On 11/01/2016 12:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.


Called out on what point?

On 11/01/2016 12:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

Thats the point you have to prove. You can't just wave you hands and say
it is true.

Assuming a global warming rate of 0.01 degrees per year this would give
an expected growth of 0.17 degrees. That is less than the dip between
1898 and 1910, which was over 0.2 degrees.


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.


But things have got warmer?

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

On 11/01/16 13:18, Nick wrote:
On 11/01/2016 12:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

Thats the point you have to prove. You can't just wave you hands and say
it is true.


I dont have to. The data says it s true.

Assuming a global warming rate of 0.01 degrees per year this would give
an expected growth of 0.17 degrees. That is less than the dip between
1898 and 1910, which was over 0.2 degrees.


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.


But things have got warmer?

Things got warmer after the last ice age finished nick. Were the sabre
toothed tigers and mammoths driving 4WDs?

Its up to you to show a statistical correlation between CO2 and warming,
You can't because it simply doesn't exist.

And even then, correlation is not causation.

A remarkable coincidence of rising CO2 and rising temperatures for a
couple of decades is not a proven theory, and if you want to claim it
is, I can only say that that is a most convenient lie, for your job and
career.

The inconvenient truth is that a couple of decades of no warnming
happened afterwards


Doesn't matter what the papers and the 'climate community' who make a
living off this say, the truth is what the truth is, and no scientist
whose career doesn't depend on green climate funding or isn't being
blackmailed into it supports AGW any more, even if they aren't prepared
to say so in public.


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





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

Adolf Hitler

On 11/01/16 13:10, Nick wrote:
On 11/01/2016 12:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.


Called out on what point?

"What I can do is smell bull**** and call some one out when I smell it¨.

I dont believe you have actually made any points at all. Its just utter
bull**** from start to finish. A master class in 'concern' trolling.

--
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

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
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.

Indeed, my mistake. I misunderstood it mean that each succeeding
year need necessarily be warmer than the preceding year.
Whereas in fact, if the temperature in say 2003 was warmest of
all, the fact that the temperatures in subsequent years were the
warmest "only" since 2003, doesn't preclude them from also being
the warmest 10 years in the last 130 years.


michael adams

....

On 11/01/2016 16:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/01/16 13:18, Nick wrote:
On 11/01/2016 12:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

Thats the point you have to prove. You can't just wave you hands and say
it is true.


I dont have to. The data says it s true.



Where does the data say there can't be a dip of 0.2 degrees over a 20
year period, unrelated to global warming and hence that such a dip could
occur hiding a a rise due to global warming. I even showed you a period
from 1880 where this dip happened.



Assuming a global warming rate of 0.01 degrees per year this would give
an expected growth of 0.17 degrees. That is less than the dip between
1898 and 1910, which was over 0.2 degrees.


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.


But things have got warmer?

Things got warmer after the last ice age finished nick. Were the sabre
toothed tigers and mammoths driving 4WDs?

Its up to you to show a statistical correlation between CO2 and warming,
You can't because it simply doesn't exist.


Why is it up to me? I'm not the one making claims that I can't back up.

Oh yes I remember, try to divert attention from your unsupportable
bull**** by introducing something new.

Now lets get back to why you say that global temperature for the last 17
years contradict global warming.

On 11/01/2016 16:25, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:51:07 +0000, Nick
wrote:

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.


I find it difficult to reconcile the comments in the Wiki article you
linked to that global warming is still proceeding, there hasn't
actually been a hiatus (despite the fact that the temperatures have
stopped rising, by any generally accepted measure, with the exception
this year's El Nino) and that such pauses in global temperatures are
not uncommon anyway and don't signify anything, with the seemingly
unquestioning acceptance that the rise in temperatures over the last
twenty odd years of the last century were significant.

Who the **** is saying that not me. Indeed I said
--------------------------------------

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.
--------------------------------------

Where does the data say there can't be a dip of 0.2 degrees over a 20
year period, unrelated to global warming and hence that such a dip could
occur hiding a a rise due to global warming. I even showed you a period
from 1880 where this dip happened.




Why is it up to me? I'm not the one making claims that I can't back up.

Yes you are. See above.

What you are saying is as if there is a run of pure random numbers in
the throw of a dice that otherwise shows loaded behaviour,it means its
really random and not loaded, or the reverse, that if the dice are
loaded it can't have a purely random sequence in there. RThe whole point
of a LONG series of dice throws - our 20 years of no warming or whatever
is that a LONG series the chance of purely random behaviours with a
loaded pair of dice, or vice versa, whilst still possible, is
vanishingly small.

You obviolsuly do not understand statistics, and its not up to me to
teach you the basics - there are lots of references online and in a library.

The data, when subject to proper statistics refutes AGW to a 95%
confidence level. It is vanishingly unlikely that the scenario you
suggest is in fact the case. The overwhelming statistical evidence is
that AGW is bunk, refuted, an ex-hypothesis and definitely in the
Norwegian Blue class.


Its that simple., Its not me claiming anything, Its what the data and
the statistics says.

Of course it still COULD be true. And pigs COULD fly, and the moon COULD
be made of cheese (except the part we took samples off) and fairies
COULD exists, Anything is possible in an infinite universe. And for
people who like to think in terms of COULD instead of EXTREMELY LIKELY,
there is religion.

The rest of us will stay with science....


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 11/01/16 19:31, Nick wrote:
On 11/01/2016 16:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/01/16 13:18, Nick wrote:
On 11/01/2016 12:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

Thats the point you have to prove. You can't just wave you hands and say
it is true.


I dont have to. The data says it s true.



Where does the data say there can't be a dip of 0.2 degrees over a 20
year period, unrelated to global warming and hence that such a dip could
occur hiding a a rise due to global warming. I even showed you a period
from 1880 where this dip happened.



Assuming a global warming rate of 0.01 degrees per year this would give
an expected growth of 0.17 degrees. That is less than the dip between
1898 and 1910, which was over 0.2 degrees.


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.


But things have got warmer?

Things got warmer after the last ice age finished nick. Were the sabre
toothed tigers and mammoths driving 4WDs?

Its up to you to show a statistical correlation between CO2 and warming,
You can't because it simply doesn't exist.


Why is it up to me? I'm not the one making claims that I can't back up.

Yes you are


Oh yes I remember, try to divert attention from your unsupportable
bull**** by introducing something new.

Now lets get back to why you say that global temperature for the last 17
years contradict global warming.

Because that's what the science and the statistics say.,


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

Groucho Marx

On 11/01/2016 19:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Where does the data say there can't be a dip of 0.2 degrees over a 20
year period, unrelated to global warming and hence that such a dip could
occur hiding a a rise due to global warming. I even showed you a period
from 1880 where this dip happened.




Why is it up to me? I'm not the one making claims that I can't back up.

Yes you are. See above.

What you are saying is as if there is a run of pure random numbers in
the throw of a dice that otherwise shows loaded behaviour,it means its
really random and not loaded, or the reverse, that if the dice are
loaded it can't have a purely random sequence in there. RThe whole point
of a LONG series of dice throws - our 20 years of no warming or whatever
is that a LONG series the chance of purely random behaviours with a
loaded pair of dice, or vice versa, whilst still possible, is
vanishingly small.


Well looking at the data if it is so "vanishingly small" why did it
clearly happen in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
(18-80 to 1910). See the top graph on the right of five year running
average (Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index).

Theoretically I have already pointed out the temperatures are possibly
subjected to deterministic short term (decades) mean reverting effects.

What you have not done is provided a description of what data you are
talking about, what hypothesis test you are using, what assumptions you
have made. i.e. why you think the data shows what you claim.

I'm always amazed at how gullible some people are.

Personally I don't have much knowledge of if global warming is due to
man made CO2, the proofs and evidence are complex, hence I defer to the
scientific consensus. What I do know is that your "global hiatus"
counter argument doesn't appear to have any foundation, that is simple
to understand.

On 12/01/16 09:46, Nick wrote:
On 11/01/2016 19:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Where does the data say there can't be a dip of 0.2 degrees over a 20
year period, unrelated to global warming and hence that such a dip could
occur hiding a a rise due to global warming. I even showed you a period
from 1880 where this dip happened.




Why is it up to me? I'm not the one making claims that I can't back up.

Yes you are. See above.

What you are saying is as if there is a run of pure random numbers in
the throw of a dice that otherwise shows loaded behaviour,it means its
really random and not loaded, or the reverse, that if the dice are
loaded it can't have a purely random sequence in there. RThe whole point
of a LONG series of dice throws - our 20 years of no warming or whatever
is that a LONG series the chance of purely random behaviours with a
loaded pair of dice, or vice versa, whilst still possible, is
vanishingly small.


Well looking at the data if it is so "vanishingly small" why did it
clearly happen in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
(18-80 to 1910). See the top graph on the right of five year running
average (Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index).

(Wikipedia is a place that is unfortunately very prone to being shilled,
and in the climate change debate, has become a laughing stock).

"Temperature anomalies in the *updated* NOAA dataset show no evidence of
a slowdown in the rate of warming post 1998. "

And that, Nick, is the whole effin point. Adjusted to restore the theory
of global warming.

Suddenly after the data has shown no warming for decades, the data needs
'adjusting'

Someone - google it - did an analysis of all the data 'adjustments' that
had gone on. Not one made global warnming look less likely, every single
one made it look more likely.


How statistically unlikely is that? you would expect data to need
adjusting in directions that were not biased in a given way, but
statistical analysis of the 'adjustments' shows clear bias. Ergo we can
conclude there is deliberate manipulation of data going on.


Theoretically I have already pointed out the temperatures are possibly
subjected to deterministic short term (decades) mean reverting effects.


Possible is not probable, as I have constantly pointed outr,. Its
alarmist sophistry to say anything is possible, therefore we must take
precautions against everything, even up to poisonous mushrooms being
deliberately left on supermarket shelves by psychologically disturbed
mushroomistas.


Statistics is there to assign probabilities, not admit possibilities.
Possibility is not a word that has meaning in statistics.


What you have not done is provided a description of what data you are
talking about, what hypothesis test you are using, what assumptions you
have made. i.e. why you think the data shows what you claim.


Raw satellite data - the best we have before tampering. Look it up.
Others have pointed you at it, but you know all this, you are not
interested in truth, you are interested in perpetuating the AGFW myth,
presumably because its your livelihood.

I'm always amazed at how gullible some people are.


Well exactly. A fact warmists make full use of with their sophistry.

Personally I don't have much knowledge of if global warming is due to
man made CO2, the proofs and evidence are complex, hence I defer to the
scientific consensus. What I do know is that your "global hiatus"
counter argument doesn't appear to have any foundation, that is simple
to understand.


well that's only what you have been told,

And of course as you point out you don't have much knowledge of if
global warming.

And of course you aren't deferring to the scientific consensus.

Outside of a select few 'activists' the scientific consensus is that
global warming stopped 20 years ago and was nothing to do with CO2.,

But you couldn't know that from reading the Guardian or from watching
the Beeb, researching on Wiki or listening to all the advocates of
green energy etc etc.

You have to actually talk to scientists in private...





--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 12/01/16 10:48, Chris Hogg wrote:
In which case you
have to accept the possibility that the late-20th century warming
might also have been due to an unknown deterministic or stochastic
process, that happened to occur at about the same time as CO2 levels
were rising.

Is it possible that such a process exists?


Very much so, Any dynamic system with enough non linear time delayed
feedback paths will exhibit more or less chaotic behaviour, even though
its excursions are bounded.

The term is chaotic attractor. The quantity fluctuates seemingly
randomly about - well not a mean exactly, but a pint that defines more
or less its centre of operations as it were.

The earth's climate with large masses of ice and water which exhibit
both long time delays and severe non linear behaviour at the phase
changes are more than enough to generate a climate that can itself
generate little ice ages, Holocene optimums, mediaeval warm periods and
global warning of et 20th century sort, without any external forcing
being required at all.

It does it all by itself.

And therein lies the issue, Nick would have you believe that when its
warming its CO2, and when its not warming its natural statistical
variation. That is how unbelievably non scientific is his explanation.
The explanation varies with the need to validate is belief in climate
change of a man made nature.

That is not something he has thought up himself - that is on-message
warmista cobblers, and Nick is not a disinterested inquirer, he is a
concern troll.

A FUD merchant.



--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

You have to actually talk to scientists in private...



When questioned, the defendant said he and the other gentleman were discussing
global warming in private, m'lud.


michael adams

.....

On 12/01/2016 10:48, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:31:13 +0000, Nick
wrote:


Who the **** is saying that not me.

The entire article is devoted to denying the significance of the
'hiatus'!

Indeed I said
--------------------------------------

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.
--------------------------------------

So what you're saying is that some natural variation, some unknown
deterministic or stochastic process such as occurred between 1880 and
1910, is counteracting the warming process. OK, let's just look at
that in a little more detail. Over the 30 years between 1880 and 1910
there was a drop of ~0.1°C, a fall of ~0.003°C/yr. The warming at the
end of the last century was proceeding at a rate of ~0.02°C/yr, some
six times as fast, and if it had continued at that rate would have
resulted in a global temperature rise of a further 0.3°C above the
year 2000 figure, or 0.6°C over the same 30 year period as at the
beginning of the last century. So this current unknown cooling process
is a lot stronger than in that period.

The current growth rate attributed to global warming on wiki is 0.013
degrees per year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming .

It is just as invalid to infer a 0.02 degree global warming rate from a
few years data as it is to infer a zero rate from another few years data.

Hence using a reasonable estimate of global warming the expected rise
due to global warming over 15 years would be 0.013 * 15 = 0.195 =~0.2
degrees.

Looking at the graph in "Global Land-Ocean Temperature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

You can see a dip of over 0.2 degrees in the period 1880,1910 in one
place takes place such a dip occurs in less than 15 years. But it is
pretty easy to see the dip is well within ballpark of what has happened
before.

You can refute this be telling me the exact data set you were using, but
if there is a similar dip to the one I quote and you have just selected
special years that don't show it, I will draw the obvious conclusion.

The explanation for that period of cooling, known as 'The Little Ice
Age', was declining solar activity http://tinyurl.com/hppc9mn . It's
conceivable that the current hiatus is caused by the same mechanism,
and indeed that we're in for a long period of significant cooling due
to declining solar activity, as has been predicted by Abdussamatov
http://tinyurl.com/za47eyf , by Zharkova http://tinyurl.com/pxp9tva or
by this group http://tinyurl.com/gnly7s5 Except that AIUI these
theories wave been generally dismissed by warmists and we're left with
an unknown explanation (apart from the vigorous arm-waving,
readjustments and reinterpretations of raw data to fit the real
results, seen in the Wiki article).

If the hiatus is due to declining solar activity, then there's no need
to get worried by CO2 levels; we should even be grateful for them as
they may offset an extended period of deep cold. By the time it's
over, nuclear power will be far more developed than it is now, we'll
probably be into LFTR's or even fusion reactors, and fossil fuels will
be a thing of the past anyway.


Of course if the supposed decline in solar activity has a period of 30
years or so warming will reappear in a few years at double the normal
rate as the 30 year cycle reverts to mean.


But if one dismisses variation in solar activity, one is left with
your unknown deterministic or stochastic processes. In which case you
have to accept the possibility that the late-20th century warming
might also have been due to an unknown deterministic or stochastic
process, that happened to occur at about the same time as CO2 levels
were rising.

A change of 0.6 degrees over 40 years is much less likely to be
statistical variation than a lack of 0.2 degrees over 15 years. But the
theory behind global warming due to CO2 is based on much more than the
last 40 years. The last 40 years are consistent with global warming they
don't prove it.


Is it possible that such a process exists? The following graph shows a
12-month moving average of the HadCRUT4 global temperature data from
1950 onwards http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2rcvb45&s=9 Then I looked
at El Niño data http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm and superimposed it
onto the moving averaged HadCRUT4 data:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=15rb478&s=9 . As you can see, there's
a strong correlation between the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) and global
temperatures. This isn't surprising, as the ONI is based on Pacific
Ocean temperatures, and the HadCRUT4 data almost certainly includes
such temperatures in its derivation. So the one is a proxy for the
other. The early El Niños were obviously not related to anthropogenic
CO2, and there's no suggestion that the current one is either. But
AIUI, there is no understanding of the fundamental reasons as to why
El Niños occur. The world suddenly warms, and equally suddenly it
cools again. Obviously one of your unknown deterministic or stochastic
processes.

All that goes to underline how little climatologists understand about
the global climate, and I suggest that if you argue that the current
hiatus in global temperature increase is due to an unknown mechanistic
or stochastic process, then it's just as likely that the warming that
preceded it was also due to an unknown deterministic or stochastic
process, just like the El Niños, and that CO2 had nothing to do with
it and is related to it purely by coincidence.


I won't accept just as likely but it is of course possible other factors
were in play. What we are talking about is a theory, a best guess. In
real life prudent people act on guesses not certainty, this is because
the future is unclear.

But as I said I'm not really knowledgeable enough to comment on the
finer points of global warming. All I can comment on is that people
should not infer too much from "apparent trends" in a stochastic process.

This thread has gone on far too long. I imagine there's only the three
of us left reading it. I've made my points and I'm not going to say
any more. I'll do something more productive.


ok

On 12/01/16 14:59, Nick wrote:
The current growth rate attributed to global warming on wiki is 0.013
degrees per year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming .

Nick there is no pint quoting wikipedia on this. It's completely biased.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/3...he-news-again/

"The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green
Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC."


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 12/01/2016 15:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/01/16 14:59, Nick wrote:
The current growth rate attributed to global warming on wiki is 0.013
degrees per year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming .

Nick there is no pint quoting wikipedia on this. It's completely biased.


Well if it's a choice between you and Wiki, Wiki is going to win. You
seem like a fun guy but you are just a guy on the internet.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/3...he-news-again/


"The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green
Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC."


Yes I'm sure some global warming proponents fudge the figures and lie.
I'm not going to defend every claim by the global warming community.

I don't dispute that it is a brave or stupid academic who speaks out
against a scientific consensus. We get to a certain age and even the
autistic amongst us, such as my self, realise that parroting a group
think view can be done with out fear of investigation or reprisal, even
if the view is nonsense. Whereas if we speak out against a group view
the roving eye of Sauron turns in our direction and any small error will
be uncovered and exploited.

All I have been saying in this thread is that you are inferring stuff
from a small amount of statistical data that it is not reasonable to infer.

On 12/01/16 16:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nick
wrote:

I won't accept just as likely but it is of course possible other
factors were in play. What we are talking about is a theory, a best
guess. In real life prudent people act on guesses not certainty, this
is because the future is unclear.

No it's a hypothesis, not a theory. The former gets promoted to the
latter when:

1) The hypothesis matches all observations to date,

2) and there's a mathematical basis for it which can make predictions,

3) and the predicted events are observed to take place.


That's why Newton's gravity is a theory: you predict, f'rinstance,
eclipses and bugger me they appear bang on time.

Whereas you predict more global warming, and, bugger me, it doesn't
happen...


--
Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time the quo has lost
its status.

Laurence Peter

On 12/01/16 16:15, Nick wrote:


All I have been saying in this thread is that you are inferring stuff
from a small amount of statistical data that it is not reasonable to infer.




And what I have been replying is that it is exactly enough statistical
data to place CO2 induced global warming in the dustbin of history to a
95% confidence level

Its that simple.

And your 'concern troll "I am reasonable"' act fools no one.

Science and statistics are not a matter of your opinion, or the opinion
of '97% of so called climate scientists" especially when THAT cxlaimn is
also a lie.

Statistics says that 17+ years of no significant warming refutes AGW to
a 95% confidence level. It's that simple.


--
Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time the quo has lost
its status.

Laurence Peter

On 12/01/2016 16:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nick
wrote:

I won't accept just as likely but it is of course possible other
factors were in play. What we are talking about is a theory, a best
guess. In real life prudent people act on guesses not certainty, this
is because the future is unclear.

No it's a hypothesis, not a theory. The former gets promoted to the
latter when:

1) The hypothesis matches all observations to date,

2) and there's a mathematical basis for it which can make predictions,

3) and the predicted events are observed to take place.


That's why Newton's gravity is a theory: you predict, f'rinstance,
eclipses and bugger me they appear bang on time.

Which part of those 3 do you think has not been met?

On 12/01/16 18:07, Nick wrote:
On 12/01/2016 16:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nick
wrote:

I won't accept just as likely but it is of course possible other
factors were in play. What we are talking about is a theory, a best
guess. In real life prudent people act on guesses not certainty, this
is because the future is unclear.

No it's a hypothesis, not a theory. The former gets promoted to the
latter when:

1) The hypothesis matches all observations to date,

2) and there's a mathematical basis for it which can make predictions,

3) and the predicted events are observed to take place.


That's why Newton's gravity is a theory: you predict, f'rinstance,
eclipses and bugger me they appear bang on time.

Which part of those 3 do you think has not been met?

one and three, and some of 2


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 13/01/2016 06:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/01/16 18:07, Nick wrote:
On 12/01/2016 16:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nick
wrote:

I won't accept just as likely but it is of course possible other
factors were in play. What we are talking about is a theory, a best
guess. In real life prudent people act on guesses not certainty, this
is because the future is unclear.

No it's a hypothesis, not a theory. The former gets promoted to the
latter when:

1) The hypothesis matches all observations to date,

2) and there's a mathematical basis for it which can make predictions,

3) and the predicted events are observed to take place.


That's why Newton's gravity is a theory: you predict, f'rinstance,
eclipses and bugger me they appear bang on time.

Which part of those 3 do you think has not been met?

one and three, and some of 2


Do either of you have actual examples. You know real examples. Rather
than ones where you say the data talked to you but where you are
unwilling to reveal what data, what was said or even what language was used.

On 13/01/16 10:12, Nick wrote:
On 13/01/2016 06:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/01/16 18:07, Nick wrote:
On 12/01/2016 16:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nick
wrote:

I won't accept just as likely but it is of course possible other
factors were in play. What we are talking about is a theory, a best
guess. In real life prudent people act on guesses not certainty, this
is because the future is unclear.

No it's a hypothesis, not a theory. The former gets promoted to the
latter when:

1) The hypothesis matches all observations to date,

2) and there's a mathematical basis for it which can make predictions,

3) and the predicted events are observed to take place.


That's why Newton's gravity is a theory: you predict, f'rinstance,
eclipses and bugger me they appear bang on time.

Which part of those 3 do you think has not been met?

one and three, and some of 2


Do either of you have actual examples. You know real examples. Rather
than ones where you say the data talked to you but where you are
unwilling to reveal what data, what was said or even what language was
used.
we have given it to you time and again. You just suffer from fits of
(paid for?) cognitive dissonance.


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

Josef Stalin

And just to prove somebody else is reading the thread and it isn't just
three - this came up.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...g-next-ice-age

AKA

http://tinyurl.com/h99p9o8

Andy

Vir Campestris wrote:

And just to prove somebody else is reading the thread and it isn't just
three - this came up.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...g-next-ice-age

What this article claims is that not only are we causing global warming,
but we are doing it on such an enormous scale that we have cancelled
the onset of the next ice age (not expected in any case for 50,000 years,
according to Wikipedia).

Quite difficult to hold this belief at the same time
as believing global warming is a myth.




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

On 15/01/16 22:01, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:

And just to prove somebody else is reading the thread and it isn't just
three - this came up.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...g-next-ice-age

What this article claims is that not only are we causing global warming,
but we are doing it on such an enormous scale that we have cancelled
the onset of the next ice age (not expected in any case for 50,000 years,
according to Wikipedia).

Quite difficult to hold this belief at the same time
as believing global warming is a myth.



On the contrary, the ability to practice doublethink is a necessary
requirement of a Leftybrain.





--
He who ****s in the road, will meet flies on his return.

"Mr Natural"

On 16/01/16 09:59, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:16:57 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

And just to prove somebody else is reading the thread and it isn't just
three - this came up.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...g-next-ice-age

AKA

http://tinyurl.com/h99p9o8

Andy

Hmm...abstract to the original article here http://tinyurl.com/zar2a8q
although the whole article is behind a pay-wall, and the figures are
difficult to interpret even when enlarged. The abstract says "Using an
ensemble of simulations generated by an Earth system model of
intermediate complexity constrained by palaeoclimatic data". But
existing climate models have failed to predict current global
temperatures (see the link I put up in reply to Nick, two days ago),
which must cast doubt on the reliability of the conclusions here.

But if it's all true, and the earth's climate is much more sensitive
to CO2 concentrations than traditional and solid scientific logic
would suggest, then our distant descendants will be grateful. Bring
back Drax; bring back Ferrybridge; long live Eggborough; old and
faithful friends, warming the future!

That said, it's interesting to see that this article is yet another
that invokes external influences (Milankovitch cycles, solar
irradiance etc) as being the principal driving forces controlling
climate.

What people need to realise is that trolling isn't just something 5thast
happens on the Internet. This article is trolling. It doesn't matter if
its true or not, and no one cares whether it is. The purpose of it is to
indelibly link CO2 and climate change in the public consciousness, in
order to justify government control of energy.

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

Al Capone

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The purpose of it is to
indelibly link CO2 and climate change in the public consciousness, in
order to justify government control of energy.

Care to name a time when the government of the UK wasn't in control of
energy? Or of course now, when it's other 'governments' who control much
of our energy.

The one thing about most renewables is that they aren't. You can use wind
or solar power yourself, as you wish. Unlike coal, oil or gas etc which
don't belong to you even if on your land.

It's really time you has treatment for this paranoia and concentrated on
verifiable facts - as you seem to expect others to do.

--
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

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

On Sunday, 3 January 2016 21:43:49 UTC, newshound wrote:

Calder Hall Reactor 1 actually generated for 47 years. I'm not sure what
its design life was, but the early commercial Magnox stations were
designed for 25 years, the later like Wylfa for 30 years.

No. 1 was operational in October 1950 followed by Pile No. 2 in June 1951.

Pile No. 2 was designed to fail before 1957 the year in which it was shut down. Before construction someone realised this was inevitable but he was completely ignored. Winston Churchill wanted an hydrogen Bomb and he wanted it NOW.

It was the product of a fat drunk and immoderate acolytes. At least Thacherism isn't quite so deadly there is even a case for her lies being for the sake of the health of the men she was at war with.

On Monday, 4 January 2016 19:29:48 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 04/01/2016 18:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/16 17:14, RJH wrote:
On 04/01/2016 16:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) explained :
So you are saying all solar power devices take more energy to make than
they will produce in their lifetime? Which of course is rubbish. So the
alternative would be that all the energy they produce is wasted in some
way.

Without getting involved with any balance sheets, my guess would be that
yes they do generate more greenhouse gases in their manufacture,
installation and maintenance than they could possibly save.


It seems the science has been done for you:

http://www.livescience.com/2324-sola...-measured.html



and they at least find solar use results in massive cuts to toxic waste
and air pollution.

livescience isn't live and it isn't science. They of course totally
ignore the externalities emissions sand fuel burn of solar power

And the articles are straight cut and paste for whoever is paying them
to run them.


You need to raise your concerns with this bloke:

http://eee.columbia.edu/vasilis-fthenakis

He's the one cited/quoted, and it's from a peer reviewed source.

I didn't link to the source because it's a sub-only. But here's a decent
slice:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1036/ML103620062.pdf

89% of air emissions could be prevented with solar.

Now, can/will you present the counter evidence?

Without resorting to scientifically unproven data such as their output over the daylight hours for the last two months?

On 16/01/16 13:28, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Monday, 4 January 2016 19:29:48 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 04/01/2016 18:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/16 17:14, RJH wrote:
On 04/01/2016 16:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) explained :
So you are saying all solar power devices take more energy to make than
they will produce in their lifetime? Which of course is rubbish. So the
alternative would be that all the energy they produce is wasted in some
way.

Without getting involved with any balance sheets, my guess would be that
yes they do generate more greenhouse gases in their manufacture,
installation and maintenance than they could possibly save.


It seems the science has been done for you:

http://www.livescience.com/2324-sola...-measured.html



and they at least find solar use results in massive cuts to toxic waste
and air pollution.

livescience isn't live and it isn't science. They of course totally
ignore the externalities emissions sand fuel burn of solar power

And the articles are straight cut and paste for whoever is paying them
to run them.


You need to raise your concerns with this bloke:

http://eee.columbia.edu/vasilis-fthenakis

He's the one cited/quoted, and it's from a peer reviewed source.

I didn't link to the source because it's a sub-only. But here's a decent
slice:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1036/ML103620062.pdf

89% of air emissions could be prevented with solar.

Now, can/will you present the counter evidence?

Without resorting to scientifically unproven data such as their output over the daylight hours for the last two months?

or assuming that every watt hour of photovoltaic electricity is a watt
hour of carbon fuel that doesn't get burnt?

its all not even O level science. Its noddy assumptions and noddy
conclusions.

In short marketing dressed up to fool the non scientists that its science.



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

Karl Marx

On 16/01/16 13:21, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sunday, 3 January 2016 21:43:49 UTC, newshound wrote:

Calder Hall Reactor 1 actually generated for 47 years. I'm not sure
what its design life was, but the early commercial Magnox stations
were designed for 25 years, the later like Wylfa for 30 years.

No. 1 was operational in October 1950 followed by Pile No. 2 in June
1951.

Pile No. 2 was designed to fail before 1957 the year in which it was
shut down. Before construction someone realised this was inevitable
but he was completely ignored. Winston Churchill wanted an hydrogen
Bomb and he wanted it NOW.

It was the product of a fat drunk and immoderate acolytes. At least
Thacherism isn't quite so deadly there is even a case for her lies
being for the sake of the health of the men she was at war with.

Amusing rewrite of history from a lefty**** perspective,,...

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

Karl Marx

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 3 January 2016 21:43:49 UTC, newshound wrote:

Calder Hall Reactor 1 actually generated for 47 years. I'm not sure what
its design life was, but the early commercial Magnox stations were
designed for 25 years, the later like Wylfa for 30 years.

No. 1 was operational in October 1950 followed by Pile No. 2 in June 1951.

Pile No. 2 was designed to fail before 1957 the year in which it was shut
down. Before construction someone realised this was inevitable but he was
completely ignored.

Winston Churchill wanted an hydrogen Bomb and he wanted it NOW.
It was the product of a fat drunk and immoderate acolytes.

The Conservatives led by Winston Churchill weren't re-elected until
Oct 25th 1951, having been out of power for the six preceding years.

HTH

Britain's Atomic Programme was initiated and overseen in total secrecy*
by a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by Clement Attlee. Despite being
under severe financial strain at the time, in setting up the NHS,
compensating owners of nationalised industries and servicing war debt,
the Labour Govt. of the time have never been given full credit for this
initiative.
So secret* in fact that apparently even Winston Churchill knew nothing
about it. Which was rather unfortunate as in 1943, and 1944
Churchill and Roosevelt had signed two agreements at Quebec and Hyde
Park (US Presidential residence) implementing the full sharing of
scientific and specifically atomic research between the two
countries.
However by 1946 when the US Congress passed the McMahon Act
ending any further US scientific co-operation with the UK,
Roosevelt was dead, the US Congress knew nothing about the
two agreements, neither did Atlee, while Churchill was totally
out of the loop probably holidaying on the South of France.
As a result of which the UK's atomic energy and weapons
programme probably cost millions more than it need otherwise
have done.


michael adams

....

On 21/01/2016 16:41, michael adams wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 3 January 2016 21:43:49 UTC, newshound wrote:

Calder Hall Reactor 1 actually generated for 47 years. I'm not sure what
its design life was, but the early commercial Magnox stations were
designed for 25 years, the later like Wylfa for 30 years.

No. 1 was operational in October 1950 followed by Pile No. 2 in June 1951.

Pile No. 2 was designed to fail before 1957 the year in which it was shut
down. Before construction someone realised this was inevitable but he was
completely ignored.

Winston Churchill wanted an hydrogen Bomb and he wanted it NOW.
It was the product of a fat drunk and immoderate acolytes.

The Conservatives led by Winston Churchill weren't re-elected until
Oct 25th 1951, having been out of power for the six preceding years.

HTH

All labour supporters know it is Maggie that is responsible for nuclear
weapons and everything else they think is bad.