[Rintoul] brought to national attention research by NSW researcher Phil Watson showing that sea levels around Australia over the past 100 years haven't risen as quickly as scientists would have expected them to as a result of global warming.
This isn't true. Watson did not compare the sea level rises with expected sea level rises as a result of global warming. As Kathleen McInnes of the CSIRO told Media Watch:
The study by Phil Watson does not call into question the projections of the IPCC nor CSIRO and so there is no basis for anyone else to make such assertions.
Media Watch pointed out the News Ltd's own Professional Conduct Policy states:
2.1 Individuals or organisations that have been criticised...should be given a fair opportunity to respond.
Rintoul did not talk to the CSIRO. And in his follow up article Le Grand does not either.
Le Grand writes:
Phil Watson was carpeted by his employer, the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, and prevented from giving interviews. ... Watson was not quoted by Media Watch or by the various sites and blogs that paved the ABC's way into the story.
Le Grand has no evidence whatsoever that Watson was reprimanded by his employer. Media Watch quoted Watson's department:
Mr Watson does not agree with the use of his findings to infer future projections of sea level rise nor does Mr Watson agree that his research casts doubts on the future modelling undertaken by CSIRO.
Not surprisingly, Le Grand does not mention this inconvenient statement.
Le Grand continues:
Dr Houston agrees the weakness of The Australian's report was the prominence given to the views of Dr Brady, a palaeontologist rather than climate scientist. "Leave out everything that Howard Brady said, and it is OK," he said.
Yes it would be, and you also have story that would not be on the front page of The Australian, since it was Brady who provided Rintoul with the statements that Watson's paper showed that CSIRO projections were "dead in the water" and there would be only 15cm of sea level rise this century.
Le Grand continues on Brady:
Yet like many articulate amateurs who have risen to prominence in the climate change debate -- fellow palaeontologist Tim Flannery, economist and former diplomat Ross Garnaut, Malcolm Turnbull and most of the federal Labor front bench -- a lack of formal qualifications is no barrier to having a say. Nor is it evidence of a deliberate attempt to misrepresent scientific findings.
I don't think Rintoul deliberately set out to misrepresent Watson's paper. It just that he has no background in reporting on science and has no way of judging scientific expertise. I think he really thought Brady was a climate researcher and had no idea that Brady was retired and had never published in that area. What Brady had was a message that fit in with The Australian's campaign against climate science so Rintoul accepted it. The same apples to Le Grand and the other journalists at The Australian who write about climate science. The Australian's science reporter doesn't get to report on stories like this one because ... well you figure it out.
[Sea levels have] also risen steadily, rather than accelerating in the second half of the 20th century as carbon emissions spiked.
Untrue. Sea level rise accelerated last century.
Wait! There's more! Would you believe Le Grand has another story in the same paper on this issue? He hasn't talked to CSIRO for this one either, but he does at least quote from CSIRO sea level expert Kathleen McInnes letter to Media Watch. Just not the most relevant bits. Le Grand:
The CSIRO agrees with Mr Watson's findings showing a deceleration of sea-level rises in Australasian coastal waters in the second half of the 20th century but argues they have no bearing on IPCC projections of global sea rise this century.
Compare with McInnes:
The data that Mr Watson published show some similar features to
global data analysed by CSIRO scientists, which show a strong rate of
rise in the latter part of the 20th Century. Indeed CSIRO observations
published in 2011 in Surveys in Geophysics show global sea level rise
since 1993 has been between 2.8-3.2 mm/year. The confusion around the
Watson study appears to have arisen from the particular statistical
curve that he fitted to his data. This quadratic curve does not
represent the behaviour of the observations in the latter part of the
record when sea levels have been rising particularly quickly, and in
fact this curve shows a decelerating trend whereas the data itself
show an accelerating trend
Which is kind of the opposite of what Le Grand said. And you can easily see this yourself with this graph from Watson's paper:
Le Grand quotes Charles Finkl:
"I am not in favour of models for many reasons. They get better over time, and we need to use them, but with a grain of salt. We should instead use our brains and hard or real data to make interpretations."
The decelerating trend is in the model. It's not in the real data.
Update The next day *The Australian adds an editorial to the pile:
The climate change debate is too often treated as a zero-sum game where every scientific development or weather event is measured as a loss or gain for the activists or the sceptics.
This approach is best exemplified by the reporting in The Australian.
Climate science is growing faster than our emissions. Thousands of experts around the planet continue to research the geological record for lessons past, monitor current events for evidence, influences or clues, and recalibrate their modelling for greater certainty about their predictions. Classic scientific method continues to rely on initial observations in order to deduce hypotheses, and measurement of data to test experiments or theories. This is how we amass and expand our bank of knowledge -- which is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has constantly revised its predictions. The sea-level observations of NSW researcher Phil Watson, the global average temperature readings of NASA, even the daily records of our own weather stations, must all nourish this process. They each should be accorded their appropriate weight in the scientific and public debates; nothing more and nothing less. But data should never be ignored or censored because it does not fit the models. The models must continually be open for testing against measured reality. If we are keen to understand why public scepticism about some of the climate modelling seems to be on the rise, best not look to the scientists working on accurate measurement and records, but to the activists who often have made implausible exaggerations about climate change impacts. In climate change, as in so many fields, cool heads must prevail.
"Appropriate weight" for Watson's paper, published in a minor journal, apparently being a front page story in The Australian. Something not given to more important scientific papers on climate change because they can't be spun to support The Australian's agenda.
That chart would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that multiple people were actually deceived by it.
It could literally be a textbook example of making sure to choose a sensible model and using caution in using it to extrapolate, especially if it has no physical basis.
Also, just for giggles, someone should extrapolate backwards using that model. It completely explains why the Piazza San Marco is now 45 feet above the level of the lagoon. Oh, wait...
Yet like many articulate amateurs who have risen to prominence in the climate change debate -- fellow palaeontologist Tim Flannery, economist and former diplomat Ross Garnaut, Malcolm Turnbull and most of the federal Labor front bench -- a lack of formal qualifications is no barrier to having a say.
that's just such a load of nonsense that it's difficult to believe it was written in a newspaper. did no one at the australian go to j school? do they not know what "notability" is there? the the listed people can be characterised as "articulate amateurs" "having a say" is just hilarious. i mean imagine that malcolm turnbull's pre-parliamentary career actually was as a climate scientist. the reason his opinions would have "risen to prominance" would still have been because he's a really important and prominent politician you idiots. how his prominance could demonstrate why it is correct to front-page the opinions of some random retired paleontologist i cannot begin to fathom.
Plus Ã§a change, plus c'est la mÃªme chose.
Bother - late to the party again.
Claiming that Flannery,like Brady is putting his own personal spin on the science is insulting to Flannery, Le Grand is a cloth-head.
The comment about Ross Garnaut is worse than nonsense, it is disingenuous. Garnaut knows that he is not expert in the climate science, and consequently takes the very reasonable view that as he is not expert, he should accept the consensus of the experts as presented by the IPCC (the view that Monckton labels "a nazi point of view". What Garnaut does claim expertise on - and is a genuine expert in - is economics, and the subject matter of his report is the economic consequences of global warming, and how best to deal with those consequences in terms of economic policy.
In contrast, Brady was presented not just as an interested amateur, but as an active researcher into climate science, and into sea levels in particular.
Anyone who is really, really concerned about how Murdoch's organs are being used relentlessly abused to obfuscate this vital issue must surely have considered getting his profile up on a good Leupold scope. I mean really ... am I being too extreme, or just voicing what many are thinking?
Brady played The Australian like a violin.They are too embarrassed to admit it,hence this feeble bit of further dissembling.
More importantly,it has been demonstrated again that News Limited do not have the resources to deal with reporting science.
Isn't Chip Le Grand the son of Homer Le Grand, former dean of Arts at Melbourne University?
If so his father was a (very good) lecturer in the history and philosophy of science. In which case it is impossible to believe Le Grand the younger doesn't know enough about how science works not to know that what he is spouting is utter rubbish. Other News Limited journalists might plead ignorance, he can't.
Once again we see that the corporate media, in this case News Limited can and does have a political agenda. What about today's story,"Rio Tinto boss warns the government against tinkering with the Economy", he's talking about the Carbon Tax. These guys have a far right, corporate agenda that they propogate using fear and disinformation.
Oh, the irony... for years The Australian has been dismissing sophisticated climate models (i.e. those based on fundamental scientific principles, quantifying heat and mass fluxes, and empirically validated by comparison with experimental data) as mere propaganda tools. Yet they believe a simple quadratic regression that one could set up in Excel in less than 5 minutes (and doesn't even fit the last 20 years' worth of data) is worthy of a front-page beat-up.
The deceleration of sea level rise is totally in agreement with my paper at http://members.iinet.net.au/~alexandergbiggs .
great Alexander, separate models to cover all contingencies,
Alexander, if the deceleration of SLR is in total agreement with your paper then, time to ditch the paper.
Why doesn't the Oz just change its name to 'Fox News Australia' and drop the pretence that it's involved in journalism?
Alexander, you need to improve your model to account for things like aerosols:
>*The deceleration of sea level rise is totally in agreement with my paper*
Surely you didn't forget a little thing like the acceleration over the last 40 years?
As climate scientists and climate institutions become less and less reticent, and more and more articulate, the only way for inactivists to keep up with their inactivist lies is to keep shouting louder and louder, while throwing some blatant lies into the mix such as this:
Phil Watson was carpeted by his employer, the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, and prevented from giving interviews.
NSW should sue the pants off Le Grand for writing that libelous statement.
It was all going well until paragraph 4 on page 2. At that point you run right off the rails.
You should delete that paragraph and everything following it and try again.
It's ironic (to say the least) that "Rio Tinto boss warns the government against tinkering with the Economy" is simply a sign of 'good' and 'valid' corporate 'involvement' in government; but when, after decades of careful data collection and analysis the world's most experienced and highly trained professional experts warn economies not to tinker with the climate, it's all a global fraud/conspiracy/scientific blunder/all-of-the-above.
Vested interest, much?
I concur with Vince.
As a rocket scientist you should enjoy it. A lot of the CO2 absorption data came from US Air Force weapons research.
Hah, since the good Dr Al Gore has pretty much conceded defeat, well may I claim that we may well have 'won the internet'. :-)
"Anyone who is really, really concerned about how Murdoch's organs are being used relentlessly abused to obfuscate this vital issue must surely have considered getting his profile up on a good Leupold scope. I mean really ... am I being too extreme, or just voicing what many are thinking?"
Contemplating assassinating Rupert Murdoch is most definitely far too extreme, as if you didn't know. I don't think talking about putting a bullet into someone's head is very helpful, unless you *want* to give the "skeptics" ammo. Do you?
Over 80 years the curve shows deceleration. Fact.
If you only look at the past 30 years you might conclude that the graph is accelerating.
But of course if you were to try and base your predictions on 30 years of data from a handful of tidal guages then you would be in your element in the new climate change religion.
Actually since you like to base your estimates on short, cherrypicked segments of data how about you tell us what the planets temperature has been doing over the past, oh say, 14 years....
The end is near ,the FBI has been investigating its following the money , the climate scam is going down , the republicans are preparing an inquiry as to why none of the data adds up .hockey has already let you dweebs in on what's going to happen , abolish the climate science industry,just what's going down in US now , laugh I will as you nuts get put back in your jar !!!!!
Kev, I suggest you educate yourself on how the predictions of SLR are derived before you start knocking strawmen about cherry picking.
Well, that was coherent.
Uh... rising? Like it has been for much longer than 14 years?
"the republicans are preparing an inquiry as to why none of the data adds up"
Simple: they can't add.
Congratulations Kev - you have single-handedly demonstrated the wilful ignorance of those who get their news from The Australian. The CSIRO's sea level projections are based on years of research, dozens of papers and over 100 years' worth of data - not on a single paper (which despite your interpretation, does not contradict the CSIRO anyway - as Phil Watson himself has made clear).
But if you're really keen on debunking the CSIRO and their "religion" of global warming, I'd start with their sea level papers [here](http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_pubs_peer.html). Go ahead - read through it, and explain why it is all wrong. I dare you.
The end is near ,the FBI has been investigating its following the money , the climate scam is going down , the republicans are preparing an inquiry as to why none of the data adds up .hockey has already let you dweebs in on what's going to happen , abolish the climate science industry,just what's going down in US now , laugh I will as you nuts get put back in your jar !!!!!
That's So Raven.
What's so odd about Raven's post there is that every single time a comma is used it's as a word space comma. Not word comma space like ordinary english speakers.
the republicans are preparing an inquiry as to why none of the data adds up
Simple: they can't add.
Robert Murphy wins teh intarnetz.
Also, Raven forgets that we're talking about Australia, not the US. That or he thinks the Tea Party is where all the world's Real Research on Life and the Universe and Everything™ takes place.
A typically predictable response from the loyal servants of the new church - a desparate attempt at deflection.
We are talking about the graph shown above and I am making the point that over 80 years it definitey shows deceleration.
You on the other hand are trying to pretend that it shows acceleration because of the little (cherry picked) dog leg over the past 15 years.
So suddenly 15 years is sufficient when it suits you.
Just demonstrating how inconsistent and dishonest you are, that is all.
Stu N, thanks for that link and graph. What is your point? That you can find (cherrypick) a whole graph to suit your narrative? Well done. Were you hoping that I would just assume that any old graph you presented represented GLOBAL temperature? Bad luck. Try again.
Actually you are on a losing wicket when even the high priests of your church admit that the temperarture has gone nowhere in 15 years despite increased CO2.
"Actually you are on a losing wicket when even the high priests of your church admit that the temperarture has gone nowhere in 15 years despite increased CO2"
LOL. Clearly you have no problem misrepresenting people and putting words in their mouths. Either that or you have a serious problem with comprehension.
Actually I think it's probably the latter - and I don't think it's worth engaging with someone of such demonstrably low intelligence. Good day to you, sir.
Not worth engaging when the FACTS are simply not on your side Stu. Why not have the gumption to admit it?
The temperature of the planet has NOT increased since 1998 and may even have decreased. Your guru Mann has begrudgingly admitted it. Some of the other high priests have hurriedly cobbled together a theory about chinese SO2 and particulate emissions cooling the planet. Yet YOU stand defiant against all of this and insist that the temperature had risen!
By the way... how many tidal guages were used for the graph shown above? hmm?
"the little (cherry picked) dog leg over the past 15 years"
What is 1920 + 80? It is 2000. News flash, Kev - it is not 2000. It is 2011. That "dog leg" as you put it has continued on its merry way for the past 10 years, as confirmed by both tide gauges and satellite altimeter data. If you feel so inclined, you can see a more up to date graph [here](http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index.html).
You're right Stu, but it is morbidly fascinating to see this "Kev" and all the other endless Kevs twisting data to match their understanding of it, as if that fooled anybody except themselves.
It's almost as convincing and yes, funny as [Judith Curry quoting the equally legendary Andrew Bolt.](http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/)
What's so odd about Raven's post there is that every single time a comma is used it's as a word space comma.
What is it about nutcases and punctuation?
And exclamation marks!!!! Don't forget the exclamation marks!!!!
[, laugh I will as you nuts get put back in your jar !!!!!](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/the_australians_war_on_science_…)
It was the Yoda-style syntax being puzzled by I was.
The thing "Kev" is missing (well, one of the things) is that Phil Watson's quadratic curve (also known as a "model") doesn't actually fit the data prior to 1920 or after 2000.
This is why the quadratic curve shows "deceleration" when, in fact, sea level rise is accelerating.
Funny how the "Kev"s of the world like this particular model - usually they are full of reasons why modelling is wrong. In this instance, it *is*.
Just another example of intellect-envy.
Yet YOU stand defiant against all of this and insist that the temperature had risen!
@#21 re #7
Everybody else managed to ignore the incompetent provocateur.
[This graph](http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_obs_vs_proj.html) compares projections with observations since 1990.
Contemplating assassinating Rupert Murdoch is most definitely far too extreme, as if you didn't know. I don't think talking about putting a bullet into someone's head is very helpful, unless you want to give the "skeptics" ammo. Do you?
Oh, I wouldn't do it myself, but I'd buy a beer for the bloke who did. People like Murdoch are enabling, indirectly, an exacerbation of climate change, in which millions and potentially billions could eventually die. I think it is not too extreme to regard the enablers of this sort of genocide as mass murderers, and worthy of the attention of assassins working for the public good. I guess many people would have regarded any discussion of the assassination of Hitler in the 1930s as "extreme" and, as one person says above, "incompetent". The stakes are very high here, in fact, short of nuclear war, they couldn't be higher. Eventually there are going to be people, angry people with cojones, who are going to take action, and I for one shall applaud them, long and hard.
Ark, I was confining my discussion to the graph that has been posted above. It is clear from this graph that the rate has been DECELERATING. Whereas you try and pretend the opposite. If you want to discuss the trend since 1980 then show some data. Otherwise try and stick to the point at hand rather than continually deflect off to topics.
Vince tells us that the curve does not fit the data prior to 1920. I am sure you are correct... but then noone ever claimed it attempted to. So why do you feel the need to misrepresent what people say? Is it because you cannot refute what they do actually say? Hmmm?
Chris Oneill, how exactly am I a hypocrite?
I do not produce the data I just look at it. They are not MY measurements that indicate that the world has not warmed since 1998.
So you present me with your little green line and ... what?
Can you tell me, and everyone else, exactly what that green line represents?
Is that line supposed to represent what has happened to the climate since 1998 or does it represent something else perhaps?
Please explain. Be careful to get it right.
Kev is an expert in science but doesn't know what "the little green line" represents.
>The temperature of the planet has NOT increased since 1998 and may even have decreased.
He's a sharp one.
Kev, sealevels are rising [faster than projected](http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_obs_vs_proj.html), time you looked at the data instead of pretending you understand how CSIRO derive their projections.
>*They are not MY measurements that indicate that the world has not warmed since 1998.*
They are not anyone's measurements, they don't exist. The global mean temp continues [its 40 year warming trend](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:240/…) the period since aerosols have been curbed comparativly more than CO2.
"then show some data"
Umm... there is data in the link I posted. It is a big shiny graph which you will see if you actually click on the link and scroll down slightly. It shows the sea level rise starting from 1880 (40 years before Watson's graph starts) and extending to 2010 (10 years after Watson's graph finishes). Given that the point at hand is sea level rises over the past century, I fail to see how this is "deflecting off to topics".
NOAA have a great set of graphs at [Global Climate Dashboard](http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch) to illustrate the multiple lines of evidence for AGW. Each graph can be clicked through for more detail.
Wasted on Kev though. In the battle between fact and idealogy, Kev's mind has conceded defeat.
>*We are talking about the graph shown above and I am making the point that over 80 years it definitey shows deceleration. You on the other hand are trying to pretend that it shows acceleration because of the little (cherry picked) dog leg over the past 15 years.*
Firsly the upturn in warming started much longer than 15 years ago.
Secondly Kev seems to be ignoring the fact that global warming can turn a decelerating trend into [an accelerating trend](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/plot/hadsst2gl/mean:240/plot…).
Kev, you might also find [this enlightening](http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/climatechange/theclimate/seaLevels.h…).
Kev, let me spell it out for you:
The fact that Phil Watson's model does not fit the data prior to 1920, and does not fit the data after 2000, indicates it is not an accurate model.
Therefore, your interpretation of a "decelerating sea level rise" from Watson's model, which is contradicted by the *real-world* observations (the data), is wrong. Just wrong. No ifs or buts. Wrong.
Furthermore, Kev, here is a comparison of the CSIRO/IPCCs models to the real-world data:
As you can sea, the IPCC/CSIRO models are also wrong: sea level rises have accelerated more rapidly than anticipated by the experts in this area.
What's up Kev? Rupe's got your tongue?
Worth reading the caption to that particular chart -
Recent observations show the observed sea levels from tide gauges (blue) and satellites (red) are tracking near the upper bound (black line) of the IPCC 2001 projections (grey shading and black lines) since the start of the projections in 1990 (Rahmstorf et al. 2007). This upper limit leads to a global-averaged sea-level rise by 2100 of 88 cm compared to 1990 values. These observations do not necessarily indicate that sea level will continue to track this upper limit - it may diverge above or below this upper limit. However, the ice sheet uncertainties referred to above are essentially one-sided â i.e. they could lead to a significantly larger sea-level rise than current projections but are unlikely to lead to a significantly smaller rise. Note also that greenhouse gas emissions are now tracking just above the highest of the SRES emission scenarios used in calculating these projections [emphasis mine]
Kev; you're wrong. Completely. It's entirely possible for one side of an argument to be entirely wrong. CSIRO says 2+2=4 , the Australian says the answer is 5; and any fan of 'balance' who tries to suggest 4.5 is equally off the mark.
Chris Oneill, how exactly am I a hypocrite? I do not produce the data I just look at it.
You certainly didn't look at this data, even after I pointed it out to you. You not only make a massive cherry-pick by stating at the biggest El Nino in 120 years, you even lie about that cherry-picked data. Kev's credibility: minus infinity.
I have an alternative approach to tide gauge statistics that shows two big movements, in the late 1940s and 1997. This puts the deceleration using a fitted curve into context. It's sampling non-linear movements, not a secular trend.
Can I make a suggestion to stop feeding the troll?
I know what the little green line represents but it seems that Chris doesn't. John? Jakerman?
I notice as usual you are now trying to steer the discussion in all sorts of different directions but before we go on to tackle all of those lets just put this one to bed shall we?
I claimed that the global temp has not increased since 1998. Someone shows me a graph which pretty much confirms this - but wait! - there is a little green line which goes UP.
So my question is this - does that little green line represent the temprture since 1998 or something else?
A simple question. Why so much avoidance?
chris Oneill - please answer. Who are going to believe? YOUR own eyes or a little green line generated by an algorithm in which you have shown a determined lack of curiosity?
I agree that it is not an accurate model - but then there are no accurate models. The curve is nothing more than a curve fit and does not pretend to be anything more. It indicates clearly that over the period in question the rise was DEcelerating. That is all that has been claimed.
What happens in the future is anyone guess and unlike your high priests I do NOT claim to have the power of future prediction.
Now chris oneill again 11:05am. That IS the graph I looked at and the one I have asked you to explain.
Please do so.
Now that you have puffed yourself up perhaps you can explain how your graph shows an increase in global temperature since 1998 when it clearly does NOT.
Yeah that would get you off the hook then wouldn't it MFS?
How about this - how about you take a look at the link that chris oneill posted and explain down means up?
Now see what the little green line says when you ask what the temperature did between 1998 and 2000. It goes up!!
No wonder you guys swallowed the hockey stick hook line and sinker. You prefer the results of computer models from algorithms you know nothing about over the reality staring you in the face. I suggest you all take a weekend off to read Jonathan Swifts Gullivers Travels. Special emphasis on the Island of Laputa.
Hmm. Kev, it seems that Rupe did have your tongue, but he's given you back Sparkling Drongo's by mistake. It would save a lot of time if you asked your boss, the little chip off the old grand block, which points of which data sets you can believe in, and which are despicable lies promulgated by dangerous subversives (like Paul Nurse) or is that actually you, Mr Delingpole?
Well sorry for the delay wombat but some of us need lucnh occasionally. So...do you have anything to contribute? Are you going to show us some useful facts or explain something sciency to us? Or are you just going to do the usual loyal AGW disciple thing and make snarly comments? Let me guess...
Kev seems confused. He states:
"You prefer the results of computer models from algorithms you know nothing about"
And yet, it is Watson's computer model that Kev draws his conclusion from, despite the fact that Watson's model does not fit the real world data.
The CSIRO/IPCC models, which accurately predict accerlating sea level rise actually *underestimate* the current rate of sea level change.
As for the temperature since 1998 - you are choosing an arbitrary start date which is a very bad one to start, because it is an extreme outlier.
Despite this, the trend since 1998 is still up. The trend using any other start year is up in a steeper manner.
And finally, you would have to be a certifiable cretin to assert that a statistically significant trend is calculable based on three years' data. That's why nobody calculates a trend between 1998 and 2000.
Did anyone notice the sceptics complaining that the models were wrong in 1998 and temperatures were way above predictions .
The bottom line is that global warming continues,did you really think it wouldnt
No point responding to someone clueless enough to think that "it hasn't warmed since 1998" is a *useful* observation...
or desperate enough to try and use it to direct away from the topic at hand...
or stupid enough to think that Deltoid readers don't know what a trend line is...
or Curtinesque enough to think that the quadratic fit in the original topic shows something meaningful.
Better trolls please.
Sorry, I left out the little matter of Kev's case of projection:
"unlike your high priests I do NOT claim to have the power of future prediction."
It was The Australian and their fake expert Brady who used Watson's inaccurate model to make predictions of future sea level rises.
The difference between "your high priests", Kev, and the properly qualified experts at BoM, CSIRO, and elsewhere, is that the properly qualified scientists use evidence, while "your high priests" use ideology and lies.
Kev, did you not like the data [I pointed you to](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/the_australians_war_on_science_…)? Nor that which I followed up with later?
Oh well, You can lead a horse to water, but a troll's blinkers go all the way round.
Loth [sums it up](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
Vince I refer to the graph displayed - I did not choose the time frame of that graph.
I DID pick 1998 for the simple reason that since then there has been no warming. I am not claiming any significance to this other than to demonstrate that the temperature is NOT continuing upward unabated despite increase in CO2.
The point was to see whether any of you would concede this obvious point or whether you would deny reality. It seems you choose the latter option.
"Despite this, the trend since 1998 is still up"
No it is NOT. It is quite clearly NOT up. That is why I asked you to explain what the little green line represented. I suspect that you really do not know!
"And finally, you would have to be a certifiable cretin to assert that a statistically significant trend is calculable based on three years' data"
I never made that claim at all. I just suggested that if you look at the three year graph it might be a clue to even the thickest cretin (such as yourself since you have decided to launch ad homs) that the green line does NOT represent just the data on display.
So lotharsson - is it a fact it hasn't warmed since 1998 or not?
I am not asking whether this is USEFUL I am simply asking whether it is a fact or not. Can I get a straight answer on this simple question? Hmm?
So vince you are confident in the predictions of your high priests? How is the hockey stick getting on? It looks to me like it not only missed the mark, it looks like its error bars did not even cover reality. I guess that means that reality is wrong eh?
Yes Jakerman I saw your little graph. What is your point?
Until you can deal with the questions I have already put to chris oneill there is no progress to be had is there?
The 12-month period from December 2009 through November 2010 was the warmest on record globally, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The average land and ocean combined temperature anomaly for the period was .65 Celsius or 1.17 F above the 1951-1980 global mean, beating the previous warmest 12-month period of +.62 Celsius during 2005. Third place is currently held by 2007 with a reading of +.61 Celsius.
then again perhaps NASA is in on the OWG hoax
.seems some have a different definition of warming
"As for the temperature since 1998 - you are choosing an arbitrary start date which is a very bad one to start, because it is an extreme outlier."
That is actually quite funny. In 1999 you were all over the 1998 temperature because it was rock solid evidence for your hockey stick.
Now it is a very inconvenient 'outlier' because it buggers up your narrative! LOL!!
You are now disowning your former golden poster boy!
Since you guys have such faith in 'qualified scientists' (like Gore, Flannery, Pachauri etc) perhaps you can tell us which of them predicted that there was going to be a plateau in temperature after 1998.
It just seems odd that the SO2 and soot was hurriedly dragged into the models a few months back as a desperate 'explanation' for the lack of warming when the same SO2 and soot has been pumping into the atmosphere for as long as we have been buring coal.
geez john byatt don't let Vince catch you using data from an 11 month time period!! ;)
But that data does not seem to agree with the 'wood for trees' graph that chris oneill keeps pointing me at. Are they in disagreement??
Or are you also of the opinion that when the 1998 temperature is higher than the 2010 temperature it still means that the temperature has gone UP?
It is such a simple question, YOU are the people supplying the graphs and you still can't give me a straight answer.
The problem for many sceptics is being fixated on the average temp of a human designed calender year only, starting from 1st Jan through to Dec 31,
Every day, every week, every month is the end of and the start of a new twelve month period, then the upward trend becomes obvious when you look at the data..
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV
you get eleven Kev i get twelve
OK 12 months inclusive. Hurrah.
So can you answer my questions or do you prefer to just stick with the trivial irrelevancies?
How does your data compare with the wood for trees data?
> So can you answer my questions or do you prefer to just stick with the trivial irrelevancies?
Oh, the irony, it burns.
More self-aware trolls, please.
Kev: Do you understand what those squiggly lines - for both the GMSL and GMTT represent? It's not one bloke standing in your backyard and measuring the local temperature really, really obsessively. Which bit of mean Global temperature do you not understand? Perhaps you could get back to us when you pass Year 9 mathematics. You remind me of a patient of mine who wanted to start smoking again, ' cause his bronchogenic adenocarcinoma grew less rapidly after the radiotherapy.
So lotharsson - how are you getting on with answering 68? Has the temperature gone up since 1998 or not? Simle question. A clever chap like you should be able to give a straight answer.
So wombat - why do you find a simple question so hard to answer?
"You remind me of a patient of mine... "
LOL!! Yeah. Like you must be a qualified doctor or something!!! LOL!!!
>*How does your data compare with the wood for trees data?*
First we are looking at HADCRUT3 global mean now Jakerman suddenly decides to discuss GISTEMP land/ocean!
I wonder why there is all this sleight of hand going on. Were you hoping that I would not notice??
How about dealing with one point at a time? I can see you prefer to ramble all over the place with your cherry basket but how about you actually stick to a point long enough to get a resolution? Hmm?
Chris oneill provided the graph, not me. All I am looking for is a straigh answer.
Am I likely to get a straight answer to a simple (but inconvenient) question from a bunch of religious warmists?
I never have yet.
And you wonder why people have lost all respect for scientists?!?!
Look back over this thread for last sixty posts and all you see is snipes, pot shots and evasion of a very simple question. All because you are too arrogant/proud/stupid/stubborn to admit a FACT. The planet has NOT warmed since 1998 and your own data shows it. Even michael mann admits it!!!
Had you admitted it at the outset you might have retained a bit of credibility but of course that is what differentiates scientists (like me, a physicist) from amateur groupies like yourselves.
Well you are only fooling yourselves. Enjoy your circle jerk guys.
Kev: Does your mother know you're online?
>*Has the temperature gone up since 1998 or not?*
[Yep](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/trend/plot/wti/from:1998…). The straight line that best fits the data is one with a positive slope. That is despite the so called "skeptic's" outrageous cherry pick of 1998 being biggest El Nino on record.
But more importantly when considering climate the [30 year trend](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:360/plot/gis…) continues to go up.
NASA Hottest twelve months on record dec 2009 to nov 2010
Kev So has the temperature gone up since 1998 or not ?
take a punt kev
JB: "The 12-month period from December 2009 through November 2010 was the warmest on record globally, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "
Kev: *"geez john byatt don't let Vince catch you using data from an 11 month time period!! ;)*
JB: "DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV. you get eleven Kev i get twelve "
Kev: *"OK 12 months inclusive. Hurrah. So can you answer my questions or do you prefer to just stick with the trivial irrelevancies? **How does your data compare with the wood for trees data**?"*
Jakerman: "How does your data compare with the wood for trees data?"
Kev: *How funny! First we are looking at HADCRUT3 global mean now Jakerman suddenly decides to discuss GISTEMP land/ocean! I wonder why there is all this sleight of hand going on. Were you hoping that I would not notice??*
Kev, keep up my boy. You asked how JB's data (GISS) compared with WFT data. I showed you it compares well. Perhaps you should try asking clearly what you want rather than trying to blame others when your questions are unspecific, vague or unintelligible?
looking at trends
Kev it does not matter which data set you use, the trend is displayed in all five
Ooooh! Kev's a proper scientist - a physicist, no less. Just like Fred Singer and Willie Soon. I see the smoking analogy wasn't lost on you then. I'm sure we'll all cry ourselves to sleep tonight 'cause a real physicist can't (a) understand trends & (b) spell.
" The straight line that best fits the data is one with a positive slope."
That line is a trend line which is based upon decades of data prior to what is being shown on the graph. The data shown on the graph ie. SINCE 1998 will not have a positive slope trend line. I have explained exactly why I chose 1998 - to see whether you could give a straight honest answer. You failed.
(That was why I suggested that someone see what the little line did when graphing 1998 to 2000)
The 30 year trend may indeed go up, it may not. Only the future can answer that one. My simple quesion was what has happened since 1998.
I know that 1998 was unusually warm (which is why I chose it) but I also note that NOONE predicted that there was going to be a plateau afterwards did they? So much for your models.
jakerman - if you look at the two graphs you will see that they do NOT match. The manufactured trend line may well but that is not the question I asked.
In short it kind of confirms to me that you are incapable of keeping a grip on reality. I have no problem with people having their own religion but I really object when I am expected to fund it.
I love these dickheads
No upward trend in temperature
CO2 rising due to temperature trend
By the way, how is the stock market doing over the last couple of days? I guess you guys will tell me that it has gone up!!!
Oh so it is news to you is it that CO2 lags temperature? Better get used to it. It is called reality.
Kev "I know that 1998 was unusually warm (which is why I chose it) but I also note that NOONE predicted that there was going to be a plateau afterwards did they? So much for your models."
as usual kev, you are wrong
erm John, predictions are meant to be made BEFORE the event, not after.
You are hilarious!!!
Actually I am probably being a bit harsh.
If you can't tell the difference between up and down I should not expect you to know the difference between before and after, pre or post, for or hind.
.You can help us all with your great knowledge Kev, what does past (temp/CO2lag) research reveal as the global ppm rise per 1DegC.
BTW Kev, the ASX did close up today. Though I suspect you are another Septic Teabagger, so how's the Koch-sucking working out on your side of the pond? LOL!!! as you semi-literate Right-wing trolls say. Keep prattling - your masters might give you an extra dog biscuit.
No idea john but when my simple question is given a straight answer i might look into it for you.
"Septic Teabagger" , "Koch-sucking "
bye bye wombat.
the hindcast/forecasts were done in 2000, it is now 2011,
you are wasting your time with the insults Kev, try to make your points clear and concise,
Do you now understand that there has been an upward temperature trend in all the data sets since 1998 "
if not why not ?
Kev so you are debating something that you admit not having any idea about,
here is gavin schmidt, NASA he does know about it
[Response: Yes. Having now listened to the podcast(Salby), I thnk he has done a regression of growth rate to temperature (and soil moisture) over the recent period. The sensitivity he then derives is projected back using the 0.8 deg C warming over the 20th C. However, this is ludicrous - the sensitivity in the recent period can't be more than say, 1 ppmv per 0.1 deg C. Projected back you would have say a 10 ppmv (max) change over the 20th C. Paleo-climate constraints demonstrate that CC feedback even on really long time scales is not more than 100 ppmv/6 deg C (i.e. 16 ppmv/deg C), and over shorter time periods (i.e. Frank et al, 2010) it is more like 10 ppmv/deg C. Salby's sensitivity appears to be 10 times too large. Someone might want to have a look at the data and redo the regressions, but the physics is screwy. - gavin
John I have made my points very clear and concise but people choose to avoid answering them.
The fact is that there has not been an upward trend since 1998. There has been an upward trend since some time before not 1998 but not since. That is a simple fact.
Otherwise you may as well try and tell us that there has been an upward trend in the US stockmarket since last night.
Actually I do have an idea john, but as I said I am not going to chase every random point thrown at me until we resolve those still outstanding (I have debated AGW believers before)
I do not have great faith in Gavin Schmidt by the way and am not about to take his word as gospel. I see he seems to be discussing some model results but it is a bit hard to make an intelligent comment on this random non-contextual snippet. I will say though that this bit looks a bit suss -
"Paleo-climate constraints demonstrate that CC feedback even on really long time scales is not more than 100 ppmv/6 deg C (i.e. 16 ppmv/deg C), and over shorter time periods (i.e. Frank et al, 2010) it is more like 10 ppmv/deg C. "
because as I am sure are well aware, the relationship is not linear. (It is logarithmic). So without context there is not much to say.
Would you like to tell me what your point is?
And explain how a prediction can be made 2 years after the event?
and my original quesrtion ? ...
kev @ #93
erm John, predictions are meant to be made BEFORE the event, not after. LOL!!!!! You are hilarious!!!
A perfect merging of Dunning-Kruger and multiple exclamation marks!!!!!!!! Now watch him fail to understand what just happened...
(BTW - how come New Zealand rural TV can manage this sort of profile while ours just routinely plays the 2+2â4.5 game? Now that's the treatment the man ought to get everywhere.)
"The fact is that there has not been an upward trend since 1998."
There is a positive trend.
With large error bars.
Those error bars include the longer term trend and the computer model trends.
kev if the period , twelve months dec09 to nov 2010 was the hottest on record, NASA, how do you manage to find that the trend is not up,
I feel that you may have to resort to claims of hoax to convince yourself otherwise?
now when you say that the relationship is logarithmic, you are confirming that temp follows CO2, think about what you have said.. are you really a physicist?
Kev, you clearly do not possess the necessary scientific understanding to comment on these issues. Gavin Schmidt discusses the amount of net CO2 emissions per degree warming of the oceans and vice versa, the uptake of CO2 per degree cooling. That isn't logarithmic. You are confusing it with the effect of CO2 on temperature.
And you have to cherrypick a year (and not all work) after 2002 to get a non-positive slope in the temperature record.
That's interesting. A different person is now using Kev's nym. Have a look at the style of Kev@100, then compare it with Kev@59 & 62, not to mention 78 & 80. Either it was a long, liquid lucnh (sic), or there was a shift change for the duty "physicist" at the Koch Institute for Advanced Climate Trolling. Kev's latter incarnations bears a remarkable similarity to the late, unlamented mikey-boy, complete with sneering reference to Gavin Schmidt and a tone of smug superiority. And he's fallen for the same trap that bill set for GSW. Snark.
Kev "Would you like to tell me what your point is? And explain how a prediction can be made 2 years after the event? and my original quesrtion ? "
this question indicates that you are only asking why did the trend not go up period 1998/2000 , we thought that you meant till now or 2010 at least. you know, decade trends.
bill I said that noone predicted the post 1998 plateau despite the 'awesome' modelling ability.
So then I find out that it WAS predicted! Only the prediction seems to have been made a long time after the event. So that is why I am a bit unimpressed. Would you like me to predict last weeks lotto numbers?
You seem to be a bit late to the discussion so I suggest you go back to the start.
" if the period , twelve months dec09 to nov 2010 was the hottest on record"
If it was ... but it was not. Don't take my word for it! Look at the graph that chris (or someone) provided.
"now when you say that the relationship is logarithmic, you are confirming that temp follows CO2"
Now this is the stage where I wonder to myself whether I am about to answer a legitimate question from someone who really does not know the answer or am I just having to go through the motions of giving an answer you already know but are hoping that I do not.
This first time I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Later I will not.
In the laboratory it is well understood that CO2 has a greenhouse effect and it has been shown that as the level in some sample 'atmosphere' increases the temperature of the sample increases logarithmically. So far so good. This effect happens as well in the planets atmosphere. As CO2 increases there is an inevitable warming and this component of warming will also be logarithmic.
the planet is not just an ideal glass bubble of gas. The temperature of the planet is determined by one or two other factors (actually there are at least fifty that I could come up with right now).
One of the effects of a warming planet is a release of CO2 from the oceans. (A well known effect of warm water not dissolving gas so well). So as the planet warms CO2 is released from the oceans. In this case of course CO2 lags temperature increase. There is also a much more solid connection between ocean temperature and CO2 content than there is between atmospheric CO2 content and atmospheric temperature.
But of course there was no need for the above discussion was there? Because, as you are well aware, the historic record shows clearly that CO2 lags temperature whatever the reason.
So I have to wonder what your motivation is to state something like this - ""now when you say that the relationship is logarithmic, you are confirming that temp follows CO2"
I can only assume that you know it to be false and yet you try and convince others that it is true.
What is your motivation for that?
"you clearly do not possess the necessary scientific understanding to comment on these issues"
I was waiting for that one! The high priest has decided that none shall dare question his pronouncements.
Sorry marco but science is open to anyone to debate.
As I said from my previous post it is a bit much to expect me to comment on a non-contextual snippet of someone commenting on what appears to be a third persons article so I am really sorry that I could not suddenly give you the answer you wanted. What is your point? Was it a test to see whether I had memorised every paper written about climate in the past 50 years or something? OK I admit that I have NOT.
By the way, one does not have to have a PhD in 'climate science' to be able to compare the predictios of Schmidt et al with reality.
"And you have to cherrypick a year (and not all work) after 2002 to get a non-positive slope in the temperature record."
Thank you! You have unwittigly agreed with my point. If you read back you will see WHY I deliberately cherry picked 1998. I never denied that it was cherry picked and I did so for the reasons I gave above. My point was proven as well. I suggest you read it before you comment.
"this question indicates that you are only asking why did the trend not go up period 1998/2000 , we thought that you meant till now or 2010 at least"
Yeah sure you did...
My point was quite clear and I will repeat it.
You have such faith in these models and in 1998 you were no doubt wetting yourself with excitement as the 'hockey stick' prophesy was coming true ... but then it all fell away didn't it!
The temperature stopped rising and the temperature plateaued.
And despite your amazing models and the genius of Scmidt et al NOBODY predicted it! But does that diminish your faith in the models? No way!!
First we had denial that the warming had stopped. (actully we still have that)
Then we had a hastily cobbled together 'explanation'. A desperate fix to the theory.
SO2 and soot to the rescue!!
Oh yeah and el nino ... and anything else we can throw into the hole to plug the gap.
OK done! It is all explained away now and John has the hindcasts to prove it!!
Well done john. Very convincing.
Try a prediction for the future next time and it might be a bit more convincing if it happens. In the meantime I can hind cast all of last years lotto numbers if you let me train my algorith on them...
> You have such faith in these models and in 1998
Kev, you were putting faith in a model that used a quadratic to fit the data.
You were also the one putting faith in 1998 as some form of magic mantra.
> as the 'hockey stick' prophesy was coming true
The hockey stick is more than 1998, most of it is in the past.
> The temperature stopped rising and the temperature plateaued.
False. The temperature is rising. Despite a colder sun.
> And despite your amazing models and the genius of Scmidt et al NOBODY predicted it
a) because it hasn't happened
b) because to predict a cooler sun you have to use a model of the sun, not a model of the earth's climate
kev you are very hard to follow.
"Kev "Would you like to tell me what your point is? "explain how a prediction can be made 2 years after the event? and my original quesrtion"
what event was predicted two years later?
now you are confusing projections with actual temp data
the projection, for 1998 the hind-cast done in 2000 was way below the actual temperature, I wish that you at least had some idea what you where talking about
I know what the little green line represents
This guy is even dumber than I thought. Illiterate too. Not much I can do.
> " if the period , twelve months dec09 to nov 2010 was the hottest on record"
> If it was ... but it was not.
Except it was.
> One of the effects of a warming planet is a release of CO2 from the oceans. So as the planet warms CO2 is released from the oceans.
Which takes about 800 years.
So where is the 800-year-old 1C warming over 50 years?
> as you are well aware, the historic record shows clearly that CO2 lags temperature
By 800 years.
> whatever the reason
Streuth! That troll is dumber than a sackful of hammers...and you can quote me on that.
Kev the rise in co2 leads to a temperature rise and that is logarithmic, double co2 for about 1.2DegC on its own.UPDATE
a temperature rise leading to CO2 emissions from the Ocean can only be approximated from past climates, nothing to do with logarithmic
From you comment following gavin's quote
""Paleo-climate constraints demonstrate that CC feedback even on really long time scales is not more than 100 ppmv/6 deg C (i.e. 16 ppmv/deg C), and over shorter time periods (i.e. Frank et al, 2010) it is more like 10 ppmv/deg C. "
"because as I am sure are well aware, the relationship is not linear. (It is logarithmic)."
what you have said in this context is ludicrous as has been explained to you
I am not putting faith in any models and I never claim that a curve fit represents a model. The curve fit simply indicated that the word 'accelerating' was incorrect and 'decelerating' was more accurate. That was all.
"You were also the one putting faith in 1998 as some form of magic mantra."
No. You obviousoly have not bothered to read why I cherry pciked that year. I suggest you do so before you waste any more time.
John what I am saying is very clear and easy to follow. I am saying that a hindcast done post 1998 does not count as a prediction. Predictions have to be done BEFORE the event.
So unless you wish to keep on quibbling I think you will agree that pre 1998 these fantastic models, upon which we want to base our economic destruction, were unable to predict the climate post 1998 or even come close.
What I am saying is that the models are shown to be useless at that time and I have no reason to believe that they have miraculously improved since then. That is my humble point.
So Chris, I see you have refused to answer the question so I will tell you the answer.
The little green line does NOT represent a trend in the data you are looking at it represents a trend including data decades before what is shown on the graph. You are the one who provided the graph so you should at least have been able to answer the really simple question based upon the data in that graph. You failed.
So John, I take it from you latest post that my suspicion was correct and that you do understand the FACT that CO2 lags temperature. So I then have to wonder what your motivation is to try and deliberately mislead. It is not science is it? You are on a blog about the 'attack' on science and yet here you are trying to spread misinformation.
Lets have a look at what you wrote.
"Which takes about 800 years.
So where is the 800-year-old 1C warming over 50 years?"
So you are looking for a nice neat 800 year finger print are you? And you think that this will be nice and distict against a background of climate noise etc?
Let me think - either you really wonder about the answer to this question or, yet again, it is an attempt to troll me. I wonder which it is...hmmm.. I wonder.
By the way, you still have not given me a straight answer to my original simple question. I wonder why not.
>The data shown on the graph ie. SINCE 1998 will not have a positive slope trend line. I have explained exactly why I chose 1998 - to see whether you could give a straight honest answer. You failed. (That was why I suggested that someone see what the little line did when graphing 1998 to 2000)
Strange, my earlier post, which was the first reply to your original question, shows a positive slope trend line - as does the one Jakerman provided.
Yet you said
>That line is a trend line which is based upon decades of data prior to what is being shown on the graph.
Wow. Does being this stupid come naturally to you, or do you have to work at it? Here's the graph Jakerman linked to again:
You'll notice that the linear trend is specified as 'From (time): 1998'. It doesn't get any more transparent than that - the trend line is based only on data from 1998. Truly, I admire your efforts to further sully the reputation of fake sceptics everywhere. Well done.
To clarify the above comment - the trend line is based only on data from 1998 onwards.
Kev, your explanation for cherry picking 1998 was very obvious: it was the only far-out-enough year that gave you a remote chance of having it right (and you had not, the slope is still positive). You tried to link that to Tim's supposed cherry-pick.
There is a big problem with that: as Tamino showed, Watson made some boo-boos in his analysis, resulting in an incorrect claim of deceleration (Houston and Dean did a real cherry pick. Almost any other year and their result would have been different).
"what you have said in this context is ludicrous "
Yes I know John. That is why I said that there was no point me commenting on a non-contextural snippet of someone commenting on someone elses paper.
Was that your great Gotcha moment was it?!
You caught me a beauty there didn't you!? Because I didn't notice that they were talking about oceans (given that there is no mention of what they are talking about in 99) I just noticed something odd about the CO2-temperature relationship.
Gosh I am such a fool for not having memorised the entirety of climate science papers for the last few decades!
Wow. Great work. I am really impressed with the way you guys debate science. You sure have convinced me!
So Stu you still haven't worked it out have you? You should have picked up on the fact that everyone else has gone very quiet about the matter.
Your trend line still goes up when you plot 1998 to 2000 and that is a clear plummet.
That is why I suggested using a bit of common sense occasionally.
Hmm. Kev is ponderous, pompous, evasive, self-obsessed, abusive, semi-literate, and demands answers to it's thread hijacking. Tim, can we have a new troll, please? This one's broken.
Oh, and Kev, if you think Salby's analysis is right, you got a bit of a problem with your "CO2 lags temperature".
Salby's analysis and claim is completely dependent on an almost instantaneous effect of temperature on CO2 emissions. That directly contradicts the lag that has been observed in paleorecords.
> I am not putting faith in any models
Yes you do.
> and I never claim that a curve fit represents a model.
Ah, so THIS is how you can say with a straight face that you don't put faith in any models!
A curve fit IS a model. You're modelling the data as whatever curve you fit to the data.
This is a model.
One you've put all your faith in.
> I am saying that a hindcast done post 1998 does not count as a prediction.
It is if you use the same model but put in the actual external parameters.
You see, the model predicts an average effect for volcanoes etc. Because this isn't a volcano model, it's a model of the climate and it has to figure on a "average" effect.
But when you take the model output, put in, for example, the actual pinatubo explosion, you get what the model would have predicted if vulcanologists had predicted the pinatubo eruption.
Hmmm, coming to the party a tad late but has anyone asked Kev if he understands why 1998 and 2010 are on par as the hottest years on record while the former (1998) was one of the hottest El Nino years and the latter (2010) was one of the coldest La Nina years? Just a thought.
Kev, old feller-me-troll.
You're a great one for asking questions, and I should know, as it's one of my favourite strategies for trying to elicit thought processes in others. Thus far however, you have demonstrated very little by way of actual scientific thought, so perhaps it's time that you answer some questions yourself...
The first is one of my perenial favourites to pose to denialists, such as yourself, who pursue the claims that you do: what is the magnitude of the noise in the mean global temperature signal for the last century or so? Show working.
Following on, what does the answer to the previous question imply for determining the time period required to discern a trend in the signal, from the noise of the signal?
>were unable to predict the climate post 1998 or even come close.
Hogwash. All climate models exhibit noise that closely resembles the noise observed in the real climate system. But climate scientists are not interested in predicting the noise -- they are interested in changes in __climate__, not weather. If you look at the projections in the IPCC reports you will see that they use ensemble runs __to eliminate the noise from the projections__.
Your cherry picking of 1998 on the other hand, is a deliberate attempt to mislead by emphasising the noise in order to obscure the trend.
>the latter (2010) was one of the coldest La Nina years?
David, no it wasn't. 2010 was an El Nino year - but it was not anywhere near as strong as 1998.
I think I'm safe in saying that a La Nina year will NEVER set a record high global temperature.
>The curve fit simply indicated that the word 'accelerating' was incorrect and 'decelerating' was more accurate. That was all.
It's been said already, but I'll repeat it for your benefit Kev, as you are obviously burdened with a comprehension problem...
...the curve fitting was [completely inappropriate](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/bag-of-hammers-ii/). Therefore, any conclusion by Salby (and by his igoraminions) of deceleration versus acceleration is also going to be inappropriate.
I note that this simple truth doesn't slow you in the slightest though - you're galloping ahead under the momentum of your own trollish ideology.
That ain't science.
Should have said 2010 going into 2011. I think I'm safe in saying that we will have a La Nina year that is hotter than 1998's El Nino.
the reason why the trend line still "went up" when you changed the year range is because you didn't change the trend line range to match the new data range. [Try This](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2000/plot/uah/from:19…)
I think most people picked up on how to work the graphing webpage except you...
Whoops Kev@121 should have been
Can you show your evidence that temperatures haven't increased since 1998?
> Your guru Mann has begrudgingly admitted it.
Where has Michael Mann grudingly admitted (I am making the assumption you mean Michael Mann the scientist).
However, I just wanted to go back to the following statement of yours:
>Now see what the little green line says when you ask what the temperature did between 1998 and 2000. It goes up!! No wonder you guys swallowed the hockey stick hook line and sinker.
If you go back to that graph it has this piece of information:
> uah/from: 1998/to:2012/trend
wrt to the green trend line. Weren't you complaining that the green trend line was not marked with when it started yet it is clearly presendted in the above.
In answering this I would really like your evidence about it not heating up since 1998 first.
Just where are you getting the idea that the WFT trend line uses data outside the graph. I looked up the 1998-2000 time period you claim shows an increasing trend line even though the data is clearly decreasing, which you further claims supports your point that it uses data from outside the time period.
As usual, you're wrong. Here it is:
for UAH http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2000/plot/uah/from:19…
for GISS http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2000/plot/gistemp…
for WFT http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2000/plot/wti/from:19…
for HADCRUT: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2000/plot/hadc…
All of these plots show a decreasing trendline on the decreasing data. As everyone (including you) agreed, 3 years is far too short an interval for that trend to be physically meaningful. However, the fact that these trendlines correctly go down (because they are calculated using only the data from the selected time interval), directly contradicts your repeated assertion that they go up.
Do you have a link to a plot which supports your out-of-nowhere assertion that these trendlines are calculated using data from outside the time interval? Do you have access to a spreadsheet program, because contrary to your assertion that regression is something we don't understand, in fact it is quite simple. Any spreadsheet program (there is a free one included in OpenOffice which is quite nice) will allow you to replicate these regressions.
Why is it that the (badly fit) quadratic regression in the original post is gold to you, but the (better fit, even simpler) linear regressions of the temperature data are black magic, too complicated, and based on faulty models? (As if we don't know the answer to that.)
I forgot to include the post number, but see posts 61 and 89 for places where you made this assertion that the WFT trendlines for 1998 to 2000 contradict the data by increasing while the data clearly (near-monotonically, even) decreases.
> Truly, I admire your efforts to further sully the reputation of fake sceptics everywhere.
Stu N wins the intertubes!
And safe to say that the current kev won't grok why this is warranted.
Anyone want to lay bets as to whether kev will [answer any of Bernard's questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/the_australians_war_on_science_…), which would immediately leapfrog him ahead of our previous self-puffing condescending fallacy and irrelevancy spouter friend, VincentR of the "Shorter Clive James" thread? Or should we compare his performance with our other recent visitor who proclaimed "I teach physics" before proceeding to demonstrate his rank ignorance of basic scientific principles?
Oh, and really, kev, you need to get your act together!
See, any fool can and will draw inappropriate conclusions from a mere quadratic fit, but such primitive work tends to indicate the workings of a small mind.
However, as readers who can remember as far back as last year goes, the state of the art in fitting arbitrary polynomials to data was already up to the 5th order way back then - and the R^2 in that case were *much* better than the mere quadratic you tout as worthy to draw conclusions from. Surely someone of your staggering intellect could rise to the challenge and demonstrate that still higher order polynomials produce even higher R^2 and are thus a far better model for determining whether the data support a conclusion of deceleration or not? Seriously, kev, hop to it! Surely as a proud physicist eager to demonstrate your intellectual brilliance you cannot be content to let a mere retired economics professor trump you in the curve-fitting stakes?
**Update** The next day *The Australian adds an editorial to the pile:
>The climate change debate is too often treated as a zero-sum game where every scientific development or weather event is measured as a loss or gain for the activists or the sceptics.
This approach is best exemplified by the reporting in *The Australian*.
>Climate science is growing faster than our emissions. Thousands of experts around the planet continue to research the geological record for lessons past, monitor current events for evidence, influences or clues, and recalibrate their modelling for greater certainty about their predictions. Classic scientific method continues to rely on initial observations in order to deduce hypotheses, and measurement of data to test experiments or theories. This is how we amass and expand our bank of knowledge -- which is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has constantly revised its predictions. The sea-level observations of NSW researcher Phil Watson, the global average temperature readings of NASA, even the daily records of our own weather stations, must all nourish this process. They each should be accorded their appropriate weight in the scientific and public debates; nothing more and nothing less. But data should never be ignored or censored because it does not fit the models. The models must continually be open for testing against measured reality. If we are keen to understand why public scepticism about some of the climate modelling seems to be on the rise, best not look to the scientists working on accurate measurement and records, but to the activists who often have made implausible exaggerations about climate change impacts. In climate change, as in so many fields, cool heads must prevail.
"Appropriate weight" for Watson's paper, published in a minor journal, apparently being a front page story in *The Australian*. Something not given to more important scientific papers on climate change because they can't be spun to support *The Australian*'s agenda.
" when people feel the need to profess they "believe in the science". Science should be the polar opposite of belief. It represents the triumph of facts and reason over blind faith."
So reading,understanding and accepting the science is deemed to be blind faith, even though one's position is based on facts and reason.
" best not look to the scientists working on accurate measurement"
which pretty much sums up the editor's position,
The sea-level observations of NSW researcher Phil Watson
When it suits The Australian's agenda, it's "observations" even when it's a model.
If we are keen to understand why public scepticism about some of the climate modelling seems to be on the rise, best not look to the scientists working on accurate measurement and records
No doubt implying that Watson is one of the scientists working on accurate measurement and records when in actual fact he was working on a model.
Do I detect envy at the Wall Street Journal?
>>[Yep](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/trend/plot/wti/from:1998…).The straight line that best fits the data is one with a positive slope."
>*Absolute lie. That line is a trend line which is based upon decades of data prior to what is being shown on the graph.*
Such strong assertions Kev, yet still so wrong. Afraid its back to school for you Kev. The line used is generated from data [from 1998 onwards](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/wti/from:1998/trend/plot/wti/from:1998…).
Do you think you represent about average in competence for so-called "skeptics"?
Ahh I see StuN and others have already show the bag of hammers his errror. But does he get it? Unfortunately 'Hammers' Kev just [keeps reprsentin'](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/the_australians_war_on_science_…)
jakerman @ 143
Ooh Oooh! Pick me! Pick me! I know that one!
He's got after-school sports practice ;-)
Miranda Devine has resurrected this:
Some new comments there attributed to the author. I'd sure love to know exactly how they'been taken out of context.