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 But each of their arguments is wrong, outdated, or irrelevant.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
I am reminded of an old joke in Red Dwarf, in which Arnold J. Rimmer would insist on suffixing his name Bsc, Ssc to sound more important.
Except that it stood for Bronze Swimming Certificate, Silver Swimming Certificate.
Badger3k:
Actually, I think Girma may be trying to write a book on AGW thru the infinite monkey theory. 2000 posts and counting!!!
Dave @1998
You wrote, 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.
Dave, could you, please, for a nanosecond, leave the invisible magnifying glass aside and look at the [true mean global temperature pattern]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/to:2008/offset…). If that pattern was true for the last 159 years, doesnât it stand to reason that it will be true also for the next 20?
Do you realise that the mean global temperature is about 14 deg C? That is what you must look at to find the pattern. Not at the pattern through the invisible magnifying glass foisted upon us by someone.
Cheers
Badger3k @2002
You wrote, Actually, I think Girma may be trying to write a book on AGW thru the infinite monkey theory. 2000 posts and counting!!!
According to my [prediction]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif), mean global temperature will be less than that for 1998 until 2030. Do you want a bet of $100 USD on that?
Cheers
Bernaard J @1999
You wrote, 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.
Bernard, I said âbased on historical recordâ. If mean global temperature behaves in the future as it did in the last 159 years, my [prediction]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif) will be approximately correct. If not, my prediction will be incorrect. What is wrong with that?
> Dave, could you, please, for a nanosecond, leave the invisible magnifying glass aside and look at the true mean global temperature pattern.
What on earth are you wittering about? Your response had nothing to do with my post whatsoever.
Answer my question Girma. Why is the linear trend derived from 159 years worth of data absolutely unshakeably correct *right now*, despite being different to the linear trend that you would derive from 149, 139, 129, 119, 109 etc. etc. years of the same data? Why has it taken precisely 159 years to arrive at exactly the correct trend?
Why - if you repeat your "analysis" on the historical data - is the angle of the slope [creeping inexorably upwards](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1920/trend/plot/hadcrut…)?
Seriously - stop, take a deep breath, and perform exactly the same "analysis" you've already done on the dataset 1859-1989 and compare it to the conclusions you're now drawing.
The simple answer of course is that the trend is not linear but you refuse to countenance that.
But please please please answer Bernard's questions.
Bernard @1728
I may be incorrect in saying resources are unlimited.
When we eat, our body takes matter from animals and plants and converts it to energy that maintains our body temperature at 37 deg C and allows us to do physical work and move. This energy is wasted and there is no way we can get it back. So matter is converted to energy.
Does this mean that the mass of the earth goes on decreasing?
i have been mostly only a spectator on this train wreck of a topic, but this comment needs an answer:
Does this mean that the mass of the earth goes on decreasing?
Girma joins another well known "sceptic" in a clear demonstration that he has absolutely not the slightest idea about the basics of physic and/or chemistry.
i just have to quote this [fantastic post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/update_on_the_nine_alleged_err…) by Curtin: (#164, update on the nine alleged err)
Thanks Chris for ref. to Einstein. One curiosity arising from his E=MC^2 is that on the one hand if we simply reduce energy in order to reduce emissions, and then plot the implied reduction in M, we get the very large reduction indicated by his equation, recalling that C^2 is the speed of light squared, while on the other hand if we only change the form of E by replacing fossil fuels etc with solar etc., what then happens to M, and what form does it take for equal amounts of joules in each case? Also possibly pertinent is that while conventional energy burning sends up both H2O and CO2 as part of M, while wind etc do not, what then?
i think it is rather funny, that both of you think that matter gets converted to energy by chemical reactions.
Great Minds Think Alike
Bernard,
What response do you think Girma would get at RC or Open Mind?
I gained some insight from a [recent comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) from Micheal.
I assume Michael put the 2000 posts together with [this comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
I suddenly feel like a co-dependent addiction enabler.
⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠â¢
Omega Point
This thread, after more than 2000 posts, has lead to the [âOmega Pointâ]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif) where the conscience and consciousness of all bloggers here were united to shed light on prediction of mean global temperatures.
⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠â¢
Girma,
Go make some freinds in the real world so you don't have to come here and bother us with your juvenile nonsense.
Bernard,the world is not running out of resources.We have lots of oil,huge quantities of gas,tonnes of oil shales,and oceans of coal.In the few cases where metals get scarce,we can use sustitutes.Agricultural productivity continues to increase and water availability is more about politics or wealth than it is about scarcity.Human ingenuity and market forces will continue to improve economic and social conditions.
Looks like timwells is back.
Frank,
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Wish you were correct but you vision is based totally on the material economy. Factor in the natural economy and things are declining rapidly, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Deep rich agricultural soils that are the product of innumerable biological processes are being depleted in decades whereas replenishment takes hundreds if not thousands of years, hence why deserts and dry-lands are expanding rapidly. Fossil age groundwater supplies are being drained at rates far exceeding their rates of replenishment. The aquifer underlying the China plain and the Oglalla aquifer underlying the Great Plains in the US are both being sucked dry, with huge repercussions for agriculture. Most worrying of all, humans are driving to extinction species and genetically distinct populations, the working parts of our global ecological life support systems. Over various scales of space and time, the planet`s biota generate conditions which make the planet livable for Homo sapiens and permit us to exist and to persist. They generate a wealth of ecological services that help to maintain a planet in which live can thrive. There are few if any technological substitutes for most of these services - they emerge freely from nature and have enabled humanity to rise to dominance. The fact is that humans are nickel and diming the planet to death in slow motion, and we have little knowledge of how far we can push these systems before they break down, taking with them these vital services that under lie our civilization.
The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) painted a stark picture of the current predicament with respect to the declining state of the planet`s ecological infrastructure. The latest Ecological Footprint Analysis (published a few days ago) suggests that, even despite the deep recession over the past year, that this has hardly dented the human over-consumption of nature, and that in a calender year humans go into deficit sometime in early October (if we were living sustainably there would be on deficit). All new technologies will do is to allow humans to take more from nature, without necessarily allowing nature to replace what has been removed. The classic case of this has been the virtual collapse of fisheries around the world, as new high tech methods allowed for increases in catch in the short term while the marine food webs were being decimated. Many of these stocks will never recover. The same is true of the great baleen whales: not so long ago, Minke Whales would have been views ad "commercially unprofitable" so long as there was an abundance of Blues, Fins, Seis, Rights, Bowheads and Humpbacks. But each of these species was decimated by over-harvesting, almost one by one, leaving the 10 metre Minke as the only commercially viable alternative. So much for unlimited substitutability.
Of course, Bernard, Mark Byrne and I have repeated this *ad libitum* on this and other threads. Suddenly you wade in here with the same "humans are exempt from the laws of nature" anthropocentric gibberish that others like Girma have promulgated. I would like to ask you, Frank, what unique qualifications you possess to be able to write such a one-dimensional argument whilst blindly ignoring the natural economy. Are you an environmental scientist? A population ecologist like myself, who has suddenly seen something that me and my colleagues have missed? Or are you just another believer in the tooth fairy, one who thinks that there are no material limits to growth because human ingenuity can outsmart natural constraints every time?
Girma:
The whole global mean surface temperature already has in 2005. You can start making arrangements to pay me.
Jeff Harvey,you basically skipped the energy question but that is OK.So your stance is an ecological one which is fair enough.However,generally speaking it is wealthier nations which have the best evironmental standards.That is cleaner water,air etc.Poorer nations destroy more of their natural resources,again generally speaking.The ravages of politics also plays its part.
There is no doubt that humankind does have a substantial and generally damaging effect on the environment,but the best way forward appears to be wealth generation which will give natons the capacity to preserve as much of the biosphere as possible.I dont believe that development and conservation need to be incompatible.We can do both.
Jeff,you skipped the energy question,but that is OK.From the ecological point it is generally true that wealthier societies are the ones that have higher environmetal standards including CO2 emissions.The best way forward is to make poor nations richer so that they have an enhanced capacity to preserve more of their environment.I dont see why development and conservation need to be incompatible.We can do both.
Frank,
Thanks for your response. I see where you are coming from. But the problem is not only pollutants - it is the amount of natural capital necessary to sustain given population sizes based on rates of per capita consumption. The developed countries all finance large ecological deficits through a global economic system that enables them to reach beyond their borders to obtain, as cheaply as possible (or through coercion) the resources necessary to maintain the standard of living as currently defined. Trade does not increase carrying capacity - it merely shuffles it around. The "quad" in the developed world alone consume more of the planet`s natural capital that the planet can sustainably regenerate. This represents around only 16% of the world`s population with a cumulative ecological deficit. If the rest of the world aspires to share the same standard of living, as is their right, then we are going to need another Earth-like planet to sustain this and very soon. And Earth like planet`s are in short supply the last time I looked.
The developed world alone is spending natural capital like there is no tomorrow. Poverty in the south, coupled with resource looting by the north, has effectively enabled the rich world to maintain the status quo for the past 60 years. But for how much longer? If you read comments from the likes of senior planners like Kennan and Nitze, or influential political figures like Kissinger, made over the years, then it becomes clear that they were clearly aware that the only way for "us" to retain power and wealth was to either take resources from the poor nations or to advocate ways to try and keep their populations under control as well as their standards of living down (The infamous Memo # 200 in 1974 makes this clear). This would effectively reduce the impact of the poor on their own land masses, freeing their resources for exploitation and plunder. Its all been said by these people and others, and any number of declassified UK and US planning documents from the 1960s and 1970s (the latest that are available) lay it all out in black and white. The problem is that our media does not like to spend much time talking about it. It is not a part of history because it never became a part of history. Straight down the memory hole. Thus we still read narratives about how benign our countries are, that we are interested in promoting freedom and democracy and human rights, and other such nonsense to placate the masses. However, those at the receiving end of western policies (and increasingly Chinese policies) are not so naive. They know the score.
[Because you tell the truth, you are barred from the group]( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069…)
I agree with the concept of natural capital,however how can we tell what the size or capacity of that capital is?The biosphere is indeed our life source,but given that humans continually do more with less,does this not suggest that natural capital can be conserved through good management?How can we put an accurate number on the Earths carrying capacity when we still do not know the limits of agricultural production for example?
First, Girma:
Christopher Booker is a contrarian who has no expertise whatsoever in population biology. His job is to muddy the waters. Distort. Mangle. Confuse.
Besides that, the current demographics of Polar Bear Populations tell us nothing about the short-mid term prognosis for the species. It is true that *some* loss of pack-ice may benefit the bears, provided the decline of ice reached some stable equilibrium. This is because it would make it easier for the bears to catch their seal prey. However, the amount of ice cover in the Arctic is not expected to stablize but to decrease in a linear fashion over the next three decades. Once some critical threshold is reached, there will be a sudden shift in conditions for the polar bear, from optimal (very short-term) to sub-optimal (short-medium term) to significantly sub-optimal (medium-long term). This should be obvious to any biologist examining the dynamics of a system or habitat that is changing rapidly. Many examples exist. For instance, many organisms thrive is edge habitats. As forests were cleared in Eastern North America there is no doubt that this was of benefit to a wide range of mammals, birds etc (although detrimental to many others). But as the habitat continued to be cleared, species, for instance Bewick`s Wrens and Loggerhead Shrikes, which had benefitted under a certain amount of forest clearing suddenly began precipitous declines because an optimum had been passed.
The other thing Booker has no clue about is the "extinction debt". That is to say that a change in or loss of habitat "X" does not result in the instantaneous loss of species "Y". Populations of the latter will decline gradually until they reach a lower equilibrium, or will keep declining towards extinction. This process can occur decades or even centuries after the initial change in habitat.
Point here, Girma, is that you are out of your depth on discussions of environmental science (heck, you are on climate science as well). You are also wasting your time posting garbage from Booker. He wouldn`t be able to tell a Barn Owl from an earwig.
Frank:
You raise some good points for discussion. I will save mot of it for tomorrow as I have to leave here soon. Most importantly, natural capital can be protected through good management, but only if our society recognizes the costs of losing it. This is where the often contentious debate of full-cost pricing comes in. This is economic policy that would internalize the cost of environmental destruction into the price of consumer goods. For instance, since damage is now externalized, we have no idea of how important an ecosystem service is until it is added or lost. We know roughly that pollination services alone are worth many billions of dollars to the global economy, as are pest control services, but they are not apportioned value in the cost of the fruits and vegetables that we buy. We can only appreciate their importance when, for some reason, there is a collapse in their numbers as this affects crop production.
There are a number of excellent examples of internalizing the value of nature`s services: perhaps the best are the Catskill Mountain watershed, tropical forest goods in Peru, pest control by Anolis lizards in the Caribbean and pollination of oil palms by an endemic west African beetle. These examples are the tip of a biological iceberg, so to speak.
More tomorrow: a great book to introduce you to the topic is economist Geoffrey Heal`s book, "Nature and the Marketplace" (2000).
Here is his website:
http://www.worldleaders.columbia.edu/participants/geoffrey-healhis website:
Bernard J @1999
You wrote, Do tell, Girma Orssengo, exactly what statistical 'procedure' you used to cobble together that load of garbage.
Bernard is referring to my [prediction of mean global temperature anomaly]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif).
Cheers
Visting this thread really is like picking a scab. I just can't resist coming back to see if Girma has actually managed to stay on topic for five minutes and answer a straight question (hah!). I love the total misunderstanding about chemical energy and mass, that one's priceless...
Shame he feels the need to copy+paste large tracts from other sources to divert attention away from his inability to answer direct questions.
I'm still waiting to find out whether Girma stands by his assessment that the temperature of two adjacent years in the data series are completely independent, and his explanation why the linear trend plotted according to his half-assed logic does not oscillate about a mean upward trend when plotted against subsets of the data, but instead shows an increasing slope over time - that if you use his logic he has actually massively *overestimated* his own warming trend. You understand that Girma? Because you maintain we are at the peak of an oscillation, and that temperature is going to come down, *your slope will not remain steady, but should decrease over the next couple of decades*. Try plotting a linear trend through different points of a sinusoidal dataset to see what I mean. All of your temperature bets are based on temperatures that are too high for your own analysis to sustain. Perhaps you'd like to stay consistent within your own logic, find the "true" linear slope by properly eliminating the "oscillating" component you cling to (the one that disproves your statement about autocorreleation, btw), and then come back with a revised, lower linear trend. And then make some bets on that.
And please answer Bernard's questions.
When we eat, our body takes matter from animals and plants and converts it to energy that maintains our body temperature at 37 deg C and allows us to do physical work and move. This energy is wasted and there is no way we can get it back. So matter is converted to energy.
sorry guys, but i am forced to write another post.
did you all miss the "matter converted to energy" thing, or do you consider this just to be the typical ignorance of girma?
Dave
You wrote, Answer my question Girma. Why is the linear trend derived from 159 years worth of data absolutely unshakeably correct right now, despite being different to the linear trend that you would derive from 149, 139, 129, 119, 109 etc. etc. years of the same data? Why has it taken precisely 159 years to arrive at exactly the correct trend?
That is a good point Dave. I will look what I would get with a dataset from 1850 to 1998, and see how different it would be compared to my previous result for 1850 to 2008.
We eat food (MATTER) that gives us ENERGY to keep us warm and allow us to move and do physical work. So matter is converted to energy by our body.
Girma, by this post if no other you convincingly demonstrate you are wholly incapable of doing even the most basic research. A simple 5-minute search of this site would have shown that this very subject had been revealed as the claptrap it was by Tim way back in July. That Booker is recycling his own faecal solids is bad enough; that you think the audience here is that daft that it would swallow your recycling of Booker's recycled ordure would beggar belief, were it not for the fact that it is so obviously an attempt to deflect attention from your failure to answer Bernard's questions.
Historical PATTERNS of mean global temperature anomaly from [WoodForTrees.org]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…)
We eat food (MATTER) that gives us ENERGY to keep us warm and allow us to move and do physical work. So matter is converted to energy by our body.
this is simply false. so you have never heard about the [law of conservation of mass/matter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass)???
you have never seen a single chemical equation?
but you still feel qualified to comment on climate science?
Oh, Lord, I leave this thread for 500 or so comments and come back to THIS?
Ah, well, I needed a good laugh this morning.
Girma Orssengo continues to demonstrate that there is no bottom to Stupid.
I surmise though that he might be approaching the event horizon of a massive black hole comprised of Stupidons, because he appears to be becoming ever more stationary in his non-science as he accelerates toward the Stupidon hole, and because my perception of his progress is coloured ever more red...
Orsengo, it's simple, really.
The concern has two components, and a modifier.
The components are the natural fluctuation around the mean, which you yourself have plotted and commented upon many times as being on the order of several degrees Celsius/Kelvin. The other component is the tolerance of species and ecosystems to alterations in the mean annual temperature of their physiological envelopes, which for many is similarly on the order of several degrees Celsius/Kelvin â their temporary tolerance of extreme fluctuations notwithstanding.
The modifier of the concern is the variation in mean temperatures at different parts of the planet, where the change in means might be several degrees Celsius/Kelvin more than the change in the global mean.
In both cases however, the representation of temperature changes by the use of anomalies is appropriate, both in the scale of change represented by the anomalies, and by the fact that anomalies are more pertinent a representation for specific localities than global temperature is.
If you don't know what I have just said, then buy a clue â this might just be a (small) part of your problem.
Perceived "magnifying glasses" are not, as your own published material demonstrates.
Adding to his demonstrations of ignorance in the fundamentals of statistics, of data analysis and presentation, of just about everything pertaining to biology, of the differences between Hitler and Rand, and of numerous other subjects that I have carelessly omitted, Girma Orssengo shows that he has not a clue about physical chemistry.
Orssengo, every atom that we ingest is subsequently excreted, exhaled, defæcated, sweated, expectorated, ejaculated, menstruated, sloughed, moulted, birthed or otherwise eliminated back to the external milieu. Energy is obtained by oxidative/reductive processes upon the chemical bonds of organic compounds and an oxidiser such as (somewhat, but not completely, tautologically) oxygen. The atoms that compose our bodies and our foods remain as they are; only their chemical bonds alter.
If one were to start converting mass to energy, there probably wouldn't be much left where one was standing except a blackened and radioactive crater.
Idiot.
Besides the fact that your claim of âbased on historical recordâ reflects no statistical validity at all, you have still not provided any excuse for your vanity suffixation of 'PhD'.
Janet, from the other posters there, none that would be positive!
From Orssengo, should he follow the advice to read some of the statistical analyses there to which he would be inevitably referred, the vanishingly small chance that he might actually learn something.
It's all moot anyway, because I know that in his cognitive dissonance he will never brave the scrutiny of the real scientists that he pretends to be rebutting.
How do a reference to findings "according to Nathan Mantua, Ph D", and the distribution of your '"oscillation component", in any way constitute a "statistical procedure"
Have you never prepared a methodology for a peer-reviewed paper? Perhaps you left that to your supervisors/co-authors?
Oh, and don't give yourself airs. Your own result?! I knew weeks before you even thought to pretend to test for it, that your 'residuals' were normally distributed. The problem is that you did not think to test this for yourself (it took a lot of goading from me and from others for you to stumble to a poor proxy of such testing) and that you certainly did not think to test the normality of the temperature data on which you [originally commented](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) using 'descriptive statistics'.
You really are enamoured of the terms "I", "me" and "my", aren't you?
See above.
Girma Orssengo.
Any report on your progress in answering [the](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) [questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)?
Bernard
I agree that you pushed me to test the normality of the residuals.
I vehemently disagree that the food that we eat is not changed from matter to energy.
1) Food => Body => Energy from food + waste
2) Energy from food (matter) = Energy expended in doing physical work + Energy expended in keeping us warm + Energy stored as Fat.
The energy expended in doing physical work and that keeps us warm are used up and there is no way to get it back. So matter from food is finally converted to energy. As a result, the mass of the earth must always decrease.
1998 Dave,
Or this [set of 30-year trends](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/pl…).
It is clear that a single linear trend does not apply.
2004 Girma,
I already have a bet with you but I'll take this one too as it's even less likely. You'll pay for both at the same time. ;)
Wow! Over 2,000 posts and still going...
2032 Bernard,
I think that even E&E will reject Girma's Nobel winner. I suggest Watts or Marohasy are more likely to "publish" it (maybe...).
The energy expended in doing physical work and that keeps us warm are used up and there is no way to get it back. So matter from food is finally converted to energy. As a result, the mass of the earth must always decrease.
you are in total denial of reality. as you are on many subjects.
your lack of the most basic understanding of statistics and chemistry is shocking. how you got that Phd is beyond me.
2038 sod,
It's beyond belief, isn't it?
Next he'll be telling us that Quantum Mechanics is fiction, Evolution is a religion, and the Sun orbits the Earth.
> The energy expended in doing physical work and that keeps us warm are used up and there is no way to get it back. So matter from food is finally converted to energy. As a result, the mass of the earth must always decrease.
Girma, this is sheer insanity once again. I was hoping that the whole "mass must decrease" was an embarassing slip on your part but you just repeated it! Bernard has already explained this to you - the mass remains the same, but energy is released from the chemical processes breaking and reforming molecular bonds. Long chain hydrocarbons are broken down into CO2 by burning them - the mass remains completely the same, but energy is released. We could collect CO2 and reform the original hydrocarbons - but to do so would require an input of energy. You are completely misunderstanding and misapplying the whole mass/energy thing - the processes whereby we turn mass directly into energy are atomic fission and fusion. For eating/excreting we are talking about biochemical processes where mass is conserved.
Also - I asked you to reapply your "analysis" to historic data and you repeated your old, garbage "W". Classy.
THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
Suppose that you are a young man in the year 1975. You are married, have two children and own a modest home in the suburbs of a large city. Let us observe a normal, average day of your life.
You get up at five a.m., because you work in the city and must be at the office at nine. You always had a light breakfast, just toast and coffee. Your electric percolator is gone; electric percolators are not manufactured any longer, they are regarded as an item of self-indulgent luxury: they consume electric power, which contributes to the load of power stations, which contributes to air pollution. So you make your coffee in an old-fashioned pot on an electric--no, an oil burning stove; you used to have an electric one, but they have been forbidden by law. Your electric toaster is gone; you make your toast in the oven; your attention wanders for a moment and you burn the toast. There is no time to make another batch.
When you had a car, it took you three-quarters of an hour to get to the office; but private automobiles have been outlawed and replaced by âmass transportation.â Now it takes you two hours and a half. The community bus can make the trip in little over an hour, when it is on time; but you never know whether it will be on time, so you allow for half-an-hourâs delay. You trudge ten blocks through the bitter gusts of a cold morning wind to your community bus stop, and you stand waiting. You have no choice--there are no other means of transportation--and you know it; so does the bus company.
When you reach the city, you walk twelve blocks from the bus terminal to the office building. You make it on time. You work till noon, then eat, at your desk, the lunch you have brought from home. There used to be six restaurants in the two blocks around the building; but restaurants are notorious sources of pollution--they create garbage; now there is only one restaurant, and it is not too good, and you have to stand in line. Besides, you save money by packing your own lunch. You pack it in an old shoebox; there are no metal boxes; the mining of metal has been severely curtailed; there are no plastic bags--a self-indulgent luxury; there are no Thermos bottles. Your sandwich is a little stale and your coffee is cold, but you are used to that.
In the latter hours of the afternoon, you begin to watch the clock and to fight against the recurring attacks of your enemy: boredom. You have worked for the company for eight years; for the past three years, you have been office manger; there is no promotion to expect, no further place to go; business expansion has been arrested. You try to fight the boredom by telling yourself that you are an unusually lucky fellow, but it does not help much. You keep saying it because, under the boredom, there is a nagging fear which you donât want to acknowledge: that the company might go out of business. You know that paper consumes trees, and trees are essential for the preservation of life on earth, and forests must not be sacrificed for the sake of self-indulgent luxuries. The company you work for manufactures paper containers.
By the time you reach the bus terminal again, on your way home, you reproach yourself for being exhausted; you see no reason for it. Your wife--you keep telling yourself--is the real victim. And She is.
AR
To be continued.
> To be continued.
Oh jebus, no...
Girma, you are an idiot.
Thank god. They should have never been invented in the first place. No one who loves coffee was using a percolator in 1975 ...
More seriously, Girma's doomsday scenario tells us why the physics of CO2 warming is wrong, clearly. It's obvious, right?
How much LSD did you consume this morning, Girma?
Seriously Girma, if you want to keep posting scientific garbage and having it picked apart in excruciating detail, that's one thing.
If you want to post bad fiction (especially when you didn't even write yourself, just flaunting copyright by reposting it willy-nilly), get a blog.
It is not necessary to remind you of what human existence was likeâfor centuries and millenniaâprior to the Industrial Revolution. That the ecologists ignore or evade it is so terrible a crime against humanity that it serves as their protection: no one believes that anyone can be capable of it. But, in this matter, it is not even necessary to look at history; take a look at the conditions of existence in the underdeveloped countries, which means: on the most of this earth, with the exception of the blessed island which is Western civilization.
Girma:
Further proof, if any was needed, that Girma is a scientific dunce.
Girma since you clearly lack the capacity for it, I feel embarrassed on your behalf.
Instead of their old promises that collectivism would create universal abundance and their denunciations of capitalism for creating poverty, they are now denouncing capitalism for creating abundance. Instead of promising comfort and security for everyone, they are now denouncing people for being comfortable and secure.
They are still struggling, however, to inculcate guilt and fear; these have always been their psychological tools. Only instead of exhorting you to feel guilty of exploiting the poor, they are now exhorting you to feel guilty of exploiting land, air and water. Instead of threatening you with a bloody rebellion of the disinherited masses, they are now tryingâlike witch doctors addressing a tribe of savagesâto scare you out of your wits with thunderously vague threats of an unknowable, cosmic cataclysm, threats that cannot be checked, verified or proved.
AR
Girma, I will bet you $1 that next year will be warmer than any year in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Are you prepared to take the challenge? I know it is a big risk for me because 1998 was the 'hottest year ever', the holy relic of AGW denialists, but I am prepared to put my money on the line and ask you to put up the same.
The ultimate source of our food is from plants. The plants build their body using matter from the earth. So the source of our food is indirectly from matter in the earth. We use the energy obtained from this matter in our movement and in keeping us warm. This energy is irrecoverably lost. As a result, to maintain life on earth, it stands to reason that the mass of the earth must go on decreasing.
For example, we use fuel to push cars along the ground. This energy is wasted as heat energy between the tire and the ground. There is no way we can get this heat energy back, and the fuel in the tank is finished, so the mass of the earth has decreased.
Instead of just saying it is wrong, please explain why it wrong so I can learn.
As he is being increasingly cornered and his comic-level book analyses demolished, Girma retreats back to collectivist rants and quotes by his hero...
How sad.
Crazy Bill
The yearly temperature anomaly for 1998 will not be exceeded before 2030, according to my [prediction.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif)
Crazy Bill, I have accepted your $1 USD bet with glee.
Girma:
What a classic. I love it.
Jeff @2051
You wrote, As he is being increasingly cornered and his comic-level book analyses demolished, Girma retreats back to collectivist rants and quotes by his hero...
Jeff, as far as the science is concerned, I have arrived at the Omega point, I have made my [predictions]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif). I have put may name on it.
What is your prediction from authority and consensus for the next decade? Post it on this thread and let reality judge who is right and who is wrong. Just do it. Just do it. Just do it.
Now I have turned to politics.
Girma:
This is so wrong it's hard to know where to start.
And this is why you are such a waste of time - why do you make such strident claims when you don't have a clue what you are talking about??
Back to plants - photosynthesis.
They don't use matter from the earth, it's mainly from the air. And the source of energy to do this is the sun. So when the complex molecules manufactured by plants are broken down to provide energy, there is no reduction in the mass of the earth as these are simple chemical reactions, and the energy released is not the destruction of matter but the breaking of molecular bonds.
I won't waste any more of my time on you, but here's a hint, before you next say something stupid, google it first, eg. before asking us to explain to you how the earth is round, google 'flat earth'.
Idiot.
Girma Orssengo.
Why do you refuse to answer [the](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) [questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)?
Bernard J @2056
You wrote, Why do you refuse to answer the questions?
Bernard, be fair. Who should answer questions? Those who asks you for the kingâs ransom, or those who tell you not to give any ransom?
Let me ask you one question. I have given my [predictions](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif). What is your prediction from authority and consensus for the next decade? Post it on this thread and let reality judge who is right and who is wrong. Just do it. Just do it. Just do it. Will you?
Cheers
Sorry. My goodness, I forgot the sun!
I deserve the scolding.
On second thought, don't blame me because the AGW camp told me it is not longer important & I believed them.
So
Energy from the sun => Plant => Energy for our body
It is the energy of the sun that I waste when I jog in the park!
Girma Orssengo.
For a person who apparently has a PhD in engineering, you are a disgrace.
As with all of your other scientific howlers, your comment that:
is a [high-school level lesson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass).
When will you begin to learn? And how exactly did you persuade UNSW that you deserved a PhD?
shorter Girma:
I do not need to answer your questions, because my statistics are supported by the prophecies of Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand know that we could not threaten the ecosphere and knew that science would be wrong if it claimed otherwise.
And humans and plants are powered by nuclear reactors that derive our eneryg form obliterating matter. E = mc2 describes the only way nature employ's energy.
And exploit the poor without guilt, if you don't have a gun its ok to abuse differentials in power. Ayn Rand says this is just natural.
Best to ignore those working for our ends whom use the biggest guns to put down any who don't play by the rules,
But we don't use guns so our policies mean freedom for the oppressed and vulnerable!
Any perversion or distrortion of science is justified in persuit of this nobel goal.
Janet, Spot on. Excellent post. I simply am flabbergasted at some of the stuff Girma posts on here. That is why, aside from some of his obvious goads, I went on to other threads in the meantime. The guy is a time wasting troll in my opinion. His political vision, if one can call it that, is an abomination. His science is equally atrocious. You and Bernard both sum up my thoughts entirely.
Time to move on.
THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (PART 2)
Your wife gets up at six am--you have insisted that she sleep until the coal furnace, which you lighted, has warmed the house a little. She has to cook breakfast for your son, aged 5; there are no breakfast cereals to give him, they have been prohibited as not sufficiently nutritious; there is no canned orange juiceâcans pollute the countryside. There are no electric refrigerators.
She has to breast-feed your infant daughter, aged six months; there are no plastic bottles, no baby formulas. There are no products such as âPampersâ; your wife washes diapers for hours each day, by hand, as she washes all the family laundry, as she washes the dishes--there are no self-indulgent luxuries such as washing machines or automatic dishwashers or electric irons. There are no vacuum cleaners; she cleans the house by means of a broom.
There are no shopping centersâthey despoil the beauty of the countryside. She walks two miles to the nearest grocery store and stands in line for an hour or so. The purchase she lugs home are a little heavy; but she does not complainâthe lady columnist in the newspaper has said it is good for her figure.
Since there are no canned foods and no frozen foods, she starts cooking dinner three hours in advance, peeling and slicing by hand every slimy, recalcitrant bit of vegetables. She does not get fruit very oftenârefrigerated freight cars have been discontinued.
When you get home, she is trying not to show that she is exhausted. It is pretty difficult to hide, particularly since there are no cosmeticsâwhich are an extra-self-indulgent luxury. By the time you are through with dinner and dishwashing and putting the children to bed and a few other chores, you are both free. But what are you to do with your brief evening? There is no television, no radio, no electric phonograph, no recorded music. There are no drive-in movies. There is a movie theater in a town six miles awayâif you catch the community bus in time. You donât feel like rushing to catch it.
So you stay at home. You find nothing to say to your wife: you donât want to depress her by discussing the kinds of things that crowd your mind. You know that she is keeping silent for the same reason. Junior did not eat much dinner: he has a sore throat; you remember vaguely that diphtheria had once been virtually eliminated, but epidemics of it have been recurring recently in schools around the country; seventy-three children died of it in a neighboring state. The last time you saw your father, he complained about pains in his chest; you hope desperately that it is not a heart ailment. Your mother died of a heart ailment at the age of fifty-five; the old doctor mentioned a device that could have saved her, but it was a product of a very, very advanced technology, which does not exist any longer: it was called a âpacemaker.â
You look at your wife; the light is dimâelectricity is rationed and only one bulb per room is allowedâbut you can see the slump of her shoulders and the lines at the corners of her mouth. She is only thirty-two; she was such a beautiful girl when you met her in college. She was studying to be a lawyer; she could have combined a career with the duties of a wife and mother; but she could not combine it with the duties of heavy industry; so she gave it up. In the fifteen hours of this day, she has done the work of a dozen machines. She has to do itâso that the brown pelicans or the white polar bear might not vanish from this earth.
By ten oâclock, you feel a desperate longing for sleepâand cannot summon any other desire. Lying in bed, by the side of your wife who feels as you do, you wonder dimly what it was that the advocates of a return to nature had been saying about the joys of an unrestrained sexuality; you cannot remember it any longer. As you fall asleep, the air is pure above the roof of your house, pure as arctic snowâonly you wonder how much longer you will care to breath it.
Girma @ 2050:
>Instead of just saying it is wrong, please explain why it wrong so I can learn.
Girma, you mean explain why its wrong, as has been done in explaining why is it is wrong to use normal probability statistics for non-random and time dependent data?
Girma @ 2058
>Sorry. My goodness, I forgot the sun! I deserve the scolding. On second thought, don't blame me because the AGW camp told me it is not longer important & I believed them.
Girma regresses to the same level of denial he employed [a month ago]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). Forgetting what he [was shown]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
I said I was wrong about where the energy that I use when jogging comes from. I made a mistake. Yes, it comes from the sun.
One is qualified does not mean that he does not make a mistake. Mind you this blog is not like writing a considered paper. You just write what is in your mind at that moment and post it, so errors are bound to occur.
Please, just stop answering this guy.
Any non-schizophrenic with a triple-digit IQ will recognize that he's bat-shit crazy.
You'll not convince him, and he won't convince anyone else.
Save yourselves and the finite disk drive resources of the planet.
Jeff, I'm with you, its time to move on.
It might be fun to parady Girma's Industrial Revolution, but that would be playing my co-dependent role his his addiction, anyway my computer can no longer handle the size of this page.
See you in another thread!
Blog members, the ball is now in your court.
I have made my [predictions]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif) for mean global temperature anomaly for the next decade.
[Normal Anomaly Plot](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif)
Please do yours and post it.
We will be able to come back and see who is right and who is wrong.
Other wise it is like debating with a mystic.
Show us your results for the NEXT DECADE?
Let us see it!
dhogaza,
Bat-shit crazy? Maybe. An anti-science ideologue -definitely.
But, I've a much sadder theory - he's doing it for the attention.
Michael @2068
You wrote, An anti-science ideologue -definitely.
This [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif) shows what the data, the science, says.
Please, pinpoint to me what is anti-science about it?
It is not rational to call people names without explaining why by raising specific points. Otherwise, it would be just argument by intimidation.
Michael, have I ever called names?
Girmaâs plot shows that he has lost the plot. His anti-science nonsense has been repeatedly corrected and refuted. Heâs been corrected on everything from basic stats, to Beers Law and conservation of energy principles.
His anti-science status is confirmed by the fact that his early opinion here - there is no AGW- remains completely unchanged, after all the corrections of his fundamental misunderstandings/ignorance.
And he holds this view with the unshakable conviction of a newly converted religious zealot.
Girma, I know you need some attention, but try getting it from some real people. Go and make some friends, it will help your social and emotional development much more than all the serial nonsense you are posting here.
> Michael, have I ever called names?
Girma, you started out in this thread insinuating that the IPCC report was the work of politically motivated liars, and that climate scientists produce the results necessary to obtain funding.
That's about as insulting as one can be to scientists.
[Selling News](http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/09/media-ecoevangel…)
The publication of âbad newsâ is not a journalistic vice. Itâs a clear instruction from the market. Itâs what consumers, on average, demand.⦠As a newspaper editor I knew, as most editors know, that if you print a lot of good news, people stop buying your paper. Conversely, if you publish the correct mix of doom, gloom and disaster, your circulation swells. I have done the experiment.
Julian Cribb, science editor
Girma,
I made a $100 bet with you. You offered another, similar, bet (to 2030 instead of 2020). I said I'd take that one too (2036). You didn't reply.
Well? Before I *really* leave this thread for good...
TrueSceptic @2073
The yearly temperature anomaly for 1998 will not be exceeded before 2030, according to my [prediction.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif)
TrueSceptic, I have accepted your $100 USD bet with delight.
Truesceptic, can I ask you one question?
Could you please post the prediction from consensus and authority for mean global temperature anomaly for the next decade so we can check the predictions? Please post it. If not, I will assume I am dealing with mystics, who just say they have the results when actually they donât.
Girma, just stop embarrassing yourself and go away.
2074 Girma,
It is possible to predict future temperatures for any one year only within wide error bands, i.e., the trend is upwards but with large variations. [Tamino's bet](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/), which I've mentioned before, will give you an idea, but see [2100 predictions](http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions_png) for a longer term view, and how models differ.
I'll settle on Tamino's GISS-based projections for the near future.
OTOH, you have made precise predictions based only on faulty statistical analysis of past data. Should I call you a mystic?
No one has results for future events. We can only make guesses, educated or not. I'm betting $200 that my guesses are better than yours. ;)
Just a reminder: I might win both bets within a year or 2. You cannot win the first bet before 2020. Even if I lose the first bet, I might win the second one in the first few years of the 2020s. You cannot win the second bet until 2030.
ENVIROMENTLISM
Whatever dangers environmentalists claim to find, their answer is always to denounce progress and to search for ânature-friendlyâ alternatives. If acid rain is supposedly destroying our lakes, they direct us not to neutralize it easily with some alkalineâbut to shut down the factories. If topsoil is supposedly being eroded, they direct us not to invent methods of more efficient farmingâbut to stop harvesting the crops. If there is too much traffic, they direct us not to build better highwaysâbut to stop making cars. Whatever the alleged problem, their incessant âsolutionâ is: de-industrialize.
Environmentalists do not want to promote human happiness, or even the âhappinessâ of other species. Those who are callously indifferent to the millions of people who die annually because DDT has been banned will not be moved to moral outrage at the âinjusticeâ of spotted owl losing its nest. What environmentalists desire is not the welfare of the non-humanâbut the misery of man.
There is only one practical way of fighting environmentalism: by morally defending man. What needs to be upheld, proudly and unequivocally, is the principle that there is no value in nature apart from that which is of value to man, which means: there is no âenvironmentââother than the environment of man.
The men who live by that premiseâthe men who make civilization and progress possibleâare choking on the philosophic pollution of environmentalism. They need to be freed from the suffocating clutches of the worshippers of a virgin earth. They need to breathe airâthe liberating air of industrialization. They need be left free to produceâto continue creating the magnificent abundance that has lifted humanity out of the caves and jungles of the pre-industrial era. And who are the individuals? Everyone who understands, and glories in, the fact that man lives by reshaping nature to serve his values.
AR
Shorter Girma:
Not only am I too dishonest and irrational to understand or learn from criticism, but I am too inept even to construct my own straw man.
"The Liberating Air of Industrialization" certainly has a ring to it, much nicer than "smog".
London fogs used to liberate a few people of their life whenever they struck ...
Now he has the mass of the Earth shrinking? Maybe that's what causes currents? The Moon pulls the water, while the Earth shrinks underneath it, therefore CO2 doesn't cause warming, and Ayn Rand is a goddess. Did I use all the essential elements (outside of the bad statistics)? I sincerely hope that he is pulling our legs, and really isn't this stupid.
The Girma Point - the point where stupidity is concentrated enough to become a form of black hole, which warps gravity locally causing all facts to fly away as fast as they can. Stupid so dense nothing can touch it.
Seriously people. I think the easiest explanation of Girma's behavior is a brain tumor.
Somebody need's to convince him to get a MRI/CAT-scan.
Would the MRI show a linear trend? I missed the "blame Rachel Carson, pro-DDT" lies in that spew as well. Girma is pulling out all the denialist stops. I think we will see the germ theory of disease next. Perhaps HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or that it is man made, perhaps by the envirofascists, as a means of controlling...well, whoever.
That is some seriously frakked up shite, though. Ignorance on Parade.
If the mass of the earth does not decrease, what then are worried about?
It means there will not be any limitation in resources.
If plants in their life form new molecules that store solar energy, and when animals ingest these molecules their body split the molecules to get the energy they need to live their life, then the amount of the element remains the same. That is, in life on earth, new molecules are formed by plants that store energy, and when these molecules are broken by animals they get the energy they needed to live their life.
As there is no depletion of any of the elements, the concept of âresource is limitedâ appears to be a fiction.
If the mass of the earth does not decrease, what then are worried about?
We are just using up the energy of the sun. Donât worry about saving the energy from the sun. It is always there whether you use it or not. Try to live your life with out manufactured fear, my friends.
Thanks Truesceptic for posting the anomaly prediction for the next decade. How about all the others?
Anomaly was about 0.5 deg C in 1998, it was 0.3 deg C last year, and the IPCC says it will be from 2 to 6 deg C by 2100. How does it do the somersault from 0.3 to 6 deg C? What root does it follow for the next decade?
Each and every one of you, in your next post, please post the anomaly prediction from consensus and authority for the next decade, so that we can compare them with reality. They must be clear that we must be able to read the actual value, say for 2015, or a range of values. Science is about facts. Show as your facts?
I am not interested on the value for 2100. We will all be soil by then.
Girma, TrueSceptic, Bernard, Jeff, Chris, Mark, Gaz, Michael, Bluegrue, Dave, Lee, Zoot, Badger3k, Steve, Sod, Mark Byrne and Janet will all be soil by 2100.
We don't need the value for 2100, as none of us are going to be there to check this value. We need the anomaly for 2015. Please post your values immediately.
Cheers
Grima demands an immediate answer to 'another stupid qwestchen'.
What about Bernards questions that Girma has ignored over the last few hundred comments??
Girma, why don't you take you anti-science nonsense and your religious devotion to St Ayn, to your own blog where you can prattle on stupidly as much as you like?
> As there is no depletion of any of the elements, the concept of âresource is limitedâ appears to be a fiction.
Oh great steaming horseshit. Girma it's been pointed out to you *in plain sodding english, time and time and time again* that this is garbage. It took millions of years of geological processes to convert organic matter into fossil fuels. We are motoring through all that accumulated energy in just a couple of centuries - this resource is finite. Once burnt the molecules exist, *but it will take huge amounts of energy to reconstruct the original long-chain hydrocarbons*. That's without even touching the depletion of other natural resources, such as fish stocks, topsoils etc etc. I mean, come on - again you are bested by 12 year olds in the science department. Really, they would point and laugh laugh laugh at this kind of basic silliness.
2083 Girma,
I have said before in this thread that people who attacked the provenance of your PhD were unjustified.
I'm not sure if I said what else I suspected, which is that you have suffered some sort of episode/breakdown.
Is it possible that the Girma who earned the PhD is not the Girma we see now? I don't know how else to reconcile the "PhD Girma" with the one who knows virtually nothing about the most basic science.
Here's a simple question, prompted by the recent energy/mass discussion:-
Take 1 tonne (1,000 kg) of methane (CH4). Burn it completely and what happens? Ignoring the energy produced, what are the inputs and products in this reaction? Which elements are involved? Please give the masses in tonnes (or kg).
Dave, didn't you know that empty dams are not a problem?
The water still exists, just somewhere else.
Resource limitation? Bah humbug!
Belief trumps science everytime.
Well, at least he got away from the matter-energy conversion part. One down, 6 million to go!
No diversions please.
Post your estimate of mean global temperature for 2015.
Otherwise, all the CO2 driven AGW advocates donât know what they are talking about.
Here is my [Predictions.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif)
In order to compare yours with mine in a few years time, please post them.
The ONLY issue now is for you all to POST your prediction of anomalies for the next decade. I am waiting with bated breath.
Excluding TrueSceptic.
Yes, no diversions......from Girma's diversion in not answering Bernards questions.
Answer the questions Girma, you anti-science ideologue.
There once was a dunce called Girma,
Whose grasp of science could have been firmer
His knowledge of statistics was nought,
on anti-science nonsense was his thought,
but on answering Bernardâs questions â not a murmur.
Speaking for myself, I don't have to post anything. I'm not a climate scientist, and the others have done a far more competent job than I could ever do.
But I do echo the sentiment: Answer the questions, Girma. You have to answer all the open questions before anyone will consider answering anything of yours.
So, answer the questions you've been avoiding, please.
Michael, Dave, Bernard, Jeff, Chris, Mark, Gaz, Bluegrue, Lee, Zoot, Badger3k, Steve, Sod, Mark Byrne and Janet, I am not going to be diverted.
I have made my [predictions]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif). I have provided all the data in a previous post that I used to arrive at the result. I have challenged any one to check my result and confirm or disprove it. It is as simple as that. Come forward any one, and I am ready for the challenge! Other verbiage is inconsequential. I am not talking about 2100. I am talking about the next decade that is verifiable. I am talking about 2015. It will be colder than 1998.
Show as your prediction for 2015!
I can not be called an anti-science ideology when I provide all the data and results for inspection. If you believe that you are pro-science, then show as your prediction. How does a 0.5 deg C anomaly in 1998 and a 0.3 deg C last year somersault and lead to 6 deg C for 2001? Could you show as the trajectory for 2015 during that somersault? Please?
As I said before, by 2001 we will all be soil, so let us deal with the verifiable. Science deals only with the verifiable; otherwise; it is not science; it is mysticism.
Now the judgment time has arrived. Post your predictions for 2015. That is the one, and only one, question for you to answer. Posting on any other issue will be just diversion.
I donât have to answer anything. I am not asking for the kingâs ransom. I will answer only when you either confirm or disprove my result above. I have given my estimate for 2015. The one who must answer are those who ask for the kingâs ransom, based on results for the year when all of us have become soil.
Post your anomaly estimate for 2015. No guts, no glory.
If you donât have your own, post the one you believe in.
Answer Bernards questions on your ridiculous plots and predictions that you have now been avoiding for hundreds of posts.
Girma, I stick with predictions of the latest IPCC draft. I take the views of 2500 scientists, most of whom are experts in their own fields, over yours. You lack any expertise whatsoever in the field of climate science, as do I, but unlike you I defer to the views of those doing the actual empirical research, meaning those working in universities and research institutes who publish their work in peer-reviewed journals. For someone who probably cannot tell how clouds work and who has also probably never heard of evapotranspiration, I am gobsmacked at your self-righteous posts coupled with your refusal (read: inability) to answer Bernard`s questions.
Your last Ayn Rand post re: environmentalism was so abhorrent I will not waste any more of my time on your posturing and pedantics. I have science to do.
Girma, after you have engaged with Bernard's questions (I don't believe you are capable of actually answering them) I will post my prediction. That's a promise.
Girma.
Damn broken links!
[Girma](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oUMRzblqyb4/SkGapsN8ORI/AAAAAAAAA70/M9ENENP4q…)
Girma Orssengo.
You have convinced me of one outstanding talent of Ayn Rand's...
...and that is her ability to squeeze so much complete crap into each sentence of a diatribe, such as the one you posted at [#2077](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). It must stand as one of the biggest pieces of ideological, and inaccurate, garbage that I have ever had the misfortune of laying eyes on.
I am in concurrence with [Jeff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…): I have used my scientific training and knowledge to interpret and accept the consensus of the experts in climatology, and I accept the models of the IPCC.
Whilst I am not sufficently trained or experienced to derive de novo the complex models of climatologists, I certainly have enough understanding to know that neither you, nor any or Denialist I've come across thus far, have in any way come near to refuting their science.
If you want to talk short-term, I think in the same vein as does [Tamino](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/), previously linked by TrueSceptic. You might note too, when you consider Tamino's postings, that he used 'residuals' in investigating global temperature trends long before you did (as have I, and no doubt many others participating in this thread). The difference is that Tamino understands how to apply them properly.
Read a few of Tamino's postings from the last several years and learn.
So, now that I have immediately answered your lame question, you have no further excuse to continue to avoid the questions [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) that you have been avoiding for so many weeks.
Even if you had to learn everything from the very beginning of Science 101 in order to answer them, you should have been able to do so long before now.
What's the hold-up?
2089 Girma,
Any sensible person will post much the same predictions as I did, i.e., the views of the climate science mainstream.
How about my methane question? It's just a little basic science test and requires no great knowledge of Chemistry.
ENVIRONMENTALISM (Part 2)
Altruism is the doctrine that man has no moral right to exist for his own sake. Taken from the Latin alter (or âotherâ), it is the doctrine that the sole justification for your life is your willingness to sacrifice it to others. Environmentalism is altruism unadulterated and uncamouflaged. In the past, the call for sacrifice was made on behalf of other human beings, such as the poor and the sick. Now, in a faithful extension of the altruist maxim, the term âothersâ is merely being broadened. Now we are being urged to sacrifice the human to the non-human.
And if it is evil to live for your own sake, how can you resist such a demand? If self-abnegation is noble, what could be more praiseworthy than to subordinate your existence to that of the bugs, the weeds, and the mud?
Environmentalist view man as the enemy. Their aim is to keep nature pristine, free from predatory invasion of man. It is not human welfare that sets the standard by which they make their judgments.
But if man lives only by a process of remaking the earthâwhat is the implication of the environmentalists demand that he renounce this process?
What environmentalists desire is the misery of man.
We engines of the world are chocking on the philosophic pollution of environmentalism.
Again, confronted by science, Girma retreats to the comfort of ideology.
Interesting topic at [RC](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/decadal-predictio…) on the subject of uncertainties in predictions. Nice [graph](http://ncas-climate.nerc.ac.uk/research/uncertainty/exFig1.jpg) from one of the authors of a very recent [article](http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F…).
Micheal
Science does not deal with the unverifiable, especially that will happen when we all soil.
Let us deal with the verifiable. Let us deal with science, not mysticism.
Micheal, post your anomaly prediction for 2015.
[Girma](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oUMRzblqyb4/SkIVgKu7A-I/AAAAAAAAA_U/E-R55QD7G…).
How long are people here going to continue giving Girma the attention he desires?
For as long as I continue to enjoy his taking the denialist position to new depths of disrepute.
Why I deny a catastrophic CO2 driven global warming:
Fact 1 : [Data]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…) shows mean global temperature anomaly decreased by 0.55 deg C from â0.02 deg C in 1878 to â0.57 deg C in 1911.
Fact 2: [Data]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif) show mean global temperature anomaly increased by 0.9 deg C from â0.57 deg C in 1911 to 0.33 deg C last year, 2008.
Fact 3: Combining the above two data, from 1878 to 2008, in 130 years, the mean global temperature increased by â0.55 + 0.9 = 0.35 deg C.
Conclusion: The increase in 0.74 deg C in the last century they always talk about is therefore baseless.
Question: Is increase in mean global temperature by 0.35 deg C in 130 years dangerous?
Note: For the oscillation component of mean global temperature, 6Ï = 0.9 deg C
Answer Bernard's questions you idiotic troll.
OK, this has gone on long enough.
I declare that Girma Orssengo has refused to answer the questions [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), questions that need to be answered before he can even begin to make the claims about climate that he does, because he does not know the answers, and because he does not even know how to find the answers.
And through his default, by not answering these questions, I declare that Girma Orssengo has conceded his abject incapacity to comment on anything remotely related to climatology.
Take a good look readers all - here is a person who seems to have scammed a PhD from one of Australia's better universities, and he did it without being able to demonstrate that he currently has any understanding of statistics, biology, chemistry, or physics.
If ever he had skills in basic scientific process, he has certainly lost them now, as TrueSceptic [noted](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
I am one of those mentioned by TS who is rather less charitable about any former scientific capacity that Orssengo had - I suspect that it is more likely that Orssengo bluffed his way through his PhD, as it seems too unlikely that someone could genuinely have the nouse to complete one on merit, and then (even through breakdown) lose all indication of ever possessing the requisite knowledge and skill.
Of course, I nevertheless do not discount the possibility of a breakdown, nor of other [pathologies](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). To this end I have to confess to the ocassional pang of sympathy that such might actually be the case: if so, I hope that Girma finds the help that he needs.
If such is not the case, and Orssengo is just an ideologically-blinkered troll... well, there's no helping, really, is there?
Whatever the truth of the matter, Orssengo shows no capacity for moving forward. Unless he makes a start by answering the bloody questions, I'm done.
Time for a cup of tea to wash the foul taste of Ayn Rant from my mouth. Or perhaps something more medicinal, such as a single malt...
Dear All,
Thanks again TrueSceptic. You have done the leg work for all the others.
Here is the [AGW's Prediction]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPredictionAGW.jpg) for the mean global temperature anomaly.
Comapre that with [Orssengoâs prediction.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif)
For 2015, AGW Camp says 0.5 deg C; Orssengo says 0.2 deg C.
For 2020, AGW camp says 0.75 deg C; Orssengo says 0.1 deg C.
This is what science is all about. Verifiable predictions.
By the way, the AGW prediction is on the wrong track already now, even for the low energy emission path, and unless the trend reverses there is no where to hide for the AGW camp.
If you win, I will join the AGW camp, and I will send you X-mas card in 2020. Good luck, as you desperately need it.
If I win, ... Oslo!
2111 Girma,
I hope you noticed the different reference periods and allowed for that.
I look forward to you paying the $200.
Any progress on the methane? It took me just a few minutes from first principles.
#2112 TrueSceptic,
>I hope you noticed the different reference periods and allowed for that.
Of course, [he did _not_](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/s…).
I would have believed in CO2 driven global warming, if the data from 1878 to 1911 , and from 1944 to 1976 had not existed. Why have not they removed these data ranges from the [dataset]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12) so far?
Year=>Anomaly (deg C)
1878=>-0.02
1911=>-0.57
1944=>0.10
1976=>-0.24
2008=>0.33
Relative to 1878, the world last year, 2008, warmed by 0.33+0.02=0.35 deg C!
Relative to 1944, the world last year, 2008, warmed by 0.33-0.1=0.32 deg C!
Is increase in mean global temperature by 0.35 deg C catastrophic?
2113 bluegrue,
Thanks but I want him to consider my question, check what he's done, and answer.
TrueSceptic - "Thanks but I want him to consider my question, check what he's done, and answer."
You didn't really think that would work, did you? You've probably doomed us all to another bizarre Ayn Rand quote by asking him to check his work, and even worse, to consider anything other than his ideology.
Why the odd intervals, Grima?
Ah, it's because any periodically selected values would show your idea wrong, wouldn't it.
Have a look at this graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
And you'll see that there is a variation about the mean (which is the very definition of the mean) and that mean is increasing.
But who here expects even the level of intelligence and learning of a 15-year-old from you?
> Fact 1 : Data shows mean global temperature anomaly decreased by 0.55 deg C from â0.02 deg C in 1878 to â0.57 deg C in 1911.
No such fact exists: you have not shown the climate temperature average at the two ends of the period therefore you cannot show how they have changed.
> Fact 2: Data show mean global temperature anomaly increased by 0.9 deg C from â0.57 deg C in 1911 to 0.33 deg C last year, 2008.
No such fact exists: you have not shown the climate temperature average at the two ends of the period therefore you cannot show how they have changed.
> Fact 3: Combining the above two data, from 1878 to 2008, in 130 years, the mean global temperature increased by â0.55 + 0.9 = 0.35 deg C.
No such fact exists: you have not shown the climate temperature average at the two ends of the period therefore you cannot show how they have changed.
Conclusion: you have no clue what you are talking about
Question: will you ever learn?
> Is it possible that the Girma who earned the PhD is not the Girma we see now?
> Posted by: True Skeptic
You only just now coming to that conclusion, TS?
Waaaay back I figured this one as a possibility.
What may have happened is that Grima is just getting paid for something else now, so his inabilities in science no longer matter. cf David Evans or Ian Plimer et al.
The dinosaur and its fellow-creatures vanished from this earth long before there were any industrialist or any menâand environmental âresilienceâ never brought them back. But this did not end life on earth. Contrary to the ecologists, nature does not stand still and does not maintain the kind of âequilibriumâ that guarantees the survival of any particular speciesâleast of all the survival her greatest and most fragile product: man.
AR
I was saying why they have not deleted the data in the dataset around 1944 and 1878. Actually that is exactly what they did [here.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPredictionAGW.jpg)
Dear bloggers
Thanks very much. I think we have finally arrived at a reasonable point to end this thread.
We have anomaly predictions from [me]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif), a denier of CO2 driven global warming because it is unverified, and from the [AGW camp](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPredictionAGW.jpg). We will come back in 5 years time to check who would be right.
I have no doubt that, because of the current trend and historical patterns (cooling and warming cycles of PDOs), I am more likely to be right.
Here is the summary for the comparison for anomaly in deg C:
â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦
YEARÂ Â Â Â AGWÂ Â Â Â ORSSENGO
â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦
2015Â Â Â Â Â 0.5Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 0.2
â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦
2020Â Â Â Â Â 0.75Â Â Â Â Â 0.1
â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦
I wish you the good life (for those who are for it).
Cheers
> The dinosaur and its fellow-creatures vanished from this earth long before there were any industrialist or any men
And what does that have to do with the price of potatoes, Grima???
How is this meant to prove that CO2 from care exhausts cannot cause warming???
> But this did not end life on earth.
Well go ahead and off yourself and your siblings and children (assuming you have any). After all, the ending of your family line will not end life on earth.
2118 Mark,
Yes, I thought that about "Girma" from the early days of this thread, when we found that he really is Dr Orssengo. I wasn't sure if I actually said it, though, and can't be bothered to search!
2121 Girma,
I'll need to contact you about the bet in a year or 2. The 'Contact Address' button on your home page doesn't work.
> We have anomaly predictions from me, a denier of CO2 driven global warming because it is unverified, and from the AGW camp.
Unverified, HOW?
And why is that "unverified" so important when you ignore any unverified statements you make?
TrueSceptic
Here is my email address: orssengo@lycos.com
Thanks very much to all of you.
I LOVE you all though you donât.
Mark
According to the AGW models, the anomaly for 2015 will be 0.5 deg C. We wait until 2015, and if the anomaly is 0.5 deg C then the model is verified and we will all believe in CO2 driven global warming. If the prediction does not much observation, we reject the AGW theory.
Girma Orssengo.
It is not appropriate to leave this thread until you have answered the questions [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
Your incompetence in matters scientific is documented time and again here: are you also exhibiting cowardice with your persistent refusal to address the questions put to you?
I have one further question that I would like to add to the others, at this late hour. And that is - what importance did you attach to, and what process did you employ, to remove stochastic forcings from the original data that you used?
After all, if you are claiming that there is a linear, natural trend in the dataset, that you subtract in order to 'identify' your so-called 'oscillations', you must acknowledge that there are also stochastic events superimposed upon any other trajectory. These stochastic events could be either cooling or much more unlikely, warming, but you have given no indication of the importance that you place on them.
So, in addition to your other lingering homework, what of stochasticity in the temperature trajectory?
Bernard
This is the [mean global temperature anomaly]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…) with its envelope for the maximum and minimum possible anomaly for 159 long years. Bernard, the question that we must answer is that, will this linear envelope change to something else in the next 10 years?
I say it will not; AGW say it will. This is an irreconcilable difference, and the only solution is to wait for 5 to 10 years and find out which one is true. According to the AGW model, the anomaly for 2020 is 0.75 deg C, and this will lie outside the envelope.
I have found that the [frequency distribution]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResi…) for the residuals are nearly symmetrical, which suggest that there is no shift towards high temperature in the last couple of decades. Also, in the [normal probability plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif), there is no sign of abnormality at higher temperatures.
Cheers
> According to the AGW models, the anomaly for 2015 will be 0.5 deg C.
The same can be said of the 1995 temperatures. And the 1990 temperatures. And in those cases, the AGW models were right.
Why should be think that if they pass yet another test that you will accept it?
And why the extra delay. Originally, you stated that the coming year would be cooler.
Backtracking?
> If the prediction does not much observation, we reject the AGW theory.
Does not compute.
Objects fall. Yet there is the case of the man falling from the empire state building and being blown back UP the building by the updraught and being thrown through a window.
Does this mean we reject gravity???
No.
> This is the mean global temperature anomaly with its envelope for the maximum and minimum possible anomaly for 159 long years.
No, those are not the maximum and minimum possible anomaly for those 159 years.
Maximum anomaly was -0.6 and the maximum +0.6
Maximum possible appears nowhere.
> Bernard, the question that we must answer is that, will this linear envelope change to something else in the next 10 years?
No, the question you must ask is "is that a linear envelope change?".
Something you have failed to check.
An alarming lack of skepticism there.
> I have found that the frequency distribution for the residuals are nearly symmetrical,
No you haven't. You've STATED they are symmetrical.
Please show proof.
> which suggest that there is no shift towards high temperature in the last couple of decades.
Yes there is: you have had to remove an increasing temperature trend. Removing an increasing temperature trend means that there WAS a shift to higher temperatures in the last decades. Else there would be no need to remove a trend.
> Also, in the normal probability plot, there is no sign of abnormality at higher temperatures.
They are decidedly abnormal plots.
Why do you change your period between measures?
Because you have to carefully select your points to get the figure you wish to see from them.
By the act of having to pick your points to show your figure shows that no such trend exists: it would exist without you having to enforce it if it had any validity.
You are merely parroting the same broken arguments that Spencer has made, merely to say "there is no problem, because I say that we are just seeing variations and we are going to vary down any day now...".
> the only solution is to wait for 5 to 10 years and find out which one is true.
This is sheer nonsense, and woolly thinking of the highest order.
Its like saying the only way of determining whether a fall from a great height is likely to be fatal is to jump and see.
The IPCC predictions are not based on guesswork - they are based on decades of rigorous observations, and calculations from first principles of the behaviour of physical systems. They are based on repeatable experiments, and calculations of multiple influences on the climate, that can explain in great detail past and current behaviour as well as make predictions about future change. There is virtually no chance that they are completely wrong - we are talking about improving understanding and accounting for new factors, but the likelihood that *everything* that informs our current understanding of the climate is *flat-out wrong* is infinitesimal.
You OTOH have drawn a straight line, and declared the 159 year trend to be linear because you say so. You have declared an oscillation because you have drawn an arbitrary W, with no attempt to verify your wild speculation as to underlying causes *whatsoever*. You've waved your hands and made contradictory claims about what fits *with no regard for actual observational data whatsoever*. You have made sweeping statements about past and future behaviour of the global climate *while considering only a single metric - temperature*. You have ignored atmospheric composition, solar activity, volcanic activity etc etc, and just declared that there *must be an oscillation, but you are not sure what it is*. You have ignored every single piece of robust analysis to the contrary, and proven to be totally impervious to reason.
You *will never be right* because you have not formulated anything approaching a coherent argument. You have not provided a *reason* for the behaviour you expect, only made guesses. Which means that even if by some freak event you manage to pick a couple of future numbers correctly, *you are still wrong because you have not understood the processes and cannot justify your reasoning*.
You cannot answer *why* in any satisfactory way. Which makes your contributions doubly useless.
> Its like saying the only way of determining whether a fall from a great height is likely to be fatal is to jump and see.
Or push them off...
[Anti-Alarmist Momentum](http://masterresource.org/?p=5036)
Here is the death spiral that I believe the the Climate Crisis Industry fears (and is probably right to fear) consciously or subconsciously:
1. U.S. rejects cap-and-trade in 2009, leaving a climate bill in serious trouble for election-year 2010 and beyond.
2. Copenhagen flounders without any U.S. commitment and from developing country opposition, among other things. The failed Kyoto Protocol creeps toward its 2012 expiration date with an all pain, no gain tag.
3. EPA action is delayed by court action and public/political opposition, negating implementation for years and effective implementation for longer. Congressional action to de-authorize EPA becomes more and more likely as businesses, and electric utilities in particular, demand certainty to meet growing U.S. electricity demand coming out of a recession.
4. The climate continues its decade long trend of non-warming for another 10 years, as some scientists have predicted. The return of bitterly cold winters, and more years âwithout a summerâ increases public skepticism about climate science. More revelations come out about data manipulation by NASA, and cherry-picking by scientists trying to paint a false picture of recent warming in historical perspective.
5. Climate initiatives (renewable energy subsidies, etc.) are increasingly scrutinized and attacked as job-destroying corporate welfare by the Right and political capitalism by the Left.
6. Grassroots opposition builds against wind and solar farms because of landscape, wildlife, and people issuesâand with the knowledge that such are not going to make a climatological difference. Environmentalists continue to block renewable projects at the local level, making it increasingly obvious that the U.S. risks energy shortages as conventional power generation is also stalled
7. Given the political impasse, and feeling somewhat duped, more and more science writers and academics will start covering hard climate data/trends rather than uncritically flogging the latest garbage-in/garbage-out forecasting. [Okay, this could be wishful thinking on my part, based on a mistaken belief that left-leaning science writers actually care about balanced reporting, and that academics dependent on government grants might develop something resembling a spine, but a person can dream, can't they?]
8. More attention focuses on adaptation and climate engineering, both of which spark furious debates on the Left as, respectively, âdefeatistâ and âplaying God with climate.â
9. The âGreat Climate Scareâ becomes scrutinized for bad behavior and lessons-learnedâwhich magnifies the intellectual and media turnaround on the issue.
10. Political support ebbs for government-dependent wind, solar, and energy efficiency companies, deflating the bubble and leaving a sad industrial trail of broken, obsolete, or uneconomic wind turbines and solar panels.
Ah, Grima has lost the plot.
Unable to show anything but idiocy in scientific discourse, jumps right over into PR flackery.
#1 is wrong (or at best tabloid-headline right, which isn't all that right unless you're an apologist for it)
#2 is wrong, since the US constitutes a minute fraction of the world's population and also since they haven't HAD the results so can't be behind them anyway: they don't exist yet
#3 is strangely right: EPA action is being filibustered but this doesn't say that AGW science is wrong
#4 Is wrong as shown so very often in this very thread. But Grima's worm tongue can't get off the peddling
#5 is also true, but then again, so was the link between cancer and smoking. Which turned out to be from people paid to interfere to keep profits going
#6 Astroturf, you mean, Grima
#7 No impasse. Just the cotinued (if more strident because there's more change and less disagreement on AGW making their position more and more precarious) wailing over "there is no AGW!!!" and filibustering by the trillion-dollar oil industry
#8 Doesn't say that AGW is wrong. In fact, if mitigation and adaption (evolve gills?) are being looked into (they aren't free, you know), then AGW must be at least real enough to spend the money there
#9 Nope, the same old "they are silencing us!!!" rhetoric we've had for forty years and more. And still doesn't mean the ones against AGW are right: consensus doesn't man you're right, remember?
#10 No such thing is happening. China remains the biggest producer of renewable generation capacity
But when did we ever expect the Religious Nut Randian RWingnut Grima to do anything other than issue a great sound, signifying nothing?
A [normally distributed data]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif) can not go outside of +/- 3Ï envelope.
It is just IMPOSSIBLE!
It will be seen in just 5 years when the anomaly is not 0.5 deg C, but much less than that at about 0.2 deg C.
CO2 driven global warming is one case where Science has been HIJACKED for philosophical, political belief.
Girma,
No more from me. I'll just be checking each year's average the following January. I'll be in touch for the $200. ;)
In another universe, another Girma just factored in that:
* climate is measured in long term averages (30 years);
* the climate has been relatively stable for more than 400 years (probably more than 2000 years);
* that CO2 has dramatically risen since the mid 20th Century;
* aerosol forcings from mid 20thC have been curbed from the 1970s, thus changing the balance between aerosol cooling and greenhouse warming.
As a result the other Girma just plotted [this graph](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:360/plot/hadcrut3vgl/…).
Shouldn't that be Bizarro Girma?
Badger3k
For the linear component anomaly, we must include all the available data points from 1850 to 2008 to determine the pattern.
Here is the [linear warming]( http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset:13.97/plot/…) pattern.
As seen clearly in this plot, all mean global temperatures lied with in the envelope for the last 159 years. Do you really, really, really think this will break down in the next decade?
No chance!
No hijacking of science!
[Another Girma's plot](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:360/plot/hadcrut3vgl/…) including all the variable points from 1850 to 2009.
Another Girma you disgrace the name of Girma with those truly scarey graphs.
As a Girma you must torture the data and cherry pick the start and end point dates of all trend lines to maximise the Comforting (TM) effect.
All good Girma's must reject the science in favour of St Ayn.
Did you know that there was a 20-years-long [global warming]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1858/to:1879/mean:12/…) from 1858 to 1879, before the industrial revolution, at the rate of 1.1 deg C/100 years?
What could be the cause of this warming?
> For the linear component anomaly, we must include all the available data points from 1850 to 2008 to determine the pattern.
So if we take the series of numbers:
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64
we must include all the numbers to get the linear component anomaly to determine the pattern.
Ignoring, of course, the fact that this isn't a linear progression.
Then wonder why the analysis indicates that the next figure in the sequence will be 73.
Grima, what if the linear trend isn't linear?
Another Girma spots a cherry pick, know climate is measured in 30 years, knows about the effects of volcanic aerosols and re posts [this chart](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:360/plot/hadcrut3vgl/…).
> A normally distributed data can not go outside of +/- 3Ï envelope.
> It is just IMPOSSIBLE!
Another prime example of Grima's astounding grasp of mathematics (i.e. negative).
No, it's not impossible.
The area of a normal distribution within 3 sigma of the mean is 99.7300203937% of the total area.
Therefore there's a (100-99.7300203937)% or 0.2699796063% chance that a normal value will be outside the three sigma limit.
This is infinitely larger than the zero chance of IMPOSSIBILITY.
> As seen clearly in this plot, all mean global temperatures lied with in the envelope for the last 159 years. Do you really, really, really think this will break down in the next decade?
> No chance!
> No hijacking of science!
> Posted by: Girma
1) your graph isn't science. It's merely maths. So saying your graph is wrong isn't hijacking science, it's pointing out your sophistry.
2) Have a look at this graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Doesn't match what your mangled mathematics wants to say, does it.
Clearly the rate of increase is much higher recently than in the past.
Clearly there have been many periods in the past where taking two points 10 years apart shows a slight increase or even decrease, yet this hasn't stopped the overall trend continuing up.
Stop hijacking science.
Mark
You wrote, what if the linear trend isn't linear?
Anomaly = Linear Component of anomaly + Oscillation component anomaly that vary between a narrow range of +/- 3Ï
If the linear trend is not linear, because of the above equation, it will make the oscillation component non linear. However, according to the [frequency distribution]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/FrequencyDistributionResi…), there is no skew of the oscillation component towards higher temperatures.
Mark, the only solution is for us to wait 5 to 10 years and we will know for sure whether mean global temperature has become abnormal. I have the [envelope of +/- 3 Ï]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif) that applied for the past 159 years, and if any future anomaly temperature goes out of that envelope then we are in trouble. But I donât think so.
> You wrote, what if the linear trend isn't linear?
> Anomaly = Linear Component of anomaly + Oscillation component anomaly that vary between a narrow range of +/- 3Ï
Nope, incorrect.
Where did you learn your maths? At the Taliban School of Advanced Mathematics???
The oscillation component IS NOT linear. That's why you have to change your period between "cycles" all the time: there is no oscillation. And the definition of oscillation component is not "moves within +/- three sigma" either.
Neither have you shown that your frequency distribution is normal.
Check. How much does it vary from a normalised figure?
Go on.
Distribute the numbers normally and work out the variation from that normal fit to the figures you have.
It doesn't fit.
> Mark, the only solution is for us to wait 5 to 10 years and we will know for sure whether mean global temperature has become abnormal.
No, we know right now. It has become abnormal.
And you still ignore the absolute fact that the three sigma limit has nothing to do with impossibility or with the variation you wish to impose.
Mark @2144
You are right.
When I say impossible, I mean to say for two maximum to occur with in a short period of time. For example, for the [oscillation component]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif), the two maximums occurred in 1878 and 1998, with 120 years of difference.
As a result, it is unlikely for the next maximum to occur in the next decade.
From [Moberg's temperature reconstructions](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html) for the last 2000 years, the mean anomaly is -0.35 K with StDev of 0.22 K (relative to 1961-90 average).
Plotting Moberg's mean with +/- 3StDev gives [this control chart](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/s…).
Girma no need to wait 10 years. We are already above the +3 sigma range.
Good luck trying to get the science through Girma's impervious shield of ideology and belief.
He's much more interested in torturing the data to make it say what he wants - his latest effort is the statistical equivalent of water-boarding.
> Did you know that there was a 20-years-long global warming from 1858 to 1879, before the industrial revolution, at the rate of 1.1 deg C/100 years?
That's slap bang in the middle of the industrial revolution.
> What could be the cause of this warming?
Going back to your "analysis" I'm extremely interested in your answer to that question.
According to you, whatever the cause was it must be *precisely* the same as the cause of the increased warming you claim from 1911 - 1944.
And according to you, that must also be *precisely* the same thing that will cause the sudden bout of cooling you predict we are about to experience.
So please, explain in detail this phenomenon which you have not yet quantified, with references to observational data and explanations of why the current understanding of the factors that have affected the climate in the last 150 years is entirely wrong.
> As a result, it is unlikely for the next maximum to occur in the next decade.
Unless of course you use a dataset (like GISS) that covers the whole globe (unlike HADCRUT). In which case you find that the additional warming in the Arctic helped push us over 1998 levels in 2005.
But then, this has been said billions of times already. The water of reason slides effortlessly off the duck's back of stupid.
Mark Byrne @2149
The 3Sigma values apply to the oscillation component only, so you need to have the average as a linearly warming one. Here how is [+/- 3sigma envelope]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…) should look like, where the envelope was never exceeded in 159 years.
> The 3Sigma values apply to the oscillation component only,
They have no significance to the oscillation component.
There is no proof there is an oscillation component.
There's no proof that there is a normal distribution about the mean from the residuals of a linear reduction from the raw data.
There's no proof that a linear reduction is correct.
And even if they were all true, the significance of three sigma limit isn't that it's impossible to have a value outside that range.
How many ways can you epic fail...?
> When I say impossible, I mean to say for two maximum to occur with in a short period of time.
And it's already been broken: GISS data showed 2005 broke the maximum and 1998 (what you have as the peak) was equalled TWICE.
Even the HadCRUT data shows 1998 was nearly beaten three times.
Therefore if your impossible thing has happend not once but three times (three ways to get two peaks out of three highpoints), then your thesis MUST be wrong.
Either something impossible has happened or your thesis is wrong.
Which is it?
Dave & Mark
I have repeated the analysis I did for HADCRUT3 for GISS.
[Data used for the analysis]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyGISSdata.htm)
The linear warming for the GISS is 0.56 deg C/100 years.
For the residual, the standard deviation is 0.12 deg C.
[Normal Probability Plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlotGISS…)
[+/- 3 Sigma envelopes on the GISS data.]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/compress:12/plot/gistemp/trend…)
Yes, the trend is for cooling.
AGW camp, where are you going to hide???
You need to pray for a somersault.
> The linear warming for the GISS is 0.56 deg C/100 years.
And the linear analysis is wrong.
> Normal Probability Plot
The data does not match the normal distribution.
> +/- 3 Sigma envelopes on the GISS data.
Shows that a better fit would be a curve plot, not a linear one, with a lower gradient in the earlier part and a steeper graph in the latter part.
What need is there to hide? You haven't shown anything except that you're wrong.
I have also repeated [the plot for GISS](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale…).
Girma has been shown to be wrong on many level, one of which is he is comparing the changing climate with itself. If the climate had warmed more or less in the last 50 years Girma's 3 sigma would move accordingly and thus he would claim that whatever happens was within 3 sigm rise.
To overcome this error [I have ploted](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale…) the mean and +/- 3 StDev. for the 2000 year temperature reconstructions. This puts current warming into perspective and compares it to the last 2000 years of of relatively stable climate.
Girma's assumed linear trend disappears when 2000 years of data is considered. And we are outside 3 Sigma.
What I find interesting is that I write a comment to "Another Girma" asking if that poster should more correctly be "Bizarro Girma" (one who knows science and accepts that AGW is real), and I get replied to with something about linear components and "No Hijack Science!" It seems like he is picking names out of a hat and writing whatever he wants (which seems to be indicative of his inability to read and respond to the real experts...aah. Since I am not a climatologist and accept the conclusions of the experts (and of the evidence itself), but am not in on the whole statistics thing, I must be easy to "reply" to (in other words, put in more nonsense). Of course, I have to end with the obligatory:
Answer the questions, Girma.
Dear All
As the [anomaly envelopes]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/compress:12/plot/gistemp/trend…) were not exceeded in the last 150 years, it stands to reason that they will not be exceeded, at least, in the next couples of decades.
According to the data, there is linear global warming of about 0.56 deg C per 100 years. I am not a denier of this global warming. As a result, based on historical patterns, by 2100, the mean anomaly will increase by 0.56 deg C.
However, superimposed on this linear warming, there is an oscillating warming and cooling that is normally distributed. This means that, relative to the linear warming, the magnitude of these oscillating component vary with in the range +/- 0.36 deg C. The pattern of this oscillation follows the PDO pattern.
Let us estimate historical maximum anomaly. For example, for 2005, for the GISS data, the maximum anomaly = 0.0056(Year-1880) -0.03 = 0.0056(2005-1880)-0.03 = 0.67 deg C. The actual anomaly for 2005 was 0.62 deg C, which is less than but close to the value for the maximum envelope value of 0.67 deg C.
Let us estimate historical minimum anomaly. For example, for 1976, for the GISS data, the minimum anomaly = 0.0056(Year-1880) -0.75 = 0.0056(1976-1880)-0.75 = -0.21 deg C. The actual anomaly for 1976 was -0.16 deg C, which is greater than but close to the value for the minimum envelope value of -0.21 deg C.
As this model was able to give good approximation for historical anomaly temperatures, for more than 100 years, it stands to reason it can be used to predict future anomaly temperatures, at least for next couple of decades.
My friends, if you havenât already noticed, please have a closer look at this [plot]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/compress:12/plot/gistemp/trend…). Do you see that the read curve for the anomaly for 2008 relative to the green line of linear warming? In the coming years, will this read curve move towards the green line and cross it (Orssengo), or will it do a 180 degree somersault and move away from the green line (AGW camp)?
Girmam
Your envelopes are baseless. [Here are](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) the envelopes we have broken. And we are locked into going higher. Yet we can limit the growth if we act decisively, we may be able to keep the natural carbons sinks from turning into carbon sources, thereby we might prevent a nonlinear temperature response.
> As the anomaly envelopes were not exceeded in the last 150 years, it stands to reason that they will not be exceeded, at least, in the next couples of decades.
Well, by definition: you write the envelope so that it wouldn't be breeched.
It's rather like saying "since we haven't beaten the maximum...". By definition you can't beat the maximum: you are either less than it or the new maximum.
> According to the data, there is linear global warming of about 0.56 deg C per 100 years.
No, you haven't shown that. All you've shown is that a straight line can be drawn on a plot.
Try a lowess filter or a polynomial fit of 1st and higher orders and see which one gives the best match (lowest RMS error).
> Let us estimate historical maximum anomaly.
No, you haven't put any anomaly: you change the baseline so the figures cannot be compared.
> My friends, if you havenât already noticed, please have a closer look at this plot.
Try this one:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Take a close look.
Try working your statistical meanderings on the data for 1850-1970. See if your prediction matches the 1980-2000 figures.
It doesn't.
Because your analysis is incorrect.
CO2 DRIVEN GLOBAL WARMING
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
My friends, if you havenât already noticed, please have a closer look at the following plots.
[Mean Global Temperature Anomaly Plot from Data from Hadley Centre]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…)
(Linear warming of 0.44 deg C/100 years, with +/-0.45 deg C oscillation about every 30 years)
[Mean Global Temperature Anomaly Plot from Data from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/compress:12/plot/gistemp/trend…)
(Linear warming of 0.56 deg C/100 years, with +/-0.36 deg C oscillation about every 30 years)
In both plots, look at the right end of the red anomaly curve for last year, 2008. Look also at the right end of the green linear warming line. In the coming years, will this red curve move towards the green line and cross it, or will it do a 180-degree somersault and move away from the green line to its maximum value before, and then beyond that maximum value?
The theory of CO2 driven global warming will fall apart without this 180-degree somersault. We will watch, with intense interest, whether or not this somersault happens in the coming years. Unless that happens, the science is not settled.
Based on historical patters, the anomaly pattern after 1998 matches that after 1880. If this pattern is repeated, we will have 20 more years of global cooling to anomaly temperature values similar to the 1970s, wiping out all the increase in temperature during the three last decades of the previous century.
Note also that long before the automobile and air conditioning, from 1860 to 1890, for 30 years, the [globe was warming]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1890/plot/had…) at the rate of 0.41 deg C/100 years.
In 1998, near the end of the last century, the oscillation component of the anomaly happened to be at its maximum; as a result, the increase in mean global temperature in the last century, from the Hadley Center data, was about 0.44 + 0.45 = 0.9 deg C. If the oscillation component of the anomaly were at its minimum (like 1911 or 1976) , there would not have been any significant change in mean global temperature (0.44-0.45 = -0.01 deg C) in the last century.
Science is about the data. Science is not about consensus or authority.
From the data so far, from the science, CO2 driven global warming appears to be baseless.
Wrong Girma,
Try [here again!](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)
Girma, you are simply wrong all the time.
[here is](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/compress:12/plot/gistemp/to:19…), how your "analysis" would have looked in 1970.
I donât argue about the linear warming of 0.44 deg C/100 years.
At WoodForTrees.org you can remove the linear trend by using a DETREND = 0.706
Here is the plot with the linear trend removed that shows the [oscillating component of the anomaly]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/…) with variation of +/- 0.45.
Cooling from 1878 to 1911, for 33 years
Cooling from 1944 to 1976, for 32 years
Cooling from 1998 to ? (2030, for 33 or 32 years)
Sod @2164
Excellent point Sod. I did think about that.
However the value for 1998 is crucial because it is the end of a maximum.
You need a complete cycle of minimum cooling and maximum warming to predict the next cycle. As a result 1998 must be included for future prediction.
This [plot]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/…) shows why 1878 and 1998 are important for future anomaly predictions.
[Plot of the anomaly for GISS temperature data with the linear trend removed.]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/compress:12/detrend:0.733/offs…)
The greenhouse theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first, and then the atmospheric heat will radiate to the earthâs surface.
[This is not happening]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah…).
Actually, the reverse it true.
>The greenhouse theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first, and then the atmospheric heat will radiate to the earthâs surface.
Girma look at the [TLT and compare to the TMT](http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html), then apologize for getting it wrong again.
Then ask your self why the TLS is cooling? Clue: Its because of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
Mark Byrne
I did compare Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) with ground surface temperature. What is wrong with that?
Mark Byrne @2149
Thanks for the link for the [tree-ring temperature anomaly data](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg20…)
In order to compare the linear warming in the last century to that of a century before, I have used the tree-ring temperature data to [plot]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/paleoclimatology1810to191…) and calculate the linear warming from 1810 to 1910, which is 0.47 deg C/100 years. As this warming occurred before 1910, it was not caused by human emission of CO2.
[Data used for the above plot.]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Paleoclimatology1810to191…)
From data from direct temperature measurement, the [linear warming]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…) from 1850 to 2008 is 0.44 deg C/100 years. As this warming is of similar magnitude as for the previous century, it is not caused by automobiles and air conditioners.
Removing the linear component of the temperature anomaly, we are left with the [oscillation component.]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/…)
This figure shows the anomaly for 1998 is not unusual, because it is of similar magnitude to that recorded in 1878, at a time long before automobiles and air conditioners.
As a result, according to the data, there is no scientific basis for CO2 driven global warming.
> As this warming is of similar magnitude as for the previous century, it is not caused by automobiles and air conditioners.
Repeat after me the fallacious battle cry of the blinkered denialist, and realise how thoroughly it applies to your reasoning:
"Correlation is not causation"
Wrong again Girma, Your fallacious argument relies on claiming no dangerous warming based on variation with three Standard Deviations. [This chart](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) disproves your claim, (though Bernard had disproved you on several counts already).
Time to chuck out that argument.
Girma Orssengo.
Purely from perverse curiosity, what will it take to elicit from you an answer to my questions [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)?
If you want some more debate you can find me at [Girma Orssengo's blog](http://globalcoolingsince1998.blogspot.com/2009/10/mean-global-temperat…)
I really enjoyed standing up to you mob single headedly.
Do you really believe your arrogant display of pigheaded ignorance meant you were taking part in a debate?
"If you want some more debate...
Debate is Dething you catch Defish with. Especially when you are Deep in Denial...
I guess standing up to a mob can happen when you constantly repeat the same thing over and over, while holding your hands over your ears while you sing La-La-La-I-Can't-Hear-You at the top of your lungs. And a retreat with your pants stained yellow is called a "tactical withdrawl."
Hey, at least Girma's denouncing Watt's surface stations project bullshit!
Earth to Girma: ignoring criticism and repeating your argument in CAPS is not debating. I urge you to drop your blog and concentrate on publishing your work instead.
> At WoodForTrees.org you can remove the linear trend by using a DETREND = 0.706
And at the GISS site you can see that linear trend is a load of bollocks:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
You earlier complained about the zooming in of data that makes a temperature graph "scary" yet you do even more zooming in your mockery of analysis.
The trend isn't linear.
Look at that graph. Here it is again:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Look like a linear trend?
[Post #70](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow…)
WHY????
Because you won't (can't ?) answer Bernard's questions, you MORON.
... won't you answer the questions here and here?
THE GLOBAL WARMING INDUSTRY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DATA
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Let us start by plotting the [mean global temperature anomaly]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…) for the data from the Hadley centre.
This graph shows a linear warming trend of
Mean Anomaly in deg C = 0.0044(Year-1850)-0.52
Superimposed on this linear warming, there is an oscillating component of the anomaly.
Now the question that must be answered is that after significant increase in human emission of CO2, does the data show a shift in mean global temperatures in the last century?
In order to answer this question, I want to address the following three questions:
1. Is the linear warming in the last century of 0.44 deg C/100 years did not occur two centuries ago?
As there where no direct temperature measurements before 1850, I used [tree-ring temperature data]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/Paleoclimatology1810to191…) to plot and calculate the [linear warming from 1810 to 1910](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/paleoclimatology1810to191…):
Mean Anomaly in deg C = 0.0047(Year-1810)-0.63
This linear warming of 0.47 deg C/100 years two centuries ago is of similar magnitude to that of the last century. As a result, the linear warming of the last century was not caused by human emission of CO2.
2. Is the oscillation component of the anomaly at the end of the last century, after the introduction of internal combustion engines and air conditioners, unusual?
As we have shown that the linear warming in the last century was not caused by CO2 emission, we now look at the oscillating component of mean global temperature to see the occurrence of any shift in temperature as a result of increased CO2 emission.
To study the oscillation component of the anomaly, we can remove the linear warming component from the anomaly plot using the online software at [WoodForTrees.org]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/…) by using a value of DETREND=0.706
The above plot shows the magnitude of the oscillating component for 1998 is not unusual, because it is of similar magnitude to that recorded for 1878, at a time long before internal combustion engines.
In order to establish upper and lower limits for the oscillation component, I established that they are [normally distributed]( http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/NormalProbabilityPlot.gif), with a standard deviation of 0.15 deg C, giving a 3 Sigma limit of +/- 0.45 deg C.
From the above plot, for 1998, near the end of the last century, the oscillation component of the anomaly happened to be at its maximum; as a result, the increase in mean global temperature in the last century, from the Hadley Center data, was about 0.44 + 0.45 = 0.9 deg C. If the oscillation component of the anomaly were at its minimum (like 1911 or 1976), there would not have been any significant change in mean global temperature (0.44-0.45 = -0.01 deg C) in the last century.
The above plot also shows:
[Global cooling from 1878 to 1911, for 33 years.](http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A04EED7113AE633A2575…)
[Global cooling from 1944 to 1976, for 32 years.](http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf)
3. What is the trend in the mean global temperature anomaly at the moment?
In the [the mean global temperature anomaly plot]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…), look at the right end of the red anomaly curve for last year, 2008. Look also at the right end of the green linear warming trend line. In the coming years, will this red anomaly curve move towards the green line and cross it, or will it do a 180-degree somersault and move away from the green line to its previous maximum value, and then move to values greater than the previous maximum?
The theory of CO2 driven global warming will fall apart without this 180-degree somersault. We will watch, with intense interest, whether or not this somersault happens in the coming years. Unless that happens, CO2 driven global warming is not supported by the data.
Based on historical patters, the anomaly pattern after 1998 matches that after 1878, with global cooling for 33 years. If this pattern is repeated, we will have 20 more years of global cooling to anomaly temperature values similar to the 1970s, wiping out all the increase in temperature during the three last decades of the previous century.
Science is about the data. Science is not about consensus or authority.
From the data so far, from the science, the theory that increase in CO2 is causing global warming has no foundation.
> WHY????
I can't speak for Tim, but I'm happy to see you be given a platform to keep espousing your views as long as it is contained here, for the following reasons:
Because your noise to signal ratio is appalling.
Because you managed to take a thread about a talk at a science festival and string it out longer than Moby Dick with irrational nonsense, gibberish, scientific howlers, sheer breathtakingly arrogant and offensive claims, and bizarre non-sequitors.
Because you think debating comes down to who can copy and past Ayn Rand quotes the fastest.
Because you cannot stay on topic for more than a few posts at a time.
Because you refuse to answer direct questions with straightforward answers.
Because you ignore responses you do not like, choosing instead to repeat your arguments verbatim as if they were impervious to criticism.
I personally think you are destructive to rational discourse in any other thread. I don't know what else you tried to post elsewhere (beyond "why oh why am I being censored"), but I imagine the content you posted was much the same as you've posted here. By all means, keep responding here - this is now by common assent your very own thread, and those of us that are gluttons for punishment will keep responding in detail wherever possible.
I just wish you'd answer Bernard's questions.
@Girma
Thanks once again for proving everyone's point here.
Every single thing in your above post has been shown to be wrong in this very thread, and is filled with logical chasms that would make a schoolchild blush. You choose to ignore this and repost it yet again, using a heading with fallacious loaded language.
What is the point in giving you free reign to repost it elsewhere on this site?
> Because your noise to signal ratio is appalling.
Since there's no actual *signal* there, the ratio is worse than appalling.
There's no linear trend, Grima.
Go and check again if another trend works.
Lowess filter is generally considered a good way for *statisticians* to observe trends in noisy data.
Truly, we are in the presence of [a master intellect](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
Orssengo, why are you pissing around here, when you could instead be enlightening the benighted 'experts' at, say, Real Climate? As you have now apparently learned how to turn dendrochronology to your arcane analyses, you might consider the current [McIntyre thread](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/) as a suitable platform from which you launch your devastating demolition of the AGW fraud.
I am sure that Gavin would not censor your efforts...
Go on - be brave!
Forget Realclimate - I say head straight to Climateaudit.
It's always fun watching deniers either try and either accommodate utter rubbish or be forced to disprove it themselves.
Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents
[New Your Times, May 15 1932]( http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1930.pdf)
During the warming from 1911 to 1944
> New Your Times, May 15 1932
> During the warming from 1911 to 1944
And what's the next bit Girma? The one you omitted? The part that says that this is inevitable over the next 30-40,000 years?
> We still speak of âThe Ice Ageâ as if it belonged to the remote geological past.
Were you alive during the last one, Grima?
> Geologists have reached the conclusion that there were several Ice ages.
Well another blinding flash of the obvious. NOTE: Scisntists also believe the sky to have a blueish cast...
> What is more, the last Ice Age, known as the Quaternary, is only about half over, despite our blistering Summers.
And ice ages take how long to change? 50-100 years? No. People die of old age all the time. But someone dying at age 20 is not considered old age just because he would die of old age anyway.
> From the data so far, from the science, the theory that increase in CO2 is causing global warming has no foundation.
> Posted by: Girma
But all that crap earlier wasn't the data, was it.
Here's the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Look how that the data goes up and down, but more up than down. This is known in educated countries as _a *trend*_.
How many times have you said "there's a cooling period" when the cooling is only after you take off an increasing value off the temperature? If you're taking off increasing values, you aren't talking about the data any more.
And look again at that graph.
75% of that increase can be explained by the changes in the log value of CO2 concentrations.
And you insist that CO2 can't explain the warming???
> Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents
Its hard to say quite what the point of your little extract was there Girma. You just deposited there without any explanation, like a dog turd in the middle of the room.
I can only guess, but based on your past behaviour I suspect you are trying to make scientists look like over-anxious hysterics predicting doom and gloom for no reason after a couple of hot years. Stop me if I'm getting warm (hah).
Of course this backfires for several reasons:
a) Your source is a *newspaper article* nearly 80 years old.
b) The newspaper article itself is hardly hysterical, predicting as it does a melting of the ice caps in a few tens of thousands of years.
c) Your own (utterly wrong, but lets let it stand for now) assessment is of a warming trend of less than 0.5 degrees per century. Warming like that would melt the ice caps in just a few centuries. You are yourself being orders of magnitude more hysterical than the article you quoted.
Momentum on Climate Pact Is Elusive
...building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.
[ANDREW C. REVKIN](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?_r=2)
That's an issue for politicians, Grima Wormtongue.
You know, those people who denialists INSIST are making this up to scare people into paying taxes.
Funny how they're spiking their own wheel on this.
From Real Climate
Girma, please answer Bernard's questions.
I am going to cross post this so that Girma Orssengo, the resident Deltoid incompetent extraordinaire, has no excuse to claim ignorance of the posting of the questions.
Orssengo, in addition to the long-ago asked, and multitudinously repeated, questions [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), can you answer this one?
If there is a 'background', non-anthropogenic warming as you claim, why do you assume that over the scale of decades or centuries oscillatory superimpositions would continue to operate with constant expression? You see, the hazy suppositions that you put forward as explanations for these claimed oscillations are themselves simply mechanisms for heat redistribution around the globe, and as the overall mean global temperature (= heat content) increases, the manners in which the redistribution mechanisms operate will also be reasonably expected to change.
To expect them to remain stable over increasing temperature ranges shows no understanding of how equilibria in complex systems shift.
So, again: why have you assumed that your so-called "oscillatory components" are impervious to overall changes in the climatic system? How much of an increase in the mean global temperature do you expect might occur such that these "components" continue to express themselves as you perceive that they currently do? In light of the last question, how long do you believe that these "components" have operated in the past, and how long do you imagine that they will continue to operate in the future?
And upon what evidence of physics do you base your claims? Note, playing with values beyond the range of a regression does not constitute the standard definition of 'physics'.
I just had to post a link to this piece at
ginandtacos. As splendidly a splenetic and scathing rejection of Rand as I could wish for. (Thanks to Eli for the link).
"My opinions about Ayn Rand have been stated unambiguously. There is no silver lining to anything Rand, not her infantile âphilosophyâ, sub-Twilight writing skills, or legions of socially retarded acolytes who devote their âlivesâ to annoying the living shit out of the rest of the world and wondering what it would be like to talk to a woman. The great thing is that I donât have to pretend differently. It is perfectly acceptable in the academic world to treat Randâs Objectivism like the intellectually bankrupt farce it is. If I say Catholicism is a big pile of bullshit, I will get fired or at least seriously disciplined. If a student makes some Ron Paul argument about abolishing the Fed I am not allowed to laugh at him. But Ayn Rand? She is taken as seriously as astrology. If a student complained I think the people in the Deanâs office would hit him with pies.
There is a lot of Science talked about. What about History?
The Earth is colder today than 1000 years ago. The Romans grew grapes in England where they won't grow today.
The worst drought identified in Australia was in the 17th century . Greenland is still colder today than when it was colonized by the Norsemen. The Medieval warm period was a prosperous time
The worst Cyclone in Australia was in 1899, Cyclones are not increasing in intensity or frequency.
In the UK 2 years ago a hot dry summer was predicted. Iwas record cold and wet!
There was an ice free nothern passage during the warm period. Hands up those who want another ice age.
Some of our Scientists should be replaced by Historians.
The above are facts . If weather predictions are wrong for a few months ahead do we really believe then 100 years hence
Please tell us how to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% in the Mineral industry -SHUT IT DOWN?
The questions are endless but must be answered
J. de Viana,
What about evidence?
Your assertions don't equate to evidence.
Janet Akerman, you ask (of J. de Viana): "What about evidence?"
You know, you could get off your ample & spreading buttocks and look up, e.g. an economic history of Roman Britain, or whatever. It's all there, in various libraries, in black & white, entirely unrebutted: Scotland exporting wine in the Middle Ages; the violence and extent of the 1960s hurricane seasons off the US coast, etc. -- an endless parade of Flies In The Ointment, all of them making a mockery the 'global warming' dogma that (to quote Dr. Mann, from one of the now infamous leaked CRU e-mails) must be "contained", i.e., "adjusted", i.e., lied about, right there in the models. Like this ...
From the leaked programming file called "briffa_sep98_d.pro":
>yyy=reform(compmxd(*,2,1))
>;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
>;
>; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
>;
>yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
>valadj=
>[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
>2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
>if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then
>message,'Oooops!'
>;
>yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
>;
>
Those "adjustments" show (the negatives near the start) a suppression of the Medieval Warm Period, and (the positives towards the end) a gross, parabolic exaggeration of the climate data from the more recent dcades. In other words, to distort the actual climatic evidence. By intent. By design. To support the warm-mongers' conclusions.
It's called the logical fallacy of begging the question.
It's called fraud.
And, whatever else it is, it isn't "science", climate or otherwise.
So ... "Your assertions don't equate to evidence"??
You write that, as if the internet weren't awash with "a few e-mails" (nice minimizing language there, Associated Press) [which Al Gore deceitfully assures us are "ten years old" -- actually, the most recent dates to Nov. 12, 2009], which are unambiguous, admitted evidence by the CRU, IPCC, et al., that they were simply pulling their "evidence" out of their posterior bodily orifices.
And even then, they had to "hide the decline" ... See, e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/how-the-trick-was-pulled-off/
"Evidence"?
Who's "in denial", now, Janet?
Yawn, if you're going to lie, can't you be a bit more creative? "contain" as in "container", as in the reconstructions didn't go far enough back to include the entire MWP, Mann wanted to push back proxy reconstructions far enough back in time to contain, include, the entire MWP rather than just the latter part of it.
The rest of your post is equally dumb, stupid, pathetic, and dishonest.
So the early 1900s were part of the medieval era? Maybe where you live, which might explain your ignorance ...
@J. de Viana:
Indeed, how about historical data!
1. I wonder then what all those vineyards (almost 400!) are really doing in England and Wales. Growing fake grapes?
2. Worst drough in Australia in the 17th century, you claim. But where's the evidence? It must be indirect evidence, considering Australia wasn't really colonised until the end of the 18th century. I can't find *any* information that backs your claim.
3. Greenland still colder, you say. Your evidence being?
4. The Medieval warm period a prosperous time? Your evidence being? And *where* exactly was it a prosperous time?
5. The worst cyclone in Australia *in terms of casualties* was in 1899. Making the statement more accurate suddenly alters a lot.
6. The prediction said a warmer summer, not a dry summer. And guess what, it may have been record wet, but *not* record cold! It was below the long-term average, that's all
7. You claim there was an ice-free northern passage (which one?) during the warm period (I guess you mean MWP). Your evidence being what, exactly? If you were referring to the Northwest and Northeast passages: those have been navigated even during the LIA. But ice-free they were not...
These are the historical facts.
Post: "I really do apologize to everyone here before hand, but I would prefer not to accept climate models as such empirical evidence. Is there any other corroborating source of real world evidence? I'm open minded and I just want to be convinced, as a layman".
Reply: Why should we do your homework for you?
And what do you think the alternative is, that thousands of climate scientists around the world are just making shit up?
Good on you for apologizing in advance, because the apology is deserved.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 20, 2009 4:57 PM
This is exactly why people are turning against the 'warmers'' theory. When we ask a simple specific question there is no proper answer forthcoming and no links or references provided. We are not helped at all. All that comes through is immense arrogance. "The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance." â Albert Einstein. I think the 'warmers' are showing both ignorance and arrogance combined by their attitude.
Barbara, Deltoid's not a very friendly place for people who are new to the topics being discussed. For better or worse, there's a long tradition of that on the Internet: you were expected to RTFM ("read the f#@*ing manual") BEFORE you asked questions. When someone believes that the only evidence for global warming comes from models, they clearly have not RTFM.
I don't think a harsh attitude toward (ostensibly) innocent questions is necessarily a good thing. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be surprised by it, for exactly the reasons dhogaza explained above.
If you want to learn some of the basics about the debate in an easily accessible form, I'd suggest looking at some of [Peter Sinclair's "Climate Crock" videos](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610) on YouTube.
Also, about that quote: it doesn't particularly sound like Einstein. If you can provide a citation, terrific. Otherwise, it seems like you're just parroting something you saw somewhere else, and that doesn't make a good impression when you're trying to convince people that you really have done your homework.
Barbara 2207...
You are dead on about the arrogance on this site. Don't be discouraged by it, as Albert Einstein said..."The important thing is not to stop questioning".
Bruce can look it up himself.
>Also, about that quote: it doesn't particularly sound like Einstein.
Bruce, I concur.
Google finds (as of now) only 48 hits for [_Einstein "The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."_](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+only+thing+more+dangerous+than+ig…), a lot of them on denialist sites like climatechangefraud.com; actualy, adding [_climate_ as a search term](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+only+thing+more+dangerous+than+ig…) returns 38 hits.
Incurious Betula misrepresents Einstein through selective quotation. The whole quote is:
>The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.
Einstein also said this:
>A human being is part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole [of] nature in its beauty.
Luminous Beauty's [second quotation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) from Einstein is especially salient, as it describes well the state of mind/understanding underpinning the limited thinking of the Denialists.
It fascinates (and horrifies) me that almost to a person the Denialists are scientifically illiterate or semi-literate people who believe that they have an understanding that has escaped tens of thousands of appropriately qualified/trained/otherwise experienced professionals. One way in which this Dunning-Kruger phenomenon dominates is their impression that they have an operational understanding, of complex systems and interactions, that is more advanced than that of the real experts.
If such people lived a few centuries, or a millenium or several ago, they'd be the crowd insisting that the earth is flat, that light rays are emitted from the eyes, that life could arise by spontaneous generation, that a unicorn's horn is proof against all poison, and other such scientific nonsense that was empirically disproved at the time, but about which the believers remained blithely ignorant.
Move them forward to the nineteenth century and they'd be the folk who claimed that rain follows the plough...
Whatever the pseudoscience of choice, with respect to the current crop of climate science denialists who cannot accept the physics of 'greenhouse' gas action, or that humans can affect an entire planet, I would add a quote myself to LB's above, this time from Francis Crick:
LB,
The expansion of Einsteins quote only enlarges the point about questioning....also be curious.
For example, I'm curious about how many polar bears have died from global warming....
As for the second quote, thank you for your embracing me, I didn't think you had it in you.
For those who didn't get enough the first time 'round...
18 months later, and [Tamino has had a Wormtongue infection](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/learning-from-bastardis-mistakes/).
Damn, my borderline Asperger's just cottoned on to the fact that we didn't make it to 2222...