to when there is 100ml of CO2 in 1,000,000ml of air?

When he's all fired-up about how this is a 0.01% change (where this indicates that he himself thinks that the effect would be different).

Seems he thinks whatever is convenient when it's convenient to think it...

Mark Byrne (#726)

I stand by my statement in that post for the following reasons:

No global warming since 1998, with increase in CO2 for more than a decade. The anomaly for 1998 was 0.53 deg C and for last year, 2008, was 0.34 deg C.

[Anomaly Data]( http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/gl…)

Temperature anomaly increased by only 0.34 deg C since 1878, because there was global cooling by 0.55 deg C from 1878 to 1909. This cancels most of the global warming in the last century leaving a 0.35 deg C warming in 130 years. See Anomaly data above.

The 0.33 deg C increase in mean global temperature could easily be due to variation in the strength and direction of ocean circulation from the cold waters in the deep oceans, the cold ocean waters near the north and south poles, to the warm ocean surface water in the tropics.

The 0.34 deg C change in mean global temperature could also be due to expansion of cities and growth of population as a result of increased asphalt roads, concrete buildings, brick houses, deforestation etc.

As a result, there is no dangerous global warming!

Girma, you are saying that you are standing by the claims you make in this quote:

>The result of the [IPCC] summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming, ignoring the effects of 1) variation in solar radiation, 2) variation in the orbits and tilt of the earth, 3) variation in the green house effect of from 1% to 4% water vapor in the atmosphere, 4) variation in the circulation in the atmosphere, 5) variation in the circulation of the sea and 6) variation in other variables that affect global temperature.

Is that correct?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

> No global warming since 1998, with increase in CO2 for more than a decade. The anomaly for 1998 was 0.53 deg C and for last year, 2008, was 0.34 deg C.

Complete idiot. You just failed secondary school statistics. Congratulations. For a supposed PhD, you are now officially less capable than the average teenager.

> The 0.34 deg C change in mean global temperature could also be due to expansion of cities and growth of population as a result of increased asphalt roads, concrete buildings, brick houses, deforestation etc.

You've had a clear and unequical answer on this with helpful citations. I take back what I said about you operating at a secondary school level. Most people get past the stage where they think that something will go away if they just put their hands over their eyes before they even start school, so you are now officially less capable than a toddler.

Mark Byrne (#726)

I stand by my statement in that post for the following reasons:

No global warming since 1998, with increase in CO2 for more than a decade. The anomaly for 1998 was 0.53 deg C and for last year, 2008, was 0.34 deg C.

[Anomaly Data]( http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/gl…)

Temperature anomaly increased by only 0.34 deg C since 1878, because there was global cooling by 0.55 deg C from 1878 to 1909. This cancels most of the global warming in the last century leaving a 0.35 deg C warming in 130 years. See Anomaly data above.

The 0.34 deg C increase in mean global temperature could easily be due to variation in the strength and direction of ocean circulation from the cold waters in the deep oceans, the cold ocean waters near the north and south poles, to the warm ocean surface waters in the tropics.

The 0.34 deg C change in mean global temperature could also be due to expansion of cities and growth of population as a result of increased asphalt roads, concrete buildings, brick houses, deforestation etc.

As a result, there is no dangerous CO2 driven global warming!

I have also read the following results:

- From satellite temperature measurements, the warming patch due to greenhouse warming at about 10km above the equator does not exist.

- In the relationship between increase in mean global temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is the temperature that first increases followed by increase in CO2 (released from the oceans).

- Like a curtain, after a given amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, addition of more CO2 does not result in more absorption of infrared radiation.

Dave (#738)

Please play the ball, not the man!

Thank you.

Girma, are your really saying that what you have written in 738 & 739 makes each of the claims in this quote factually correct, and none are a misrepresentation of the science nor the IPCC:
>*The result of the [IPCC] summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming, ignoring the effects of 1) variation in solar radiation, 2) variation in the orbits and tilt of the earth, 3) variation in the green house effect of from 1% to 4% water vapor in the atmosphere, 4) variation in the circulation in the atmosphere, 5) variation in the circulation of the sea and 6) variation in other variables that affect global temperature.*

Is that what you are claiming?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma

> Please play the ball, not the man!

You don't seem to understand what that means.

You are not wrong because you are an idiot.

You are wrong because the evidence has been shown and you have no answer to it other than to pretend it does not exist.

And you are an idiot for doing so.

Girma:

You wrote, For a climate sensitivity of 3K/CO2 doubling, 1.66 ppm of CO2 added to 288 ppm of extant CO2 produces an ultimate warming of 0.02 deg C.
Please show me how you arrived at the value 0.02 deg C.

0.02 = 3 X log(289.66/288)/log(2)

3K/CO2 doubling is explained in "The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps", step 5.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

> From satellite temperature measurements...

Wrong.

> In the relationship between increase...

Wrong.

> Like a curtain, after a given amount of...

Wrong.

Debunkings of all of these have been available for ages, easily accessible, on this very blog.

Come back when you've found the explanations and have something new to add.

Girma:

>I have also read the following results:
From satellite temperature measurements, the warming patch due to greenhouse warming at about 10km above the equator does not exist.
>In the relationship between increase in mean global temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is the temperature that first increases followed by increase in CO2 (released from the oceans).
>Like a curtain, after a given amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, addition of more CO2 does not result in more absorption of infrared radiation.

I've read that President Bush is controlled by lizard men. How should I find if that is true?

Mark (#736)

Yes I do for the reason I posted at #739

#738 and 739 are like watching a scene from the Exorcist where all the vomit comes out as the demon feels threatened.

Mark (#741)

There is no CO2 driven global warming!

Girma, so if I could prove that any of the claimed facts in the quote (to follow) are incorrect, then you would be wrong?

>The result of the [IPCC] summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming, ignoring the effects of 1) variation in solar radiation, 2) variation in the orbits and tilt of the earth, 3) variation in the green house effect of from 1% to 4% water vapor in the atmosphere, 4) variation in the circulation in the atmosphere, 5) variation in the circulation of the sea and 6) variation in other variables that affect global temperature.

Is that correct Girma?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Mark Byrne (#741)

If you have noticed something incorrect let me know and I will look at it.

Have you read the IPCC reports Girma?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Mark Byrne(#751)

I have read their summary that is reported in the media.

Mark Byrne (#751),

I would write that quote differently now. I can not be sure that whether they have ignored or included the other variables other than CO2. Yes, I was sloppy.

> I have read their summary that is reported in the media.

If you're going to criticise it and repeat well-worn tropes from the denialist echochamber verbatim, the least you could do would be to have the decency to read [the report itself](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ipcc+report&l=1).

Wouldn't it be better to close comments?

Girma is a zealous denialist that can't even compute an increase. Ignore him.

Girma writes:

It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe the addition of 1.66ml of CO2 into 1,000,000ml of air causes any measurable increase in the air temperature when exposed to infrared radiation.

and later writes:

It is extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, enormously hard to believe the addition of 1ml of CO2 into 10,000ml of air causes 1 deg C increase in the air temperature when exposed to infrared radiation.

Girma must get tired from moving his goal posts around all day. No wonder he needs a break.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Mark Byrne (#726)

I stand by my statement in that post for the following reasons:

No global warming since 1998, with increase in CO2 for more than a decade. The anomaly for 1998 was 0.53 deg C and for last year, 2008, was 0.34 deg C.
...blah, blah, blah...

...urban heat island...

...blah, blah, blah...

Girma Orssengo, recalcitrant profession incompetent, you are regurgitating old Denialist memes that have long been discredited, and it further discredits you that you see fit to try to foist them here once again.

It is well recognised that the 1998 peak was a temperature record resulting from an extreme El Niño event superimposed upon GHG-forced warming, and hence it represents noise overlaying a signal.

If you were an even half-competent scientist you would understand this.

Consider this example: here in Australia it is well past mid-winter, and therefore temperatures will progressively warm as summer approaches. But hang on â the last few days where I live have been decidedly colder than last week, or even than most of July, which was one of the warmest Julys on record. According to your interpretation of the 1998 peak, summer is not approaching because today was colder than last week.

Is this the case? Obviously not, and we know this because we understand how noise can superimpose on a signal. It is exactly the same with the mean global temperature increase over decades â the signal of increase is there, and is persisting right up to today, even though there was an anomalous noisy peak in 1998.

You are engaging in a grade school logical fallacy, that any trend in a time series must be monotonic. Alas for you, you are completely wrong.

If you do not understand this, you should not be engaged in mathematics, in statistical analyses, or in any science at all.

I suspect though that you understand this perfectly well, and that you are continuing with a game of baiting and bandwidth jamming.

Let's consider an example of data that have some relevance to your apparent field of work. Dwell upon figure 7 [here](http://www.access-board.gov/research/dw-fhwa/report.htm) â according to your logic, there is no causal relationship between % cloud cover and mean horizontal illuminance, because the data are not distributed monotonically.

Or how about a plot of the [Dow Jones](http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth484/DowJonesAdj.jpg), which looks remarkably like the trend in global temperature over the last century. According to your thesis, the Dow Jones will no longer continue to increase, because there was a peak in 1998. However, even being the economic pessimist that I am, I reckon that would be a big call... Perhaps in another decade or so, when Peak Oil and the current growth-predicated paradigms of economic management really kick in and press their (largely new) influences upon the global economy the upward trend will halt, but that is a scenario not reflected in the physics of global warming over a similar timescale.

I could continue with countless examples, and perhaps others will join in just to see how you interpret such data, but I hope that I have made a point.

Normally I would not persist in engaging one as mind-bogglingly trollish as yourself (I consider my previous stoushes with Tim Curtin to have even more purpose than any with you), however on the assumption that you really are a person called Girma Orssengo I am moved to correct you once again, and point out how professionally incompetent and irresponsible you are, so as to leave a record for posterity and for Google.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

> There is no CO2 driven global warming!

> Posted by: Girma

Yes there is.

If greenhouse gasses didn't work to warm the world we'd be 33C colder and a big ball of ice.

> No global warming since 1998, with increase in CO2 for more than a decade

2005 was the record.

Oops.

Greasemonkey, boys. Greasemonkey.

Best,

D

759 Mark,

To be fair, it depends if you use GISTEMP or HADCRUT.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

The anomaly last year was ONLY a miniscule 0.34 deg C above the 30 year mean. This year's will not be higher.

This 0.34 deg C increase in mean global temperature could easily be due to variation in the strength and direction of ocean circulation from the cold waters in the deep oceans, the cold ocean waters near the north and south poles, to the warm ocean surface waters in the tropics.

This 0.34 deg C change in mean global temperature could also be due to expansion of cities and growth of population as a result of increased asphalt roads, concrete buildings, brick houses, deforestation etc.

As a result, there is no dangerous CO2 driven global warming!

Yes, CO2 driven global warming is a myth as a result of groupthink and unverifiable computer models.

In the previous century peopleâs freedom was taken from them by force. I hope it will not be taken from us in this century be deception.

From the one who only seeks the truth!

Wish you happiness, health and prosperity. With LOVE!

@387

Ed Brayton's common sense argument reminds me of a long-ago undergrad prof who told us he thought that burning hydrocarbons for fuel was kind of dumb, given that they were so much more valuable for making things like plastics and chemicals.

And y'know, it's amusing how the same free market/libertarian types who are always praising the transformative power of innovation to create new industries and wealth through "creative destruction" suddenly get the vapors over the prospect of new green technologies and industries "creatively destroying" the precious existing oil and manufacturing businesses.

As a layperson I accept that I have to take expert opinion on a given scientific subject at face value without detailed understanding...for the same reason I trusted the opinion and expertise of a urologist for my recent kidney stones over than, say, a mechanical engineer.

Found my way here via Pharyngula, BTW. Just recently started poking around ScienceBlogs.

Found my way here via Pharyngula, BTW

Don't take this thread as being typical of the level of discussion at Deltoid. This thread's been flooded by pig-headed ignorant trolls like Girma.

Girma:

The anomaly last year was ONLY a miniscule 0.34 deg C above the 30 year mean. This year's will not be higher.

There is no way you could know this years will not be higher. In fact, the Hadcrut3 average for the first 7 months of this year is already 0.09 deg C higher than 2008 and very likely to go higher still because the weather is no longer in a La Nina phase and has changed to an El Niño phase.

In any case you cannot know that this years will not be higher so you are lying Girma. In case you don't realize, liars have zero credibility.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

> This 0.34 deg C change in mean global temperature could also be due to expansion of cities and growth of population as a result of increased asphalt roads, concrete buildings, brick houses, deforestation etc.

Liar. This was shown to be wrong in this thread. Copy and pasting this once again makes you no longer stupid, but an out and out, shameless, brazen, intellectually crippled liar.

> As a result, there is no dangerous CO2 driven global warming!

As a result of what, you repeating the same lie again with your fingers in your ears? Interesting approach.

> Yes, CO2 driven global warming is a myth as a result of groupthink and unverifiable computer models.

Liar. From someone who copies and pastes denialist groupthink without even understanding it.

> From the one who only seeks the truth!

Liar. You've already said what you seek - dimwitted comfort by manipulating graphs to massage your prejudices.

So there you go. Girma Orssengo is not merely stupid, but a liar.

And also a really crap debater, frankly.

Hi, my first post here, looking with amazement at 765 comments on the announcement of a lecture by a proper scientist. I usually stick with Pharyngula where such things sometimes happen; but there the trolls are (mostly) creationists. Lots of similarities though, including:
- Repeated requests for "evidence".
- Refusal to engage the evidence when presented.
- A demonstration, in every post, that they are not intelligent enough to understand the evidence, or why it is evidence at all - ooh that science is just so damn complicated!
- Constant complaints that commentators are rude, even harsh.
- A demonstration, with every post, of the reality of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
- A conviction, in every post, that their "beliefs" trump reality.
- A complete disregard for the work of people whose entire professional life has been dedicated to examining the question they think they know the answer to.
- The paranoia of the true conspiracy theorist.
- Their evident adherence to the one true conspiracy, the conspiracy of idiocy that so blights our planet.
Well, Girma fits this model precisely, I think.
Did I miss anything?
AnthonyK

Oh, and nice takedowns, guys.

767 AnthonyK,

Welcome. I like what PZ Myers does at Pharyngula.

Yes, the similarities, in both mindset and "argument", between Creationists and Climate Science Deniers are striking.

This thread is unusually long because Marc Morano sent a bunch of his goblins and trolls over here, and because "Girma" has kept repeating the same stuff over and over, with no indication of understanding any of the replies at even a basic level.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

They tell us the data that exists doesnât exist.

They tell us the data that doesnât exist exists.

From 1878 to 1909, according to their own [anomaly data](http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/gl…), which they can possibly doctor as a simultaneous judge and prosecutor, which they sometime [refuse to give the public]( http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25416631-11949,00.ht…), the world and its population was exposed to a cooling of 0.55 deg C. Does not the cooling by 0.55 deg C more dangerous than the warming by 0.34 deg C? Donât more people die in winter than summer? Donât more people die in cold weather than warm one? You know the answer your self! For a complete answer, please read Bjorn Lomborgâs book âCool Itâ.

They donât want you to know the cooling from 1878 to 1909 because in effect it cancels the warming from 1909 to 2008 of 0.9 deg C (0.9 â 0.55 = 0.35 deg C). 0.35 deg C is the warming in 130 years! There is no global warming! By the way, can they really measure the whole worlds mean temperate to the accuracy of 0.35 deg C?

[Anomaly Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureAnom…)

I will finish by including a relevant comment by an [expert Professor]( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm) in the field:

.. fundamental knowledge is meager here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring

Give me a warming of 0.34 deg C than a cooling of 0.55 deg C any day!

I have also demonstrated to this blog that the anomaly plots have âvisual magnificationâ

Sincerely

Girma (who mysteriously no longer makes any unknowable assertion about future temperature):

Sincerely

The sincerity of a liar.

By Chris O'Neiil (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma,

Do you now understand Beer's Law?

@Girma

> For a complete answer, please read Bjorn Lomborgâs book âCool Itâ

That would be the same [Bjorn Lomberg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8r\n_Lomborg#Accusations\_of\_scientific\_dishonesty) whose work was found to be scientifically dishonest by the DCSD, but who escaped censure because he was deemed to be essentially too scientifically illiterate to be taken seriously.

Shorter Girma:

1878 is the new 1998.

They donât want you to know

Ah, them again.
Which particular group would that be?

The little voices in your head?

Space pixies?

Tiny, invisible dogs?

Spoons?

Whoever, I don't think they're doing a very good job. Because you see, we do know - and you're just a classic internet madperson.
AnthonyK

>This 0.34 deg C increase in mean global temperature could....

>This 0.34 deg C change in mean global temperature could also...

>As a result, there is no dangerous CO2 driven global warming!

Girma: Your logical skills are as poor as your scientific knowledge, I'm sorry to say. Under no circumstances are your two "coulds" equal to your "is". You make these statements by the way, but you don't provide any references to prove it. Your previous comments have convinced me that you make up these examples (when you feel like it) without verification. As as result it's not really worth anyone's time to comment on them.

(I have to ask however: how does an apparently unnoticed change in ocean circulation cause a .34deg change in global temperature over a 30 year period? Like many of your more confident assertions under scrutiny they prove to be "not even wrong".

I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. Some others here have also, but it's clear now that it's impossible to debate with you, you are not debating honourably. You may choose to interpret this as a personal attack, it is not however, it's merely an observation.

On a more personal note: You really need to read more than just Rand. She was an idiot.

Chris OâNeill (#735)

You worte, In any case you cannot know that this years will not be higher so you are lying Girma. In case you don't realize, liars have zero credibility.

I agree that my statement âThis year's will not be higherâ (than last year's 0.34 deg C) is just an educated guess.

Let us look at the [data](http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt)

For 2009 the monthly global anomalies in deg C are as follows:

  • Jan => 0.30
  • Feb => 0.35
  • Mar => 0.21
  • Apr => 0.09
  • May => 0.05
  • Jun => 0.01
  • Jul => 0.42

From the above data, the average for 2009 so far is only a comforting 0.20 deg C.

With the fact that it is going to be the cold season until December in the northern hemisphere, and the mean so far is only 0.20 deg C, I said âThis yearâs will not be higher" . I owe you a Christmas card, if it is higher!

MarkG (#776)

You wrote, On a more personal note: You really need to read more than just Rand. She was an idiot.

Look at a snippet of [Randâs]( http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_the_nature…) writing:

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationshipsâthus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, un coerced agreement.

Is this not the writing of a genius?

>Is this not the writing of a genius?

I'm pretty sure "No Hitting" was a rule I learned in kindergarten. Writing a paragraph that says "No Hitting" but includes the word "thus" is not evidence of genius, no.

I should add that in a world where using "thus" makes you a genius, I am thusly a genius.

Mark G (#779)

"No Hitting" is to short for me.

I am not just satisfied with a subject and a verb.

I love the adverbs, the adjectives, and the modifier to paint a pictorial image in my head.

Mark G (#779)

"No Hitting" is to short for me.

I am not just satisfied with a subject and a verb.

It the adverbs, the adjectives, and the modifiers that do their magic on me.

Pompous verbosity is not the hallmark of genius.

Girma,

Still wondering if you now understand Beer's Law?

Michale (#782)

It seems my thought experiment is not applicable for the whole atmosphere. I have withdrawn it! Thank you.

Michale (#783)

Give me a problem to solve using Beer's Law (BeerâLambertâBouguer Law) and I will post you the answer.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships

Gee whiz, what a breakthrough idea that was.

People criticize Rand because she advocates voluntary, un coerced social relationship.

It is obvious that those who criticize here stand for compulsory, coercive social relationships.

Girma@787

Noting attempted thread hijack ...

Nobody here has, as far as I can see, attacked rand for association with advocacy of "voluntary, uncoerced social relationship(s)"[note tautology] so your consequent doesn't follow.

I daresay that each of us here would favour the notion of freedom to choose one's social relationships.

There is also a potential affirming the consequent fallacy here. One may attack Rand for "advocacy of voluntary, uncoerced social relationships" on the basis not of opposition to such relationships but on the basis that

a) such relationships already exist and are affirmed as the preferred mode by civilised society so the advocacy is a banality or misdirection
b) such relationships, while not ethically objectionable are not superior to those that can be characterised as something other than voluntary, uncoerced social relationships or
c) distinguishing voluntary, uncoerced social relationships from something else is empirically difficult because notions of what is voluntary are rendered complex by normative behaviour, so the advocacy is meaningless other than in purely aspirational terms

You cannot conclude that hostility to one thing entails affirming its ostensible polar opposite.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

"It seems my thought experiment is not applicable for the whole atmosphere. I have withdrawn it! Thank you." - Girma.

That's good Girma, but it's only part of the story.

Yes, it means that your experiment was fatally flawed, but it's also a fundamental piece of physics for understanding AGW.

We hear lots from denialists about how CO2 is - 'only 0.x% of the atmosphere, how can that make a difference'.

So, you now also see how this is a flawed argument?

Shorter Girma: *Your either with Ayn Rand or your with the terrorists!*

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Fran Barlow (@788)

I wrote a comment about Rand's advocacy of voluntary, uncoerced social relationship.

People attack her without pointing out which of her IDEAS they are attacking.

What else can I conclude?

Michael @789

you wrote, So, you now also see how this is a flawed argument?

Yes, I have now doubts with that argument.

[Girma says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)

>I agree that my statement âThis year's will not be higherâ (than last year's 0.34 deg C) is just an educated guess. ...

No, it's an uneducated guess.

>With the fact that it is going to be the cold season until December in the northern hemisphere, and the mean so far is only 0.20 deg C, I said âThis yearâs will not be higher" . I owe you a Christmas card, if it is higher!

Girma, I'll bet you $100 that the anomaly for 2009 will be higher than that for 2008.

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 26 Aug 2009 #permalink

Choose any dataset you like. This year, an El Nino year, will be warmer than last year, a La Nina year, barring a large explosive volcanic eruption. And no, you can't compare the anomaly of one analysis to that of a different analysis.

Grima is a piece of work, isnt he.

He takes Tim's bet - but in accepting it, modifies it. Tim said 'warmer than 2008.' Grima says 'warmer than 0.34.'

Grima then proposes to decide the bet using the denialist-favorite UAH dataset, in which the 2008 anomaly was not 0.34. In which, in fact, the warmest monthly anomaly in 2008 was only 0.25.

No Grima, if you are going to explicitly state the value of 0.34 as a condition of the bet, then honesty constrains you to use the dataset from which the 0.34 value was taken.

Gaz @795

You wrote, Girma, people criticize Rand because she advocated a world where people behave like chimps

I have read most of her books and here is what she wrote:

The New Intellectuals must remind the world that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man's right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit to his own happiness - which means: man's right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. (P53, For the New Intellectual, Signet, 1961.)

Gaz, how does this compare with your characterization?

"Yes, I have now doubts with that argument." - Girma.

OK.

So now you know your experiment, whch you put great emphasis on, is irrelevent, and that the small % of CO2 agrument is flawed, you accept that the world has warmed and it's clear that humans are putting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Epiphany?

Girma,

>*⦠Rand was narcissistic in the extreme. She lacked empathy. She could be intensely charming (charm and charisma are common features of sociopathy) but was also prone to outbursts of rage and frustration.*

>*She exploited young, emotionally vulnerable people and frequently sabotaged their self-image with her vindictive cruelty. She claimed to love her husband but carried on an affair with a younger man right in front of him, a situation that drove her husband to alcoholism.*

>*She despised "average" people, whom she regarded as ugly and stupid and irrational, while viewing herself in exalted terms as the greatest writer in history and the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.*

>*She was concerned with no one's needs or wants or suffering except her own. She was able to claim in print that no one had ever helped her, when in fact she had benefited for years from the charity and goodwill of relatives and business associates and friends. She alienated nearly all her friends and allies by the end of her life, and died nearly alone.*

If [this is accurate](http://authormichaelprescott.blogspot.com/2005/03/was-ayn-rand-evil.html), I think the quote you present is a hypocrite talking out of the other side of her face.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma, Rand was a [cult leader](http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html):

>*Rand cult explicitly atheist, anti-religious, and an extoller of Reason; it also promoted slavish dependence on the guru in the name of independence; adoration and obedience to the leader in the name of every personâs individuality; and blind emotion and faith in the guru in the name of Reason.*

>*Virtually every one of its members entered the cult through reading Randâs lengthy novel Atlas Shrugged, which appeared in late 1957, a few months before the organized cult came into being. Entering the movement through a novel meant that despite repeated obeisances to Reason, febrile emotion was the driving force behind the acolyteâs conversion.*

You are showing signs of a similar slavish devotion, be careful.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Rand was the just the latest (back then) to exalt in some kind of misguided uber-Darwinian fantasy.

They completely misunderstood the natural world and wanted to subject human kind to their misappropriation.

Girma (#798), exactly.
The study I referred to showed chimps behave exactly as Rand's "man's right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself".

Humans, on the other hand, care about each other and behave that way, something which is reflected in the way they organise their societies.

Rand's "philosophy" skirts around a whole range of issues, including externalities like global warming.

The last phrase from your quote illustrates this nicely: "..the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit."

What happens when, as it so often does in a crowded and technologically advanced world, the "voluntary exchange" affects others who are not voluntary parties to it - people in poor countries affected by climate change caused by people in rich countries, people in future generations, drought-affected farmers, etc.

Rand has nothing sensible to say about that (among other issues), which is a shame because it's possibly the biggest challenge humans have ever faced.

There are plenty of people trumpeting "man's right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit to his own happiness" as a reason to ignore or deny the reality of cliamte change, because to do otherwise would be to acknowledge that free markets are just not enough to make the world a decent place.

As I said, juvenile nonsense.

If you want free markets, but with a bit of common sense, institutional reality and humanity thrown in, try Adam Smith. All of Adam Smith, not just the bits the libertarians are fond of quoting.

By the way, where did that figure of 0.34 come from? Not from the UAH data in your link, that's for sure.

Janet @800.

Why do we worry about the personality of geniuses? We are not going to live with them. Most of them had relationship problems. However, what we need is to learn from their writing their exceptional understanding of our world.

Here is from Rand on a proper social system:

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

This is the means of subordinating âmightâ to ârightâ. This is the American concept of âa government of laws and not of menâ

Guys, it is a free gift. If you have not so far, read Rand. She is a genius. Take what you find useful, ignore the useless. She has lots of enemies and that is why she is being smeared. Donât insert an intermediary between yourself and an original idea.

#804 I've read Rand, I find Gaz closer to the truth than Girma.

Girma, how many times have you read Atlas Shrugged?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Janet @807

Just once. I am more into her philosophy (For the New Intellectual, read it more than 3 times) than her novels.

> Here is the anomaly data.

> Posted by: Girma

Nope, that's just a text file.

Where did the data come from?

From my reading, what Ayn Rand has not addressed is how to help those who need help.

But there is not a complete political system. At least in hear case, unlike books by other philosophers, you can finish her books and reread them.

Is it rational to wish for earthâs climate that by its nature always changes not to change?

Is is rational to dishonestly suggest that current anthropogenic (you know what this means, right?) climate change is the same as past natural non-anthropogenic climate change?

Nope.

@Girma

> Is it rational to wish for earthâs climate that by its nature always changes not to change?

Is it rational to wish for current climate change to be natural and unavoidable when all evidence indicates otherwise?

Is it rational to zoom out from a graph so you don't have to look at how serious the fine details are?

Grima, you can't compare anomalies between two data sets with different baselines. We can use the BOM data (2008 anomaly = 0.34) or the UAH data (2008 anomaly = 0.05). I'll let you out of the bet if you've now realized that you were comparing anomalies with different baselines and that the bet is very likely a loss for you.

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma:

I agree that my statement âThis year's will not be higherâ (than last year's 0.34 deg C) is just an educated guess.
Let us look at the data
For 2009 the monthly global anomalies in deg C are as follows:

Jan => 0.30

Feb => 0.35

Mar => 0.21

Apr => 0.09

May => 0.05

Jun => 0.01

Jul => 0.42

From the above data, the average for 2009 so far is only a comforting 0.20 deg C.

I can see why you have so much difficultly with the concept of anomaly. Every anomaly has a baseline and in your careless haste to reach the conclusion you wanted to reach, you have compared two sets of anomalies with different baselines. If you hadn't been so careless you would have checked the average anomaly for 2008 in your data that you used to calculate the average anomaly for 2009 so far. The average anomaly for 2008 in your data is 0.05 rather than the 0.34 from the other data set. So t2lt is 0.15 deg C warmer so far this year than last years average.

I have taken the bet. My payment will be 100 AUD if the temperature is above 0.34 deg C.
Shall we agree to look for the anomaly at this dataset?

Girma has given himself a dishonest out here. He's basing his bet on 0.34 deg C which has nothing to do with this dataset. I wonder what he will do. Show the world he's a lying fraud or an incompetent ignorant moron.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

> Mark @809

> From the Australian Bureau of Metrology

> Posted by: Girma

Good. Now where did this dataset come from?

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

(from post 794:

> Shall we agree to look for the anomaly at this dataset?

> Good luck for both of us.

> Cheers

> Posted by: Girma

?

And Grima, that other data set you said you'd both be using in post 794 has this in the same month one year apart:

2008 7 0.06 0.24 -0.05 0.10 0.23 -0.01 0.01 0.26 -0.08 -0.12 0.00 -0.18 0.24 0.32 0.13 0.05 0.41 -0.04 0.56 0.58 0.53 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.19
2009 7 0.42 0.49 0.38 0.22 0.21 0.24 0.62 1.04 0.48 0.44 0.47 0.42 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.71 1.50 0.50 0.65 0.51 0.88 1.98 3.11 1.08 -0.55

20 out of 25 higher in 2009 than 2008.

Does it look like you're going to lose?

Tim @815

Thanks. I made a mistake of assuming they were the same. I owe you!

I could only find the last seven months data at UAH. They are not available at the Australian Bureau of Metrology.

I thought with the cold seasons coming, the anomaly would not jump from the seven-month mean of 0.2 to the yearly mean of 0.34 deg C.

Thanks Tim again.

Grima:
"Thanks. I made a mistake of assuming they were the same. I owe you!

I could only find the last seven months data at UAH. They are not available at the Australian Bureau of Metrology."

Oh, good god...
Grima is expounding on how we're all mistaken, and AGW is wrong - and he doesn't even know the basic facts of the field.

Even better, he claims to only have seen the last 7 months UAH data- but the link HE GAVE US, which I followed, has monthly AUH anomaly data going back to 1978. Grima is either spectacularly incompetent at reading a data table, or he is dishonest.

815 Tim,

Why can't we just use woodfortrees? We can choose any of the main datasets or the WFTI (average of all of them).

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

819 Girma,

Why 1878? Why not 1870, 1860, or 1850?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

> Thanks. I made a mistake of assuming they were the same. I owe you!

> Posted by: Girma

Hmm.

Different URLs didn't give you a hint, Grima?

grima:
"Do you acknowledge the cooling by 0.55 deg C from 1878 to 1909?"

Grima, you are cherry picking your end points. 1878 was a single exceptionally hot year - probably a major El Nino year. The graph you link starts at that one year - that is dishonest in the extreme, because both GISS and hadCRUT records extend previous to that. You truncated the record to start at an exceptional year. 1908 is the coldest or second coldest year on record. You cherry-picked your end point at the temperature trough of the entire record. And you excluded known data, equally valid data, on both sides of the interval. For someone who knows no statistics, this would be naive in the extreme. For someone like yourself, with a degree in an analytical science, it can only be seen as rank incompetence at best, or intellectually dishonest.

You are also pretending you can determine trends in a noisy data set by simply connecting the end points.
Using your same "technique" I could claim that there was warming of 0.75C between 1976 and 2005 - but I wont, because that would be equally incorrect and dishonest.

Your measured drop between those two cherry-picked years is a measure of the extreme values of the noise in the system, the weather - and not much more than that. You are trying to imply that it tells us something about the trend, and it does not.

Gaz:

Shorter Girma:
1878 is the new 1998.

It had to happen sooner or later. The 1998 anomaly relative to 20 year average is only exceeded by the 1878 anomaly.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Grima:

I owe you!

You could start paying him back by apologizing for all the dishonest assertions you've copied here from science denial websites.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Climate Scientist: [Shoots basketball, makes a basket.] Woo-hoo! That's two to zip.

Girma: No, You did not earn any points for that.

CS: Excuse me, I made the basket. That's two points for me.

G: No. Clearly I am a better basketball player than you. How could you be winning when I am so much better than you? It is not possible. Therefore the score is 0-0.

CS: The rules are the rules: you make a basket, you get two points. It is not complicated.

G: Perhaps. But is it not very very unfair that you would get two points and I would not get any? I propose that the score is 0-0. It would be silly not to agree that this is now settled.

CS: You are insane.

G: Please, this is not about me. It is about the game. Try not to bring me into it. [looks at rule book]. Ah, it's appears that you are correct. You have made a basket, you are entitled to two points. The score is 2-2.

CS: What!? Why do you get two points for doing nothing?

G: I think that you are being unreasonable. I have conceded that you have earned two points. Why would you argue that I have not also earned two points? Also, you are taller than me. Is it not obvious that you are taller than me? Why would this obvious fact not also be considered in the calculation of the score?

CS: It's 2-0, or I'm outta here.

G: Let me explain. You made the basket. Therefore, you should be awarded two points. That is what the RULES say. But what do the RULES say about NOT making the basket? Nothing! Thus, I also have two points!

CS: That's it. I'm going home.

G: Cheers!

Meteorologists, your one year, 365 days, 730 data values from all the temperature collection grid points of the globe for 1878 are now called noise and they want these measurements to be ignored. The data that exists does not exist!

Organisms of the earth, have not you experienced cooling from 1878 to 1909 of 0.55 deg C? If it was not 0.55 deg C, please tell us what was it? Or is the data does not matter? If we donât agree in the recorded data of the past, what chance do we have in agreeing on the projected temperatures of the future?

Is what kills an organism a yearly average temperature or the maximum or minimum temperature in one of the 365 days?

Regarding the anomaly plots, they are obtained by truncating the true mean global temperature profile from 13 to 15 deg C, translating the profile to the axis y = 0, stretching the profile vertically to fill the screen, and replacing 13 with â1 and 15 with 1. Because of this stretching in the vertical direction, there is visual magnification in the plot. To reflect this visual magnification in the [anomaly plot](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi), I request the labels â1 and 1 to be stretched in the vertical direction to increase their height without any change in their width to look very, very, very tall but thin.

Chris @826

You wrote, You could start paying him back by apologizing for all the dishonest assertions you've copied here from science denial websites.

It is sad to here "God" is on our side of the past is now being replaced with "Science" is on our side.

I could also claim "Science" is on my side.

Science has nothing to do with the majority who claim science is on their side; it has everything to do with the data.

Grima, you dishonest little fucktwit.

'they want these measurements to be ignored."

No, you idiot. We want them to be considered in context with ALL THE OTHER MEASUREMENTS. Which we said. which you either ignore, cant understand, or ar willlign t simply lie about.

"If we donât agree in the recorded data of the past"
Who the fuck is disagreeing about the data of the past? I fuly agree - the 1878 yearly anomaly value is the highest relative to its surroundign 20 year average that we see in the entire record. It was a hot year - I FUCKING SAID THAT!!!!!! Grima, you dishonest simpleton, you have to be bright enough to understand simple English.

"Is what kills an organism a yearly average temperature..." What kills ecosystems and species is the yearly average - the two week earlier spring, the 2 week later fall, the higher snow level and reduced snow pack and therefore reduced water storage, the failure to temperature-kill key predators, and on and on. If you knew anything about the issue (and it 's clear that either you don't, or you are willing to lie about it) you would know this.

I have 11 and 15 year old children. We are in the process of handing them a truly fucked and damaged world, a highly impoverished world - CO2 and warming is just one part of it - and fucks like this dishonest arrogant, mindless simple little fuckhead of a Randoid cult follower is controlling the conversation, because he refuses to know anything.

We, our world, our children - my children - our extraordinary and magnificent civilization and culture - we are all so fucked, and it is assholes like Grima who are allowing it to happen.

828 a lurker,

Ad hominem! Ad hominem!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

829 Girma,

That is an outrageous straw man!

No one said to ignore 1878. What we said is that you cannot pick out individual years and ignore the others.

Show us that you are not an incorrigible liar by changing your graph to start from 1850, 1860, or even 1870.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

829,

To reflect this visual magnification in the anomaly plot, I request the labels â1 and 1 to be stretched in the vertical direction to increase their height without any change in their width to look very, very, very tall but thin.

Have we been Poe'd ?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma:

I could also claim "Science" is on my side.

You could but you'd be lying.

Science has nothing to do with the majority who claim science is on their side; it has everything to do with the data.

The data you mis-quote, mis-interpret, mis-understand, cherry-pick, and ignore.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Lee @831

You wrote, No, you idiot. We want them to be considered in context with ALL THE OTHER MEASUREMENTS.

So the effect of the environment on an organismâs life in 1878 is somehow depends with yearly data from ALL THE OTHER MEASUREMENTS. How?

To find out about individuals you study the group.

To find out about patients you study hospitals.

It is the exceptional maximum or minimum temperature in a single INDIVIDUAL day that is vital in the life of an organism.

Girma, a system consists of various components that interact.
A system has a certain structure and so a degree of determinism in its operation. An analogy would be again a human body, it is a system and we can somehow anticipate what will happen to it when a certain event happen.
An injection of tiny amount of poison or virus would have a catastrophic effect. A mosquito bite can take a man down. This is because it is not solely the quantity of the contaminant but it is the design of the system.. its interactions of the various components.
Again like the anomaly plot, it's not just about its look, but the meaning of an anomaly in the context of how the system works, no matter how ever ways you want to present it.

Unless we understand the concept of a system, it is hard to appreciate the effects of perturbation to it. So another example is your 'bottle experiment' which is not useful to strengthen your argument, as you considered it to somehow mimic the real system.
You need to spend years pondering and observing the system to make meaningful inferences to it.
Otherwise you can always come up with anything at all - as what you have been doing in this blog - to bring up your arguments again and again based on irrelevant reasoning. Perhaps what your idol Ayn Rand missed out is to provide cautionary notes on the interpretation of her philosophy. It is to reason thoughtfully based on the right knowledge and understanding, not excuses for the sake of convenience, one's own private interest, one's own happiness - how ever one wants to define what 'happiness' means to them.
The concept of Selfishness is not considered to apply to one's own interest, but it is more about our respect towards others' privacy, possession, happiness. It's about putting ourselves in other people's shoes.
If we expect others to respect our possession, happiness then do the same towards others. That's how the world can operate in peace. It's not completely different from altruism, it's also mutual benefit, it's sharing, interdependence, teamwork, sympathetic joy. In any case, science is about observations, experience, experiments, and so builds a foundation for a meaningful reasoning. It is separate from policy, politics, superficial analysis.
So thanks to J. Akerman (#603) to bring this up. Because this explains why it has been difficult to explain the science - because we seem to be on different wavelength, talking about different thing and intention.

Chris O'Neill @836

You wrote, The data you mis-quote, mis-interpret, mis-understand, cherry-pick, and ignore.

Based on their own [anomaly data](http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/gl…), which they unfairly keep as simultaneous witness, judge and prosecutor, we have these values:

  • Year=>anomaly(deg C)
  • 1878=>-0.01
  • 1909=>-0.56

From this data, I stated there was GLOBAL COOLING by 0.55 deg C from 1878 to 1909. If the data is true, then this conclusion is TRUE and Chrisâ comment above is invalid!

Global mean surface temperature has increased by 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the last 100
years, with temperatures over land rising much quicker than over oceans.

[IPCC Working Group II]( http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/speeches/jean-pascal-van-yersele-may-2007.p…)

As what is good for the goose is good for the gander, I say:

Global mean surface temperature has increased by 0.35°C (0.6°F) over the last 130
years.

The data you mis-quote, mis-interpret, mis-understand, cherry-pick, and ignore.

Girma:

Based on their own anomaly data, which they unfairly keep as simultaneous witness, judge and prosecutor, we have these values:

Year=>anomaly(deg C)

1878=>-0.01

1909=>-0.56

From this data, I stated there was GLOBAL COOLING by 0.55 deg C from 1878 to 1909.

As I said above, the data you cherry-pick, in this case blatantly. Thanks for proving my point yet again.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma writes:

>As what is good for the goose is good for the gander, I say: Global mean surface temperature has increased by 0.35°C (0.6°F) over the last 130 years.

You have not repreated an equivalent analysis to the IPCC Girma. You have cherry picked extremes. The IPCC compare their temperature anomaly to the long term mean. You are doing what fruadsters do when they compare La Nina temp to a El Nino peak. That is like comparing a winter max with a summer max, or a night time max to a day time max. You need to take the longer term mean. Such as the [30 year moving average](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:360) to allow for internal variability.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Looking at temperature anomaly plots is like looking at a profile with a magnifying glass in order to make the invisible visible.

When is this going to be acknowledged? Where can I apply my protest?

Girma Orssengo, you continue to [demonstrate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) your professional incompetence with your continued promotion of the graphical "distortion" meme which has been rebutted on this thread countless times previously. Do you truly not understand why you are so grievously in error about this?!

Your cherry-picking of data points in order to extract the smallest anomalies possible over a period of time is also an extraordinary example egregious scientific misbehaviour. You have obviously never used a regression equation in your work, nor understood why scientists and statisticians do so, nor do you seem to have an acquaintance with the concept of a priori definition and justification of analytical parameters.

I too have wondered for a long time now if you are a Poe; or conversely, if you are merely a particularly vicious troll. However, the fact that you post the same crap on just about every site that you visit, and that you do so with your own name, would seem to indicate that you are serious in your claims. I cannot understand why anyone, who has the background that you apparently do, would make such fundamental errors of ""very basic"", introductory-level data analysis and presentation, although the fact that your work history post-2004 is excluded from your online CV rings bells for me.

Your fawning enthusiasm for Rand leads me to wonder just how much of her work you have read, and how well you have analysed it in the context of her life and of her contemporary circumstances. I am particularly gob-smacked to see that you think that you can selectively quote great chunks of her work here, claim that they display "genius", and twist them to attempt to justify your stance. I am curious if you are familiar with the quotes below, and whether you think that they have any applicability to either 'side' of the modern global warming debate, and if you detect any spark of "genius" in their words too?

"There are some truths which are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen or at least recognised by ordinary people."

"Good care should be taken not to deny things that just happen to be true."

"To change a thing means to recognise it first."

"Anyone who disregards consequences resulting from undeniable facts cannot help but remain behind the times."

"If a man believes he can enter into profitable connections with parasites, he is like a tree trying to conclude for its own profit an agreement with mistletoe."

"A sharp difference should exist between general education and specialized knowledge. As particularly today the latter threatens more and more to sink into the service of pure Mammon, general education, at least in its more ideal attitude, must be retained as a counterweight."

"Isnât every deed of genius in this world a visible protest of genius against the inertia of the mass?"

"The spark of genius exists in the brain of the truly creative man from the hour of his birth. True genius is always inborn and never cultivated, let alone learned."

"But the power which has always started the greatest religious and political avalanches in history rolling has from time to immemorial been the magic of power of the spoken word, and that alone."

"Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."

"It [i]s better to be a little old-fashioned, but honest and loyal, than enlightened and modern, but of inferior character and, as is often seen today, ignorant and incompetent."

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Looking at temperature anomaly plots is like looking at a profile with a magnifying glass in order to make the invisible visible.

When is this going to be acknowledged? Where can I apply my protest?

Posted by: Girma | August 28, 2009 1:13 AM

Girma.

How many graphs have you constructed in your life?

How many of these graphs had both axes starting at 0?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma writes:
>*Looking at temperature anomaly plots is like looking at a profile with a magnifying glass in order to make the invisible visible.*

>*When is this going to be acknowledged? Where can I apply my protest?*

Here are some solutions Girma:

1) multiply each of the anomaly results by an anti maginification coefficent of 0.01;

2) plot the anomalies on a chart with y-axis scale of -100 to +100;

3) Reduce the charts size on in photoshop or a photocopier.

Each of these IPCC bias correcting techniques will produce a comforting results which will bring glory to the genious of Any Rand. None require big government, and each assist man's pursuit of happiness consistent with laissez faire captilists utopia.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma;

Looking at temperature anomaly plots is like looking at a profile with a magnifying glass in order to make the invisible visible.
When is this going to be acknowledged? Where can I apply my protest?

Reading this, I can't decide whether you're a brilliant satirist, a cynical troll or a complete idiot. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I'd suggest a poll.

It's a close call, but if I had to choose I'd vote "Idiot".

Anyone else?

Gaz, I've flip flopped on that question. I now think 'cult worshiping ideologe' (with outside chance of brilliant satarist). I won't say idiot, cos I just read Billy Bob Hall's lastest, and Billy makes Girma look informed and rationally agile.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Bernard J @846

Regarding Rand, as I mentioned before, take what you find useful, ignore the useless.

I agree that she cares only for the heroes and she is insensitive to the rest.

Bernard, I could not read 3 pages of Kant without going to sleep, I can reread a volume of Rand three times. Ultimately, if a book in philosophy is unreadable how can one learn?

Regarding your quote of Rand:
The spark of genius exists in the brain of the truly creative man from the hour of his birth. True genius is always inborn and never cultivated, let alone learned.

I am a believer in "a genius is inborn" idea; otherwise, we would not have child prodigies in music, mathematics and chess.

The world owes its living to its genius. They made it possible for us to live as humans, without the need for us to use our teeth, claw, and muscle like animals, by using the technological black boxes, which we only know how to operate but donât have a clue what is inside. Like Rand, I am worshipper of heroes for creating the political and technological environment where I can live a comfortable life without fear of a thug or an animal.

>I am a believer in "a genius is inborn" idea; otherwise, we would not have child prodigies in music, mathematics and chess.

Unlike Einstein.

>Like Rand, I am worshipper of heroes for creating the political and technological environment where I can live a comfortable life without fear of a thug or an animal.

And like Rand you apparently ignore the social, political, scientific and justice genius that have been forced to fight against the unjust power from those with your laissez-faire disproptionate and unjust power (Sufforgets, Union leaders, Ghandi, Mandela, Malcom X, Dr King).

What does your Randian philosophy say about the Bankers paying themselves massive bonuses?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Does someone else want to tell him, or shall I?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma,

Does AGW contradict Randian philosophy? Is it a direct affront to your prefered ideology?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma.

Purely from a perverse curiosity, do any of these quotes inspire your respect for what you perceive as genius?

Any philosophy, whether of a religious or political nature â and sometimes the dividing line is hard to determine â fights less for the negative destruction of the opposing ideology than for the positive promotion of its own.

A man who is prepared to stand up for a cause will never and can never be a sneak or a spineless lickspittle. Anyone who is really serious about the preservation and furtherance of an institution will cling to it with the last fibre of his heard and will not be able to abandon it if evils of some sort appear in the institution.

In all cases where the fulfilment of apparently impossible demands or tasks is involved, the whole attention of a people must be focussed and concentrated on this one question, as though life and death actually depended on its solution.

The great mass of the people cannot see the whole road ahead of them without growing weary and despairing of the task.

I must not measure the speech of a statesman to his people by the impression which it leaves in a university professor but by the effect it exerts on the people. And this alone gives the standard for the speakerâs genius.

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.

The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude.

Particularly the broad masses of the people can be moved only by the power of speech.

For the greater a man's works for the future, the less the present can comprehend them; the harder his fight, and the rarer success. If, however, once in centuries success does come to a man, perhaps in his latter days a faint beam of his coming glory may shine upon him. To be sure, these great men are only the Marathon runners of history; the laurel wreath of the present touches only the brow of the dying hero.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Aug 2009 #permalink

Bernard J. @856

You quoted Rand:

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.

How true! How precise! How to the point of our present circumstance!

Thanks Rand!

Mark Byrne @855

You wrote, Does AGW contradict Randian philosophy? Is it a direct affront to your prefered ideology?

I don't think so. My problem with AGW (due to CO2) is that it is not supported by the data!

No increase in mean global temperature since 1998. (It was 0.55 deg C in 1988, and it was only 0.34 deg C last year). These data are facts and they donât require excuses or explanations. Thank You.

Mean global temperature increase of only 0.35 deg C in 130 years! This is NOT catastrophic global warming.

Global cooling by 0.55 deg C from 1878 to 1909!

Using magnified anomaly plots!

Let us wait few more years to see in which direction the anomalies are moving!

I hope China & India to save us by continuing to improve their peopleâs life, and I dearly hope the tax on energy does not pass the US senate!

Mark Byrne @853

You are lucky. The political wind is on your side. Besides no government of any persuasion is going to refuse more economic power and revenue when ever possible. Our cause is a lost one.

> No increase in mean global temperature since 1998.

Yes there is.

2005 was warmer than 1998.

And there's been massive warming since 1970. Please explain that away.

> My problem with AGW (due to CO2) is that it is not supported by the data!

But your problem is that you're picking what data should be used. Explain away the warming since 1970 without AGW.

Girma, If you believe in your argument, why do you feel a need to continual fall back to cherry picking data? Is your position so weak that it needs cherry picked data? I have [just explained](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) (again) that comparing the 1998 El Nino temp with the 2008 La Nina temp is like comparing summer temp with winter, or day with night. Why not use the longer term average (as required to account for short term internal variability)?
As far as your summation that your cause is lost, you can't dump responsibility that easily. Your Randian friends still own the political process, your pals in the Greenspan mould have just given the US wealth to the banking oligarchs. Your extractive industries pals still write government policy, us with the democratic wind at our backs haven't won back that part of the political process yet.
You Laissez Fair pals are still ripping off poor countries around the globe. So our much of the current disasters are still on your ledger.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

Mark @860

You wrote, Yes there is. 2005 was warmer than 1998.

Here is the [anomaly data](http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/gl…):

  • Year => deg C
  • 1998 => 0.53
  • 1999 => 0.31
  • 2000 => 0.28
  • 2001 => 0.41
  • 2002 => 0.46
  • 2003 => 0.47
  • 2004 => 0.45
  • 2005 => 0.48
  • 2006 => 0.43
  • 2007 => 0.41
  • 2008 => 0.34

From the above data, from the SCIENCE, for 11 long but sweet, delicious years, no increase in mean global temperature with increase in
human emission of CO2.

From this data, the relationship between mean global temperature and human emission of CO2 is zero, nil, naught, zilch!

In conclusion, based on the data, based on the science, THE THEORY THAT INCREASE IN HUMAN EMISSION OF CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING IS INVALID.

No computer modelling is required. Observation always trumps modelling!

Girma.

I did not say that my quotes in [post #846](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) or in [post #856](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) were from Ayn Rand.

They are in fact from "Mein Kampf" by one Adolf Hitler.

My points are several...

  1. "genius" is in the eye of the perceiver
  2. anyone can repeat seemingly intelligent profoundness without understanding what it is that they are saying
  3. even raving lunatic writers can produce something of trivial (or, at times, not-so-trivial) wisdom
  4. anyone who spends enough time writing is likely to produce something sensible at some point in their endeavours (although you are challenging this premise)
  5. you do not do even the most basic of research or background checking to corroborate the truth of the crap that you spout

Need I continue...?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma:

My problem with AGW (due to CO2) is that it is not supported by the data!

Also known as proof by exclamation mark.

No increase in mean global temperature since 1998.

Thank you for telling us the weather was warm in 1998. As far as climate goes, it is not yet possible to know accurately what the climate has been since then since at least 30 years of data are needed to measure climate.

These data

don't tell us any climatic

facts and they donât require excuses or explanations.

They just tell us a couple of weather reports and nothing about climate.

Mean global temperature increase

between the weather of two years

of only 0.35 deg C in 130 years! This is NOT catastrophic global warming.

It's not anything at all apart the difference in weather of two individual years. We do, of course have records of climate for 1850-1879 and for 1979-2008 and the CLIMATE has warmed by 0.7 deg C over that time.

Global

weather

cooling by 0.55 deg C from 1878 to 1909!

Proof by exclamation mark again.

The CLIMATE cooled by 0.1 deg C from 1860-1889 to 1895-1924.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

Have a look at the GISS data which includes the north pole, Grima.

And please show that El Nino and Sunspots have no effect on the climate.

And there's been massive warming since 1970. Please explain that away.

Here is Ayn Rand on Criminals and Governments:

Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrorsâthe bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructionsâperpetrated by mankind's governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men's deadliest enemy.

Capilatism:The Unknown Ideal, P374

Readers may be interested in Figure 12 from Orssengo et al *Contact Lens and Anterior Eye* 20:2 p46. Girma seems to have graphed the **change** in back optic zone radius (which goes from -0.1 to 0.1) rather than the back optic zone radius (which goes from 7.7 to 7.9). Girma, do you agree with this statement?

Looking at change in back optic zone radius plots is like looking at a profile with a magnifying glass in order to make the invisible visible.

Girma, will you be withdrawing this paper to change the graph?

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

848 Janet,

You forgot:-
4) Attach photocopy to wall;
5) Take 20 steps backward to examine graph in proper perspective.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

To all blog members

The Science is settled:

THE THEORY THAT INCREASE IN HUMAN EMISSION OF CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING IS INVALID.

(see my post @862)

863 Bernard,

Nice work.

Now, what is "Girma"?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

Has anyone collated the times of Girma's posts? Just wondering, as there are an awful lot of them.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma, How ironic that that you should point to my posting @862 which points out the fallacious nature of the argument you so desperately cling to.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

Tim @868

My point is that a result in a scientific paper and a result to the public cannot be the same.

In almost all metrology web sites, it is the anomalies that are provided. The public does not know that they are magnified in order to see small changes. I prefer the plot of the true mean global temperature to be shown to the public.

TO ALL BLOG MEMBERS

!!!THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!

Here is the [anomaly data](http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/gl…):

  • Year => deg C
  • 1998 => 0.53
  • 1999 => 0.31
  • 2000 => 0.28
  • 2001 => 0.41
  • 2002 => 0.46
  • 2003 => 0.47
  • 2004 => 0.45
  • 2005 => 0.48
  • 2006 => 0.43
  • 2007 => 0.41
  • 2008 => 0.34

From the above data, from the SCIENCE, for 11 long but sweet, delicious years, no increase in mean global temperature with increase in human emission of CO2.

From this data, the relationship between mean global temperature and human emission of CO2 is zero, nil, naught, zilch!

In conclusion, based on the data, based on the science, THE THEORY THAT INCREASE IN HUMAN EMISSION OF CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING IS INVALID.

No computer modelling is required. Observation always trumps modelling!

!!!THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!

(assuming the data is correct)

> THE THEORY THAT INCREASE IN HUMAN EMISSION OF CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING IS INVALID.

Then explain why the temperature in 2008 is so much higher than 1970.

Tim @868 My point is that a result in a scientific paper and a result to the public cannot be the same.

ouch, you got caught. so when presenting that result to the public, you would use a plot of the optic zone radius (which goes from 7.7 to 7.9)? a plot that would show nearly no change at all?

In almost all metrology web sites, it is the anomalies that are provided. The public does not know that they are magnified in order to see small changes. I prefer the plot of the true mean global temperature to be shown to the public.

the public knows temperature from every day life. they know what the meaning of a 0.5°C change is.

From the above data, from the SCIENCE, for 11 long but sweet, delicious years, no increase in mean global temperature with increase in human emission of CO2.

funny, how 11 has become the new typical timescale, when looking at climate change. sweet.

Girma @876, let me try your trick of reposting the same suff:

Girma, If you believe in your argument, why do you feel a need to continual fall back to cherry picking data? Is your position so weak that it needs cherry picked data? I have [just explained](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) (again) that comparing the 1998 El Nino temp with the 2008 La Nina temp is like comparing summer temp with winter, or day with night. Why not use the longer term average (as required to account for short term internal variability)?

As far as your summation that your cause is lost, you can't dump responsibility that easily. Your Randian friends still own the political process, your pals in the Greenspan mold have just given the US wealth to the banking oligarchs. Your extractive industries pals still write government policy, we with the democratic wind at our backs haven't won back that part of the political process yet.

Your Laissez Fair pals are still ripping off poor countries around the globe. So the current disasters are still on your laissez-faire ledger.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

>In conclusion, based on the data, based on the science, THE THEORY THAT INCREASE IN HUMAN EMISSION OF CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING IS INVALID.

A few tips:

1. So called "All Caps" does not enhance your argument. Usually I assume the first person to shout has lost the argument.

2. You're wrong. Finding out why is left as exercise. For goodness sake open a damned book on the subject, or read a paper. Anything since the 1800's will do. More recent would be nice.

3. It's truly ironic that you are attempting to disprove AGW with 11 years of data. Astute readers will know why, let's just say that there so so many levels of ignorance displayed in this that I hardly know where to begin.

4. Have a lovely weekend.

To All Blog Members:

By looking at all my posts, you can see that I haven't personally attacked anyone. However, I have been intimidated and bullied not to speak my mind. That is wrong. But I persisted and I have found what I wanted:

THE THEORY THAT INCREASE IN HUMAN EMISSION OF CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING IS INVALID (post @876)

Thanks for showing me that I can not scale up lab CO2 absorption experiments to the whole of the atmosphere.

Wish you the very best!

Sincerely

However, I have been intimidated and bullied not to speak my mind. That is wrong. But I persisted and I have found what I wanted:

THE THEORY THAT INCREASE IN HUMAN EMISSION OF CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING IS INVALID (post @876)

Girma Orssengo, it is your professional incompetence that draws the ire of the educated on this thread.

You are entitled to "speak your mind", but if in doing so it is apparent to anyone with more than a grade 6 education that you have no idea how to analyse and interpret data, you should expect to be called on your "speaking". It is not wrong that your grievous scientific ignorance is shown to be the rubbish that it is.

The only thing that you have persisted in is the repetition of your very much mistaken belief that you have actually demonstrated something in a scientific manner. You haven't. And this, in the face of much detailed and reiterated explanation about how you have persisted in cocking up science that a ten year old could understand with 15 minutes of instruction.

It is telling that you say "found what I wanted". So, you want anthropogenic global warming to be disproven? Why? Any scientist wants only the truth, and uses appropriate analytical techniques to acquire such truth.

You demonstrate an a priori bias in your expectation of result, and you demonstrate a complete incapacity to analytically acquire a valid result, in spite of your vaunted Masters and PhD. In view of these simple truths, you are not a scientist, nor are you deserving of your qualifications, and you are certainly not equipped to comment in any way, shape or form on anything to do with science, let alone on climate science.

You have had so many explanations provided to you that it beggars belief that you cannot understand why you are wrong. Worse though, as [I suspected](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and as [Tim Lambert has demonstrated](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), you understand through your own work what the concept of an anomaly is, and yet you persist in claiming that the lay audience is somehow gulled by such usage.

This makes you not only ignorant/deceitful/hypocritical, but patronising to boot. And please understand that this is not intimidation, bullying, or ad hominem attack - such claims are evidenced by your own words, and thus it is by your own hand that you are incriminated.

I have to give you credit for one thing though... I never thought that I would see anyone who could so thoroughly eclipse the likes of Tim Curtin, Ray, Billy Bob Hall et al on this site, but you have changed that. You would do Plimer and Monckton proud, and you are surely a valuable member to the Denialist cause. If you found your way here via Morano's call to arms, then you have indeed represented his side well...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

> THE THEORY THAT INCREASE IN HUMAN EMISSION OF CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING IS INVALID

Then why is 2008 warmer than 1970?

Why are you all still trying to answer this troll? 885 posts and you still haven't cottoned on to the fact that he's not listening? For the lurkers, we've listed all the reasons why Wormtongue is spectacularly, humiliatingly wrong. Why repeat the same cycle over and over and over again?

I won't be back to this thread. I suggest everyone here with a brain make the same decision.

> Why are you all still trying to answer this troll? 885 posts and you still haven't cottoned on to the fact that he's not listening?

Why do you think

> > THE THEORY THAT INCREASE IN HUMAN EMISSION OF CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING IS INVALID

> Then why is 2008 warmer than 1970?

is there?

Grima:

11 long but sweet, delicious years

We can't accurately measure climate or its change in 11 years. Anyone who argues anything to do with climate change from 11 years of data is arguing from ignorance.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

I won't be back to this thread. I suggest everyone here with a brain make the same decision.

i agree 100%. this doesn t make any sense.

To Girma:

CLIMATE IS NOT MEASURABLE IN 11 YEARS.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

OK Girma, no more repeating yourself. Everyone is bored with you now. And everyone else - ask yourself whether posting a nice recipe or a poem or an anecdote instead would be more interesting for us.

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

Bernard, you are citing Hitler, right? The first few quotes fooled me. Shows you something about the uselessness of isolated quotes. Rand had a thing for supermen and tended to disregard the rest. Funny, herself being only a sort of lesser Heinlein. The cult of the übermensch tends to be most agitated for by the utterly mediocre.

As far as I know, there are actually no children in her novels. It is easy to see why: The whole no sacrifices for others will break down.

OK said the almighty Lambert: "Girma, no more repeating yourself. Everyone is bored with you now".

What a shame!

Yet Girma encapsulates more truth than Tim Lambert has ever known.For he is right that CO2 in the air has nothing at all to do with temperature change (if any) - such temperature change as there may be is wholly due to humans' insatiable demand for energy to improve their lifestyles, and replacement of fossil fuel energy by other sources, whether wind, or solar, or even nuclear (eg France) will produce no reduction in global warming,as that results 100% from use of energy and not even 0% from CO2.

By Vic Hayward (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

895 Vic,

Is this satire? How can I tell?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

Finally Vic Hayward provides the rational evidence we've all been missing.

Thanks Vic, I'm guessing like Girma you've not read the AR4 either?

Can you perhaps provide some more inane comments on your favourite movies, best holiday and who is your favourite political leader that people talk about. Neither of these require evidence nor any research, study or even reading.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

And everyone else - ask yourself whether posting a nice recipe or a poem or an anecdote instead would be more interesting for us.

Good idea. In honor of Girma, a genuine jerk ... recipe.

1 1/2 teaspoons Ground cinnamon
1 1/2 teaspoons Ground nutmeg
1 tablespoon Cayenne pepper
1 tablespoon Ground sage
1 tablespoon Black pepper
2 tablespoons Ground allspice
2 tablespoons Dried thyme
2 tablespoons Sugar
4 tablespoons Garlic powder
4 tablespoons Lime juice
1 1/2 cups Vinegar
1/2 cup Olive oil
1/2 cup Soy sauce
1 cup Onion medium, diced
1 cup Orange juice
3 bunch Scallion
4 ea Jalapeno peppers

Tim @893

I will not bore any one with any more comment. I have said too much. I have said what I want to say at posts 876 & 891, the other posts are just sketchpads to arrive at the contents of these two posts.

However, I have been subjected to ferocious intimidation and bullying, while in my post I have not attacked a single blog member! For the proof, check my posts.

I would like to report to you that, someone from Northampton, UK, has contacted my colleague to find if I am "likely to be the real Dr Orssengo"

I can really, really now understand, from personal experience, what [KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL]( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html) meant when she wrote:

The global-warming crowd likes to deride skeptics as the equivalent of the Catholic Church refusing to accept the Copernican theory. The irony is that, today, it is those who dare critique the new religion of human-induced climate change who face the Inquisition.

One last advice: When there is any mismatch between data and theory, chuck the theory.

Wish you all the very best!

Someone was looking out for your interests Girma. Imagine if someone else had made the same misrepresentations and distorted arguments here in your name. If I was the real Girma Orssengo I wouldn't be happy that someone was saying such things using my name.

I expect the motivation of the fact checker was to expose you (the blog poster) as a fraud, and reinstate the good name of Girma Orssengo who has worked long to gain some degrees. It now seems you are one and the same.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

Thanks Jane

Thanks so much Janet

Girma writes:

>I have said too much. I have said what I want to say at posts 876 & 891, the other posts are just sketchpads to arrive at the contents of these two posts.

Longer Girma:

*I singed the denialist petition before I read AR4 and before I had sketched out my position.*

*My initial position was that if it warms more than 1998 in the next ten years, I will believe in AGW. Because current temp has not exceeded the last El Nino (1998).*

*However, in taking the time since then to sketch out my position, I have just discovered that in fact then temperature in the last ten years has not has not risen significantly above the peak of the last El Nino (1998). I have therefore proved that AGW is invalid.*

And two-nil to Girma cos he's won the battle of logic and frustrated other posters, some of whom have then resorted to abuse.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

#902: No worries Girma,

Wern't me BTW, I'm only speculating motivation.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

Janet Akerman @903

That was very sweet.

Thanks so much

Only made it to #610 so far, but I had to make a comment before reading further, even though it has (and probably will be) said.

#1 - the "scary"/"Comforting" thing - what a crock of fetid dingos kidneys. Seriously, if you want to ask why one is scary and the other comforting, one hides the real, scary, truth, the other shows it. Look into psychology, along with the red/blue emotional connection (although this is, I think, also in part a cultural thing). Of course - even if the graph is scary, so fricken what! You're scared of truth - as my old DI used to say "grow a pair and deal with it" - if how you deal with it is such blatant idiocy...well, I feel sorry for you.

#2 - Rand - says it all. Rand was a good one for greed and overconsumption, and her anti-ecology stance was quite strong, from what I remember. I'm not surprised by this. I assume that Girma considers him/herself (sorry, can't tell) to be one of the chosen few (forget what name she gave her elites)? Kinda like those teabaggers. When are you going Galt?

Ah, well, back to the grind. Has anyone (by some strange whim) figured out how many times Girma has avoided answering questions or repeated the same things - can we do an analysis of that, or will there be scary distortion and magnification?

Made it to the end (for now?) at my own post 906. I just want to say to all of the people who posted all the information for Girma, it helped me to understand things a little bit better, so despite the denialist Randroid, your efforts did not go for naught (too pompous or haughty? :) ) but did help to educate. At least he didn't post that 80-page (IIRC) solliloquey at the end of one of her books (can't remember if it was Atlas or not). Like reading a bloody dictionary.

Besides, every now and them there needs to be a good troll-baiting session. Good for the humors.

Girma:

it is those who dare critique the new religion of human-induced climate change who face the Inquisition

Good luck with the jail time imposed on you by the inquisition.

One last advice: When data neither confirms nor denies theory, look at more data.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

LeTz AlLl AiM 4 OnE ThOuSaNdD PoStS!

YoU KaN DoOo ItttttTTTTTTTT!

(Sorry Tim, I'm stooping to Grima's level here, but could not resist feeding the troll this one time)

By Former Skeptic (not verified) on 28 Aug 2009 #permalink

Chris O'Neill @908

You wrote, One last advice: When data neither confirms nor denies theory, look at more data.

I agree!

Can you tell them EXACTLY that in the conference at Copenhagen on 7-Dec-09?

Cheers

900 Janet,

Exactly. Until now there was real doubt that the "Girma" here could possibly be [this person with an excellent academic record](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/).

That doubt has now been removed.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

Lab thought experiment

Beer-Lambert law states that absorption, A, is proportional to the light path length, l, and concentration, c, of absorbing material:

A = ε l c

That is the end of my lab thought experiment!

look at more data

Girma:

Can you tell them EXACTLY that

They already have. Always happy to fill in gaps in your knowledge.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

Strike a light Girma, you stagger from astonishing professional incompetence to ever more flabbergasting levels of professional incompetence.

How is there any hint of "lab" involved in your nonsense at [the previous post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)?

Where is there any demonstration of an "experiment" - a postulation of a testable hypothesis, an experimental design with appropriate controls, an analysis of results, and an interpretation of said analysis?

You have not even provided any evidence for "thought", because your equation is merely one rearrangment of [simple optical physics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law).

Of course, you are almost certainly just trolling, as so many of us here have noted.

However, given that you are the real Girma Orssengo, I still have a small kernel of musing that you are actually a deluded nutter, rather than a straightforward troll. In this case I am compelled to point out to any innnocent lurker who might have sunk this low into the depths of the stinking mire of this thread, that you are not speaking with any scientific knowledge at all, in spite of the travesty of natural justice that saw you scam not one but three tertiary degrees.

By the way, get over your glass jaw with respect to your colleagues being contacted regarding the reality of your identity. I would have done the same thing myself if the Northampton figure hadn't, and for the same reason - if you are an imposter, then it would be important to protect an innocent person from identity theft and character assassination.

As it stands, you seem to be determined to assassinate your own credibility, and I can't help but wonder how many of your colleagues have subsequently read this thread and have seen the unbelievable shortcomings in your scientific understanding.

You must be so proud...

Barton's and Dano's advice - and my own from earlier postings - that you should be ignored, is certainly the best advice that one could give in your case. Nevertheless, the accumulated evidence of this thread that you are not even a clever troll (and certainly not a competence nor honourable scientist) is worth the persistence - at least for now.

You might think that you are being smart, but sooner or later you will wish that you have never posted the bollocks that is now recorded forever on this thread.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

Based on a decade long of scientific data, theory is invalid.

When theory is invalid at any time, you chuck it!

It is all settled!

> Based on a decade long of scientific data, theory is invalid.

Oops, you're slipping!

A decade of scientific data runs from 1999 onwards. Wonder what *that* trend looks like... ;)

If a decade (1998 to 2008) is not enough, how many more years do we need to show the relationship between CO2 and global anomaly temperature is zilch?

Based on a decade long of scientific data, theory is untested.

When theory is untested at any time, you look for another test!

It is all settled by another test!

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

If a decade (1998 to 2008) is not enough, how many more years do we need to show the relationship between CO2 and global anomaly temperature is zilch?

At valid test needs at least 30 years of data. Anything shorter is invalid.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

At valid test needs at least 30 years of data. Anything shorter is invalid.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 29, 2009 3:53 PM

There has been no upward trend in temperature at Mauna Loa since 1958, 51 years ago. Chris, is that long enough for you?

By Vic Hayward (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

Vic Hayward shows how bankrupt the denialist argument is. Hayward and his ilk are now reduced to cherry picking individual sites rather than the global mean temperature.

By Tim Curtin is a Joke (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

920 Vic,

Excellent parody.

Problem is, Girma has dramatically reduced Poe sensitivity here.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

Chris O'Neill @919

You wrote, At valid test needs at least 30 years of data. Anything shorter is invalid.

But, why then, Gore, Schwarzenegger and others in the AGW camp said and are saying the science is settled?

The trillion-dollar question:

Does mean global temperature changes due to natural causes and as a result this changes the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere by increasing or decreasing the amount of dissolved CO2 in the ocean?

Or, does CO2 changes due to natural causes and as a result this changes the mean global temperature due to changes in its greenhouse effect?

Chris @924

Thank You Chris

The intellectual dishonesty and futility of picking short periods for comparison is illustrated nicely by the graphs from [this article at realclimate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise…).

[Giss data with every possible 7-year linear trend in the last 30 years overlaid](http://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-7yr.jpg)

[HADCRU data with every possible 8-year linear trend in the last 30 years overlaid](http://www.realclimate.org/images/hadcru-8yr.jpg)

[Giss data with every possible 15-year linear trend in the last 30 years overlaid](http://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-15yr.jpg)

As you see, the longer the time period, the more the year-on-year variability is filtered out to make the trend obvious. Already with 15 years the lines start to converge around what would be the 30 year upward trend.

Of course, everyone already knows this - including the persistent trolls. Once again, this is just for drive-by readers.

Re. "The trillion dollar question"

It is WELL-KNOWN that CO2 changes (irregardless whether they are natural or anthropogenic) will affect temperature and this temperature change will affect CO2 levels via diverse mechanisms such as changes in ocean uptake.

Its called feedback.....now where do I collect my Trillion ?

By David Donovan (not verified) on 29 Aug 2009 #permalink

@Girma: You have had many commenters on this thread patiently explain exactly how and why you are wrong on innumerable issues. Could you please supply an example of an issue where you have taken on board the information and realised you were wrong? Can you explain how and why you were wrong?

@Deltoiders: Thanks for all the excellent rebuttals of Girma's posts.

Fitz @929

Did not the blog showed my assumption that a lab experiment on CO2 absorption will be applicable to the whole of the atmosphere to be wrong?

Did not the blog showed me not to use CO2 percentages because absorption occurs all the way from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere? So regarding absorption, smallness may be deceiving!

On my side, I have brought to peoplesâ attention that there was no increase in mean global temperature in the last decade with increase in CO2 of about 19ppm.

On my side, I have brought to peoplesâ attention that there was no increase in mean global temperature in the last decade with increase in CO2 of about 19ppm.

No, on your "side" you have only demonstrated that you are either a persistent troll, or such a scientifically incompetent person that you do not understand how long a time interval is required to in order to discern the signal (or absence thereof) in a system when said system has noise of a particular magnitude.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Aug 2009 #permalink

> On my side, I have brought to peoplesâ attention that there was no increase in mean global temperature in the last decade with increase in CO2 of about 19ppm.

(repeating myself)

"the last decade" does not include 1998.

protip: dishonest cherry-picking requires precision and consistency.

930 Girma,

Did not the blog showed my assumption that a lab experiment on CO2 absorption will be applicable to the whole of the atmosphere to be wrong?
Did not the blog showed me not to use CO2 percentages because absorption occurs all the way from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere? So regarding absorption, smallness may be deceiving!

This demonstrates beyond all possible doubt that Blog Science is the only real science!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 30 Aug 2009 #permalink

I also showed convincingly that when ever you look at anomaly plots, there is an invisible magnifying glass between your eyes and the plot.

>*I also showed convincingly that when ever you look at anomaly plots, there is an invisible magnifying glass between your eyes and the plot.*

TS, are you borrowing Girma's name again?

In Girma's defense, he has shown an ability to move his positon based on new information. That is better than some.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 30 Aug 2009 #permalink

In publication in the media, is it possible for change in yearly mean global temperature from the long term average (anomaly plot) to be easily confused with change in the true mean global temperature plot?

Girma:

I have brought to peoplesâ attention that there was no increase in mean global temperature in the last decade

People were already aware of the climatically insignificant fact that 2008 was cooler than 1998 etc. before you came along. You have not provided any climatically significant information whatsoever that I can recall.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 30 Aug 2009 #permalink

935 Mark Byrne,

Girma is a near-perfect example of Poe's Law in action. We can never know for sure, unless Tim tells us if the IP addresses match (or not).

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 31 Aug 2009 #permalink

Lee @833

You wrote, We, our world, our children - my children - our extraordinary and magnificent civilization and culture - we are all so fucked, and it is assholes like Grima who are allowing it to happen.

Is this true? To find the answer, look at the data, at the science.

[Life Expectancy](http://www.elderweb.com/images/pages/stats.gif)

The data says life of âour children - my childrenâ is the best it had ever been in recorded history.

When ever there is a contradiction between your belief and the data, chuck your belief.

When ever there is a contradiction between your belief and the data, chuck your belief.

This has *got* to be Poe-etic.

"When ever there is a contradiction between your belief and the data, chuck your belief." - girma

Nice advice, try taking it.

Just had a look back at your first posts. You've been shown to be repeatedly wrong in your assertions, and yet your opinions haven't changed one bit.

The far-right lunatic fringe are well known for being impervious to facts or reason that run counter to their ideological positions.

And you've been a great example of someone, who when confronted by the contradiction between belief and data, dumps the data.

"The data says life of âour children - my childrenâ is the best it had ever been in recorded history".

Let us look at Girma`s latest vacuous post in more detail. First, more than half of the world`s population lives on less than 2 dollars a day. One in eight people receive such little nutrition that their minds are literally wasting away. This number is set to pass one billion in the near future. Each day, 35,000 people die from malnutrition and preventable disease. There are more starving people now than there were people alive in 1935.

Some progress. What Girma is alluding to is the quality of life for the privileged few - 15 per cent of the world`s population who have generally benefitted from the Washington Consensus-type policies and the effective looting of capital from the south to support the developed north. Free market absolutism and nakedly predatory capitalism. And what is the cost of this one-way capital flow?

I have explained it before innumerable times on this thread but it bounces off Girma`s thick head like water off a duck`s back. To reiterate: the rapid loss of natural capital - deep rich agricultural soils, fossil age groundwater supplies and biodiversity, the working components of our global ecological life-support systems. In other words, our species is living off of a one-time inheritance of natural capital and are spending it like there is no tomorrow. We are approaching a tipping point, and this is accelerating. Most of the over consumption is the result of policies designed to support the lives of the privileged few - I suppose that would include Girma.

I have discussed this in detail several times here, and Girma still comes back with utter garbage and simplistic drivel. Complex adaptive systems that permit humans to persist are being assaulted in a number of ways. At present, humans are extracting far more from natural systems than these can sustainably replenish. Paul Ehrlich`s building analogy is appropriaye here: its like someone jumps off a 100 story building, falls 90 floors, looks up and shouts, "Everything is fine!!!"

Again we are approaching tipping points. Non-linear systems will be simplified to a point and maintain their functions, then they will suddenly shift to another state. This has been covered in innumerable studies that Girma does not read. Girma, do you ever consult the primary literature???? Or is your worldview exclusively derived from sites paying homage to Ayn Rand or from denialists? I see the denialists as nothing more than an annoying divergence: they are court jesters whose job it is to delay and deceive. The ones who control the Royal Court are the CEO`s and captains of industry who are more concerned with short term profit than with the long term consequences of their actions.

Girma is just one of the bit part jesters in my view: a diversion. I have read his appalling posts for a week or so now without responding to them. The latest was so lame that I had to reply.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 31 Aug 2009 #permalink

Jeff @941

Thanks for writing a readable post. I enjoyed it.

However, we have to rely on the data. It does not matter a bit what thought we have regarding the state of human life and the environment. The fact is, fortunately, the earth is a closed system, and the eroded soil does not escape into outer space.

If we have cheap energy, anything is possible, so let us not increase its cost.

According to the data, according to the science, in the relationship between life expectancy as a function of historical year, the slope is positive; that is, people live healthier and longer all around the world. This is an undisputable FACT. We only start to worry when the slope first becomes a plateau and changes its direction into negative. Until then, enjoy a free life, without the imaginary fear that abodes in the hearts of many.

Girma:

When ever there is a contradiction between your belief and the data, chuck your belief.

Or in Girma's case, chuck the climatically significant data by ignoring it to begin with. What a hypocrite.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 31 Aug 2009 #permalink

>"We only start to worry when the slope first becomes a plateau and changes its direction into negative."

Girma not all indicators are long term warnings. Some indicators register when it is too late to change. You have picked the life expectancy in a very rich country. This will be a very late indicators to turn, primarily because the powerful will sacrifice the poor and the environment for as long as possible before allowing their personal interests to suffer.

You need to ask Jeff about early warning indicators, rather than arguing for a too-late and too-sorry type of indicator.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 31 Aug 2009 #permalink

What data, Grima.

Your chart shows PROJECTED life expectancy for children born through 1995 - and in 2050. It tells us precisely NOTHING about what the world will be like in 50 years. It merely tells us what we can expect life expectancy to be, based on some set of guesses about what the world will be like between now and then.

You cite this as definitive, while dismissing so much that you have dismissed - you're an idiot, Grima. No other explanation possible.

Girma,

Your reply is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The very problem is *exactly* that Earth is a closed system. Soils take hundreds if not thousands of years to generate their fertility - human actions are depleting soil fertility in decades or less. Extinction rates are hundreds if not thousands of times higher than natural background rates. Once a species is gone, it is gone forever. The loss of biodiversity - by this I also mean genetically distinct populations - on the functioning of natural systems is likely to be profound.

Ultimately humans are destroying the very foundations upon which civilization rests. There are no technological substitutes for a vast array of vital ecosystem services, or else they are prohibitively expensive. Such services as nutrient cycling, the detoxification and breakdown of wastes, maintenance of soil fertility, stabilization of coastlines and climate, seed dispersal, pest control, and others are all being impaired by human actions. You must try and understand that our species is not exempt from the laws of nature. Indeed nature already has a reduced capacity to support man. The crux of the matter is to define exact thresholds beyond which relatively nasty surprises that will inflict huge costs on humanity and especially the poor. The evidence is certainly there that we are going in the wrong direction.

With respect to human welfare, there has never been any desire on the part of western elites and their counterparts in the south to eliminate poverty. Wealth has been traditionally controlled by ruling elites with very little trickle down effect, in part because they are well aware that humans are living in deficit. The global economy has grown by a factor of more than 13 sine 1950 but poverty is nowhere close to being eliminated. Africa`s share of global wealth actually decreased between 1983 and 2003, from an already pithy 4% to less than 2%. We can balme corruption all we like but many of these corrupt governments were either installed by the west or are beholden to commercial interests based in the west. Resource rich Congo is one of the poorest nations on Earth. The vast mineral wealth of this nation is owned by 38 multinational corporations, all of which are based in the G-8 countries. Capital flows from the underdeveloped south to the developed north have actually increased since 1970, and dramatically so. Its not hard to see why. Every country in the developed world fosters enormous ecological deficits that can only be offset by reaching beyond their own borders and obtaining the necessary capital and resources in poor nations with low per capita impacts on their land masses. But I digress - I have been through all of this before.

Your problem, Girma (at least one your problems, as you are clearly tapping the wrong sources for your world view) is that you place too much faith in the rich world to devise solutions as we head rapidly towards the edge of a cliff in which an abyss awaits below. As I said, there are few available technological alternatives to most vital ecosystem services that sustain us. Like it or not, the situation for the poor has not changed much over the past 50 years, and the effects of climate change amongst a pot pourri of other anthropogenic effects are almost certain to have huge deleterious effects on the south and its already impoverished people. I find it utterly hypocritical that you can write such utter tosh as *the imaginary fear that abodes in the hearts of many people*. Try telling that to half of the world that struggles to exist every day, and to the billions confined to the growing slums and barrios in many cities of the world, especially in the south.

The fear is not imaginary. It is very real. For some the reality is now; for others it will come if we continue down the same path that we are on now. You can cross your fingers and pray to the tooth fairy all you like, Girma, but this in now way alters the fact that the future we are leaving for our children and grandchildren is likely to be a very nasty one. It is time that you woke up from your self-imposed slumber and took in what is happening in the world. Your posts suggest some kind of radical innocence (being kind), naievete (being neutral) and ignorance (being harsh) on your part.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 31 Aug 2009 #permalink

Lee @947

You wrote, ... It merely tells us what we can expect life expectancy to be, based on some set of guesses about what the world will be like between now and then. You cite this as definitive, while dismissing so much that you have dismissed - you're an idiot, Grima. No other explanation possible.

Lee, I am not talking about the unknown future. I am taking about the recorded past: Every where in the world, we are healthier and live longer NOW than at any time in recorded history.

Every where in the world, we are healthier and live longer NOW than at any time in recorded history.

As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, "Who's we paleface?"

>*Every where in the world, we are healthier and live longer NOW than at any time in recorded history.*

The data you presented was not for *everywhere in the world*.

And as I [said previously](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), You need to ask Jeff about early warning indicators, rather than arguing for a too-late and too-sorry type of indicator.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 31 Aug 2009 #permalink

After strong improvement life expectancy turned downward across large areas of Africa fromt he [1990s to 2000s](http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/life/index.html).

The factors improving life expectancy (primary and preventive health care, and education)will be less effective and harder be maintained if the ecosystem hits a wall. Aids seems to be a difficult challege already.

Notice what happens to life expectancy above [$5000 per captia GDP](http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/sen.php).

Even within countries, notice what happens to [mortality with inequality](http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/usmortal.html).

Girma you may be aware of the 17 years life expectancy gap between Indigenous Australians and other Australians. In such a rich country this is shameful. Doubly so because the riches of this land have been stolen and depleted.

How many more continents can the rich steal and exploit to continue their rapacious consumption? And what will happen if they have already run out of continients to steal the resource from?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 31 Aug 2009 #permalink

Girma,

You are really exasperating in your simplistic views of the world.

The facts are these: the number of people expected to be seriously malnourished will pass one billion this year or the next; it had decreased for several years but is rising again. Slums around the world are growing at an unprecedented rate as are the numbers of environmental refugees.

Read these words carefully, because they fail to sink in: humans are extracting much more from nature than nature can sustainably replenish. Human welfare is utterly dependent on direct and indirect services that emerge from natural systems. We are extracting more from nature`s well than nature is putting back. All technology does is enable us to reach deeper into the well and to take more out. Eventually we will pass a tipping point and touch bottom. We are headed in that direction,and there are volumes of empirical evidence to prove it. Your problem is that your understanding of the scientific, political and economic aspects of this is about as deep as a puddle.

China`s economic miracle has been an ecological disaster. More than 80% of China`s rivers are seriously polluted. So much water is extracted from the Yangtze river that it no longer reaches its mouth (much like the Colorado river in the US). China`s air quality is rapidly decreasing as they burn more and more dirty coal, also adding to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So much water is extracted from the aquifer underlying the China Plain that it is expected to run dry in several years. This aquifer is vitally important for agriculture. The Gobi Desert is also rapidly expanding and is now within a short distance of Beijing. Many insectivorous songbirds have been extirpated or greatly reduced, leading to outbreaks of serious insect pests. Roger Tory Peterson once commented that China was the one country where he did not hear a `spring chorus`. China is fast approaching an ecological deficit of its own like all of the developed countries in the `quad`. It will depend on resources from outside of its won borders in order to maintain its so-called miracle. But of course Europe, Japan and the United States also cannot sustain their populations on resources within their own defined borders, hence why there has been such a fervor in support of unregulated `free trade` amongst many western elites. In effect, there has been a mad dash to secure what`s left of natural capital as we gobble it up.

Girma, it hard to be patient with you because your arguments are literally of high school quality. No depth, no perception, just a parroting of simple drivel from right wing groups pushing their short-term political agendas and damn the rest. Have you read anything on environmental policy or science in your life? Where do you get your information? From Ayn Rand books and homage sites?

How long do you think humans can continue to devour natural capital, most of it to support the intersts of the privileged few? It is no use parroting short-term trends as humans gobble up nature like there is no tomorrow. I am a population ecologist and the data is absolutely clear on this point: we are approaching a period of consequences. Read my Erhlich quote again in my last but one post. It suits you to a tee.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 31 Aug 2009 #permalink

Mark and Jeff,

By cutting off cheap energy to the world's poor, you are condemning billions to death.

Only cheap oil can save them.

But GOVERNMENT and GREENIES want to stop this, the first for taxation purposes and the second for religious reasons.

When I see cheap oil, I find it comforting, expensive oil is scary. Which is better, comforting or scary?

You see you error?

By Grima Wormtongue (not verified) on 31 Aug 2009 #permalink

> By cutting off cheap energy to the world's poor, you are condemning billions to death.

Nope, in an open market, the poor countries cannot AFFORD oil.

But they DO have plentiful unwanted land to build wind turbines or solar panels and they have plenty of raw sunlight and wind (where they don't have oilfields).

And by demanding that CO2 not be limited you are sentencing most of the poor world to starvation and war.

Wars which will require guns and ammo which the west will happily supply because people like you don't care about the lives, just the money.

Jeff @954

Thank you for your time.

Jeff, do you accept that the life expectancy of the population of India and China has increased?

956 Mark Byrne,

When fossil fuels were cheap, the wealthy nations and the big multinationals poured money and help into the Third World to lift it out of poverty. Now all that is being jeopardised by plans to make energy more expensive. The lefties and greenies did everything they could to make the poor poorer and now they will make it even worse!

Can't you see that?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

You wrote, And by demanding that CO2 not be limited you are sentencing most of the poor world to starvation and war.

The more CO2, the more food there is for people to eat (CO2 + Sun Light + H2O => Plant Food).

From last decade's data, no evidence of increase in global temperature. Actually, since 2005, the slope is [negative]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NoGlobalWarming.htm).

According to the data, the fear is imagined.

Who takes credit for the negative slope of the mean global temperature since 2005? Kyoto or Nature?

> There has been no upward trend in temperature at Mauna Loa since 1958, 51 years ago. Chris, is that long enough for you?

> Posted by: Vic Hayward

A trend isn't "the first point to the last point".

That is known as a temperature difference.

A trend is the best guess of where future values will be located and is completely different as anyone who did maths to 15 years old would know.

True Skeptic has got me there,

TS's representation of history explains how the poor in Africa were liberated from poverty and why charging rich people more for their damage will make the lives of the poor worse.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

True Sceptic @959

Countries are poor because their governments chain people under socialistic central planning that stifle free enterprise so they have to wait eleven years to buy a car like in Cuba.

[Politics here is a sport whose spectators are all blind]( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/world/americas/06cuba.html?_r=1&scp=1…)

Countries are poor because there is a pipe that directly connects the treasury to the bank account of their leaders. They also do this for at least a couple of decades until pushed by another thug to repeat the same act.

[Why is Africa Poor?]( http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/why-is-africa-poor/)

Girma, who own the leaders? Who has bought influence and taken control of the political process? Take a resource rich nation [like Niger]( http://www.sweetcrudemovie.com/), with all that sweet crude.

It is Ayn Randâs geniuses that have taken power from the people and bent it to their own ends. It is your mis-named âfree- marketsâ which that enable those with concentrated wealth to buy the decision making process.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

"under socialistic central planning that stifle free enterprise" - Girma.

Oh dear, more looney free-market ideology.

At least know it's beyond doubt that Girma rejects the science data in preference for his political beliefs.

er, that's 'now' not 'know'

Mark @964

Corruption occurs because the leaders are not accountable to their people for their actions.

As Ayn Rand noted, the precondition to prosperity is to have the American concept of âa government of laws and not of menâ. Without this, we will not see any change in Africa. The leaders lead for 20, 30 & 40 years! They are the law. The constitution is just useless paper.

Mark, âFree Marketâ has nothing to do with the situation in Africa.

However, we have to pay homage to the âFree Marketâ for lifting millions out poverty from China and India. You have two choices: Free or command economy. Pick your choice, but donât forget to recall the lessons of history.

> As Ayn Rand noted, the precondition to prosperity is to have the American concept of âa government of laws and not of menâ.

And that is not what you have in the world.

The Free Market doesn't exist, but what "Free Marketers" *call* a "Free Market". I.e. where nobody is bigger than they are so they can do what they want.

Which is NOT a government of laws not of men. It is most decidedly a government of men.

> However, we have to pay homage to the âFree Marketâ for lifting millions out poverty from China and India.

No we do not, since they do not have a Free Market either. Offshoring costs and keeping the denefits is the reason for all the global work done by China and India. Yet India is now in a crunch now that other places are cheaper. Yet since there was no increase in the value of the economy for these countries, they will fall back into poverty. Something your free market will ensure.

And the cost of this?

Concentration of power in the rich.

Which engenders the rule of man not law.

You have two choices: command economy by government or command economy by corporation.

Pick your choice, but you currently seem to have plumped for the corporate command economy.

Girma, the laws in the USA are disproportionately bought and paid for by those who have bought the political process. America's prosperity has just gone to the banking oligarchs. Rand's geniuses have just bailed themselves out with the last vestages of America's richest.

Your Randroid geniuses are plunderers who privatise profits and socialise costs.

Are you aware the [Alan Greenspan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan) was a Rand disciple? He's admitted [his ideology](http://english.aljazeera.net/business/2008/10/20081023161043967668.html) blinded him to the disaster that he oversaw.

The mis-named "free market' is more in control in Africa than China. Africa's poverty is largely a result of the free power of those who plundered the wealth and subjugated the peoples, starting with slavery, colonization and continuing with Shell oil and other corporate plunderers.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

> The more CO2, the more food there is for people to eat (CO2 + Sun Light + H2O => Plant Food).

Uh, there's more than just CO2 in that equation.

What happens with less H2O? What happens when there's torrential rain?

It also ignores that the CO2 has a most efficient position. For example, current foodstocks produce less natural insecticide under higher CO2 loads so therefore more of their production is eaten by pests.

CO2 levels may produce much more leaf matter that is not suitable for eating rather than the consumable section of the plant.

Mark,

My free-market beliefs and unswerving devotion to the writings of Ayn Rand confirm that CO2 is food, that the free-market is the cure for all ills and the evil GREENS and BIG GOVERNMENT are foisting a campaign of fear on the whole world. Fear based on a belief in AGW that the data of Ayn Rand preaches is a false god. The free-market is data and the data is comforting. Ditch your false belief in science and follow Ayn Rand. Then you shall know comfort, verily I say unto you......

By Grima Wormtongue (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Girma, since you think Cuba is so bad, perhaps you should return to the data.

Cuba have suffered under decades of economic blockaid, they have survived peak oil, redesigned their cities for sustanability, have a lower [infant mortality](http://www.prb.org/Datafinder/Topic/Bar.aspx?sort=v&order=d&variable=28) than the USA. Have practically the same [life expectancy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) as the USA (within margin of error) despite being a tropical country.

Poor countries don't rise their standards and get those results by bending over for the oligarchs.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

I yield to your wisdom Wormtongue.

You had me at 'verily'.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

962 Mark Byrne,

You're getting it! Hey, I could fit right in at Watts, Marohasy, etc. ;-)

See Girma's response?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Mark

Trade must never be commanded by those who hold the Gun (governments).

Economics and Gun never mix.

The legally disarmed and the armed government cannot trade voluntarily. It will be a disaster, as demonstrated in the history and seen now in countries that adopt this system. I am sure, you will think twice before you refuse to trade with government that has legal power to take away your freedom. As a result, the trade will not be voluntarily.

We both agree that free trade has to be truly free, where new businesses can enter into the market freely.

According to

Girma, chuck out

the data

before 1998 necessary to get climatic significance because it contradicts his belief that

the fear is imagined.

Like all politically motivated trolls, Girma is incapable of learning something that contradicts his belief and is a hypocrite.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Mark,

What I like about private businesses is their effectiveness. When I compare the speedy service from a government department to a private business, the private business wins all the time. You see, in a private business, if they donât serve you at that instant, they loose their income. However, in a government department, their salary is not directly linked to the service. They get paid whether they serve you or not.

Girma, your oligarch have guns! Your geniuses have bought control of the the government. Have you heard of the Iraq war, or the [Military Industrial Complex](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Military-industrial_complex). Arms production and [war profiteering](http://www.stwr.org/global-conflicts-militarization/parasitic-imperiali…) are among the largest parts of the US economy.

I could go into details about private armies like [Blackwater](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8). Or the dozens upon dozens of coups to overthrow elected government infavor of polices that a sought by corporations going back before the [United Fruit Company](http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/chiquita.htm)

Did you know the George Bush's grandfather was a plotter in in planning a [coup to overthrow FDR](http://republican.meetup.com/boards/thread/3317707)?

The oligarchs have guns! Their boys played a role in sending to USA to war in Iraq!

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

> What I like about private businesses is their effectiveness.

If you think they are effective, then feel free to enjoy your delusion.

> Trade must never be commanded by those who hold the Gun (governments).

But as long as guns exist, SOMEONE will have them.

And in the absence of government, corporations will have them. And the bigger the corporation the more guns they will have.

So how will you uninvent guns, Grima?

>*What I like about private businesses is their effectiveness. When I compare the speedy service from a government department to a private business, the private business wins all the time*

I think what the Cubans like is having more of their children live due to decent healthcare!

I have another comment caught up in moderation (too many links). It addresses your previous post. Basically, your genius oligarchs have guns- go study war profiteering and the military industrial complex. Look and the corporate ties to US sponsored coups. Look and the corporate relationship with corrupt dictators, very cosy they both get to cut out the populous and concentrate the profits.

Search the terms "Smedley Butler", "FDR", and "Prescott Bush".

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

BTW I like private business too. I also like genuine completion. But genuine competition requires regulation.

And just because I like private enterprise doesn't mean I think we should bow down to a utopian ideology that says "free markets" should be everywhere and will fix everything. Evidence says otherwise.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Girma Orssengo.

Something from my time teaching and socialising with African students makes me thing that your name is African too - eastern or north-eastern... If this is the case, how do you reconcile your right-wing economic ideology with the economic history of the continent?

On a more prosaic (and probably rhetorical) level, I would still like to know exactly how did you get a Masters and a PhD? With the errors of scientific understanding that you display here, you would not have passed first year in an undergraduate degree in any instituion where I have worked.

Could you detail what work was required of you, including a response to [the question I asked earlier]http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) about whether you sat for a viva? Additionally, what was the structure of your thesis defence?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

983 Bernard,

Girma's website says his nationality is Ethiopian and Australian. I assume he was born in the former.

The disparity between his degrees and his odd understanding of various mathematical and scientific basics is a real poser. I'd say it's not even GCSE (UK) level.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Sixteen more! sixteen more! sixteen more...er, fifteen more! fifteen more! I may be wrong, but I don't think we've heard about Bohemian Grove, or the Illuminati yet. They feel left out of this climate denial circle jerk. And what about the reptoids? They were mentioned, but they were left in the cold. Maybe, being reptiles, they want the world warmer - did anyone think of that (ok, anyone over the age of five, that is)? Will someone think of the reptoids?

So what's the record for a Deltoid thread? Or for posts by one person in a thread (Girma must have had that sewn up long ago)?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

What is the record for total posts on a deltoid thread? Has one thousand been exceeded yet?

Thirteen and counting!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Twelve!

By Former Skeptic (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

We're going to have to hope that two of us don't post at the same time to throw out the count!

Eleven!

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Bugger, I've got a comment pending moderation from last night.

When that come through it will make this number ...Nine!

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Bernard, J @983

I want to confirm that I am from Ethiopia, and English is not my first language.

I want also to mention that someone from this blog has contacted my supervisor and was told about the quality of my PhD thesis: âOutstanding.â You can do the same and found out instead of learning it from me.

Bernard, you can check the quality of my published work on the web by looking at the number of citation by just typing Orssengo-pye. Googles search gave me a value of 692. So my work is not collecting dust in the back room of a library. If you insist, I will post on my website my transcripts, which are mostly B+ and A.

Nations in Africa were not able to establish a system of a government of laws, but what they have is a government of men. The leaders are the law. The constitution is just a useless paper. Without change in this, there will not be any improvement in the life of the people of Africa.

I will not respond to any more personal questions, as they are irrelevant. Play the ball, not the man.

Girma,

What are the barriers to African nations developing in the way rich nations have?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Mark @992

I am of the philosophical out look that believe the success or failure of a nation or an individual depends mainly on itself, unless the individual is a slave or the nation is under occupation by another nation.

Define "under occupation" and why limit yourself to occupation by nations? Big corporations are larger than many nations.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

"I want also to mention that someone from this blog has contacted my supervisor and was told about the quality of my PhD thesis: âOutstanding.â You can do the same and found out instead of learning it from me." - Girma.

Then you really have no excuse for your crimes against statisics, mathematics and reasoning.

It's all down to belief trumping science.

Mark @994

The root cause is with leaders of the poor nations who write or break the law, not foreign Corporations.

Michael @995

You wrote, It's all down to belief trumping science

Did not the science, the data, for the last ten years show [no increase in mean global temperature?]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NoGlobalWarming.htm)

Did not the science, the data, since 2005 show a trend for a decrease in mean global temperature (for cooling!)?

How can I deny what I see and believe in something else?

Girma: so many wrong answers, so little time. I find your simplisitic view of the world annoying, on top of the fact that you categorically DO NOT READ MY POSTS OR THOSE OF OTHERS HERE.

If you do not understand ecological economics, just admit it and save us the b*s will you? In response to my posts, what do I get?

For starters, you ignore future scenarios. For you NOW is the future. You ignore the fact that China is headed for a crash, as it depletes its natural capital. You ignore ecological debts. You ignore the link between human welfare and the environment. You ignore tipping points.

Then you rehash the garbage- which frankly has been demolished time and time again - by saying this: "The more CO2, the more food there is for people to eat (CO2 + Sun Light + H2O => Plant Food)". Get this through your head, Girma: THIS IS NOT TRUE. Primary plant productivity depends on much more than C02. Nitrogen and especially phosphorus are often limiting nutrients. As plants incorporate more carbon, the others are shunted out of plant tissues, leading to excessively high C:N or C:P ratios. Moreover, nitrogen is the limiting nutrient for insect development; expect insects to incur more damage on crops as N levels in plant tissue decrease. Finally, many plants have not evolved in a high C atmosphere and the rapid increase in atmospheric C now underway will incur large physiological costs on many plants

Then you claim that unfettered corporate power is not a cause of poverty. This is your most ludicrous assertion amongst the sea of illogic that you peddle here. Where to begin demolishing this fatuous remark? If I were you, I would start by reading Joel Bakan`s "The Corporation". That book alone vanquishes your Randian worldview. What do you think drives the foreign policy of most western nations? Good intentions? How do you think that corrupt leaders often come to power and remain in power? What do you think lies behind the Washington Consensus? Have you even heard of it? Have you ever heard of terms such as structural adjustement?

To be honest, I am getting a bit fed up reading your posts, Girma. I do not know how you found your way onto Tim`s website (was it through Morano?) but your views are so utterly devoid of logic that I do not know where to begin.
Moreover, Girma, I don`t care where or when you did your PhD. I can tell you that it was not in environmental science or policy. In my opinion your view of the world is at the level of a primary school student. Having a PhD - which I also possess - is not a key to knowledge of the world. That takes a lot more, and I can see you have a long road ahead of you.

I won`t reply any more to your inane goading and annoying ripostes because you just do not read what others here have to say. I take the effort to explain in detail why China`s economic miracle is a bubble, going into some depth in discussing ecological causation, and you reply with a fatuous remark about current life expectancies, whilst ignoring the scenarios I sketched out in detail. You glean over most of the substantive comments and come back with frankly hollow replies. I can well understand Bernard`s earlier posts with respect to you.

All I can say is good luck on your life`s journey. You have a lot to learn.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Sep 2009 #permalink

Girma,

You've had this explained many times. 10 years is not climate, and AGW is about climate. But still, you dishonest denialists need to update your talking points - 10 years back only covers 1999, not the El Nino year of 1998 which is the chery-pick year.

'Cooling for the last 10 years' is last years talking point. Try to keep up.

The climate trend shows warming. This is the undeniable scientific data.

You flip science the bird and go with your beliefs. Again.