[Update: I am closing this thread as it is now over 500 comments long. However, because the discussion is still ongoing it will continue on this post. There is also the possibility of Chris S coming back with his own analysis of Richard's data.
This is a quick summary of what we can conclude thus far.
Richard thinks he is a sceptic. I am sorry to say that he is not. A sceptic considers all available material and evaluates evidence objectively. We know Richard does not do this because he has several times cited material that he admits himself he has not read. A sceptic will consider all relevant lines of evidence with equal rigour. Richard does not do this as evidenced by his dismissal of current global warming because of an alledged dearth of long temperature records from tropical weather stations simultaneous with his confident statement that it "seems the temp run up to the MWP was just as rapid as this one is", an unsupported, and unsupportable, statement. A sceptic will not engage in evasion, obfuscation and shifting of claims, they are able to focus and think critically and rationally.
There are a couple of good overviews at various points in the thread, itemizing unanswered issues and illustrating Richard's tactics. You can read them here, here, here and here.
Original post follows]
I spent some time in the comment threads over at ClimateEtc trying to defend the use of the term "denier". I confess that I use it too often and too quickly but I'll be damned if it is not simply the most accurate word sometimes. That was the point I made and it didn't go over too badly. Anyway, that is not my topic here.
One fellow challenged me to give a serious look at the arguments on this page so I did and thought I could expand on my answer to him here. I only watched the first video of two there and this is more or less what I answered over there.
If I may summarize for interested readers who do not want to follow the link and spend the 6 minutes required: the author of the page is using temperature data from a station(s?) in southern ontario to show primarily two things: one is that summer temperatures are not increasing, only winter temperatures are increasing therefore it is not in fact getting warmer it is only getting less cold (there is no argument that the seasonally averaged trend is rising); two is that the slight averaged rise is extremely small compared to the daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations. It is very nicely done, clearly presented graphics that support the argument well. I dislike the outraged tone and unecessary insinuation that this is something being delibrately hidden and that the usual CRU and GISS global trend graphs are a deception.
But despite being well supported, the first argument itself is flawed in at least two fundamental ways. Firstly, the whole thing is an analysis of southern ontario versus the GISS global temperature analysis. This is simply inappropriate, drawing a global conclusion from a single small part of the globe. Secondly, it is not a convincing point that just because it is only "less cold" (also known as warmer, no?) in the winter and not warmer in the summer that therefore it is unfair to say the climate overall is warming. Everyone involved in global temperature analyses defines what they mean when presenting average temperatures, and that is typically defined as globally and seasonally averaged temperatures. It is not unknown, or known but covered up or ignored that seasons may respond differently. I don't know if the page's author is actually correct in this particular summer/winter claim, it certainly seems plausible. But regardless, an average is an average, this is simple statistics, not a trick.
I do know that that aside from seasons, another observational feature is that nightime and daytime anomalies are different, nightime is warming faster. This is actually strong evidence that it is in fact an enhanced GHE we are looking at and evidence that it is not solar forcing. These are interesting details, but they do not in anyway make the average temperature trend deceptive or inconsequential.
The second argument is what's known as an arguement from incredulity. The trend looks so small, 0.8oC over 100 years, when the temperatures flucuate 10's of degrees in a single 24 hr period, more than 100 degrees C 70 degrees C summer to winter in some places. But that does not mean one's incredulous intuition is right! Any scientist involved in the study of ecosystems will tell you how incredibly sensitive some organisms can be to tiny changes in their environment, it is the opposite of inconceivable that the entire biosphere will be similarily vulnerable. But for me the strongest evidence that small flucuations can have tremendous impact comes from the ice core and sediment records of the glacial/interglacial cycles. Here we can see that the difference between the climate the globe has today and one where kilometre thick ice sheets extended well into the continental US is a mere 5oC in the global average temperature! 5 degrees, heck a good Chinook wind could make the temperature go up 4 times that between the time I left for school as a boy in Alberta and the time I got home. But when you are talking about climate, and not weather, 5oC is, apparently, huge.
If jrwakefield comes over here, please everyone try to be nice!
How many data points are you counting then- for example in the station that Chris S. looked.
Summer: 90days. Years: 110. Count of Highest TMax for each year: 110. Total TMax Records 9,900.
Richard, I have read Ollier and Laken (and Delingpole . . .and your other link supposedly proving AGW believers are "inhuman"). I'm going to give *you* what is roughly your *12*th chance to redeem *yourself* before I post what *I* see (again): A bullshitter who cites things he never read that don't even support his position or are an embarrassment to it.
I'll also give you a chance to back track on your inane pronouncement about your Medieval Warm Period cites.
You just scanned titles without reading the abstracts, didn't you?
Come on, now, Richard. Honesty really is the best policy. Just come clean for once.
Wakefield, go ahead, but don't put it on your ridiculous website, submit it to a reputable journal for publication in the scientific literature (then post the reviewers comments since we all need a good laugh now and again).
Why are you so worried about "missing data". Do you use that as an excuse to eliminate stations that don't agree with your ridiculous conclusions?
You are pathetic.
By the way, I plotted yearly Tmax in my plot. I wasted enough time doing that that plotting daily maximums was not warranted. You have claimed that yearly maximums are also decreasing which is also rubbish.
Richard I am even more confused now by what your "highest Tmax" means and what exactly you are analyzing/claiming. Summer is 90 days, but your using 110 Tmax records? Please clarify what you are looking at.
Ian and Blue (Chris):
Why are you guys even bothering? Why reconstruct the data analysis of a guy who can't even answer a direct question about resources he cites that specifically *refute* him?
It would be one thing if RW had his basic shit together, then maybe I'd give a good goddamn about how his station analyses played out. But he's shown himself to be such a quack on the mundane issues that it seems pointless to pursue his argument on the more subtle ones.
By the way, I plotted yearly Tmax in my plot. I wasted enough time doing that that plotting daily maximums was not warranted. You have claimed that yearly maximums are also decreasing which is also rubbish.
That's what I figured you'd say. You are not interested in the truth. So read and weap my friend, you are WRONG. Summer TMax is FLAT for Sachs Harbour. And if you do not know the significance of what missing data does then you, well, I won't be as nasty as you are.
http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/sachs-harbour.html
blueshift, this isn't rocket science. The highest TMax of each year is the highest daily temp reached for that year. In mathematical terms when you aggregate the data for each year this is what the formula is Max(TMax).
For example, using Sachs Harbour to get the TMax range I used this SQL:
SELECT MonthlyTemps.Year, Max(MonthlyTemps.[Extr Max Temp]) AS [MaxOfExtr Max Temp], Avg(MonthlyTemps.[Extr Max Temp]) AS [AvgOfExtr Max Temp], Min(MonthlyTemps.[Extr Max Temp]) AS [MinOfExtr Max Temp]
FROM MonthlyTemps
WHERE (((MonthlyTemps.Month)=6 Or (MonthlyTemps.Month)=7 Or (MonthlyTemps.Month)=8))
GROUP BY MonthlyTemps.Year
ORDER BY MonthlyTemps.Year;
Wakefield, why did you start your data analysis at 1970? Was that the only starting point that would confirm your shoddy pre-determined conclusions?
Try starting at 1960 and you will get a substantial increase in yearly Tmax of 0.043 degrees C per year. I chose 1960 because you claim to need 50 years of data.
So read and weap my friend, you are WRONG.
I wish I could reciprocate the bluster, except you don't read, Richard--not even your own "authorities".
Richard, I'm sorry but that isn't any clearer to me. Are you talking about the highest Tmax per year or the daily Tmax during summer periods? In 506 you refer to summer temps, but 507 you say you are taking only the Max temp for each year.
In 501 you say 9,900 Tmax records, which is apparently all summer days multiplied by the 110 years of recordings. But that means you aren't excluding any data points and there aren't any missing records.
So what precisely do you mean by "highest Tmax".
Skip-I don't know. I can't stop picking at scabs either.
Wakefield, why did you start your data analysis at 1970? Was that the only starting point that would confirm your shoddy pre-determined conclusions?
Try starting at 1960 and you will get a substantial increase in yearly Tmax of 0.043 degrees C per year. I chose 1960 because you claim to need 50 years of data.
Ian you are blind. Look at the first graph of temps. Starts from the start of data.
Do you deny that from 1970 to the end of that record there is no increase in TMax? 40 years of CO2 increasing (doubling in that time frame) and the temps in the Arctic have not gotten hotter.
Wakefield you are lying once again. Your temperature graphs for Sachs Harbour start at 1970. You are lying, I am not blind.
Your figures are meaningless anyway since there is no description of what the various coloured lines mean. What are the lines in your last figure supposed to represent? They are all increasing.
Missing data do not "skew data". Where on earth did you get that piece of nonsense? Every graph you plot in Excel has an infinite number of "missing data" (hourly, minute by minute or even second by second is missing).
You are pathetic.
Richard, I'm sorry but that isn't any clearer to me. Are you talking about the highest Tmax per year or the daily Tmax during summer periods? In 506 you refer to summer temps, but 507 you say you are taking only the Max temp for each year.
In 501 you say 9,900 Tmax records, which is apparently all summer days multiplied by the 110 years of recordings. But that means you aren't excluding any data points and there aren't any missing records.
I can't be any clearer. The highest TMax is the hottest day of the year, which will be in the summer.
Wakefield you are lying once again. Your temperature graphs for Sachs Harbour start at 1970. You are lying, I am not blind.
Blind or stupid. First graphs tarts 1955. Second graph starts 1955, third graph starts 1970, forth graph starts 1955.
Your figures are meaningless anyway since there is no description of what the various coloured lines mean. What are the lines in your last figure supposed to represent? They are all increasing.
You can't read either, obviously. Read the text explains the graphs. What does it say about the last graph. Boy, you really need to be spoon fed. Not capable of figuring this out yourself? Guess not since you screwed up the trend to begin with.
Anyone else have a problem with these graphs?
Anyone else want Richard to answer direct questions?
I can have no faith in either your competence or your honesty, Richard, given your blatant evasions and mindless zombie-citing of things you at times even *admit* you have not read and at other times which *explicitly* refute you. Thus I make no comment on the quality of the your Sachs Harbour data analysis, but I had to laugh again at this ongoing theme in your conclusions:
But the trend is flat until about 1990, and a not as cold trend since. So just like the rest of Canada, Sachs Harbour is showing no increase in summer temps, it's a flat trend . . .
*. . . with winters definitely not getting as cold.*
Everybody including scientists have a word for what this means for average temperatures, Richard. Its called *warming*.
Unbe-fuckin-lievable.
Wakefield, you get an F for graph drawing. What on earth is in your first figure? No indication of what it means, I doubt very much if it is showing temperatures.
Second graph, no number on X axis, I thought that they were the dame as the third figure, hardly surprising that I would think that.
Fourth figure, what on earth are your various coloured lines meant to represent?
Your whole effort at illustrating data is so juvenile, I expect elementary students are better at graphing than you are.
Of course, by not labeling things and changing definitions allows you to move the goal posts at will. That is scientific dishonesty. Please tell me why you chose to start at 1970 and not earlier since you have now shown that you have the data for earlier years. You are pathetic.
Thanks Richard,
Yes that is a clear statement of what you mean by "highest Tmax". It's also clear that you are analyzing 110 data points not 9,900.
Skip,
I admire your efforts to focus the discussion on basic direct questions and answers. If I'm distracting from that, just say so and I'll hush up.
One point though. Your summaries have said that RW claims his results upend AGW because "correlation is not causation". Actually though he has also said that it is because the trends he has found can't continue. See your response in #409.
I don't see how this challenges AGW in any way, but if you update your list of questions I'd say you should focus on why he thinks he does.
Actually though he has also said that it is because the trends he has found can't continue. See your response in #409.
This is true. However, Richard then left that discussion and has never returned to it. His whole angle is that (a) there is an upper limit on how hot the earth's atmosphere can get (which is not disputed), and that eventually current winter not-being-as-cold trends cannot continue indefinitely, because if they did, they would eventually overtake summer temperatures, which cannot happen. (He's extremely proud of himself for deducing this reductio ad absurdum.)
This (somehow) means carbon dioxide isn't making the winters "less cold". (He might have thrown in that "alarmists" have predicted scalding summers; that didn't happen in Ontario, and thus he wins, in his mind.)
Besides being intellectually dishonest and evasive (he'll never answer my questions because he realizes he embarrassed himself beyond all measure), Richard has another more crippling flaw:
He *thinks* he's a fucking genius.
Taking down global warming with his spreadsheet is his chance to relive the glory of getting his cheesy geologic refutation of a creationist published in a 4th tier science journal. The difference this time is that the weight of science is against, not for him. But he cannot process this possibility. So when I ask him a question that exposes his incompetence, ignorance, and dogmatism, he does the only thing a delusional person can: He shuts down and ignores me:
For example, watch this. Its always good for a laugh. (I freely confess that the increasing amusement I take in this reflects poorly on me.)
Hey, Richard, when you refuse to answer my questions in 359 it suggests that you're incapable of facing reality. Why not give it a try?
Now watch: He'll probably respond to the earlier part of this post and ignore the bold and the questions. This is the mind of a dogmatist at work, and its perversely amusing in a watching-a-performing-bear-at-the circus kind of way.
I wonder if rj would accept that his records demonstrate one of the major consequences of the original global warming theory.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-human-fingerprint-in-the-seasons.ht…
Good link, Ad.
Although Richard has been told this excellent point before by one of our other posters above; if he responded I missed it.
What I did not realize--although it makes perfect sense when you read the explanation your link provides--is that the predicted disproportionate affect of warming on winters was an original part of the theory going back to the 19th century.
Yes that is a clear statement of what you mean by "highest Tmax". It's also clear that you are analyzing 110 data points not 9,900.
That's not entirely true. Those other records for each year are used to caclulate the standard deviations and the average of TMax.
Wakefield, you get an F for graph drawing. What on earth is in your first figure? No indication of what it means, I doubt very much if it is showing temperatures.
Ian, just for you I explained more, since your little brain is incapable of figuring it out.
I wonder if rj would accept that his records demonstrate one of the major consequences of the original global warming theory.
Obviously I have to explain this, AGAIN, as I have already many times. How can more CO2 causing "global warming" make summer's highest temps fall? How can it make extreme hot days FEWER? That's the trend.
AGW claims is that there will be more heat waves, not fewer.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10383286/More-Extreme-Heat-Waves--Global-Wa…
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/07/28/global-warming-makes-hea…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-05/summer-heat-w…
as some examples.
I have a real bone to pick with that link of yours. First, he is using the AVERAGES, not the full range of daily temps. Let's see the full range in those graphs.
"If global warming was driven by the sun, we should see summer warming faster than winter."
Not true. He is missing the fact that winds and frontal systems attempt to even out the planet's temperature from the hotter regions to the colder regions. Since there is an upper ceiling on how hot the planet can get, it means that the winters would have to warm more beause the summers cannot get any hotter. Convection and systems circulation moves that summer air into the colder regions (summer in the south means winter in the north).
"greenhouse warming predicts nights should warm faster than days while solar warming is the other way around."
Again, that is an assumption. With no other warm period to compare to this is speculation. Did this also happen during the MWP? We don't know. If it did AGW "prediction" isn't. Besides, the UHIA is also known to keep nighttime temps warmer.
Of course the last point that I have made since the beginning: and this trend is bad how? How is less cold winters bad (cold kills more people than hot days)? How is a longer growing season bad? How is less hot summers bad?
New paper:
White, J.W.C., Alley,R.B., Brigham-Grette, J., Fitzpatrick, J.J., Jennings, A.E., Johnsen, S.J., Miller, G.H., Nerem, R.S. and Polyak, L. 2010. Past rates of climate change in the Arctic. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 1716-1727.
"thus far, human influence does not stand out relative to other, natural causes of climate change."
"strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered,"
"that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change."
Ah, Richard Wakefield cherry picking. I can do that too. From the abstract of the paper you cite:
"Human-forced climate changes appear similar in size and duration to the fastest natural changes of the past, but future changes may have no natural analog."
I.e, in the last 150 years or so (and in reality mostly the last 50 years) we have already caused fluctuations that are of the same rate and size as natural changes in the past. But it will likely become anomalous in the future.
People may also be interested in reading this draft book chapter (essentially a prior version of the article):
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/public-review-draft/sa…
Wakefield offers insults and makes me laugh at his juvenile efforts to try and convince everyone that he is not as stupid, arrogant, biased and wrong as he actually is.
Start answering questions, you are well past "your best before date". And stop moving the goal posts every time you are shown to be wrong.
Why did you cherry pick your start date and not use the complete data set as I did? And don't say it was because of missing data because any missing data would actually lower the summer Tmax if the summer months for that year were missing because the actual Tmax would be missing and a lower one substituted (at least that is what I did; one could also leave it out all together without compromising the data too much). If other months were missing that would not affect the summer Tmax.
Now watch: He'll probably respond to the earlier part of this post and ignore the bold and the questions.
I didn't the first prediction right, but as for ignoring the questions . . . Disco!
Why did you cherry pick your start date and not use the complete data set as I did?
How is starting from 1955, the start of the data set, not using the complete data set?
There are actually two relevant posts at Skeptical Science. One is the recent seasonal fingerprint and the other is the daily fingerprint from Nov 20th.
But it will likely become anomalous in the future.
Pure speculation.
BTW, this is an excellent discussion on the greenhouse effect: http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/#comment-17908
Come on, it's time this liar was made accountable for his dishonesty.
Wakefield lies again:
Go and check his ridiculous "paper" in his ridiculous web site. Look at his figure 3 (it's not labeled, you will have to count) and you will see that the data he uses to calculate the trend in summer Tmax starts in 1970. The data I used starts in 1956 or 1957 (the complete data set).
He tells lie after lie to try and support his discredited thesis that "summers are cooling therefor AGW is a hoax".
Wakefield please answer questions and be more honest. Now is the time to admit your dishonesty and own up to it, that way you will not be forced into more and more dishonesty to try and cover up for your lies.
Go and check his ridiculous "paper" in his ridiculous web site. Look at his figure 3 (it's not labeled, you will have to count) and you will see that the data he uses to calculate the trend in summer Tmax starts in 1970. The data I used starts in 1956 or 1957 (the complete data set).
I know it must be difficult for you to count up to three.
Ian, let me see if I have your logic correct here.
Someone gains 25lbs of weight between 1955 and 1970. But since 1970 their weight has stayed constant. It's not relevant to note that SINCE 1970, 40 years, that person has not gained weight? With your logic, that person is still gaining weight regardless of the fact that the weight gain was only in the first 15 years of the past 65 years.
Is the last 40 years of no weight gain important or not?
BTW, this is an excellent discussion on the greenhouse effect . . . Richard #530
And, what do we find in Richard's *own* link?
That's right! More proof that Richard doesn't know, read, or understand *his own sources*. And its an "excellent discussion" indeed.
Remember this little exchange?
A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638(8), November 1, 2000) - Heinz Hug
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071132/The-Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theo… -- Richard # 221
Hold on. Did Wakefield just reference Miskolczi unironically? . . .
Indeed he did!
. . . even Spencer think's he's full of it. -- Pough #236
And, what do we find in Richard's *own* link?
Quoting Judith Curry:
Andy Lacis summarizes the main concerns with the skeptical arguments [about carbon dioxide as an atmospheric heat forcing agent]:
Actually, the Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Claes Johnson, and *Miskolczi* papers [my emphasis] are a good test to evaluate oneâs understanding of radiative transfer. If you looked through these papers and did not immediately realize that *they were nonsense* [my emphasis], then it is very likely that you are simply not up to speed on radiative transfer . . .
Uh oh!
The notion by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the second law of thermodynamics forbids the operation of a greenhouse effect is nonsense . . . *Miskolczi, on the other hand, acknowledges and includes downwelling backradiation in his calculations, but he then goes and imposes an unphysical constraint to maintain a constant atmospheric optical depth such that if CO2 increases water vapor must decrease, a constraint that is not supported by observations.*[my emphasis]
Richard's muddled and self-contradictory statement from before?
This is what I get from a carefull read [of Spencer v. Miskolczi]. We do not understand what is going on in the climate system. -- Richard #242
Curry's Summary from Richard's *own link*:
While there is much uncertainty about the magnitude of the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 and the magnitude and nature of the various feedback processes . .
*the fundamental underlying physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect (radiative plus convective heat transfer) is well understood.*
And we have a winner, folks! Congratulations, Richard, on retaining your champion's position, and don't forget to join us tomorrow on "You, Too, Can be a Climate Ignoramus"!
Ian you are so convinced that I do nothing but lie, that it is not possible for you to know when I'm telling the truth. Everything I say is a lie.
Wakefield lied to you, Norman. Everything Wakefield says is a lie. Remember that, Norman. *Everything* he says is a lie.
Now I want you to listen to me very carefully, Norman. I'm... lying.
Wakefield stop being so stupid. The longer trend shows temperatures are rising. Therefore shorter time lines do not show what is really happening.
Please try and learn some science, maths, logic and statistics fundamentals before so that you won't keep on showing how ignorant of these subjects you are. If you believe that you are so much smarter than all the honest climate scientists why do you not try and get your rubbish published in a reputable journal? Every time you quote something it is from a thoroughly discredited source. Does that not tell you something about your "knowledge" of climate science?
Where are your answers to all the questions that you have been asked? We all know why you don't answer. Your answers will only show that you are wrong or you are dishonest, probably both.
Wakefield is honest for once:
By the way, who the heck is Norman?
Norman Bates from *Psycho* played by Anthony Perkins.
Come on, Ian. Its Hitchcock and your generation!
Not Norman Bates. I, Mudd. If you haven't seen that Star Trek episode you missed the meaning and joke.
Norman subsequently says:
You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because you always lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human; only humans can explain! Illogical!
Norman is a robot, he blows his transistors trying to figure out the paradox. I can see Ian how, smoke rising out of his ears!
Therefore shorter time lines do not show what is really happening.
So the person who hasn't gained weight since 1970's is still gaining weight? illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human; only humans can explain! Illogical!
Because you think nothing I say is true you are contorting yourself so much that even basic truth and logic is lost on you. You are now the denier. Yep I can see the smoke from here!
Wakefield, more distortions and faulty logic.
Wakefield wants only data from stations that have more than 50 years of data, why? So he can go back as far as possible so that he can show less warming. However, when he gets over 50 years of data from Sachs Harbour he decides that that is too long so he cherry picks a shorter period of time so that he can show no warming. That is dishonest. You cannot pick and choose data to give you the desired answer. Why do you do that when you have been told over and over again that it is dishonest? And you wonder why I call you a liar and a fool.
Let's put Wakefields rubbish to rest once and for all.
Wakefield at post #3:
Note he specifically refers to "summers are cooling".
Well, Chris and I showed that his conclusions were not true for at least two Canadian stations, Sachs Harbour, NWT, and Muenster, Sask. No evidence of "summers cooling" over the past 50 years.
What about his conclusions on the rest of the world? Well I haven't done a global study but I did look at monthly temperature trends for the Northern Hemisphere (1960 to 2009).
Here are the data:
(Month; rate of temperature increase degrees C/year)
January; 0.0210
February; 0.0211
March; 0.0220
April; 0.0203
May; 0.0171
June; 0.0172
July; 0.0172
August; 0.0181
September; 0.0173
October; 0.0183
November; 0.0177
December; 0.0180
Does anyone see any evidence of "summers are cooling" in these data? Summers are warming just a little bit slower than winters are warming and that is not the same at all.
Please can we put this thread to bed now that Wakefield's thesis has been shown to be wrong?
Please note that I used monthly means and not yearly maximums to plot the data. I believe that is a better method anyway than Wakefield's use of yearly maximums but I would think that both would show roughly the same i.e. temperatures are increasing throughout the year not just in the winter.
Does anyone else here agree with Ian's portral of the temperature at Sachs Harbour? Just curious as to how many people think a flat trend in the last 73% of the years means the the trend is increasing because of the first 27% of the years.
Ian, how do you explain that there are fewer hot days in the summer now than there was in the early 1900's? How do you explain that the record breaking hot days are clustered before 1940. Or are you going to deny this is fact?
And when are you going to answer how someone can be considered to still be gaining weight when only the first 15 years shows increase and the last 40 do not?
Why don't you pick up station 4333 data and show me I'm wrong on summer TMax.
Wakefield, I've wasted enough of my time pointing out your rubbish.
This is my last post on this thread. Everyone can see that you are:
a) dishonest
b) completely out to lunch on your interpretation of global temperature data.
I expect a bunch of insults and smearing after this post but it will only show how arrogant and rude you are. I won't be responding.
And when are you going to answer . . .
A question asked of you many times, Richard.
In this case the answer to your question is simply employ all the data when calculating a trend.
What are *your* answers to the questions I've posed about a half dozen times above?
Respect begets respect, Richard.
how many people think a flat trend in the last 73% of the years means the the trend is increasing because of the first 27% of the years.
I do.
Its a simple principle of mathematics--and I comprehend this as a lowly social scientist.
Richard, you don't get to claim
that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station.
if its flat out false, and then switch the argument to what it does from 1970 on when your fraud is exposed.
Right, skip. For the last 40 years of no gaining weight you are claiming over their life they are still gaining wait.
So if someone pays you $10 30 years ago, but nothing for the past 30 years, the trend is you are still getting money.
And this is why you have so easily taken the AGW coolaid. Basic logic means nothing, the Faith is everything. Ian can't take it he's out because he knows he is wrong. Chris is out because he knows he is wrong on the trend. Coby is gone because he can't deal with it. You going too now?
You going too now?
Oh no, no, no, no.
I'm right here.
You can't answer my questions, can you?
Your dipshit link to JC made you look even stupider, didn't it?
Richard, I can do this the rest of our lives and trust me I will.
Your abject self-destruction is something that, all things being equal, I would just assume you avoided. But since you insist on humiliating yourself I will grasp at whatever chance there is that your example will deter others from taking your inane path.
Repeat: You can't answer my questions, can you?
This thread is now closed. Discussion can continue over here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/12/global_and_seasonal_threa…
There is also an update/summary in this post, Richard it is not flattering but it is well deserved.