On 08/01/16 13:54, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 21:16:23 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/...e-adjustments/

That link pointed me to this: http://tinyurl.com/o74fhnf

The whole AGW hypothesis appears to be built on sand! I find it very
disturbing.

Well that's what the so called 'denier' community have been saying for
at least a decade. Not that the warmig didnt happen - it clearly did.
But that there is less and less evidence its got anything to do with
CO2, and indeed the warming has, practically stopped, and for a
significantly long period.

The `17 years' is iconic because someone asked a climate scientist 'how
long a period of no warming would it take for you to accept AGW is a
flawed theory?' and he is reputed to have said 'oh, about 17 years'.

Its been longer than that, especially if you ignore the doctored
'surface records' and look at the satellite data on the lower
troposphere. which is where GHG warming should show up the most.

Nadda. No warming at all.

However be warned. Christopher Monkcton of Brenchley is a swivel eyed
Ukipper these days as well as being a toff, so perhaps you had better go
back to reading the Guardian before Dave Plowman and his chums send you
to the Gulag for re education.





--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

Chris Hogg wrote:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/...e-adjustments/

That link pointed me to this: http://tinyurl.com/o74fhnf

I notice that the author of this pseudo-scientific article
"has a bachelor's degree from George Mason University in political science",
according to Wikipedia.


--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 09/01/16 11:06, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/...e-adjustments/

That link pointed me to this: http://tinyurl.com/o74fhnf

I notice that the author of this pseudo-scientific article
"has a bachelor's degree from George Mason University in political science",
according to Wikipedia.


Well that is probably slightly more relevant then a woman molesting
railway engineer..

--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

Chris Hogg wrote:

Chris Hogg wrote:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/...e-adjustments/

That link pointed me to this: http://tinyurl.com/o74fhnf

I notice that the author of this pseudo-scientific article
"has a bachelor's degree from George Mason University in political
science", according to Wikipedia.

Whatever the author's credentials (and TNP has already cautioned
against taking too much notice of him), attacking him is an ad hominem
argument, best ignored, and doesn't address the point that is being
made, that raw satellite data hasn't shown any warming over at least
the last eighteen years and has been perfectly flat. I doubt if
Monckton made up the data.

His name is not Monckton, it is Marc Morano.
I suggest anyone interested in his credentials look him up in Wikipedia.

You cited him.
Why do that if you don't think he is reliable?

I note that the first figure in the article claims to represent
"The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite
monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset".
No citation is given, so the implication is that this was computed
by the author of the article.
I doubt if a bachelor degree in political science covers this.



--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...

Two comments. First, as it is widely accepted even by climate change
sceptics that there was a period of warming towards the end of the
last century, then it's hardly surprising that the 10 warmest years in
the last 130 years have all occurred since 2000. Unless the subsequent
temperatures had fallen, which no one is claiming they have AFAIAA,
then it's an obvious consequence and nothing remarkable. It's what
you'd expect.

Second, AIUI most of the graphs presented, including that on the NASA
page you linked to, are not raw data, but data that has been
'adjusted' in some way, to compensate for this or that factor (and I
don't mean just moving-averaged). The argument would seem to be that
raw data, in particular satellite data, doesn't show a continuing
warming in this century, and any warming claimed is a consequence of
the adjustment processes, whose justifications are more theoretical
than practical and therefore debatable.

If there has been no warming since circa 2000, where then is the
dependency of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2, which has been
increasing unabated?

--

Chris

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I have trouble reconciling
parts of two of your statements there.

First - "as it is widely accepted even by climate change
sceptics that there was a period of warming towards the end of
the last century, then it's hardly surprising that the 10
warmest years in the last 130 years have all occurred since
2000"

or more specifically

" it's hardly surprising that the 10 warmest years in the last 130
years have all occurred since 2000"

with

"If there has been no warming since circa 2000"

when the very fact that the ten warmest years in the last 130 have
all occurred since 2000, would seem to indicate, to me at least,
that very thing.


michael adams


....

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

You need to read ALL the articles, to get a balanced view.

Indeed.

And if anyone were to read ALL the articles, they would doubtless
conclude that the vast majority of accredited climate scientists, do
in fact support the AGW thesis.

So that can't possibly be right now, can it ?

Obviously all these climate scientists must have been bribed by a consortium
consisting of Greenpeace, various yoghurt, sandal and windmill manufacturers,
- whose combined wealth nowadays easily outstrips the billions with which the
oil companies formerly the largest and wealthiest corporations known to
history used to bribe governments - in order to skew their data.

All in the hope presumably, of getting a free lifetime supply of yoghurt, sandals,
a free Greenpeace subscription, and a miniature windmill for the mantlepiece.

I see.

It all becomes all so much clearer now.


michael adams

....

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You need to read ALL the articles, to get a balanced view. Or is a
balanced view the one thing you don't want to see?

Crikey. Pot, kettle.

--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/01/16 11:49, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

Chris Hogg wrote:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/...e-adjustments/

That link pointed me to this: http://tinyurl.com/o74fhnf

I notice that the author of this pseudo-scientific article
"has a bachelor's degree from George Mason University in political
science", according to Wikipedia.

Whatever the author's credentials (and TNP has already cautioned
against taking too much notice of him), attacking him is an ad hominem
argument, best ignored, and doesn't address the point that is being
made, that raw satellite data hasn't shown any warming over at least
the last eighteen years and has been perfectly flat. I doubt if
Monckton made up the data.

His name is not Monckton, it is Marc Morano.
I suggest anyone interested in his credentials look him up in Wikipedia.


"The Pause lengthens yet again

A new record Pause length: no warming for 18 years 8 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley"

Cant you read? the paper is by Monckton, Morano has merely cut and
pasted it.



You cited him.
Why do that if you don't think he is reliable?

I note that the first figure in the article claims to represent
"The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite
monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset".
No citation is given, so the implication is that this was computed
by the author of the article.
I doubt if a bachelor degree in political science covers this.




Monkton is actually a journalist.

"Monckton was educated at Harrow School and Churchill College,
Cambridge, where he received a B.A. (Classics, 1974, now M.A.), and at
University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism
studies"

Nonetheless he does work with a lot of people who have got science
degrees. And he isn't owned by anyone. He has his own money.

The point I was trying to make is that there, is a different take on
climate change summarised by someone who does that all the time. Instead
of rabbiting on about his political persuasions surely what is important
is whether or not he is nearer the truth than - say - Naomi Klien, Or
George Monbiot or indeed Mark Lynas and others of the lefty greeny
persuasion who also write lots of articles. Or parrot the latest
on-message line to emerge from the marketing machine of Big Green,
depending on your political predilections..

Sir Isaac Newton spent years of his life looking fruitlessly for a proof
that God exists...Does that detract from his laws of motion and gravity?





--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:50:46 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..

Two comments. First, as it is widely accepted even by climate change
sceptics that there was a period of warming towards the end of the
last century, then it's hardly surprising that the 10 warmest years in
the last 130 years have all occurred since 2000. Unless the subsequent
temperatures had fallen, which no one is claiming they have AFAIAA,
then it's an obvious consequence and nothing remarkable. It's what
you'd expect.

Second, AIUI most of the graphs presented, including that on the NASA
page you linked to, are not raw data, but data that has been
'adjusted' in some way, to compensate for this or that factor (and I
don't mean just moving-averaged). The argument would seem to be that
raw data, in particular satellite data, doesn't show a continuing
warming in this century, and any warming claimed is a consequence of
the adjustment processes, whose justifications are more theoretical
than practical and therefore debatable.

If there has been no warming since circa 2000, where then is the
dependency of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2, which has been
increasing unabated?

--

Chris

Maybe I'm missing something here,

Yes you are! It warmed ~1980 - ~2000. Then it stopped getting warmer,

quote

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no
recent slowdown in global warming
June 4, 2015

/quote
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...ent-years.html


michael adams

....

On 09/01/16 13:45, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 12:10:45 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

You need to read ALL the articles, to get a balanced view.

Indeed.

And if anyone were to read ALL the articles, they would doubtless
conclude that the vast majority of accredited climate scientists, do
in fact support the AGW thesis.

Throughout history, majority opinion on all sorts of topics among
those who are expected to know and to get it right, has been wrong.
Phlogiston, the ether, miasma, terracentric universe are a few that
come to mind.

Actually I can make a good philosophical case for an anthropic universe,
but that's another story.

The question to ask yourself, is how much of the world is as you think
it is, because you trusted someone else's opinion when they told you it
was that way, and how much is that way because you checked it out yourself?

And supposing you wanted people to believe in stuff that wasn't real,
how would you go about it?




--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 12:10:45 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

You need to read ALL the articles, to get a balanced view.

Indeed.

And if anyone were to read ALL the articles, they would doubtless
conclude that the vast majority of accredited climate scientists, do
in fact support the AGW thesis.

Throughout history, majority opinion on all sorts of topics among
those who are expected to know and to get it right, has been wrong.
Phlogiston, the ether, miasma, terracentric universe are a few that
come to mind.

Indeed, but those theories best accorded with such evidence as was
available at the time; and were only shown to be wrong as a result
of new evidence becoming available. Galileo, his telescope,
Jupiter's moons, Lavoisiere's closed vessels, etc.

And while majority educated opinion may have been wrong on any number
of topics, this was still preferable to minority uneducated opinion,
which maybe took no heed at all of such evidence as was available
at the time.

In any case I need only point out that it was "The Natural Philosopher"
who was suggesting it was necessary to consider ALL the evidence in order
to get a "balanced" view. Whatever that can be taken to mean.


michael adams

....

On 09/01/2016 11:50, michael adams wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...

Two comments. First, as it is widely accepted even by climate change
sceptics that there was a period of warming towards the end of the
last century, then it's hardly surprising that the 10 warmest years in
the last 130 years have all occurred since 2000. Unless the subsequent
temperatures had fallen, which no one is claiming they have AFAIAA,
then it's an obvious consequence and nothing remarkable. It's what
you'd expect.

Second, AIUI most of the graphs presented, including that on the NASA
page you linked to, are not raw data, but data that has been
'adjusted' in some way, to compensate for this or that factor (and I
don't mean just moving-averaged). The argument would seem to be that
raw data, in particular satellite data, doesn't show a continuing
warming in this century, and any warming claimed is a consequence of
the adjustment processes, whose justifications are more theoretical
than practical and therefore debatable.

If there has been no warming since circa 2000, where then is the
dependency of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2, which has been
increasing unabated?

--

Chris

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I have trouble reconciling
parts of two of your statements there.

First - "as it is widely accepted even by climate change
sceptics that there was a period of warming towards the end of
the last century, then it's hardly surprising that the 10
warmest years in the last 130 years have all occurred since
2000"

or more specifically

" it's hardly surprising that the 10 warmest years in the last 130
years have all occurred since 2000"

with

"If there has been no warming since circa 2000"

when the very fact that the ten warmest years in the last 130 have
all occurred since 2000, would seem to indicate, to me at least,
that very thing.


michael adams

Look at it like this..

the climate warmed upto 2000, therefor the chances are that the warmest
years on the 130 year record have occured since 2000.

How does that indicate thet the climate is continuing to change in a
warming direction?
Has there been more increases in temprture to match the increases in CO2
that have happened and as there haven't then what mechanism has stopped
it despite the CO2 having gone up even faster than it was before 2000?
Why didn't any of the accepted climate change models actually predict
that this was going to happen?

On 09/01/16 16:18, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/01/2016 11:50, michael adams wrote:


when the very fact that the ten warmest years in the last 130 have
all occurred since 2000, would seem to indicate, to me at least,
that very thing.


michael adams

Look at it like this..

the climate warmed upto 2000, therefor the chances are that the warmest
years on the 130 year record have occured since 2000.

How does that indicate thet the climate is continuing to change in a
warming direction?
Has there been more increases in temprture to match the increases in CO2
that have happened and as there haven't then what mechanism has stopped
it despite the CO2 having gone up even faster than it was before 2000?
Why didn't any of the accepted climate change models actually predict
that this was going to happen?



In a nutshell, yes. The mere fact that michael says "the very fact that
the ten warmest years in the last 130 have all occurred since 2000,
would seem to indicate, to me at least, that very thing." - when a
moments thought shows they show no such thing - is a tremendous comment
on the success of green propaganda.

Only if we start a decline in temperatures will warm records stop being
broken

And of course 'ten warmest years in the last 130' is a claim based on
data that is seriously under investigation.

It having been discovered that records from as little as 50 years ago
can all be 'adjusted' to make the past seem colder than it actually was.




--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 09/01/2016 16:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 16:18, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/01/2016 11:50, michael adams wrote:


when the very fact that the ten warmest years in the last 130 have
all occurred since 2000, would seem to indicate, to me at least,
that very thing.


michael adams

Look at it like this..

the climate warmed upto 2000, therefor the chances are that the warmest
years on the 130 year record have occured since 2000.

How does that indicate thet the climate is continuing to change in a
warming direction?
Has there been more increases in temprture to match the increases in CO2
that have happened and as there haven't then what mechanism has stopped
it despite the CO2 having gone up even faster than it was before 2000?
Why didn't any of the accepted climate change models actually predict
that this was going to happen?



In a nutshell, yes. The mere fact that michael says "the very fact that
the ten warmest years in the last 130 have all occurred since 2000,
would seem to indicate, to me at least, that very thing." - when a
moments thought shows they show no such thing - is a tremendous comment
on the success of green propaganda.


I've given it a moments thought and I'm having trouble constructing a
mathematical model that would show no warming since 2000 and handle 10
out the last 15 years warmer than all previous years.

Perhaps you could explain your moments thought.

On 09/01/16 18:15, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 16:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 16:18, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/01/2016 11:50, michael adams wrote:


when the very fact that the ten warmest years in the last 130 have
all occurred since 2000, would seem to indicate, to me at least,
that very thing.


michael adams

Look at it like this..

the climate warmed upto 2000, therefor the chances are that the warmest
years on the 130 year record have occured since 2000.

How does that indicate thet the climate is continuing to change in a
warming direction?
Has there been more increases in temprture to match the increases in CO2
that have happened and as there haven't then what mechanism has stopped
it despite the CO2 having gone up even faster than it was before 2000?
Why didn't any of the accepted climate change models actually predict
that this was going to happen?



In a nutshell, yes. The mere fact that michael says "the very fact that
the ten warmest years in the last 130 have all occurred since 2000,
would seem to indicate, to me at least, that very thing." - when a
moments thought shows they show no such thing - is a tremendous comment
on the success of green propaganda.


I've given it a moments thought and I'm having trouble constructing a
mathematical model that would show no warming since 2000 and handle 10
out the last 15 years warmer than all previous years.


The key is in the mathematical significance.

If you climb a set of stairs and get to the landing, every step you take
on the landing is approximately 'the highest step you have ever taken'.
Its nott hard to break records, without there being any significance.

Its a bit like throwing dice. The more times you throw the more 'record
breaking runs of sixes' you get. That doesn't mean the dice are being
progressively loaded towards all landing on 6...

Perhaps you could explain your moments thought.

I just did.
130 years coming out of the little ice age is not a very long period of
time in which to encounter all the extremes, and its extremely probable
that a record OF SOME sort will be broken every month.

By Redefining global warming as 'climate change' and claiming that
'climate change' causes 'extreme weather' and then denying that
'weather' is the same as 'climate' the game is set for any unusual
weather pattern of any type to become 'proof of climate change'

And the mugs lap it up.

Record temperatures (if true, and there is a lot of evidence they aren't
records) are merely evidence the climate HAS warmed up, not that it
still is.

If the average is high statistically so will be the occasional peak.
The man on the landing only has to raise his leg a 'little' higher for a
new record,





--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 09/01/2016 18:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 18:15, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 16:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 16:18, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/01/2016 11:50, michael adams wrote:


when the very fact that the ten warmest years in the last 130 have
all occurred since 2000, would seem to indicate, to me at least,
that very thing.


michael adams

Look at it like this..

the climate warmed upto 2000, therefor the chances are that the warmest
years on the 130 year record have occured since 2000.

How does that indicate thet the climate is continuing to change in a
warming direction?
Has there been more increases in temprture to match the increases in
CO2
that have happened and as there haven't then what mechanism has stopped
it despite the CO2 having gone up even faster than it was before 2000?
Why didn't any of the accepted climate change models actually predict
that this was going to happen?



In a nutshell, yes. The mere fact that michael says "the very fact that
the ten warmest years in the last 130 have all occurred since 2000,
would seem to indicate, to me at least, that very thing." - when a
moments thought shows they show no such thing - is a tremendous comment
on the success of green propaganda.


I've given it a moments thought and I'm having trouble constructing a
mathematical model that would show no warming since 2000 and handle 10
out the last 15 years warmer than all previous years.


The key is in the mathematical significance.

If you climb a set of stairs and get to the landing, every step you take
on the landing is approximately 'the highest step you have ever taken'.
Its nott hard to break records, without there being any significance.

Its a bit like throwing dice. The more times you throw the more 'record
breaking runs of sixes' you get. That doesn't mean the dice are being
progressively loaded towards all landing on 6...

Perhaps you could explain your moments thought.

I just did.
130 years coming out of the little ice age is not a very long period of
time in which to encounter all the extremes, and its extremely probable
that a record OF SOME sort will be broken every month.

By Redefining global warming as 'climate change' and claiming that
'climate change' causes 'extreme weather' and then denying that
'weather' is the same as 'climate' the game is set for any unusual
weather pattern of any type to become 'proof of climate change'

And the mugs lap it up.

Record temperatures (if true, and there is a lot of evidence they aren't
records) are merely evidence the climate HAS warmed up, not that it
still is.

If the average is high statistically so will be the occasional peak.
The man on the landing only has to raise his leg a 'little' higher for a
new record,


The contention Michael was responding to was that "there has been no
warming since circa 2000". This contention presumably being based on
observed data. I'm finding it very difficult to understand what model or
hypothesis test would be used to deduce that "there had been no warming".

If you are saying the previous 15 years weather results do not
necessarily imply global warming, fair enough. But then we wouldn't
necessarily expect them to, due to natural variations, even if global
warming were correct.

The problem with a lot of these internet discussion is that people
confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Particularly with
statistical data where we wouldn't expect to see conclusive evidence.

On 09/01/16 19:15, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 18:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 18:15, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 16:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 16:18, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/01/2016 11:50, michael adams wrote:


when the very fact that the ten warmest years in the last 130 have
all occurred since 2000, would seem to indicate, to me at least,
that very thing.


michael adams

Look at it like this..

the climate warmed upto 2000, therefor the chances are that the
warmest
years on the 130 year record have occured since 2000.

How does that indicate thet the climate is continuing to change in a
warming direction?
Has there been more increases in temprture to match the increases in
CO2
that have happened and as there haven't then what mechanism has
stopped
it despite the CO2 having gone up even faster than it was before 2000?
Why didn't any of the accepted climate change models actually predict
that this was going to happen?



In a nutshell, yes. The mere fact that michael says "the very fact that
the ten warmest years in the last 130 have all occurred since 2000,
would seem to indicate, to me at least, that very thing." - when a
moments thought shows they show no such thing - is a tremendous comment
on the success of green propaganda.


I've given it a moments thought and I'm having trouble constructing a
mathematical model that would show no warming since 2000 and handle 10
out the last 15 years warmer than all previous years.


The key is in the mathematical significance.

If you climb a set of stairs and get to the landing, every step you take
on the landing is approximately 'the highest step you have ever taken'.
Its nott hard to break records, without there being any significance.

Its a bit like throwing dice. The more times you throw the more 'record
breaking runs of sixes' you get. That doesn't mean the dice are being
progressively loaded towards all landing on 6...

Perhaps you could explain your moments thought.

I just did.
130 years coming out of the little ice age is not a very long period of
time in which to encounter all the extremes, and its extremely probable
that a record OF SOME sort will be broken every month.

By Redefining global warming as 'climate change' and claiming that
'climate change' causes 'extreme weather' and then denying that
'weather' is the same as 'climate' the game is set for any unusual
weather pattern of any type to become 'proof of climate change'

And the mugs lap it up.

Record temperatures (if true, and there is a lot of evidence they aren't
records) are merely evidence the climate HAS warmed up, not that it
still is.

If the average is high statistically so will be the occasional peak.
The man on the landing only has to raise his leg a 'little' higher for a
new record,


The contention Michael was responding to was that "there has been no
warming since circa 2000". This contention presumably being based on
observed data. I'm finding it very difficult to understand what model or
hypothesis test would be used to deduce that "there had been no warming".


well lets see. we get a 'record breaking july', but the rest of the year
is cold wet and miserable. So te average for the year is below the long
term average for the decade?

If you are saying the previous 15 years weather results do not
necessarily imply global warming, fair enough. But then we wouldn't
necessarily expect them to, due to natural variations, even if global
warming were correct.

The problem with a lot of these internet discussion is that people
confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Particularly with
statistical data where we wouldn't expect to see conclusive evidence.

I am afraid sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence -
that's the whole point behind the 'pause'.

The point is that there should be evidence of steady global warming of a
really significant sort in the last 20 years, One or two slightly warmer
years is not global warming of a significant sort.



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:50:46 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..

Two comments. First, as it is widely accepted even by climate change
sceptics that there was a period of warming towards the end of the
last century, then it's hardly surprising that the 10 warmest years in
the last 130 years have all occurred since 2000. Unless the subsequent
temperatures had fallen, which no one is claiming they have AFAIAA,
then it's an obvious consequence and nothing remarkable. It's what
you'd expect.

Second, AIUI most of the graphs presented, including that on the NASA
page you linked to, are not raw data, but data that has been
'adjusted' in some way, to compensate for this or that factor (and I
don't mean just moving-averaged). The argument would seem to be that
raw data, in particular satellite data, doesn't show a continuing
warming in this century, and any warming claimed is a consequence of
the adjustment processes, whose justifications are more theoretical
than practical and therefore debatable.

If there has been no warming since circa 2000, where then is the
dependency of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2, which has been
increasing unabated?

--

Chris

Maybe I'm missing something here,

Yes you are! It warmed ~1980 - ~2000. Then it stopped getting warmer,
i.e. it didn't _continue_ to warm, global temperatures didn't go on
rising but stayed at approximately the 2000 value.

I'm sorry I've got to come back to this, as I was getting sidelined
by ideas about volatility etc. which aren't really relevant here.

Given that what's being discussed here are "warmest years" - not simply
isolated temperature records which could well be the result of local
abberations.

For the purposes of argument let's assume the 10 warmest years
are 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011

I simply can't see how its possible to both state, that say
the year 2001 was the warmest year in the last 130 years,
without global temperatures having risen.

Basically if the global temperature hadn't risen between
2000 and 2001, then 2001 wouldn't be any warmer than 2000
or any previous year.


Similarly I can't see how its possible to both state
that say the year 2003 was the warmest year in the last
130 years, warmer even than 2001, without global
temperatures having risen...

[...]

Similarly I can't see how its possible to both state
that say the year 2011 was the warmest year in the last
130 years, warmer even than 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 without global temperatures
having risen.


michael adams

....

On 09/01/2016 19:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 19:15, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 18:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 18:15, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 16:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 16:18, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/01/2016 11:50, michael adams wrote:


when the very fact that the ten warmest years in the last 130 have
all occurred since 2000, would seem to indicate, to me at least,
that very thing.


michael adams

Look at it like this..

the climate warmed upto 2000, therefor the chances are that the
warmest
years on the 130 year record have occured since 2000.

How does that indicate thet the climate is continuing to change in a
warming direction?
Has there been more increases in temprture to match the increases in
CO2
that have happened and as there haven't then what mechanism has
stopped
it despite the CO2 having gone up even faster than it was before
2000?
Why didn't any of the accepted climate change models actually predict
that this was going to happen?



In a nutshell, yes. The mere fact that michael says "the very fact
that
the ten warmest years in the last 130 have all occurred since 2000,
would seem to indicate, to me at least, that very thing." - when a
moments thought shows they show no such thing - is a tremendous
comment
on the success of green propaganda.


I've given it a moments thought and I'm having trouble constructing a
mathematical model that would show no warming since 2000 and handle 10
out the last 15 years warmer than all previous years.


The key is in the mathematical significance.

If you climb a set of stairs and get to the landing, every step you take
on the landing is approximately 'the highest step you have ever taken'.
Its nott hard to break records, without there being any significance.

Its a bit like throwing dice. The more times you throw the more 'record
breaking runs of sixes' you get. That doesn't mean the dice are being
progressively loaded towards all landing on 6...

Perhaps you could explain your moments thought.

I just did.
130 years coming out of the little ice age is not a very long period of
time in which to encounter all the extremes, and its extremely probable
that a record OF SOME sort will be broken every month.

By Redefining global warming as 'climate change' and claiming that
'climate change' causes 'extreme weather' and then denying that
'weather' is the same as 'climate' the game is set for any unusual
weather pattern of any type to become 'proof of climate change'

And the mugs lap it up.

Record temperatures (if true, and there is a lot of evidence they aren't
records) are merely evidence the climate HAS warmed up, not that it
still is.

If the average is high statistically so will be the occasional peak.
The man on the landing only has to raise his leg a 'little' higher for a
new record,


The contention Michael was responding to was that "there has been no
warming since circa 2000". This contention presumably being based on
observed data. I'm finding it very difficult to understand what model or
hypothesis test would be used to deduce that "there had been no warming".


well lets see. we get a 'record breaking july', but the rest of the year
is cold wet and miserable. So te average for the year is below the long
term average for the decade?

If you are saying the previous 15 years weather results do not
necessarily imply global warming, fair enough. But then we wouldn't
necessarily expect them to, due to natural variations, even if global
warming were correct.

The problem with a lot of these internet discussion is that people
confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Particularly with
statistical data where we wouldn't expect to see conclusive evidence.

I am afraid sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence -
that's the whole point behind the 'pause'.

The point is that there should be evidence of steady global warming of a
really significant sort in the last 20 years, One or two slightly warmer
years is not global warming of a significant sort.


Why should there be evidence.

As I understood it global temperatures had a significant stochastic
variance and also short and medium term cyclical drift changes may be
due to other factors such as solar output, weather patterns, volcanic
dust, ocean currents, etc.

On top of this the drift rate predicted by CO2 warming is relatively
small and can be swamped in the short term by other factors.

So essentially you need some kind of test that can discount all the crap
before you can say the CO2 expected growth rate is not occurring. I
don't believe that there is a reliable model that can do this. I would
be happy for you to point me to one with significant backing from the
scientific community

On 09/01/16 22:00, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 19:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


The point is that there should be evidence of steady global warming of a
really significant sort in the last 20 years, One or two slightly warmer
years is not global warming of a significant sort.


Why should there be evidence.

As I understood it global temperatures had a significant stochastic
variance and also short and medium term cyclical drift changes may be
due to other factors such as solar output, weather patterns, volcanic
dust, ocean currents, etc.

On top of this the drift rate predicted by CO2 warming is relatively
small and can be swamped in the short term by other factors.


That's exactly why '17 years of no statistically significant warming' is
the killer blow.

Its beyond mere coincidence or 'stochastic variation' Its the total
absence beyind reasonable doubt - 3 sigma - that CO2 ain't the culprit


So essentially you need some kind of test that can discount all the crap
before you can say the CO2 expected growth rate is not occurring.

Its called 17 years on no staitistically significant warming

I
don't believe that there is a reliable model that can do this. I would
be happy for you to point me to one with significant backing from the
scientific community


Oh dear.

Its the scientific community that came up with this test.,

By your logic, the 20 years of warming that preceded the 20 years of no
warming could just as easily be a statistical blip.

Its not down to me to prove global warming exists, its down to the model
to prove it by conforming with reality. It doesn't, so much that its
broken busted and in the dustbin of scientific history.

That it still exists and a political and marketing narrative is an
entirely different matter.







--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 09/01/16 22:11, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 20:23:41 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:50:46 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...

Two comments. First, as it is widely accepted even by climate change
sceptics that there was a period of warming towards the end of the
last century, then it's hardly surprising that the 10 warmest years in
the last 130 years have all occurred since 2000. Unless the subsequent
temperatures had fallen, which no one is claiming they have AFAIAA,
then it's an obvious consequence and nothing remarkable. It's what
you'd expect.

Second, AIUI most of the graphs presented, including that on the NASA
page you linked to, are not raw data, but data that has been
'adjusted' in some way, to compensate for this or that factor (and I
don't mean just moving-averaged). The argument would seem to be that
raw data, in particular satellite data, doesn't show a continuing
warming in this century, and any warming claimed is a consequence of
the adjustment processes, whose justifications are more theoretical
than practical and therefore debatable.

If there has been no warming since circa 2000, where then is the
dependency of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2, which has been
increasing unabated?

--

Chris

Maybe I'm missing something here,

Yes you are! It warmed ~1980 - ~2000. Then it stopped getting warmer,
i.e. it didn't _continue_ to warm, global temperatures didn't go on
rising but stayed at approximately the 2000 value.

I'm sorry I've got to come back to this, as I was getting sidelined
by ideas about volatility etc. which aren't really relevant here.

Given that what's being discussed here are "warmest years" - not simply
isolated temperature records which could well be the result of local
abberations.

For the purposes of argument let's assume the 10 warmest years
are 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011

I simply can't see how its possible to both state, that say
the year 2001 was the warmest year in the last 130 years,
without global temperatures having risen.

Basically if the global temperature hadn't risen between
2000 and 2001, then 2001 wouldn't be any warmer than 2000
or any previous year.


Similarly I can't see how its possible to both state
that say the year 2003 was the warmest year in the last
130 years, warmer even than 2001, without global
temperatures having risen...

[...]

Similarly I can't see how its possible to both state
that say the year 2011 was the warmest year in the last
130 years, warmer even than 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 without global temperatures
having risen.


michael adams

...

The quote from Timothy Murphy was

"The 10 warmest years in the last 130 years have all occurred since
2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2014 ranks as the warmest
on record."

You seem to be taking it to mean that 2001 was warmer than 2000, 2002
was warmer than 2001, 2003 was warmer than 2002 and so on. I'm sure
that's not what he meant, although he'll no doubt correct me if he did
mean it.

But to save any more to and fro argument, here's a graph of global
temperatures from 2000 to 2015.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2lbcrra&s=9 Click on the graph to
bring it up to full screen. The red line is the linear regression for
the data from 2001 to 2014. Data points are monthly, x-axis markers
denote the beginning of each year. Data is from here
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/h...hly_ns_avg.txt
Note: it is not the same data as the RSS data I discussed elsewhere in
this thread, but is data I already have on my computer so is easily
accessed.

The Met Office Hadley Centre is globally recognised by climatologists
as an authority on these matters.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-...s/hadleycentre

The red line is virtually horizontal. i.e there was no warming between
2001 and 2014. The temperatures are all higher than in the previous
130 years (actually 150 years), as you can see from the full data set
going back to 1850, shown he
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=30hor4x&s=9

So do you now understand my comment, that although the 10 warmest
years in the last 130 years have all occurred since 2000 (no argument
with that), it is no longer warming? Warming has stopped. Average
global temperatures have been static. No more warming! I should just
add the caveat that, as you can see from the first graph I put up,
there's an upturn in the data for 2015. This may be an untypical year
due to El Nino, as many suggest, or it may be the continuation of the
trend 1975 - 2000. At the moment there's no way of telling; we'll just
have to wait and see.


Those damned thermomters are all climate deniers!!!


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 05/01/2016 23:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And that, plus the experience of actually running a company that forced
me to understand people, is at the back of everything I write.

LOL

On 09/01/16 22:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 05/01/2016 23:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And that, plus the experience of actually running a company that forced
me to understand people, is at the back of everything I write.

LOL

SLB


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 09/01/2016 11:06, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/...e-adjustments/

That link pointed me to this: http://tinyurl.com/o74fhnf

I notice that the author of this pseudo-scientific article
"has a bachelor's degree from George Mason University in political science",
according to Wikipedia.



Why do you need to tell us that rather than dispute the data?

On 09/01/2016 22:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 22:00, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 19:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


The point is that there should be evidence of steady global warming of a
really significant sort in the last 20 years, One or two slightly warmer
years is not global warming of a significant sort.


Why should there be evidence.

As I understood it global temperatures had a significant stochastic
variance and also short and medium term cyclical drift changes may be
due to other factors such as solar output, weather patterns, volcanic
dust, ocean currents, etc.

On top of this the drift rate predicted by CO2 warming is relatively
small and can be swamped in the short term by other factors.


That's exactly why '17 years of no statistically significant warming' is
the killer blow.


What do you mean 17 years of no statistically significant warming?
What was the test?

Its beyond mere coincidence or 'stochastic variation' Its the total
absence beyind reasonable doubt - 3 sigma - that CO2 ain't the culprit


So essentially you need some kind of test that can discount all the crap
before you can say the CO2 expected growth rate is not occurring.

Its called 17 years on no staitistically significant warming


You haven't explained what you mean by that?

I
don't believe that there is a reliable model that can do this. I would
be happy for you to point me to one with significant backing from the
scientific community


Oh dear.

Its the scientific community that came up with this test.,

By your logic, the 20 years of warming that preceded the 20 years of no
warming could just as easily be a statistical blip.


I'm not familiar with the figures but it would not surprise me if this
could also be the case.

Whether is could be a statistical blip depends on degree. But as a
mentioned other factors could effect a short term drift in temperature.

It can be notoriously difficult to see drift effects in statistical data.

Its not down to me to prove global warming exists, its down to the model
to prove it by conforming with reality. It doesn't, so much that its
broken busted and in the dustbin of scientific history.


Who says the model is not conforming with reality?

That it still exists and a political and marketing narrative is an
entirely different matter.

On 10/01/16 00:10, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 22:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 22:00, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 19:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


The point is that there should be evidence of steady global warming
of a
really significant sort in the last 20 years, One or two slightly
warmer
years is not global warming of a significant sort.


Why should there be evidence.

As I understood it global temperatures had a significant stochastic
variance and also short and medium term cyclical drift changes may be
due to other factors such as solar output, weather patterns, volcanic
dust, ocean currents, etc.

On top of this the drift rate predicted by CO2 warming is relatively
small and can be swamped in the short term by other factors.


That's exactly why '17 years of no statistically significant warming' is
the killer blow.


What do you mean 17 years of no statistically significant warming?
What was the test?

Straw man. Its defined in any book of basic statistics

"In statistical hypothesis testing, statistical significance (or a
statistically significant result) is attained when a p-value is less
than the significance level (denoted α, alpha). The p-value is the
probability of obtaining at least as extreme results given that the null
hypothesis is true whereas the significance level α is the probability
of rejecting the null hypothesis given that it is true. Equivalently,
when the null hypothesis specifies the value of a parameter, the data
are said to be statistically significant at given confidence level γ = 1
ˆ’ α when the computed confidence interval for that parameter fails to
contain the value specified by the null hypothesis."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance


Its beyond mere coincidence or 'stochastic variation' Its the total
absence beyind reasonable doubt - 3 sigma - that CO2 ain't the culprit


So essentially you need some kind of test that can discount all the crap
before you can say the CO2 expected growth rate is not occurring.

Its called 17 years on no staitistically significant warming


You haven't explained what you mean by that?

I have now.


I
don't believe that there is a reliable model that can do this. I would
be happy for you to point me to one with significant backing from the
scientific community


Oh dear.

Its the scientific community that came up with this test.,

By your logic, the 20 years of warming that preceded the 20 years of no
warming could just as easily be a statistical blip.


I'm not familiar with the figures but it would not surprise me if this
could also be the case.


Well exactly. So why are you then claiming that the warming prior to
say 1998 was 'global warming' and the lack of warming afterwards is
'just a statistical blip'?

Whether is could be a statistical blip depends on degree. But as a
mentioned other factors could effect a short term drift in temperature.

Thats why 17 years is important,. Its not 'short term'


It can be notoriously difficult to see drift effects in statistical data.


Thats why the standard analysis models are applied.

Its not down to me to prove global warming exists, its down to the model
to prove it by conforming with reality. It doesn't, so much that its
broken busted and in the dustbin of scientific history.


Who says the model is not conforming with reality?

the data says that.
When analysed statistically te lack of statistically significant warming
in the last 17-20 years refutes the proposition that carbon dioxide is
the major driver of today's climate to a 95% confidence level.

if you mean 'who, as people?', pretty much anyone who has a reasonable
amount of appropriate technical knowledge and whose job and career does
not depend on Climate Change the Story being propagated and believed.





--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 10/01/2016 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/01/16 00:10, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 22:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/01/16 22:00, Nick wrote:
On 09/01/2016 19:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


The point is that there should be evidence of steady global warming
of a
really significant sort in the last 20 years, One or two slightly
warmer
years is not global warming of a significant sort.


Why should there be evidence.

As I understood it global temperatures had a significant stochastic
variance and also short and medium term cyclical drift changes may be
due to other factors such as solar output, weather patterns, volcanic
dust, ocean currents, etc.

On top of this the drift rate predicted by CO2 warming is relatively
small and can be swamped in the short term by other factors.


That's exactly why '17 years of no statistically significant warming' is
the killer blow.


What do you mean 17 years of no statistically significant warming?
What was the test?

Straw man. Its defined in any book of basic statistics

"In statistical hypothesis testing, statistical significance (or a
statistically significant result) is attained when a p-value is less
than the significance level (denoted α, alpha). The p-value is the
probability of obtaining at least as extreme results given that the null
hypothesis is true whereas the significance level α is the probability
of rejecting the null hypothesis given that it is true. Equivalently,
when the null hypothesis specifies the value of a parameter, the data
are said to be statistically significant at given confidence level γ = 1
ˆ’ α when the computed confidence interval for that parameter fails to
contain the value specified by the null hypothesis."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance


Its beyond mere coincidence or 'stochastic variation' Its the total
absence beyind reasonable doubt - 3 sigma - that CO2 ain't the culprit


So essentially you need some kind of test that can discount all the
crap
before you can say the CO2 expected growth rate is not occurring.

Its called 17 years on no staitistically significant warming


You haven't explained what you mean by that?

I have now.


No you haven't. I know what hypothesis testing is, what I don't know is
what your hypothesis is? What is it being tested? What specific
statistical test method is being applied. What is the expected growth
rate? How are confounding factors discounted? What base temperature are
you starting from.

Clearly with 10 out of 15 warmest years in history ever a low growth
rate cannot be ruled out. Hypothesis tests also require random data
selection. How is this requirement full filled.



I
don't believe that there is a reliable model that can do this. I would
be happy for you to point me to one with significant backing from the
scientific community


Oh dear.

Its the scientific community that came up with this test.,

By your logic, the 20 years of warming that preceded the 20 years of no
warming could just as easily be a statistical blip.


I'm not familiar with the figures but it would not surprise me if this
could also be the case.


Well exactly. So why are you then claiming that the warming prior to
say 1998 was 'global warming' and the lack of warming afterwards is
'just a statistical blip'?


I'm not. You appear to have constructed a strawman.


Whether is could be a statistical blip depends on degree. But as a
mentioned other factors could effect a short term drift in temperature.

Thats why 17 years is important,. Its not 'short term'


Short term/medium term - whatever. Solar cycles for instance are
believed to operate over this type of time span.

If there is one common theme in internet bull**** it is the belief that
statistical models should provide exact results and when they don't it
signifies the model being wrong. That is not the way it works.


It can be notoriously difficult to see drift effects in statistical data.


Thats why the standard analysis models are applied.


What standard analysis models? There is no standard analysis model for
the climate?


Its not down to me to prove global warming exists, its down to the model
to prove it by conforming with reality. It doesn't, so much that its
broken busted and in the dustbin of scientific history.


Who says the model is not conforming with reality?

the data says that.
When analysed statistically te lack of statistically significant warming
in the last 17-20 years refutes the proposition that carbon dioxide is
the major driver of today's climate to a 95% confidence level.


Could you provide a cite for this?

if you mean 'who, as people?', pretty much anyone who has a reasonable
amount of appropriate technical knowledge and whose job and career does
not depend on Climate Change the Story being propagated and believed.


But career depends on climate change do you mean people with reputations?

On 10/01/2016 11:06, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-09, dennis home wrote:
On 09/01/2016 11:06, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/...e-adjustments/

That link pointed me to this: http://tinyurl.com/o74fhnf

I notice that the author of this pseudo-scientific article
"has a bachelor's degree from George Mason University in political science",
according to Wikipedia.



Why do you need to tell us that rather than dispute the data?

Dennis, we already know you're a ****. There's no need to prove it by
nym-shifting.



Get stuffed huge arsehole and block me by my name and then you wouldn't
see my posts.
A hint I have never changed the name I post under, the email may differ
from machine to machine.

On 10/01/16 11:55, Nick wrote:

Nick: 6yoiu are clearly a troll. You raise one strawa man after another.
You are not interested in finding out the truth, only in denying the
reality of climate change, which is that te data pretty much rules out
CO2 as a major influence.

Meanwhile the Guardian is now pushing a huge conspiracy theory to
explain why so many people are getting increasingly skeptical about
Climate CXhange

"Is organised climate science denial finished?

After global heat records were continually broken over the last decade,
and as sea levels rose and scientists reported the accelerated melting
of polar ice sheets, you might be forgiven for thinking the debate over
climate change had shifted.

No more arguing over the science? Its more about the policy now, right?

Well, wrong. At least according to a new study that has looked at 15
years worth of output from 19 conservative €œthinktanks€� in the United
States.

€œWe find little support for the claim that €˜the era of science denial is
over €“ instead, discussion of climate science has generally increased
over the sample period,€� the study concludes.

The conservative thinktanks under the microscope are the main cog in the
machinery of climate science denial across the globe, pushing a constant
stream of material into the public domain."

sheesh real tinfoil hat stuff eh? 'conservative think tanks'


Bye.

On 07/01/2016 22:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 21:55, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 06/01/2016 16:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/01/16 16:10, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 05/01/2016 21:14, Vir Campestris wrote:

Incidentally the Severn Barrage got mentioned. I think it's
practical,
and combined with Morecambe Bay whose tides are nicely out of
synchronisation could provide reliable power 24/7. Which would
approximately replace Wylfa. And there are no other good tidal
sites...

Adding two sine waves doesn't give you a straight line.

It does if they are exactly equal in amplitude and 180 degrees phase
different

And have you
costed this proposal?

Course not. Greens don't do sums

That's an ad-hominem attack - and misplaced.


seeing what follows, Id say it wasn't misplaced at all. No mention of
cost anywhere.


As it happens the power generated is at peak flow, and peak flow for the
one is at slack tide for the other. You need to add the squares of the
tidal height - and the asynchrony just happens to be about right.

Within limits it's flat.

The problem is it buggers the environment for the whole of the Severn
and Morecambe Bay, and replaces just one nuclear station. It's not even
big enough to need much of a grid upgrade.

Andy

So where is the counter to the assertion that greens dont do sums, and
therefore its not been costed?



Severn seems to be 10-35 billion pounds. I can't find one for Morecambe,
but assume it would be more as it is less suitable.

That's about the same as Hinkley Point isn't it?

Now would you like to read _all_ that I've said, and tell me how I come
over as one of those rabid greens you hate so... err... rabidly?

And, BTW, as someone who does sums you'll know off the top of your head
what you get if you square two sine waves with the correct phase and
equal amplitudes, then add them? Because it sure as hell doesn't sound
like you do.

(Hint - it's flat)

Andy

On 09/01/2016 13:41, michael adams wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message

Yes you are! It warmed ~1980 - ~2000. Then it stopped getting warmer,

quote

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no
recent slowdown in global warming
June 4, 2015

/quote
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...ent-years.html


Central England Temperature Series

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

when I chart a moving average looks flat for the last few years. You'll
notice their chart goes flat at the end, consistent with a rise before
2000 but nothing afterwards.

Andy

On 09/01/2016 20:23, michael adams wrote:
I simply can't see how its possible to both state, that say
the year 2001 was the warmest year in the last 130 years,
without global temperatures having risen.

Years before 2000 were colder, because global temperatures were rising.

Since 2000 they've stayed about the same.

So as temperatures rose between 1980-2000, the post 2000 ones are higher
than the pre 1980 ones.

That doesn't mean they are still rising.

Think about TNP's stairs-and-landing analogy. We're on the landing.
There may be some more stairs up, or they might be down. Right now we're
the highest we've been, and level. It's a bumpy landing though - must be
the kid's toys

Andy

On 10/01/2016 17:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/01/16 11:55, Nick wrote:

Nick: 6yoiu are clearly a troll. You raise one strawa man after another.
You are not interested in finding out the truth, only in denying the
reality of climate change, which is that te data pretty much rules out
CO2 as a major influence.


I haven't put forward any strawmen. All I have done is asked you to do
is justify some of your remarks. Perhaps you are unused to people taking
you seriously?

Meanwhile the Guardian is now pushing a huge conspiracy theory to
explain why so many people are getting increasingly skeptical about
Climate CXhange


Ah, like an episode of the TV series Lost when the current story arc
clearly has no possible rational explanation you try to divert attention
by moving on to a new but equally implausible story.

On 10/01/2016 12:05, Chris Hogg wrote:


A linear regression of that whole data set shows an increase in global
temperature of 0.49°C/century, with a 2 sigma of 0.02°, consistent
with ongoing recovery from the last ice age and hardly something to
worry about.

lol. If I had a hammer!

On 11/01/16 08:40, Nick wrote:
On 10/01/2016 17:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/01/16 11:55, Nick wrote:

Nick: 6yoiu are clearly a troll. You raise one strawa man after another.
You are not interested in finding out the truth, only in denying the
reality of climate change, which is that te data pretty much rules out
CO2 as a major influence.


I haven't put forward any strawmen. All I have done is asked you to do
is justify some of your remarks. Perhaps you are unused to people taking
you seriously?

Meanwhile the Guardian is now pushing a huge conspiracy theory to
explain why so many people are getting increasingly skeptical about
Climate CXhange


Ah, like an episode of the TV series Lost when the current story arc
clearly has no possible rational explanation you try to divert attention
by moving on to a new but equally implausible story.

Nope, That's your game



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 11/01/16 10:24, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:40:13 +0000, Nick
wrote:

On 10/01/2016 12:05, Chris Hogg wrote:


A linear regression of that whole data set shows an increase in global
temperature of 0.49°C/century, with a 2 sigma of 0.02°, consistent
with ongoing recovery from the last ice age and hardly something to
worry about.

lol. If I had a hammer!

But you do have a hammer, or rather, you claim to have, in as much as
you claim to have some knowledge of statistics. Then use that claimed
knowledge to examine the propositions that the global warming claimed
by climatologists to have occurred in the last quarter of the last
century was both significant and caused by anthropogenic CO2, and if
it was significant, then examine the proposition that warming ceased
in circa 2000 and that the apparent cessation is not just a
statistical blip.

But I doubt that you will. You'll just come back with a smoke screen
of seemingly sophisticated questions based on a superficial knowledge
of statistics, that really don't mean anything, and if they do mean
something and are relevant, that you could answer perfectly well
yourself with a little Internet research.

Or are you just a troll, as TNP suggests. So put up or shut up.

He is both.

When you blog around as much as I do on renewable energy and climate
change, you see a pattern, and it's basically a copy of the renewable
shill website 'skepticalscience.com' where they simply look for any way
to distract or discredit anything that isnt on-message with the green
industry PR machine.

The 'useful idiots' - the sort of left leaning champagne socialists of
the beeb and the guardian, even if they become aware of the thinness of
the AGW ice, believe that is so important that a few white lies don't
matter, so they go along with it.

But Nick has the hallmarks of a professional renewable/AGW shill. He's
running a modified 'concern troll' game.

"I'd really like to learn more, but I cant find your evidence convincing
.... explain to me why....(and insert any random irrelevancy here) '


The game is to tie up people who are trying to inform, so they don't
inform anyone else, whilst casting an aura of doubt over the whole
matter, so the causal observer thinks its not settled and not clear.

Paid shills and trolls are a fairly recent phenomena, going back to
first IBM, and then Microsoft's assault on et market. Microsoft
employed, and maybe still employees, people to surf social media putting
out glowing reports of windows, whenever a discussion arose, and even
starting such discussions. Its caught on big time.

That along with feeding journalists with press releases and large
expense account lunches and maybe the odd brown envelope is how the game
is played.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 11/01/2016 10:24, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:40:13 +0000, Nick
wrote:

On 10/01/2016 12:05, Chris Hogg wrote:


A linear regression of that whole data set shows an increase in global
temperature of 0.49°C/century, with a 2 sigma of 0.02°, consistent
with ongoing recovery from the last ice age and hardly something to
worry about.

lol. If I had a hammer!

But you do have a hammer, or rather, you claim to have, in as much as
you claim to have some knowledge of statistics. Then use that claimed
knowledge to examine the propositions that the global warming claimed
by climatologists to have occurred in the last quarter of the last
century was both significant and caused by anthropogenic CO2, and if
it was significant, then examine the proposition that warming ceased
in circa 2000 and that the apparent cessation is not just a
statistical blip.

I did. If you read what I wrote you will see that when we look at
statistical temperature records we see short/medium term (decades)
variations in temperature. We assume these are not related to
anthropogenic CO2. Some may be essentially stochastic in that we cannot
determine a reason for them and others may be due to large scale
deterministic effects we do not yet full understand, solar output,
orbit, ocean currents. It really doesn't matter what they are caused by,
when we look at climate record we see periods in the region of a decade
or more where the temps are below local mean or about local mean. i.e.
they exist. Take 1880 to 1892 and 1898 to 1910 as an examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

From year to year the drift rate (expected deterministic temperature
rise of global warming is small). Even over 15 years the total is quite
small, it could be totally offset by say the 1898 to 1910 dip. So it is
likely that even with global warming we would see these fluctuations.
When you overlay these two effects the result may be an apparent average
growth rate bigger than expected of smaller than expected.

However the short/medium term effects tend to be mean reverting so over
the longer term the drift rate due to global warming should start to
dominate and be more visible. It does appear this is the case even
demonstrated by you linear regression hammer.

What I was asking the Natural Philosopher is why he considers this
alleged slow down significant. A question he has failed to give any
sensible answer to.








But I doubt that you will. You'll just come back with a smoke screen
of seemingly sophisticated questions based on a superficial knowledge
of statistics, that really don't mean anything, and if they do mean
something and are relevant, that you could answer perfectly well
yourself with a little Internet research.

Or are you just a troll, as TNP suggests. So put up or shut up.

On 11/01/2016 11:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/01/16 10:24, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:40:13 +0000, Nick
wrote:

On 10/01/2016 12:05, Chris Hogg wrote:


A linear regression of that whole data set shows an increase in global
temperature of 0.49°C/century, with a 2 sigma of 0.02°, consistent
with ongoing recovery from the last ice age and hardly something to
worry about.

lol. If I had a hammer!

But you do have a hammer, or rather, you claim to have, in as much as
you claim to have some knowledge of statistics. Then use that claimed
knowledge to examine the propositions that the global warming claimed
by climatologists to have occurred in the last quarter of the last
century was both significant and caused by anthropogenic CO2, and if
it was significant, then examine the proposition that warming ceased
in circa 2000 and that the apparent cessation is not just a
statistical blip.

But I doubt that you will. You'll just come back with a smoke screen
of seemingly sophisticated questions based on a superficial knowledge
of statistics, that really don't mean anything, and if they do mean
something and are relevant, that you could answer perfectly well
yourself with a little Internet research.

Or are you just a troll, as TNP suggests. So put up or shut up.

He is both.

When you blog around as much as I do on renewable energy and climate
change, you see a pattern, and it's basically a copy of the renewable
shill website 'skepticalscience.com' where they simply look for any way
to distract or discredit anything that isnt on-message with the green
industry PR machine.

The 'useful idiots' - the sort of left leaning champagne socialists of
the beeb and the guardian, even if they become aware of the thinness of
the AGW ice, believe that is so important that a few white lies don't
matter, so they go along with it.

But Nick has the hallmarks of a professional renewable/AGW shill. He's
running a modified 'concern troll' game.

"I'd really like to learn more, but I cant find your evidence convincing
... explain to me why....(and insert any random irrelevancy here) '


The game is to tie up people who are trying to inform, so they don't
inform anyone else, whilst casting an aura of doubt over the whole
matter, so the causal observer thinks its not settled and not clear.


I can't inform I know **** all about it. What I can do is smell bull****
and call some one out when I smell it.

On 11/01/16 12:51, Nick wrote:
However the short/medium term effects tend to be mean reverting so over
the longer term the drift rate due to global warming should start to
dominate and be more visible.

Except that 17 years is long enough for that to happen, and it clearly
hasn't.

That is the whole point

Since CO2 'took off' big time there has been as much time when it wasn't
warming at all as when it was.

You don't need to be a statistician to smell a rat.

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 11/01/16 12:52, Nick wrote:
On 11/01/2016 11:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/01/16 10:24, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:40:13 +0000, Nick
wrote:

On 10/01/2016 12:05, Chris Hogg wrote:


A linear regression of that whole data set shows an increase in global
temperature of 0.49°C/century, with a 2 sigma of 0.02°, consistent
with ongoing recovery from the last ice age and hardly something to
worry about.

lol. If I had a hammer!

But you do have a hammer, or rather, you claim to have, in as much as
you claim to have some knowledge of statistics. Then use that claimed
knowledge to examine the propositions that the global warming claimed
by climatologists to have occurred in the last quarter of the last
century was both significant and caused by anthropogenic CO2, and if
it was significant, then examine the proposition that warming ceased
in circa 2000 and that the apparent cessation is not just a
statistical blip.

But I doubt that you will. You'll just come back with a smoke screen
of seemingly sophisticated questions based on a superficial knowledge
of statistics, that really don't mean anything, and if they do mean
something and are relevant, that you could answer perfectly well
yourself with a little Internet research.

Or are you just a troll, as TNP suggests. So put up or shut up.

He is both.

When you blog around as much as I do on renewable energy and climate
change, you see a pattern, and it's basically a copy of the renewable
shill website 'skepticalscience.com' where they simply look for any way
to distract or discredit anything that isnt on-message with the green
industry PR machine.

The 'useful idiots' - the sort of left leaning champagne socialists of
the beeb and the guardian, even if they become aware of the thinness of
the AGW ice, believe that is so important that a few white lies don't
matter, so they go along with it.

But Nick has the hallmarks of a professional renewable/AGW shill. He's
running a modified 'concern troll' game.

"I'd really like to learn more, but I cant find your evidence convincing
... explain to me why....(and insert any random irrelevancy here) '


The game is to tie up people who are trying to inform, so they don't
inform anyone else, whilst casting an aura of doubt over the whole
matter, so the causal observer thinks its not settled and not clear.


I can't inform I know **** all about it. What I can do is smell bull****
and call some one out when I smell it.

Exactly so Nick, Exactly so.

Consider yourself called out.


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx