253 replies to this topic

[NewfoundlandFrog]

George F. Will, on 10 February 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

I'll ask next time I run into one...

Or whatever it is you call yourself!

[Duquesne Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 10 February 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Or whatever it is you call yourself!

His name is spelled "Raymond Luxury Yacht" but he pronounces it "Throat Wobbler Mangrove" ...

[George F. Will]

Duquesne Frog, on 10 February 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

His name is spelled "Raymond Luxury Yacht" but he pronounces it "Throat Wobbler Mangrove" ...

We are having a party this Saturday at the Yacht club, how would you like to come and park cars?

[fnfreebird]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 10 February 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

Circles again...
As has been shown to you in excruciating detail, if you actually go to the primary scientific literature--fat chance of that--you will find there never was a "70's global cooling scare". But that's of course not what you see on WUWT.
More circles again...
...

Newf...now I'll have to take great exception with that.
I was there and I remember it well.
My last three years in my home state saw 95% of the pheasant population die off having frozen and suffocated in their nests as a result of what was very regularly discussed and termed the "New Ice Age". When I wasn't disco dancing I was hunting.
I remember like an elephant.

http://www.real-scie...s-deniers-midst

There is overwhelming evidence that the 1970s were colder than earlier in the century.

Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970′s global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media.

Newsweek Magazine even used the climate “tipping point” argument in 1975. Newsweek wrote April 28, 1975 article: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

[fnfreebird]

Lies? Truths? "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

The alarmists say that the warnings of cooling in the 70s are a skeptic lie. Yeah, well, somebody was feeding those stories to the media. Maybe it was a noisy Al Gore type or maybe the media made it all up, much like they do today. Maybe it's the alarmists who are lying, given the hysteria that their side is pushing.

Either way, the media is relevant, since that's where most people get their info. The media IS the voice of science for most people. Perhaps the alarmists should be concerned about modern reporting on climate?

1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It's Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think 'Little' Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun?(Book, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of – TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, May 1978)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 10 February 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

Circles again...

As has been shown to you in excruciating detail, if you actually go to the primary scientific literature--fat chance of that--you will find there never was a "70's global cooling scare". But that's of course not what you see on WUWT.

Your "excruciating detail" consists of one unreliable paper authored by rabid alarmist Wm. Connelly who was booted off of Wikipedia for his dishonest practices with regard to wrongly censoring and editing climate articles that disagreed with his warmist agenda.   OTOH,  I have already shown that both NASA and the CIA were worried about global cooling in the 70's and freebird has given you a boatload of articles from the 70's that prove the cooling scare.  So once again you display your bias and ignorance for all to see.

Quote

I will say you've again clearly graphed out your problem: Your models do not start out at 0 in year zero. They start out from somewhat above 0. Yet, the temps do start from 0. That's what starting from a local max means. You've demonstrably built in a clear bias. Then there are a number of other factors and jigpokery we're been over before. But it's nice you laid it out so clearly for all to see.

Now you have demonstrated that you can't even read a simple graph.  Big surprise.  Any third grader can see that the graph that you refer to starts at year one, not at year zero like you think.  Here is a graph with the same data that starts does start at year zero:



As you can see, or at least a non-delusional person can see, the temps are all zero at year zero, thus no offset bias.  Unfortunately for you, the graph still shows the same thing - the IPCC models were wrong and it is getting worse as the earth continues to cool.   It must suck to be you and be wrong all the time.  :)

[fnfreebird]

Frog79, on 10 February 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Your "excruciating detail" consists of one unreliable paper authored by rabid alarmist Wm. Connelly who was booted off of Wikipedia for his dishonest practices with regard to global warming articles.   OTOH,  I have already shown that both NASA and the CIA were worried about global cooling in the 70's and freebird has given you a boatload of articles from the 70's that prove the cooling scare.  So once again you display your bias and ignorance for all to see.

Unfortunately for you, the graph shows the same thing - the IPCC models were wrong and it is getting worse as the earth continues to cool.  

It must suck to be you and be wrong all the time.  :)

Yeah, but at least he has lots of company here.

[Duquesne Frog]

Frog79, on 10 February 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Unfortunately for you, the graph still shows the same thing - the IPCC models were wrong and it is getting worse as the earth continues to cool.

Funny, but it appears to me that all the lines on this chart that you pulled from your derriere all have positive linear slopes.

Quote

It must suck to be you and be wrong all the time.  :)

You are an adult, right?

BTW, while we're pulling charts out of thin air, this is one of my favorites.  It shows, conclusively, that humans are causing global warming.  Nothing you can say or post will refute this.  Sorry for kicking your AGW-denying arse so hard!  Boo-yah!

[NewfoundlandFrog]

[quote name='Frog79' timestamp='1328897921' post='1059579']
Your "excruciating detail" consists of one unreliable paper authored by rabid alarmist Wm. Connelly who was booted off of Wikipedia for his dishonest practices with regard to wrongly censoring and editing climate articles that disagreed with his warmist agenda.   OTOH,  I have already shown that both NASA and the CIA were worried about global cooling in the 70's and freebird has given you a boatload of articles from the 70's that prove the cooling scare.  So once again you display your bias and ignorance for all to see.

[/quote] Any lit review in the primary literature will show you are wrong. You ignore it as usual.[quote]


Now you have demonstrated that you can't even read a simple graph.  Big surprise.  Any third grader can see that the graph that you refer to starts at year one, not at year zero like you think.  Here is a graph with the same data that starts does start at year zero:



Any standard scientific graphing package puts the points on the x axis on the ticks, not the labels. If you use a true X-Y plot in Excel, it will do so as well. I suggest using it.

OK, you're not using blog boy's bad math in this one now that I see you're not using X-Y plots. In any case you still are failing to use error bars on the various temp records. The IPCC prediction is in terms of the slopes and you are presenting them a bit poorly.

You graph 1990 Business-as-usual (i.e., most extreme) projections of .2-.5 degrees per decade fine. Now testing the various temp records we get:

GISS (global):  .23 +/- .08
Had3v (global): .14 +/- .065
UAH: (global): ~.15+/- not shown in your data...and I'm not going to take the time to uncoil Spencer's files.
NCDC (global): .15 +/- .06

While the 1990 predictions were low, you miss 2 rather important things:

1. All are positive and highly significant.
2. At least 3 of 4 of the estimates overlap the lower bound.

This is a poor argument for "failure" of the models of the late 80s. They overpredict in the business as usual scenario, but not to a significant degree (due to the overlap there is no significant difference between the lower bound and the various records). Subsequent IPCC reports over the decades have taken this overprediction into account and the predictions have now been amended to reflect ~.2 per decade +/- something under ~.1 which is well within the observations. Your "Aha" is really not all that Aha-ish.

[fnfreebird]

30 years of global COOLING?

The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.

Summers and winters will all be cooler than in recent years, and the changes will mean that global warming will be 'paused' or even reversed.

The predictions are based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
They are the work of respected climate scientists and not those routinely dismissed by environmentalists as 'global warming deniers'.
Some experts believe these cycles - and not human pollution - can explain all the major changes in world temperatures in the 20th century.
The research challenges the science behind climate change theories, and calls into question the political measures to halt global warming.
According to some scientists, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.
It occurred because the world was in a 'warm mode', and would have happened regardless of mankind's rising carbon dioxide production.
Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1m0c8vs3W

and about the disappearing Polar Bears....It's become a little problem now...
Polar bear numbers up   -

National Post

·
Their status ranges from a "vulnerable" to "endangered" and could be declared "threatened" if the U.S. decides the polar bear is collateral damage of climate change.

Nobody talks about "overpopulated" when discussing the bears' outlook.

Yet despite the Canadian government 's $150-million commitment last week to fund 44 International Polar Year research projects, a key question is not up for detailed scientific assessment: If the polar bear is the 650-kilogram canary in the climate change coal mine, why are its numbers INCREASING?

The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.
As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.

The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters. Never mind the boots on the ground.

As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."

Their widely portrayed lurch toward extinction on a steadily melting ice cap is not supported by bear counts in other Arctic regions either.

Another six areas are listed as having stable counts, three experienced reduced numbers and two have seen their bears increase.

Inuit also argue the bear population is on the rise along western Hudson Bay, in sharp contrast to the Canadian Wildlife Service, which projects a 22% decline in bear numbers.

Far be it for me to act as a climate- change denier, but that's hardly overwhelming proof of a species in peril in Canada, which claims roughly two thirds of the world's polar bear population.

[Frog79]

Duquesne Frog, on 10 February 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

Funny, but it appears to me that all the lines on this chart that you pulled from your derriere all have positive linear slopes.

Very good!  Finally - an alarmist who can read a simple chart!  Looks like we are making progess here.   Now that you have surpassed Newf and demonstrated  third grade chart reading level, why don't you just tell us how well those cute little positively sloped red and yellow lines representing actual observed temperatures were predicted by the IPCC 'best estimates'?

[Frog79]

Fnfreebird, don't even bother.  Newfie and his blind minions would prefer to ignore hundreds of documented historical facts supporting the global cooling scare in the 70's, opting instead to hang their hat on one paper produced by an alarmist who was kicked off wikipedia for dishonest treatment of climate skeptic data.  But would you expect anything different given past delusions from the whiny alarmist crowd?

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 10 February 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

This is a poor argument for "failure" of the models of the late 80s. They overpredict in the business as usual scenario, but not to a significant degree (due to the overlap there is no significant difference between the lower bound and the various records). Subsequent IPCC reports over the decades have taken this overprediction into account and the predictions have now been amended to reflect ~.2 per decade +/- something under ~.1 which is well within the observations. Your "Aha" is really not all that Aha-ish.

Well, you are getting closer to understanding the data but you are not there yet.  The observed temps clearly fall outside the lower end of the IPCC error bars, meaning that they are significantly lower than predicted, especially the HadCrut data that you alarmists love so much.  

The one part that you  did get right is that in the latest IPCC report (AR4) they did lower their estimates somewhat once they realized that the AR1 predictions were falling outside their confidence limits as I have  shown and you have preferred to ignore.  So the new predictions are for about a 0.2C rise in temps per decade starting in 2001.  So have we seen a 0.2C rise since 2001?   No, temps have not only not risen, they have decreased slightly (-0.006C, HadCrut global mean) and the IPCC is wrong again.  So how many more decades of overpredictions by the IPCC is it going to take for you to concede that the earth is not going to burn up due to coal burning and cow farts??

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 10 February 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Well, you are getting closer to understanding the data but you are not there yet.  The observed temps clearly fall outside the lower end of the IPCC error bars, meaning that they are significantly lower than predicted, especially the HadCrut data that you alarmists love so much.  ...

Actually no. The various temp series ( I think UAH too, but I'm not going to bother) all include the 1990 IPCC lower bound within their own error bars.

You forget that error works both ways not just one: The error bars for the temp series include .2 per decade in the 1990 to 2011 interval.

[Duquesne Frog]

Frog79, on 10 February 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Very good!  Finally - an alarmist who can read a simple chart!  Looks like we are making progess here.   Now that you have surpassed Newf and demonstrated  third grade chart reading level, why don't you just tell us how well those cute little positively sloped red and yellow lines representing actual observed temperatures were predicted by the IPCC 'best estimates'?

In the sense that they are not representative of relevant statistical handling of any data set in the open literature, it doesn't tell you anything about the best estimates.  Again this has been addressed at length.

The point you missed was that, if we are to take your chart at face value, which we shouldn't, it very clearly fails to show your other oft dismissed claim that we're cooling.  The larger point is that the linear regressions in that plot are meaningless, but again if you've refused to concede that point yet, I'm guessing the other point is still lost for you too.

[Duquesne Frog]

Frog79, on 10 February 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Fnfreebird, don't even bother.  Newfie and his blind minions would prefer to ignore hundreds of documented historical facts supporting the global cooling scare in the 70's, opting instead to hang their hat on one paper produced by an alarmist who was kicked off wikipedia for dishonest treatment of climate skeptic data.  But would you expect anything different given past delusions from the whiny alarmist crowd?

I'm just going to assume you didn't type that with a straight face ...

[steelfrog]

Dumb

[steelfrog]

Dumb

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 10 February 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Actually no. The various temp series ( I think UAH too, but I'm not going to bother) all include the 1990 IPCC lower bound within their own error bars.

You forget that error works both ways not just one: The error bars for the temp series include .2 per decade in the 1990 to 2011 interval.

The error bars are already included in the IPCC estimates which essentially are saying "if our models are correct, no valid observed global temperature series will fall outside the error lines".  Well, all the observed series do fall outside the lines, thus = crappy model.  Looks like they should have made their error bars wider but they didn't and then they had to rework the models in 2007.  And they are still wrong - by a lot.  Even if you put error bars on the best of the non-satellite global data (Hadcrut) it would still be well below the lower limits of the IPCC predictions.

Quote

"Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds."

  - alarmist climatologist Phil Jones

[Frog79]

Duquesne Frog, on 10 February 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

In the sense that they are not representative of relevant statistical handling of any data set in the open literature, it doesn't tell you anything about the best estimates.  Again this has been addressed at length.

The point you missed was that, if we are to take your chart at face value, which we shouldn't, it very clearly fails to show your other oft dismissed claim that we're cooling.

Okay, I take it back.  You have not reached third grade chart reading level after all.  We have warmed since 1990, no one denies that.  We also have cooled since the middle ages and we are cooler since 100K years ago.  And we are cooler since 1997.   I guess you are not aware that the earth warms and cools due to natural forces.

Quote

The larger point is that the linear regressions in that plot are  meaningless, but again if you've refused to concede that point yet, I'm  guessing the other point is still lost for you too.

This is possibly the most asinine statement you have made yet, which is saying a lot.  IOW, you are saying standard statistical analysis is useless because it does not agree with your preconceived biases.  Hmm...with 'thinking' like that you would be a great candidate for membership on Mann's hockey team, lol.

So if linear regressions are "meaningless" why don't you just tell us what we should use?   If you look long enough maybe you can find something like using autocorrelated, overlapped data like your buddy did to prove your delusions to yourself.