This is rich.
Every article I write using this NCAR (National Center For Atmospheric Research) graph from the 1970s, gets filled with comments that “no real climate scientists believed the globe was cooling.”
WTF? Any child with basic graph reading skills can see that they thought it was cooling.
You are assuming your readers have at least the comprehension level of a child! It is obvious there are some lemmings that have been assigned as a shadow for this site to show the wisdom of the Climate Disruption Promoters (CDP).
Maybe you are just attracting the Climataphobics.
Despite the obvious cooling and calls by Shneider et al for action, they had to invent aerosol (pixie dust too maybe?) interference to detract from the thermostatic control exerted by the [CO2] that just keep rising throughout this period. NH aerosol production that cooled the planet…..sure it did.
I propose that we discuss climate and whether. Yes, whether, because if it doesn’t suit the warmist agenda then whether or not it works for them (the “climate” manifestation) they will make use of it.
they had to invent aerosol (pixie dust too maybe?) interference
So, your scientific opinion is that if you put a gigatons of tiny particles into the atmosphere and reduce the amount of sunlight that gets through it, it’s not going to affect the temperature?
BTW, Steve will shortly be chiding you about your post being off-topic, since he’s very consistent about that.
PS: It’s “weather”
The heat in Russia? Yes, that was weather.
PJB says:
October 30, 2010 at 1:36 pm
they had to invent aerosol (pixie dust too maybe?)
Politicians had to fabricate a way to justify reelecting them.
have been assigned as a shadow
I remember a few months ago hearing the the Obama administration was going to do that. With how some commenters talk I have been wondering the past few days if it is true.
Yes, that’s right, anyone with an opposing opinion must be a government agent.
God bless America.
Yes, God Bless America. But I mean it for real.
So the Obama Administration didn’t say they were going to do that?
So I’ll wait for your answer that will likely change into a different answer later. Then you’ll parse words. Then you’ll ridicule people that didn’t follow your contrived nuance. Then you’ll ridicule people that won’t jump through your hoops. Then you’ll ridicule some more.
Hey, you look like a politikal animal. Some animals are more equal than others. You’re the most equal.
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Yes, that’s right, anyone with an opposing opinion must be a government agent.
Ya, that’s good interpretation of what was said. You nailed it. That was an accurate view of what was said.
sarc off.
Here you are, ChrisD, popping veins arguing over words, and going on and on insisting everyone is not accurately interpreting what you say. But when it comes to someone else you make the broadest stereotype. No more parsing words when it’s someone else. You just use bluntest instruments at hand then.
It’s good that people see an example of what a true-blue global warming advocate is all about.
Would you point to the comments that said “no real climate scientists believed the globe was cooling”, Steve? Links to a few of those comments?
Oh, here’s one. No, wait, that’s not what it says.
Must be this one. Dang, no, that one doesn’t say it either.
Surely it must be this one. Hell’s bells. that one doesn’t say it.
OK, I give up. I can’t find any comments that say it wasn’t cooling. In fact, the ones I found say the exact oppositite, sometimes in bold:
So, how’s about posting links to some of those comments that “fill” your blog with denials that it was cooling?
LOL. Is there anything you don’t argue about?
Steve, if you are going to post blatantly obvious falsehoods, I am going to argue with them.
Nobody that I can find said what you’re claiming. That is a fact, and it is a fact that can be trivially verified without even leaving this blog.
Instead of LOLing, back up your claim. Post some links. Show us those people who “fill” your blog with comments about how no scientists believed it was cooling.
Let’s see your evidence.
You crack me up man.
OK, so you don’t have any evidence. That’s what I thought. (Actually, it’s what I knew.)
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Steve, if you are going to post blatantly obvious falsehoods, I am going to argue with them.
Um ya, you’ve been arguing the most about that Salon article not attributing the storm to global warming (causing or proving, whatever that meant).
So it’s true, you argue about blatantly obvious falsehoods since everyone can see the Salon article was about something else. ;o)
James Hansen thinks it has been warming since 1965.
Ha ha ha…..
No, he doesn’t.
Global warming started when humans took the first piece of coal to heat their homes and it has Snowballed from there. Just ask Big Jim or Brother Al! They have manufactured the proof.
Coal trains of death. What a bizarre mind James Hansen has.
Oh, but wait, how dare I say that about a man that’s trying to save the world.
Very good Chris, your wordsmith skills are noteworthy. And I can post other examples where you clearly imply but don’t specifically state, the science community wasn’t concerned with the looming ice age or that they didn’t consider an ice age imminent.
Chris, either you are intentionally misleading people towards your meaning or you need to work on clarity.
But sis, here’s the thing. Obviously your formal education didn’t start until after the 1970s. The global cooling theory was so widely accepted, it was part of our text books at the time. Can I provide links? No, sis, TCP/IP hadn’t come into play yet. I know this may be unfathomable for you, but prior to the internet, not everything was digital nor even micofished. Neither has there been a big movement to archive the past failings of our alarmist friends nor their predecessors.
One area that has a push to digitalize historic accounts is news periodicals. Here’s what Moreno came up with http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims
Now for those of us old enough to recall, back in those days, while the news industry did have a political lean to it, they still had a thing called standards. In other words, when they quoted someone, it was the exact quote. And to take it out of context, in those days, usually meant a firing offense.
Chris, I don’t need you telling me what was happening back then, I lived through it. I lived through the endless droning explaining how we’re all going to die soon and how urgent it was for us to act. The issue died when we started warming only to have the same mindless drivel(yet at a higher shrill) shoved down the populace’s throat and indoctrination of our children. This warming alarmism will die soon too. And the global totalitarians will have to find another bogey man to frighten the children. How do I know this? I’ve seen it before.
And I can post other examples where you clearly imply but don’t specifically state, the science community wasn’t concerned with the looming ice age or that they didn’t consider an ice age imminent.
I didn’t “imply” that; I stated that flat out. The scientific community as a whole was not concerned with a looming ice age. That is a fact, and it was my entire point.
But that is not what this post is about. Steve says that there were many comments that scientists did not believe that it was cooling. That claim is false.
You people seem totally unable to comprehend the difference between observations and predictions.
Obviously your formal education didn’t start until after the 1970s.
Uh, I graduated from college in 1971. A very good one, by the way.
No, sis, TCP/IP hadn’t come into play yet. I know this may be unfathomable for you, but prior to the internet, not everything was digital nor even micofished.
Bubba, I was born in 1949, so you can stick that.
As for digitized, most of the research papers from that period are digitized. That’s where you can find out what scientists really thought. That’s been done. There were essentially no predictions of near-term global cooling.
I particularly like that this came in 1975 from the NAS on a coming cooling:
“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale…..because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
Same language used now for global warming. All warning of what ‘could’ happen unless we change something.and that change always involves money.
Oh, sorry Chris, now I see the problem. You’re one of those reality denying historical revisionists .
You took exception to Steven posting this……….”Every article I write using this NCAR (National Center For Atmospheric Research) graph from the 1970s, gets filled with comments that “no real climate scientists believed the globe was cooling.”
In rebut to me, you state “I didn’t “imply” that; I stated that flat out. The scientific community as a whole was not concerned with a looming ice age. That is a fact, and it was my entire point.”
If you can’t see the circular motion of your arguments, then there isn’t much else to be stated. You can choose the literal translation of Steven’s statement or use you deductive powers to see what he was stating, but here you are plainly reaffirming what Steve wrote.
Chris, if you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend the global cooling debacle never happened, that’s fine with me. It is endemic in modern science discussion to attempt to alter past scientific discussions especially relating to climate discussion, so its nothing new.(See Arrhenius) As to your assertion the papers have mostly been digitalized, that’s a laughable assertion, but unprovable either way. As to your “good college” appeal to authority, I would only say that so did Obama and he’s a moron, or to put it in a manner you’re more apt to relate to, so did both presidents Bush.
Sorry, if you also are unable to comprehend the difference between “This is what I see now” and “This is what I predict for the future,” there is little hope for you.
suyts says:
October 30, 2010 at 5:13 pm
You’re one of those reality denying historical revisionists
You can find what ChrisD is talking about in Wikipedia. But everyone knows Wikipedia is open source and can’t be relied on for accuracy. William Connolley has made so many changes to Wikipedia when it comes to the topic of global warming, and the topic of the 70’s coming ice age scare, that he has been banned from Wikipedia for abuses.
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Sorry, if you also are unable to comprehend the difference between “This is what I see now” and “This is what I predict for the future,” there is little hope for you.
Here you are, still straining over an argument you created in the first place.
ChrisD says:
October 29, 2010 at 12:05 am
Yeah, except that he does know. He’s not that stupid.
“Coming ice age” was a mass media headline. I asked him for scientific support for global cooling, not media articles
How about this one?
If you spent less time nitpicking you might actually learn something.
Read the comments I linked to. The issue was not whether it was cooling, it was whether scientists were predicting it was going to continue.
Here’s what was actually said:
“There was global cooling going on. Nobody disputes this. That’s not the issue.”
“Oh, come on. Nobody disputes that there was a cooling trend.”
“It WAS cooling in the 1970s. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE”
How could this be any more clear, Paul? Who’s nitpicking?
If you make enough contradictory posts, you can always find a few which suit your current purpose.
Steve, find the contradictory posts. You said that your blog was “filled with” these comments.
Where?
stevengoddard says:
October 30, 2010 at 1:42 pm
If you make enough contradictory posts, you can always find a few which suit your current purpose.
Like the broken clock?
Maybe he talks so much that he even loses track himself. He brings up politics occasionally. Isn’t talking a lot part of politics—if you talk a lot it doesn’t matter if you are consistent since people will get lost along the way in what you are saying. Isn’t the only thing that matters the last thing you say? Everything before that is a blur.
It appears the last thing ChrisD says is the thing he wants people to pay attention to. But the last thing he says later on will be different that the last thing now.
Watch those shells……which one is the pea under?
It appears the last thing ChrisD says is the thing he wants people to pay attention to. But the last thing he says later on will be different that the last thing now.
Show me the money.
Show me all those blog-filling posts about how scientists didn’t believe it was cooling.
So far Steve has refused to do this. Why don’t you help him out?
Show me all those blog-filling posts about how scientists didn’t believe it was cooling.
Your query is senseless.
Keep changing the topic. Keep moving the goalposts. Keep requiring people to jump through hoops.
Christ.
It’s the topic of THIS POST.
Steve says the blog is filled with comments about how scientists didn’t think it was cooling.
I asked to see those comments, since I can’t find them.
How is that changing the topic? How is that moving the goalposts?
Do you speak English?
No. That is what you wish it to be about.
Nice try.
How many times do people have to address you before you’ll stop? If they put a pretty bow on top will you stop? If they say, ‘sugar and spice and everything nice’ will you stop?
What is it that will satisfy your silly points? I think you just don’t want to admit you are wrong.
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I asked to see those comments, since I can’t find them.
I think you are not finding the answers you want people to say. People are answering you. They just aren’t saying what you keep requiring them to say.
I think you are not finding the answers you want people to say. People are answering you.
No, they’re not. I’ll repeat it, since you don’t seem to get it.
Steve claims that his blog got “filled” with comments from people who said that scientists did not believe the Earth was cooling.
I asked for links to those comments. That is a reasonable request. No such links have been provided.
I did, however, provide links to several comments that said the exact opposite of what Steve claimed. These comments explicitly stated that there was no dispute that the Earth was cooling. Scientists agreed that it was cooling.
Yet Steve claims that his blog is filled with comments claiming that scientists did not believe this.
Now, maybe Steve was just being imprecise in his wording here. I don’t know. Maybe he meant that there were comments disputing that scientists were predicting more cooling. That would be true. But that is not what he said, and what he said is not true.
Ya, it’s me that’s not getting it.
James Hansen has been adjusting his GISS charts so much that now he claims it has been warming since 1965!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/is-hansens-recent-temperature-data-consistent/
This is pure stupidity since there have been too many reports of increasing cold in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
You need to catch up ChrisD
Catch up with what?
Who filled this blog with comments that scientists didn’t believe it was cooling?
So next time I post about the 1970s global cooling, you have to promise that you won’t claim that Newsweek/Time/Everybody made it up.
You bet, since I never said that in the first place.
There’s a difference between “It was cooling” and “Scientists were predicting a new ice age.”
This is the bit that you all seem to have so much difficulty with. But keep trying, with hard work and dedication you’ll get it eventually.
Now, links to those comments that filled your blog about how scientists didn’t believe that it was cooling? Are you working on those? You’re working diligently on that, right?
So John Holdren didn’t write a book about it after all? Thanks for clearing that up.
We’ve already been through this.
Holdren wrote an essay about how CO2 warms and aerosols cool. He said that if we put a lot of aerosols into the atmosphere it could cause cooling.
Get it?
How soon will we see the links to those blog-filling comments about how scientists didn’t believe it was cooling? Or are you at some point going to admit that it never happened?
Right, I forgot. In 1945 humans suddenly started dumping huge amounts of sulfates into the atmosphere, causing a sudden reversal of a steep warming trend from the previous 30 years. Makes perfect sense.
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 2:55 pm
We’ve already been through this.
You keep bringing up the same crap. If you say it 3 times that makes it true?
You keep bringing up the same crap. If you say it 3 times that makes it true?
Get this straight: Steve keeps bringing up the same crap.
I keep responding.
No, what you are doing is the usual game of moving the goal post.
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Get this straight:
Yes sir! What you say is true.
No, what you are doing is the usual game of moving the goal post.
Nope. I have said the same thing on this topic from the gitgo.
1. The media articles were almost exclusively about observed weather. They contained observations, not predictions. The few predictions I have ever seen were vague and not attributed to anyone in particular.
2. There were essentially no predictions of significant near-term cooling in the scientific literature over the period 1965-1979. The only serious discussion of cooling had to do with either Milankovitch cycles or aerosol cooling. Milankovitch cycles have nothing to do with this issue. Aerosol cooling was not a prediction of a looming ice age, it was an academic discussion of what would happen if unrestricted aerosol pollution occurred.
3. Nobody disputes that it was actually cooling at that time.
I have not changed anything, and I have not moved the goalposts.
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 2:36 pm
There’s a difference between “It was cooling” and “Scientists were predicting a new ice age.”
No scientists were predicting a coming ice age? Pulease!
If no scientists were predicting a coming ice age then what was the need to change anything? The truth is politicians played the public again using scientists.
If no scientists were predicting a coming ice age then what was the need to change anything?
“If you drive too fast, you’ll get into an accident.”
That’s what moms & dads say to their teenage drivers. It’s not a prediction, right? They’re saying that if you do X, then Y will happen.
That’s what the scientists who were talking about aerosols were doing. “If you guys fill the atmosphere with aerosols, then there will be cooling, and it could be serious.” This isn’t a prediction, either.
The truth is politicians played the public again using scientists.
Curbing pollution was a bad thing?
James Hansen has been adjusting his GISS charts so much that now he claims it has been warming since 1965!
Look at that chart again. Concentrate on 1965-1980.
Explain to me how that shows warming.
How about from 1965 to NOW!
I wrote SINCE 1965.
Yet it is well known that it was actually COOLING from 1965 to 1977.James Hansen is hoping people like you conveniently forget what really happened.I LIVED through those years and KNOW it was definitely cooler during those years than now.
James H. has been adjusting his charts for years now,since he is a pervert for the CO2 hypothesis.A desperate effort to prop up his delusions.For the purpose of making it appear that it has been much cooler decades ago,in order to make current climate appear much hotter than it really is.
His very behavior indicated he KNOWS that the AGW hypothesis is failing.Thus he does these dishonest adjustments in order to try fooling miserable people.Who are so gullible that they swallow anything he says.
Did you lose your glasses again?
OK, so you agree that it doesn’t show warming from 1965-1980?
So what we have is no warming from 1965-1980 and warming from 1980-present. Yet you say “he claims it has been warming since 1965!” instead of “he claims it has been warming since 1980!”
Why?
Actually, never mind. I already know why.
sunsettommy says:
October 30, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I wrote SINCE 1965.
It doesn’t matter what you said. ChrisD will move the goalposts and then act like it’s you that isn’t telling him what he is asking.
It doesn’t matter what you said. ChrisD will move the goalposts
Fine, you explain why he claimed that Hansen says it’s been “warming since 1965” if Hansen shows no warming from 1965 to 1980.
Shoot dude, alarmist scientists say global warming has been happening since man started burning coal in trains in the 1800’s. Where you been?
I love this, you moving the goalposts.
At the same time you go on and on about everyone needing to closely examine your comments so they don’t get what you say wrong. But then you suddenly get sloppy when you refer to the other side.
There’s been cooling periods since trains started burning coal, and electricity plants have burned coal. So according to your reasoning all scientists who say the earth has warmed since the 1800’s are wrong because there have been times of cooling since then.
Try to be unbiased in how you apply being specific. Keep it good for both the goose and the gander.
GISS warming since 1965:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture7.png?w=454&h=331&h=331
Minor correction: The adjustments go back to the late 1800s to increase the warming. Now the 30s are cooler than the 70s according to Big Jim!
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 2:36 pm
There’s a difference between “It was cooling” and “Scientists were predicting a new ice age.”
Your word games are becoming repulsive.
It’s not a friggin’ word game.
“It’s been cooling for a few years” and “An ice age is imminent” and TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Observations and predictions are NOT the same thing.
Are you really that blind? I mean, are you really, seriously that freaking blind?
Ya, how about that word game you played with the Salon article.
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 3:29 pm
It’s not a friggin’ word game.
It is whatever you say it is. It isn’t what people see it being.
Ok, so reply to me now that I am not getting what you are saying. Tell me what hoop I have to jump through now.
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 3:29 pm
It’s not a friggin’ word game.
Is global warming the ’cause’ of you saying that? Or is you saying that ‘proof’ of global warming? Wouldn’t want to miss out on one of your parsing iterations.
Fine, you think “It’s cold today” and “It’s going to be freezing next week” are the same thing.
That really does explain a lot of your comments.
Glad to see nothing has changed. Tried to give you a break last week Amino. Looks like you had plenty of energy over the weekend.
SST:
Please tell us how you really feel about this. Quit trying to be polite and considerate of others it dampens your expressiveness.
There is no little guy rolling around on the floor for me to place here! 🙁
Here’s a nugget from Hubert Lamb, director of climate research at the infamous University of East Anglia in 1972…
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/26/hubert-lamb-on-ice-ages.html
Let me quote George Will here…
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.” Science Digest (February 1973) reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.” The Christian Science Monitor (“Warning: Earth’s Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect,” Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers “have begun to advance,” “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” and “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.” Newsweek agreed (“The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975) that meteorologists “are almost unanimous” that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said “may mark the return to another ice age.” The Times (May 21, 1975) also said “a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable” now that it is “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.”
Establishment media centers quoting scientists. Remember, newspaper and magazine editors would have expected their reporters to interview scientists before publishing scare stories like this. Just like now. Unless, of course, they thought it might sell better to publish scary stories. Just like now.
You couldn’t make the MWP go away and you can’t make the 1970’s global cooling consensus go away. And Mother Nature ain’t taking away your Arctic ice, either. Got anything else, Chris?
Do you understand the difference between observations and predictions, Mike? If you do, that throws out almost all of those. They are observations. They are not predictions. No one disputes the observations.
As for the few remaining items, one example should suffice.
Will says that Science predicted “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”
And so it did. But here’s what he didn’t bother with: The piece was talking about Milankovitch cycles, period. The prediction was very long-term. Here’s the bit that Will “accidentally” omitted:
Now, why do you suppose Will left that out? And how much credibility does that leave for the rest of it?
What else you got, Mike?
OK, so Time and Newsweek and the rest of the press made the whole thing up. Climatologists never read the papers, so they were unaware of what was being written and didn’t sort it out.
Makes perfect sense, if you are an idiot.
For the 8,532d time:
TIME AND NEWSWEEK DID NOT MAKE THE WHOLE THING UP. I DID NOT AND WILL NOT SAY THAT.
No, in point of fact, you have to be an idiot to read the Time and Newsweek articles and not understand that they contained observations, not predictions.
Hey–is this a Turing test? If it is, it failed. You seem totally unable to comprehend what is said to you.
What part of no climate scientists were talking about global warming do you not understand? What part of the consistent message of impending cooling given by climate scientists to reporters back then do you not understand? Did you even look at the Hubert Lamb link? Would you mind telling me at what point in time I can ignore East Anglia’s predictions and when I should start believing them?
Do you know how stupid you people look, trying to convince us that climate scientists believed in global warming all along? It’s one of a myriad of reasons why belief in AGW is down to 34% of the population…
http://people-press.org/report/669/
You are going to have to realize sooner or later that the game is over. Your scientific case cannot improve but the number of holes shot into it will keep accumulating. As of next Tuesday, the last remaining hope of a political solution to your mythical crisis will be lost. Last, but certainly not least, take a good look at October’s final anomalies and current SST’s. You have nothing to look forward to. In two years that 34% will look like a lofty goal for you to reach for.
But you said that none of those pieces talked about long term cooling…. hmmmmm.
Link to where I said none of those pieces were talking about long term cooling.
I totally understand it now. ChrisD is being paid by Gore and Soros (he admitted it) for the number of comments he can post on this site. There simply can be no other explanation for the drivel he thrusts upone us every freaking day.
What a maroon.
ROTFLMAO. You can’t even get this word right. You are however a MORON – (–noun 1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.)
ma·roon2 (m?-r?n’)
n.
A dark reddish brown to dark purplish red.
Mike:
You need to forgive Chris because Chris has a dirty navel and could not see what was typed.
Never watched Bugs Bunny, eh?
Figures.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=maroon
Actually he is just another dumb AGW believer,who does what so many of them do.Muddy up the threads with a lot of nitpicking crap,or irrelevant distractions.
He just did that by using a small subset of the chart I linked to try disputing my apparently unopposed claim that James Hansen chart shows that it stopped cooling about 1965 and started warming up all the way to NOW.He chose the 1965-1980 section.While I showed the chart from 1880 to now.But pointed out that the cooling stopped about 1965 on his chart.
He never noticed that 1980 is a lot warmer than 1965,just as 2010 is warmer than 1980 AND 1965.
He stupidly wrote:
““OK, so you agree that it doesn’t show warming from 1965-1980?
So what we have is no warming from 1965-1980 and warming from 1980-present. Yet you say “he claims it has been warming since 1965!” instead of “he claims it has been warming since 1980!””
The GISS chart clearly shows that 1980 is much warmer than 1965.
Here is the chart I referred to earlier:
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/trendthroughjuly2010.png
Notice that 1980 is at the PLUS .20 spot.While 1965 is at the MINUS range.The ENTIRE 1960 and 1970 all showed a tempeture cooler range than it was in 1980.
ChrisD is making a complete fool of himself in the process.
The sad part is that he is unaware that he is doing it.
The GISS chart clearly shows that 1980 is much warmer than 1965.
Oh, you think that comparing two individual years is how you judge a trend.
Well, that explains a great deal.
Mike writes,
“You can’t even get this word right.”
As usual, ChrisD is running circles around you guys. “What a maroon!” is an old Bugs Bunny joke. The exact phrase gets 190,000 hits on Google.
Right.
I agree that Chris appears to be getting exercise on this site, running around in circles and jumping to conclusions based on imagined fantasies that you seem to share. Chris probably picked that phrase up from the other Waskally Wabbit Eli at Airhead AKA openmind.
As usual you are trying to distract everyone from the real issues.
But if Bugs Bunny is level of your intelligence, then so be it.
Hey, don’t forget Leonard Nimoy’s “In Search of…The Coming Ice Age.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8
Consider the thought process behind the producers of that show before they began production. Think they ran into a few climate scientists who said they thought we were warming instead and decided to ignore them?
Not this again.
They also found people to support Bigfoot, ancient alien astronauts, astrology, faith healing, the Abominable Snowman, psychic detectives, alien abductions, etc. etc. etc.
So is this really something you want to offer up as evidence?
Do you think this was science, or entertainment?
ChrisD being a rockhead:
“OK, so you agree that it doesn’t show warming from 1965-1980?
So what we have is no warming from 1965-1980 and warming from 1980-present. Yet you say “he claims it has been warming since 1965!” instead of “he claims it has been warming since 1980!”
Why?
Actually, never mind. I already know why.”
I was commenting on the chart JAMES HANSEN made.Where it shows that the warming trend started about 1965 to NOW.
That is because James is trying to make the 1940’s to 1970’s cooling trend vanish with every “adjustment” he makes.He is almost half way there.
Steve G. shows that there were scientists back in the 1970’s who believed there was a cooling trend.
George Kukla,Carl Sagan,Bert Olin,Henry Stommel,John Imbrie and many more commented in those days.That they were aware of a long cooling trend.
But James Hansen is trying to make it vanish with his playstation manipulations.He now thinks it stopped cooling in…. LOL,,, 1965.
It is STOOOOOPID!
You are a proven bullshitter.
I was commenting on the chart JAMES HANSEN made.Where it shows that the warming trend started about 1965 to NOW.
No, it doesn’t. Look at the friggin’ chart again. The warming doesn’t start until ~1980.
You people don’t even understand things like “up” and “down”. It’s a wonder you can find your mouths with your forks.
Gawad you are that DUMB!
It says RUNNING MEAN right on the friggin chart!
ROFLMAO!
Um, do you actually not understand what “running mean” means?
Apparently not.
Here, let’s make it easier, since that’s too complicated. Let’s take out the running mean and just show the temps:
http://bit.ly/c6nW3T
The GISTEMP trend for 1965-1979 is a virtually flat +0.003C/year. Hansen does not show “warming since 1965.” That is a flat-out false statement. The warming starts in about 1980.
To recap:
“sunsettommy says:
October 30, 2010 at 2:03 pm
James Hansen thinks it has been warming since 1965.
Ha ha ha…..
He absurdly Replies,
*
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 2:16 pm
No, he doesn’t.”
His failed counterpoint was then met with access to the Chart made by James Hansen himself.
“sunsettommy says:
October 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm
James Hansen has been adjusting his GISS charts so much that now he claims it has been warming since 1965!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/is-hansens-recent-temperature-data-consistent/
This is pure stupidity since there have been too many reports of increasing cold in the 1960?s and 1970?s.
You need to catch up ChrisD”
His reply proves my claim why I can call him STUPID!
“ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Catch up with what?
Who filled this blog with comments that scientists didn’t believe it was cooling?”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
He first states ” No, he doesn’t”.Then I showed him up by posting the GISS chart,he flails away with irrelevant crap.
Wow, that is just pathetic.
The “irrelevant crap” is the topic of this blog post.
The stuff about Hansen was a response to your off-topic post.
LOL,
There you go trying to save face again,by employing a deflection.
This is YOUR “irrelevant crap” is am referring to:
“Catch up with what?
Who filled this blog with comments that scientists didn’t believe it was cooling?”
You were replying to this:
“”James Hansen has been adjusting his GISS charts so much that now he claims it has been warming since 1965!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/is-hansens-recent-temperature-data-consistent/
This is pure stupidity since there have been too many reports of increasing cold in the 1960?s and 1970?s.
You need to catch up ChrisD”
Your reply was devoid of a rational counterpoint to my comment YOU REPLIED TO.
That is why I called your comment “irrelevant crap”
I showed successfully apparently,that James Hansen is trying to DENY away the cooling trend of the mid 1960’s to the late 1970’s.He tries through his ongoing data manipulations that the cooling trend STOPPED about 1965.
It was YOU who keeps trying to hide that indisputable fact away.With your evasive bullshit.
I am on topic,and what is more I referred to an offsite link to bolster claims of Denialism on James Hansen.
James Hansen no longer wants to believe that it was cooling from 1965 to 1979.He did way back in the early 1970’s.
You are a TERRIBLE debater!
Sigh.
I was posting comments about the topic of this blog post.
You posted a completely irrelevant comment about GISTEMP and Jim Hansen and said that I “need to catch up.”
I asked you “catch up on what?” because your comment had nothing to do with any of my comments. Then I reiterated the subject of what I had been commenting on.
The “catch up with what?” question was there because your comment was a complete nonsequitur. It made no sense.
“Um, do you actually not understand what “running mean” means?
Apparently not.
Here, let’s make it easier, since that’s too complicated. Let’s take out the running mean and just show the temps:
http://bit.ly/c6nW3T
The GISTEMP trend for 1965-1979 is a virtually flat +0.003C/year. Hansen does not show “warming since 1965.” That is a flat-out false statement. The warming starts in about 1980.”
Um the chart I LINKED to already has the running mean built in.
Meanwhile your own chart you just posted showed that it is was indeed warming from 1965 to 1980.
Just as I have been telling YOU all along.The trend line is upward and the 1965 start point is obviously LOWER than the endpoint for 1979.
Gawd you are so freaking stupid!
There is this graph too:
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/615/capture7g.png
Somehow we are supposed to use the year 1980 now. It appeared on the scene from ChrisD and now we’re supposed to jump through that hoop. But ChrisD will insist that he doesn’t put out hoops to jump through, that he doesn’t move goalposts. He gives the air of being unbiased.
Get a clue, Sherlock.
SST claimed that Hansen shows warming from 1965-present.
He doesn’t. He shows warming from ~1980-present.
That’s where the 1980 comes from. It’s in the data. It’s where the warming cranks up. If SST had said “Hansen shows warming from 1980-present” instead of “1965-present” he would have been correct.
Did the 1980 thing start with you?
Did the 1980 thing start with you?
No.
It started with the data. It’s the number that would have made SST’s statement correct if he had used it. It’s the year when the warming actually starts in the GISTEMP data. That’s the point. He said it started in 1965. It did not. It started in ~1980.
Get it?
Jesus.
I know your chart used a running mean. I showed you another chart that doesn’t use a running mean to demonstrate (to anyone with functioning neurons) that it doesn’t make any difference. Either way the 1965-1979 trend is essentially flat.
Meanwhile your own chart you just posted showed that it is was indeed warming from 1965 to 1980.
Hmm. Been a while since you took statistics, eh? As I already pointed out, that trend is +0.003C/year. That’s indistinguishable from flat. It’s so far from significance that your saying “Look! It points up!” is a real howler.
the 1965 start point is obviously LOWER than the endpoint for 1979.
Oh, you’re another one who thinks you can judge a noisy trend by just comparing its endpoints.
Time for you to take some refresher courses in science and statistics. You don’t have the faintest clue about either of them.
Link your graphs.
And how about stopping the name calling. If you wish to continue with that though it’s fine. Name calling reveals something about you to the readers. And I like that.
Well, apparently you haven’t noticed what I’ve been called on this blog. “Stupid twat” ring a bell? How about “geek virgin”? “Douchebag?” Forget about all the run-of-the-mill “moron” and “idiot” comments. “Sherlock” is pretty tame compared to that, doncha think? Funny that you never mentioned this “name calling reveals something about you” to any of those people.
Link your graphs.
I did.
You like to argue.
There are no links in the comments above where I asked for links.
The tone of your comment (“Link your graphs.”) seemed to imply that I had not done so. I had.
The link was in this comment.
Here it is again:
http://bit.ly/c6nW3T
The graph shows warming. But you say there was no waring.
Your comments are a comedy of errors.
I have other things to do.
The graph shows warming. But you say there was no waring.
Your comments are a comedy of errors.
I said precisely what it shows. It shows a non-significant upward trend of +0.003C/year. Three one-thousandths of a degree per year. Three one-hundredths of a degree per decade. That is, for all intents and purposes, flat. It’s certainly not statistically significant.
If you can’t see the difference between the 1965-1979 and 1980-present trends, you are just not looking.
I used his link to see that start point for 1965 it was MINUS .1 and end point in 1980 was PLUS .4
-.1 for 1965
+.4 for 1980
That shows a warming trend,from 1965 to 1980.
GISS graphs show things the other well known data sets don’t show. For example these peaks:
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/4364/capture7giss.png
A question has to be asked: if you want to be unbiased why would you not use the other 3 well know data sets but trust just in the one that is different than the other 3. And not only different than the other 3 but also it has changes characteristics in recent years.
GISS shows temperature peaks since 1998 that are higher than 1998. The other 3 do not do that.
I agree that we should look at all of the data sets.
I was only pointing out that James H. is adjusting his data set to make the cooling trend vanish starting in 1965.To further his mentally ill visions of a future he made up his mind years ago.That we are going to burn up or drown,whatever comes first.
I think GISS data set is second rate since he has been changing it so much.
That shows a warming trend,from 1965 to 1980
No, sir, it does not. Go take a basic statistics course. You really, really need it.
You cannot make any claim about a trend in noisy data by simply comparing two random data points. Ever.
Great. If your argument is true, then global warming isn’t happening.
1990 and 2010 are two random points.
But you will say they are not random.
I’ve given too much of my Saturday.
1990 and 2010 are two random points.
Do you not understand the difference between looking at the statistical trend over a given period and simply comparing the two endpoints of the period?
If your argument is true
It’s not “my argument.” It’s statistics. You can’t say anything about noisy data by just comparing two points. It’s a completely invalid thing to do. It conveys no information.
This is really, really basic stuff.
ChrisD
Since there is so much noise, as you claim, then the hottest decade ever is is not the hottest decade ever.
Since there is so much noise, as you claim, then the hottest decade ever is is not the hottest decade ever.
Sorry, this is nonsensical. Noise affects the ability to detect trends, not to measure.
Seriously, pick up a basic statistics book. As Gneiss (I think) pointed out, there’s no shame in not knowing statistics, but it’s not wise to act like you do if you don’t.
You didn’t reply to the question. It gives the appearance you are bluffing.
So again:
ChrisD
Since there is so much noise, as you claim, then the hottest decade ever is is not the hottest decade ever.
Please address the point I make so I can correct you poor rationale about noise.
You and Gniess have shown a leaning toward politics. Why would I respect you views on statistics? Statistics can be made to say anything. Those with political biases can make statistics show a political bias.
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Noise affects the ability to detect trends, not to measure.
You mean temperature readings are accurate but the trends that are created from those accurate readings are not reliable? Is that what you are saying?
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Sorry, this is nonsensical.
You are finding it nonsensical because it won’t help your global warming viewpoint?
ChrisD says:
October 30, 2010 at 11:09 pm
but it’s not wise to act like you do if you don’t.
Are you saying this to convince yourself?
So trend made from accurate data is inaccurate? Is that what your statistics book is saying?
I am trying to make it simple for you to see how off your rationale is. The direction that accurate data is taking creates a trend. And you are telling me that the trend it creates is inaccurate somehow?
Bluffing?
You didn’t reply to the question. It gives the appearance you are bluffing.
Yes, I did. You actually quoted the answer:
Noise affects the ability to detect trends, not to measure.
That is a direct answer to your question. Noise has nothing to do with the ability to measure. It has nothing to do with whether or not we can say that such-and-such a decade was warmer than such-and-such another decade. It’s not relevant at all.
The temperature readings will have to be inaccurate from the noise for the trend to be inaccurate from the noise. If the trend is inaccurate, as you claim, then the temperatures are inaccurate. And if the temperatures are inaccurate then hottest decade ever cannot be called that because of the uncertainty in the noise you talk about.
So trend made from accurate data is inaccurate? Is that what your statistics book is saying?
No, it’s not. Accuracy has nothing to do with it. Noise has nothing to do with accuracy. And the trend isn’t “inaccurate.”
Seriously, go get a statistics book. You do not understand this stuff.
ChrisD says:
October 31, 2010 at 12:15 am
It’s not relevant at all.
Sure it is. You just don’t know what you’re talking about. You need to stay close to home at the political blogs like ClimateProgress. You find a haven there. They will want to hear what you are saying. It gets rough over here for you.
What are you saying? You’re sounding random now.
I don’tthink there is such a thing as a Chrisd Gneiss book of statistics. I think you’re just bluffing to know what you’re talking about.
ChrisD says:
October 31, 2010 at 12:21 am
You do not understand this stuff.,/i>
Ya, i don’t understand “this stuff”. But, it’s clear you do. ;o)
Like I said, stay at ClimateProgress. It’s safer there for you. You’ll get an amen corner there to everything you say.
The temperature readings will have to be inaccurate from the noise for the trend to be inaccurate from the noise. If the trend is inaccurate, as you claim, then the temperatures are inaccurate.
No!
This has nothing to do with accuracy. It has to do with (in this case) random variations in weather.
Is that the problem here? You don’t know what noise is?
If you’re so sure of that then write a paper on it and submit it to a statistics journal. See what their reply is.
;o)
ChrisD says:
October 31, 2010 at 12:26 am
No!
This has nothing to do with accuracy. It has to do with (in this case) random variations in weather.
Let me get this straight: you’re saying weather changes trend but not temperature? You do know that trends are made from temperature readings?
ChrisD says:
October 31, 2010 at 12:26 am
Is that the problem here? You don’t know what noise is?
The more you talk the more I see you don’t know what you’re doing.
I go back to the point: trend is created by temperature.
ChrisD says:
October 31, 2010 at 12:26 am
No!
This has nothing to do with accuracy. It has to do with (in this case) random variations in weather.
You do know you’re digging yourself into a deeper hole?
You are saying weather changes trend but not temperature?
Sure it is [relevant]. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Actually, I do.
You keep trying to bring accuracy into this. You’re confusing noise with inaccuracy or something like that. But that isn’t what it is. In the case of climate data, the major component of noise is weather, not inaccuracy.
Inaccuracy is not why you can’t trend noisy data by just connecting the two endpoints. It just isn’t.
ChrisD says:
October 31, 2010 at 12:26 am
The temperature readings will have to be inaccurate from the noise for the trend to be inaccurate from the noise. If the trend is inaccurate, as you claim, then the temperatures are inaccurate.
No!
This has nothing to do with accuracy. It has to do with (in this case) random variations in weather.
Is that the problem here? You don’t know what noise is?
……………………………………………………………………………………
I’m still looking at this and trying to make sense of it.
So you think temperature and trend are completely unrelated? That there is no connection between the two?
That must be what you think.
So, will you explain how that happens?
ChrisD says:
October 31, 2010 at 12:34 am
You’re confusing noise,/i>
I’m not confusing anything. You continually change what is being talked about.
You don’t know what you’re doing. You think you can just put wacky comments up with people who know more about something than you do and that makes you right? Just because you say it that makes it true?
You are saying weather changes trend but not temperature?
Oh. My. God.
NO!
Would make at least some modest attempt at comprehension?
Do you understand signal vs. noise at all? Do you know what noise is in climate studies?
hrisD says:
October 31, 2010 at 12:34 am
Inaccuracy is not why you can’t trend noisy data by just connecting the two endpoints. It just isn’t.
Trend comes from temperatures readings. You are saying temperature readings are accurate. So then it follows the trend is accurate.
But you say trend can’t be accurate because it is coming from somewhere else—who knows where that somewhere is.
What in the world are you saying???
Are you here to propagandize? Or is it that you just don’t know what you’re doing.
I’m not confusing anything. You continually change what is being talked about.
Yes, you are. And no, I’m not.
Climate data is noisy. The primary source of noise in climate data is weather variability. It has nothing to do with accuracy. When you have noisy data–like climate data–you cannot learn anything about how it is trending by simply comparing two individual points. You have to statistically analyze it with techniques that use all of the data–not just the two endpoints–such as regression analysis. This is exactly what I have been saying the whole time.
The only thing that changed was that I had to explain what noise is, which I had to do when it became apparent that you don’t know. Other than that this is exactly what I have been saying, over and over and over, since the very beginning.
Ok ChrisD,
what I’m taking from the past 2 days is that you say the Salon article was not about global warming alarmism, either causing or proving, whatever that means, and you think trends are off beam but temperatures are accurate.
The more you global warming believers talk the more everyone can see you don’t know what you’re doing.
So, I’m going to step out of watching you chase your tail. Maybe you’ll catch that darn thing. Bye.
But you say trend can’t be accurate because it is coming from somewhere else—who knows where that somewhere is.
I have not said anything even remotely like that.
and you think trends are off beam but temperatures are accurate.
I guess if you could read, you’d get a lot more out of discussions. I didn’t say anything about trends being “off beam.”
What I said, which you can confirm in any high school-level statistics book, is that you cannot calculate the trend over a period by just drawing a line between its two endpoints. It is not a valid way to calculate a trend. It never has been and it never will be. You just can’t do that. It is completely meaningless. It is a dead parrot.
That is what this is all about.
You have gone completely off the rails with all this accuracy and temperature and everything else. It has nothing to do with any of that. It’s fundamental statistics that applies to any data.
“You cannot make any claim about a trend in noisy data by simply comparing two random data points. Ever.”
You are once again bullshitting me and everyone else.
You USED those two data points to try proving to me that there was no warming since 1965 to 1980.YOU posted this link using a 1965 start point and the 1979 end point to make the chart:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1965/to:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1965/to:1979/trend
That is YOUR chart you created using two data points range.Unfortunately it supported my argument not yours,even though you made that chart.
I was talking about between 1965 and 1980.You chose 1979 end point as the dishonest jerk you are to minimize the warming slope.It was a LOT warmer in 1980 than 1979.
Again and again you demonstrate that you are so freaking stupid.
Why are you so determined to move the “goal post” or evade with misleading crap?
You USED those two data points to try proving to me that there was no warming since 1965 to 1980.YOU posted this link using a 1965 start point and the 1979 end point to make the chart
No.
I talked about the trend from 1965-1979. That uses ALL of the data. It does not simply draw a line from one endpoint to the other. It does not simply compare the first and last points, which is what you’re doing, which is a totally invalid way to assess this–or any–noisy data.
You really don’t know anything about statistics, do you?
Unfortunately it supported my argument not yours,even though you made that chart.
Again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of statistics. It did not support your argument. The trend wasn’t even close to statistical significance.
You chose 1979 end point as the dishonest jerk you are to minimize the warming slope. It was a LOT warmer in 1980 than 1979. [emphasis added]
Yes. It was. Congratulations. It was a lot warmer in 1980 than 1979.
That’s the point. That’s what I’m trying, without success, to get you to understand. That’s when Hansen’s warming actually does start. In 1980. Not 1965. If you had said 1980 instead of 1965 you would have been right. That’s the whole point. Thanks.
If Hansen’s warming starts in 1980 then he had no statistical basis for claiming in 1988 that there was a warming trend because the data was not sufficient to determine that and based on Hansen’s method we are now all going to freeze our rears of because the temperature has been dropping since 1998. We need to pick the best Cherries to make the best Cherry Pie. I will credit that statement to the Dedro community!
SST writes,
“You USED those two data points to try proving to me that there was no warming since 1965 to 1980.YOU posted this link using a 1965 start point and the 1979 end point to make the chart:”
Looks like there are quite a few folks around here who forgot to take, or paid no attention, in stats 101. ChrisD is correct, you can’t infer a trend from noisy data by connecting the two end points.
The chart ChrisD links does not connect endpoints (look closer!). It shows a more sensible method called regression analysis.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with not knowing any statistics. But this sort of post declares ignorance and self-certainty at the same time.
“You are once again bullshitting me and everyone else.”
14 years is not enough data to determine if it is Statistically Significant so Cris and you are both wrong! Just ask Phil Jones or Gavin.
Why are you promoting the obvious fact both of you are ignorant of climate statistics. And Hansen corrected the historic records to show warming through the entire period of the 20th century with a few flat lines rather than distinct cooling periods that were experienced in the real world.
14 years is not enough data to determine if it is Statistically Significant
Incorrect. It depends on the data.
The two key points ChrisD made have been lost amidst the chaff and topic drift.
(1) SG: “no real climate scientists believed the globe was cooling.”
The post makes an assertion about comments but provides no evidence. ChrisD’s request for supporting evidence has been ignored.
(2) Scientists observed cooling in the 1970’s. Were there forecasts of future cooling?
* There was clearly serious *concern* about the possibility of cooling (e.g., the 1972 letter to Nixon and the 1975 NAS report “Understanding Climatic Change”).
* There were articles in the news media and non-technical books quoting scientists who predicted global cooling.
* Nobody has shown that there were explicit forecasts of cooling in major science journals. The specific articles cited all mention both cooling and warming forces.
This is a fascinating thread, in tone much like those at Real Science and other AGW-advocacy websites. Another case of people becoming like their foes. I suspect ChrisD wastes his time here, and this is no longer a place for serious discussion — just like most of the pro-AGW sites. All fanboys and partisan cheering. Considering the effort Goddard puts into his posts and their high quality, that’s sad and (guessing) might diminish the influence this website would otherwise have.
ChrisD’s entire purpose for being here is to distort the conversation. The evidence has been provided that scientists were discussing the hazards of the coming ICE AGE that was right around the corner if we did not change out ways just like the Climatologists are shouting from the roof tops toady that the world will “Cook” die to runaway warming caused be CO2 that is heating the planet.
I see an attempt to show the overhype in the claims from the 70s along with the overhype in the claims of toady. To provide Evidence of the claims historical records have been “Corrected” to show more warming in recent years by COOLING the past. The 30s were warmer until the proper adjustments were made to cool them off.
The people denying climate change are the promoters of AGW or human caused climate change as it can all be traced back to natural climate variations driven by the long term ocean atmosphere weather patterns that have a cyclic nature and are seen in most historic records such as what was observed in the mid 70s with the great Pacific climate shift that some want to deny.
Climate is regional and sometimes like in the mid 70s a lot pf regional weather patterns compliment each other and shift the global climate in a new direction. With time we will be able to look back and see the latest climate shift which might have happened in 1998 or as late as 2007 give or take a few years the shift happened and the globe is now in a cooling phase. Weather and climate are historic records and not future events that can be predicted. However the patterns repeat through time and we have been following the current pattern for somewhere around 3 million years.
All of your assertions might be correct. But greeting specific and relevant questions (like ChisD’s) with insults instead of answers gives a bad impression to visitors.
“The evidence has been provided that scientists were discussing the hazards of the coming ICE AGE that was right around the corner if we did not change out ways”
I have a fairly extensive survey of the professional literature (links given on another thread) that shows no such thing. IMO that trumps quotes from the general media, which is as always filled with exaggerations and outright nonsense.
The only defense I’ve seen here of using the news media is that the climate science literature is not online. Which is largely false. Again, not impressive. Sad, even.
Fabius Maximus
You are seeing what you want to see.
If the scientist in the 70’s talking about cooling didn’t also talk about an alarming future there would have been no story.
There’s your answer.
Are you going to say there was no alarmism attached to the coming ice age scare of the 70’s?
I made accurate and specific statements, in response to which comes gibberish. Not a shred of evidence to support your big assertions.
For example, nobody here (or anywhere I’ve seen) has provided evidence that there was a consensus about global cooling, even equivalent to the weak one we have today about AGW. The responses have been like the worst at RealClimate.
“Are you going to say there was no alarmism attached to the coming ice age scare of the 70?s?”
The professional articles I cited were not alarmist, and to say if they “didn’t also talk about an alarming future there would have been no story” is too foolish to deserve a reply. If you have citations to alarmist journal articles, let’s see them.
Scientists in the 1970s responded to concerns about warming and cooling in a professional manner, advocating (and getting) funding for long-term data collection and research programs. Unlike the hysteria fed by scientists today.
Citing news articles to show contemporary expert opinion shows only that you have no real evidence. Alarmism is s.o.p. for the news media. It’s chaff tossed at our minds. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. For a great description of this see “The Crisis Crisis” by Peter Moore, Playboy, March 1987.
This is a waste of time. I’m done here.
Mike Davis writes,
“14 years is not enough data to determine if it is Statistically Significant so Cris and you are both wrong!”
Actually, the graphs I’ve seen here use monthly not yearly data, so for 1965 to 1979 inclusive you’ve got 180 data points, not 14. And that *is* enough to find a statistically significant warming trend, albeit a trivially small one. I’m not wrong about this. Do you know how to check for yourself?
“Just ask Phil Jones or Gavin.”
I don’t need to ask either of them.
“Why are you promoting the obvious fact both of you are ignorant of climate statistics.”
Not promoting, not obvious, not ignorant. But go ahead, show us what you know about statistics. Run your own analysis.
Phil Jones specifically said that 15 years is not enough time to see a trend in climate. If you have a problem with that talk to them because IDGAF about it as climate is “Long Term” average weather that includes “ALL” known long term weather patterns. You could say that climate is represented by the current Holocene period of longer term the current climate is represented by the patterns that have existed since the closure of the gap between North and South America.
Take your pick of 20 thousand or 3.5 million years for climate. If you were to use seconds you would have a whole bunch more data points but your results would still be BS.
Phil Jones specifically said that 15 years is not enough time to see a trend in climate.
With that specific data. You can’t generalize that to “15 years is never enough to obtain a statistically significant trend.” It could be, or you might need longer. It depends entirely on the data and how noisy it is.
It is certainly true that with global climate data, 15 years is usually not enough to reach statistical significance. But there’s no mathematical or statistical reason why it can’t be. If the trend is strong enough, it will happen.
In point of fact, the trend in Jones’s data was strong enough to reach significance is just 16 years, not the 20-30 that would typically be needed. That’s why he said, “Yes, but only just” or something like that. 15 years was significant at 92% or 93%, not the 95% we want. But adding just one year gets it past 95%.
Mike Davis writes.
“Phil Jones specifically said that 15 years is not enough time to see a trend in climate.”
I know what Phil Jones said in that widely misunderstood interview. Statistically, he was talking about yearly data, and climatologically, he was right, longer series are important to distinguish the trends.
It remains true that with monthly GISTEMP data, 1965-1979 inclusive, there’s a weak but significant upward trend. I would not make anything of that, which was ChrisD’s point as well — the steeper warming resumes after 1975 or so. Then the slope more than triples.
“If you have a problem with that talk to them”
I’ve got no problem with what Phil said, nor with Gavin.
ChrisD is claiming the warming started in 1980 rather than 1975 because 1960 to 1979 was flat or barely warming at a not statistically significant trend.
Can you folk get your fantasies straight.
Over the lasyt years Gavin has claimed 30 years is needed to determine a statistically significant trend because the weather is to noisy due to natural fluctuations. Phil Jones made a similar claim in his famous interview with the BBC when it admitted the temperatures had dropped since 1995 but just barely and not statistically significant.
Picking dates out of this conversation I find Hansen now shows warming or not significant trend from 1965 to 1979. Then warming from 1980 to 1995 which is only 15 years and not enough to determine a trend because natural weather patterns (NOISE) could have influenced that short period. Per Phil Jones there was no warming or slight cooling (Just Barely) but again not statistically significant. That leaves us with no statistically significant trend during the 1965 to 2010 period if all the separate statements are taken into consideration.
I realize that some of the reporting agencies have shown definite trends of warming and cooling since temperature records have been kept and there are literary reports of warm periods and cool periods since written history began. The Ice cores and geological records also show warming and cooling periods throughout that research.
Nothing regarding weather has happened outside of past natural variations that need to be accounted for by some magical force such as CO2. As a matter of fact the changes in weather patterns have happened within the range of cyclic weather activity that has been seen in the past.
Take your statistical expertise and stuff it!
Phil Jones made a similar claim in his famous interview with the BBC when it admitted the temperatures had
droppedwarmed since 1995 butjust barely andnot statistically significant.Fixed that for ya. Jones said it had warmed, not cooled, and there was nothing about “just barely”:
Not statistically significant!
Does that phrase go over your limited comprehension limit?
There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.
We are not playing horseshoes or handgernades.
Gosh, Mike, yes, I actually do understand what that means. But I don’t think you do.
Here’s what it means: Insufficient data to reach a statistical threshhold.
Here’s what it does not mean: No warming.
That’s why that date was chosen (and the guy who came up with the question, Lubos Motl, admitted this in so many words): It’s the longest time frame you can use without reaching statistical significance with this particular dataset. If he had said “1994” instead of “1995”, the answer would have been completely different. That would be significant.
Furthermore, you were flat wrong when you said that the temperature had “dropped.” Jones clearly says that it had warmed. I see that you won’t even admit to this glaring error.
Way to man up, Mike.
ChrisD is claiming the warming started in 1980 rather than 1975 because 1960 to 1979 was flat or barely warming at a not statistically significant trend.
What I’m claiming (actually, what I’m doing would be better described as “pointing out” rather than “claiming”) is that Hansen doesn’t show warming starting in 1965 as you claimed. He just doesn’t, and I provided you with the chart that shows this to be true.
GISTEMP shows almost no warming from 1965-1979, which we can demonstrate by showing that the 1965-1979 trend line is essentially flat; the upward trend is barely detectable (+0.0003C/year).
If you have to pick a date when his warming starts, 1980 would be the sensible date because that’s when the trend really starts up.
Statistical significance has nothing to do with any of this. They’re just facts that you can easily verify for yourself at woodfortrees. The only reason statistics came into it at all was because you tried to show a trend by just connecting the 1965 and 1979 endpoints, which is not at all kosher. That’s not how a trend is calculated.
Picking end points is not Kosher and that is why you pick end points that fit your agenda?
16 years shows something that 15 years does not so you prefer 15 years. You have also admitted now that 1965 to 1979 showed no or little trend either way and that makes your earlier statements about the 70s false or your current statements false. Maybe you need to find better dates to pick for your start and end dates if you want to be believed.
I do not believe your tales. I do not believe Phil’s tales. I do not believe Brother Jim’s tales.
I will throw your contradictions in your face.
Picking end points is not Kosher and that is why you pick end points that fit your agenda?
Jaysus. Can you read at all? Where did I say anything about picking endpoints not being kosher?
What I said was that assessing a trend by simply comparing the two endpoints is not kosher. That’s not how you assess a trend, ever, yet that’s exactly what you did. The fact that you did this clearly demonstrates a thorough lack of knowledge of very basic first-year science and statistics.
You have also admitted now that 1965 to 1979 showed no or little trend either way and that makes your earlier statements about the 70s false or your current statements false
Also false. I said from the very start that there was almost no trend in 1965-1979. It does not make anything I said “false.”
I will throw your contradictions in your face.
There are no contradictions in anything I’ve written here, but, in fact, you wouldn’t know a contradiction if it bit you in the ass. You don’t know any science, you don’t understand statistics, and it now appears that you can’t read. And yet you think you know all this stuff. Go look up the “Dunning-Kruger effect.”