Steve McIntyre writes:
In the context of IPCC SOD FIgure 1.5 (or similar comparison of models and observations), CW13 is slightly warmer than HadCRUT4 but the difference is small relative to the discrepancy between models and observations; the CW13 variation is also outside the Figure 1.5 envelope.
Figure 1. Cowtan and Way 2013 hybrid plotted onto IPCC AR5SOD Figure 1.5
Next, here is a simple plot showing the difference between the CW13 hybrid and HadCRUT 4. Up to the end of 2005, there was a zero trend between the two; the difference has arisen entirely since 2005.
See more here:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting.
Dumb Scientist has completely taken over the thread.
It looks like the warmists want to protect Way’s crackpot paper.
Skeptical Science has been known in the past to attack blog threads with their Spanish Inquisition tag team Rob Honeycutt + Dana Alinsky.
Way is a Skeptical Science secret forum collaborator.
It will be interesting to see whether other Way Crackpot science threads get attacked in an equivalent fashion.
DirkH says:
November 19, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Dumb Scientist has already raided Climate Audit.
Thanks to all who took the time to reply to posts by Dumb Scientist. In the process you provided valuable material for one who IS interested in the real science and real world data, versus Warmist propaganda and conjecture. You are part of the reason this site is so popular around the world and so informative about real climatological science.
Dumb Scientist, you immediately aroused my skepticism about your arguments by showing a lack of understanding about the ENSO. I am reading Bob Tisdale’s book and highly recommend you do the same. You lost me by quoting a single paper about temperature change, and making additional assertions with little supporting data (being polite here).
When you are being effectively shot at by an ever growing number of people, it is usually best to think about changing your position before you bleed to death. LOL
Normally, I do not post here because I am in learning mode and do not feel I will contribute much to the discussions.
DirkH says:
“Dumb Scientist has completely taken over the thread.”
Yes, and I wonder if ‘Dumb Scientist’ is like Jan P, who used to post 24/7 during his taxpayer-paid work day? Neither one of them has a clue about the subject; they just try to take over the thread.
DirkH;
Skeptical Science has been known in the past to attack blog threads with their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, but they usually throw someone at the task who isn’t over their heads in the first sentence or two. Plus I notice that Dumb Scientist’s writing style and knowledge level seem to have evolved, leading me to suspect that s/he’s either getting coaching from someone knowledgeable in his later comments, or someone is writing them for him. Or her. Or it, as the case may be.
I was particularly amused by a later comment in which s/he tried to substitute what s/he meant for what s/he said. ‘Cuz you know, when the fate of the planet is at stake, precision apparently isn’t required.
Ernest Bush;
Normally, I do not post here because I am in learning mode and do not feel I will contribute much to the discussions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Questions asked with a genuine interest in learning always add to the discussion. Although I cannot guarantee that they will be answered, or that they will be answered correctly. I consider it a shame though that people who really want to learn something don’t ask more questions.
Dumb Scientist-
“That’s what I meant by saying “The Sun also emits little long-wave IR compared to the Earth”.”
What you wrote was wrong. Just admit it and move on.
chris y says:
November 19, 2013 at 4:52 pm
What you wrote was wrong. Just admit it and move on.
==============================
Sure, my initial phrasing was sloppy. I’m sorry for the confusion.
Well. Well. Well.
Dumb Scientist decided to try an irritate Steve McIntyre over at climateaudit.
When their circular reasoning repeats, trying to defend the hockey stick no less, It’s (I like that pronoun for them), proves to be unable to thread hijack Steve’s C&W review.
(Way also shows up to further discuss ‘some’ items and ignore others.)
Dumb Scientist says:
“Except for 420 million years of verifiable evidence from the ancient climate, and the fact that the average surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury despite the fact that Mercury is closer to the Sun and…”&blah, blah, etc.
Mr. Dumb,
Do an archive search here, and find out how easily the Venus argument has been deconstructed. Because teaching a newbie some basic facts is more than I care to do right now …unless challenged by said noob.
You can go back 420 million years, or 420,000 years, or 420 years, and the result is still the same: ∆CO2 does not cause ∆temperature. Quite the opposite, in fact: changes in T cause changes in CO2 levels. That is an established scientific fact, and it destroys your conjecture. You could even look it up — or you can bask in your ignorance. But the rest of us know better… ‘Dumb Scientist’.
dbstealey says:
November 19, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Do an archive search here, and find out how easily the Venus argument has been deconstructed.
======================
I just wasted too much time talking about that point here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/public-relations-spin-doctors-deliberately-deceived-public-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/#comment-1467978
Near the end of the thread on November 9, 2013 at 8:11 am, I gave up because accusations of dishonesty are unproductive.
======================
You can go back 420 million years, or 420,000 years, or 420 years, and the result is still the same: ∆CO2 does not cause ∆temperature. Quite the opposite, in fact: changes in T cause changes in CO2 levels.
======================
At 1:55 pm today I explained that both happen, and how to distinguish between them:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/18/cowtan-and-ways-pausebuster-still-flat-compared-to-models/#comment-1479445
https://twitter.com/DumbSci/status/402559356501098496
Dumb,
Those are only assertions. They are not testable, verifiable scientific facts. And assertions are all the alarmist contingent has for an argument — that, and name-calling [denier, denialist, etc.]
So you ‘explained’ your assertions. So what? Witch doctors explain eclipses, too.
Here are a few scientific facts, based on empirical evidence:
On all time scales from years to hundreds of millennia, ∆T causes ∆CO2. Not vice versa.
Furthermore, the biosphere is currently starved of CO2. More CO2 is better. As we see, we are right at the low end of atmospheric CO2.
You are getting thumped in this debate for one simple reason: you are far from being up to speed on the subject. Take a few months off and read up on the subject. Start with the WUWT archives, keyword: CO2. Learn something before you pontificate.
Okay dbstealey, thanks for the advice. Keep it real.
Dumb Scientist,
I accept your climb-down. ☺
Polite disinterest, climb-down. Tomato, tomahto.
Hey where is R.Gates anyway? At least when he got pummeled this bad in a thread he had the good sense to shut up and slink away. Well except that time I got him wager with me on the outcome of a physics experiment and he lost. Gee, he didn’t slink away permanently because of that did he?
Dumb,
A climbdown is a climbdown.
davidmhoffer,
We can only hope.
The signal-to-noise ratio of this “conversation” is now indistinguishable from zero. Have a nice day.
Time to show the temperature trend since 1850 again.
tinyurl.com/kzmzd8y
Well, how about that. Every single warming trend matches the warm PDO and every single cooling trend matches the cool PDO. Now, what are the odds of that happening by accident?
This chart all by itself refutes CO2 as being the primary driver of climate. While CO2 may have a small residual effect, there is certainly nothing to fear.
However, note the last inflection point just happens to align with the sudden desire to invent some brand new warming by Cowtan/Way. It’s almost like they knew “the cause” needed some help.