Taking a break, it has been an exhausting week. Postings resume Monday.
Be sure to vote in the August ARCUS sea ice forecast poll.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Taking a break, it has been an exhausting week. Postings resume Monday.
Be sure to vote in the August ARCUS sea ice forecast poll.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Friends:
Mr Perlwitz begins his diatribe at at August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm by saying;
In case there are any who do not know
1. warming consists of a rise in temperature
and
2. cooling consists of a fall in temperature.
So, if the globe has not risen in temperature then there has not been global warming.
and
(a) if there was rising global temperature prior to 15 years ago
but
(b) global temperature has not risen for the last 15 years
then
(c) global warming stopped 15 years ago.
(a) to (b) is not a “talking point”: it is reality.
Consideration of whether global warming will – or will not – resume is another matter.
Richard
@richardscourtney August 6, 2012 at 11:24 pm:
Either you haven’t understoond what you read, or you deliberately disseminate falsehoods, Mr. Courtney. First you misrepresent what the studies say you used as reference to back up your previous assertions, now you assert that I said something what I didn’t. I don’t know, which one it is.
I did not assert that the global temperature trend over the last 15 years has been statistically significant. Like I did not state that the global temperature trend since the other day has been statistically significant. If you simply haven’t understood what I was saying in my previous comment, I recommend to go back and you try to read it again.
richardscourtney wrote:
According to Mr. Courtney, if the global temperature anomaly is higher today than it was yesterday, there is global warming. If the anomaly is lower tomorrow than today, global warming is off then, then maybe it’s on again the following day, one day off, one day on, maybe a few days on, then off again. What an utter rubbish.
Mr Perlwitz:
I am replying to your posts at August 7, 2012 at 12:38 am and August 7, 2012 at 12:46 am. Clearly, you are compounding obscurantism with more obscurantism. Obviously, you know you are wrong or you would not be adopting such behaviour.
I remind that my first post in this thread was at August 6, 2012 at 3:11 am. I then pointed out that you had used obscurantism to deny the correct statement of Smokey that said;
I said your obscurantism was an assertion that Smokey had used the wrong data set.
And I pointed out that Smokey is right because
(a) there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperature for the last 15 years
and
(b) the recent periods of global warming (viz. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000) show the same rate of rise.
And I said of point (a):
That is true.
You replied with your ridiculous diatribe at August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm which attempts to say there has not been a cessation of global warming and my correct statement that there has is merely a “talking point”.
At August 6, 2012 at 11:24 pm I pointed out:
And I asked you to correct that “oversight”.
You have not corrected your omission but, instead, you have tried to obscure the facts that you know there has been no statistically significant global warming over the last 15 years and that a cessation of global warming cannot be an acceleration of the rate of global warming.
You compound that obscurantism by saying of me:
I acknowledge that you are an expert on “utter rubbish” because you post so much of it on this blog. However, in this case you are mistaken in your claim that I have done the same.
I stated the period of “no statistically significant global warming” is “the last 15 years”. This is correct because whenever an assertion of global warming or global cooling is made then the considered time period needs to be stated. Indeed, if the globe warmed over a time period of a day then that day did exhibit global warming. However, the fact of that global warming says nothing about the significance of that global warming on that day.
In this discussion I stated the time period of no global warming (i.e. the most recent 15 years) and I stated its significance; viz.
You have not posted anything which provides any doubt to that correct statement.
Assuming you are not being disingenuous in your claim of ignorance concerning the fact that “global warming” or “global cooling” depends on the considered time period, I refer you to the statements of Bob Carter on the matter. As an introduction I draw your attention to his presentation on the matter in this video.
I suggest that others may benefit from viewing it, too.
Richard
Jan P Perlwitz;
I just reviewed the Hansen thread. Not a peep from you. Why is that?
Mr. Courtney,
It is obvious to me that there is something you do not understand. I think it can be laid out what you don’t understand. There are two statements, A and B. These statements are as follows:
A) “No statistically significant increase” with a probability of 95%, of the global temperature can be detected in the temperature record of the last 15 years.
B) Global warming has “stopped” or “ceased”.
You do not understand that statement A and statement B are not the same,
or
you do not understand that statement B does not logically follow from statement A.
I do not dispute statement A, like I do not dispute the statements that no statistically significant increase of the global temperature can be detected in the global temperature record with the data starting yesterday, last week, last months, last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago.
I dispute something else.
I dispute your assertion that statement B was true, because statement A was true. To conclude that statement B was true, because statement A was true is logically a non sequitur. It is a non-seqitur, because the statistical analysis of a time series does not allow such a conclusion. When it is tested whether a trend in the data of a time series is statistically significant compared to the background variability, the null-hypothesis is that there is no trend in the data. Then, after the test has been performed the null-hypothesis can be rejected or it can’t, depending on what the results are, with an error probability as significance threshold, 1%, 5%, 10%, or whatever, as long it is a meaningful number. Thus, if the null-hypothesis is being successfully rejected, it can be said that there is a trend in the data set with an error probability of x%, or a probability of significance of y=100-x%. However, the failure to reject the null-hypothesis does not allow the alternative conclusion a) that there was no trend in the data set, coming as a factual statement. It only allows the statement b) that a trend can’t be detected with statistical significance at the chosen significance threshold with the given data set. Do you understand the difference between statement a) and statement b)? Statement b) means that we can’t draw a scientifically valid conclusion from the statistical analysis about the presence or absence of a trend in the data, when the significance test fails.
Therefore, your assertion, based on a trend analysis of the temperature data of the last 15 years, that there was “no warming trend” in the global temperature data, as a positive factual statement, is without scientific validity. Your assertion that “global warming ceased” 15 years ago or so is without scientific validity. The assertions of Bob Carter in the video clip (the statements of mainstream climate science are based on research published in peer reviewed journals, what you have to offer are video clips on youtube that don’t fulfill any scientific standards. LOL) with respect to that are without scientific validity.
If you still don’t understand my argument I won’t be able to help you any further.
Mr Perlwitz:
You continue to be an obscurantist in your post at August 7, 2012 at 8:51 am. None of what you say and assert refutes the accuracy of what I said in any way, and I am certain that you know that.
However, I am pleased you now admit
Perhaps you will now also admit that there was such a “statistically significant increase” for the previous 15 years?
If you do admit that fact, then you are accepting that the global warming of the previous 15 years ceased for the last 15 years.
Importantly, if you admit that additional fact then you are agreeing my true statement that this cessation cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming.
And your failed attempts at logic become irrelevant.
Richard
Mr. Courtney,
Your new reply does not contain anything to which I haven’t already replied before.
You don’t understand my argument, and you don’t understand the logic of statistical analysis and what conclusions can be drawn from it. I’m not able to help you any further.
[Moderator’s Note: Congratulations on your new blog: you finally have a venue where you can freely label people as “deniers”, denigrate the people who comment here, complain about moderation policy, and misrepresent what goes on here. May you get the traffic you deserve. -REP]
Mr Perlwitz:
I understand your reply to me at August 7, 2012 at 9:41 am to be an admission that you know you are plain wrong.
You have shown you cannot dispute what I wrote at August 7, 2012 at 9:18 am which shows your “argument” is nonsense.
Onlookers will recognise there could not be a more clear demonstration of your inability to refute the facts of the matter than your having refused to answer what I wrote at August 7, 2012 at 9:18 am and, instead, your saying I don’t understand your “argument”.
Richard
@Moderator REP:
Thank you. BTW: I had sent a reply to the comment by davidmhoffer at August 7, 2012 at 8:27 am, just before my last reply to Mr. Courtney. Latter got already posted, former mysteriously vanished, and it doesn’t say anything about awaiting moderation. I’m just asking whether it’s accidentally hanging in the filters somewhere and you are going to free it, before I post it on my blog as one of the comments that got snipped here.
[Reply: As you can see, your comment here is posted. However, when you violate site Policy, which you often do, your comment is snipped or deleted. That is your own doing; read the Policy to see why. And since you are using your blog to publicly attack WUWT, Anthony, and others by posting commentary that would violate site Policy here, you will understand if your free advertising is limited. ~dbs, mod.]
richardscourtney, you wrote:
Oh, I see you need to publicly reassure yourself now that you were right and I was wrong by appealing to unknown “onlookers” who were to confirm your side and assertions. Well, whatever you need to make yourself feel good.
It is the middle of the work day. Mr Perlwitz apparently uses his taxpayer-funded work time to post on blogs. Just like climate charlatans Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt. It seems that none of them have an honest bone in their bodies. Goes with the territory of climate alarmism, I suppose. They are dishonest about science, so they’re dishonest when it comes to their misusing the public purse.
Mr Perlwitz:
Even by your childish standards your post at August 7, 2012 at 10:39 am is poor.
I don’t need to “confirm” anything: you lost the discussion because you were wrong and your arm-waving did not conceal that.
I tried to get you to ‘do the honest thing’ by offering you another chance to overtly admit you were wrong when you had demonstrated that you know you were wrong. You failed to do that but threw a childish insult instead. Sad, so very sad.
Richard
Smokey:
re. your comment at August 7, 2012 at 10:49 am.
I could live with these people posting to blogs in work time if they were conducting a public service by their blogging. But, as can be seen by those who blog at RC and e.g. Perlwitz in this thread, they are merely playing games.
Perhaps it is some consolation that while blogging they are not conducting the shenanigans of ‘the Team’. Indeed, it may be a benefit that they spend their work time blogging if it reduces the time they spend on ‘Team’ activity.
Richard
Smokey wrote:
Smokey is always good for doing some little denunciation, although it was predictable.
No, Smokey, my work time is not funded by taxpayers. My work time comes from me. Instead, my grant money and my salary coming from it is funded by taxpayers. Are you a taxpayer in US? Is my salary also funded from your taxes? And no, I don’t use my work time to post on blogs. Since my work time is per definition the time during which I do something for my work, it can’t be my work time when I post on blogs, since this is not part of my work. I post on blogs during my blog-post time. Your are utterly clueless, aren’t you? Also, you are not entitled to tell me when I must have work time, and when I’m allowed to have blog-post time. Who do you believe you are?
Moderator, you write:
I see that my comment where I asked for the vanished comment is posted here. But where is my comment for which I asked, that I sent in reply to the comment “davidmhoffer at August 7, 2012 at 8:27 am”, where he asked why I hadn’t said anything in the other thread? I don’t see it. I don’t see that it has been snipped either. It just has vanished after sending. Perhaps, it has vanished for some unknown reason, thus I’m going to post it again. If you don’t want to post it due to “violation of side policy” I kindly ask you to say so.
(Reply: You have the right to go on the internet and complain. –mod)
[SNIP: OK, this is getting too personal and whole sale denigration of this blog and its commenters is out of bounds. I would also ask all commenters to refrain from baiting Dr. Perlwitz and to engage him substantively. Please. -REP]
Perlwitz says:
“…my work time is not funded by taxpayers.”
But earlier today Perlwitz said:
“My salary comes from government money.”
Question: was Perlwitz lying before, or is he lying now?
I know an Elmer Gantry-type double-talking charlatan when I see one.
Smokey wrote:
Is Smokey forging quotes now to assert a contradiction where there is none and to display me as a liar? But wouldn’t this be too obvious for everyone who checks what I actually said in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/ ?
Here, I said:
No, Smokey, my work time is not funded by taxpayers. My work time comes from me. Instead, my grant money and my salary coming from it is funded by taxpayers….
There isn’t any contradiction in this statement to what I said earlier.
I never forge quotes. Perlwitz wrote, verbatim:
“My salary comes from government money.”
No surprise there.
Since Perlwitz clearly spends lots of time posting on blogs, both his own and others, that doesn’t seem to leave much time to do actual, like, work.
But a lot of these gravy train riders just cut ‘n’ paste from the circular argument file, rewrite, and TA-DA!, another pal-reviewed piece of nonsense appears that is contradicted by the real world. What a racket, eh?
Unfortunately, we unwilling taxpayers are paying for that science fiction.
REP
Agree with your comments. We have too few people of substance putting forward the other side of the climate story to want to drive them away. We can disagree with Dr Perlwitz without being rude to him
tonyb
Jan P Perlwitz;
No, Smokey, my work time is not funded by taxpayers. My work time comes from me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you are not a salaried 9 to 5 employee, then just say so. I think I know what you are trying to say, but the manner in which you are trying to say it seems contrived and circular, so it gets the response it does.
Jan P Perlwitz
There’s a new thread on Hansen you could jump into Jan.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/07/editorial-hansen-is-simply-wrong-and-a-complete-and-abject-failure/
You could jump into that thread and defend him there too. Of course, you might tick off a rather senior someone from NOAA who has the guts to call Hansen out for publishing something that cannot be described as science. I asked you before what words you would use to describe people guilty of certain actions. You asked for proof of those actions. Well, here we have a fine example of those actions playing out before us. Do you have the temerity to challenge Hansen as Dr Hoerling of NOAA does?
“This isn’t a serious science paper,” Dr. Hoerling said. “It’s mainly about perception, as indicated by the paper’s title. Perception is not a science.”