Comments on: National Post: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:38:51 +0000

Is there anywhere that the ACTUAL temps vs the ACTUAL CO2 vs the ACTUAL solar activity vs the ACTUAL time line can be viewed without distortion by pre-spun statistical manipulation? I am so tired of warmers and coolers interpreting data within their own agenda. I’d just like to see the data for myself. I recognize this thread is old but I’m hoping someone is still looking at it.

Sign me ‘Looking for reason in a sea of statistical stupidity’

By: Brad Jensen

Brad Jensen — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:38:28 +0000

All this harrumphing over which statistcial method is the proper one for computing the trendline avoids the central question of whether the computerized predictions relied on by the IPCC have accurately predicted the observed temperatures.

They haven’t. At least, that is what I keep reading in the rpess.

Arguing for this or that trend curve presumes that there is an underlying trend to be predicted. But if the actual data is showing natural variation, there may be no single long term trend underlying the data.

If you are going to argue that the one particle in 10 thousand of the atmostphere, which is the CO2 supposedly added by mankind’s activities, is going to control the temperature of the atmosphere to the significant degree that is argued by the manmade climate change enthusiasts, you will need a clear scientific statement of how this happens, and I certainly haven’t heard one.

One particle in ten thousand. That is one penny in a hundred dollars. Have all the other laws relating to gases and thermodynamics been suspended?

Is CO2 magic fairy dust that transforms the climate?

And of course, the estimates of human-contributed CO2 in the atmosphere are not observations, they are guesses. For all we know, the additional CO2 could be coming from the oceans.

If the original hypothesis that we are near the end of an interglacial period is true, it would help us to develop a real method of man-made global warming, and my guess is that it won’t involve CO2.

By: Commentary » Blog Archive » The Climate-Change Reformation

Commentary » Blog Archive » The Climate-Change Reformation — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:00:19 +0000

[...] and American financial viability. The truth, alas, has proved too inconvenient to ignore. Among non-partisan researchers, there is now little doubt that carbon dioxide makes only an insignificant [...]

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:17:51 +0000

“They drew a graph with an obvious trend at the end. I think the message is implicit but clear.”

You have some trouble reading ““No one here“?

Stats are the least of our protections against sophistry posing as scepticism.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics (with flourishes about ‘boundary conditions’).

By: Randall

Randall — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:18:47 +0000

Thanks for you work against false science. I think it might be instructive to plot of summary of the 6th order polynomial fits to the temperature data starting with the first year and add a year at a time. I think how ridiculous it would be to use such curve fits to predict future temperatures. Keep up the good work.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:09:30 +0000

Leif Svalgaard (18:46:48) :
No wonder our host kept a low profile on the ’smoothing/polyfit’ issue :-)

REPLY: I’m criticized for many things, yet I persist. – Anthony
Perhaps I should have loaded my comment up with a few more smileys…
But I know how you feel. I persist too.

By: Fernando

Fernando — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:41:36 +0000

Excuse me Anthony: I do not want to cause trouble.
Just thought: Possibly related posts: (automatically generated), had forgotten

It was illustrative of the discussion:
Like this:
By Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, UAH
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/P48/

SORRY.

REPLY: No worries, I’m just a little testy tonight. – Anthony

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:46:48 +0000

Fernando (17:19:59) :
The beginning
No wonder our host kept a low profile on the ‘smoothing/polyfit’ issue :-)

REPLY: Leif I could post a straight line and people would argue about it. And I didn’t “keep a low profile”, I agreed early on in comments that the trend line was distorted. In some threads I don’t comment at all. The graph went with the Telegraph article. I could have changed it, but then I’d be criticized for that. I’m criticized for comments lost in spam I’m criticized for many things, yet I persist. – Anthony

By: Fernando

Fernando — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:19:59 +0000

The beginning:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/03/all-the-curves-that-are-fit-to-print/#comments

By: Luis Dias

Luis Dias — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:26:39 +0000

I’ve been censored. Curious. I thought that only tamino or RC were the censoring “perverts”. Funny how freedom is only interesting when is flattering.

REPLY: Luis, I assure you you have not been censored, however, I have had a lot of trouble in the last couple of days with many regulars ending up in the spam filter. In addition we’ve had a huge load of spam post attempts. It is highly likely that your post got deleted with spam. We try to catch all posts that have ended up in spam and move them into the mainstream. We aren’t always perfect. When you have to hand moderate the number of posts and spam attempts that come through a site like this, sometimes we’ll lose a few.

Lately the spam filter has been more sensitive than usual, and some regular posters have posts that have ended up in it. To you to anyone that has made a legitimate post and it disappeared, you have my apology. Unfortunately, in this free hosted version of WordPress, I don’t have much control over the spam filter’s actions. Sometimes all it takes is a word or phrase. Often certain embedded links can trigger it.

Luis. you are welcome to resubmit whatever it was you posted. – Anthony

By: Pet Rock

Pet Rock — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:30:19 +0000

Bob Tisdale: “so why the lecture?”

Sorry, it wasn’t meant to be personal at all; it was for general edification.

Gary Gulrud: “No one here advocated the trend be carried forward. No one has defended the presentation. This is a typical ad hoc misdirection by mendacious sophists whose motives are as suspect as those producing the trendline.”

They drew a graph with an obvious trend at the end. I think the message is implicit but clear. Just like a beer ad with lots of girls has an implicit but carefully (mendaciously?) not stated. A viewer needs a bit of advert-literacy to even realize what is going on. This is probably old news to readers here. A little stats-literacy doesn’t hurt, a little protection against mendacious sophists.

By: KlausB

KlausB — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:38:58 +0000

oops,
I forgot to clarify in my 14:32:24,
I am saying – 1.6° Celsius…

By: KlausB

KlausB — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:32:24 +0000

RE:
global average temperature prediction for the next several decades:
based on, and ordered by significance:
(for the next 30 – 3x years)
- PDO
- a negative turning AMO around 2015-2020
- weak Cycle 24 & 25
- movement of Saturn, Jupiter

: cooling
: starting about now, maximal velocity downwards around 2015-2018
: bottom around 2026, minus 1.6° (annual global average, compared to 1995 – 2007 mean)

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:06:49 +0000

Dave (06:13:46) :
Does someone knows where you can make graphs yourself with for example temperature trends between 1979 and 2008?
Here is one place
http://www.remss.com/
there are others.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:45:51 +0000

Yep, that’s the site I was looking for!
Thank’s a lot!

And if I try it, the linear trend over 1979 – 2008 is still rising. From 2004 to 2008, then it starts declining a little bit. And from 2005, temperatures surely dropped