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 But each of their arguments is wrong, outdated, or irrelevant.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."
- Log in to post comments
Girma @1494:
>*"What do you [call this](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005/compress:12)"*?
I call it [a fudge and and cherry pick](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005/mean:12/plot/had…). I also call it [irrelevant](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
1495 Girma,
What's this? Another dazzling insight? Show us the correlation between the tides and mean global temperature.
1496 Girma,
This is too much! You can't even read your own graph, which shows the temperature relative to a long-term linear warming trend. By definition, anything above the x-axis is not only not cooling; it is warming by more than your own linear trend.
You could claim than the rate of warming is currently reducing, which is not the same thing at all.
Note this is using your graph and your claims about trends, no one else's.
TrueSceptic @1497
Agreed!
Let us use HADCRUT 0.526 deg C.
If this is exceed for any year's average from this year until 2020 I deposit $100 USD into the charity of your choosing.
If not, you declare that you donât believe in CO2 driven AGW. That is all I want.
Then Girma [says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…):
>*I cannot believe people still believing in global warming when the trend clearly shows for cooling. Look the right side of this anomaly plot.
So cooling is warming. Warming is cooling. No body knows when the temperature is increasing or decreasing. This is mysticism, not science.*
You really have confused yourself Girma. But not us. You have merely taken [this data](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…) and removed that the warming trend. So you are only fooling your self when you say:
>*So cooling is warming. Warming is cooling. No body knows when the temperature is increasing or decreasing. This is mysticism, not science.*
Your basically arguing that if you remove the warming trend, then you cannot tell if it is warming.
> I am trying to figure out what the most likely temperature in ten years will be. Until then I am not betting.
So Grima, you're backing out of the bets you've already agreed to?
Shows how much you believe your predictive ability...
> Mark @1486
> You wrote, Incorrect: there has been no monotonic cooling since 2005.
> What do you call this: Yearly Anomaly since 2005
> Posted by: Girma
I call it "still warming over the year" since you've taken away a linearly increasing trend and the line is STILL above that increasing trend.
Check again:
2005: +0.45C
2007: +0.63C
from http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005
NOTE: in most versions of mathematics, 0.63 is greater than 0.45.
1504 Girma,
This needs to be even-handed.
If 0.526 °C is not exceeded before 2020 according to HADCRUT, I shall pay $100 (USD) into a charity of your choosing and I shall declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was mistaken in grossly exaggerating the role of CO2.
If 0.526 °C is exceeded before 2020 according to HADCRUT, you will pay $100 (USD) into a charity of my choosing and you will declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was broadly correct in assessing the role of CO2.
> Does not the moon pull the oceans as it revolves around the earth thus affecting ocean circulation and therefore mean global temperature?
> Posted by: Girma
The moon does pull the oceans.
The moon does revolve around the earth
The moon does affect ocean circulation
The moon does not affect the ocean temperatures.
How could it?
It isn't introducing any new heat source.
TrueSceptic @1503
What I am looking at is at the slope of the [oscillating component]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Figure2MyAnomalyPaper.gif) of the anomaly curve.
If it is positive, like this /////, as was the case from 1976 to 1998, it is a warming cycle.
If it is negative, like this \\\\\, as is the case now, it is a cooling cycle!
The linear warming is only 0.044 deg/decade so it is irrelevant for our discussion of short term temperature changes.
1510 Girma,
As long as your graph is above zero, it shows warming relative to your warming trend. Any changes of slope reflect changes in the rate. They don't show cooling, relative to your trend, until the line goes below zero.
Once more, short-term variations are just noise!
Mark @1509
The moon does affect ocean circulation. Good.
Then if the moon passes over the ocean, compared to over land, this will increase ocean circulation and therefore reduce the temperature of warm ocean surface water by mixing it up with cold ocean deep water and cold polar ocean water.
1512 Girma,
It's very simple: show us any data supporting the claim that tides are correlated with mean global temperature.
TrueSceptic @1508
You wrote, If 0.526 °C is not exceeded before 2020 according to HADCRUT, I shall pay $100 (USD) into a charity of your choosing and I shall declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was mistaken in grossly exaggerating the role of CO2.
If 0.526 °C is exceeded before 2020 according to HADCRUT, you will pay $100 (USD) into a charity of my choosing and you will declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was broadly correct in assessing the role of CO2.
Note: 0.526 is the yearly average.
Girma agrees 100% with the above.
Good luck. You need it.
TrueSceptic @1513
Do I really need data to show that stirring of a liquid reduces the temperature of the part of the liquid that had higher temperatures, and increases the temperature of the part of the liquid that had lower temperature?
1514 Girma,
Final version?
If a global mean temperature anomaly yearly average of 0.526 °C is not exceeded before 1 Jan 2020 according to HADCRUT, I shall pay $100 (USD) into a charity of your choosing and I shall declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was mistaken in grossly exaggerating the role of CO2.
If a global mean temperature anomaly yearly average of 0.526 °C is exceeded before 1 Jan 2020 according to HADCRUT, you will pay $100 (USD) into a charity of my choosing and you will declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was broadly correct in assessing the role of CO2.
I don't need any luck, and I won't need to wait 10 years either. ;)
1515 Girma,
You need data to show that there is any measurable effect.
The trouble with using HADCRUT is that it do not include the poles. Both the theories of radiative physics and empirical measurement say that warming will/does occur here the most - hence Girma Orssengo is loading his dice by selecting this dataset.
It matters not though; he will still lose his bet.
I believe that another condition of his bet should be that on losing it he contact all organisations to which he has given his support in denying AGW, using his tertiary degrees as 'authority', and formally retract his statements.
Girma Orssengo, others are also using [your data transformation technique](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/09/arctic-sea-ice-staggering-growt…) to demonstrate that cooling is occurring. You might want to consider whether you are correct in [your understanding of cycles](http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/cycles-projections-and-othe…) though, before you grow too excited.
1518 Bernard,
I know that HADCRUT will not necessarily show as much warming as, say GISTEMP, but I'm confident in my bet.
1518 Bernard,
When he loses, he will make the agreed declaration here (or equivalent) and anyone will be free to copy it anywhere (it will not be possible to prevent it).
> > Let us use HADCRUT 0.526 deg C.
> The trouble with using HADCRUT is that it do not include the poles.
No, the trouble is he'll use GISS data and compare it to HADCrut data if it makes his point.
Or the satellite data from Roy Spencer, even though it uses a different reference point.
> Then if the moon passes over the ocean, compared to over land, this will increase ocean circulation and therefore reduce the temperature of warm ocean surface water by mixing it up with cold ocean deep water and cold polar ocean water.
> Posted by: Girma
Nope, it won't.
Ocean circulation changes aren't due to the moon pulling deep water up, since the deep water is just as pulled as shallow water, and the thermocline keeps it down there.
You need more than the moon's pull to make it mix up.
And it's still no net change, since at the downward end, there would have to be shallow water being pulled down by the lack of deep water under it.
Net change: nil.
1521 Mark,
I don't see how he can. It's all clearly (I hope) stated in 1516.
Mark @1521
You wrote, No, the trouble is he'll use GISS data and compare it to HADCrut data if it makes his point.
Or the satellite data from Roy Spencer, even though it uses a different reference point.
I agree 100% with TrueSceptic's Post at @1516, with out any excuses or explanations.
If that is the case, I will join the AGW camp!
But I doubt it. Just look at recorded history of [global mean temperature](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Figure2MyAnomalyPaper.gif). If we see a new maximum in such a short period of time after 1998, the globe has stopped to behave either like 1878, when the globe waited for 66 years for the next maximum in 1944, or like 1944, when the globe waited for 54 years for the next maximum in 1998.
Mark @1522
When the moon pulls the top surface of the ocean, a vacuum is created under the ocean where the surface is pulled up, and this vacuum sucks water from all around it. It is similar to the low-pressure system that we see on land. The only difference is you replace air with water.
1524 Girma,
That is not the history of global mean temperature. It is your "anomaly" relative to a rising trend. Our bet is not relative to that trend; it is relative to 1998.
TrueSceptic @1526
Agreed.
I was trying to make the point that by 2020, in 11 years, the rising trend adds only 0.05 deg C, which is insignificant.
Grima:
"When the moon pulls the top surface of the ocean, a vacuum is created under the ocean where the surface is pulled up, and this vacuum sucks water from all around it."
Oh, good fucking god....
Grima, ocean tides are long period rotating waves in ocean basins, rotating about a nodal point with amplitude of zero at the node, and increasing amplitude as one gets further away from the node. They are caused by the HORIZONTAL (not vertical) gravitational forcing of the water in the ocean basin. This is why tidal range in the mid-pacific is near zero, at Tahiti about 0.5 meter, at Hawaii about 1 meter, at San Francisco is about 2 meters, and at Alaska is 4-5 meters.
Except at boundaries where water flows because of changing sea surface height, or in shallow water relative to wave period, there is no net water transport from a non-breaking wave. Much of the margins of ocean basis is 'shallow water' and that forcing is a (very small) contributor to ocean currents, but it doesn't matter in the least if the moon "spends more time over land." The gravitational forcing of the standing waves is due to the total net gravitational attraction of the sun and the moon, and it acts uniformly on the entire mass of the earth.
It isn't so much that you don't know anything, Grima. It is that you keep pronouncing as manifest undeniable truth, things that simply (and I mean REALLY simply) aint so.
Cheers Bernard, [that is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) a classic coincidence!
Lee @1528
I have to admit it is just my common sense thinking. I have never read anything about it.
Oops, [this being](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/09/arctic-sea-ice-staggering-growt…) the classic coincidence.
1530 Girma,
Does this apply to everything you say?
I have to admit it is just my common sense thinking. I have never read anything about it.
Can we quote you?
TrueSceptic @1532
I wrote, I have to admit it is just my common sense thinking. I have never read anything about it
I am taking about the relationship between the moon and ocean circulation.
However, does not it stand to reason that when the moon pulls the top surface of the ocean a vacuum will be created under that portion of the ocean?
Girma @1533 "However, does not it stand to reason that when the moon pulls the top surface of the ocean a vacuum will be created under that portion of the ocean?"
No, it does not stand to reason. As stated before, the moon (and other bodies, but let's not get into that) has a gravitational pull that works on everything equally. It not only "pulls" (to use your expression) the top of the water, but the middle, the bottom, the ground beneath that, etc, etc. If everything moves the same way, there is no vacuum to be made. (actually, the attraction of the moon is towards the center of mass, so technically the earth itself is "pulled" and the water just basically goes along for the ride. The mass of the water itself is a miniscule fraction of the entire mass of the earth, IIRC, so the effects of gravitational attraction is less than that of the rock et al beneath it. Any corrections on this?
Girma, I would love to hear a PhD mechanical engineer's explanation for how the moon "pulls" the top of the ocean, without doing anything to the rest of the water column at the same time.
Badger3k @1534
I thought as there is no attachment along the interface between the bottom of the sea and the sea bed, the water will be pulled along this interface creating vacuum. Is this right?
Girma - re: the attachment.
No. Gravity works, as much as I understand it, by the attraction between the mass of objects. One reason that ideas of the moons pull on humans causing madness due to water in the brain (it's been tossed around for the mythical "full moon effect") is BS is that humans mass very little. Gravity loses force rapidly as distance increases, and if the mass is small, there is little effect. The mass of the Earth itself is what gets pulled, and the stuff on the surface more or less goes along for the ride. It may be counter-intuitive, but gravity does work, more or less, from the bottom up in this case. In order for a situation like you think to happen, the pull of the moon (pulling up on the water) would have to be stronger than the pull of the Earth's gravity on the water (pulling down). Since the pull of the moon on the water is less both the pull on the water and the pull on the Earth itself, the surface of the Earth moves essentially as a unit. If I recall, Phil Plait's book "Bad Astronomy" has some material on this, and it's a fun book to read as well, so I'll plug it.
Hope that I haven't buggered my explanation to badly.
>I thought as there is no attachment along the interface between the bottom of the sea and the sea bed, the water will be pulled along this interface creating vacuum. Is this right?
Girma,
Can you point on any layer of water that is immune to the moons gravitational pull?
You could make an arument the force decrease as you get further from the moon, but the distances are small, so difference is very small. You could make a case that at the sea floor where the sea bed is more resistant to deformation, that a vacuum draws in some surrounding water. But to be useful you'd need data to show how much and at what depth the mixing occurs/remains. Have you any data relating the lunar cycle with temperature change?
More importantly has the lunar cycle changed in the last 1000 years?
Mark Byrne,
Have you any data relating the lunar cycle with temperature change?
It was just my common sense thinking on what drives ocean circulation, in addition to solar radiation.
Grima, as a mechanical engineer, if you have a design job to do in a field that is new to you, do you assume you know everything you need to know and design it based on your "common sense?" Or do yo hit the books, learn the known design factors in the field, ask for help from people who are in the field?
And if you do the former, can you please list anything that has been built from your designs, so we can avoid them?
Girma,
[Your model](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…) assumes an ongoing warming trend of 0.44k/century.
Your trend however is influenced by major volcanic sulfate aerosol cooling (from 1883, and 1906), and by major industrial sulfate aerosol cooling (from 1945).
However these sulfate aerosol forcing factors have been curbed (or their growth has ceased). And there has been a rapid rise in GHG since 1945. Is it conceiveable that the tremperature [trend may respond](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…) to thse changes in tempoerature forcing?
The trouble with 'common sense' is that it is prone to both deductive and inductive fallacies of logic.
This is one reason why humans have constructed the scientific method, with empirical testing of hypotheses, and statistical analysis of results. Both processes impart objectivity to the process of understand - within the subjective limitations of the design of the experiment of course, and of the interpretation of the analyses.
If only we could completely remove humans from the scientific process...
'Common sense' is also a reason to be exceedingly wary of anyone who freely casts about notions of '[thought experiments](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)' without understanding the profoundly disciplined grasp of logic that is required to do so successfully.
Mark Byrne @1541
The only thing we can rely on is the observation. I say the cooling phase has started, as we have a negative slope in the oscillation component versus year graph that looks like this \\\\. I will be proved right or wrong in the next decade. It is that easy. I prefer to be in my position than yours, with supporting historical and current temperature records.
It is amazing at the prodigious effort that has gone into plotting the anomaly plot so that no cyclic patterns can be identified. It is sad.
Lee
Lee, of course, in our professional work, the first step is background study.
However, in this blog, I believe we should not only discuss topics that we really know. How do we learn then?
That is what I have been doing regarding the relationship between the moonâs gravity and ocean circulation. My common sense view is that there must be a relationship. Experts in this field come forward and teach us.
>*It is amazing at the prodigious effort that has gone into plotting the anomaly plot so that no [trend] can be identified. It is sad.*
And it is also sad that you persist with your erroneous faith in short term noise rather than [long term trend](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plo…).
Doubly sad when the [short term trend](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2007.5/plot/wti/from:2008/tre…) contractacts your cooling assertion.
Girma,
I found a site with [similar ideas to yours](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/09/wheres-warming.html). I wanted you to get credit, so I linked some of your work in the comments of that site.
> Lee, of course, in our professional work, the first step is background study.
Your work isn't professional, Grima.
Still unable to work out statistical significance. Still unable to do even linear least-squares fit to data.
Still unable to show even simian-level intelligence.
> I say the cooling phase has started, as we have a negative slope in the oscillation component
There is no oscillation component.
Take a look at this graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
In so many places you would be saying "it's cooling" when it isn't (it's just colder). 1908 for example.
Yet every year since 1919 has been warmer than the coldest point after that: 1909.
So you would have been WRONG, wouldn't you.
Or explain how it has been getting colder since 1909.
> It was just my common sense thinking on what drives ocean circulation, in addition to solar radiation.
> Posted by: Girma
And what's commonsensical about thinking the moon changes have something to do with solar radiation?
It's NON-nonsensical.
> I was trying to make the point that by 2020, in 11 years, the rising trend adds only 0.05 deg C, which is insignificant.
> Posted by: Girma
And in a sealed room, each breath you take adds a few millilitres of CO2 to the air in the box. Insignificant, I'm sure you agree.
So how come people die when they're put in a box and sealed in..?
1533 Girma,
You have still not provided any data in support of your alleged connection between tides and ocean (or any other) temperatures. A monthly (lunar month) cycle would be easy to spot, wouldn't it?
As for the mechanism, "vacuum" doesn't enter into it. Why do you imagine there is a tidal bulge on each side of the Earth, one on the side near to the Moon and the other on the far side? (The Sun also has tidal effects, which can add to or subtract from the Moon's effect.)
For an explanation, try [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Physics) or [Phil Plait](http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html)
1543 Girma,
What the **** does this mean?
The plot is what it is. If there are any cyclical patterns, they can be found. For instance, the 11-year solar cycle can just be identified.
1546 Mark Byrne,
[Someone](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/08/all-you-need-to-know-about-rece…) beat you to it. ;)
I'd be tempted to say we should call this Girma Scaling but [Dr Roy](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/50-years-of-co2-time-for-a-vision-t…) got there first.
Dear Bloggers
Here is why I say we have already entered [GLOBAL COOLING]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…) for the next couple of decades. For me, seeing is believing.
When is the fear mongering for global cooling going to start?
Actually there is hint this will start soon:
[Sun Oddly Quiet -- Hints at Next "Little Ice Age"?]( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-sun-global-cooli…)
Yes, in National Geographic!
Makes you wonder why we are at near record temperatures if the sun is so cooled?
Girma, did you read this bit in the story you linked to:
>*skeptics tend to leap forward," said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K. (Get the facts about global warming.)*
>*He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call "preemptive denial" of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.*
>*Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star's effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).*
Cheers TS, from the date of Wrinkled Retainer's post (7th Sept), it is possible that Girma was the inspiration for DD's masterpeiece [on the 10th](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/09/wheres-warming.html)
[OCEAN CURRENT:]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_current)
An ocean current is a continuous, directed movement of ocean water generated by the forces acting upon the water, such as the Earth's rotation, wind, temperature, salinity differences and, tides caused by the gravitational pull of the Moon and the Sun. Depth contours, shoreline configurations and interaction with other currents influence a current's direction and strength.
Conclusion: Common sense works!
Girma writes:
>*Here is why I say we have already entered GLOBAL COOLING for the next couple of decades. For me, seeing is believing.*
[Here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and [here's](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_asses…) why I think you are wrong.
For me, I like to include consideration of evidence from the best available science. Call me quirky.
Four nil to Girma!
>Conclusion: Common sense works!
So does reading some expert opinion!
And [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…):
>*More importantly has the lunar cycle changed in the last 1000 years?*
BTW Girma, can you repost [this chart](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…) with more of your explanation and names etc? We can disseminate it widely if you do.
1554 Girma,
People like you have been "fear mongering" about supposed cooling for years. I could find lots of examples if I could be bothered.
The article you link to says
Mark Byrne,
You are giving me a link to Pravda. Sorry, I don't read Pravda. I only read independent info.
1555 Mark Byrne,
Looks likely, but only Inferno knows for sure. Same for the [follow-up](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/09/arctic-sea-ice-staggering-growt…).
BTW I'm pretty sure that some of the DD regulars, including Inferno, must also post here and at Open Mind.
Like I say, *For me, I like to include consideration of evidence from the best available science. Call me quirky.*
Girma, by all means restrict yourself to reading "blog science" and Exxon funded lobby groups. If that the sort of "independent info" that means "science" to you.
I see there close minded and ideological cages (and language) are working wonders for you already!
> Conclusion: Common sense works!
Your "common sense" analysis led you to assert that the seas are pulled en masse away from the surface of the earth, leaving a vacuum underneath.
If this doesn't illustrate the abominable pig-headed ignorance of your arguments, nothing will.
You are not Galileo. You are the epitomy of the blinkered, arrogant, fact-averse, unscientific unreason that he challenged.
> Sorry, I don't read Pravda. I only read independent info.
> Posted by: Girma
As long as it says what he wants...
TS,
Any ideas what handle Inferno might post here as?
> tides caused by the gravitational pull of the Moon and the Sun. Depth contours, shoreline configurations and interaction with other currents influence a current's direction and strength.
> Posted by: Girma
How does the moon change the contours of the ocean floor, Grima?
How does it change the headlands and bays?
How does the Gulf Stream work if it's supposed to be the moon making it go?
We have to hose your ideas down: stuff is still clinging to it when you pull it out your arse.
I solved the global warming problem in just three weeks. In my spare time. I wonder what others have been doing.
The only result you need to see the history and future of mean global temperature is my soon to be famous [graph]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…)
You must now nominate me for you know what... (Oslo)
I notice that Grima hasn't answered questions either:
> Or explain how it has been getting colder since 1909.
> And when did you decide that we should talk about the weather rather than the climate?
> So how come people die when they're put in a box and sealed in..?
1566 Mark Byrne,
Dunno. Same applies to the other regulars. It's fun not knowing, of course, and if I did know, I wouldn't spoil it by telling anyone. :D
> I solved the global warming problem in just three weeks. In my spare time. I wonder what others have been doing.
Laughing their arses off at your idiocy.
1568 Girma,
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA
(Collapses breathless on floor with aching sides.)
Just remember that $100. ;)
TS, you are right. I was just about to repost and say don't spoil the majic!
And what is GO smoking today!
>*I solved the global warming problem in just three weeks. In my spare time. I wonder what others have been doing.
The only result you need to see the history and future of mean global temperature is my soon to be famous graph
You must now nominate me for you know what... (Oslo)*
All you need to do is publish your ground breaking findings! With such brilliance why are you denying all but us your inspirational work?
Dear Bloggers,
Actually, you donât even need to see my soon-to-be-famous graph. You just need the first letter of âWorldâ.
Yes, the mean global temperature goes like this
WWWWWWWWWWWW etc
Have a look at it again [here]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…)
Cooling, Warming, Cooling, Warming etc
You donât need to remember graphs. Just remember the letter âWâ.
W for the world.
W is the profile of the oscillation component of the mean global temperature.
Actually, it is not fair on my part to clam the solution to be only mine. It came with the help of those who bashed me. Though it was painful, you leg kickers have helped me to stay away from the AGW camp, until the winner between me and TS is decided.
In the mean time, there is nothing comforting to know than WWWWWWWWW.
I am comforted. You can live with your fear of the hockey stick.
The fact that you can't even fit a simple linearly regressed line-of-best-fit to the cherry-picked intervals in your graph is surely an acute embarrassment to the Univesity of New South Wales, and to the postgraduate research committee of this institution that saw fit to award you a PhD.
Alas, it seems that UNSW is not the only Australian institution whose standards are diminishing. My supervisor recently passed a thesis manuscript to me for comment, and the entire analytical content of the thesis is less than I performed for just one chapter in mine - and I worry that mine is not sufficient... At least the work in this thesis is scientifically sound though, if not in-depth.
I still struggle though to understand how someone with as much unfamiliarity with even undergraduate science, such as Girma Orssengo displays, managed to work through a Masters and a PhD without being caught as a scientific impostor. There must certainly be corridors and tea-rooms in UNSW's hallowed departments filled with chagrined academics...
If the moon is driving global warming, upon what periodicity of our lunar satellite do you postulate that such warming relies? You claim that there is a 30-year cycle involved - what cycle related to the moon drives this? What is the mechanism through which the moon causes 'warming'? Why have astronomers and physicists not identified it before now? As has already been asked above, why do we not see daily and monthly warming/cooling cycles realted to the moon?
Oo, oo - have you considered that global diurnal temperature ranges might not in fact be caused by the sun whose gravity is, after all, only effectively 48% (IIRC) that of the moon with respect to its influence on the earth, but that it is in fact the moon that causes the variation in temperature? Perhaps all the sun is good for is maintaining the ~15C global mean that is so constant over time...
Girma, stuff climate physics, you could be about to turn astronomical physics on its head!
> Actually, you donât even need to see my soon-to-be-famous graph.
Ah, Grima is channelling Bozo the Clown.
It isn't cooling. Take a look at this graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
See any other places where, despite getting colder for a few years, it gets hotter still afterwards?
Explain why it's warmer every year after 1919 than it was 1909.
And there is an oscillation around the mean BY DEFINITION, therefore nothing can be deduced from that. Which you would know if you had any mathematical ability.
Girma, I'm so pleased you won this battle and solved the problem of global warming (with only common sense). I will call if the Girma W chart.
What will you do next?
> Actually, it is not fair on my part to clam the solution to be only mine.
Now this doofus is going on about molluscs!!!
Dear All
If, in 20 years time, the projection of my [cooling trend]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…) that starts from 1998 matches with the actual temperature measurements, will I get the nomination I desperately seek?
With our help apparently, Girma Orssengo has discovered [noise](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_noise).
1576 Girma,
Remember that you can not win before 2020. I could win next year.
No need to keep repeating the "W". For some reason I find it easy to remember. ;)
Janeet Akerman
I donât think I can survive with out arguing the point that CO2 is not the knob of global temperature. Where is the SUN?
I hope when they soon shiver with the coming cold they will soon forget about it, and they will come up with something irrational and I will fight them again.
Seriously, is Girma Orssengo Poe?
No-one can be this deluded...
Mark
you wrote, And there is an oscillation around the mean BY DEFINITION, therefore nothing can be deduced from that. Which you would know if you had any mathematical ability.
Do you or do you not see the pattern W in this [graph?]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…)
Is not science all about finding patterns in nature?
1581 Girma,
Don't worry. I'll get in touch with my friends in the Swedish Academy right away. I'd hate to see you wait 20 years for what you deserve.
1585 Bernard,
That's always been a possibility I can't quite dismiss. If so, we are in the presence of greatness. ;)
Girma Orssengo.
I notice that you are currently posting simultaneously with myself and several others.
I will ask you now, for the first and last time, to acknowledge if you are in fact a Poe. If you choose not to acknowledge such in the affirmative in your next post following this one, I (and the world with me) will take it that you do indeed subscribe to all that you have posted on this thread to date, and that you stake your professional credentials on this material.
Just so that we're all clear where you're coming from.
Girma, in your acceptance speech, will you credit the philosophy of Ayn Rand for giving you the drive to produce the Girma W chart? And the wisdom to put you common sense above peer reviewed science?
> Do you or do you not see the pattern W in this graph?
There is no pattern to that graph.
There's no "W" in that graph. There's WWWWW but all the points at the top and bottom are different.
I could see as much a "pattern" as if I rolled a six-sided dice for 30 goes and plotted the values on a graph as I rolled them. They too would show numbers that went up and down and occasionally (about one-in-six) a repeat.
To someone with some numerical skills, that would show no pattern.
To you, it is replete with pattern. Mostly because you're mad.
> will I get the nomination I desperately seek?
> Posted by: Girma
We can give you the recognition you deserve right now, Grima.
You're a loon.
Guys, I said IF!
If, in 20 years time, the projection of my cooling trend that starts from 1998 matches with the actual temperature measurements, will I get the nomination I desperately seek?
This is against the scientific consensus, and IF I am right I deserve to get it.
1591 Mark,
To the contrary. It's easy to make a [W out of the data](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/detrend:0.70429/mean:120/plot/…). Or how about [this one](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/detrend:0.70429/mean:360/plot/…)?
Girma:
I should also point out that I'm not interested in playing with someone who has long ago shown by his arrogance, ignorance and dishonesty that he doesn't want to play by the rules. My only interest is in understanding how such a person arrives at his state of arrogance, ignorance and dishonesty.
TS, that W isn't a W though.
You see a "W" has three upper points with either (depending on Font), the three points the same or the two widest points the same and the central point slightly lower. At the bottom extent, they go to two points, both equal in extent downwards.
And, and this is quite important, straight lines between these five selected points.
That is how you make a "W".
That is not the graph.
> This is against the scientific consensus, and IF I am right I deserve to get it.
> Posted by: Girma
And if the circumference of a circle is six times its radius, then the value of Pi is 3. Therefore that US legislation is true!
I SAID IF!!!!
Mark | August 20, 2009 9:17 AM:
For some important climate models, the source code has been open for some years, and IV and V would not require any NDA.
TrueSceptic @1594
Thanks for confirming that you get the pattern W from the mean global temperature data.
Here is the W pattern in mean global temperature by [TrueSceptic]( http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/detrend:0.70429/mean:120/plot/…)
Thanks a million.
1596 Mark,
Give me time to fine-tune the processing and I bet I could make a W fit even for you. :D
Of course, Girma has already raised making a W of himself to the level of performance art. ;)
1599 Girma,
My pleasure. Looks like we'll have to share that Nobel Prize!
OK, so no response from Girma to [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). It is therefore agreed by his default that he is not a Poe, and thus cannot in future retreat to this excuse for his astonishing display of scientific incompetence.
It's been a while since I shifted the mantle from its erstwhile owner, but the time has come for a new bestowing...
Girma Orssengo, you don't need Oslo: insulsissimus est homo.
1602 Bernard,
Who was the previous King (I know there's a lot to choose from)?
Janet @1590
You wrote, ...And the wisdom to put you common sense above peer reviewed science?
Here is what one âpeer reviewed science says:â
âThe global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Nino/La Nina effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.â
[Douglass & Christy]( http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/limits-on-co2-climate-…)
Yes, CO2 CLIMATE FORCING WITH NO-FEEDBACK, and that is why we have started the [global cooling phase](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/detrend:0.7/mean:120)
I will never, under any circumstance, respond to personal abuses. I will just ignore them.
This endless string of inanity should be retitled ["Girma's Adventures in Wonderland"](http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/alices-adventures-in-wo…):
"Speak roughly to your little boy and beat him when he sneezes,
He only does it to annoy because he knows it teases.
WoWoWoWoWoWoWoW!
He only does it to annoy because he knows it teases.
I speak severely to my boy, I beat him when he sneezes
For he can thoroughly enjoy the pepper when he pleases.
WoWoWoWoWoWoWoW!
For he can thoroughly enjoy the pepper when he pleases."
> I will never, under any circumstance, respond to personal abuses. I will just ignore them.
> Posted by: Girma
You never, under any circumstances, respond to queries asking what your ideas mean scientifically either.
> Yes, CO2 CLIMATE FORCING WITH NO-FEEDBACK, and that is why we have started the global cooling phase
No, that's CO2 climate forcing is proven by the fact that you have taken a warming trend away and have now a line that moves about the mean.
No global cooling phase, any more than "it's winter" is a global cooling phase.
I would note:
Seeing [patterns](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that aren't there is a symptom of [psychosis.](http://bipolar.about.com/cs/faqs/f/faq_hallucinate.htm)
I see one Girma (J.) Orssengo (MASc PhD) has a publication record. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye seemed to be a favourite in 1997.
Is that you Girma?
Even if not, have you perchance seen this excellent piece of research on understanding of climate science?
Arssengo said:
Apart from this sentence being completely garbled and nonsensical it refers to a garbage "paper" published in the junk journal "Energy and Environment" which is well known for accepting junk science and being non-peer reviewed.
Arssengo, if you were an honest scientist you would not be reading such garbage.
Do you actually understand what is meant by the "peer reviewed scientific literature"?
1604 Girma,
I hope that you complain to those 2 warmists about their bad science because "CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback" obviously cannot exist according to you, with or without feedback.
No mere man, Girma is Sol Invictus Insulissimus Imperator Maximus.
All praise Girma Ceasar!
I guess it's a bit late to suggest "don't feed the troll", right? :)
Girma,
What role or credit would give the philosophy of Ayn Rand in your development of the [Girma W chart](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/detrend:0.70429/compress:12/pl…)?
The urge to save humanity [from Global Warming] is always a false front for the urge to rule it.
H.L. Mencken's
Girma,
What role or credit would give the philosophy of Ayn Rand in your development of the Girma W chart and your disappearing of the global warming problem?
1615 Girma,
So once again you introduce an irrelevant quote, and a bastardised one at that.
I have to say that I am ****ed off with your failure to answer simple direct questions. There have been many in this thread but for now I'll settle for an honest reply to post 1611.
TIA
To my Dear Bloggers,
To summarise, I have found the pattern for the past and future of mean global temperature. Just in three weeks. In my spare time.
Here is the solution. The [history of mean global temperature]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…) for the last 150 years was a W. Because of the cycles of the earth, the moon & the sun, this pattern must be repeated in the next 150 years. As a result, the future of mean global temperature will be a [second W](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/detrend:0.7/mean:120). There is a confirmation of this theory as the second W, starting from the top right hand end of the first historical W is being written as you read.
This pattern is an extension of the Milankovitch Theory, applied to short term decadal prediction of climate. I propose, we call my theory the âOrssengo Theoryâ, or the O Theory for short.
You might question my removing the linear trend to get my W pattern. My response to this is that as the increase due to the linear trend is only 0.04 deg/decade, it is insignificant when predicting the short-term decadal trends.
If my prediction turns out to be correct, it is only fair for me to be invited to Oslo. The âO Theoryâ will be proved right or wrong in the next couple of decades.
I know the verification of the O Theory will not be in the same league us verifying the bending of light due to gravity of Einstein. But still one must hope.
Be nice to me.
To my Dear Bloggers,
To summarise, I have found the pattern for the past and future of mean global temperature. Just in three weeks. In my spare time.
Here is the solution. The [history of mean global temperature]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…) for the last 150 years was a W. Because of the cycles of the earth, the moon & the sun, this pattern must be repeated in the next 150 years. As a result, the future of mean global temperature will be a [second W](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/detrend:0.7/mean:120). There is a confirmation of this theory as the second W, starting from the top right hand end of the first historical W is being written as you read.
This pattern is an extension of the Milankovitch Theory, applied to short term decadal prediction of climate. I propose, we call my theory the âOrssengo Theoryâ, or the O Theory for short.
You might question my removing the linear trend to get my W pattern. My response to this is that as the increase due to the linear trend is only 0.04 deg/decade, it is insignificant when predicting the short-term decadal trends.
If my prediction turns out to be correct, it is only fair for me to be invited to Oslo. The âO Theoryâ will be proved right or wrong in the next couple of decades.
I know the verification of the [O Theory](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…) will not be in the same league as verifying the bending of light due to gravity of Einstein. But still one must hope.
Be nice to me.
Girma, thankyou for this fine summary, I think it fitting that it is posted twice, especially as we are on the path to 2000 posts.
But before my computer crashs under the weight of this page, I think you should link your approach to finding truth to your Ayn Rand philosophy that you have so credited here.
Are you willing to say a few words to link your Randian philosophy to your rapid progress in responding to climate science? I think it proper that if Rand's views inspired you and your appraoch, then the world can learn something from this.
Consider it your duty for the advancement of rational thought.
Girma writes:
>*âYou might question my removing the linear trend to get my W pattern. My response to this is that as the increase due to the linear trend is only 0.04 deg/decade, it is insignificant when predicting the short-term decadal trends.â*
Girma this relates to a question that has been asked of you [many times]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…); over what length of time is underlying warming trend small compared to the solar cycles, and noise such as ENSO? And over what period is the warming trend large compared to noise and ENSO?
And is it conceivable to you that the GHG [warming trend will respond](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) to the acceleration of GHG emissions, loss of surface albedo, and curbing the growth of sulfate aerosols?
And can you still consider your W to be a natural cycle if the only two dips (1880 and 1945) can be largely explained with sulfate aerosols (1883 and 1906 [volcanoes]( http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/volcanic-lull/), and [1945 onwards]( http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14…) industrial boom)?
Mark Byrne
I say the pattern W is natural, but you say it is man made.
Can we wait just another decade to proof ones and for all whether it is natural?
I predict, based on the previous phase, a cooling by at least 0.5 deg C.
Truly a wonderful achievement, but what will you do next? Might I suggest you spend the next few weeks perfecting a cure for cancer.
Girma writes:
>*I say the pattern W is natural, but you say it is man made.*
Girma, there is not equivalent evidence backing up these two opposing position. One is backed by extensve evidence and one is backup by speculation and a prioritiation to put your comfort ahead of your understanding.
It is a shame that you declined to read the evidence, and your knowledge on the material suffers because of it. However you political ideology seems preserved intact by refusing to poision your mind with "Pravda".
Next question, are you competent to judge the impact of delaying mitigation?
You wrote, Next question, are you competent to judge the impact of delaying mitigation?
In ten years, the linear mean global temperature will increase by 0.04 deg C. This will not make an iota of difference on the climate. However, by that time we will find out whether the globe is in its cooling phase that it started in 1998, or whether it will exceed the 1998 value. Before you force your policy on all of us, at least make sure that you are solving an existing problem, not an imaginary one.
The mean global temperature is about 14 deg C, and this mean has a range of 0.7 deg C. The globe warmed by 0.7 deg C in its warming phase and it will cool in its cooling phase. It is all natural as a result of the cycles of the earth, the moon and the sun.
There is no question that there was climate change because the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 deg C from 1976 to 1998. However, this is because the globe was at its warming phase. This will be reversed and the cooling started in 1998 will continue for a couple of decades. If this is found not to be true, the field is yours. We will join you!
TS, the last baccalauréat was our much-lamented Tim Curtin, and the original title-holder was Harold Pierce Jnr (for his excellent work on individual weather stations, analysed using t-tests).
I thought that there was another in between, but a search of Deltoid only revealed two threads. Perhaps someone whose computer isn't as slow as a wet weekend, due to a 2-hours-and-counting virus scan, could clear it up.
Girma Orssengo, your abuse of science far outweighs any abuse that you perceive to be directed at yourself, especially as [we now know](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that you are serious in your claims. If you doubt this, you should carefully consider your posting at #1618/1619 - the hubris, the arrogance, the non-science, and the assumption that hundreds of thousands of other scientists haven't already checked all the things that have bewitched you, are all evidence of a mind that is not working in the same universe as is the Scientific Method.
You're welcome to prove me wrong however. I can't wait to read the methodology and results sections of your paper, if the abovementioned posting is anything to go by.
>*In ten years, the linear mean global temperature will increase by 0.04 deg C. This will not make an iota of difference on the climate.*
Girma, you are assuming that the temperature forcing has not accelearated in the last 150 years.
What else will have changed if we continue for 10 years without mitigation? Can you think of anything science has idenfied as pressing issue relating ot climate, that will worsen with continued delay.
I had got fed up with Girma`s self righteous posts a few days ago. To back up what Bernard says, I find it utterly remarkable that someone can draw the simple conclusions that Girma does, while at the same time thinking that they, and they alone, have solved a riddle that has eluded thousands of independent researchers working worldwide and who have spent their careers in the relevant fields of endeavor.
Girma, for every neophyte know-it-all whose ideas change the course of science there are tens of thousands of pretenders with flat earth theories et al. whose "proof" ends up on the scrap heap of history. Your comic antics here are no exception. I am surprised that so many of the contributors here have been so patient with your nonsense. I for one threw in the towel a few days ago. Some very important points have been made here time and time and time and and time again - in fact, the "ball" was played as you so childishly put it - and you not only "miss" the ball, you do not even attempt to play it. You ignore it.
You would be a great person to take on in a face-to-face debate. Why is this so? Because it would be so easy to demolish your arguments. Blog sites are hit and run and selective. You can ignore whatever you wish to ignore here, and there are no repercussions (at least with the exception of causing deep frustration amongst your opponents). In a direct debate there is nowhere to run and hide. If you do not respond to specific points, you are shown to be on the losing side. For your sake I hope you keep your antics confined to the internet, and do not venture with your simplistic analysis of climate science into the actual community of climate scientists. If you do, be prepared for the ball you play to be kicked well and truly out of the park.
I will now start a proper statistical analysis for the dispersion of the mean global temperature, and you will be the first one to know.
The simple observation of the [graph]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…) gives the value 0.7 deg C for the range.
Cheers
@Girma
> You are giving me a link to Pravda. Sorry, I don't read Pravda. I only read independent info.
Play the ball Girma!
@Girma
> I say the pattern W is natural, but you say it is man made.
No, you wave your hands and *say* it is some as yet unidentified and unquantified natural process, we *show* the precise combination of natural and anthropogenic influences that indicate your pattern is no such thing.
Remember: your speculation not only has to be correct, everything else has to be wrong. You need to demonstrate (with numbers) exactly what the influences are on global temperature that you propose, and quantify that effect, then propose a means of falsification of that hypothesis, and then test it.
School children know this, Girma, and yet you have done none of this.
You also need to come up with predictions that you can explain, that eg. anthropogenic CO2 emissions, sulphate aerosols etc. cannot. You need to work back through a century and a half of climate science and systematically dismantle everything that disagrees with your position.
You also misuse the term "theory", further showing your ignorance. Stop it.
> This pattern is an extension of the Milankovitch Theory, applied to short term decadal prediction of climate.
That's a pretty serious extension, given that you're inventing a "cycle" of around 0.8 degrees of variation over two or three decades, and linking it to a theory that shows a variation of the order of 1.5 degrees over a period of many tens of thousands of years.
I'm on the edge of my seat, frankly.
Girma Orssengo, MASc PhD, detector of subtle patterns, statistician extraordinaire, informs us that:
Heavens above, is there no limit to the perspicacity of this intellect?! A Nobel is surely in the bag...
We know that you are the [real Girma Orssengo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and thus one would assume that you are not putting your professional reputation on the line for mere trolling.
We now understand you not to be [a Poe](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
I can think of only one other explanation for your ideas, however I am not sure that it is quite the inspired genius that you perceive yourself to be.
> I can think of only one other explanation for your ideas, however I am not sure that it is quite the inspired genius that you perceive yourself to be.
> Posted by: Bernard J.
Do they have "inspired barnstack idiot"?
You know, something like "an idiot savant" but with the savant bit being even more idiotic?
PS I wonder if Grima's PhD was the only one ever to be handed in in crayon...
> The simple observation of the graph gives the value 0.7 deg C for the range.
> Posted by: Girma
You mean a graph you made up?
Because that's not the raw data.
You don't even know why it's rotated or who did it, despite having taken apparently TWO HOURS to do it.
I can make a graph that proves that it's warmed 100,000C over three days.
Your work is of the same high calibre of validity.
> I say the pattern W is natural, but you say it is man made.
> Posted by: Girma
No, idiot, you say the W has some valid existence with respect to global climate changes.
We, (and that is practically EVERYONE ON THE PLANET) say it has no meaning. It is random. It is noise and contains no signal.
But I suppose you had to make up what other people are saying about your "work" because telling the truth of that would show you up as the infantile idiot you are.
You insist that there is something there in the residual, but
a) no proof
b) no science
c) no analysis
> I have found the pattern for the past and future of mean global temperature. Just in three weeks. In my spare time.
Does this also sound like a televangelist talking about how "he found Jesus!"?
Does to me.
Grima, you found nothing.
You looked at the shape of a maple leaf and said "this is PROOF God exists!!!".
_The urge to save humanity [from eco enviromentalists/living in caves/third world being made poorer] is always a false front for the urge to rule it._
H.L. Mencken's
[Quiet' sun could mean cooler days]( http://www.theage.com.au/national/quiet-sun-could-mean-cooler-days-2009…)
"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century,'' said NASA solar forecaster David Hathaway. ''Since the space age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high ⦠We're just not used to this type of deep calm"
Monash University's Paul Cally said that if a cooling period were to begin it would be interesting to see how it affected the global warming being caused by high greenhouse gas levels. ''We haven't been in this situation in historical periods before.â
Is the Girmaâs W pattern for mean global temperature to be confirmed?
Is the pattern for 1878 going to be repeated?
Is TS to depart from his $100 USD?
Where are you all in the AGW camp going to hide?
Does climate change hysteria represent another bubble waiting to burst? From the perspective of the alarmism and the saturation of the message, the answer could be yes. I believe that when our science or economic experts tend to be incorrect, it usually involves predictions that have underperformed expectations (Y2K, SARS, oil supply, etc). Can we think of any other expert-given, consensus-based, long-term predictions that have verified correctly? Not one comes to mind. I believe that predictions of human-caused climate change will continue to be overdone, and we'll discover that natural factors are equally and sometimes even more important.
[Matt Rogers](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/09/a_skeptical…)
>*Where are you all in the AGW camp going to hide?*
Girma, if we're wrong (highly unlikely, but you'd need to read the evidence to find that out) and we have changed trajectory the we will have a less wasteful, more efficient economy, cleaner air, and longer term energy security (long term economic stability).
If you are wrong, and we continue our current path we are going to leave millions of the most vulnerable without adequate means to support themselves, we will greatly diminish our biodiversity, we will have created the conditions ripe for massive conflict, and we will set ourselves ups for and energy crisis and run the economy into a wall.
You should read the impact assessments for Africa.
BTW the amplitude of solar cycle forcing is only equivalent to about a [decade of GHG accumulation]((http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&ad…). Thus if the sun remains in its quiet phase for next decade or longer the GHG forcing will have more than compensated for it.
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.
...
A large group of earth scientists, voiced in an IPCC statement, have reached what they claim is a consensus of nearly all atmospheric scientists that man-released greenhouse gases are causing increasing harm to our planet. They predict that most icepacks including those in the Polar Regions, also sea ice, will continue melting with disastrous ecological consequences including coastal flooding. There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that manâs release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts.
[Dr. Joanne Simpson, Pre-eminent Scientist]( http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-missi…)
Now you know why scientist do not speak quite frankly.
Girma Orrsengo quotes Joanne Simpson:
Predictive capacities of 'models' aside, if neither of these people understand the difference between weather and climate, then neither of them should be commenting on human impacts upon the same.
Girma Orssengo, can you give - in your own words and without spending hours hurriedly Googling the fundamentals - a 500-word (approximately) precise comparing and contrasting weather and climate?
No other Plimer-eque conditions need be followed; and remember, it's from the top of your head.
Your time starts now.
Mark,
I am totally convinced that taxing energy will make the life of billions of the world poor more miserable. How does increasing the cost of energy help the poor?
It is like the Greens where there is mismatch between policy and consequences. They force us not to touch the forest. Fuel builds up, and with a lightening strike the whole forest and the life in it is destroyed. Did they really help the forest?
> Now you know why scientist do not speak quite frankly.
> Posted by: Girma
So, like David Evans, we have someone who says "When I was paid for it, I lied, but now I'm not being paid by the universities, I am telling the truth".
But who pays for them to speak?
Are they now to be believed that they are telling the truth before when by their own admission they have lied for money before?
You're not very critical, are you Grima.
> Is the Girmaâs W pattern for mean global temperature to be confirmed?
> Is the pattern for 1878 going to be repeated?
There is no pattern. See for yourself with the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
There's no "W" pattern there.
More of a bumpy slide in reverse, with increasing temperatures.
1639 Girma,
Once more, by definition you cannot win the $100 until the end of 2019. OTOH I might win it any year between now and then and I expect it to happen sooner rather than later.
And once again, please respond to 1611.
> Is the pattern for 1878 going to be repeated?
No.
The temperature will not get down to the 1878 value.
That would require a cooling of 0.65C.
Bernard @1643
It is a new fiction created by the AGW to differentiate weather and climate.
You can predict climate, but not the weather. This is science fiction.
Mark,
As the linear warming trend is 0.04 deg C/decade, this trend is insignificant for the coming couples of decades, and I demand they be removed from all other anomaly plots as I have shown in my [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…).
Ignore all other anomaly plots and use only mine, as it is the correct one.
>*I am totally convinced that taxing energy will make the life of billions of the world poor more miserable. How does increasing the cost of energy help the poor?*
Well you're totally convince by a lot of stuff without much to back it up.
Firstly which poor are you referring to? Africa? They won't be charged more they are using less and should be compensated by the rich. For poor and growing countries it would mean a revenue influx with technology sharing.
Or do you mean the poor in rich nations. They can be compensated with a revenue neutral carbon tax. i.e. The tax take doen't change it simply redistributes money from the highest consumers to the most frugal. Thus we develop and economy of economy, or and economy of efficiency.
I also advocate protection of an essential level of supply and compensation for poor people having poorer quality infrastructure.
So you would be wrong as a fair tax system with better distribution of infrastructure and a preservation of a supporting climate would mean a less miserable world with mitigation. Versus a more miserable world hitting the wall economically, and environmentally in your preferred option, leading to more massive conflicts.
@Girma
> It is a new fiction created by the AGW to differentiate weather and climate.
Then your "work" is utterly meaningless, given that you rely on averaged temperatures over a period of time rather than - as you say - weather.
>*As the linear warming trend is 0.04 deg C/decade, this trend is insignificant for the coming couples of decades, and I demand they be removed from all other anomaly plots as I have shown in my plot.*
Make all the demands you like Girma, it wont change the fact that the current thirty year warming trend is 0.15k per decade.
I invited you to consider that evidence [earlier](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
@Girma
> As the linear warming trend is 0.04 deg C/decade
Your linear trend is nonsense, as has been pointed out many times. Address the criticisms before repeating this garbage.
Play the ball, Girma.
TrueSceptic @1647
You wrote, And once again, please respond to 1611.
As the [sun is quiet]( http://www.theage.com.au/national/quiet-sun-could-mean-cooler-days-2009…) and the [globe is cooling]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…), the increase in the greenhouse effect after emission of CO2 for more than a decade must be nil, nought, zip, zilch.
1642 Girma,
So, a "Pre-eminent Scientist" is too ignorant to know the difference between climate and weather!
She is also so deluded that she claims "...we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC" as if Gore has any say in the matter! (Note that mention of Al Gore in this way is an immediate give-away that the person is a denialist, not a sceptic.)
As for these worthless models, this can't be true can it? Girma has come up with a "W" model that predicts temperatures for decades ahead and it took him just a few hours! We look forward to a similar solution to the weather forecasting problem. Come on, I bet you can do better than Piers Corbyn. :D
> As the linear warming trend is 0.04 deg C/decade,
Which has happened before.
See this graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
and the decade 1900-1910.
Yet we still got warmer. See EVERY SINGLE DECADE since 1920.
Now how do you get "it's cooling" from that? Since that's the "same pattern" you say is happening here, yet the climate has actually warmed.
> You can predict climate, but not the weather. This is science fiction.
> Posted by: Girma
And the climate is warming. That's the prediction.
Your "work" is science fiction. No, not even that. It's the science equivalent of Barbara Cartland.
Mark
Since 1878, I donât deny that the world, in 1998, has warmed by 0.53 deg C ( = 120 year * 0.0044 deg C/year). With cooling, we could go back to 0 deg C, or at most to negative 0.23 deg C. But because of the linear warming, we will never go back to temperatures we had 100 years ago.
> As the sun is quiet and the globe is cooling, the increase in the greenhouse effect after emission of CO2 for more than a decade must be nil, nought, zip, zilch.
> Posted by: Girma
1) the globe isn't cooling
2) the sun is quiet
3) the sun isn't going to STAY quiet
4) the sun is going to get noisy, not quieter
5) why must it be nil, zip, etc? Surely it will increase, the effect of the sun if it stays quiet (unlikely) will not reduce and will increase if the sun gets back into the 11-year cycle on the uptick (since it is at the bottom of a "W", the only way is up), that will increase too.
1649 Girma,
Rubbish! You are predicting climate yourself using your "W" model!
You showed us all how easy it is!
(Slightly) shorter Girma:
I didn't imagine that you would have done any better than this, [by way of reply](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
Girma Orssengo, what exactly were the standards required by your postgraduate research committees to be fulfilled in order that you qualify for your degrees? I ask because I am trying to determine what level of scientific understanding has been established, by the granting institutions, for you. I am also trying to ascertain exactly the scope of any such understanding.
1655 Girma,
You ignored my point, which could not have been clearer. You cited Christy and Douglass as referring to "CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback". Your bolding, even!
You have repeatedly claimed that CO2 concentrations are too small to affect temperature, as in
Which is it? Even without feedback, CO2 has some effect (Christy and Douglass), or it can have none (you)?
Please, no more ignoring direct questions and going off on yet another irrelevance.
TrueSceptic @1661
There is a big difference between historical data, and computer model.
I never claimed I know in which direction and with what magnitude the wind, the ocean currents and clouds flaw. I never claimed the unbelievable!
I am really sad for science: as financial modellers, âthe masters of the universeâ, did fail us last year; climate modellers could fail us soon.
TrueSceptic @1663
The globe is warming at a rate of 0.04 deg C/ decade. Do you say this is due to CO2? If it is, it is minuscule. The other variation in mean global temperature is just oscillation. Down, Up, Down, Up, Down etc.
> The globe is warming at a rate of 0.04 deg C/ decade.
_*this decade*_ maybe.
> Do you say this is due to CO2?
Not only CO2.
Why do you think it is only CO2?
> If it is, it is minuscule.
Just said it isn't.
> The other variation in mean global temperature is just oscillation. Down, Up, Down, Up, Down etc.
> Posted by: Girma
But that 0.04 is including the down and none of the up. So it's not the trend. The trend is the "without the up and down" or "with lots of ups and downs, so they average out to no effect". Which is 0.15C per decade.
That you INSIST to include the down (and not the up) is why you have a playschool PhD.
> Since 1878, I donât deny that the world, in 1998, has warmed by 0.53 deg C ( = 120 year * 0.0044 deg C/year). With cooling, we could go back to 0 deg C, or at most to negative 0.23 deg C. But because of the linear warming, we will never go back to temperatures we had 100 years ago.
> Posted by: Girma
So you agree there has been warming.
So what's all this "cooling" you're talking about???
IT'S NOT COOLING.
[Global Cooling](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005/compress:12)
1664 Girma,
You claim to predict future temperatures.
1665 Girma,
Answer the question!
1668 Girma,
Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense regardless of how often it's refuted?
3 years is meaningless
@1666 Mark
> > The globe is warming at a rate of 0.04 deg C/ decade.
> *this decade* maybe.
Don't overlook that Girma arrived at that figure by drawing a *straight line* starting in the mid 1800s and ending at 2009, thus completely ignoring the possibility of any acceleration in the trend in modern times. We could experience three decades of warming at ten times Girma's predicted level, but his "trend" line would barely nudge upwards. As I said earlier, its like taking data showing an exponential growth, then drawing a straight line through it and trying to use that to predict future increases! It bears no relation to reality and has significantly less predictive power than a magic 8-ball. Girma chooses not to acknowledge any of this.
Girma:
If you're referring to:
I'm simply referring to the fact that you're ignorant about statistics and arrogant about it and that most of the things you say are intellectually dishonest and some things just plain dishonest. If the truth sounds like personal abuse then maybe you should take a good look at yourself.
1672 Dave,
What's funny is the way he refuses to accept 30 (or even 10) years as a reasonable time to judge a trend but he's quite happy with 150+ or 4 (2005-8).
> Global Cooling
> Posted by: Girma
Doesn't look like it:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
But I suppose if you change what "temperature" means and what "cooling" means you can say what you like about your crayon-thesis.
1675 Mark,
And over the [really short term](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2008/plot/hadcrut3vgl…) it's warming like crazy. ;)
Girma @ 1644: "It is like the Greens where there is mismatch between policy and consequences. They force us not to touch the forest. Fuel builds up, and with a lightening strike the whole forest and the life in it is destroyed. Did they really help the forest?"
Yes. In most cases, the forests have what has been called "fire ecology" (there are other names, but this worked in google so I'll run with it) - http://www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/fireecology.pdf
Now, when you involve people who disrupt the natural ecosystem, then you get problems for people, but in, well, every case I am aware of, the forest grows back. It is actually good practice to have controlled burns in many forests that rely upon fires for various things - we've had to learn that the hard way, many times.
Badger3k @1677
[Fined for illegal clearing, family now feel vindicated]( http://www.theage.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now…)
In 2002, Liam Sheahan, a resident of Reedy Creek in Victoria, was prosecuted for disregarding local laws and bulldozing approximately 250 trees on his own property to make a fire break next to his home. Council laws prohibited Mr. Sheahan from clearing trees further than six meters away from his house, but he went ahead with his decision to create a 100 meter fire break. During the resulting prosecution, bushfire expert Dr. Kevin Tolhurst testified on Mr. Sheahan's behalf, telling the court that the clearing had reduced the fire risk to Mr. Sheahan's home from extreme to moderate. According to Mr. Sheahan, "The council stood up in court and made us to look like the worst, wanton environmental vandals on the earth. We've got thousands of trees on our property. We cleared about 247." Mr. Sheahan's prosecution cost him $100,000 in fines and legal fees, but when the bushfires swept through his town in February 2009, his actions were vindicated â his home was the only property left standing in a two-kilometer area, while neighboring properties were destroyed. His disregard for environmental laws saved his home and the lives of his family.
SCIENCE FICTION
The direction and the magnitude of the wind, the ocean currents, and the clouds at every grid point of the earth are known.
Scoence Fiction:
pretty much everything that Girma has written over the last 1679 posts.
Girma, how hot was it on that Black day? 47 degrees C. How dry was it? Partched with unusual drought.
Your analysis of the responsiblity for the harm from this and future mega-fires is oversimiplitic in the extreme. (Did Ayn Rand have anything to do with this oversimplification?)
This is what is predicted with global warming, and predicted to get worse. How about if you don't want to live in a forest, you don't buy or build in our last remaining pockets of forest.
Instead, your solution is to clear the forests? Let everyone do whatever with our last residual temperate forests ecosystems?
Well I guess that is your proposed solution clear these forests ecosystems and much of the remaining temperate forests around the world. Even tropical forest such as the Amazon, as this is the foreseeable consequence of your position to prevent mitigation policy and continue global warming.
More misery is inevitable with continued global warming (currently 0.15k per decade on the 30 year mean).
Mark Byrne @1680
You wrote, More misery is inevitable with continued global warming (currently 0.15k per decade on the 30 year mean).
According to the satellite data, we are in [global cooling]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/uah/from:1998/compress:12):
In 2002, Liam Sheahan, a resident of Reedy Creek in Victoria, was prosecuted for disregarding local laws and bulldozing approximately 250 trees on his [OWN PROPERTY] to make a fire break next to his home.
Do I have right to my own property?
[This is the Blue Planet in Green Shackles.](http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=4YaljNm0KrL2)
Girma writes this crap:
*It is like the Greens where there is mismatch between policy and consequences. They force us not to touch the forest. Fuel builds up, and with a lightening strike the whole forest and the life in it is destroyed. Did they really help the forest?*
NOW he is wearing his far right heart on his Randian sleeve. Where to begin deconstructing this absurd remark? First of all, who does he mean by "greens"? Who are "they"? The US government, particularly recent administrations, which have gutted funding to regulatory bodies and empowered corporate interests? Or some sneaky sinister movement organized under the banner of the UN? Or what? Where is the evidence that "greens" influence US and global policy, at least anywhere close to deregulatory bodies like the WTA and immensely powerful multinational corporations? This kind of dumbmass remark could only come from someone living in a glass tower constructed by like-minded Ayn Rand disciples. I cringe when I read this kind of nonsense.
And then Girma cites one example of a landowner who was apparently not allowed to clear trees from his land as a fire break because the evil US government had placed regulations limiting forest clearing. This is the kind of stuff made from press releases by `Wise Use` type groups who see communists everywhere they look (bring back Joseph McCarthy they shout! Bring back the witch hunts of the 1950s, where Ayn Rand was in her element!!!)
The fact is that this remark shows that Girma`s understanding of environmental science as well as policy is about as deep as a puddle in a drought. His view is that government should be eviscerated everywhere it interferes with freedom - freedom that is to nickel and dime the planet to death. (I am sure he is fully in favor of allowing corporations to profit handsomely from illegal wars of aggression, however). Basically, Girma appears to assert that there should be no impediments in the pursuit of private profit. If conservation protecting red-cockaded woodpeckers or hellbenders or west virginia white butterflies interferes with freedom and profit, then eradicate nature!
I find the posts by Girma to be, contrary to what some others have said here, arrogant, self-centred and frankly shallow. This last set of remarks about evil "greens" takes the cake as far as I am concerned. I have dealt with this kind of crass stupidity for ten years now in debates and lectures and reading it still makes my blood boil.
Sorry for the rant but I have NO TIME for these kind of "intellectual" debates.
One correction - I meant WTO!
J
Girma, I fail to see what you posted at 1678 has to do with the environment, which is what you asked. It may blow your mind, but fire is good for forests. For people who are idiots or who just want to live in the forest, yeah, fire can be deadly, just like the Chicago or London fires...which had no forest nearby. I'm not sure what you're getting at, except I assume this is consistent with Rand's dislike of the environment and her assumption that people should do whatever they want without suffering any consequences.
Looking back over your original post, you stated that "They force us not to touch the forest. Fuel builds up, and with a lightening strike the whole forest and the life in it is destroyed. Did they really help the forest?" The first part, "they force us.." is relevant to the story, the rest is not, and the answer is still, yes, it helps the forest. People are a different matter, but that's not what you asked about.
In regards to the people in the report, I'm glad they survived, since they did a really stupid thing and stayed to fight the fire. What they did was good for them, but for the forest ecosystem, I can't say since I have no data on that.
Jeff - the story is out of Australia, and Girma may be referring to the Green party (here's one website http://greens.org.au/ which may be them), or he could be referring to any environmentalist as a "green." I'm sure he can tell us which one.
You have just cherry picked again, so you [fail on your cooling claim](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:360/…).
Tell me Girma, why do you need to keep cherry picking?
Do you have right to your own property. Only within society's agreed limits(try and set up a pig lot in in your back yard, you'll learn about limited and agreed property rights). We all have to share the world.
I thought collectivism was dead for ever in 1989, but it is being resurrected through the back door by changing the phrase âfor the workerâ to âfor the planet & grand children.â
After 233 years, we must again fight for âLife, liberty, and the pursuit of happinessâ as it is going to be stolen by the collectivists under the guise of âto save a warming planet," but actually it is cooling.
We must fight the council regulations, we must fight the public schools, our freedom to do what ever we want to whoever is weak is being challenged in the backdoor by public health services and regulation to reduce toxic pollution!
The collectivists are comming! We are not part of a biosphere, an ecosystem, a society,nor community. We are not integrated nor interdependent.
If you disagree you are a collectivist, and I think that means communits. Therefore global warming is 0.04k/century and nothing will change that.
[Delusional](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder), [paranoid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_personality_disorder), [megalomaniacal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania), [narcissistic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder)...
Comorbidities, or components of one underlying psychopathology?
I donât mind the religious that knock at my door to preach their belief as they donât use force. However, I can not stand those who use science fiction & force through government legislation to force their belief on others.
The first science fiction is that the direction and the magnitude of the wind, the ocean currents, and the clouds at every grid point of the earth are known at all time. As a result, we can project to future climate.
Another science fiction is to say the world is warming when it is cooling, as its mean temperature has dropped, according to satellite data, by 0.47 deg C, from 0.52 deg C in 1998 to 0.05 deg C last year of 2008. No hand waving required. This is a fact. Thank you.
Reflections of hunter-gatherers about their life: Somethingâs just not right â our air is clean, our water is pure, we all get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free-range, and yet nobody lives past thirty.
Objective data for the welfare of man shows infant mortality is the lowest, life expectancy is the longest and poverty rate is the lowest it had ever been in the history of man. However, some firmly believe doomsday is coming. What I advice these people is to start worrying when these objective data deteriorate, not when they are at their best.
I am also not a believer in limited resources. Resources are made of the elements in the periodic table, and as these elements do not escape into outer space they can be reused. Resources are limited only for animals, not for man.
Shorter Girma:
>Every thing I say is true, I have not read the science and I know it is wrong.
>If you cannot predict the direction and the magnitude of the wind, the ocean currents, and the clouds at every grid point of the earth for every moment then you cannot know the earth is warming.
If you cannot predict the timing of the currenting in a kettle you cannot know that it is warming.
>I can select periods of cooling and prove it is cooling. It does not matter that cooling is temeporary due to known cyclic factors, I can ignore the underlying warming trend.
>I can ignore the 30 year warming trend, even thouth 30 years is necessary to decern a trend change due to the short term internal variability.
No more handwaving Girma, No more excuses Girma. The earth's 30 year mean shows warming of [0.15k/decade](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:360/…).
And its time to stop the silly games about temporary cooling. 1998 was a super El Nino, 2008 was a La Nina. Now even the short term trend defys your irrelevent claims about [short term cooling](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2007.7/plot/wti/from:2007.7/t…).
I cannot beleive the unbelieveable. Time for Girma to stop the science fiction.
Girma:
> This is a fact.
Seriously, I think you should take your argument on a tour of scoolchildren learning basic statistics. Perhaps they can explain to you in simple enough terms how utterly wrong you are. Perhaps it'll take a roomful of teenagers laughing at your sheer incompetence to shake you from your religious conviction.
>*I am also not a believer in limited resources. Resources are made of the elements in the periodic table, and as these elements do not escape into outer space they can be reused. Resources are limited only for animals, not for man.*
Tell that to the oil companines, then they can stop supressing democracy in favor of deals with corrupt leader to rip of the resoures from poor Africans like the Ogoni.
Tell that to the New Finland Cod Fishers.
Tell that to the Fishers who's livelihood were destoryed by the Exxon Valdez spill.
Tell that to the Solomon Islanders who've lost their forest in corrupt deals with multinational profiteers.
Tell that to the Riverland citrus growers who are pulling up their trees.
I cannot beleive in the unbelieveable!
Can you point to the studies that show the life expectancy of early humans? I've always wondered how credible they were. BTW for the policies you want (freedom for the powerful to exploit the vulnerable) you should be looking at the life expectancy in the Dickensian period, that's where you politics lead.
>*Objective data for the welfare of man shows infant mortality is the lowest, life expectancy is the longest and poverty rate is the lowest it had ever been in the history of man. However, some firmly believe doomsday is coming. What I advice these people is to start worrying when these objective data deteriorate, not when they are at their best.*
Girma infant mortality is the lowest, and life expectancy is the longest for Cuba but are worsening for USA. Until recently Cuba was a third world country. Now its infant mortality is lower than the USA. Eplain that. Cubans are even organic, so it is probably not the healthy organic lifestyle that killed early humans.
Now to your next fallacious point. Who in their right mind would select life expectancy as an early warning indicator of danger? When problems are revealled via a drop in life expectancy you have already missed the opportunity for early intervention.
Life expectacy is are particular poor indictor by which to set climate mitigation policy, simiply beacause it take a long time for the heat from CO2 to accumulate, and the feedback such as loss of ice will last for millenia. Similary the higher levels of atmospheric CO2 will last for centuries. So you'd better go back to the drawing board and pick better early warning indictaor.
Girma you [seem shy](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) about linking your Rand philosophy with your climate musings?
Are you afraid that one might reflect poorly on the other? If so which one would you most like to protect from being tainted by the other?
To follow on from Janet, in response to
*I am also not a believer in limited resources. Resources are made of the elements in the periodic table, and as these elements do not escape into outer space they can be reused. Resources are limited only for animals, not for man*
So when humans destroy forests, eliminate their biota, degrade soil fertility and deplete water tables, Girma, how do you think these will be replaced? Where does the natural capital go? Once a species is gone it is gone forever, and with it go any direct or indirect services that it performed. Humans depend on an array of resources derived from natural systems, in addition to the ecosystem services emerging from nature. But hell, I have said this before several times on this thread; GIRMA JUST DOES NOT READ ONE IOTA OF IT. OR ELSE HE DOES BUT IMMEDIATELY FLUSHES IT DOWN HIS MEMORY HOLE. If he did read it or was remotely able to digest it, he wouldn`t then spew out Julian Simon-esque crap like the statement above.
The he makes this howler:
*poverty rate is the lowest it had ever been in the history of man*
That will be a lot of comfort to the people whose minds are literally wasting away because they receive such little nutrition. There are more of them than there were people alive in 1930. Moreover, the WHO has admitted that it will probably not be able to reach poverty reduction targets by 2015; it now looks like rates of absolute poverty are actually increasing again, after a fall of several years. The hair-trigger global economy characterized by free market absolutism has turned the planet into a big casino. The global economy has grown by 13 x since 1950 and poverty is nowhere close to being eradicated. That is because the proceeds of development are largely appropriated by the rich.
At the same time, the planet`s capacity to support man is declining as evidenced by the precipitous drop in the Living Planet Index which has declined by some 35% since 1970. One in four well-known species are either endangered or threatened. The Global Ecosystem Assessment (2006) painted a dire picture of human degredation of nature. Up to 60% of critical ecosystem services have been degraded since 1970. Humans continue to live off a one time inheritance of natural capital. The only reason it is not manifested is because full-cost pricing - internalizing environmental damage into cost-price scenarios - has been continually shelved. Thus we are unaware of how close we are pushing natural systems beyond critical life-support thresholds. We are certainly approaching them.
As I said above, it seems to me that Girma is indoctrinated with far right neoclassical economic ideology (at the simplest most basic level I may add). To reiterate, we all might as well be speaking to a wall. In my view the guy is made of cement. I have written the same kinds of posts on this thread several times and this guy just does not respond to them. I am getting seriously annoyed reading his bilge. I have asked him to respond to my arguments in point by point format. Berhard, Mark, Mark Byrne, Dave, Lee Janet, and others have done the same. As we approach post 2000 he does not do so. He ignores all but the most pedantic points. Girma, do you understand basic environmental science? Clearly not, or you would not make such flippant remarks all of the time.
Girma,
You're basically proposing that in addition to the geological time scale effect of Milankovitch Cycles, there is also a greater, short-term perturbation caused by mini cycles within this larger cycle. You don't know precisely (or even vaguely) how this works, cannot quantify the scale or periodicity of the so-called cycle, and don't have any evidence for its existence beyond pointing at the graph and shouting "W!", yet you assert that you are utterly certain it must be there, that is has been overlooked by thousands of lazy scientists for centuries, and as such its existence demands a rewrite of atmospheric physics.
Before you go any further you need to name this phenomenon. I propose you refer to these perturbations as "epicycles" from now on. Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
Thanks to you all for allowing me to share with you my beliefs and prejudices!
I hope I take the good ideas from you, at least subconsciously, and improve and correct mine.
------end of niceties-----
I wonder how you could live your life with this apocalyptic view. How can you have self-confidence & self-esteem with all these fears inside you?. I want to believe man is a hero, and will solve, all actual problems, not imaginary ones, as they arise.
Here is an excellent example:
Having lifted 300 million of its own people out of poverty in less than a generation - surely one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century - China has now pledged to commit more of its considerable resources to helping us help those in desperate need elsewhere," James Morris, Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme, said in Beijing.
[Life has never been better for ALL]( http://redcouch.typepad.com/weblog/2008/04/china-lifts-300.html)
Thanks to CAPITALISM!
Dave, here in the UK "doing an eppy" is rather unfurtunate slang for someone flailing about. Or, in other words (hence the derivation), an epileptic fit.
"An eppy cycle" seems to be a good word to use.
And the idiot won't even know we're laughing at him, since he'll think it's just misspelled.
And while you're at it Girma, I suggest you advise Ian Plimer of your momentous discovery. He'll be able to include it in the tenth version of his book (which must be due any day now).
> under the guise of âto save a warming planet," but actually it is cooling.
> Posted by: Girma
Except it isn't:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Therefore there's no "guise". Just reality and the desire to avoid trouble.
> Do I have right to my own property?
> Posted by: Girma
Does your neighbour?
But if they work nights and decide to take up the Tuba and practice all night, would you allow them the right to their own property, or complain that their noise was getting on to your property and keeping you awake?
If you have a river running down the back of your property and your kids like playing in it, is it OK for the factory to place toxic chemicals in their part of the stream (upstream of yours)?
Am I not allowed the proper use of my property and use a gun to blow your dear old mother away? After all, *I* paid for the gun. *I* paid for the bullet. So why can't *I* shoot it where I like? Especially if I'm on *my* property your mum is walking past?
Girma @1701
Highly unlikely mate, since you refuse to engage with any ideas other than your own.
Girma,
China, a totalitarian communist state is pretty good at capitalism.
What a pitty that the planet's resource will not stretch so far as to provide enough for average the Chinese to consume as much as the average American and Australian currently do.
Too bad for all the rest as well, as China and the (currently) rich west compete for the shrinking resource base. Unfortunately the cheap labour from China is subsidising the accelerated consumption of irreplaceable natural resources. We should on the other hand be only consuming natures surplus (natural interest) rather than devouring the its capital.
But please tell us Girma, who introduced you to Ayn Rand?
Jeff
You wrote, When humans destroy forests, eliminate their biota, degrade soil fertility and deplete water tables ...
destroy forest
Only the form of the forest is changed, the constituents are all still on earth.
Lightning strike can destroy forest into ash, but man canât cut it and make paper out of it. Have you stopped using paper?
degrade soil ⦠deplete water tables
The soil and water is moved from one location to another, the constituents are still on earth.
As long as there is cheap energy, we can move them from one location or form into another. We humans can do that, not animals.
Donât forget that the difference between animals and humans is our ability to use energy. Our tooth, claw, muscle and speed are no match to animals and they would finish us in no time. So I venerate fossil fuels!
>*I wonder how you could live your life with this apocalyptic view. How can you have self-confidence & self-esteem with all these fears inside you?. I want to believe man is a hero, and will solve, all actual problems, not imaginary ones, as they arise.*
Girma, maybe your looking for the wrong sort of hero. Look for a different sort, they are all around and inspire me every day.
Oh and read the science, its hard to change sides once your committed to a "tribe", it is a humbling process to admit error or premature side taking. I don't know if many people do switch sides. So reading the science my not influence you anyway.
But how about Janet question, who got you onto Ayn Rand? That seems to have set you an path to somewhere.
Janet
You wrote, But please tell us Girma, who introduced you to Ayn Rand?
The contradiction I had that what I work every day of my life, money, is the root of all evil.
The contradiction I had that man is born sinful.
The question I had about which system brings prosperity (Capitalism) to its people, which destruction (Socialism).
It is impossible to have self-esteem unless one resolves these problems one way or another.
While searching for answers, I stumbled on her books, which I hated initially, because it was the exact opposite of my tradition. She left me disturbed, and to resolve this I continued to read her and she performed her magic and made me leave my tradition and live as an individual.
Here philosophy is: Be happy, productive & rational.
Girma:
What a relief.
I need mourn the loss of the Tasmanina Tiger no more.
They are still with us, just in a different form.
> Life has never been better for ALL
> Thanks to CAPITALISM!
> Posted by: Girma
Really?
So how is the Red Cross "capitalism"? How are the charities "capitalism"?
One of the biggest produces of poverty in China (and many other countries) is the WMO insisting on money being used for big projects like dams and reservoirs.
CApitalism is the reason for the Congo to be in turmoil: rare earth elements are being purchased from unofficial sources (cheaper or more plentiful) and these sources are guerilla^Wterrorist (as they would be called if they were arab...) elements in the Congo that wish to hold power. The turmoil causing massive poverty and death (directly).
All thanks to CAPITALISM.
Although telling this to a randyan is an exercise in futility. Might as well tell the Mullah's that maybe Mohammed was just a bloke who heard voices... The religious fervour is about the same.
> While searching for answers, I stumbled on her books, which I hated initially, because it was the exact opposite of my tradition.
> Posted by: Girma
Then you got wealthy and wanted to keep it all.
A common theme.
"Donât forget that the difference between animals and humans is our ability to use energy. Our tooth, claw, muscle and speed are no match to animals and they would finish us in no time. So I venerate fossil fuels!
Posted by: Girma "
1) WHERE THE *FUCK* does "I venerate fossil fuels" come from that difference???
2) I guess this is the REAL reason why you don't want AGW: it doesn't venerate fossil fuels.
3) Jackdaws use tools just like we do. Chimps do too. And Mantis Shrimps. So we're different from all the animals. Apart from many of them...
What a moron.
Oh boy!
Jeff is going to rip you a new one Girma. This would have to be one of the most naive arguments you've made in at least..., well, its a naive argument.
Let me start things off for Jeff.
Forest are complex ecosystems. You can't cut them up and get the same ecosystems. When you have fire, in fire attapted habitats the fire does not kill most of the mature trees. And the ecosystem has adapted responsed to fill the niches produced by the fire. Hence on a right timeframe (frequency)fire is part of the cycle in a fire adapted ecosystem.
This is different to clear felling a forest and replanting with a monoculture. Ask an expert for more detail.
Next is your naive argument about depletion of soils. And fossil fuels. We have maintained our growing production by clearing more land (which is unsustainable) and using more and more fertilisers and pesticides. All of this requires fossil fuel (currently in the form of oil) but we are near or past peak production of oil. So this is also unsustainable, it can not continue forever. So which cheap energy are you imagining will fill the gap? Natural gas, there is less of that than oil. Coal? We'd need to use more of it to produce the same hydrocarbon products that we are losing from oil depletion.
So you'd better start supporting a price on carbon so we can preserve our coal for food production in the form of fertilisers and other synthetics. That's if you truly venerate fossil fuels.
Mark
These were my questions:
1. Does a farmer has a right to cut trees that are in his own property in order to protect his house from fire? (or for any reason for that matter)
2. Can a council fine him for doing that?
Please answer them.
>*The question I had about which system brings prosperity (Capitalism) to its people, which destruction (Socialism).*
Mmm, the answers are so simple, Why didn't anyone put it like this before?
Capitalism bring prosperity and socialism destruction. Girma, look up 1929, then look up the New Deal, then lookup the "Golden age"then lookup "Thatcherism/Reaganism", then corporatism, then state-capture, then look up "too-big to fail", then lookup "12 trillion public bailout", then "banker bonus"....
>*The question I had about which system brings prosperity (Capitalism) to its people, which destruction (Socialism).*
Mmm, the answers are so simple, Why didn't anyone put it like this before?
Capitalism bring prosperity and socialism destruction. Girma, look up 1929, then look up the New Deal, then lookup the "Golden age"then lookup "Thatcherism/Reaganism", then corporatism, then state-capture, then look up "too-big to fail", then lookup "12 trillion public bailout", then "banker bonus"....
Janet, seriously, isn't it time you stopped feeding this troll?.
Girma,
I've had enough. It is not possible to discuss anything with someone who spews out the same simple-minded deluded nonsense over and over and who never answers direct questions.
I'll be in touch when I instruct you where to send the $100.
> These were my questions:
No they weren't Grima.
Your question was:
> Do I have right to my own property?
And you do, but not when it affects others.
Or am I good to go with a rifle and your momma's head?
Janet, companies work under laws set by governments. Please donât blame the failure of governments on companies.
Oh Capitalism!
Capitalism demands the best of every manâhis rationalityâand rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value. When men are free to trade, with reason and reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in every field of human endeavor, and raise the standard of livingâand of thoughtâever higher for all those who take part in mankindâs productive activity.
There was never and will never be a better system than this.
Grima, companies EXIST because of governments.
Many senior people in government have jobs in companies at a senior level. Many politicians retire from government into positions of importance in companies (see: Haliburton).
So any failures of capitalism due to governments is also done by the same people that work in companies. Where they will do the same thing: "ruin capitalism".
Or is there a morality switch that gets set to "break capitalism" when you enter political positions that gets set to "be nice to capitalism" when they obtain a seat on the BoD of a company?
Dapple Water you're right, I'm off to play with TrueSceptics like TS.
Life is to short and there is much to be done!
Nice to chat with you Girma.
Blogger, I would be grateful if you could answer me these questions:
1. Does a farmer has a right to cut trees that are in his own property in order to protect his house from fire?
2. Should a council fine him for doing that?
So you've given up the vapid rhetoric of "Do I have right to my own property?" then?
1: No, he doesn't have the right to cut down trees on his property if it will cause more danger for other people.
And (2) is redundant: if the answer to #1 is "no" then, that answers #2 as "yes". If the answer to #1 is "yes" then that answers #2 to "no".
Why did you ask a redundant question so adamantly???
> There was never and will never be a better system than this.
> Posted by: Girma
What can be done in the face of such unthinking zealotry?
Girma Orssengo.
It's time to put some science behind your claims.
You say that the globe is cooling - can you demonstrate that your perception of cooling is statistically significant, and that it is not just [noise](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_noise)?
Can you describe how long it took to form the fossil fuel capacity used by humans in one year, how much of this fossil fuel resource humans actually use in one year, and how these figures provide for a budget for sustainable use for the next ten generations of humans?
Can you detail how topsoil is formed? Include in your response the abiotic components and the biotic components of said topsoil, and how long each constituent of these two broad categories takes to be produced, at what rate humans consume these resources, and thus what discrepancy exists between exhaustion and replenishment.
Can you explain how fisheries will provide the species that we are currently using (or have used in the past until the stocks collapsed) and how continuing pressure on said fisheries will not have increasingly negative ecological effects?
Can you explain how our use of elements such as helium, indium, gallium, and tantalum are sustainable, and exactly how they will be sourced in the future?
You can talk about "closed system[s]" all you like, but once again you are blithely ignoring so much fundamental science that your dalliance with jargon is meaningless. See, the trouble is, when humans use a resource such as indium, this little thing called entropy sticks its foot in the door...
Consider a metal such as indium as an example. We take a deposit (such as an ore body that has been fractionated by large-scale geological/chronological processes, and usually at the beginnings of planetary formation) and we mine it, transport it, turn it into millions of teensy little bits that are mostly discarded in geological short-order (pathetic attempts at 'recycling' aside), and the dispersed bits are oxidised back into their entropically more stable forms.
Sure, we can recover some of it from the environment where we discard it, but the energetic cost will be orders of magnitude greater than that of the original refinement. Even if recycling efficiency were to be pushed to is highest practicable limit, there would in relatively short order come a time for some of the rarer elements where the sources of original ores would deplete, and the effectiveness of recycling would not match demand.
And there's always that elephant in the room that is the extra energy required to recapture, recycle, and/or process ever more diminishing grades of ore.
Damn that entropy...
The same applies to fresh water, when we pipe it from large osuch as lakes and surface/subsurface reservoirs, disperse it through the landscape, pollute it, salinate it, run it to the oceans - and expect to continue doing so with an ever-increasing population. "Oh, but there's a hydrological cycle, and it will recharge all our sources", you might say...
Cool - so why is it that so many dams, lakes, rivers and even [seas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea) are drying? And what's with those misbehaving [aquifers](http://www.eoearth.org/article/Aquifer_depletion)? Don't they understand that they're a "[renewable resource](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17620-indias-thirsty-farms-drain-…)"?
Of course, if you disagree you will have models that disproves my statements.
Girma, you said:
and
Now, please explain how you propose recycling the spent/used fossil fuels from (effectively) CO2 + H2O back to, say, oil, coal, natural gas, methane hydrates, etc. in terms of thermodynamics, kinetics and economics so that you can continue your veneration practice.
And isn't it funny how the human species wasn't finished "in no time" long before we discovered those useful properties of fossil fuels ... when there were a lot less humans about and a lot more (dangerous) animals.
Girma said (#1692):
Nonsense, it a dishonest lie. You cherry pick like crazy and that is something no honest scientist should ever do, let alone use it for every "fact" they write about.
You were referred to a graph of GISS data but I assume you found it too "scary" to even look at for a micro-second.
Here are some figures which you might find less scary (from a visual perspective, but even more scary for what they tell us):
Temperature anomaly for the 1980's - 15.9K
Temperature anomaly for the 1990's - 24.9K
Temperature anomaly for the 2000's - 50.5K
Anomalies are calculated from the base period: 1951-1980
Please tell us how this shows that the Globe is cooling. If you think these numbers indicate that the Globe is cooling then you either have a cognitive problem with understanding numbers or you are a dishonest liar. Which is it Arrsengo?
Blockhead.
Answers:
1) No, if the law says otherwise.
2) Yes, if he broke the law.
I own a number of hectares of pasture and forest in an area listed as having 'extreme' risk of wildfire. I would like to build a permanent home there one day, but there are strict heritage and environmental protections that limit how I can use the land.
And as the owner of the land I reckon that that's fair enough. I know in advance that the land has values to the society (and to the ecology) whose services and protections I desire, so I don't expect that I have carte blanche when it comes to what I 'can do' with "my" property.
I also knew years in advance of the recent season of catastrophic fires that I would have to build within stringent guidelines, because unlike many interstaters who blithely purchase land here without a second thought, I recall the disaster that scorched my district a number of decades ago, where residents of my valley jumped into the ocean in order to save themselves.
And even if one didn't know of the local history, all one need do is look at the skeletons of the dead giant trees towering over the canopy of the current forest, to understand what the nature of the land is.
If I can't work within the parameters set for my land, then I am either incompetent in how I design my home, or I am irrationally unreasonable in my expectations for the context in which I am trying to build.
Certainly, if I broke the law, no matter how I might disagree with it, I wouldn't be surprised to be fined. If the laws and the land were there before the house, then the owner should have known what constraints accompanied the house s/he was purchasing.
And if the house was there first then the owner should have carefully balanced the available options for addressing the problem. If the final decision was the bulldoze anyway and to heck with it, then they can't be surprised if there's a fine.
And ultimately I do not 'own' the land; rather, I am its custodian for the years that I am alive. I would like to benefit from it, but I owe it just as much - or more - than it 'owes' me.
This actually nicely contextualises the bleatings of some property owners who have 99-year leases on land, and expect to do whatever they see fit whilst they are in charge... Whether it is 20 years, or 50 years, or 99 years, they are not the eternal owners, and as such they have a duty to those who follow, and certainly to the actual 'owners'.
If you disagree, then you would for example surely support the right of a heavy industry to pollute their site, then sell it and subsequently have no responsibility for rehabilitation.
Just as I do not in an absolute sense 'own' my land, I similarly do not 'own' my children. More generally, I have privileges as a citizen that are dependent upon my socially responsible behaviour within my society. "Rights" are a different kettle of fish, and if you don't know the difference I suggest that you do some study in ethics.
If the laws and the land trees were there before the house...
Oh, this just keeps getting more and more pathetic. When soil is depleted and blows away, it just goes to another part of the planet (rough paraphrase). Tell that to those that lived through the dust bowl era. I'm sure they were happy with it. But those were just individuals, the ones that you despise, Girma...er, wait...umm...I know, tell that to the Chinese, who are undergoing severe drought and drying that is turning their once fertile ground to dust. I'm sure they are comforted by the fact that instead of growing their own food, they can try to find it elsewhere and import it, just as cheaply and economically, I'm sure.
Gah, the stupid, it burns so, so much. It does show the bankruptcy and lack of basic humanity of his Randian worldview, I suppose.
Nicely said, Bernard (1731) - but, I think, Girma will probably think that ethics is something Socialists do, and therefore good Capitalists of Randian Bent need to ignore them in favor of Rands personal twisted thoughts on the subject.
I do agree that the whole "sinful"/etc bit is bizarre, and his rant on fossil fuels is a bit incomprehensible. I gather that he fears animals, is afraid their penises are bigger than his, and thus worships fossil fuels in some bizarre revenge fantasy where he stides mightily over the Earth, crushing his terrors under his sandaled feet (ok, Conan reference, I doubt he'd wear sandals, too Hippie).
How many times has Girma changed the subject, refusing to acknowledge demonstrated failures and plodding ahead like nothing happened?
Girma, don't be dishonest.
For my questions
1.Does a farmer has a right to cut trees that are in his own property in order to protect his house from fire?
2.Should a council fine him for doing that?
Almost all of you took the side of the group instead of the individual. This is our man philosophical difference.
Cutting trees in my own property does not harm any other person. Others must not have any say whether I cut trees on my property.
If, before cutting trees in my property, I must obtain the permission of group - I am not free, whether permission is granted to me or not. Only a slave acts on permission. I donât want slavery. I want your green, collectivist chain to be removed from my neck.
The majority (council) must not have the right to vote away the rights of a minority. Our political system must protect minorities from oppression by majorities. The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
The group must not have the power to sacrifice the individual, like the Incaâs did. That is barbarism, and it must not continue in any form whether in the form of sacrificing an individualâs life, or in the form of the individual to live his life by the permission of the group. The only responsibility that an individual must uphold is not to violate the right of another individual.
P. Lewis @1729
Why are we shackled from building dams to produce energy?
Why are we shackled from building nuclear reactors to produce energy?
I wish to trample all over the rights of everyone else, including my descendants, but I am shackled by others. I want to kill everyone who offends me, but I am shackled by others. I want to freedom to do what I want, but I will scream bloody murder when someone wants to do something to me that I don't like.
Sorry, I must have been channeling Girma there. Luckily humanity, empathy and reason came back to me, and I'm normal.
Girma, seriously, seek help. And please, please, never have children.
Girma - we all live our lives by the permission of the group. It's called Laws, Morals, Ethics, Culture...etc. It's our social nature that develops these communities, which mainly do consist of rules telling us what we can and cannot do. Basic facts of life that everyone learns as children.
=:O
Girma - sounds like you are an anarchist!
Girma, show me an individual who survived evolution.
Show me a society that operates as you describe with freedom to to anything without consideration for the populous as a whole, and I'll show you a society in self destruction.
As we are counted in the billions, the actions of humans are multiplied many many many times. Hence the need to make actions sustainable (accountable to the whole). If you want a population of billions of humans, that population must quickly become 'green' or perish.
So rather than clearing the remaining forest, we should either live outside the remaining forest, or install a fire bunker.
To All
If you say I can not cut trees on my own land; I say I donât live in a FREE society.
As long as I donât violate the right of others, I must be left alone.
Also my property must be sacrosanct.
Girma
Your reply (#1737) to my questions about your statements (in #1729) show you to be truly pathetic.
Troll. -->
There's no such thing as a FREE society, just societies with different degrees of personal freedom and responsibility. It's amazing how many people want to have all the freedom they want, while wanting nothing of the responsibility.
"If you say I can not cut trees on my own land; I say I donât live in a FREE society."
You live in a society that is only as free as people decide with their laws. In other words, stop whining.
"As long as I donât violate the right of others, I must be left alone."
Restate that, as long as I don't violate the rights of others, or the laws that we humans have made for various reasons, I may, not must, be left alone.
"Also my property must be sacrosanct."
Again, so long as there is no violation of laws (or ethics, since in some places women and children count as property), there should be no need for others to touch your property. One example, there are common exceptions - you can't torture your pets or livestock since they are protected by laws, so you can be held accountable for that. Same thing with your Victoria Trees example - there were laws in place, and they broke them. No "must not touch my stuff" applies to that. It's just not how the world works.
Mark Byrne
You raised the Population question. If you all fear of running out of resources, why not advocate a policy on population. Why beat around the bush? Yes, Why?
I donât have any of those fears. The Population Bomb of 30 years ago has not materialised, and there will not be population or resources problem as long as entrepreneurs are left alone to solve these problems, and benefit from their work.
The Green Revolution:
Never before in the history of agriculture has a transplantation of high-yielding varieties coupled with an entirely new technology and strategy been achieved on such a massive scale, in so short a period of time, and with such great success. The success of this transplantation is an event of both great scientific and social significance. Its success depended upon good organization of the production program combined with skillful execution by courageous and experienced scientific leaders.
[Norman Borlaug, The Nobel Peace Prize 1970]( http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-lecture…)
I was right. Girma IS an indoctrinated piece of cement.
Its no use everyone. I surrender to his sea of illogic and stupidity. My jaw is scraping the floor reading some of his latest gibberish.
What is more scary is the fact that this guy has a PhD and yet writes the crap he does. Pure and utter bilge. I cannot waste any more of my time on it, at least not today.
J
OK, OK, that is enough bait, Girma.
I am sick of your selectivity and of your b*. Your latest post (# 1744) is an example of the fact that you do not know what the hell you are talking about. Borlaug`s contribution to humanity was immense. The green revolution did help to markedly increase plant yields, but only because we took existing genetic material in plants and optimized its potential through selective breeding. The genetic blueprint had to be there; if it had not been then there would have been no green revolution. I am sure that Borlaug himself realized that there must be physical constraints on the ability of the planet to support man as well as other forms of contemporary life. We can stretch the ability of nature only to a point.
The biotic materials that we depend upon for our survival of course come from natural systems and have evolved over many millions of years. When humans arrived on the scene the planet had more biotic resources than at any time in the planet`s history. Yet the story of successive civilizations - from ancient Mesopotamia through the Greek and Roman to the modern days reveals and ugly truth: these civilizations lived beyond the carrying capacity of their local environments, and did not have the technologies available to compensate for the damage. This was a key factor (along with political factors) for their decline ans fall. The three above civilizations ravaged the landscape, depleted local biodiversity and degraded their soils on which agriculture depended. This was clearly not sustainable and these civilizations collapsed.
We are doing the same today, only at a much faster rate and at a global scale. New technologies are enabling humans to dig deeper and to go farther afield when we over-exploit or defile local resources. Past civilizations were effectively constrained to their local resources bases. Humans have become a global force now but the planet is still a closed system. We are spending natural capital like there is not tomorrow. As I have said previously, humans are degrading soils at rates exceeding their replenishment by many factors. We are draining aquifers that provide critical water resources to nourish our crops at rates many times exceeding their recharge. And most worrying of all, we are driving species and genetically distinct populations to extinction at rates exceeding any in 65 million years.
These are the working parts of our global ecological life support systems. Girma seems to think humans can live in a planet covered in concrete and computers and we will not only do fine but will thrive. As I have said many times before, the ONLY reason we are able to persist is because we have not yet passed critical thresholds yet. These systems function in strongly non-linear ways, meaning that they can withstand some level of destruction and still appear to function as well as before. Humans are certainly altering and simplifying the biosphere in what can only be seen as a single non-repeatable experiment on systems we barely understand but on which our survival as a species depends. Read those words Girma and get it through your head: humans depend on nature and natural cycles and not *vice-versa*. These systems PERMIT our species to exist and to persist. At the same time, we are pushing systems towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain life in a manner that we know.
THIS CANNOT CONTINUE IF THE FUTURE IS TO BE SECURE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
Girma`s posts reveal he probably has never read a book in his life on the environment. I have met kindergarten children who are more aware of the state of the biosphere than Girma, which frankly should make him embarrassed. What strikes me about his posts is that he speaks on a range of subjects as if he is some kind of expert who has an accumulated wealth of knowledge, when, in reading his posts, I see just a big empty hole with some right wing propaganda floating about. No depth, no perception, just an empty void. I am sure he gets most of his contemporary scientific and environmental (as well as political) information from right wing web sites and the like.
What we are seeing today is the shuffling of global carrying capacity. Trade (and resource looting) does not increase carrying capacity of the planet: it merely shuffles it around. A good example of human over-harvesting at the global scale concerns fisheries. Once upon a time local communities had an overabundance of fish and these persisted over time because these communities did not have the technology to deplete the local fish stocks. Primitve technologies were more than compensated for by recruitment amongst the fish populations. As fish extraction technologies improved, however, we began to take fish out of the seas at rates exceeding their recruitment. This led to the harvesting of smaller and smaller fish (many not yet sexually mature), and, as numbers of top-level predators depleted we eventually began fishing down the food chain until whole systems buckled and collapsed. Nowadays we can wipe out local fish stocks but then move to other places where fish stocks have not been so heavily exploited, but we begin again, and then move on, and begin again etc. The result is that humans have virtually vacuumed the once productive green seas of fish, depleting the stocks of target species at the end of the food chain by 90% or more. This has led to huge disruptions in marine food webs, inverting them in some cases with potentially catastrophic results (e.g. jellyfish are now "apex" predators in the waters off of the Spanish coast). Marine biologists have said for years that over exploitation of marine systems will have disastrous repercussions on marine ecosystems down the road. They were ignored.
New technologies thus enabled humans to suck fish out the oceans with more and more efficiency, but did not allow many fish species to replenish their stocks. Most importantly, as the fish stocks were plummeting, everything seemed OK for a time, and people still munched their cheap fish and chips dinners with gusto, unaware of the impending predicament. It was only when a critical threshold was passed - and it was effectively too late - that the collapse was noted. Many stocks will never recover. Not in thousands of years anyway, even if fishing were halted. This is because the structure of marine food webs has been altered, perhaps irreversibly. Once the trophic integrity of systems is changed, there may be no way back. Those pesky thresholds again.
This is all pretty basic environmental science. But not to Girma and his ilk it isn`t. I cringe with pain at the cornucopians and their elementary interpretations of ecology and the environment. They believe that there are no limits to human wisdom and thus no limits to material growth. As thresholds are approached, they believe that human wisdom will intervene and forever increase carrying capacity, so why worry about limits? They believe that humans are exempt from nature`s laws. Heck, I am sure many believe that we could wipe out every other species of life on the planet and be just fine.
There is one inescapable conclusion about these people: they are dinosaurs. Their views are intellectually bankrupt. The said thing is that there are still many of them around. The good news is that they are dwindling.
SCIENCE FICTION: The globe was not warming in the 1860s before the automobile.
Actually, it was [warming in the 1860s]( http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1878/compress:12/plot/hadcr…) at the rate of 0.31 deg/100 years!
That is what you get when politics and science mix.
Jeff, I know you read a lot, have you come across [The Wrecking Crew](http://tcfrank.com/books/the-wrecking-crew/) by Thomas Frank?
I'm part way through it. Its enlightening as to lengths people are going to in order to wreck government. Reading it I've become aware that Girma would be a prime candidate for a government post under a Reagan, Bush I or Bush II regime (or Palin?).
Grover Norquist [is quoted]( http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_digbysblog_archive.html#11157…) as practicing Stalinâs strategy of taking over the personnel department.
>*[Stalin] was running the personnel department while Trotsky was fighting the White Army. When push came to shove for control of the Soviet Union, Stalin won. Trotsky got an ice ax through his skull, while Stalin became head of the Soviet Union. He understood that personnel is policy.*
Government appointments being made on the basis of an ideology rather than competence. An ideology well exemplified by Girma.
If Girama wants to help with the project of wrecking government, apparently the route is to send your CV to the [Heritage Foundation](http://www.heritage.org/)who keep a list of the ideologically acceptable people from which "conservative" governments can fill government posts.
Government appointmetns were made on the basis of an ideology rather than competance. An ideology well exemplified by Girma.
Hi Mark,
Many thanks for the title. I most definitely read a lot: generally 20-30 books a year when I find the time.
I will most definitely read Frank`s book. I have just finished reading "Newspeak in the 21st Century" (Edwards and Cromwell), "Censoring Science" (Owen) and "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism" (Bacevich). All are excellent reads: Newspeak is a great companion to "Manufacturing Consent"; Censoring Science shows how the Bush administration and the political right in America have been waging a war of intimidation against James Hansen; The End of American Exceptionalism is a passionate book that puts current US foreign policy into perspective.
I will order Franks` book right away!
Best,
J
Jeff @1746
Thanks so much Jeff for your time to sharing your thoughts. I enjoy reading them.
Girma,
*Thanks so much Jeff for your time to sharing your thoughts. I enjoy reading them*
Really? I do not get that impression. I say this because you will come back with more libertarian waffle about the invincibility of the human mind coupled with the idea that humans have evolved above any natural limits. I suggest that you read Yvonne Baskins`s quite excellent "The Work of Nature" which lays out in simple terms how much mankind depends on ecosystem services, and provides examples of these. My posts do not seem to get through to you.
Jeff writes:
>*What strikes me about [Girmaâs] posts is that he speaks on a range of subjects as if he is some kind of expert who has an accumulated wealth of knowledge, when, in reading his posts, I see just a big empty hole with some right wing propaganda floating about. No depth, no perception, just an empty void. I am sure he gets most of his contemporary scientific and environmental (as well as political) information from right wing web sites and the like.*
Jeff apparently the secret for Girma and his ideological doppelgangers in power is to substitute â*accumulated wealth of knowledge*â with *âself-confidence & self-esteemâ*. In making this substitution you know which are *actual problems, not imaginary ones*
[Girmaâs quote]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…):
>*I wonder how you could live your life with this apocalyptic view. How can you have self-confidence & self-esteem with all these fears inside you?. I want to believe man is a hero, and will solve, all actual problems, not imaginary ones, as they arise.*
*****
Back to Girmaâs claims:
Science Fiction: That Girma presents the arguments accurately for AGW.
Before rise in CO2: Temperature fluctuate in a narrow band due to natural cycles, and internal variables such as ENSO and Volcanos.
Period with no volcanic eruptions =>temperature rises.
Period with volcanic eruptions => temp falls.
With a similar response with ENSO and solar cycle. When these happen in unison the change is either moderated or amplified depending on the sign of the forcing.
After a period of low volcanic activity Girma has found a 3 or four years where the 30 year mean shows a rise of [0.03k/decade.](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1880/trend…). But look what happens to the 30 year mean with CO2 output booms and sulphate aerosols are curbed. We get a sustained 30 year mean rise of 0.15k/decade. Volcanic eruptions have not turned the warming trend around like it did in 1883.
Jeff
I agree with all the problems you described. However, I vehemently, passionately, fervently disagree that they are caused by increase in CO2.
The [world was warming in the 1860s](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1878/compress:12/plot/hadcr…), long before the introduction of the automobile.
Girma,
You are being elusive - again. You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you decry some illusory "green agenda" that you appear to think stifles capitalism and individual freedom, then on the other hand you say to me "I agree with all of the problems you described".
How can both be so? For one thing, it is the unfettered free market and deregulated capitalism which are responsible for many of the serious environmental problems across the planet. It is free market absolutism and nakedly predatory economic policies which are driving ecological destruction, and this is why we desperately need regulations limiting the power of corporations and individuals to pursue their own short term profit-driven agendas. These are the kinds of regulations that naturally limit individual freedoms to some extent and why we need laws to protect the environment. What if a property owner wished to cut down trees in which an endangered species such as black-capped vireos or red-cockaded woodpeckers nest? What if other landowners made up any excuses to clear out their forests in an area where there were relic populations of a rare species of frog? Where do you draw the line on the "freedom" of the individual? Let us expand that: where do draw the line on the ability of one country to wage a war of aggression against another country? What about international law, or do you think we should have international laws? Should there be a UN charter, or should everyone and every nation be free to do whatever the hell they like? Where do you draw the line on the freedom of a company to clear cut 1000 hectares of primary forest containing wetlands and rare plants and animals? If the company owns the land, should they be able to do this without restriction? Do you think the federal government should be allowed to own land in any capacity? If not, why not? Laws restrict the behavior of individuals and populations to impinge on the freedom of others peoples and nations.
Your "green baiting" gestures might just as well have been "red baiting" which was what helped to maintain the military industrial complex for so many years, in spite of warnings that the Pentagon was becoming the "House of War" after WW II (under impetus from Forrestal and then Nitze) that was helping to feed to powerful multinationals who profit from war and expansionism, as well as deregulation. Rand was one of the "red-baiters", but, since the fall of the Iron Curtain the US, UK et al. have needed other targets to maintain the status quo, and have found this in the "greens" and in the "long war".
The problem, Girma, is that you continually contradict yourself. You appear to claim that humans are above nature and that elements and resources are not really lost, and you go on to whinge about government intrusions on personal freedoms, then you claim to agree with me that there are serious environmental problems that it should be clear by now are caused by many of the processes that you appear to support.
Then you back-peddle to climate change again, denying its importance. What gives?
Statistical Analysis Summary for [Mean Global Temperature Data.]( http://woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12)
Mean=> 13.97 deg C
Standard Deviation => 0.15 deg C
Range => 0.72 deg C (Between for 1911 & 1998)
Minimum=> 13.65 deg C (For 1911)
Maximum => 14.37 deg C (For 1998)
Sum => 2221.42 (sum of all mean global temperatures)
Count =>159 (number of mean global temperature records, 159 years)
Range for 99.73% of mean global temperature = 6Ï = 0.9 deg C.
As a result, an increase or decrease in mean global temperature of up to 0.9 deg C is natural.
Last year, for 2008, the temperature anomaly was 0.33 deg C.
There is no sign for any [abnormal temperature.](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/TrueMeanGlobalTemperature…)
Jeff @1754
You say the problems are caused by increase in CO2 and Capitalism, but I say they are caused by increase in population.
Girma,
Come on man! Read my post. You complete hashed up the meaning of what I wrote and ended up spewing out more elementary nonsense. Id did not mention C02 and my discussion of politics centered on the consequences of unregulated free enterprise. Then you come back with a mega limp riposte.
Your response leaves me with three conclusions:
1) You are on another planet and cannot properly access people`s posts;
2) You are inhaling some hallucinogenic substance which impairs your ability to read and/or interpret what people are saying;
3) By coincidence a large rock had dropped onto your head just before you entered this thread and you have not fully recovered from the blow.
Which is it? One, two or three?
There is a fourth possibility: you entered a four week kick boxing competition about the same time that you entered this thread and are suffering from heavy blows to the head on a daily basis.
Sheesh. No wonder people get so wound up with your banality.
Girma Orssengo, your preposterous ignorance of systems functionings continues to flabbergast me, just when I thought (yet again) that I must surely be inured to any further examples of cluelessness that you might demonstrate.
The 'Green Revolution', whilst bringing enormous benefit to the poorest of human society, did so at a great cost, and at a cost that continues to rise.
The first cost was the use of monocultures of clonal varieties of crop species. This provided the most fertile bed imaginable for evolution of pest and disease species to run riot through the vast fields of homogeneous crops. The consequences of this approach to agriculture are apparent across the globe, with the devastation of crops around the world. Look at [this link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Agricultural_pests), and [this one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pest_insects), and [this one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Plant_pathogens_and_diseases) and [this one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_plant_diseases) for hundreds of examples of pests and diseases that benefit from monocultural/clonal planting practices.
Coupled with the concomitant grievous loss of genetic diversity in the parent strains of most of the GR species, the capacity to breed adaptations into crops has been severely curtailed as 'old' varieties have been unadvisedly discarded, or accidentally lost because they appeared to have no remaining value.
Following on from this is the fact that the 'right' of the farmer to breed varieties adapted to his or her own local context has been largely - and in many countries, totally â removed by the detestable patent hoodwinks of the giant multinationals that have so vigorously promoted the monocultural style of modern agriculture. You, as an apparent proponent of farmers to do as they will, should be far more concerned about this than about whether they are able to wantonly fell hundreds of trees where other solutions certainly exist.
Secondly, the selection of high yield crops occurs in a fashion that is akin to stacking all of the sand, in a child's sandpit, into one corner. Just as the sand will want to bow to entropy and spread out to the rest of the sandpit, so the plants that are high yielding 'want' to bow to the entropy that underpins evolution and divert the partitioning of resources by their offspring to proportions different to those that occur in the parents. Humans maintain the 'high pile of sand in the corner', that is their current high crop yeildings, by the intensive application of water, fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and other materials so that new generations of seedstock (in addition to the crop productivity itself) might be bred.
The third cost of the Green Revolution is that of the energy and the feedstock required to maintain the 'high pile of sand in the corner' described in the previous paragraph. Humanity's production of agricultural chemicals and fertilisers is fuelled by fossil energy, and the raw materials from which agricultural chemicals and fertilisers are derived are obtained from the same fossil carbon sources.
The trouble is, fossil carbon is a finite resource, and as it becomes more expensive and more scarce, it's fuelling of Green Revolution techniques will inexorably decline. This is going to be a big 'oopsa-daisy'...
And don't come the GE raw prawn with me. It ain't the next miracle Green Revolution.
I'm impressed by the shear breadth of Girma's ignorance.
What's the antonym of polymath? Must be something more interesting than just 'idiot'.
Girma, your post @1755 is funny. So is your conclusion that anything is within 6 sigma is natural.
Can you figure our why its funny?
I'm not a scientist, but I can see it is funny!
1) You have assumed the data is a normal distribution;
2) then you've described what the data characteristics are (assuming normal distribution);
3) then you concluded that since the data is the same as itself it it natural.
If the warming had been more or less the range of 6 standard deviations for the data would be more or less correspondingly.
Can you think of a better test, one which actually tests for changes due AGW?
Oo look! Girma Orssengo has [figured out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) how to use the 'Descriptive statistics' tool in Excel!
It's a pity that he doesn't understand statistics, or why his cut and paste, with a few extras, has mistakes that would make a first year undergrad blush.
Who wants to start...?
There's a basic principle you should've learned in math class, Girma... when your result looks stupid, check your math. Claiming that a 0.9K change (per year, it seems!) is 'natural' is stupid. It would mean that if the mean temperature increased by 0.9K 50 years, you'd think (if you're consistent) that 44K increase in mean global temperature was A-OK, can't attribute that to man!
Of course, there are niggling issues with my math (at least I recognize them), but the result is the same: if we were to believe you, massive global temperatures changes would be 'natural' i.e. unattributable to man, for no reason other than you have poor skills in statistics.
Bernard,
Many thanks for your last two posts. You nailed it elegantly, as you always do. There have been immense costs to the so-called green revolution, but the media and the right wing blogosphere are generally oblivious to them:
Reducing genetic diversity making crops more prone to new emerging diseases and pests.
Reliance on chemical pesticides to control pest populations, whilst downplaying or ignoring their effects on natural communities and ecosystems.
The psychological belief that there are no material limits to human growth because when said limits are approached, there will be new green revolutions emerging every time.
The environmental costs of the green revolution have been immense, as you said, it is just that the bill has not yet been paid. We are accumulating an ecological debt that will one day come back to haunt us. The debt is getting larger with each passing day.
Mark
From the local minimum to the maximum, or from the maximum to minimum, a mean global temperature variation of 0.9 deg C is normal and 99.73% of mean global temperatures will lie within this range.
For example, when the globe cooled by 0.55 deg C from 1878 to 1911, this cooling is within the normal range of temperature variation. Mind you, 1878 and 1998 are extreme values that are rare and occurred 120 years apart.
Girma, start again. Read my post your analysis is meaniningless.
You are saying that this data is the same as this data. Useless for this purpose.
You guys blame companies instead of governments.
You guys blame capitalism for providing people what they need to live their life, instead of blaming depletion of resources on increase in population.
You guys have all missed the main point. Capitalism only meets peopleâs need.
I cannot write as well as some in this blog. So I will quote what a better writer wrote in homage to Capitalism.
I hope this one-only-one post in this thread that supports producers balances all the other posts that support consumers.
Some slight idea of the importance of ORGANIZED CAPITAL may be had by trying to imagine yourself burdened with the responsibility of collecting, without the aid of capital, and delivering to the New York City family, the simple breakfast described:
To supply the tea, you would have to make a trip to China or India, both a very long way from America. Unless you are an excellent swimmer, you would become rather tired before making the round trip. Then, too, another problem would confront you.
What would you use for money, even if you had the physical endurance to swim the ocean?
To supply the sugar, you would have to take another long swim to Cuba, or a long walk to the sugar beet section of Utah. But even then, you might come back without the sugar, because organized effort and money are necessary to produce sugar, to say nothing of what is required to refine, transport, and deliver it to the
breakfast table anywhere in the United States.
The eggs, you could deliver easily enough from the barn yards near New York City, but you would have a very long walk to Florida and return, before you could serve the two glasses of grapefruit juice.
You would have another long walk, to Kansas, or one of the other wheat growing states, when you went after the four slices of wheat bread.
The Rippled Wheat Biscuits would have to be omitted from the menu, because they would not be available except through the labor of a trained organization of men and suitable machinery, ALL OF WHICH CALL FOR CAPITAL. While resting, you could take off for another little swim down to South America, where you would pick up a couple of bananas, and on your return, you could take a short walk to the nearest farm having a dairy and pick up some butter and cream. Then your New York City family would be ready to sit down and enjoy breakfast, and you could collect your two dimes for your labor!
Seems absurd, doesnât it? Well, the procedure described would be the only possible way these simple items of food could be delivered to the heart of New York City, if we had no capitalistic system.
The sum of money required for the building and maintenance of the railroads and steam ships used in the delivery of that simple breakfast is so huge that it staggers oneâs imagination. It runs into hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention the armies of trained employees required to man the ships and trains. But, transportation is only a part of the requirements of modern civilization in capitalistic America. Before there can be anything to haul, something must be grown from the ground, or manufactured and prepared for market. This calls for more millions of dollars for
equipment, machinery, boxing, marketing, and for the wages of millions of men and women.
Steam ships and railroads do not spring up from the earth and function automatically. They come in response to the call of civilization, through the labor and ingenuity and organizing ability of men who have IMAGINATION, FAITH, ENTHUSIASM, DECISION, PERSISTENCE! These men are known as capitalists. They are motivated by the desire to build, construct, achieve, render useful service, earn profits and accumulate riches. And, because they RENDER SERVICE WITHOUT WHICH THERE WOULD BE NO CIVILIZATION, they put themselves in the way of great riches.
Just to keep the record simple and understandable, I will add that these capitalists are the self-same men of whom most of us have heard soap-box orators speak. They are the same men to whom radicals, racketeers, dishonest politicians and grafting labor leaders refer as âthe predatory interests,â or âWall Street.â
Napoleon Hill, Think & Grow Rich, Page 140
Try to be rational. Donât blame the innocent!
> From the local minimum to the maximum, or from the maximum to minimum, a mean global temperature variation of 0.9 deg C
> For example, when the globe cooled by 0.55 deg C from 1878 to 1911, this cooling is within the normal range of temperature variation.
It is?
Please show proof.
I call Bollocks on this one myself.
> What's the antonym of polymath? Must be something more interesting than just 'idiot'.
> Posted by: Michael
Gimp?
Gimboid?
Really plumbing the depths of statistical ignorance now Girma.
First there was the "stand further away and the result is different" approach.
Then there was the "trend for a century and a half is monotonically linear, because I have drawn a straight line through it" tautology.
Then there was the "if I remove the trend, the trend is less scary" weirdness.
Then the "straight line between two adjacent, or nearly adjacent datapoints in a noisy series is sufficent to show a cast-iron downward trend" corollary.
Then the "I have drawn a shaky, uneven, sloping W between 5 arbitrary datapoints in a noisy series, therefore I have found a hitherto unknown oscillation" idea, which I am now referring to as Constellation Statistics.
And now we have "if I consider the variation in my entire dataset, there can be no unnatural component because there is no variation outside of.. the variation... within the whole... dataset..." shambles.
> Range for 99.73% of mean global temperature = 6Ï = 0.9 deg C.
But this is the range WITH the warming trend in it. Therefore the numbers that go into this do not compare.
This is like working out the average of your six-sided dice by rolling 1d6, then 1d6 and adding one, then 1d6 and adding two, 1d6+3 .... 1d6+20 and then saying the range for 99.73% of the numbers rolled on your dice was 25.
PS five-signa limit is considered "impossible" in statistics. Why then must you go to six sigmas? Would it be because the temperature range is more than five sigma and therefore current temperatures are practically impossible to be unaltered over the mean?
> If you say I can not cut trees on my own land; I say I donât live in a FREE society.
So you reckon I SHOULD be allowed to pop your momma with MY bullet from MY gun, yes?
Or am I NOT FREE to do as I wish with MY property?
> If you say I can not cut trees on my own land; I say I donât live in a FREE society.
> As long as I donât violate the right of others, I must be left alone.
> Posted by: Girma
Stop changing the question.
You asked can a farmer be banned from cutting down trees on his land.
Yes is the answer.
You never said anything about "as long as it doesn't affect anyone else's property" then.
Now, if you want to put that in NOW, then please show us proof that the farmer you are so sad for wasn't endangering anyone else or harming someone else's property.
Because if he was, then YOU are now agreeing that he CAN be banned from cutting down trees on his own land.
You wrote, So you reckon I SHOULD be allowed to pop your momma with MY bullet from MY gun, yes?
I said I must have the right to cut trees in my own land. If I cannot then I am not living in a FREE society.
I am against violating the right of others.
My property right must be sacrosanct; otherwise, I live in a new dictatorship. It just changed from RED to GREEN.
No force must be used in all human relationship unless when someone violates the rights of others. If the group want someoneâs property, then the group must buy the property from the individual, and the individual must be willing to sell the property.
This heritage listing business must be abolished, especially if the owner does not want to be involved, as it results in lose of ones property right.
Mark
It is +/- 3Ï = +/- 3 * 0.15 = +/- 0.45 deg C from the mean.
or 6Ï = 0.9 deg C from minimum to maximum.
Girma @ 1774,
Yep that's the application that I cited as useless for this analysis. Pick a relevant test instead.
> I said I must have the right to cut trees in my own land. If I cannot then I am not living in a FREE society.
So I must have the right to play the tuba when I'm back from my night shift.
I must have the right to fire my gun, shooting my bullets. While your mum walks by.
If I can't, I don't live in a FREE society.
> This heritage listing business must be abolished, especially if the owner does not want to be involved, as it results in lose of ones property right.
> Posted by: Girma
If it's a heritage thing, then they HAVE been involved.
Unless they lived back in the 1780's, they bought the place whilst it was denoted of historical interest.
Unless they bought it blind, they bought it in a beautiful location, so they knew it was a heritage site of natural country side. In fact bought it BECAUSE it was.
And they are involved in the discussion of where such zones should go if they are introduced.
But, just as some people think the age of consent should be 8, some think 21 and yet the law says 18 (as a compromise position), just because YOU want to ruin the place because you don't value the specialness of the land doesn't mean you get to override each and every other person.
Or you may have trouble when some misanthrope sees you on "his land": get rid of the unvalued pest species (you) by shooting the arse off it.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Man has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to support his life by his own effort and the guidance of his own mind.
If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life.
Without property rights, no other rights can be practiced. Ayn Rand.
That's just bullshit, a completely false dichotomy. There is no MUST about absolute rights. Living in a society you have, almost without exception, qualified rights. Screeching that some particular right MUST be ABSOLUTE doesn't make it so. Cavalierly (and completely inaccurately) tossing around inflammatory terms like "dictatorship" don't actually lend weight to your argument, it just makes you look a bit fanatical.
It is only through the conventions and laws of society that this someone "owns" property in the first place. You cannot legitimately argue that those same conventions and laws cannot likewise alter or remove that "ownership" under certain circumstances, not even if you argue it with lots of CAPS and quotes from random people who might agree with you.
> Man has to work and produce in order to support his life.
He can also live off the work of others.
Which is HIS work and production done in order to support his life.
Now our society is based on collective needs, like other pack animals, not individual needs like cats, snakes and other lone animals.
Therefore we don't allow any method of work to support the life of the individual. Like, for example, burglary. It's still work, you know.
And you still haven't answered the query for the required proof that the farmer you are so sad for wasn't doing something that was detrimental to the work, lives and property of others.
> Without property rights, no other rights can be practiced. Ayn Rand.
> Posted by: Girma
Just because she said it, doesn't make it right.
Alistair Crowley said "Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law".
Would this be right? After all, he said it...
Excellent news!
[Climate Bill Drifts Into a Potomac Fog]( http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/09/17/17climatewire-climate-bill-drif…)
So what does this have to do with Copenhagen, Grima?
Or are the US going to renege on another international treaty purely because they looove their cars??
So Girma Orssengo says:
Where to start...
Firstly, your link displays anomaly data, and yet you detail temperatures themselves in your summary.
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
To see if the anomalies corresponded with the same original temperature dataset, I checked the standard deviation and range of the linked page against the values you provide, and they do not compare â my values are 0.25 and 1.10 respectively.
Sloppier, sloppier, sloppier...
Now, you say that your range is 0.72C. Ignoring for the moment that the range for 100% of the linked dataset is 1.10, do you not have a problem with your "[r]ange for 99.73% of mean global temperature = 6Ï = 0.9 deg C"?
Sloppier still, sloppier still, sloppier still...
You've been gently poked above about your use of 6Ï for statistical significance. Convention for claiming 'statistical significance' uses (approximately) +/- 2Ï, which encompasses 95.45% (or 95% in the approximated convention) of normally distributed data.
[Insert a trice-expressed permutation of sloppiness here]
You seem to be subscribing to a perversion of the concept of the clumsily-termed [68-95-99.7 rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule), which relies on the data being randomly and normally distributed...
Oh, did I refer to "normally distributed" data? Guess what â your temperature data are not normally distributed... Kolmogorov-Smirnov < 0.01, Ryan-Joiner< 0.01, Anderson-Darling <0.0001.
[Insert another trice-expressed permutation of sloppiness here]
It grows worse...
...because it wouldn't matter if the temperature data were normally distributed. The 68-95-99.7 rule applies to randomly distributed data, and the mean global temperature data are definitely not random. They are a time-series, and hence the temperatures cannot be analysed independently of their respective dates in the fashion that you attempt, and as I have tried to get into your concretinous boulder that one assumes is your skull, the temperature data are also [autocorrelated](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
[Insert yet another trice-expressed permutation of sloppiness here, but refrain from using the suffix "âest", as I am sure that the bottom has not yet been plumbed]
Quite frankly Orssengo, you are an embarrassment to the department that allowed you to engage in postgraduate science. I would suggest that there are grounds for investigating how you achieved entry to a PhD, when your capacity for independent scientific analysis post-award would not in any way fulfill the minimum criteria for a PhD graduate in any university that I am aware of.
As I have said several times previously, I would fail a first-year undergraduate for the statistical and scientific nonsense that you engage in.
[Exaggeration:]( http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2009/08/25/1)
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 assessment pegs the range of expected global average temperature increase during the next century at 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius, with a best estimate of 3 degrees. The consequences of a warming world include harsher heat waves, deeper floods and faster glacial melting, the scientists warned.
Last year's mean global temperature was above the 159 year average by only 0.33 deg C. I call exaggeration how this temperature increases by approximately ten times. Shameless!
Yes, that IS an exaggeration.
Is the 21st Century over???
PS The 3-to-2 favourite at the 3:30 at Hampton court didn't win. The second favourite, rated 2-to-1 odd won.
Does this mean that the favourite was over-valued on their odds?
Girma Orssengo single-handedly discovered signal [noise](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), but now he has [lost the concept](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) again.
Very careless.
Bernard @1783
It is very easy to rubbish others work. Could you please show me your statistical treatment of mean global temperatures?
It is all blogger responsibility to arrive at a solution; instead of just rubbishing others work. I have proposed a solution. Improve it or replace it. Donât just rubbish it, as we are left without a solution.
For a mean global average temperature of 13.97 deg C, is a range of 0.7 deg C abnormal?
> It is very easy to rubbish others work.
Especially when their work is rubbish.
> Could you please show me your statistical treatment of mean global temperatures?
There's one on this site, but there's no need to produce one: all that's needed is to show that your "statistics" is incorrect. Which Bernard has done.
> For a mean global average temperature of 13.97 deg C, is a range of 0.7 deg C abnormal?
Yes. Yes it is.
Look at this graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Do you see ANY change from one year to the next being anywhere NEAR 0.7C?
To produce the variation you either have to use a GCM that includes all significant forcings of temperature or, if you wish to use statistics and the dataset alone, use something like a lowess filter to find the mean value and then calculate the RMS variation around that mean.
Which doesn't give 0.7C variation.
Alternatively, take the record from before 1870 and use the variation of that to see what the natural variations were (and making the assumption that humans were not able to use technology to such an extent as to be a major factor in global climate).
You have done nothing of the sort.
Bernard @1783
Thanks for your corrections. Yes, I was sloppy.
My statistical results apply to the residuals, not the anomalies.
Here are the results again.
Standard Deviation, Ï => 0.15
Range => 0.72 (between for 1911 and 1998)
Minimum =>-0.32 (for 1911)
Maximum =>0.40 (for 1998)
4Ï => 0.6
6Ï => 0.9
[Data used for analysis]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/WoodFreeTreesGlobalWarmin…)
[Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatu…)
Girma,
To believe that [self-esteem](http://www.angryflower.com/objectiv.html) can be built on some specious narcissistic and solipsistic [screed](http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif) is delusional. Genuine self-esteem can only come from cultivating personal [competence](http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf) grounded in a matrix of [socially responsible behavior](http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm). The lifetime and reach of an individual is insignificant in the physical and social evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens, which is inextricably embedded within in the natural world. In genuine, realistic and pragmatic libertarian thought (as opposed to the false and unworkable ideology you embrace), this principle is known as [Mutual Aid](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents…).
I suspect there are many here who are consonant with your desire for maximizing personal liberty. However, the narrowness, shallowness, small-mindedness and plain ignorance and incompetence you display with such inexorable redundancy simply precludes rational dialogue.
>I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, â "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, â "That government is best which governs not at all"; **and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.**
-----[H. D Thoreau](http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html)
I humbly wish you view my comments and links not as an effort to tear you down, but as encouragement for you, as a potentially free and conscientious individual, to build yourself up.
>Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?
No.
Next question
A PLANT, AN ANIMAL & MAN
A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.
An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.
Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyerâand that is the way he has acted through most of his history.
A living entity that regarded its means of survival as evil, would not survive. A plant that struggled to mangle its roots, a bird that fought to break its wings would not remain for long in the existence they affronted. But the history of man has been a struggled to deny and to destroy his mind.
Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choiceâand the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be manâby choice; he has to hold his life as a valueâby choice; he has to learn to sustain itâby choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtuesâby choice.
A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.
AYN RAND
I call that a masterpiece!
Oh look, the blithering idiot continues to blither.
Prof. Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.
Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Prof. Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."
The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.
But as Prof. Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years. "How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."
But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.
While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers every predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.
Prof. Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030. "People will say this is global warming disappearing," he added. According to him, that is not the case. "I am not one of the skeptics," he insisted. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."
Is Girma's prediction for the pattern W to be confirmed?
[Lorne Gunter: Global warming takes a break](http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/11…)
Here's the crux of the Latif paper for idiots like Girma,
Not only continue to blither (or is it blather?), but quotes an idiot. Rand made a huge mistake off the bat (ok, one of the mistakes...) with the idea that man has no "automatic code of survival" - through studies in anthropology, psychology, and probably others, we have a good idea that humans start out as the inheritors of a large genetically based set of behaviors/guidelines for behaviors. Marc Hausers "Moral Minds" is a good book to read, although there are more scholarly books as well (it's the first I thought of). Humans start off with a set of guidelines in our very nature, so we do in fact have such a code. Unless I am misreading her, which isn't hard - she tends to be confusing if you actually care about reality.
Damn, I see she even got the animals wrong in saying they do not have a choice. There have been numerous studies (in primatology and others) that indicate that many animals can and do make choices about things, although since they lack our intelligence (and capabilities) they don't do as much.
Rereading her screed, she does seem like she should have sought professional help. Are Randroids against psychology like the scientologists?
[Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh](http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html)
Mean global temperature from satellite measurement for last year was 0.05 deg C!
[Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009](http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlMmMzNmJkOWM3ZTk5NWJkNT…)
Any dill that uses 1998 as reference point to claim "chilling" started "11 years ago" is engaging in deliberate deception,dishonesty and statistical malfeasence, as we have told you a million times (OK, 500 times) Girma.
Yet you keep posting this utter tripe.
Who do you think you're fooling?
Let go of your religous belief in global cooling and look at the climate data.
There was a bit of a dill called Girma,
Who on the science of climate was a squimer,
He was in love with a Russian called Rand,
Which made him stick his head in the sand,
and claim climate is not 30 years but short termer.
And with the correct format:
There was a bit of a dill called Girma
who on the science of climate was a squimer
He was in love with a Russian called Rand
which made him stick his head in the sand
and claim climate is not 30 years but short termer
Three points:
first, note how Girma picks a right wing neofascist rag for his source;
second, he is mistaking weather for climate;
third, temperatures over most of the planet was above normal in August anyway, in particular Eurasia and (as usual) the Arctic.
Michael speaks for me in post #1800. As I said yesterday, either Girma has a cement block for a head or he was planted here by one of the Rand-type liberatarian right wing nutty groups to annoy everyone.
The novelty of having this klutz in here wore off for me a long time ago.
Hmmm, spelling is good too;
There was a bit of a dill called Girma
who on the science of climate was a squirmer
He was in love with a Russian called Rand
which made him stick his head in the sand
and claim climate is not 30 years but short termer
THE ORSSENGO THEORY CONFIRMED!
[The Pacific Decadal Oscillation](http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm)
I believe the W pattern I found in the [oscillation component of the mean global temperature plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…) matches the PDO pattern described above.
Donât I deserve congratulation? Honestly?
No Girma, on the basis of surfing the internet for ten year old articles like this you deserve nothing but contempt. Get off your butt for once and go to a library and read the primary data. And also attend conferences where this issues are discussed and argued.
Girma Orssengo.
I applied [your technique](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) of 'data analysis' to the annual [CO2 data at Mauna Loa](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/).
For the period to August this year, I found:
Mean = 345.63 ppm
Standard deviation = 21.02 ppm
Minimum = 315.98
Maximum = 385.57
Range = 69.59
Now, to paraphrase you:
So, using your original 'statistical analysis' method, given the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration dataset, CO2 concentration would need to rise above 471.73 ppm in order to qualify as being "unnatural".
Of course, you [subsequently changed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) your definition to +/- 3Ï, which would mean that only concentrations of CO2 above 408.68 ppm would qualify as "unnatural".
Even using the conventional 2Ï 'range', CO2 concentration would need to rise above 387.66 ppm to be considered "unnatural" using your 'method'.
So Girma Orssengo, are you prepared to say that CO2 concentrations from 1959 to present are not changing beyond a "natural" range?
[Pacific Ocean Showing Signs of Major Shifts in the Climate]( http://nytimes.com/library/national/science/012000sci-environ-climate.h…) (January 20, 2000)
Mr Higgins, it is nine years since the date of the above article, and the PDO is still in its cooling phase now. Has the climate shifted or not?
Bernard J @1807
You wrote, So Girma Orssengo, are you prepared to say that CO2 concentrations from 1959 to present are not changing beyond a "natural" range?
You can argue that the CO2 level is or becoming unnatural.
However, that is quite different from arguing that CO2 level is causing global warming and we need to reduce it. When the PDO is in its cooling phase, to say the globe is warming is just unbelievable.
The cooling range for the PDO could be as large as 0.7 deg C, as it happened from 1878 to 1911.
Climate is 30+ years you nitwit.
And, PDO....oscillation. Oscillation.
Luminous beauty @1791
Thank you for the link to [Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution]( http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents…). Appreciate it.
> You can argue that the CO2 level is or becoming unnatural.
Bernard J used your own "analysis" applied to a different variable, to show how bizarre your "analysis" is. Don't change the subject - either you continue to assert your method is valid in the face of patently false results, or you accept your "analysis" of temperature data is flawed.
> When the PDO is in its cooling phase
It's the moon! It's Milankovitch! Its the PDO! It's whatever I can find with google that I can somehow shore up my prejudices with! It's anything but rational analysis!
Amazing to see cognitve dissonance in action.
First Girma is all aflutter over the comments of a researcher whose paper said this:
And now:
It'd be easier to teach a dog alegebra than get any science through the impervious Rand-o-sphere that Girma's head is enclosed in.
[ENVIRONMENT: Global cooling is here: Don Easterbrook]( http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2009apr04_e.html)
This is exactly what I showed in this [mean global temperature anomaly plot.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…)
Also well put: The real danger in spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that little will be left to deal with the very real problems engendered by global cooling.
Girma, You'd better start buying stocks in ice picks and snow shoes.
The only thing lacking was any evidence. No matter if it fits your comforting ideology.
Opinion peieces are better than evidence don't you think. I think we should call evidence "Pravda".
Is this the same Girma who at the start of this thread was bemoaning claims of CATASTROPHIC global warming, and warning of scare campigns, SCAREY graphs and 'alamism'.
Now he appears to believe in CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL COOLING - starvation, ruin and death unless we start preparing ourselves for massively expensive COOL MITIGATION.
I think it's a plot by BIG Governement and an evil cabal of geologists to foist some kind of cooling tax on us.
Girma, I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Girma Orssengo said:
As [Dave](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) pointed out, I was expressly commenting on the validity of your analysis.
Either you agree with the conclusion in [my post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that "CO2 concentrations from 1959 to present are not changing beyond a 'natural' range", or you don't.
If you do agree, you have to pursue some serious justification of statistical misapplication. If you do not agree, then you need to explain why my conclusion about CO2 concentrations, based on your methodology, is incorrect, but why your original conclusion about temperature is not.
Start showing some intellectual integrity, or leave all rational folk who read this thread to conclude that you are merely a scientific fraud... if they have not already done so hundreds of posts ago.
Quoting from the Opinion pages of the Oz is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Actually no, that's wrong, it's the second last. Ayn Rand is the last.
Steve, I didn't even bother to sully myself by visiting the Oz, after I read:
Bernard J @1818
I will try to justify my statistics analysis, and I will get back to you when I am ready.
Bernard @1818
You wrote, I was expressly commenting on the validity of your analysis.
Start showing some intellectual integrity, or leave all rational folk who read this thread to conclude that you are merely a scientific fraud... if they have not already done so hundreds of posts ago.
To check the validity of my statistical analysis, I compare the percentages of temperatures that lie between two temperatures values using theoretical results for normal population distribution to those using the cumulative frequency results for our sample data. If my approximation is close, then the analysis is valid.
Example 1.
From normal distribution tables, the proportion of temperatures that lie between -Ï = -0.15 and Ï = 0.15 deg C is 68.26%.
For our sample data, the [cumulative frequency](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualAnomalyTemperatur…) for â0.15 deg C is 0.186; the cumulative frequency for 0.15 deg C is 0.874. Therefore, the proportion of temperatures that lie between â0.15 and 0.15 deg C is 0.874-0.185 = 68.8%.
The result for our sample of 68.8% is a reasonable approximation of the theoretical result of 68.26%.
Example 2.
From normal distribution tables, the proportion of temperatures that lie between -2Ï = -0.3 and 2Ï = 0.3 deg C is 95.44%.
For our sample data, the cumulative frequency for â0.3 deg C is 0.013; the cumulative frequency for 0.3 deg C is 0.978. Therefore, the proportion of temperatures that lie between â0.3 and 0.3 deg C is 0.978-0.013 = 96.5%.
The result for our sample of 96.5% is a reasonable approximation of the theoretical result of 95.44%.
As a result of post @1822 above, a global warming of 0.7 deg C or a cooling by the same amount (as from 1887 to 1911) is within the normal variation of mean global temperatures every 20 to 30 year periods; as result, we must adapt to them instead of a futile attempt to stopping them.
Girma Orssengo
sorry
(as from 1887 1878 to 1911)
[Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology](http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climat…)
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope - RL
Duh!!
Who's saying it is??
This is why Lindzen's reputation is on the slide.
Gotta feel sorry for the fools for fall for this.
Girma Orssengo.
The global mean temperature data are [not normally](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) distributed.
The global mean temperature data are not independent; they are not randomly distributed; they are autocorrelated; they are time-series data.
How many breakings of these criteria are permissible using the clumsy analysis that you employed?
Justify for each point please.
Bernard J @1827
The numbers donât lie.
For the residuals of the mean global temperatures, my estimate for this sample data for two standard deviation range of 68.8 % compared to the theoretical for normal distributions of 68.26%; and my estimate for the sample for four standard deviation range of 96.5 % compared to the theoretical for normal distributions of 95.44%. You cannot get any closer than that!
[Nathan Mantua, Ph. D., Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.]( http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm)
[PACIFIC DECADAL OSCILLATION]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…)
Girma #1829, why did you repeat the same post again? Do you think nobody here can read? Its you who ignores posts they do not like, not the rest of us.
Here is the abstract of an article co-authored by the same author (Nathan J Mantua) in the journal Environmental Health (2008):
*Anthropogenically-derived increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have been implicated in recent climate change, and are projected to substantially impact the climate on a global scale in the future*. For marine and freshwater systems, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are expected to increase surface temperatures, lower pH, and cause changes to vertical mixing, upwelling, precipitation, and evaporation patterns.
OK, Girma, read the partial abstract above (with italics mine). So you have been apparently mis-representing Mantua`s and his colleagues views on the factors underlying climate change. Care to comment, bright guy?
Girma Orssengo.
The [numbers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) donât lie.
The global mean temperature data are [not normally](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) distributed.
The global mean temperature data are not independent; they are not randomly distributed; they are autocorrelated; they are time-series data.
So, once again, how many breakings of these criteria are permissible using the clumsy - ignorant! - analysis that you employed?
Justify for each point above please, and this time refer to a credible statistical text to validate your assumptions and your approach to your 'analysis'.
Jeff Harvey @1830
At post 1464, I posted the following:
At that time, I did not know the mechanism for my [plot for the oscillation of the mean global temperature]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…). But I now found that the mechanism was already explained by Dr Mantua as [Pacific Decadal Oscillation]( http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm). That is my only motivation.
Bernard @1831
Here is ALL the [mean global temperature data]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualTemperatureAnomal…) I used to arrive at my results.
And here is the [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTempera…) that shows excellent agreement between sample cumulative frequency with cumulative frequency for normal distributions.
Of course Girma, if you'd bothered to read the IPCC reports, you'd know all about the PDO, our current scientific understanding of it, which climate models can currently account for it, and how our current knowledge of it is factored into the predicted temperature rise of the next century.
Girma Orssengo.
The [numbers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) donât lie.
1) the global mean temperature data are [not normally](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) distributed. Perform a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, or a Ryan-Joiner test, or an Anderson-Darling test on the data. Explain what the resultant p values indicate.
If that is too difficult for you, count the number of data points that are less than -0.55, the number of datapoints that are greater than -0.55 and less than or equal to -0.5... et cetera, and construct a histogram of the results. Look at the distribution and ask yourself, "is it monomodal?", "is it skewed"?, "even if I am such a statistical nincompoop that I can't perform a test for normality, what does the histogram of distribution tell me?"
Then, after you have done that, concentrate really hard and tell yourself that:
2) the global mean temperature data are not independent; 3) they are not randomly distributed; 4) they are autocorrelated; 5) they are time-series data.
It is imperative that these points are all considered when choosing (a priori, I will add) an appropriate method of analysis.
So, yet again, how many breakings of characteristics 1-5 are permissible when determining, using your approach, whether there is a trend or 'significance' in non-normal, non-random, non-independent, autocorrelated time-series data? And why, when the data are of this form, would you apply "descriptive" statistics to such data in the first place?!
I repeat, justify your analysis in light of each of points 1 to 5 above, and do so with reference to a credible statistical text or to a comparable published, peer-reviewed paper.
BJ, Girma has you on toast.
His reply will include LOTS of CAPITALS.
You lose.
Bernard J @1835
I have got a [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTempera…) that shows excellent agreement for the cumulative frequency for the sample data and the normal distribution. It is impossible to improve on an excellent result!
As a result, an increase or decrease in mean global temperature of 0.7 deg C in 20 to 30 years is normal variation of mean global temperature caused by Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
A [global cooling]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…) in the oscillation component of mean global temperature by 0.7 deg C was observed from 1887 to 1911, confirming that a change in mean global temperature by 0.7 deg C is normal.
The PDO entered a cooling phase in 1998. NATURAL Global cooling for couple of decades follow.
Cheers
I showed, using [Girma Orssengo's original 'statistical analysis' method](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) (for time-series analysis!), and given the [Mauna Loa mean annual atmospheric CO2 concentration dataset](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), that CO2 concentration would need to rise above 471.73 ppm in order to qualify as being "unnatural" in Orssengo's perception of such.
Girma Orssengo [subsequently changed his definition](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) to refer to +/- 3Ï, rather than +/- 6Ï, which would mean that only concentrations of CO2 above 408.68 ppm would qualify as "unnatural".
Even using the more conventional +/-2Ï 'range', mean annual atmospheric CO2 concentration would need to rise above 387.66 ppm to be considered "unnatural" using Orssengo's 'method'. To compare, 2008's mean annual concentration of CO2 was 385.57 ppm, so Girma Orssengo's method says that there has been no "unnatural" increase in CO2 in the period 1959 to 2008.
When [pressed on this matter](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), Girma Orssengo replied:
Note that the second paragraph of Orssengo's is an irrelevant diversion from the matter at hand.
So Girma Orssengo, are you prepared to say that CO2 concentrations from 1959 to present are not changing beyond a "natural" range? I am not interested in whether "you can argue" whether CO2 levels are "unnatural"; I want to know if you agree that your method of analysis says that CO2 concentrations are not "unnatural" over the 1959-2008 period.
Girma Orssengo, who must be shitting his nappy with humiliation, says:
I say again: check your statistical procedures.
The global mean temperature data are [not normally distributed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). Perform a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, or a Ryan-Joiner test, or an Anderson-Darling test on the data. Explain what the resultant p values indicate.
If that is too difficult for you, count the number of data points that are less than -0.55, the number of datapoints that are greater than -0.55 and less than or equal to -0.5... et cetera, and construct a histogram of the results. Look at the distribution and ask yourself, "is it monomodal?", "is it skewed"?, "even if I am such a statistical nincompoop that I can't perform a test for normality, what does the histogram of distribution tell me?"
You seem obsessively enamoured with your "cumulative frequency plot". Consider the three specific tests for normal distribution, and why they indicate that the data are not normal. Consider the histogram that I described above, and how it clearly shows that the data are not normal.
Why do you think that three separate and specific tests for normality, and the simple and very straight-forward shape of the distribution itself, indicate that the data are not normal, when your "plot" shows otherwise?
Girma Orssengo, in case you are not getting the message, the data are not normal. Your plot is not "an excellent result".
Normality, or otherwise, of the data distribution aside, you have persisted in ignoring [points 2 through to 5](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), which are:
I say again, it is imperative that these points are all considered when choosing an appropriate method of analysis.
Why do you continue to ignore this very basic aspect of statistical analysis, in the face of repeated attempts to remind you of it?
Girma Orssengo.
It is patently apparent to anyone who has completed (or even failed) a first-year university statistics course that you have not a clue in the world about how to appropriately analyse datasets.
So, to give you a little bit of a helping hand, I will point out to you that time-series data are two-factor data. Does this fact ring any reo in your concretinous boulder of a head?
UNSW academics must be sobbing like babies into their palms, witnessing the disrepute that you are so profoundly bringing upon the institution.
The mean global temperature may not be a normal distribution, but the residual is because the match in the [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTempera…) between the cumulative distribution for the SORTED RESIDUAL in the mean global temperature and the normal distribution is excellent.
I believe more my own eyes than peopleâs word.
Girma Orssengo.
You '[analysed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)' the mean global temperature anomaly, and not the 'sorted residual[s]'.
You are obviously incapable, either through lack of skill or from psychological block, or by both, of pursuing the [recommended construction of the histogram](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). For your benefit the histogram is [here](http://i37.tinypic.com/2hgrebb.jpg).
Comment on the distribution.
I reiterate that you persist in ignoring [points 2 through to 5](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) about the requirements for undertaking the 'descriptive' statistical 'analysis' that you did.
Finally, [here is a graph of two sets of hypothetical time-series data](http://i33.tinypic.com/2dvkcqu.jpg). Explain, using the language of a typical peer-reviewed journal methodology, how you would statistically analyse the two series for determining whether there was a trend in either of the datasets, or whether some values are (to use your clumsy terminology) "unnatural".
Shorter Girma:
I'd sooner believe the crap I make up in my head than any basic indisputable statistical analysis which I don't get. BLOG SCIENCE WINS!
And next up.....Girma reinvents the wheel...as a triangle.
Stay tuned for more BLOG SCIENCE with Prof Grima!
[Cumulative frequency analysis]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_frequency_analysis)
[Cumulative frequency distribution for the residuals of mean global temperatures.](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTempera…)
Unfortunately, at a time when people say a decreasing global temperature is increasing, there is no wonder they donât believe what they see. For them, data doesnât matter, belief does!
They complain of resource depletion and consumption. Assuming this is the case, let us try to think with laser like precision. Who is to blame for this? Is it because businesses meeting peoplesâ need? Or is it that there are more people with more need to consume? Which comes first? After tax on CO2, will the resource depletion and consumption end? Have we identified the root cause of the problem with precision before we solve it?
Shorter Girma:
climate is 30+ years but I reject that as I need to believe that the climate cooling, so climate is whatever I say it is. And why are you people so irrational?
Girma, You did not answer my point. Nathan Mantua, whose work you have (ab)used to suggest that climate cycles are natural, is a co-author on a more recent (2008) paper in which the abstract states (in part):
*Anthropogenically-derived increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have been implicated in recent climate change*
Read it again!!!! The paper is saying that *anthropogenic-derived increases in greenhouse gases* are thought to be responsible for the warming!!! You are therefore mis-interpreting the views of the author.
Jeff Jarvey @1847
In the paper [The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Climate Forecasting for North America]( http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm)<.i>, Dr Mantua wrote:
The above summary supports my [plot for the oscillation component of the mean global temperature.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…) That is my only point. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Dang.
The [image](http://i37.tinypic.com/2hgrebb.jpg) I linked to [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) was labelled with the time range from another analysis.
the range should read "1850-2008".
The data were obtained from Girma Orssengo's [woodfortrees link](http://woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12) at [#1755](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
This was sloppy of me, even though it was 1.00am when I labelled the graph.
Girma,
Let me show you [with pictures](http://i38.tinypic.com/5eb8t0.jpg) why your analysis in inappropriate.
Girma, PDO is an oscillation. It [hasn't been stuck in up](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-the-Smok…) so it canât explain [this scale of warming]( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison…) unprecedented for 2000 years.
Further more ocean cycles operate by taking heat from the surface down into the depths of the ocean. If the PDO were so powerful why is [the ocean](http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-causes-short-term-changes-in-ocean…) and surface both warming for such sustained periods of time? AGW has the mechanism that explains the source of the heat build up.
Mark Byrne @1849
You wrote, Let me show you with pictures why your analysis in inappropriate.
I agree that there is a linear warming in the mean global temperature anomaly. In the residual, this is removed as
Residual = Anomaly â Linear warming component of mean global temperature anomaly
For the residual, the mean is zero and the standard deviation is 0.15 deg C, for the data at [WoodForTrees.org](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/t…).
All intermediate data are [here.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualTemperatureAnomal…)
Green Nazis want to enslave Africans now. Undeveloped countries should be allowed to decide for themselves how to earn money from trade. Not have a chain around there neck from COLLECTIVISTS.
Freedom to profit from progress, [such as this](http://www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/summers.html) is being denied to poor people by Green socialist who would rather pollution be prevented.
I venerate fossil fuel, and Africanâs should get [the piece of the action]( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-african-pollution…) that the free-market awards to them.
Girma @1852,
Your residuals are also inappropriate as they are calculated on the assumption of a linear warming trend from 1850. In reality most of the warming has occurred post 1945, with the warming (0.15k/decade -30year mean) more than [three times faster]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1890/t…) than your assumed trend.
Spot the [accelerated warming here too]( http://i37.tinypic.com/11azy2f.jpg).
Mark Byrne @1854
In the equation:
Residual = Anomaly - Linear Component of Mean Global Temperature Anomaly
If I reduce the linear component, it will result in increase in the residual.
The residual must be about the oscillation of the anomaly relative to the long term. There should not be any constant shift component in the oscillation component.
Girma 1855,
Yep, your analysis is inappropriate. You are making inappropriate assumptions and using inappropriate statistics. The 'residual' is oscillating about a warming trend that has accelerated more than 300% in period.
Try a linear regression of [CO2 and temperature](http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html). The repeat for Ln(CO2) vs Temp.
The take an advanced class [here](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/) and [here](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/crystal-ball/).
There comes a time in every ignorant incompetent's life when he has to look at himself and say, "I, Girma Orssengo, am an ignorant incompetent.
After repeatedly pointing out to Girma Orssengo (last time [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)) that the [HadCRU annual mean global temperature anomaly data](www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) are not normally distributed, and after repeatedly reminding him ([for example, here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)) that the global mean temperature data are not independent, that they are not randomly distributed, that they are autocorrelated, and that they are time-series data, Orssengo simply [repeats his claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that:
Yes, [he insists](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that he is using normal data, and that he is using it appropriately.
The problem is, the data are not normal, and the other criteria that would have required fulfillment in order to perform his [original 'analysis'](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), but that were not fulfilled, have been studiously ignored by Orssengo.
At another time [he tried to say](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that it is debatable whether the anomalies are normally distributed or not:
however, there is no debate - the data MUST be normal in order to [say what he said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) - and the other criteria must be addressed. And surprise, surprise - the data are not normal...
He [seems to think](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that subtracting a linear trend from the data and then performing a cumulative frequency analysis on the residuals constitutes justification for his [original claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that there is "no sign for any abnormal temperature".
Newsflash, Orssengo...
A linear subtraction is not data transformation. And, almost by very definition, the mean of a group of residuals is always zero.
I suspect that he does not even have a clue as to why his tautological [comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that:
is equivalent to saying that the maximum anomaly value in the dataset happenst also to be the biggest!!!
I have laboured here trying to elicit the merest hint that Orssengo might consider applying appropriate analyses to the data, but he has steadfastly refused to do so. So, turning the tables, I have applied his analysis to the data he claims shows that there is "[no abnormal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)" temperature signal in the last centuray and a half.
Using his data sourced from the [original site](www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/), and using the exceedingly basic cumfreq software that even Orssengo should be able to find, I replicated his analysis. As cumfreq does not handle negative values, and because I wanted to apply the test to the same anomaly data that Orssengo used, I added 1 to each value, but this does not alter the significance of the outputs.
The end result is [this graph](http://i33.tinypic.com/am9w60.jpg), which indicates very obviously that the anomaly data do not fit the 90% confidence band for a dataset with 159 datapoints and the variance present in the HadCRU dataset. Unfortunately the cumfreq software does not seem to permit the confidence intervals to be changed to 95%, but that is a moot point because anyone who understands the nature of such density functions would immediately recognise that the graphed results would fall outside even a 99% confidence band.
I am still trying to figure out exactly what Orssengo thought he graphed, but whatever it was, it wasn't a confirmation that the HadCRU data are normal, 'residuals' or otherwise. Of course, anyone who was even half awake would have cottoned on to his incompetence, because his "For normal distribution population" trajectory in [the graph](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTempera…) is not a smooth normal curve.
I could hammer on about this mess for paragraphs yet, but I am over it. Orssengo, if you believe that you have conducted an appropriate statistical analysis, detail your methodology in the manner that I [requested earlier](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
We all await with bated breaths to see exactly what you know that the whole discplines of science and statistics have missed.
Dang again.
This is the [HadCRU](http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) site.
To present the cumulative frequency distribution as a mathematical equation, one may try to fit the cumulative frequency distribution [OF OUR SAMPLE DATA] to a known cumulative probability distribution [NORMAL DISTRIBUTION]. If successful[IT WAS], the known equation is enough to report the frequency distribution and a table of data will not be required.
We can use the cumulative distribution curve for our sample to find the proportion
of temperature values that lie between any two limits. We donât need to know the type of the probability distribution.
To present the cumulative frequency distribution as a mathematical equation, one may try to fit the cumulative frequency distribution [OF OUR SAMPLE DATA] to a known cumulative probability distribution [NORMAL DISTRIBUTION]. If successful[IT WAS], the known equation is enough to report the frequency distribution and a table of data will not be required.
We can use the cumulative distribution curve for our sample to find the proportion of temperature values that lie between any two limits. We donât need to know the type of the probability distribution.
Girma writes:
>*To present the cumulative frequency distribution as a mathematical equation, one may try to fit the cumulative frequency distribution [OF OUR SAMPLE DATA] to a known cumulative probability distribution [NORMAL DISTRIBUTION]. If successful[IT WAS], the known equation is enough to report the frequency distribution and a table of data will not be required.*
Girma how do you judge if the fit was successful? Bernard has just demonstrated it was way way outside confidence limits.
Biologist who trained a flea.
Robert Day, How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, P. 38
After training the flea for many months, the biologist was able to get a response to certain commands. The most gratifying of the experiments was the one in which the professor would shout the command "Jump," and the flea would leap into the air each time the command was given.
The professor was about to submit the remarkable feat to posterity via a scientific journal, but he - in the manner of the true scientist - decided to take his experiments one step further.
He sought to determine the location of the receptor organ involved. In one experiment, he removed the legs of the flea, one at a time. The flea obligingly continued to jump upon command, but as each successive leg was removed, its jumps became less spectacular.
Finally, with the removal of its last leg, the flea remained motionless. Time after time the command failed to get the usual response.
The professor decided that at least he could publish his findings. He set pen to paper and described in meticulous detail the experiments executed over the preceding months.
His conclusion was one intended to startle the scientific world: WHEN THE LEGS OF A FLEA ARE REMOVED, THE FLEA CAN NO LONGER HEAR.
This conclusion is identical to the conclusion CO2 DRIVES GLOBAL TEMPERATUE
You wrote, Girma how do you judge if the fit was successful? Bernard has just demonstrated it was way way outside confidence limits.
For a normal distribution, we have the following results.
For this range, our sample data gives 68.8%,which is a very good agreement.
For this range, our sample data gives 96.5%, which is a good agreement.
The cumulative frequency data are given at the BOTTOM of this [web page.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualTemperatureAnomal…)
Orssengo,
more capitals, MORE CAPITALS, that'll show 'em.
BTW, I am now of the firm opinion that Tim should step in and put Orssengo out of his misery.
If this was a boxing match the doctor would stopped the fight long, long ago.
Note: I calculated the theoretical cumulative frequency for normal distribution using Excel. The temperature values used in this function must first be divided by the standard deviation value of 0.15.
Environmentalism:
Without machines and technology, the task of mere survival is a terrible, mind-and-body-wrecking ordeal. In ânature,â the struggle for food, clothing and shelter consumes all of a manâs energy and spirit; it is a losing struggleâthe winner is any flood, earthquake or swarm of locusts. (Consider the 500,000 bodies left in the wake of a single flood in Pakistan; they had been men who lived without technology.) To work only for bare necessities is a luxury that mankind cannot afford.
AR
C'MON GUYS!!! YOU CAN DO IT!!! TWO THOUSAND POSTS!!!
So, the "[no abnormal temperature](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)" story thus far...
Girma Orssengo uses the '[descriptive statistics](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)' sample mean and sample standard deviation to make the claim that there are no abnormal temperatures in the [1850-2008 HadCRU mean annual global temperature](http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) dataset.
For more posts subsequent to his original claim than I care to count, he has ignored the repeated admonishments that one cannot use such a naïve and inappropriate approach, because (amongst other things) the mean annual global temperature data are not independent, they are not randomly distributed, they are autocorrelated, and they are time-series data.
However, the most contentious point on which Orssengo shows no capacity for instruction, is that one cannot utilise mean/standard deviation calculations, in the manner that Orssengo did, when the data are not normally (id est, Guassian) distributed.
Laterally to the matter, Orssengo has tried to evade the significance of normality by [blowing the matter off](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) when he said:
Well, no, one cannot argue about the normality of data (whether temperature or CO2) when one is using normality-sensitive techniques. One must objectively determine whether the data are normal [using appropriate tests](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and if the data are not normal, a different analysis method must be used.
As an aside, if one can see from a [frequency histogram](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that there are skews and polymodalities in the distribution, one should be very suspicious that the data are normal, even if one is unable to prove so statistically.
Pressed further, Orssengo then [attempted to employ a cumulative frequency construction](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and comparison with an expected curve to 'see' if normality exists. He was very quickly [shown](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that a [properly constructed cumulative frequency distribution](http://i33.tinypic.com/am9w60.jpg) indicates emphatically (along with the aforementioned tests for normality) that the mean annual global temperature anomaly data are not normal.
Our slippery ignorant [then blusters](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that he was testing the 'residuals' of the anomalies, after first subtracting a linear trend from the data.
Oh, really?
Well, let's ignore for a moment that this 'analysis' would say nothing at all about his [original claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that mean annual global temperature data show "no sign for any abnormal temperature".
Let's also ignore for a moment that [the graph he produced](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTempera…) has an 'expected' normal curve that is not smooth - a sure sign of a mistake in construction.
We will ignore as well the fact that he simply looks at the observed and expected trajectories and sees ["an excellent match"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) between them. And without even any reference to confidence intervals!
What we will do is construct a cumulative frequency distribution of our own, using the totally irrelevant data that [Orssengo refers to](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/WoodFreeTreesGlobalWarmin…), and see whether he is correct in even this peripheral pile of bollocks that he persists in spouting.
[He isn't](http://tinypic.com/3ia22sfk).
The observed cumulative frequency trajectory falls below the lower 90% confidence interval once (at an x value of 0.89), and rises above the upper 90% confidence interval on 26 occasions, at various points at the beginning, the middle and the end of the trajectory. And as for the rest of the datapoints, the way they snake between and approach both confidence intervals should make any thinking person seriously wonder about the normality (or otherwise) of the data.
This is why we perform specific tests for normality. Even squinting at two trajectories (observed and expected) on a graph, and even if the confidence band is not escaped, one has not objectively quantified the probability that the data are normal.
Girma Orssengo has demonstrated nothing in this long, sad and tawdry exercise other than showing the world for all time how little he deserves his scientific credentials, how ignorant he is of fundamental statisitcal procedures, and how refractory he is to learning about anything that contradicts his own ideological perceptions.
He should be ashamed of himself, and humiliated for the disrepute he has brought upon himself, his academic supervisors and institutions, and his work colleagues.
Of course, as ever - if he disagrees with me, he simply has to write up his methodology in a peer-reviewed journal format and present it to the scientific community for scrutiny.
He'll get his answers soon enough.
Girma,
[From a different point of view...](http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html)
>Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times.
Have you had a chance to read "Mutual Aid" yet?
I can't emphasize how strongly I recommend Hervey Cleckley.
>...they had been men who lived without technology.
The blatant error of this statement should be obvious. Homo sapiens sapiens has been technology dependent since we first learned to chip sharp edges on stones, to twist twine from bark in order to tie these stones to fire straightened sticks. These technologies combined with socially organized hunting methods and the concomitant develop of language to propagate these complex sequentially ordered techniques within and across societies is what the second sapiens is all about.
Thus it is demonstrated; Ayn 'I am not a cult' Rand and her nonetheless cultist followers totally FAIL at comprehending and suffer from psychological denial of our common humanity in support of a narcissistic and deranged exaggeration of the importance of the individual.
As much trouble and confusion as this incorrigible handful of whackos may cause, it is fortunate that the vastly larger majority of people are willingly cognizant of and able to learn from their mistakes, and technological [correctives](http://www.permaculture.org/nm/index.php/site/index/) to past excesses remain possible.
My irony meter broke at "Girma and the Flea"
You can destroy menâs minds, but you will not find a substitute.
You can condition men to irrationality, but you cannot make them bear it.
You can deprive men of reason, but you cannot make them live with what is left.
That proof and warning is: drugs.
AR
Notice how Orssengo, when confronted with his complete and utter statistical incompetence, resorts to posting obscure and meaningless Randian rants.
When challenged by science and the data he seeks comfort in his beliefs.
Bernard J @1868
Before I respond, could you please tell me whether you are saying that my fit of the cumulative frequency of our sample to the normal cumulative probability distribution [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualMeanGlobalTempera…) is not good enough? Or are you saying I cooked up the plot?
But if "wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake"--then man does not.
Man survives only by altering nature to satisfy his own needs.
Man cannot survive, as animals do, by automatically adapting to the natural surroundings in which he happens to find himself.
Nature's vast wilderness, if passively accepted, is inimical to his survival.
Man must transform the naturally given into a truly human environment.
He must produce the values his life requires
--he must grow food and build supermarkets
--chop down trees and erect condominiums, mine ore
--design jet planes
--isolate organisms
--manufacture vaccines.
None of these values exists ready-made in nature.
Man [WE, NOT YOU] brings all of them into being only by changing his "natural environment."
AR
But if "wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake"--then man does not.
Man survives only by altering nature to satisfy his own needs.
Man cannot survive, as animals do, by automatically adapting to the natural surroundings in which he happens to find himself.
Nature's vast wilderness, if passively accepted, is inimical to his survival.
Man must transform the naturally given into a truly human environment.
He must produce the values his life requires
--he must grow food and build supermarkets
--chop down trees and erect condominiums, mine ore
--design jet planes
--isolate organisms
--manufacture vaccines.
None of these values exists ready-made in nature.
Man [WE, NOT YOU] brings all of them into being only by changing his "natural environment."
AR
At its core, environmentalism is the demand that you surrender your comfort, your well-being, your self. Stop caring about your desire to be happyâit admonishesâand start worrying about how to please the snail darters and the spotted owls.
AR
Girma is doing it again, quoting Ayn Rand rants.
Listen Girma: Ayn Rand could not tell a mole cricket from a giraffe. She lived at a time when man`s full impact on the environment was only beginning to manifest itself. The science of ecology was in its true infancy, and few researchers had ventured into the field of studying the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function. She would never have heard of the term ecosystem services. She would have had no idea of the importance of biodiversity in sustaining human life. She had no formal training in environmental science (neither do you, for that matter, hence why you are suckered by her elementary nonsense) and her polemics were simplistic gibberish.
There is no doubt that humans must alter parts of the natural world in order to survive. Even the most die-hard environmentalists do not deny that. The problem is that humans are trying to take over all of nature as evidenced by our monopolization of primary productivity and freshwater flows. Rand was a dolt who did not have a scintilla of knowledge about the myriad of intricate and indirect ways in which the natural world supports man beyond the consumptive value you alluded to in your last post. She did not appreciate the importance of soil-borne nitrogen fixing bacteria that are critical in making this nutrient accessible to plants. She knew nothing of the value of terrestrial and aquatic organisms in filtering out toxic wastes. She could not understand the importance of a stupendous array of soil biota, mostly microscopic, that maintain soil fertility. She would not have known anything about food web stability, resistance and resilience and how this is correlated with species richness. She would known how to calculate the importance of pollinating and seed-dispersing organisms. Rand was an elitist right wing capitalist who derided environmentalism at a time when it was in its early days.
The problem now, Girma, is that the environment needs protecting from man and not *vice-versa*. Thanks to technology and over consumption, we are degrading natural systems at an increasing rate, systems that, as I have said innumerable times on this thread (and which you claim to have agreed with) sustain and nurture human life. Rand was one of those who would have ignorantly believed that humans are exempt from the laws of nature, and that our species could survive well in a planet covered in concrete and computers. She knew of no value of nature beyond that which we need to manufacture our civilization.
The point I am making is that Rand`s thinking was out-of-date in 1960; it is by many factors out of date now.
ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponentâs agreement with oneâs undiscussed notions. It is a method of by passing logic by means of psychological pressure. It consists of threatening to impeach an opponentâs character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate.
The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: âOnly those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.â
(AR)
Check the posts in this thread to find, for yourself, who uses this method of argument, who does not.
Michael accurate calls Girma on his running away from science and flawed application of statistics and his resort to ideologoy.
Girma writes (or cites Ayn Rand?)
>*But if "wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake"--then man does not.*
Illogical, unsupported non-sequitur.
>*Man survives only by altering nature to satisfy his own needs.*
Incorrect, man survives by much more than this. Man survives by benefiting from the complex integrated web of the biosphere which creates more benefits than man can create.
>*Man cannot survive, as animals do, by automatically adapting to the natural surroundings in which he happens to find himself.*
That is all man has ever done. Except now we are destroying the source of the benefit at an accelerated rate.
>*Nature's vast wilderness, if passively accepted, is inimical to his survival. *
Man-against nature bollocks. Man will not and cannot continue survive on our current trajectory of destroying source of our ecosphereâs benefits at our current rate.
>*Man must transform the naturally given into a truly human environment.*
No such thing exists. There is no truly human environment. There are rich ecosystems that maximise the benefit of the earth system inputs, there are poor ecosystems that subsist without maximizing energy flow nor niche filling. And there are dead zones, poisoned regions that are spreading. We are depleting much of the first two at a dangerous rate and producing the third.
The biggest threat is non-linear change which we can only prevent in advance of a major trigger event.
Bizarre.
Orssengo confirms that his view on science is through a Randian lense.
No wonder he gets virtually everything wrong - the science must fit his ideological convictions or he dumps the science.
Mark #1880,
Excellent post! I could not have said it better myself. Note Girma`s last posting (1879) where he retreats into a pseudo-intellectual world of his own making after his hero is criticized. The point is that the field of ecology has advanced profoundly since Rand penned her anthropocentric gibberish back in the 1950s or 1960s.
There are literally thousands of studies showing that humanity derives more from natural systems than resources upon which to build our cities and feed our people. Rand was not aware of any of this. I have discussed this many times before on this thread, giving plenty of easily accessed examples (e.g. books by Gretchen daily, Yvonne Baskin) of supporting ecosystem services and sources where a discussion of them can be found. Clearly, as I have said before, Girma does not read these posts or does not digest them (more likely is the fact that his whole Rand-induced views of the modern world have been shattered because, like her, he does not understand basic ecology).
As I have also said until I am sick of saying it, these services permit humans to exist and to persist. They do not function solely to provide for Homo sapiens; rather, our species exists because conditions - services - emerging from nature over various scales of space and time permit it. By altering the planet to our own needs, humans have also unwittingly impaired the ability of natural systems to generate the conditions necessary to survive in the longer term. There has to be a balance; Rand, wallowing in her own self-righteous ignorance, did not have a clue as to the costs and benefits of exploiting nature for short-term gain. She could clearly understand that there was aesthetic value to nature, but that is effectively where her appreciation of the natural world ended. If she were alive today and promulgating the same story, she would be undermined by the sheer volume of empirical evidence revealing our dependence on nature to be virtually absolute. She would have to rely on think tanks and right wing lobbyists to spread her gospel of denial.
Girma, some advice: when you start discussing environmental science, you are getting in way over your head. I am afraid that Ayn Rand is a very poor source of information on the relationship between biodiversity and human welfare and on the functioning of complex adaptive systems. You can admire Rand`s long outdated polemics for all I care, but using it as a bridge to understand the natural world and man`s place in it is frankly absurd. You would be far better off with some of the books by Edward O. Wilson, such as "Consilience".
**Argument from Fallacy**:
The essential characteristic of the Argument from fallacy is its appeal to illogical unsupported argument. It includes repetition of false statements, adherence to unscientific assertions and resort to ideology.
**Argument from False Analogy**:
The essential characteristic of the Argument from false analogy is to create the illusion of conduct by comparing one set of actions with other actions that are recognised as undesirable.
**Argument from Closed Loop Self Justification**:
The essential characteristic of the Argument from Closed Loop Self Justification is to immunize ones argument from critical review by labeling those who critique an argument of the fallacy of Argument by Intimidation.
Argument from Closed Loop Self Justification is especially useful when one wishes to employ Ayn Randâs arguments which are criticised for their perceived immoral nature of being: greed promoting, power concentrating, anti-democratic, destructive, and failing to recognise the interdependence of people socially, economically and with the ecosphere.
Thereby Ayn Rand policy advocates inoculate themselves against criticism of immoral outcomes with which Rand style policies are charged with causing.
Jeff @1878, Mark @1880
You wrote, Thanks to technology and over consumption, we are degrading natural systems at an increasing rate, systems that, as I have said innumerable times on this thread (and which you claim to have agreed with) sustain and nurture human life.
According to you, we are degrading natural system because of technology and over consumption. So are you suggesting we return to a hunter gatherer society to stop âtechnologyâ? So are you suggesting that we bring a society where resources are rationed to stop âover consumptionâ? What are your REALLY advocating?
Is it not the case that things are consumed by people? More people consume more. Less people consume less. Capitalists donât produce products that people donât buy. The final decision belongs to people.
Donât touch my heroes, capitalists, who freed my life from drudgery of life without âtechnologyâ, by providing us with cars, airplanes, radio, television, air conditioner, washing machine, refrigerator, dishwashing machine, telephone, computer (that you enjoy at this instant) etc that made our life comfortable, and we know how to operate, but we donât have a clue what is inside them. When are you going to thank them? Is it not irrational to use a computer but not to thank those who brought it to existence? I am not one who bites the hand that feeds him. I pay homage to capitalists who allowed me to live as human, by changing my environment, as I have not been given at birth with hide, fur, wool, tooth, claw, muscle, speed etc of animals.
I donât live in contradictions. If I hate technology, I stop to use it. Do as you preach! I do!
Girma,
It is a shame that you are arguing with a straw-man rather than the points I (and others) raise. I am in favor our technology that maximize benefit for minimal harm or positive enrichment of the ecosphere system.
That is why I am in favour of a price on carbon, to reward and incentivize progress towards efficiency and utilization of renewable system flows. That is also why I am for less concentration of power to reduce market manipulations so that humans will be freer from the corporate consolidated control.
And this would be "Argument by illogical extension of argument".
Girma,
Stop acting like a child. Your latest rant is an embarrassment, especially as you claim to have a PhD. That is what it is like debating you - I get more common sense out of high school students. I have to laugh when the cornucopians, most of whom have no knowledge of ecology whatsoever, come at we with the kinds of frankly stupid argument that you posited in your last post. For you its either/or. For you the only alternative to ecological annihilation is that humans live in caves. The situation as you see it is one or the other. I have had to deal with this kind of crass stupidity for most of my scientific career from generally right wing idiots. People who think, as I have described you, that humans derive nothing from nature except that which we dig up, cut down or transform to build our cities, cars and computers, while those who urge caution as we do so are smeared as killjoy doomsayers.
Mark is correct - you are creating straw men.
Of course I am not advocating that humans become hunter gatherers. I realize that there are benefits that technology has bought to humanity. What I am saying is that humans and the natural world are on a collision course, whether you like it or not. I am saying, with plenty of evidence to back me up, that at the current rate at which humans are devouring natural capital that there will be serious consequences in the very near future. We are taking far more from nature than nature can sustainably replace. We are destroying biodiversity, undermining the ability of species and populations to maintain their life-support functions. We are taking over more and more of net primary production and freshwater flows, leaving less and less for the remainder of nature. We are depleting soil fertility in the blink of an evolutionary eye.
Although technology has got us where we are, new technologies are making it easier and easier for humans to destroy the natural world. This is the achilles heal of capitalism, which is like a giant animal with a voracious appetite that is beginning to consume itself. The whole ideology of corporate style capitalism is based on the notion of unlimited economic growth, which would be fine if we lived on a limitless linear planet. But we do not. The system is closed. To fuel the kinds of consumption enjoyed by the average American, we would need several more Earth-like planets, but the last time I looked I was under the impression that Earth-like planets were hard to find. Many economists are now coming around to acknowledge the fact that human well-being is utterly dependent on a range of critical ecosystem services, both provisioning and supporting, that sustain human life in a manner that we know. Using you dumb logic, Girma, you write as if technology will forever allow us to suck up natural capital, and for western economies to grow forever and ever into the future. Well I got news for you pal: most of the critical supporting ecosystem services have no technological substitutes. Check out the results of Biosphere II: it failed because humans do not possess anything remotely like the capacity to replicate the functions of complex adaptive systems. We evolved and thrive because nature generated the conditions that permitted it.
The crux of the matter is this: the choice is stark. Either we take account of the damage we are inflicting across the biosphere, or there will be a long, slow road to catastrophe. There is no third way. There are possibilities of achieving sustainability without going back to the Pleistocene. But this means creating social justice and equity for everyone, and challenging the ethos of capitalism that is based on allowing for huge concentrations of wealth and power, while ignoring the basic needs of half of humanity. This might mean that a small but rich part of the world will have to find a way to consume less. If so, let that be it. But if we continue down the path that we are now on, then the future for mankind is a dark one indeed.
Girma,
Why do we buy things we do not use?
Why do we need bigger houses and extra storage?
Why do we throw out so much?
Why do we design to fail?
Why do we not yet pay the full price of goods to show the difference between consumption that involves highly destructive process and those that are less or non-destructive?
Why do we have an arms race terms in terms of the size of automobiles?
Why did GM [kill the electric car](http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/07/377)?
Why did [GM kill the streetcars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal)?
Why does GM get so much special treatment and [leeway?]( http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/congress/7727/nclchoms.htm)?
Why did Chevron [buy control](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiM…) of then deny markets access to Ovshinskyâs advanced NiMH battery?
Why, now that it is faster to cycle than drive on congested roads, are cyclists practically excluded through safety concerns?
Why is obesity, diabetes and heart disease becoming such a problem?
Why are people more atomized?
Why are corporations allied in the pursuit of pushing junk food onto young children?
Girma Orssengo (@84) in reply to Jeff Harvey:
According to you, we are degrading natural system because of technology and over consumption. So are you suggesting we return to a hunter gatherer society to stop âtechnologyâ? So are you suggesting that we bring a society where resources are rationed to stop âover consumptionâ? What are your REALLY advocating?
Oh cripes, here we go again. Are you channelling Julian L Simon or something? It is NOT that Jeff Harvey is claiming this, he is summarising what biologists, zoologists, botanists, ecologists, mycologists and so on have been documenting and observing for decades. That is, the degradation of the planet's ecosystems largely thanks to mankind's insatiable and ever-increasing appetite for stuff. I would have thought someone of your reputation had heard of this, the principles of ecosystem degradation, pollution, soil degradation, desertification, dryland salinity, algal blooms, the near extinction of fisheries, species extinctions and so on have been known of for decades and have been documented to death. Your statement that Jeff Harvey wants to stop technology is absurd - as far as I know he has not once promulgated such a view, and in any case it is not that technology is the real problem - over-consumption of both its products and the stripping of previously unattainable resources thanks to that technology is.
Rationing? Why not? What's so unpalatable about it is that western society (if not others) is conditioned to believe that limits placed on its access to consumables is somehow a breach of a fundamental "right". This mindset has to change before our accelerating and largely unsustainable use of the planet's resources gets us to the point of collapse of several ecosystems, not to mention the painful deaths of many millions of people (through lack of clean water, starvation, disease etc.). Presumably such an outcome has never occurred to you, or you simply don't care. Your obsession with posting the babblings of Rand says something.
Is it not the case that things are consumed by people? More people consume more. Less people consume less. Capitalists donât produce products that people donât buy.
Utter bollocks. You've obviously never visited a municipal waste dump.
Donât touch my heroes, capitalists, who freed my life from drudgery of life without âtechnologyâ, by providing us with cars, airplanes, radio, television, air conditioner, washing machine, refrigerator, dishwashing machine, telephone, computer (that you enjoy at this instant) etc that made our life comfortable, and we know how to operate, but we donât have a clue what is inside them. When are you going to thank them? Is it not irrational to use a computer but not to thank those who brought it to existence?
Bwaaahaha 8^))
Every time you take a breath do you thank the billions upon billions of individual plants and algae that produce oxygen? The trillions of bacteria, fungi, worms, nematodes and other invertebrates that condition the soil so that others can grow crops and you can eat? Do you thank the trillions of organisms of organisms that laid down their lives in the Carboniferous just so you can drive to work? No?
Do as you preach! I do!
Having seen what you preach, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Guys.
You'll never get anywhere with a debate about ideologies, and Orssengo knows this.
I suspect that he has re-introduced the whole Ayn Rant crap in order to distract the thread from the fact that he has [backed himself into a corner](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) statistically, and because he knows that there is no escape from his humiliation- as long as attention is focussed on it.
He is simply hoping that you will forget that he can't do basic anaylsis, so that he has time to reframe his arguement that AGW is not happening.
Don't allow him to change the subject, and definitely don't allow him to emesh you in a futile discussion with his Randian tar-baby.
Bernard J @1891
I firmly, securely, resolutely stand by my statistical result that the standard deviation for the residual (= Anomaly â Linear Warming from 1850 to 2008) component of the mean global temperature anomaly for the data at [WoodForTrees.org]( http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/t…) is 0.15 deg C, which gives a 6Ï range of 0.9 deg C.
As a result, an increase from a minimum to a maximum (or a decrease from the maximum to the minimum, [as was the case from 1878 to 1911]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/MeanGlobalTemperatureTren…)) of mean global temperature by 0.7 deg C in couples of decades is within the normal variation of mean global temperatures.
Girma Orssengo
Girma,
> I firmly, securely, resolutely stand by my statistical result
But you don't answer any of Bernard J's extensive and detailed criticism.
Which means you are making your unsupported assertions based on faith alone, while sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
Hardly a rational response.
>*I firmly, securely, resolutely stand by my statistical result*
Girma, by now this statement is worthless. You can't back it up with anything. You only keep restating the same false lines. Your use of CAPS doesn't improve your case in the face of contradictory evidence.
Girma, your statistics are not applicable as Bernard and I have demonstrated.
If you are so confident, again I urge you to publish, but you wont.
The data have failed the basic test of normality and your statistical application have also failed the giggle test.
Janet @1889
You asked:
----Why do we buy things we do not use?
Janet, why donât people take responsibility for their action?
You also asked:
----Why are corporations allied in the pursuit of pushing junk food onto young children?
Who buys the junk food for the children?
Who gives them money for the junk food?
By what logic am I responsible for the action of someone who VOLUNATRILY enters my lunch bar and buy junk food?
You also asked:
----Why do we need bigger houses and extra storage?
----Why do we have an arms race terms in terms of the size of automobiles?
For status. In any group of animals there is hierarchy. Janet, as it is natural, just accept it. You cannot change nature.
Girma wise choice; avoid the science and statistics. Bernard's critique really very powerful wasn't it. I also notice you ignored most of my points, were they a bit tougher? Regarding those you did address:
>*Janet, why donât people take responsibility for their action?*
You mean like, take responsibility for Randian style polices that promote greed and lack of accountability?
>*Who buys the junk food for the children? Who gives them money for the junk food?*
Why their parents I would assume Girma, but we don't get to pick our parents. Who pays to influence the kids? Who allows junk food pusher to foist their unhealthy products onto vulnerable children? Kids who cannot chose their parents?
>*By what logic am I responsible for the action of someone who VOLUNATRILY enters my lunch bar and buy junk food?*
By the simple logic that you are advocating Randâs policies with promote selfish greed, ahead of considerate behavior. Such policies lead to unregulated exploitation of the most vulnerable. In fact you lose if you to a more rapacious actor if you donât exploit as much as your competitor.
>*For status. In any group of animals there is hierarchy. Janet, as it is natural, just accept it. You cannot change nature.*
Girma your beloved Rand tries to change nature with her individualization, legal system of property rights (that happen to favor the established rich), and lack of understanding of our integration and interdependence with the ecosphere.
[You also missed the point about storing useless junk and the arms race forcing others to also by bigger cars, and exclude cyclist who perhaps count less in your view?... Not surprising as youâve missed a lot really].
Janet @1897
So, according to you, because kids donât choose their parent, I am responsible for the actions of their parents when they VOLUNTARILY enter my lunch bar and by junk food?
This is mysticism. Each individual must responsible for his/her action. We donât need lawyers to apportion responsibility with your âkidâs donât choose their parentsâ concept.
Girma Orssengo.
Why do you persist in using the "6Ï range" to define non-"abnormal" temperatures? The conventional probability for statistical significance is 0.05 (which is 5%, or 1 in 20, or 50 in 1000), and for a normal (where 'normal in this context refers to Gaussian) distribution 95% of values will occur within slightly less than 2Ï from the mean.
By selecting 3Ï, or 99.7%, as your cutting-off for 'significance', you are restricting unusual events to those that occur on average 3 times in 1000, or less, rather than those that occur at the conventionally accepted rate of 50 times in 1000, or less.
Why are you doing this?
And if you are so convinced of your correctness in this method of demonstrating that there are no "abnormal" temperatures in the 1850-2008 HadCRU mean annual global temperature anomaly dataset, why are you not publishing your remarkable 'discovery'?
Leaving aside all of my [other criticisms](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), I note that amongst the ever-growing litany of unanswered questions directed to you, you have not yet answered the question [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
Would you care to do so now? And further to this, if you where presented with [this graph](http://i38.tinypic.com/14y21p2.jpg), would you concede that there is warming?
Girma writes:
>*So, according to you, because kids donât choose their parent, I am responsible for the actions of their parents when they VOLUNTARILY enter my lunch bar and by junk food?*
Nice little dodge there Girma, suddenly you donât care about the outcome for the child. Some children do not have the most attentive nor informed parents. And child abusing corporations that push their junk food under the nose of vulnerable child with propaganda makes parenting more difficult. And some parents are not skilled enough to deal with that added pressure.
Take a child centered approach to this problem Girma. A child does not choose the skills/abilities of or her parents. Yet reasonable people recognize the immoral profiteering associated with massive propagandizing of junk food to children. It is exploitation of the vulnerable for profit.
Girma you are responsible for promoting a laissez-faire system that is blind to the (or acts like there is no) power difference between a 9 year old child and a multinational corporation. You promote a system that rewards exploitation of the most vulnerable. That is where your responsibility lies. You are also responsible for supporting a denialist petition without taking the time to understand the science. That could contribute to great suffering.
Now answer Bernard's questions.
For those who want to check on my statistical analysis of mean global temperature anomaly, here is all the relevant information.
[Data Source from WoodForTrees.org]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…)
[Intermediate Data and Results]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResi…)
[Frequency Distribution]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResi…)
[Cumulative Frequency Distribution]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/CumulativeFrequencyDistri…)
Cheers
Girma, please answer Bernard's questions.
You worte, Girma you are responsible for promoting a laissez-faire system that is blind to the (or acts like there is no) power difference between a 9 year old child and a multinational corporation.
I reject shifting of responsibility. The 9 year old is under the care of an adult, who must be able to decide. No circular arguments please. If you donât want to buy something from somewhere, go somewhere else. In trade, no force is involved. The only force is in government legislation. If a government enacts a legislation I donât agree with were can I go? That is the difference between trade and force.
How can I exploit someone if I persuade (not force) him to come to my lunch bar to buy junk food? Janet, that person has the option of buying or not buying, there is no force involved. There is no exploitation. Exploitation is when force is involved.
I have looked at the science. I am convinced with my all being that the consensus that CO2 is causing global warming is wrong. Science is not based on the majority vote. The majority could be wrong as happened several time in the history of science. The [world was warming]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/to:1878/plot/h…) from 1850 to 1878 at the rate of 0.31 deg C/100 years! There is monotonous cooling since 2005. Based on historical patterns, I believe we have entered a couple of decades of cooling, and I expect the anomalies to go into the negative. My assumption of repeating of mean global temperature patterns will be proved right or wrong in a couple of decades. If temperature anomalies go into the neagative, I will be right. If the anomaly returns to the value of 1998 in the next decade then I will be wrong. In this case, the pattern of the mean global temperature has changed fundamentally, and I will join the AWG camp with my tails between my legs. Janet, it is just utterly unbelievable to me. It just does not add up! You may say, to reduce CO2 emission is good, but not because of global warming.
Girma:
> I have looked at the science.
And proven time and again that you do not even begin to understand it.
> I am convinced with my all being that the consensus that CO2 is causing global warming is wrong.
Despite a mulltitude of cast-iron corrections to your "analysis". Corrections for which you have supplied no answer beyond your unshakeable faith in your own position, restatement of figures that have been shown to be wrong in ever louder and more shrill tones. You ignore mathematics, reason and logic that disagrees with you, and focus instead on your personal belief.
And yet you label AGW science a "religion".
You hypocritical little numpty.
What the apolitical science says about CO2 driven global warming:
According to the Paper by [Nathan Mantua, Ph. D., Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.]( http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm)
Girma @1900, we've checked your tests. They are not appropriate. The temperature is not normally distributed and because [warming is accelerating](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…) means that neither are the residual (of a 160 year linear trend) normally distributed. (That is the reason for the large gap between your linear trend a the observed temperature at the beginning and end of the series).
Bernad has conclusively demonstrated the residual are not normally distibuted, if you couldn't work it our from looking at the data.
"Man cannot survive, as animals do, by automatically adapting to the natural surroundings in which he happens to find himself."
This must explain the many extinctions that occur through history - these are the animals that have automatically adapted to the natural surroundings they happened to find themselves in.
Not.
Whoever said that bit clearly has no understanding of evolution, ecology, hell, even basic biology. I guess maybe, to be generous, the author wasn't an ignorant fecker, but meant to say "bacteria" instead of "animals." That at least makes more sense.
I worte,
>>Girma you are responsible for promoting a laissez-faire system that is blind to the (or acts like there is no) power difference between a 9 year old child and a multinational corporation.
I reject shifting of responsibility.
Girma replied:
>*The 9 year old is under the care of an adult, who must be able to decide. No circular arguments please. If you donât want to buy something from somewhere, go somewhere elseâ¦.*
Girma, youâve failed to address my points, you are prompting a system than lies to the vulnerable (through marketing propaganda) and children cannot be held responsible for the quality of their parenting. Instead as a society, we must curb the incentives to exploit the vulnerable.
More so, the saturation of propaganda has become almost ubiquitous. Hence a parent now risks socially isolating children if they deny them access to media swamped with exploitative propaganda.
>* In trade, no force is involved. *
Wrong again Girma, trade is influenced by power imbalance. When significant power differentials exists, the force of unequal power dominates trade. The powerful are the price setters weak get to take it or starve. The rich also have unequal access to the force of law, they have more resources to intimidate the poor, they can purchase more legal representation, and they can purchase political influence. Also, the rich belong to the same elite class as the judiciary. Hence the judiciary in some cases is at risk of seeing their own self interest lying with the rich. The counter balance to this power differential is democracy!
>*The only force is in government legislation. ..*
Wrong, see above. But worse, the power imbalance can lead to [state-capture]( http://www.answers.com/topic/state-capture). State-capture being were the force of government is disproportionately controlled not by the Demos, but by those with concentrated power. Evidence of state capture is industry-governmnt [revolving door ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)).
>*How can I exploit someone if I persuade (not force) him to come to my lunch bar to buy junk food? Janet, that person has the option of buying or not buying, there is no force involved. There is no exploitation. Exploitation is when force is involved.*
Girma there are many forms of force involved (as Iâve hinted at above) force of competition:
-if I donât exploit the kids with this propaganda Iâll be forced out of my house, Iâll be forced to give-up my health care, Iâll be forced onto the street.
-If I donât take this corporate donation Iâll be forced out of office when they instead fund the opposition.
-If I make this legal ruling, I and my colleagues will be forced to lose some of our power and privilege, I will be forced into excommunication.
-If I donât kill the street cars Iâll be forced to buy a less expensive yaucht.
-If I donât kill the electric car I be forced to sell my jet
-If I donât buy the rights to the advanced NiMH battery Iâll be forced to cut oil drilling wages.
-If I donât dump toxic waste in poor countries Iâll be forced to cleanup are processes and lose profits.
-If I donât control (hang) Ken Sarawewa , Royal Dutch Shell will not be able to fund my regime and the people of Niger Delta will no longer be as easy to force into suppression. I will be force out of power.
You need to open your eyes.
>*I have looked at the science. I am convinced with my all being that the consensus that CO2 is causing global warming is wrong. ..[blaah, blaahâ¦]
Oh so now you have relented and finally read Pravda?
You are not a credible advocate Girma.
Now answer Bernard's questions.
Great post Janet. You have encapsulated the way I think entirely. Sharon Beder has just written an excellent book detailing how corporations target young children through advertising.
Her earlier book, Global Spin, is equally outstanding. Girma`s view of the world is at the level of a comic book in terms of depth. He does not know much if anything about the power structures and free market absolutism that dominate the planet and concentrate power and wealth. He knows little about the ways in which governments that are beholden to commercial elites have forced conditions of trade onto developing countries in order to plunder their resources and open them up to western corporations. I have read a lot of declassified planning documents over the past 10 years through authors such as Mark Curtis that brazenly expose the agenda of western governments and multinational corporations.
Girma lives in a world of make-believe. As Bernard said yesterday, note how when he is cornered statistically he goes off on rants about the virtues of Ayn Rand and her stupid philosophies. He has not addressed Bernard`s points because they demolish his so-called calculations.
Girma Orssengo.
You have not yet answered the question [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
Would you care to do so now?
AND FURTHER TO THIS, IF YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH [THIS GRAPH](http://i38.tinypic.com/14y21p2.jpg), WOULD YOU CONCEDE THAT THERE IS WARMING?
Come on Girma, please answer Bernard's questions.
I shall return with detailed solutions to GENUINE questions.
Cheers
*I shall return with detailed solutions to GENUINE questions*
Good, and while you are at it, Girma, please do not make any more GENUINELY stupid comments. OK?
> I shall return
(cue evil laughter, swish of cape, twirl of handlebar moustache...)
Girma Orssengo promises:
In case you are insinuating that my questions are not genuine, let me assure you that they most certainly are.
So, once more...
1) You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are obviously incapable, either through lack of skill or from psychological block, or from both, of pursuing the [recommended construction of a frequency histogram](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). For your benefit I constructed such a histogram, and if may be found [here](http://i37.tinypic.com/2hgrebb.jpg).
Are you able to comment on the distribution?
2) More importantly, you have still not yet answered the question [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
Would you care to do so now?
3a) And most specifically, I am very interested to know, if you were presented with [this graph](http://i38.tinypic.com/14y21p2.jpg), whether would you concede that there is warming? 3b) If so, why; if not, why not?
4) You now have an additional piece of homework â can you apply the questions in the previous paragraph to [this graph](http://tinypic.com/3ia22sfk)?
These are not trick questions Orssengo. A first year science undergraduate should be able to answer them, let alone a Masters or a PhD graduate. It should take all of 5 minutes to type a suitable answer.
Shorter Tim Wells:
I assert it is not warming. I need nothing more.
There is no point trying to give directions or explanations to someone whose head is so far up his arse that he could kiss his gall bladder.
You've never actually met a scientific fact, have you...? At least, you've never met one into whose face you wouldn't happily kick sand.
If you can't decipher the data timwells, you don't deserve an explanation.
There is a very pertinent point to it, but it is obviously escaping you. You really haven't been able to follow the lessons in statisitics here, have you?
I think it best that you just take your pygmy intellect and go sit in the bleachers.
Venom, huh?
No, just impatience with a troll who does not have the scientific literacy to understand why his 'facts' are not such, whose inability to understand the statistical points of the "rediculous" [sic] graph" is indicative of complete non-acquaintance with the discipline of scientific analysis, and whose incapacity to use a space after commas and full-stops (periods for the USAdians) shows that he has not even attained a primary school level of literacy.
If you think it venom, then you have a glass jaw indeed.
timwells, maybe you can answer Bernard's questions; it appears Girma is not up to the task.
@tim "time waster" wells
> I gave you 3 facts.
No you didn't, and you actually managed to *suck intelligence out of the world* with your vapid comments.
Shorter Tim Wells:
I prove facts by assertion. Evidence is not necessary. If you cannot deal with that you are just venom and full of bad days!
Gee,you too Dave?Vapid??I will have to look that one up.While I do,take another look at my facts.
Tim, have you got anything serious to offer? You are not very good at trolling. Start at the beginning of this thread and you might learn something from a master.
Presently your nonsense is so absent of anything close to evidence that I'm already so quickly uninterested.
Silly comments, silly attitude and silly transparent baiting. Silly timmy.
Hi Janet,hope you are attractive and intelligent.I really thought I had offered something serious those 3 real world observations.So far nobody seems to want challenge them.How about you?
Bernard, is it just me or did Tim Well just make Girma look sincere in comparison?
What an infantile baiter!
Tim but thanks for helping our growth to 2000 posts, even mindless empty assertions help to that ends.
Come on timmy, you've got to give us some facts
Alright guys,can we all just agree that there is no problem with the worlds climate?I mean givin that it was such a pleasant day here today on Koh Samui.
I can't hold up under the weight of facts that Tim Wells is able to assert without evidence.
The new non-evidence based facts are now turning science on its head!
Hurray for non-evidence its all the range in blog-science!
Hey Tim,those 3 facts were simple ones,but I was wondering if you could give us something to refute them?
Our first "fact": timwells believes 94% humidity (and 26 degrees C) makes for a pleasant day.
Boring, I don't get out of bed for anything less than evidence. And I think your a time waster with empty assertions. So boring.
Yaaawhn.
Do some work for me tim.
Look all I did was ask directions to the climate catastrophe,and all I got was nasty,hurtful comments.How about this.There is no convincing correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.There,happy now?
Mark Byrne.
Nah, it's not just you!
Going back to the statistical matter at hand, it's interesting that Orssengo has suddenly gone quiet. I do hope that he answers [the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and a subsequent one that is currently held in moderation.
I know that the gadfly won't be able to.
Yawwhn,
See above.
Awww - now we've hurt his feelings.
That's a bit rich coming after 1900 comments on the topic with many of them pointing out the scientific evidence for the correlation.
timmy, you'll have to do better than that - no elephant stamp for you.
cmmnts??s tht n rgmnt frm thrt r s t "cnsnss"?Whchvr t s,vdnc t s nt.
Umm, no timmy. It's a catalogue of the evidence against your position.
#1875 Girma
Can't you even get your attributions right? You quote verbatim from a speech by [Peter Schwartz](http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6160&news_iv_ctrl…), ___not___ Ayn Rand, even if it's hosted on that site. Doesn't make that drivel any less wrong.
What don't you understand? You have read the thread haven't you?
>1900 comments??Is that an argument from authority or is it "consensus"?Whichever it is,evidence it is not.
lol, poor effort. See that thing on the side of your browser? That's called a *scrollbar*. You can use it to go up and down and read all the nice comments.
I love the reasoning that *if* you don't post an accurate and detailed summary of *every* piece of corroborating evidence gathered in the last century or two in direct response to a *completely* content free little belch of a blog comment, therefore any previous comments on that matter do not in fact exist, and from that we can conclude that the evidence itself does not exist.
Its the *lazy anthropic principle* in action - "I cannot be bothered to find evidence, and even when spoonfed said evidence I find it too hard to concentrate and digest, therefore that evidence does not exist."
timwells:
Sure, if you say so.
No.
If you are sincerely interested in engaging in a scientific discussion you'll do the work (like the rest of us) and read the arguments.
Of course if you're just a troll you'll keep asking us to spoonfeed you.
No.
Let's accept the measurements (which show a warming trend).
> By that I mean the most convincing bit in regards to CO2 vs temp correlation.
"Hey Darwin, I know you wrote a big long book and all, but can you just give me the evidence because though I haven't read it I think you're full of it cos I look nothing liek a monkey lol. By that I mean the most convincing bit in regards to fossils and stuff like that. kthxbye.".
Not even close.
Read the thread. Follow the links (you can safely ignore Girma's).
> OK,how about this.Warming started atleast 200 years ago.We have had warming and cooling since and It is not obvious or demonstrable that CO2 was the cause of any of it.Any takers?
"Hey Darwin, me again - been busy watching a dog to see if it turned into a cat. Still haven't read your work by the way, which means it doesn't exist hahaha I think it is not obvious or demonstrable that evolution happens at all, prove me wrong lol".
TO ALL OF MY DEAR FRIENDS AT DELTOID
With malice toward none & charity for all, I herby declare that the residual of the mean global temperature is a normal distribution with a correlation coefficient of 0.9923.
According to an [article]( http://www.decisionsciences.org/decisionline/vol29/29_1/class_29_1.pdf) by Rick Hesse, Professor of quantitative methods at Pepperdine University in the Grazidia Graduate school of Business, we can draw a Normal Probability Plot as a graphical technique for assessing whether or not a data set is normally distributed. The sample data are plotted against a theoretical normal distribution (Z-values) resulting in a straight line, if the sample data is normally distributed. The procedure to draw the normal probability plot is described [here]( http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wrstephe/stat496/normplot.pdf).
[Data used to draw the Normal Probability Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlotData…)
[Normal Probability Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif)
According to Professor Hesse, If the sample data is somewhat close to being normally distributed, the data points should lie approximately on the trend line, with the line crossing the axis Z-value = 0 at about the mean. In the normal probability plot above, the data points pass through Z-value = 0 at the residual and mean value of zero.
As a result, there is excellent agreement between most of the sample data and the normal distribution.
Professor Hesse also states that if the data is somewhat close to being normally distributed, the reciprocal of the slope of the trend line should be close to the standard deviation of the data. In the normal probability plot above, the slope of the trend line is 6.60, and the reciprocal of this value is 1/6.6 = 0.15, which is the standard deviation I calculated in previous posts. As a result, a change in mean global temperature by 2Ï = 0.6 deg C in a couple of decades is normal.
However, the normal probability plot shows that the mean global temperature was abnormal for 1911. Global temperature was disturbed before 1911. I leave the explanation of this abnormality to climate scientists and geologists. As far as we are concerned, this event occurred 98 years ago and it does not concern us. The good news is that, the temperature for 1998 was normal, and there is no sign of abnormality at the high temperature region of the plot. No CO2 signature.
My friends, all of you, for bringing this peaceful news, donât I deserve a visit to Oslo? It will be a joint one between us at Deltoid. But, before we go there, you have to renounce the theory that âCO2 drives global temperatureâ. If you donât, we all miss out. Think about it? I will be the first African to receive it and we will all share it! As English is my second language, I cannot deliver the lecture, so we would select either Jeff or Bernard to deliver the speech, as they are never short of words. I will take a different airplane from that of Bernard, Jeff, Chris, Mark, Gaz, Michael, Bluegrue, Dave, Lee, Zoot, Badger3k, Steve & Sod. We donât need incidents aborad the airplane. I will take the same airplane as Mark Byrne and Janet, if they allow me. Do you think there is any chance for a paper at Nature? I donât, as science has become political.
CHEERS
sorry
4Ï = 0.6
To quote Prof. Rick Hesse:
>These plots are a ___quick and dirty___ visual graphing technique to âseeâ if a data set exhibits the properties of a normal distribution.
I think this aptly describes your modus operandi.
Girma Orssengo.
Answer [THE QUESTIONS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
*As English is my second language, I cannot deliver the lecture, so we would select either Jeff or Bernard to deliver the speech, as they are never short of words*
Girma, what is your first language? Ignorance or stupidity?
Moreover, given your stubborn arrogance, I would like you to list, in no particular order, how many scientific conferences and workshops you have attended where climate change and its effects on the environment have been subjects of discussion. You see, since its clear to all here that you are a neophyte (putting it kindly) in the fields of climate and environmental science, I would not want to waste my time sharing a venue with you, let alone a platform.
Finally, will you or will you not answer Bernard`s questions!!!!?
The questions Girma; please answer the questions.
Sounds like a jolly fun trip Girma, on what basis did Janet and I get bestowed with such an honor?
And don't you think you should address Bernard's questions?
Dear All
Note that the Z-values in the Normal Probability Plot are the numbers of standard deviations. As a result, nearly all the residuals of the mean global temperatures lie between +/- 3Ï. Nearly all mean global temperatures records for 159 years lie on a straight line. Just magic.
Move over the hockey stick. Here comes the baseball bat.
Dear All
Note that the Z-values in the Normal Probability Plot are the numbers of standard deviations. As a result, nearly all the residuals of the mean global temperatures lie between Ï = +/-3.
Nearly all mean global temperatures records for 159 years lie on a straight line.
Just magic.
Move over the hockey stick. Here comes the baseball bat.
Mark Byrne @1954
You wrote, Sounds like a jolly fun trip Girma, on what basis did Janet and I get bestowed with such an honor?
I am sure you know it. In a foot ball field, you mostly concentrate on the ball.
Mark Byrne
You wrote, Sounds like a jolly fun trip Girma, on what basis did Janet and I get bestowed with such an honor?
I am sure you know it.
In a football field, you mostly concentrate on the ball.
You still haven't answered Bernard's questions.
Girma, please answer the questions.
Girma:
The GENUINE question by Bernard was that at Post 1868:
However, the most contentious point on which Orssengo shows no capacity for instruction, is that one cannot utilise mean/standard deviation calculations, in the manner that Orssengo did, when the data are not normally (id est, Guassian) distributed.
I did not have the answer then, but I have given a devastatingly convincing answer at post 1948.
Thanks Bernard.
[Momentum on Climate Pact Is Elusive]( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?_r=1)
Thanks New York Times!
Girma is to statistics what Mahmoud Ahmedinajad is to quiet diplomacy.
There were genuine questions from Bernard at comment 1914.
Girma, please answer the questions.
Girma Orssengo.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of what constitutes a genuine question. I will give you an up-front hint immediately, before I proceed with anything else - a "genuine question" is not simply one that you want to answer to the exclusion of all others, especially those that are inconvenient to your ideologies.
A genuine question is one that requires the addressing of statistical points that are essential prerequisites to the conduct of the sort of analysis that you imagine that you are undertaking. It has repeatedly been pointed out to you that you are not addressing these points, and in so avoiding these same points you are demonstrating to the world at large that you don't understand what it is that you are doing.
So, starting from the beginning again...
You originally referred to the [HadCRUT3 mean annual global temperature anomaly](http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) dataset. These data [are not normal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). They are in fact [skewed to higher temperatures, and have a polymodal distribution](http://i37.tinypic.com/2hgrebb.jpg).
Your dismissal of this was based on your 'subtraction' of a 'linear warming trend' from the HadCRUT data so that you obtained a set of residuals between the original data and his regression line. An interesting manoeuvre, but one that is fraught with danger, as was pointed out by a number of posters on the thread, because there is no evidence (nor is there any a priori assumption) that CO2-forced warming is linear. You were pressed on this several times, but you avoided answering: so, Girma Orssengo, how do you justify your insistence that the warming over the last century and a half is linear?
Note also that if the warming is not linear (and science predicts - and shows - that it isn't), then your 'linear subtraction' biases the progressively more recent residuals against the identification of human CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming. What checks have you performed to ascertain that you are not biasing your 'analysis' against human contributions to warming in recent years?
Which leads me on to my next point - how do you know that none of the warming that you 'subtracted out' is anthropogenic in origin? Remember, by taking out the warming signal you are saying that "once the warming signal is removed, there is no warming". Exactly how does this work, and how does it exonerate human emissions as a cause?
And before you say something to the effect that you 'only' removed (without any supporting evidence) 'natural' warming, can you demonstrate that your 'linear subtraction' does not actually alter the capacity to discern the various forcings of warming/cooling in the residuals? (Note: your struggle to prove the normality of the residuals is not important here, as is my struggle to elicit a statistical justification for the claim of normality. I am frustrated though that you still haven't managed to progress past a z-plot â this wasn't a difficult exercise Orssengo, but you have done your best to make it one. A z-plot is better than wobbly reference curves and eye-balled "excellent matches", but no prize yet...)
Next, we get to your ridiculous refusal to address the significance of the statistical parameters of the two hypothetical distributions [here](http://i33.tinypic.com/2dvkcqu.jpg). This most certainly is a "genuine question", and it is telling that you refuse to answer it.
I am also most curious about whether you would say there is warming evidenced in a trajectory that looked like [this](http://i38.tinypic.com/14y21p2.jpg). This also is a "genuine question", and your entire credibility can be shot on this one point alone. Will you answer the question: would you accept that this trajectory indicates warming, and why would you do so?
As I have said before, I could go on for paragraphs yet, and revisit many points that I have raised. However I'll save these for the future, because you will simply avoid them if I throw too many at you at once.
Before I finish though, I would remind you of my [points 2 through to 5](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and ask yet again why you do not consider them relevant when applying your 'analysis' to show that there are no "[abnormal temperatures](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)" in the last 159 years.
Why are these points:
2) the global mean temperature data are not independent;
3) they are not randomly distributed;
4) they are autocorrelated;
5) they are time-series data
not essential to your consideration of temperature trends since 1850?
Girma,
>As a result, a change in mean global temperature by 2Ï = 0.6 deg C in a couple of decades is normal.
Would it not be more accurate to say a multi-decadal variance of approximately ±0.3C from the [linear mean since 1850](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Figure2MyAnomalyPaper.gif) is expected?
Given a slope in the linear mean of 0.0044C/yr. since 1850 gives us a net positive variance of ~0.7C over the last 160 years, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that over the longer term, present day temperatures have exceeded expected variability by about 0.4C?
Luminious beauty @1965
Excellent question.
From my result for the [linear component]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Figure1MyAnomalyPaper.gif) of mean global temperature anomaly, we have
1) Linear component of anomaly in deg C = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52
2) As the oscillating component of the anomaly is [normally distributed]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif), almost all of them must lie under +/- 3s = +/-0.45 deg C.
From these two results, the above model, we have for the maximum and minimum mean global temperature the following relationships:
Maximum mean global temperature anomaly, deg C
Minimum mean global temperature anomaly, deg C
No unnatural global temperature shift has occurred if the mean global temperature, for any particular year, lies between the above maximum and minimum values.
Let us check the above model against the know picks of recorded anomalies.
From temperature records, 1878 was a pick, and from the above model we have:
From temperature records, 1998 was another pick, and from the above model we have:
Let us calculate, using Orssengo's mean global temperature anomaly model, the normal anomaly ranges for this year of 2009.
CHEERS
Girma, you'll go blind if you keep doing that.
Correction for post at @1966
Minimum Anomaly = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.97 = 0.27 deg C.
Minimum Anomaly = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.97 = -0.27 deg C.
Girma,
>1) Linear component of anomaly in deg C = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52
I believe the -0.52C is the linear mean value of 1850 relative to the arithmetic mean of the baseline period of 1961 - 1990 used by HadCRU.
I haven't a clue what it is you are trying to demonstrate with this comparison, but don't you think it would be more accurate to use the arithmetic mean of the entire time series which is about 0.17C lower relative to the 1961 - 1990 average.
I'll let you correct your own arithmetic, but I am unclear why the [Z-scores relative to the linear mean](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Figure2MyAnomalyPaper.gif) are not sufficient indicators of the oscillation component of which you speak.
Can you explain?
How to straighten a Banana?
Notice when one tries to straighten a banana, that the trend at two ends of the banana, different to the [trend in the middle](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plo…).
Consequently the distribution from the mean is not random, instead the spread from the middle [is time dependent](http://i37.tinypic.com/2ppymgh.jpg).
This is why Girma has been informed that he is using inappropriate statistics with inappropriate assumptions
Bernard J @1965, Mark Byrne @1970
You have asked me questions. Before I respond to them I want to find out where we stand now.
Do you agree or disagree that when the mean global anomaly temperature is separated into a linear (time dependent) component and an oscillating (time independent) component called residuals, the [residuals](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif) are found to be normally distributed?
Girma, why won't you just answer Bernard's questions?
Is it because you don't understand them?
Girma @1972, the answer to your question from me, are [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)
To All & Bernard
At post 1868, you asked me the following question:
Bernard, have I answered the above question of yours?
The story of mean global temperature anomaly are TWO lines. One is the linear warming (time dependent) value of Mean Anaomaly in deg C = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52, and the other is a time independent line in the [Normal Probability Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif).
In this normal probability plot, the residual temperatures had more fun for 159 years sliding up and down an inclined plane.
If the temperature can slide down an inclined plane from 1887 to 1911, what is wrong for it to climb up the same inclined plane from 1976 to 1998?
Is it the case that downward mobility is okay, but upward is not?
Cheers
Girma,
Perhaps throw some more Rand in, to distract from the fact that you are still failing to answer Bernard's questions, and failing to accept your assumption of normal distribution is inappropriate on [prerequisites 2 through 5](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
Girma,
>Maximum mean global temperature anomaly, deg C
= 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52+0.45
= 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.07
>Minimum mean global temperature anomaly, deg C
= 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.52-0.45
= 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.97
>No unnatural global temperature shift has occurred if the mean global temperature, for any particular year, lies between the above maximum and minimum values.
You are adding the trend to the variability relative to the trend and concluding there is no trend, is that correct?
Janet and "the CO2 driven AGW" camp, which appears to be the whole of the world.
Answers to Bernardâs questions
2) the global mean temperature data are not independent
3) they are not randomly distributed
4) they are autocorrelated
5) they are time-series data
A chronology.
Girma Orssengo.
At [#1755](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) you refer to HadCRUT3 anomaly data to claim your nonsense about no "abnormal temperatures". I pointed out at [#1783](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that the temperature/anomaly data are not normal, and I pulled you up on the use of 6Ï (99.73%) insignificance range that you employed, counter to the 95% convention.
At this post I also started my querying about your ignorance of the fact that the data are not random, that they are autocorrelated, and that they are time-series. I repeated mention of these facts [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and early on in the piece I also indicated that the data were not independent.
At [#1827](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), [#1831](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and [#1835](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) I repeated my observation about the non-normality of the mean annual global temperature/anomaly data, the last after you persisted in [saying (at #1833) that you had used](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) "[mean global temperature data](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/ResidualTemperatureAnomal…)". I continued in pointing out the non-normality of the global temperature data at [#1839](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), where I indicated that looking at "a plot" is not "an excellent result".
I reminded you about time-series data in [the next post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
At [#1842](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) I pointed out to you that your [original descriptive statistical 'analysis'](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) was presented as representing the mean annual global temperature data, and not the 'sorted residual[s]'. At this point I reminded you to check the normality of the temperature data, and I asked you to comment on the analysis of two hypothetical datasets.
At [#1857](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) I used a cumulative frequency distribution (after having referred numerous times to specific normality tests) to show that the temperature data were not normal, and I pointed out that Orssengo's 'predicted' normal cumulative frequency curve was not smooth, as would be expected. I also mentioned that he should not be surprised to find that the mean of a group of residuals is zero...
Things get tricky at [#1868](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), where I repeated the previous point about the normality of the temperature data, and also indicated that Orssengo's 'residuals', when plotted with a 90% confidence band (because up to this point Orssengo was using 'looks' as his analysis), fell beyond the 90% band at several points.
Note carefully Girma Orssengo that I did not say that this peculiar dataset of yours was not normal... I did say:
in an attempt to draw your attention to my very next paragraph that:
so that you might actually consider performing such a test yourself, rather than using your "excellent match" eyeballing technique.
Revisiting old ground, at [#1897](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) I queried you again on the use of 3Ï, and asked you again to consider the hypothetical graphs [here](http://i33.tinypic.com/2dvkcqu.jpg) and [here]( http://i38.tinypic.com/14y21p2.jpg).
Consistent with all previous queries, there was no response from Orssengo.
I reminded you of the question about the hypothetical distributions at [#1909](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), at [#1914](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), at [#1933](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), at [#1951]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and at [#1965](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
And interspersed between my repeated requests for your answers were similar requests from many other commenters.
Whew!
Frustratingly, up to the point at which I am typing this post, you have yet to demonstrate that you can conduct a specific test for normality. You finally produced a z-plot after all of this prodding, but a z-plot itself does not give a statistical estimation of normality â it only plots a representation.
More frustratingly, you are fixated on the normality of your residuals, which, for many reasons covered by the large number of questions that you have ignored thus far, are irrelevant to your [original claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that the [HadCRU 1850-2008 mean annual global temperature data](http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) show "no sign for [sic] any abnormal temperature".
So, once and for all, can you address the questions linked ad nauseum here, and justify your original comment about there being no abnormal temperatures in the last 159 years? I note that you have now provided answers of sorts to the points "2 through to 5", but not to any of the others above.
However, even your answers to the 2-5 points are fatally flawed... as this post is already too long, I will leave you to contemplate why and perhaps redeem a shred of your dignity before I or someone else calls you on this batch of howlers.
Be warned Orssengo - I have from my own field-work examples of normally distributed data (in the way that you define it) that fails every one of points 2 through to 5.
Time to start answering some questions.
Luminous beauty
What I mean is that the variation in temperature between the
Maximum Anomaly = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.07 and Minimum Anomaly = 0.0044*(Year-1850)-0.97 is caused by natural
variations such as Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation and ENSO.
It really does beggar belief. I mean, come on Girma - just take a moment to think about what you're saying, and it obviously fails basic sanity checks.
eg.
> the linear warming is autocorrelated; but the residual is not, as it is normally distributed.
You're saying that the mean of every annual temperature is independent of any other? That the only correlation between two adjacent annual means is your so-called linear trend?
You do realise that - on a very basic level - you just ruled out solar activity as having any measurable effect on global temperature, don't you?
Bernard
Bernard, honestly, with out the invisible magnifying glass, does not this [temperature versus year plot]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset:13.97/p…) looks linear?
Dear All
Could someone please confirm or disprove my results so far. Here are all the relevant data and results.
[Data source from WoodForTrees.org.]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…)
Equation used: Residual = Anomaly â Linear Warming Component of Anomaly
[Data used for analysis]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResi…)
[Frequency Histogram]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResi…)
[Normal Probability Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif)
[Data used for the above plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlotData…)
Result: Almost all the residuals lie within +/-3s = +/0.45 deg C from the mean. As a result, climate change due to increase or decrease in mean global temperature of 0.9 deg C in a couple of decades is normal.
Cheers
Dave
Dave, a variation of +/0.45 deg C over a uniform warming of 0.44 deg C/100 years envelopes all recorded change in mean global temperature anomaly.
> Dave, a variation of +/0.45 deg C over a uniform warming of 0.44 deg C/100 years envelopes all recorded change in mean global temperature anomaly.
You clearly don't understand what I'm getting at and you're contradicting yourself.
What you are saying is that there is a linear warming trend (which you're wrong about but lets overlook that for now), and once eliminated there is no relationship remaining between two adjacent annual means.
Which - for starters - would mean that all of your talk about a residual multi-decadal oscillation was wrong, because an underlying oscillation would mean the values are autocorrelated.
What you are saying is that we cannot have three coolish years in a row because of low solar activity. In fact that multi-year events that affect temperature do not exist.
Girma sez:"Dave, a variation of +/0.45 deg C over a uniform warming of 0.44 deg C/100 years envelopes all recorded change in mean global temperature anomaly."
Variation in something uniform is an oxymoron.
If what you are trying to say is that the data is within 0.45 degrees of a line with a slope of 0.44 deg C/century, your analysis is incompetent.
Taking the temperature record that you say looks linear (LOL) http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1840/to:2005/plot/had…
includes a long period where the growth in CO2 was much smaller (10 ppm over 60 years). The data is up to 0.7 degrees away from this line, not 0.45.
The recent rate is what is important, so look at warming since 1900. Slope 0.75 deg C / 100 yr, with +/- 0.5 degrees.
Climatically significant recent 30 year period, 1978-2008:
Slope 1.6 deg C / 100 yr all values within 0.4 degree C of the linear fit.
As this post has almost 2000 comments, I actually got my word processor to do a word count up to t_p's #1986 post...and it spewed out 214,870 words.
Congratulations all, especially to Girma! You have written more words than Melville's Moby Dick.
Former Skeptic - he's written more words, but their basically just repeating the same chapter, over and over and over again, with a random meaningless quote thrown in for giggles here and there.
â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢
Could someone confirm or disprove my results listed @ post 1983?
Please, Please?
â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢
Former Skeptic @1987
I just saved the whole trade as pdf, and it has 589 pages!
What the unlucky-in-love do to pass their spare time!
> Could someone confirm or disprove my results listed @ post 1983?
I know repeating yourself and ignoring rebuttals is your modus operandi, but seriously - you basically ignored Bernard's questions and just stated that "the data is normal, it is, it is, a thousand times it is".
Again, for example, the data is autocorrelated *even if you take the completely unjustified step of removing some phantom, pre-emptively guesstimated linear trend from the whole set*.
Most analysts would try to sort out the signal from the noise.
You on the other hand are trying to guess what the signal might be, remove that speculative signal until you are just left with the noise (unsuccessfully so far), and finally when you believe you have subtracted the whole signal you'll be able to declare that there is no signal, or that the signal is unimportant, or that it is somehow natural because you isolated the noise component, or something equally off the wall. Its... bizarre, to say the least.
Girma:
Bernard has done this several times, but you just refuse to listen.
At least now we know why you do this (besides your religious devotion to Randian nonsense) - it's your only social outlet.
Girma,
>Could someone confirm or disprove my results listed @ post 1983? Please, Please?
As has been attributed to Wolfgang Pauli, "That isn't right. It's not even wrong."
A cursory glance at the OLS of the 1850 - 2008 HadCRU data should tell you it isn't a meaningful regression of the data, as most of the data before about 1890 and after about 1980 being above the OLS would suggest it is in fact an accelerating upward trend, but even your analysis that there is a ±0.4C variability against that linear mean does not account for the cumulative +0.7C in that useless regression.
As for suggesting the cause is from changes in oscillating oceanic phenomena, perhaps you've heard of something called the First Law of Thermodynamics. You would do well to try and understand it, or else stick to things you are good at, like masturbating to photos of Saint Ayn.
Amongst the many unanswered questions put to him, Girma did not answer this:
which was asked, within a suite of similar questions, at [#1058](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the… ), at [#1153](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), at [#1177](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), at [#1287](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the… ), and at [#1309](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
This is an important question, and a genuine question, as are the [associated questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and if Orssengo refuses to answer them he should at least explain why he does so.
Another question that received no satisfactory response was [one that I posed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) regarding the biotic and abiotic integration of climatic trends. You might deign to respond here Orssengo, and to assist you could do some homework and perhaps provide a detailed critique of the [Rosenzweig et al](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html) paper in Nature (453, 353-357), 15 may 2008.
On a very prosaic note, you have not yet demonstrated that you are able to discern [weather from climate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
Another area that you have not convincingly responded to were my questions regarding [resource limitation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). Perhaps you might do so now?
As to your question:
if you read the numerous posts on this thread, and if you properly answer the questions in this and in previous threads such as [the one above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), you would be able to disprove your own work yourself.
â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢
Dear All
Here is Girma Orssengoâs prediction of [mean global temperature anomaly up to 2100]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif)
CHEERS
Answer [the](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) [questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), Girma Orssengo.
Bernard,
You wrote, on what evidence do you discount the large body of research that repeatedly connects such to unprecedented rates/magnitudes of temperature increase
I donât discount the increase in mean global temperature by about 0.7 deg C from 1976 to 1998. What I argue is that this is a natural increase, as natural was the decrease by similar amount from 1878 to 1911. An increase or decrease in mean global temperature under 0.9 deg C is natural, and we have to learn to adapt to it.
In my [Normal Probability Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif), we see the temperature decreased from 1878 to 1911 by moving to the left . In the same plot, the temperature increased from 1976 to 1998 by moving to the right. So, is it is okay to move to the LEFT, but not to the RIGHT? Is the issue political?
Girma,
Your prediction is nonsense because the basis on which you make it has been shown to be utter garbage.
You have picked an arbitrary start point (the start of the hadley data series) and forced a line from that point to the present day without any justification for doing so. Your only analysis is tautalogical.
Please examine the [following graph](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…).
You are artificially forcing a simpe linear trend on a dataset whose underlying behaviour is not linear.
If you were correct I would be able to extract excactly the same linear trend as you at any point in the last century. However, going back from the present day to eg. 1950 in 20 year increments, you can see that the slope is different, and always higher.
If 20 years ago you had come here and presented your analysis you would have been proven to be disastrously wrong in pretty short order.
This is because you have invented a trend and tried to justify it retrospectively, rather than perform appropriate analysis to determine the actual trend. If you had looked any time before now *you would have found a different trend*.
Oh, and ffs answer Bernard's questions will you?
Erm, "prediction"?!
Do tell, Girma Orssengo, exactly what statistical 'procedure' you used to cobble together that load of garbage.
And whilst I'm (still) asking questions, why do you believe that it appropriate that you sign your fantasy plots with "Girma Orssengo, PhD"? You demonstrate no competency in statistical analysis, you provide no rigorously referenced documentation for your 'methodology' and assumptions, and you have no training it climatological analysis to begin with.
It beggars belief that you are so arrogant as to think that you have the right to suffix your name thus, on a (misconstructed) plot of material that you do not understand.
Brilliant...
I've just realised that this behemoth of a thread has now tipped 2000 posts, and Girma Orssengo still refuses to address the basic statisitical questions put to him.
Orssengo, I have waited for weeks for any indication at all that you understand the first lessons that a new student of statisitcs and data analysis learns. You should no evidence of any such understanding - certainly not a coherent one - and yet you presume to deny the work of thousands of scientists and statisticians who have trained and worked for years, or even decades, with these techniques.
You have cemented my [previous suspicions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and I suspect that you will never answer the dozens of questions put to you, because your brain is partitioning them away to avoid pathological cognitive dissonance.
Or is it that you simply do not know the answers?
If you feel so strongly about your [Nobel-worthiness](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), you should post-haste post at [RealClimate](http://www.realclimate.org/) or at [Open Mind](http://tamino.wordpress.com/) and show those 'supposed' experts that they have it all grievously wrong.
Please inform us when you do so, and especially when the professional scientists in climatological trend analysis capitulate and recognise your genius for what it is.
Oh, and answer [the](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) [questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).